Mick Wallace and Clare Daly reportedly arrested at Shannon airport.

jjbrien

conorh91 wrote: »

The maximum penalties are

on summary prosecution (in the District Court) a fine not exceeding £1,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both a fine and imprisonment.

on indictment (before a jury), a fine not exceeding £50,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.

The decision on whether to prosecute at all, or whether to prosecute in the District Court or on indictment rests, in the first instance, with the DPP. This is why a file has gone to her office.


(note that under the Euro Changeover Act, the amounts referred to convert to €1,250 and €65,000 respectively)

So Daly and Wallace are betting on this only going to the district court so they wont loose their seats. Knowing them they prob looked this up before climbing the fence knowing that they will prob only get 6 months or a fine. I can see them pleading guilty to get the lesser sentence. Disgraceful, a very calculated move on their part.

conorh91

jjbrien wrote: »

So Daly and Wallace are betting on this only going to the district court so they wont loose their seats. Knowing them they prob looked this up before climbing the fence knowing that they will prob only get 6 months or a fine. I can see them pleading guilty to get the lesser sentence. Disgraceful, a very calculated move on their part.

I wouldn't credit Daly and Wallace with the foresight to have even checked it out, no more than any petty criminal.

Just like your average juvenile offender, they figured that scaling a fence is probably treated low on the scale of criminal offenses, then went ahead and did it.

And to be frank, their guess will probably be proven correct, with very insubstantial penalties and a whole lot of PR 'success'.

Satriale

You should all be thanking them. They are after pointing out the inadequacies of the security at an airport that may be a party to rendition, which i'm sure makes it a target to those nasty religious nuts with the bombs(and they need little enough excuse).

They may have actually saved lives!!!

conorh91

Satriale wrote: »

You should all be thanking them. They are after pointing out the inadequacies of the security at an airport that may be a party to rendition, which i'm sure makes it a target to those nasty religious nuts with the bombs(and they need little enough excuse).

They may have actually saved lives!!!

In fairness you have a point. It is a criminal offence for a relevant employee of an aerodrome to fail to comply with its security requirements.

In cricumstances where a number of underemployed chancers are repeatedly scaling the fence, you'd have to wonder...

Banjo String

conorh91 wrote: »

In fairness you have a point. It is a criminal offence for a relevant employee of an aerodrome to fail to comply with its security requirements.

In cricumstances where a number of underemployed chancers are repeatedly scaling the fence, you'd have to wonder...

Who is underemployed?

My name is URL

Satriale wrote: »

They are after pointing out the inadequacies of the security at an airport

Your one D'Arcy pointed that out when she managed to climb a fence and make it on to an active runway without security or tower personnel realising it.

Another protester had to call the tower to tell them what was going on.

And she wasn't the first to breach the perimeter.

Security seems to be utterly shite when it comes to keeping people out of restricted areas.

conorh91

Banjo String wrote: »

Who is underemployed?

Daly, Wallace, Niall Farrell, Ed Horgan…

In the substantive sense, as opposed to any strictly economic definition.

My name is URL

conorh91 wrote: »

Daly, Wallace, Niall Farrell, Ed Horgan…

In the substantive sense, as opposed to any strictly economic definition.

Don't know about the others but Daly is reputed to be one of the hardest working political representatives in the country. Just because she tends to protest a lot doesn't mean she isn't doing the same graft as any other TD... dealing with constituents, attending community meetings and the like.

It's very arrogant and ignorant to assume that just because people put time into drawing attention to stuff they politically oppose; that they are somehow of less worth than those who do feck all when they clock off in the Dail.

Banjo String

conorh91 wrote: »

Daly, Wallace, Niall Farrell, Ed Horgan…

In the substantive sense, as opposed to any strictly economic definition.

What a load of bollox tbh, Wallace and Daly in particular have outperformed loads of other elected officials. Ask Shatter.

conorh91

My name is URL wrote: »

Don't know about the others but Daly is reputed to be one of the hardest working political representatives in the country. Just because she tends to protest a lot doesn't mean she isn't doing the same graft as any other TD... dealing with constituents, attending community meetings and the like.

It's very arrogant and ignorant to assume that just because people put time into drawing attention to stuff they politically oppose; that they are somehow of less worth than those who do feck all when they clock off in the Dail.

Banjo String wrote: »

What a load of bollox tbh, Wallace and Daly in particular have outperformed loads of other elected officials. Ask Shatter.

stopped clocks and twice a day and all that.

The real heroes in the Garda whistle blowing campaign were the Garda whistleblowers.

You're a hero if you stand at a risk of some substantial loss, yet you take that chance of loss anyway, in pursuit of a valuable cause.

Ming, Wallace and Daly had nothing to lose.

They did highlight the issues experienced by members of AGS, but they did so without risk to their own professional or political careers, or indeed personal liability (they did so under immunity from suit, via the Oireachtas).

These people are opportunists. They stood to materially gain from their actions in terms of public relations. They did so, and continue to do so.

loh_oro

Must be some security operation in Shannon if you can just hop the fence. What a joke

Mr. G

What's worrying to me is that if two nut cases can break into Shannon Airport and get close to military planes in a restricted area, god only knows what's actually going through the airport if you think about it, security clearly isn't tight.

My name is URL

conorh91 wrote: »

Ming, Wallace and Daly had nothing to lose

Having something to lose is why so many people opt to shut their mouths and turn a blind eye to things that are happening around them.

They did highlight the issues experienced by members of AGS, but they did so without risk to their own professional or political careers, or indeed personal liability (they did so under immunity from suit, via the Oireachtas).

Where should they have voiced their concerns, and those of whistle-blowers if not under privilege from the Dail.. a quiet word with a well placed minister.. a formal complaint to gardai?

That was one of a very few instances in which Dail privilege was put to good use...

Muahahaha

Mr. G wrote: »

What's worrying to me is that if two nut cases can break into Shannon Airport and get close to military planes in a restricted area, god only knows what's actually going through the airport if you think about it, security clearly isn't tight.

Apart from running electricity through the fence I'm not really sure what they can do. I cycle the back roads around the runway at Dublin airport and if I wanted to get on that runway I'd be pretty sure I could, the fence is not unscaleable. There's security patrols around the perimeter but sure you could just time them and you'd have an idea of the gap between them.

I always find it gas that at Irish airports all you need to do to get on the runway is to climb one fence. One fence. Iwe never taken notice of perimeter fences at other countries airports but I'd imagine many have two fences and some three.

conorh91

My name is URL wrote: »

Having something to lose is why so many people opt to shut their mouths and turn a blind eye to things that are happening around them.

Yes, very often, but not in this case.

Anyone who thinks anti-establishment TDs face electoral ruin for having criticized An Garda Siochána is codding themselves.

Where should they have voiced their concerns, and those of whistle-blowers if not under privilege from the Dail

What they did was probably technically advisable.

I would simply stop short of calling them heroes on any level. That's all. They risked nothing. They had nothing to lose. They had everything to gain from their respective constituencies.

They have personally profited, and I believe that was their intention at the outset.

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

Ming, Wallace and Daly had nothing to lose.
.

Would Daly not be putting her return to work at Aer Lingus at risk by her actions?

Banjo String

Deleted User wrote: »

Would Daly not be putting her return to work at Aer Lingus at risk by her actions?

She would be. ( If she planned returning.)

losthorizon

bajer101 wrote: »

They were attempting to inspect a US military aircraft.

Why don't they target aeroflot planes? That would make a good political statement at the moment. I reckon the Russians have shot down four planes recently including one carrying an Irish citizen or does that not matter to them?

Dyr

smurfjed wrote: »

Paramite Pie, thanks for the links, but have a look at these and then tell me why i should respect the human rights of the people transported.....

You see the theres the thing, if you have to have one of the basic principles of a society explained to you then its a waste of someones time.


It tends to be that people respect human rights because they're not complete c***s

conorh91

Bambi wrote: »

You see the theres the thing, if you have to have one of the basic principles of a society explained to you then its a waste of someones time.


It tends to be that people respect human rights because they're not complete c***s

The most fundamental questions like "what does the 'rule of law' mean, and why does it even matter?" are the most important.

We should be able to provide clear answers to them off-hand.

If a response is difficult to articulate without resorting to swearing and insulting, as you have done, then there's a problem.

My personal opinion is that there is scope for a legitimate debate as to whether extraordinary rendition is morally wrong at all.

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

The most fundamental questions like "what does the 'rule of law' mean, and why does it even matter?" are the most important.

We should be able to provide clear answers to them off-hand.

If a response is difficult to articulate without resorting to swearing and insulting, as you have done, then there's a problem.

My personal opinion is that there is scope for a legitimate debate as to whether extraordinary rendition is morally wrong at all.

There is only scope if you think nobody should have any basic human rights at all. Its a foreign nation abducting, detaining and torturing people at will without due process and only suspicions to go by. If you agree with that or think its justified then you are opposed to anyone anywhere having any rights to begin with including yourself.

It would be the same argument as slavery, murder, torture, rape, abuse. They are lesser, our rights are more important, our needs are more important, we can do with them as we please to benefit ourselves.

I get that some people spout shíte without thinking about not caring or it being for the greater good but its a disturbing and scary thing that someone would actually sit down and argue that its morally justifiable that other human beings can be treated like that for the benefit of the interests of others.

conorh91

Awkward Badger wrote: »

If you agree with that or think its justified then you are opposed to anyone anywhere having any rights to begin with including yourself.

Next you're going to tell me i hate your freedom.

There is no single, immutable list of human rights. Human rights are both individual and collective, and to the extent that these categories are in conflict, they compete with one another.

Many people legitimately believe that where there is conflict, a society's right to freedom from terrorism ranks higher than an individual's right to fair procedures, or access to the civilian courts.

It would be the same argument as slavery, murder, torture, rape, abuse. They are lesser, our rights are more important, our needs are more important, we can do with them as we please to benefit ourselves.

But murder and rape are not necessary to meet any legitimate social objective, so that is not a valid comparison.

Its a foreign nation abducting, detaining and torturing people at will

I don't usually read-up on extraordinary rendition, but to the best of my awareness, captives are not tortured anymore.

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

Next you're going to tell me I hate your freedom.

What ? I don't know what you hate but if you think you can ignore the law, take anyone's basic human rights away at will without having to justify it then nobody including yourself had any rights to begin with.

I don't keep updating my knowledge of extraordinary rendition, but as far as I am aware captives are not tortured anymore.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. And even if it was true it hardly makes the abducting and and detaining without due process morally justifiable.

conorh91

Awkward Badger wrote: »

if you think you can ignore the law, take anyone's basic human rights away at will without having to justify it then nobody including yourself had any rights to begin with.

Are you opposed to a Garda arresting a person on the basis of a Garda having formed a suspicion, sometimes based on internal Garda intelligence, that a person has committed a crime?

During a period of detention, that person's consititutional rights and human rights will be held in abeyance on the "will" of a police agency which is not readily amenable to public scrutiny, nor does it immediately have to justify
the basis for its suspicions.

In these circumstances, would you not agree that the Gardai are taking away a person's constituitonal and human rights, albeit temporarily, without a judicial process, in the public interest?

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

Next you're going to tell me i hate your freedom.

There is no single, immutable list of human rights. Human rights are both individual and collective, and to the extent that these categories are in conflict, they compete with one another.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Many people legitimately believe that where there is conflict, a society's right to freedom from terrorism ranks higher than an individual's right to fair procedures, or access to the civilian courts.

There are laws in place to deal with crime including terrorism. As shown earlier by another poster convictions for terrorism are higher through the courts than from detention centres like Guantanamo. Its not a legitimate belief to think everyone's basic human rights can be compromised when its not necessary to do simply to do.

But murder and rape are not necessary to meet any legitimate social objective, so that is not a valid comparison.

So its justified if its a social objection ? Mass murder/genocide and systematic rape, occupation, slavery etc ect are ok if those doing it believe its in the best interests of society ? As I said society provides a framework to deal with these things already that protects the rights of all citizens. To ignore the law and individuals rights because you believe you have the rights to do so justifies just about anything you want to do to anyone as nobody has any rights any more.

Fortunately for us we live in a society where our rights are protected.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/eu-court-rules-poland-violated-human-rights-of-cia-terror-suspects-276610.html

Awkward Badger

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you opposed to a Garda arresting a person on the basis of a Garda having formed a suspicion, sometimes based on internal Garda intelligence, that a person has committed a crime?

During a period of detention, that person's consititutional rights and human rights will be held in abeyance on the "will" of a police agency which is not readily amenable to public scrutiny, nor does it immediately have to justify
the basis for its suspicions.

In these circumstances, would you not agree that the Gardai are taking away a person's constituitonal and human rights, albeit temporarily, without a judicial process, in the public interest?

The Gardai uphold and operate within the law of this state. Nobodies human rights are violated by being held on suspicion of a crime in accordance with the law while facts are determined. Its a transparent process with the suspect given every opportunity to argue their case and they can only be held for a set period before being released again in accordance with the law.

You cannot be comparing that to the CIA abducting people from other countries, flying them to a detention centre where they will be held indefinitely, tortured and abused in secret on suspicions that do not have to be justified to anyone ?

conorh91

Awkward Badger wrote: »

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

The ECHR is not a single list of immutable rights. It is a convention made up of rights that are often in conflict when litigated, for exampe, the recent high profile hijab case where the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a woman's right to wear the hijab ranked lower than the rights of the collective society in living together.

So you see, even human rights are capable of being extinguished or suspended. At various times, individual human rights need to be suspended in the pursuit of some higher-ranking objective.

So its justified if its a social objection ? Mass murder/genocide and systematic rape, occupation, slavery etc ect are ok if those doing it believe its in the best interests of society ?

You ignored two important words, "valid" and "necessary", as in "where it is necessary to meet a valid social objective".

It is impossible to construct any situation where genocide would be "necessary" as part of some "valid" social objective. Killing, in itself, myay sometimes be necessary, but I think we all agree that mass, indiscriminate extermination of a population is not.

You cannot be comparing that to the CIA abducting people from other countries, flying them to a detention centre where they will be held indefinitely, tortured and abused in secret on suspicions that do not have to be justified to anyone ?

It isn't a comparison, it is a test of your statement about human rights being immutable "at will". I put to you a valid question, would you mind answering it please?

When a person is arrested and detained by AGS, would you not agree that the Garda are suspending a person's constituitonal and human rights, without a judicial process, and doing so in the greater public interest?

And then, were you not wrong when you said that human rights cannot just be taken away at "will"?

Dyr

Awkward Badger wrote: »

You cannot be comparing that to the CIA abducting people from other countries, flying them to a detention centre where they will be held indefinitely, tortured and abused in secret on suspicions that do not have to be justified to anyone ?

if you're into facetious comparisons you can, a predilection for ridiculously stretched moral horse trading help too.

Muahahaha

conorh91 wrote: »

stopped clocks and twice a day and all that.

The real heroes in the Garda whistle blowing campaign were the Garda whistleblowers.

You're a hero if you stand at a risk of some substantial loss, yet you take that chance of loss anyway, in pursuit of a valuable cause.

Ming, Wallace and Daly had nothing to lose.


They did highlight the issues experienced by members of AGS, but they did so without risk to their own professional or political careers, or indeed personal liability (they did so under immunity from suit, via the Oireachtas).

These people are opportunists. They stood to materially gain from their actions in terms of public relations. They did so, and continue to do so.

So if you stand up and campaign for truth and Justice then you're an opportunist ? So what does that make someone who doesn't stand up for it? Your logic is totally warped

For one the Garda whistleblowers used the official channels right up to the Confidential Reciepient. When that still didn't work for them they then approached members of the Oireachteas, as is their right under the law. McCabe and Wilson had a choice of 166 TDs and 64 senators to approach. They chose Wallace, Daly and Ming. I've no ideas why but perhaps they felt they couldn't trust Fianna Fáil as a lot of their allegations happened under FF governments. Wallace, Daly and Ming had a choice of weather to do something or to do nothing. They did something which I'll always be eternally grateful for, finally we might see at least some reform of AGS which by now is a discredited organisation.

Wallace, Daly and Ming were instrumental to making all that happen. Their campaign lasted two long years during which the media first ignored them and then later as the evidence built up and up finally the media switched to their side. They were ridiculed as hippies and crusties but they didn't let that right-wing vitriol get to them and truth and Justice won out in the end when an incompetent Commissioner and Minister were forced to resign in disgrace.

And for all that you call them opportunists? These people stood up for your rights, all our rights. They stood up because a woman had been raped and Gardai tried to cover it up. If I raped your mother or your sister and my mates in the Gardai covered it up how would you feel ? Because that's what Wallace, Daly and Ming stood up for, the right to every citizen to proper administration of Justice before the law.

But for that you call them opportunists, your bias against them is so strong and clouded that it is preventing you from thinking straight on what is logical here.

losthorizon wrote: »

Why don't they target aeroflot planes? That would make a good political statement at the moment. I reckon the Russians have shot down four planes recently including one carrying an Irish citizen or does that not matter to them?

If military planes are passing through Shannon and there is a suspicion over them then they should be searched under our laws. It doesn't matter what nationality the plane is, human rights are for all, not just for some people and not for others

conorh91

Muahahaha wrote: »

So if you stand up and campaign for truth and Justice then you're an opportunist ?

And for all that you call them opportunists?

But for that you call them opportunists

Calling Wallace and Daly "opportunists", which is a fair and accurate term, was not directly connected to the point I made about their actions on Garda whistleblowers. It was located in the first line of the adjacent paragraph but the two points were not interconnected.

In light of current events, call them "opportunists" for publicity-hunting by breaching security at Shannon Airport. They have also been opportunistic at various times in the past, although this is probably not relevant to the subject matter of this thread.

For one the Garda whistleblowers used the official channels right up to the Confidential Reciepient. When that still didn't work for them they then approached members of the Oireachteas, as is their right under the law.

Again, I said that the TDs in question didn't act contrary to the law. That wasn't a point made by me.