Raytheon 9

On August 9th, 2006 a group of peace activists entered the Raytheon offices in Derry, Northern Ireland and took documents and smashed equipment. The reason for this direct action was that Raytheon sold Israel weapons that were used against the Lebanon in the war in the summer of 2006. One example that particularly affected many of the Derry activists was the July 30th bombing of a residential building in Qana, southern Lebanon. Many were crushed to death in this attack; all civilians, many children. The building was attacked using a ‘bunker-buster’ weapon. Whatever the origin of this particular bunker-buster, the group knew that Raytheon was the biggest supplier of bunker-busters to Israel and that they had been used by Israel in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The particular significance of this action is that the Raytheon 9 won their case, and they won it on legal rather than moral grounds. They convinced their jury that they had a legal right to take this action, the basic principle being the right to commit a crime to prevent a greater crime. They compared their action to the action of someone breaking into their nextdoor neighbours’ house in order to prevent child abuse from continuing. The structure of the legal argument of the Raytheon 9 is hugely significant for activists everywhere and their legal argument provides some useful information for those planning similar actions.

• Firstly the Raytheon 9 had to show that Israel was committing war crimes in Lebanon.
• Secondly they needed to provide evidence to show that Raytheon had some responsibility in this, that they were involved in ‘aiding and abetting’ Israel’s actions, for example if they knew what their products were being used for.
• Thirdly they had to show the immediacy of the problem. It was vital to show that the greater crime which the action was taken to hinder or prevent was happening at the time and that it was believed that it would continue.
• Fourthly for this to be a legal action it had to be undertaken with the express aim of preventing the greater crime. For this condition to be satisfied it must be shown both that the particular branch of Raytheon was involved and that the activists believed that their action would make a difference in slowing down Raytheon’s activities in this area. This is very important for activists, it seems that a direct action is not legal if it is merely symbolic, it must actually aim to stop a greater crime.

The case of the Raytheon 9 offers inspiration to all people involved in the struggle against the arms trade specifically, and the destructive effects of capitalism more widely. It is significant because of the legal precedent that is set and the signal it sends, that arms companies should not simply be free to sell whatever states will buy.