american soldiers arrested

thebaz

did anone think it was weird that some concerned anti war campaigner placed 6 uniformed US troops under citizens arrest on the Limerick road and called the Gardai, for wearing there uniform . There aircraft broke down ,and they were staying in a local hotel .

Ponster

Did the Gardai even bother to turn up?

Or maybe they did to take the caller away for wasting police time?

Guy:Incognito

Why did they stand there when put under citizens arrest? I'd have laughed at the crazy old geezer and walked away.

muletide

what a bunch of t1ts - do these people come from a different planet what where they hoping to achieve they should be done for wasting police time. I must go check indymedia I am sure they will be going on about how they fought the power

muletide

Stekelly wrote:

Why did they stand there when put under citizens arrest? I'd have laughed at the crazy old geezer and walked away.

They stood there because they are decent young men and women. They probably realised their mistake straight away and probably did not want to cause any more trouble.

I wish I was the desk officer when that guy cregan rang

Check out some of the comments on indymedia

thebaz

Ponster wrote:

Did the Gardai even bother to turn up?

Or maybe they did to take the caller away for wasting police time?

The Gardai did show up, but no law was broken so citizens arrest was terminated -- the whole thing sounded surreal ---

Huggles

Haven't heard about this, has anyone got a link?

muletide

indymedia.ie


If no offence was committed that guy can be done for false arrest and should be

Huggles

Thanks for the link. Your man Cregan sounds like a complete tool, wasting police time. Then going back to the hotel later to harrass the troops some more...arggh!

MrJoeSoap

"The deskbound officer was more interested to know if they were armed or their commander in chief George W Bush was among them."

- Legend.

rondeco

muletide wrote:

indymedia.ie


If no offence was committed that guy can be done for false arrest and should be

Why? He made a wrong call but his intentions were just. As soon as the error was realised they were released. Doing him for false arrest would be a complete waste of time.

Guy:Incognito

The person that wrote thet"article" on indymedia actually calls themselves a reporter.:)

It's a badly written, one sided, the world is against us, spelling mistake ridden farce.


"DGda Jarlaith Fathy, a man who once tried to frame him for a crime he did not commit, was leaning over the reception desk."

I mean wtf? do we have proof?

Huggles

rondeco wrote:

Why? He made a wrong call but his intentions were just.

I must be thick, what was his intention?

BuffyBot

What? Hysteria and badly reported news on indymedia? Well I never!

As for this "citizens arrest" - the less said, the better!

Guy:Incognito

rondeco wrote:

Why? He made a wrong call but his intentions were just. As soon as the error was realised they were released. Doing him for false arrest would be a complete waste of time.

So anyone I dont like I can basically kidnap as long as I pronounce it to be a citizens arrest? Then when the gards come along I'll just say "oops, my mistake"

Canis Lupus

Comments on Indymedia are hilarious. Makes me laugh to see how some people think.

AngryAnderson

Wow. Welcome to Retardsville, my American friends.

faceman

im confused, wtf did he arrest them for?

Huggles

faceman wrote:

im confused, wtf did he arrest them for?

Thats what I want to know!!!!!!!!!!!

DemonOfTheFall

HAHAHA, indymedia, what a joke.

That was actually the worst written article I have ever had the displeasure to skim over.

Dave!

Canis Lupus wrote:

Comments on Indymedia are hilarious. Makes me laugh to see how some people think.

Makes me sick, to be honest. Can't stand the bloody morons who post on that site.

Someone doodled the Indymedia web address on the bathroom wall in Doyle's, next to an anarchy sign. Says it all really.

Bloody wierdos.

Mossy Monk

should have been arrested himself for being a Garda time wasting idiot

AngryAnderson

Ireland's a funny place. All these liberals, anti-war types and self-proclaimed 'anarchists'.

The liberals are vitriolic and aggresively intolerant of anybody with an opinion that differs from theirs.

The anti-war types sit around, foaming at the mouth about the injustices faced by the poor of the world and the evil West that's causing their suffering. But would they actually go to Palestine, Chechnya, Africa, etc. and do any relief work? The overwhelming, almost exclusive majority do not.

"Anarchists" are generally tree-hugging, unemployed losers who couldn't be bothered getting up off their arses to chane their underwear, let alone an entire society and its establishment. Quite ironic really. "Boo hoo, I've got a crap inferior-mediocre life and I want to change society completely so it satisfies my lazy outlook on life and the injustices I see all around me - such as a strong economy, free education and jobs for anyone that wants one and who's prepared to stay off the dope and skag for more than a day" - yeah. Nice one you nincompoops.

You can pretty much label these know-everything, do-nothing malcontents as "hypocrites"

And don't get me started on Residents Against Racism (Retards Against Reality?)

muletide

rondeco wrote:

Why? He made a wrong call but his intentions were just. As soon as the error was realised they were released. Doing him for false arrest would be a complete waste of time.

thats rich - waste of time

i think the waste of time happened alot earlier in the day. but the law on false arrest/citizens arrest is a very dodgy area for anybody attempting an arrest - only the gardai can arrest on suspicion of a crime. And you can be done for false arrest if no crime has been committed

humanji

It's funny, but I made a comment on Indymedia that was against what those nutters say (quite polite and a little witty, if I do say so myself ) and it got deleted! There's freedom for you!

rkeane

If anything all Indymedia does is provide some fun for us all. They are the biggest idiots ever to publish on the internet. The goones that post on that site generally fall into 2 classes. The 1st class would be very rich liberals who want no war and free for all immigration and unlimited asylum seeking. The 2nd section would be those dam anarchists...basically young people with a wreck the place attitude....they are all very sad indeed.

ionapaul

Canis Lupus wrote:

Comments on Indymedia are hilarious. Makes me laugh to see how some people think.

From one of the comments on indymedia:

"The Irish state and the Gardai therefore are in gross breach of the their duties under international law, in failing to arrest these US Soldiers.
Furthermore, they are in breach of Irish criminal law, in failing to investigate whether any of these US soldiers have been involved in crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as much as they would have been in breach of Irish criminal law if they failed to investigate individuals who were passing through the Republic of Ireland and who may have been involved in the Omagh boming.

The courage and determination shown by Conor Cregan in temporarily arresting these soldiers contrasts with the cowardise and dereliction of duty of the Gardai. These same Gardai have had no hesitation in wrongfully arresting several peace activists at Shannon airport.

Well done, Citizen Cregan"

Classic stuff.

Dave!

Citizen Cregan, lol

padi89

AngryAnderson wrote:

Ireland's a funny place. All these liberals, anti-war types and self-proclaimed 'anarchists'.

The liberals are vitriolic and aggresively intolerant of anybody with an opinion that differs from theirs.

The anti-war types sit around, foaming at the mouth about the injustices faced by the poor of the world and the evil West that's causing their suffering. But would they actually go to Palestine, Chechnya, Africa, etc. and do any relief work? The overwhelming, almost exclusive majority do not.

"Anarchists" are generally tree-hugging, unemployed losers who couldn't be bothered getting up off their arses to chane their underwear, let alone an entire society and its establishment. Quite ironic really. "Boo hoo, I've got a crap inferior-mediocre life and I want to change society completely so it satisfies my lazy outlook on life and the injustices I see all around me - such as a strong economy, free education and jobs for anyone that wants one and who's prepared to stay off the dope and skag for more than a day" - yeah. Nice one you nincompoops.

You can pretty much label these know-everything, do-nothing malcontents as "hypocrites"

And don't get me started on Residents Against Racism (Retards Against Reality?)

Well said.

Beano

DaveMcG wrote:

Citizen Cregan, lol

Did anybody else get a picture of Robert Lindsay as Citizen Smith, head of the Tooting Popular Front, in their heads when they read that?

BuffyBot

Did anybody else get a picture of Robert Lindsay as Citizen Smith, head of the Tooting Popular Front, in their heads when they read that?

Every single time that site gets mentioned. Citizen Smith, with broadband.

Belle_Morte

BuffyBot wrote:

Every single time that site gets mentioned. Citizen Smith, with broadband.

Yep. Me too. :rolleyes:

Ste.phen

AngryAnderson wrote:

Ireland's a funny place. All these liberals, anti-war types and self-proclaimed 'anarchists'.

The liberals are vitriolic and aggresively intolerant of anybody with an opinion that differs from theirs.

The anti-war types sit around, foaming at the mouth about the injustices faced by the poor of the world and the evil West that's causing their suffering. But would they actually go to Palestine, Chechnya, Africa, etc. and do any relief work? The overwhelming, almost exclusive majority do not.

"Anarchists" are generally tree-hugging, unemployed losers who couldn't be bothered getting up off their arses to chane their underwear, let alone an entire society and its establishment. Quite ironic really. "Boo hoo, I've got a crap inferior-mediocre life and I want to change society completely so it satisfies my lazy outlook on life and the injustices I see all around me - such as a strong economy, free education and jobs for anyone that wants one and who's prepared to stay off the dope and skag for more than a day" - yeah. Nice one you nincompoops.

You can pretty much label these know-everything, do-nothing malcontents as "hypocrites"

And don't get me started on Residents Against Racism (Retards Against Reality?)

Hehe, *in almost full agreement*

Victor

Defence Act 1954, Section 317

"Foreign uniforms. 317.—(1) No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, enter or land in the State while wearing any foreign uniform.

(2) No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, go into any public place in the State while wearing any foreign uniform.

(3) A Minister of State may from time to time direct that subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not during a specified period apply in respect of any particular class (defined in such manner as he thinks fit) of persons, and in that case the said subsections shall not apply during that period in respect of that class of persons.

(4) Every person who contravenes (by act or omission) any provision in subsections (1) or (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(5) Nothing in this section shall restrict, or apply in respect of, the wearing of any uniform by the head of any diplomatic mission duly accredited to the State or by any member of the diplomatic staff of such mission whose appointment as such has been officially notified to the Minister for External Affairs or who is otherwise entitled to diplomatic immunities.

(6) Nothing in this section shall restrict, or apply in respect of, the wearing of any foreign uniform in the course of a stage play or other dramatic representation or performance.

(7) In this section—

the expression "foreign uniform" means the uniform of any armed force of any other State whether operating by land, sea or air, and includes any distinctive part of any such uniform;

the expression "public place" includes any street, road, park or other similar place, and also any place or building to which the public have access on payment of a charge for admission.

The fine was changed by Section 2, Defence (Amendment) Act, 1987.

Maximum Fine £
34. Section 317 (4) 250

jimmycrackcorm

Isn't Shannon airport a public place too?

thebaz

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Isn't Shannon airport a public place too?

The incident happened on the Limerick road, thats why the citizens arrest took place --- uniformed foreign soldiers on our soil ... i'm no fan of Bush and his war on terror .. but not sure if i would try and apprehend and arrest some of his foot soldiers .... i don't believe there has ever been a more powerfull army, than the current U.S. -- scary -- i just thought it was amazing one man challenging these soldiers on walkabout ... you got say he had some balls...

humanji

thebaz wrote:

The incident happened on the Limerick road, thats why the citizens arrest took place --- uniformed foreign soldiers on our soil ... i'm no fan of Bush and his war on terror .. but not sure if i would try and apprehend and arrest some of his foot soldiers .... i don't believe there has ever been a more powerfull army, than the current U.S. -- scary -- i just thought it was amazing one man challenging these soldiers on walkabout ... you got say he had some balls...

Doesn't the whole "uniformed foreign soldiers on our soil" thingy just deal with soldiers who have no right being there, and not soldiers who have been given permission to enter the country?

tbh

jomanji wrote:

Doesn't the whole "uniformed foreign soldiers on our soil" thingy just deal with soldiers who have no right being there, and not soldiers who have been given permission to enter the country?

The law is very clear. The soldiers must have written permission from the minister of defense before they can appear in public in their uniform. In other words, if they don't have written permission, they "have no right being there". Not to defend cregan, but maybe he just wanted to draw attention to the act (success!) rather than have the soldiers put in jail. Whats the point in having a law if it isn't going to be enforced? [assuming these soldiers don't, in fact, have permission] Or is it just American soldiers who have immunity from it? Anyway, just playing devils advocate.

28064212

Victor wrote:

Defence Act 1954, Section 317

"Foreign uniforms. 317.—(1) No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, enter or land in the State while wearing any foreign uniform.

(2) No person shall, save with the consent in writing of a Minister of State, go into any public place in the State while wearing any foreign uniform.

(3) A Minister of State may from time to time direct that subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not during a specified period apply in respect of any particular class (defined in such manner as he thinks fit) of persons, and in that case the said subsections shall not apply during that period in respect of that class of persons.

The fine was changed by Section 2, Defence (Amendment) Act, 1987.

Maximum Fine £
34. Section 317 (4) 250[/quote
Are you sure no Minister has given them permission?

humanji

Does that mean each one has to have a personally signed piece of paper? Seems a little excessive if they each have to carry one. I'm sure that express permission was given as a whole to all troops landing at Shannon (I really don't want Citizen Creagan to win! )

tbh

jomanji wrote:

Does that mean each one has to have a personally signed piece of paper? Seems a little excessive if they each have to carry one.

I agree - and I don't know the answer there. I'd imagine that overall clearance could be given, but it should be a matter of public record.

I'm sure that express permission was given as a whole to all troops landing at Shannon

I'm not so sure on that, in my experience, it's more likely that nobody really thought about it before now. Permission may have been given for them to land at the airport, but how about leaving the airport - in uniform? and remember, it has to be written.

(I really don't want Citizen Creagan to win! )

I really agree there I just hate the way the laws in this country are only invoked when somebody wants them to be - it leads to too much inconsistency imo.

civdef

The offence offence under the Defence Act carries no power of arrest. I can't tell from the article if yer man made any physical attempt to restrain the "prisoners", somehow doubt it, but if he did, he'd be looking at serious criminal charges for himself. The people he was attempting to restrain would have been justified in using force to prevent an unlawful arrest.

The issue of uniforms has come up before:

Another matter on which I have acted to tighten the application of regulations relates to the wearing of military uniforms by foreign troops. Under Section 317 of Defence Act, 1954, military personnel are forbidden to enter or land in the state while wearing a uniform, except with written Ministerial permission. Following discussions between my Department and the US Embassy, the Embassy sought, and was granted, Ministerial permission to wear duty uniform in the “immediate vicinity of an arrival/departure airfield.” Any requests for exceptions to this policy are to be submitted to my Department.

Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brian Cowen T.D, Dáil Éireann, Wednesday 29 January 2003

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/20030129/1109.htm

Morlar

I dont think you have to be pro-war to see that as a ridiculous way to treat people - I would agree with the previous poster that I am ashamed to be the same nationality as that self righteous 'Nobody move its a Citizens Arrest ! !' muppet.

Morlar

thebaz wrote:

i just thought it was amazing one man challenging these soldiers on walkabout ... you got say he had some balls...

I dont think you have to admire or respect him at all - I think he was preying on their good manners - the fact that they were going to be too polite to physically resist. The fact that they were going to give him the benefit of the doubt in order to avoid the risk of insulting a nation they were the guests of.

I would imagine that some of the soldiers thought that there may in fact be some funky local legal technicality and that there was a chance they were inadvertently in the wrong. I dont think it took bravery at all - I think it was very cowardly to rely on their good nature and discipline in the matter.

rondeco

TheGooner wrote:

I must be thick, what was his intention?

You must be, his intentions were obviously to apprehend a person whom he believed had committed a crime worthy of arrest.

rondeco

Stekelly wrote:

So anyone I dont like I can basically kidnap as long as I pronounce it to be a citizens arrest? Then when the gards come along I'll just say "oops, my mistake"

Yes. Thats exactly it.

bonkey

AngryAnderson wrote:

Ireland's a funny place. All these liberals, anti-war types and self-proclaimed 'anarchists'.

Yeah. They're unique to Ireland, aren't they. Don't find them in any other nation...

The liberals are vitriolic and aggresively intolerant of anybody with an opinion that differs from theirs.

Whereas you are clearly understanding and accepting of people with an opinion different to your own. People like liberals, anti-war types, anarchists, Residents against Racism, and so on.....you wouldn't say a bad word against them, but only engage in polite, rational debate. Y'know...like calling groups retards and stuff.

The anti-war types sit around, foaming at the mouth about the injustices faced by the poor of the world and the evil West that's causing their suffering. But would they actually go to Palestine, Chechnya, Africa, etc. and do any relief work? The overwhelming, almost exclusive majority do not.

Whereas the pro-war types have all joined up, gotten themselves a gun, and gone to put their life on the line for what they believe in. This shows the clear difference. Pro-war types aren't armchair-generals willing to preach on about how people need to be killed, but rather go and do it. Anti-war types just sit at home and complain.

"Anarchists" are generally tree-hugging, unemployed losers who couldn't be bothered getting up off their arses to chane their underwear,

There's that non-liberal acceptance and tolerance of your approach again. Well done sir. Bravo. I applaud your showing those liberals how one is supposed to treat those with differing views on life with respect and dignity.

Quite ironic really.
...
You can pretty much label these know-everything, do-nothing malcontents as "hypocrites"

I couldn't have put it better myself

And don't get me started on Residents Against Racism (Retards Against Reality?)

I'd be too frightened to. You might get even more liberal with your descriptions (all puns intended)

thebaz

Morlar wrote:

I dont think you have to admire or respect him at all - I think he was preying on their good manners - the fact that they were going to be too polite to physically resist. The fact that they were going to give him the benefit of the doubt in order to avoid the risk of insulting a nation they were the guests of.

I would imagine that some of the soldiers thought that there may in fact be some funky local legal technicality and that there was a chance they were inadvertently in the wrong. I dont think it took bravery at all - I think it was very cowardly to rely on their good nature and discipline in the matter.

The more i read the posts here the more i'm begining to see Cregans angle -- do we really want to see U.S. soldiers parading around Ireland uniformed ?
Do we want to see them parading around armed ? Right now the U.S. army is unrivalled with its strenth, wealth and technical expertise , I don't know if i want them wandering around our country unarmed. How is it cowardly to challenge 6 US officers on your own ? its like picking a fight in a bar with 6 guys, if you are relying on there good nature, it still takes balls to challenge them , as they could kick the **** out of ya , (well usually) .

tbh

thebaz wrote:

The more i read the posts here the more i'm begining to see Cregans angle -- do we really want to see U.S. soldiers parading around Ireland uniformed ?
Do we want to see them parading around armed ? Right now the U.S. army is unrivalled with its strenth, wealth and technical expertise , I don't know if i want them wandering around our country unarmed. How is it cowardly to challenge 6 US officers on your own ? its like picking a fight in a bar with 6 guys, if you are relying on there good nature, it still takes balls to challenge them , as they could kick the **** out of ya , (well usually) .

The problem I have with it is that it's the thin edge of the wedge. If we allow the Americans, why not the British? Or the French? Or the Iranians? Of course I'm not suggesting that it'll ever come to that, but this is a case of "one law for one and another for another". Someone on indymedia said that Brian Cowen had given permission and this hadn't been recinded, but I dunno...I think it's a case of lazy government.

bonkey

thebaz wrote:

The more i read the posts here the more i'm begining to see Cregans angle -- do we really want to see U.S. soldiers parading around Ireland uniformed ?

I would argue that its not a case of what we want, but rather whether or not there is reasonable grounds to discriminate based on clothing. Personally, I don't believe it is.

I don't want to see obese people wearing little half-nothing summer clothes. Does that mean I have grounds to suggest they should be banned from wearing them?

Or are you simply suggesting that Americans who are a member of any part of the US military be banned from Ireland, regardless of what they're wearing or why they're here?

Do we want to see them parading around armed ?

As far as I'm aware, US soldiers do not have the right to go armed in Ireland no more than you or I have.

If I'm correct, then this question, then, would seem somehwat irrelevant. You're arguing that you don't want them to be allowed to do something they're not allowed to do and that no-one is suggesting they should be allowed to do.

Right now the U.S. army is unrivalled with its strenth, wealth and technical expertise , I don't know if i want them wandering around our country unarmed.

So you're saying that members of the US military shouldn't be allowed to visit Ireland as tourists either?

If not, then do you believe that there is a fundamental difference between an unarmed, unequipped soldier wearing combats and the same person with teh same lack of equipment wearing clothes that allow them to blend in to the general populace.

How is it cowardly to challenge 6 US officers on your own ?
...
it still takes balls to challenge them , as they could kick the **** out of ya , (well usually) .

I agree here completely. Cowardly is not the term I'd use.

tbh

bonkey wrote:

I would argue that its not a case of what we want, but rather whether or not there is reasonable grounds to discriminate based on clothing. Personally, I don't believe it is.

I agree with everything you've said so far, but I think you missed the point there. It's not the clothing, it's what it represents. The act even says it's ok to wear US uniforms in plays! It is stipulating that the only army that should be walking around this country on active service, is the Irish one. I think thats the point thebaz was making, rather than objecting to the wearing of the uniform per se. Other than that, I think you are spot on.