CIA/EU Prisons....more news

bonkey

Rather interesting article here about the findings that have been presented over the whole CIA prisons in Europe thing.

Nations named (and shamed? unlikely) for taking an active or passive role in some form or another include:

Poland, Romania, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Sweden, Bosnia, Britain and the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.

Thats some list.

John_C

From the same link:

EVIDENCE

The former Swiss investigating magistrate denied setting himself up as judge and jury, saying hard evidence was "still not forthcoming".

However, he said there were "a number of coherent and converging elements (that) indicated that secret detention centres have indeed existed and unlawful inter-state transfers have taken place in Europe".

They're serious allagations to make with no evidance.

dahamsta

On the subject of Ireland in particular...

"Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Greece and Italy were "stopovers" for flights involving the unlawful transfer of detainees."

...I'm pretty sure there's plenty of evidence available, assuming the CIA-owned planes aren't stopping in Shannon for a tinkle...

adam

John_C

Ken Shabby wrote:

...I'm pretty sure there's plenty of evidence available, assuming the CIA-owned planes aren't stopping in Shannon for a tinkle...

From what I can tell there's evidance that planes stopped but no evidance that there were illegal prisoners on the planes. There's nothing new in this report, it's the same circumstantial evidance that's been floating around for a while.

Hobbes

afair, at least two flights they were able to corrolate with people who have been released and have been tortured.

There is an easy way to fix this though. Just allow Gardai inspections on the CIA flights into Ireland.

John_C

Hobbes wrote:

afair, at least two flights they were able to corrolate with people who have been released and have been tortured.

There is an easy way to fix this though. Just allow Gardai inspections on the CIA flights into Ireland.

But even if flights have been correlated it's still only circumstantial evidance. The link in the origanal post seems to be already known suspicions dressed up as an authorative report.

I agree with your second point though. I think even if the gardaí gave an occasional spot check it would be enough for the americans to not take the risk.

dahamsta

John_C wrote:

From what I can tell there's evidance that planes stopped but no evidance that there were illegal prisoners on the planes. There's nothing new in this report, it's the same circumstantial evidance that's been floating around for a while.

I'd be curious as to what you think the CIA-owned planes are actually doing in Shannon.

John_C

Ken Shabby wrote:

I'd be curious as to what you think the CIA-owned planes are actually doing in Shannon.

I presume that they were refuelling on their way across the atlantic. Not every plane the CIA owns carries a prisoner.

The report above says (without citing any evidance) that 98% of CIA flights don't carry illegal prisoners and that it's interested in the 2% which do. From what I can tell, it contains no evidance that the flights in shannon are a part of the 2%, not the 98%. We can have suspicions and to an extent I share them but the report shouldn't make claims that it can't back up.

dahamsta

I'd have no difficulty believing that 98% of all CIA flights wouldn't carry illegal prisoners, since they would run quite a lot of surveillance flights. Obviously that's not what we're talking about here though. It's the dodgy Company-registered planes that I'd be worried about. The ones being that are discussed here, the ones that pass through Shannon.

adam

bonkey

John_C wrote:

We can have suspicions and to an extent I share them but the report shouldn't make claims that it can't back up.

If Ireland had insisted on inspecting all flights to ensure that they were in accordance with whatever terms/conditions should apply then there wouldn't be this uncertainty, correct?

Therefore, by not ensuring everything was in order, we are passively complicit.

What does that mean? Well, not a hell of a lot, to be honest. It means that we didn't care enough to make sure everything was above-board, but little more.

John_C

Ken Shabby wrote:

I'd have no difficulty believing that 98% of all CIA flights wouldn't carry illegal prisoners, since they would run quite a lot of surveillance flights. Obviously that's not what we're talking about here though. It's the dodgy Company-registered planes that I'd be worried about. The ones being that are discussed here, the ones that pass through Shannon.

adam

But Adam, none of this is hard evidance. There is evidance that company registered CIA planes are passing through Shannon. There is no evidance that these planes carry illegal prisoners. The report says;

"Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Greece and Italy were 'stopovers' for flights involving the unlawful transfer of detainees".

When it should read;
Ireland, Britain, Portugal, Greece and Italy may have been 'stopovers' for flights involving the unlawful transfer of detainees.

The report makes claims which it cannot back up with evidance. There's a good chance that the claims will turn out to have been true but that doesn't change the fact that the report is a shoddy piece of work.

dahamsta

I realise there's no hard evidence John_C, however I find it very hard to accept the transit of these dodgy planes on faith -- the CIA is a notoriously untrustworthy (and often frighteningly incompetent) organisation. So no, there's little or no hard evidence available at the moment, but in the absence of explanation, sometimes you have to make assumptions.

adam

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote:

If Ireland had insisted on inspecting all flights to ensure that they were in accordance with whatever terms/conditions should apply then there wouldn't be this uncertainty, correct?

Therefore, by not ensuring everything was in order, we are passively complicit.

As government-owned aircraft merely passing through, I'm not sure that diplomatic immunity wouldn't legally apply. For example, if you wanted to break diplomatic immunity and search US Embassy vehicles, or deliveries or whatever, 'just to keep people honest,' the Irish agencies could theoretically do it, but it's a hell of a risk on international relations and a hell of a precedent which all countries will take note of, not just the US.

NTM

John_C

Ken Shabby wrote:

I realise there's no hard evidence John_C, however I find it very hard to accept the transit of these dodgy planes on faith -- the CIA is a notoriously untrustworthy (and often frighteningly incompetent) organisation. So no, there's little or no hard evidence available at the moment, but in the absence of explanation, sometimes you have to make assumptions.

adam

I agree with you there. I have no objection to someone who thinks that there's probably something dodgey going on.

My objection is to the EU report making claims that it can't back up. It is a piece of disinformation. Just because we agree with what it's saying and think that it might well turn out to be true doesn't make it any better. If claims were made like this in the absence of evidance against a person it would be libelous.

I also have a slight objection to the thread title containing the phrase 'more news' when there is no more news, only the same news exagerated and repeated, though I don't blame the OP for that.

RedPlanet

I'm sure America has her own rules prohibiting the inspection (from a 3rd party) of their flights, you know "National Sucurity" and all that.:rolleyes:
Heck, even if the irish government asked them (does anybody even think they have the balls?) I reckon the yanks will tell em to mind their own business.

Victor

John_C wrote:

They're serious allagations to make with no evidance.

Its not no evidence, its no hard evidence.
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/8210665?view=Eircomnet

Shannon not used for rendition, Ahern insists
From:ireland.com
Wednesday, 7th June, 2006

The Government today insisted secret CIA flights into Shannon Airport were not connected to the US intelligence agency's so-called extraordinary rendition programme.

...

And Baldonell?

Hobbes

The Government today insisted secret CIA flights into Shannon Airport were not connected to the US intelligence agency's so-called extraordinary rendition programme.

How would they know if they don't even check the planes.

lostexpectation

as you well know john c when it comes to torture and kidnap, the show us the evidence defence doesn't fly so to speak its legally beholden on bodies to actively search out to prevent any such thing occuring so shut up! :mad:

John_C

lostexpectation wrote:

as you well know john c when it comes to torture and kidnap, the show us the evidence defence doesn't fly so to speak

I agree.

lostexpectation wrote:

its legally beholden on bodies to actively search out to prevent any such thing occuring

I agree

lostexpectation wrote:

so shut up! :mad:

I don't agree. Just because a dodgey report is on the same side of a political argument as we are doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out it's dodgeyness.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

As government-owned aircraft merely passing through, I'm not sure that diplomatic immunity wouldn't legally apply.

Doesn't matter. If we had no right to look into the planes, we could have refused them the use of our airspace and/or landing facilities.

The "don't ask, don't tell" line of reasoning is still simply passive assistance.

For example, if you wanted to break diplomatic immunity and search US Embassy vehicles, or deliveries or whatever, 'just to keep people honest,' the Irish agencies could theoretically do it, but it's a hell of a risk on international relations and a hell of a precedent which all countries will take note of, not just the US.

Sure. But we're not talking about regular, scheduled flights that have been running for decades. We're talking about an exceptional situation, with exceptional flights, and a government who basically said "Sure you can use our airports and landing space, and we don't want to know the details". If a driver of a US ambassadorial car suddenly started behaving oddly in Ireland, I would expect that questions be asked and if answers weren't forthcoming, I would expect a little more than "fair enough so, we'll just ignore it".

Maybe it was the US who said "we won't tell you the details", but if that was the case then I would still have preferred to see the Irish take a stance closer to the Swiss one which was "you can't use our airspace for this".

More likely, the Irish didn't even ask.

Hobbes

Does the latest investigation have the FAX details recently found?

http://www.sundayherald.com/56171

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

As government-owned aircraft merely passing through, I'm not sure that diplomatic immunity wouldn't legally apply.
NTM

1. All official government flights and aircraft are oficially listed. The CIA "black jets" are not any of these.

2. Under international and domestic law Ireland is compelled to comply. If any country was torturing anyone or facilitating torture and they were even just overflying Irish airspace without landing then Ireland would be compelled to ask them to find another route.

It appears that in the above case the US stated they were not torturing or facilitating torture and the irish believe them and took their word for it.

Red Alert

The time has come for dermot ahern to stop defending the US and stifling any attempt at debating the situation. A US marine was shackled on board a plane - to transport him/her through the country the US should have made a request, they didn't, Ahern says it's ok that it was just "inadvertant".

Presumably we can infer that all the Arab prisoners are also passing through "inadvertantly" and Dermot's happy with that?