US torture flights never landed at our airports

Heinrich

From the Indo this morning.

Bertie is really stretching my credibility these days. So he denies because there ids no proof. There is no proof because there was no investigation!

What Bush told Ahern 'to be sure' during Oval office talks
TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern last night insisted he got face-to-face assurances from US President George Bush that no prisoners are being illegally transported through Ireland.

In an unequivocal attempt to draw a line under the simmering controversy, Mr Ahern gave a frank outline of high-level exchanges with Mr Bush.

He said he raised the question with him in Washington in March.

"I was not going to be in the position that I was in the Oval Room and didn't ask the question," he said after addressing the European Parliament.

"I was sat closer to him than you are now and I looked at the great President Bush and said to him I wanted 'to be sure to be sure' and he assured me," Mr Ahern said. He claimed Ireland was the only country to get such an express, unequivocal assurance

Will the porkies ever end?

Rock Climber

Of course "porkies" is your opinion and not fact.
A lot of people may (including me) be of the same view but we may be mistaken aswell.

Heinrich

Rock Climber wrote:

Of course "porkies" is your opinion and not fact.
A lot of people may (including me) be of the same view but we may be mistaken aswell.

Then the issue needs to be cleared up. Grave suspicion was cast on these flights and when inspections were demanded the Yanks assured us that...

Now there is a huge lie which has been proven and that is the claim of WMDs in Iraq. The people who brought you tat one gave us the assurances regarding the flights. They also denied that there was torture going on in Iraqi jails.

John_C

There's a lot of smoke and mirrirs here.
Bertie has no proof and concludes that no proof means proof that there was no such flights. Similarly, the European Parlament has no proof and concludes that there definately were flights.

The reality is that neither knows any more than you or I.

Heinrich

Heinrich wrote:

Bertie is really stretching my credibility these days. So he denies because there ids no proof. There is no proof because there was no investigation!

And you have the proof that it happened? Or is something proven just by floating a rumour and then it behoves the Government to investigate and disprove it?

Heinrich

Deleted User wrote:

And you have the proof that it happened? Or is something proven just by floating a rumour and then it behoves the Government to investigate and disprove it?

There is ample proof that no investigation took place.

John R

Deleted User wrote:

And you have the proof that it happened? Or is something proven just by floating a rumour and then it behoves the Government to investigate and disprove it?

Proof of what?

There is more than enough evidence to prove that the US government has been illegally snatching people and transporting them to various locations to be tortured.

There is proof that the people and planes involved have used Shannon as a transit point.

The only thing that is up in the air is if there were kidnapped people on board when the planes were on Irish soil.

Does it really matter that much? Either way the Irish authorities were either negligent in not investigating or complicit in the US authorities illegal activities.

John R

John R wrote:

The only thing that is up in the air is if there were kidnapped people on board when the planes were on Irish soil.

Up in the air? Like the pun.

There is no prima facie case that anyone was brought through Shannon. The time for an investigation is when someone comes up with something substantial to show this may have happened. Say a nameof a detainee or a flight. Saying (i) the Yanks are bad people and (ii) the Yanks pass through Ireland cannot be enough.

gandalf

Personally I am of the opinion if there is a doubt then it should be investigated. Having your head buried in the sand is no defense. Going forward Ireland should inform the US that any planes that use Shannon as a refueling point can be subjected to searches especially given the fact the US admitted using these types of flights.

If the Americans have nothing to hide they should agree readially to this. I doubt they would though.

John R

Deleted User wrote:

Up in the air? Like the pun.

There is no prima facie case that anyone was brought through Shannon. The time for an investigation is when someone comes up with something substantial to show this may have happened. Say a nameof a detainee or a flight. Saying (i) the Yanks are bad people and (ii) the Yanks pass through Ireland cannot be enough.

Actually it is more than enough. Foreign nationals can and are refused entry to the country for any number of reasons. There is no burden of proof on the immigration to prove illegal activity.

The moment the authorities here suspected that these transits were being used for illegal activities in the EU they should have refused permission to land.

OUR government is supposed to represent and protect OUR citizens. Many of the illegal activities were carried out in EU countries, whose to say they were not going to kidnap Irish citizens either here or in another EU state?

Can you imagine the reaction in the US if the situation was reversed, if EU countries forces were flying to the US to kidnap and torture Americans. If it was found out the president had knowledge and did nothing he would definitely be impeached and probably tried for treason.

flogen

gandalf wrote:

Personally I am of the opinion if there is a doubt then it should be investigated. Having your head buried in the sand is no defense. Going forward Ireland should inform the US that any planes that use Shannon as a refueling point can be subjected to searches especially given the fact the US admitted using these types of flights.

If the Americans have nothing to hide they should agree readially to this. I doubt they would though.

I agree; Brian Dobson was asking after Leaders Questions if asking to investigate was basically saying you didn't trust the Americans, but it's not that simple.

If they Americans have nothing to hide they won't mind spot-checks... if the Irish Government are so sure there's nothing wrong they won't be afraid to check either...

Look at it this way, the US has confirmed the whole "rendition flights" issue, so we know it's happening somewhere, why would it not be in Shannon instead of anywhere else?

Hypothetical here... A Garda pulls over a guy in a car... the driver is a known drug dealer who has previously pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply and had made it quite clear on release that he was going to continue down this "career" path. The Garda says "Do you have any illegal drugs in the car or on your person?" and the guy says "No." Would anybody be happy with the Garda taking his word for it and waving him on?
(Another example, when people are stopped for random breath tests they're asked "Have you had any alcohol tonight?", to which they usually say "no" to which the Garda says "So you don't mind doing this breathalizer then..." and proceeds with the test.)

flogen

flogen wrote:

Hypothetical here... A Garda pulls over a guy in a car... the driver is a known drug dealer who has previously pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply and had made it quite clear on release that he was going to continue down this "career" path. The Garda says "Do you have any illegal drugs in the car or on your person?" and the guy says "No." Would anybody be happy with the Garda taking his word for it and waving him on?

Hypothetical here. Russians involved in a lot of crime in Moscow, so every Russian who is in Ireland should be treated as a presumed criminal unless they investigate and prove otherwise?

egan007

George bush would not tell a lie!

Heinrich

Deleted User wrote:

Hypothetical here. Russians involved in a lot of crime in Moscow, so every Russian who is in Ireland should be treated as a presumed criminal unless they investigate and prove otherwise?

You should stay on topic. We are not discussing Russia.

There is a lot of suspicion regarding rendition flights and the matter should have been investigated. There is far too much waffle going on and if our administration does not have the courage to deal with the issues rather than accept the word of a proven liar there is little left to be said.

We have quite a lot of denials from Mr Ahern on various issues which he cannot substantiate with actual proof. A real "yes I did, no you didn't" merchant. Shouting louder does not make anything more credible. Nor does the sad schoolboy body language.

Heinrich

Heinrich wrote:

You should stay on topic. We are not discussing Russia.

How about reading the post before mine and to which I was responding? You have no difficulty with the drugs analogy or the drink driving analogy but you object to a Russian analogy?

Anyway, I wold strongly object to seeing taxpayer's money thrown at proving or disproving some conspiracy theory.

Rebeller

Deleted User wrote:

Hypothetical here. Russians involved in a lot of crime in Moscow, so every Russian who is in Ireland should be treated as a presumed criminal unless they investigate and prove otherwise?

????

Talk about a completely ridiculous comparison.

As others have said a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity is often enough in many circumstances to justify questioning or searching a person or premises.

There is proof that planes used to transport prisoners involved in the US illegal programme of extraordinary rendition landed on Irish soil. What is not certai (yet) is whether any detainee was on board at the time these flight landed here:

See Amnesty International report here and quote below:

"Amnesty international has obtained flight records for six CIA-chartered planes from September 2001 to September of 2005. According to the US Federal Aviation Administration over this period, these planes landed 50 times in Shannon and took off 35 times, suggesting that some flights were kept secret. Although Shannon airport is used as a refuelling stop for the US military, none of the planes were military transport planes. In total for this period, the six planes made some 800 flights originating or landing in Europe.

The planes include:

* Boeing 737-7ET, call sign N313P (Later re-registered as N4476S). The largest of the six planes, with 32 seats, is owned by Premier Executive Transport Services, a CIA front company that also owns N379P. N313P has been frequently seen at US military bases, including in Afghanistan.

* Gulfstream V: call sign N379P (Later re-registered as N8068V and then as N44982): this plane, which has made more than 50 trips to the US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, has been nicknamed "The Guantanamo Bay Express". It was also used in the CIA rendition of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al-Zari from Sweden to Egypt.

* Gulfstream III: N829MG (Later re-registered as N259SK). This plane took dual Syrian-Canadian national Maher Arar from the US to Syria where he was detained for 13 months’ without charge, during which time he was tortured. He was finally released in October 2003.

* GulfstreamIV, call sign N85VM (Later re-registered as N227SV), the plane that took Abu Omar to Egypt from Germany after his kidnapping in Italy, turned around and flew to Shannon. The plane's flight log also shows visits to Afghanistan, Morocco, Dubai, Jordan, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, Azerbaijan and the Czech Republic"

See below statement from Minister Ahern admitting that a plane carrying a military prisoner (i.e. US soldier) landed at Shannon on the 11th of June 2006.

Press Statement

The US authorities did not inform the Irish government at the time it landed (as they are obliged to do in such circumstances) that the plane in question was carrying a prisoner in military fatigues.

While the prisoner involved was not linked to the isue of extraordinary rendition it is a clear example that the US has no regard for the domestic law of other states (if you weren't already aware of that you must have been living in cloud cuckoo land for the past few decades).

The word of the lying Bush administration is not to be trusted. Physical inspections of all military and CIA related flights landing in Ireland need to be carried out.

Heinrich wrote:

. Nor does the sad schoolboy body language

Couldn't have put it better myself

Rebeller

Rebeller wrote:

The word of the lying Bush administration is not to be trusted. Physical inspections of all military and CIA related flights landing in Ireland need to be carried out.

I say not unless there is some clear evidence that detainees passed through Shannon. I am not paying taxes to satisfy some anti-USA conspiracy theorists.

I love the analogies issue. Russian analogies are unacceptable, but drugs, drink driving and sad schoolboys are fine. Is there a 'roflmao' emoticon here?

flogen

Deleted User wrote:

Hypothetical here. Russians involved in a lot of crime in Moscow, so every Russian who is in Ireland should be treated as a presumed criminal unless they investigate and prove otherwise?

That's not exactly the same... I'm not saying that every flight coming from America should be searched or that every American should presumed to be involved in rendition flights... I'm saying that if we know the US state is doing something, and there is the possibility that planes being flown on behalf of the US state are involving Ireland in that something then we should be safe rather than sorry.

If there were Russians living in Ireland who had direct connections to illegal activities (besides just being Russian), for example members of the Russian Mafia, I would expect them to be treated with suspicion... the law says their innocent until proven guilty, and so is the US army in this instance, but they can still be investigated.

Manic Moran

Heinrich wrote:

There is ample proof that no investigation took place.

According to the Tainiste: (Quoting RTE yesterday) He said that gardaí had investigated information it received a number of times and found it to be without substance.

The Garda says "Do you have any illegal drugs in the car or on your person?" and the guy says "No." Would anybody be happy with the Garda taking his word for it and waving him on?
(Another example, when people are stopped for random breath tests they're asked "Have you had any alcohol tonight?", to which they usually say "no" to which the Garda says "So you don't mind doing this breathalizer then..." and proceeds with the test.)

I am less familiar than I would once have been with Irish law, but if that scenario took place in the US, by law the policeman would have to accept his word on the issue and let him go on his way unless he had good probable cause to search the vehicle. (Something like syringes or bongs lying in open view on the seat) Random DUI/Breathalyser tests are specifically excluded from that restriction by the US Supreme Court because they are non-intrusive.

NTM

Heinrich

Tha Tanaiste does quite some flip-flopping as per the recent Bertiegate!

Can you provide a link for your information?

According to the Tainiste: (Quoting RTE yesterday) He said that gardaí had investigated information it received a number of times and found it to be without substance.

flogen

Manic Moran wrote:

According to the Tainiste: (Quoting RTE yesterday) He said that gardaí had investigated information it received a number of times and found it to be without substance.

I would be interested to know more about this investigation... it could easily have amounted to a phone call to US officials to ask them to respond; I'm unsure what else could be done to verify/rubbish the claims short of a physical inspection of a plane (of course, the information could have just been crack-pot rants by some group and so would be disregarded quickly anyway).

I am less familiar than I would once have been with Irish law, but if that scenario took place in the US, by law the policeman would have to accept his word on the issue and let him go on his way unless he had good probable cause to search the vehicle. (Something like syringes or bongs lying in open view on the seat) Random DUI/Breathalyser tests are specifically excluded from that restriction by the US Supreme Court because they are non-intrusive.

NTM

Likewise I'm unfamiliar with US law but I'm sure that in both jurisdictions probable cause does not have to be visual evidence... the persons record and their current situation could be used as such.... if a convicted drug dealer pledges to continue doing what he's doing it gives Gardai probably reason to search his person for drugs... if the US continue to fly people to other jurisdictions for questioning without the proper agreements it gives the Irish government probably reason to see if they're doing it here.

Villain

"US Torture flights never landed in Irish airports"

Next thing you know they will tell us Iraq had WMD!!

flogen

flogen wrote:

That's not exactly the same... I'm not saying that every flight coming from America should be searched or that every American should presumed to be involved in rendition flights... I'm saying that if we know the US state is doing something, and there is the possibility that planes being flown on behalf of the US state are involving Ireland in that something then we should be safe rather than sorry.

Fair enough. Point reasonably made and taken, and I certainly agree that there is nothing wrong with a safety first approach in most instances. If there were clearer signals that this country was being used in connection with such flights then I would agree with the stop and search attitude. Clearly, our neutrality has always been on the basis that we trust the US and UK more than we trust their enemies, and I think to go poking around in their planes would result in a possibly high price in diplomatic relations, and would be particularly embarassing if nothing were found. We would have to know there was something to find before paying that price, like the proof that Gardai need before getting a search warrant in a house.

Manic Moran

flogen wrote:

Likewise I'm unfamiliar with US law but I'm sure that in both jurisdictions probable cause does not have to be visual evidence...

True, if you happen to have a drug-sniffing dog with you, and it indicates a hit, that would count. (US law)

the persons record and their current situation could be used as such.... if a convicted drug dealer pledges to continue doing what he's doing it gives Gardai probably reason to search his person for drugs...

I don't know how much protection there is in Ireland against police harassment, but you need more reason than past history to search someone in the US.

NTM

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote:

I think to go poking around in their planes would result in a possibly high price in diplomatic relations, and would be particularly embarassing if nothing were found.

For an excellent example of this dilemma, see the Yes, Prime Minister episode "A Diplomatic Incident".

NTM

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Clearly, our neutrality has always been on the basis that we trust the US and UK more than we trust their enemies, and I think to go poking around in their planes would result in a possibly high price in diplomatic relations, and would be particularly embarassing if nothing were found.

As been pointed out already...the diplomatic price has already been paid by the US when it has already lied about flights through Ireland.

Hobbes

Guys it is how its worded..

TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern last night insisted he got face-to-face assurances from US President George Bush that no prisoners are being illegally transported through Ireland.

See the terminology. It doesn't mean it didn't happen but in fact that if it did happen that it was all legal and probably not listed as Prisoner but something like "Unlawful combatant" or some other crap to point out they aren't a prisoner.

Remember the recent torture bill basically greenlighted all past renditions as legal for Bush. So the question becomes what laws do we have in place in Ireland that they may of tripped up on?

My guess is, there isn't any.

The problems with politicians is you have to nail them down on the correct question. You shouldn't be asking were there any illegal flights but where there any flights that contained passengers (legal or otherwise) that were renditioned.

As for no proof of anything happening. Check out this movie from AI.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3080182736973832540&q=outlawed+extraordinary++renditions&hl=en

monument

Setting my opinions aside, boarding a US aircraft is as likely at this point in time as doing a quick search of the US Embassy, and such actions would be seen in somewhat similar light.

Another dose of realism for some - this isn’t an election issue.

Our government doesn’t care about these people? So what? Our government doesn’t care about our own people whether it’s the old, young, disabled, mental ill, homeless, homosexual or whatever.

As with most of the above listed, most people may not like to see these people treated badly (to one extent or another), few really care enough and aren’t too busy with other matters of their own.

I think how the state treats or closes its eyes to the old, young, disabled, mental ill, and homeless, and how we deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, are far greater crimes then the state’s part in rendition (talking about a moral sense of crime, not the law’s).

With old people and nursing homes there was a shock point before the government had to appear to be doing something or even admit there was something wrong.

As we as a nation (rightly) care more about how our old grannies and granddads are being treated in nursing homes, an equivalent shock point for the public on either Shannon issues would probably have to be a lot larger.

flogen wrote:

Likewise I'm unfamiliar with US law but I'm sure that in both jurisdictions probable cause does not have to be visual evidence... the persons record and their current situation could be used as such.... if a convicted drug dealer pledges to continue doing what he's doing it gives Gardai probably reason to search his person for drugs... if the US continue to fly people to other jurisdictions for questioning without the proper agreements it gives the Irish government probably reason to see if they're doing it here.

The convicted drug dealer in this scenario is saying that he will continue to break Irish law, the US have never been convicted of committing the crime they are accused of in this case and have denied committing such and say they will not commit such crimes while landing here.

The scenario is not comparably, and apparent scumbag vs. diplomatic friend doesn’t really compare.

Like with drugs, a known – let’s say – drugs supply van used by a gang to move drugs around is spotted driving down the road, the police won’t stop it unless they’re reasonable sure that drugs are in it at that point in time.

What evidence or even hunch can make the police reasonably sure that there will be any kind of prisoner (etc) unwillingly held on a CIA (or whatever) aircraft at one point or another?

Dave!

Yeah I heard him saying that.

"I want to be sure to be sure"

"The Great George Bush"

His rhetoric makes me want to spit.

AbusesToilets

So presuming that the Irish authorities did search a plane and found someone,what would you have the Government do then? Put at risk decades of diplomatic and economic relations for the sake of a foreign national? Or simply ignore the incident and thus be tarred with the same brush?
There's no easy solution to this situation and in think the Government is taking the right approach.The relationship with the US,while it shouldn't be one of Irish subservience,is more important imo than taking steps to search US planes. What is there to be gained by searching the planes?

Coyler

Dignity.

monument

Coyler wrote:

Dignity.

Again...

What evidence or even hunch can make the police reasonably sure that there will be any kind of prisoner (etc) unwillingly held on a CIA (or whatever) aircraft at one point or another?

I’d agree with an outright ban on any military/intelligence/security landing/flying over, but there’s little logic for calls searches (see my last post for reasoning).

In all reality, a total ban – at the moment – is just as likely as searches.

One of the most realistic scenarios for a search is when the Irish government is put under extreme pressure from an event or whatever; the government has no choice but to take a hit so in advance to limit damage they alert the US what aircraft they are to search, and what time etc.

The aeroplane is searched, no smoking gun is found. The Irish government is now armed with the line “we search the plane and damaged the country’s reputation with our US friends” and the US now has a clean bill of health from an apparently neutral state.

Coyler

Evidence.

monument

Coyler wrote:

Evidence.

Err...

We're sorry, but this video may not be available.

Try refreshing the page to see this video.

To see more videos visit our home page

Hagar

When Dubya said that no nobody was being transported illegally through Ireland should we take into account the fact that he believes he is not doing anything illegal in transporting people in this manner? Does this mean he is legally, in his view, transporting people through Ireland?

The report should probably read more along these lines.
"Yes, we are transporting people, but it's all legal, now p1$$ off or we'll pull a few factories out of Ireland to teach you a lesson"

Diogenes

http://indymedia.ie/article/77258

The poster is Edward Horgan former army commadant and one of the people who challenged the government in the high court, over the use of shannon by the US government

He details and photographs a CIA jet in Shannon

the article wrote:

368CE had the following flight itinerary earlier this year:

Jan. 8, 06 -- Kabul to Frankfurt, Germany
Jan. 9, 06 -- Frankfurt to Baghdad
Jan. 06 -- Frankfurt to Baghdad and Baghdad to Frankfurt
Frankfurt to Kabul and Kabul to Frankfurt
Feb. 1, 06 -- Frankfurt to Kabul
Feb. 2, 06 -- Kabul to Frankfurt

I sincerely doubt that the investigation by the garda consisted of anything more of a garda walking up to pilot

Garda
"So er any prisoners on the plane then?"

Pilot
"Nope"

Garda
"Grand so"

aidan24326

Surely even Bertie has to be fcuking joking when he describes him as 'the great George Bush'. Unbelievable.

Like Hobbes pointed out the fact is that there may be nothing illegal about what the US has been doing in Shannon. Nothing illegal under Irish law at least. That they have used Shannon as a stopover for at least some of the flights used to transort prisoners and even torture victims is highly probable though. Why wouldn't they have? The issue is what can we do about it, and the answer to that question is probably not a whole lot other than banning all US military flights from Shannon, with the government wary of doing anything that might damage diplomatic relations with the US.

Hobbes

AbusesToilets wrote:

for the sake of a foreign national

For the sake of a human being you mean? I don't know how anyone can justify ignoring rendition. Especially after watching the Amnesty International film interviewing a German National who got one of those holidays.

What if the person was Irish on the plane? Not that it matters our justice minister signed into law some time back allowing the US to take any Irish person off Irish soil and bring them to trial in America once charged of a crime in the US, regardless if they ever stepped foot in the US.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Guys it is how its worded..

TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern last night insisted he got face-to-face assurances from US President George Bush that no prisoners are being illegally transported through Ireland.

See the terminology.

You seem to have highlighted the wrong part.

Didn't you mean to highlight "face-to-face assurances from US President George Bush"

redspider

Ireland has no moral backbone in its Government when it comes to this issue. I would like to see the leaders of our political parties (yes, even Joe Higgins) answer these simple questions:

Q1: If you were in Government, would you establish a process whereby the Irish Police/Gardai Siochanna can randomly audit/inspect/board all flights landing in Ireland and have the power to detain personnel and flights if Irish laws are being broken? (Yes or No)

Q2: If you were in Government, would you prevent all military traffic (apart from those agreed to within the context of EU co-operation) from using Ireland for logistical purposes? (Yes or No)


I have yet to hear what FG and Labour will do on this issue.

I am extremely dissapointed in the kowtowing and unequivocal acceptance going on by FF/PD. I didnt expect anything different from PD's, who's policy is something like, "well, they may indeed be moving prisoners around the world for torture but we daren't complain as aren't they giving us loads of jobs!"

The FF/PD position is especially weak given the changes that even the Americans are now realising in their own country, as dumbed down as they are, that they are doing a lot of wrongs, and Guantanamo and torture and rendition flights are among the long list. Yet given this weakness, I have not heard the FG/Lab come out and say anything remarkabley different than FF/PD or put it very clearly.

Did I miss something? Does anyone have any quotes/sources?

gandalf wrote:

Personally I am of the opinion if there is a doubt then it should be investigated. Having your head buried in the sand is no defense. Going forward Ireland should inform the US that any planes that use Shannon as a refueling point can be subjected to searches especially given the fact the US admitted using these types of flights.

I agree. Saying that you have asked the 'top man' and he has given assurances is naive and plainly idiotic. Bertie, we are not 2 year olds!

Didn't the British get an assurance from Hitler that he wouldnt invade? Not that I am saying Bush is Hitler but the point is valid.

Also, given that many of these operations are covert, carried out in civilian marked aircraft, by no doubt secret service operations, and secrecy at a level that I'm sure not even Dubya knows the details of whats going on.

I'm sure he didnt know that torture was being carried out in Abu Ghraib, and I'm sure that Bertie Ahern would have received 'to be sure, to be sure' assurances before it was revealed that no way was the US Army carrying out torture!

And of course, weren't we assured that Iraq had WMD and was ready to use them in 45 mins !?!?

to be sure, to be sure .... indeed.

Redspider

redspider

I was actually shocked whan I read this:

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/12/03/story19340.asp

Suspicions over US flights not enough
Sunday, December 03, 2006 -
The existence of the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay remains one of the blackest marks against the presidency of George W Bush. The admitted practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’ is highly questionable, being justified in only the most extreme circumstances.

The secrecy and legal ambiguity that surround these unsettling aspects of the so-called ‘war on terror’ do no credit to the United States, its leadership of the international community or those principles for which it aspires to stand.

Last week, Ireland was again drawn into this legal and moral quagmire when a committee of the European Parliament questioned Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the measures taken - or not taken - to police American military and paramilitary traffic through Shannon Airport.

A first draft of the committee’s report was leaked in advance, ensuring maximum publicity for the event and discomfort for Ahern, who expressed his and the government’s annoyance at the insult to his dignity.

His ministerial equilibrium was further upset by having to face interrogation from Proinsias de Rossa, the MEP for Dublin and an old socialist for whom many in Ahern’s party retain a special loathing.

A similar concern for human rights never seemed to dull de Rossa’s admiration for the totalitarian Soviet Union and its bonded satellites; but that doesn’t mean that he can’t have a valid point about the use of Shannon. However, he hasn’t yet made it sufficiently. While we know that the US has transported prisoners, and that some aircraft have passed through Shannon, there is no evidence to suggest that Irish airports or airspace have been used to transfer prisoners for torture abroad.

More to the point, the Irish government has received categorical assurances from the American authorities that Ireland has not been used for the practice of extraordinary rendition. These promises were made, the Taoiseach told us in his own inimitable style last week, by the American President, in the Oval Office.

Bound by ties of blood and history, Ireland maintains an extraordinarily fruitful and beneficial relationship with the United States today. American companies employ hundreds of thousands of Irish workers in some of the best jobs in Ireland; in the two months before Christmas, many of those workers will be among the estimated 100,000 Irish people who fly to New York, Chicago and other cities, to fill their Christmas stockings.

That’s not to say that Ireland should never consider inspecting US flights at Shannon. It’s not say that we should follow the line of the US whatever the circumstances.

But if we choose to reject the word of the American President, treat the US government as liars and their armed forces as suspected criminals, we need a lot more to go on than the suspicions of Proinsias de Rossa.

sbpost@iol.ie

This is turning the argument on its head. As I've stated before, our Government should be obligated in its global role to ensure that so-called rendition and other nefarious activities are not taking place under our watch. This OBLIGATES us to check all suspicious areas in oure remit, and last time I looked, Shannon was in Ireland, even if we have only a slight suspiscion and even if that turns out to be 100% incorrect. The onus is on US to inspect, and indeed inspect often.

Its a bit like seeing someone with a smoking gun - even if they said they didnt pull the trigger, we need to assure ourselves that is the case. If we dont do this, our law becomes a farce. We take the word of the suspected. Cases will be like:

Judge: "So, Mr O'Reilly, did you steal the money from the bank?"
Mr O'Reilly: "Errm, No".
Judge: "Thank You for your unequivocal assurances. You are free to go!"

The Minister for Justice becomes the Minister for the Blind, or rather the Minister that is blind. We also have a Taoiseach that is blind.

What is galling though is that the line of argument put forward in the editorial above in the Sunday Business Post is 'disgusting'. Confusing the message with the messenger and bringing any past issues with P-P-P-Prionsais De Rossa into this is detracting from the real nub of the argument.

Should US flights be inspected?

Of course they should.

QED

Our Government is failing those people that are being tortured. Guantanamo Bay IS the evidence if any is needed.

Redspider

lostexpectation

redspider wrote:

I was actually shocked whan I read this:

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/12/03/story19340.asp



This is turning the argument on its head. As I've stated before, our Government should be obligated in its global role to ensure that so-called rendition and other nefarious activities are not taking place under our watch. This OBLIGATES us to check all suspicious areas in oure remit, and last time I looked, Shannon was in Ireland, even if we have only a slight suspiscion and even if that turns out to be 100% incorrect. The onus is on US to inspect, and indeed inspect often.

Its a bit like seeing someone with a smoking gun - even if they said they didnt pull the trigger, we need to assure ourselves that is the case. If we dont do this, our law becomes a farce. We take the word of the suspected. Cases will be like:

Judge: "So, Mr O'Reilly, did you steal the money from the bank?"
Mr O'Reilly: "Errm, No".
Judge: "Thank You for your unequivocal assurances. You are free to go!"

The Minister for Justice becomes the Minister for the Blind, or rather the Minister that is blind. We also have a Taoiseach that is blind.

What is galling though is that the line of argument put forward in the editorial above in the Sunday Business Post is 'disgusting'. Confusing the message with the messenger and bringing any past issues with P-P-P-Prionsais De Rossa into this is detracting from the real nub of the argument.

Should US flights be inspected?

Of course they should.

QED

Our Government is failing those people that are being tortured. Guantanamo Bay IS the evidence if any is needed.

Redspider

would you want to arrest (as in stop or impede) the men who do this?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15740.htm
video of torture majorly disturbing/loud

AbusesToilets

Not sure what purpose that video you posted serves,i don't have sound on my pc but i didn't see any indentifying factors in that clip.All it shows is a pretty nasty treatment of a prisoner,somewhere,by some unknown people.

I have to wonder a bit at the general consensus here.There is a lot of indignity at the fate of people being transported through Irish airspace.People who could quite legitimately be terrorists and are more likely than not to be such.This apparently stands as an affront to human dignity.Extraordinary rendition is a necessary action in combating terrorist organisations,many of which exist in states with no extradtion treaties.
Note that i am separating the action of rendition and the subsequent instances of torture.Torture is never justified and is one of the blackest stains against the US in it's recent history.The reputation of the US has been signifcantly damaged by it's use. It's intirely counter productive to intelligence gathering and has a serious negative impact on successful psychological operations.An example of a successful one would be the 1st gulf war when the Iraqi army surrendered en-masse.They knew that the US would take care of them properly in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

Not sure what purpose that video you posted serves,i don't have sound on my pc but i didn't see any indentifying factors in that clip.All it shows is a pretty nasty treatment of a prisoner,somewhere,by some unknown people.

It was a video of torture carried out by Egyptian officials in the presence of American agents.

It's not a pleasant document to watch by any means. the sound makes it even worse. You can clearly hear American accents in the background.
This is the kind of 'interrogation technique' that Bush would categorise as acceptable according to his newly redefined definition of torture as excluding anything below the 'the levels of pain felt during organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"

I have to wonder a bit at the general consensus here.There is a lot of indignity at the fate of people being transported through Irish airspace. People who could quite legitimately be terrorists and are more likely than not to be such.

More likely than not? And how do you know this? You trust the CIA? are you mad? It's hard to think of another organisation on the planet with a more distinguished career in deception and lies.

This apparently stands as an affront to human dignity.Extraordinary rendition is a necessary action in combating terrorist organisations,many of which exist in states with no extradtion treaties.

Ah, so that's why America had to kidnap Canadian citizens and transport them to the middle east, or German Citizens, or Italian citizens... oh wait, all of those countries have extradition treaties with the U.S.

Note that i am separating the action of rendition and the subsequent instances of torture.

How considerate of you. Do you mind if i separate the act of drink driving with the subsequent instance of killing an innocent family in a road traffic accident? Or would you join reality put blame where blame lies.

Torture is never justified and is one of the blackest stains against the US in it's recent history.The reputation of the US has been signifcantly damaged by it's use. It's intirely counter productive to intelligence gathering and has a serious negative impact on successful psychological operations.

so what exactly is the point of the rendition program? why on earth would America snatch foreign nationals around the world and transport them to third party countries who, by a strange coincidence, also have a terrible human rights record, if they were interested in due process?

An example of a successful one would be the 1st gulf war when the Iraqi army surrendered en-masse.They knew that the US would take care of them properly in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Ah, so now, the victims of rendition are volunteering to be kidnapped because they know they will be treated humanely.

brilliant

AbusesToilets

Why would i assume that the majority of them are legitimate targets? Because it's a an intelligence operation,meaning that the rendition was the final act in a operation that involved surveillance,multiple assets,gatrhering of evidence etc.Do mistakes happen? Absolutely.How many people get mistakenly arrested in the course of police investigations?
Why use rendition?Use it in instances where there is perishable intelligence,for instance if you know a suspect is only going to be in a particular place for a short amount of time.Or if the involvement of local authorites would jepordise other intelligence assets.
I readily blame the US for abandoning the Geneva conventions and allowing the various human rights abuses to take place.But i still recognise the necessity of being able to grab suspected terrorists before they can escape.Like i said i don't agree with torture,nor with getting others to torture for you.I do agree with snatching suspects for questioning,it's a tactic that works and is used on a smaller scale by police forces all over the world.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

Why would i assume that the majority of them are legitimate targets? Because it's a an intelligence operationon

The same kind of intelligence operation that declared that Saddam had WMD that he could launch against Britain in 90 minutes? The same kind of Intelligence that that comprised of Colin Powells presentation to the U.N.?

Do mistakes happen? Absolutely.

And that is exactly why the principle of Habeus Corpus was invented. Do you think the millions of russians that were sent to Gulags were all guilty of the offence they were accused of? What is an acceptable ratio of guilty versus innocent? 10%? 50%? 90%?

Why use rendition?Use it in instances where there is perishable intelligence,for instance if you know a suspect is only going to be in a particular place for a short amount of time.Or if the involvement of local authorites would jepordise other intelligence assets.

if there is enough intelligence to justify detaining an individual indefinitely in a prison camp, then there is enough intelligence to be able to monitor that individual and gather evidence until there is enough proof for a legitimate trial. Unless you are suggesting that these people were rendered just as they were about to carry out a terrorist activity and the authorities had to act immediately to save lives?

I readily blame the US for abandoning the Geneva conventions and allowing the various human rights abuses to take place.But i still recognise the necessity of being able to grab suspected terrorists before they can escape.

Grap them based on what evidence? escape to where? All of teh information that has come to light so far implies that suspects have been 'grabbed' based on purely circumstantial evidence' (in the wrong place at the wrong time). Taliban fighters picked up off the battleground in Afghanistan are by no means potential terrorists, they were engaged in legitimate warfare, trying to defend their homes from attack from a foreign aggressor. The act of simply visiting Afghanistan has been proven to be 'reasonable cause' for rendition activity as decided by the U.S. intelligence community. Is that a just cause?

Manic Moran

redspider wrote:

Its a bit like seeing someone with a smoking gun - even if they said they didnt pull the trigger, we need to assure ourselves that is the case. If we dont do this, our law becomes a farce. We take the word of the suspected. Cases will be like:

Judge: "So, Mr O'Reilly, did you steal the money from the bank?"
Mr O'Reilly: "Errm, No".
Judge: "Thank You for your unequivocal assurances. You are free to go!"

Forgive me, but isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

I always thought that you defaulted to believing the person in the dock, and you had to make the DPP work to prove he's lying, and doing so within the law.

Boarding a foreign government aircraft to have a look-around just on the off-chance that there might be something of note is pushing the bounds of diplomatic niceties to put it mildly.

NTM

Hobbes

AbusesToilets wrote:

Why would i assume that the majority of them are legitimate targets? Because it's a an intelligence operation,meaning that the rendition was the final act in a operation that involved surveillance,multiple assets,gatrhering of evidence etc.

In a magical world where nothing goes wrong you would be correct, however if you look at some of the renditions where they captured innocent people you might see a pattern which doesn't match what you just described.

The funniest one being someone being renditioned because the CIA operative that organised the capture said "They had a hunch".

Do mistakes happen? Absolutely.How many people get mistakenly arrested in the course of police investigations?

Ok so its perfectly fine to pick people up off the street, kidnap them to another country and torture them then without being charged of anything? Because thats what is going on now.

Use it in instances where there is perishable intelligence

I don't think you fully understand what rendition is. It isn't capturing someone from another country so you can question them. It is removing a person from one country (in some cases even the US) and bringing them to a country where Torture is legal so that you can circumvent your own countries laws.

I do agree with snatching suspects for questioning

Again this isn't what rendition is.

So you agree that an Irish national can be taken by the US from Ireland without being charged of any crime and sent to say Syria so they can be tortured? That is what you are basically agreeing to.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Boarding a foreign government aircraft to have a look-around just on the off-chance that there might be something of note is pushing the bounds of diplomatic niceties to put it mildly.

Hardly. If your in another countries soil unless you have diplomatic immunity (which these flights don't) then there is no problem with it.

After all nothing to hide right?

monument

There's a lot of talk here of 'moral' this and that, and that's fine if you going to stay to moral talk, but if you're going to ask for searches you're into legal talk.

I requested “evidence or even hunch can make the police reasonably sure that there will be any kind of prisoner (etc) unwillingly held on a CIA (or whatever) aircraft at one point or another”…

All I got back was a link to a video that did not work and a flight itinerary for an aeroplane.

redspider wrote:

This is turning the argument on its head. As I've stated before, our Government should be obligated in its global role to ensure that so-called rendition and other nefarious activities are not taking place under our watch. This OBLIGATES us to check all suspicious areas in oure remit, and last time I looked, Shannon was in Ireland, even if we have only a slight suspiscion and even if that turns out to be 100% incorrect. The onus is on US to inspect, and indeed inspect often.

You appear to be confusing the mind set of many Irish people towards of the US government (dislike or distrust etc etc etc), and our States’ relationship with the same government.

(Stop using ‘US’ to stress ‘us’ btw)

redspider wrote:

Our Government is failing those people that are being tortured. Guantanamo Bay IS the evidence if any is needed.

That’s only evidence that such things are happening there. It is not evidence that any one flight that is searched will have prisoners on board. If a flight was searched and no smoking gun was found it’d only leave our government’s current stance stronger.

Hobbes wrote:

Hardly. If your in another countries soil unless you have diplomatic immunity (which these flights don't) then there is no problem with it.

The simple fact is our government is allowing them to land as a part of some "diplomatic niceties".

If we as a state know it’s high likely they’re doing something wrong then we ask them to stop, not search them.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Hardly. If your in another countries soil unless you have diplomatic immunity (which these flights don't)

Do they not? If they are in use (or owned) by a foreign government, and are just passing through, I'm not convinced they don't.

NTM