american soldiers arrested

Belle_Morte · 26-06-2006 12:41PM

BuffyBot wrote:

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

Yep. Me too. :rolleyes:

Ste.phen · 26-06-2006 01:36PM

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 · 26-06-2006 11:17PM

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 · 27-06-2006 12:51AM

Isn't Shannon airport a public place too?

thebaz · 27-06-2006 01:13AM

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 · 27-06-2006 08:57AM

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 · 27-06-2006 09:10AM

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.

27-06-2006 09:13AM

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 · 27-06-2006 09:18AM

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 · 27-06-2006 09:23AM

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 · 27-06-2006 10:32AM

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 · 27-06-2006 10:37AM

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 · 27-06-2006 10:42AM

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 · 27-06-2006 10:46AM

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 · 27-06-2006 10:47AM

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 · 27-06-2006 11:25AM

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 · 27-06-2006 01:11PM

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 · 27-06-2006 01:14PM

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 · 27-06-2006 01:44PM

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 · 27-06-2006 01:50PM

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.

Morlar · 27-06-2006 02:08PM

thebaz wrote:

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) .

Put it this way I doubt that this character would challenge 6 full grown Irish men (to further the example - say travellers) who were (as an example) in the process of breaking into a car or trying to break into a van full of tools. If they had been up to actual no-good I dont think he would have felt so obliged to pounce.

I do think that this guy was relying on their (the americans) manners and their reluctance to respond to his citizens arrest. Just my opinion. I also dont like the idea of them going around in uniform on our streets - but his way was not the way to handle it. In this case I think that it was a case of several young people who had been in iraq eager to get home and stuck in a dingy hotel room for hours on end who wanted to go for a walk to ease the boredom and see some of the locality. I dont really think that they were intent on doing anything wrong here. I dont know but possibly they didnt have civvy clothes with them as it was an unscheduled (mechanical problem) extended stopover - thats another possibility.

thebaz · 27-06-2006 02:14PM

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.

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?

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.

Your taking what i said too literally , i just made a point which i stick by. that i don't want uniformed US marines / soldiers wandering around Ireland , i don't care if these same people come to Ireland on holidays . I lived in the U.S. and had many American freinds who served in the US army , but when they are under the orders of Bush , that is a different matter . I am wary of the strenth and power that the U.S. has now, they could crush any country in days . I know Ireland has good relations with the U.S. , and wants to maintain them, and that was one of the reasons I posted here, but some of the feedback IMO has been a bit over the top , and made me reassess my own position, i.e. do i want soldiers from another counntry parading around Ireland uniformed , if for instance they were armed who would stop them ? the Gardai ?? i think not ..

civdef · 27-06-2006 02:24PM

if for instance they were armed who would stop them ? the Gardai ?? i think not ..

They'd be breaking the law (if it hadn't been agreed in advance like for the Secret Service on presidential visits), and would have to face legal sanction. The Gardai disarmed and arrested SAS soldiers when they crossed the border, so why don't you think they'd do the same to the US military?

bonkey · 27-06-2006 02:34PM

tbh wrote:

I agree with everything you've said so far, but I think you missed the point there.

I definitely missed a point, but possibly not the one you think....

It's not the clothing, it's what it represents.

Didn't miss that one - thats exactly why I believe that its wrong to ban the wearing of it in public in the first place.

Banning something because of what it represents, rather than what it is strikes me as a bad idea. Our law generally agrees. Discrimination based on religion, for example, is prohibited. Now, this doesn't mean that you can go out an kill people because your religion says its ok...but rather than I can't prevent you from doing something thats otherwise legal just because its "religiously flavoured". A simple example would be religious clothing. Should muslim women be forced to go bare-headed ebcause their clothes represents something we don't like? I'm sure smoe would say yes, some would say no, and some would argue that its completely different because they see it that way.

To me, what the clothing represents is not the issue, and should not be grounds for banning the wearing of something.

It is stipulating that the only army that should be walking around this country on active service, is the Irish one.

Pedantically, no, its not.

It doesn't mention active service. It also doesn't mention who must be wearing it (with the exception of excluding certain privileged groups). Hell, it doesn't even limit itself to military uniforms.

A US soldier on leave cannot wear his uniform on an Irish street.
I can't wear a US uniform on an Irish street, despite not being in the US army.
Arguably, I can't wear a US fireman's fire-helmet on an Irish street.

Its not about the soldier, its about the uniform. If thats what thebaz was driving ast, then I would ask why the emotive "parading" description, and why limit himself to talking about US soldiers (or any foreign soldiers). His objection seems to be based on who these people are and what they represent.

The law, on the other hand doesn't care who or why.

jc

thebaz · 27-06-2006 02:37PM

FEAR

Also , there is a history of bad relations with Britain , but Ireland always has enjoyed good relations with the U.S. , altough i believe George Bush has damaged this relationship, just look at the problem currently with Irish illegals in U.S. , i just don't trust or like Bush and his conservative cronies , does not mean i dislike Americans or the U.S. as a country.

bonkey · 27-06-2006 02:55PM

thebaz wrote:

Your taking what i said too literally ,

I don't think so.

You're singling out US soldiers and their wearing of a uniform, and making big noises about the danger that carrying a weapon would bring despite that being a completely seperate topic.

I'm saying the law has nothing to do with them being US, nor soldiers, nor their ability to legally carry weapons.

i don't want uniformed US marines / soldiers wandering around Ireland

I know you don't want them. I'm questioning whether or not the law would be reasonable to reflect your wants.

I know a lot of people who don't want Muslims in Ireland.
I know more who don't want handguns legalised in Ireland.

In those cases too, I question whether the law would be reasonable to reflect their wants.

but when they are under the orders of Bush , that is a different matter .

The soldiers in this matter would have been as much under the orders of Bush whilst wearing civvies as they were while in uniform. This is a non-argument.

It might make you feel better to not be able to notice them, but thats about the only difference.

I am wary of the strenth and power that the U.S. has now, they could crush any country in days.

Exactly. So worrying over soldiers travelling through here cause they're plane broke down is pointless. If the US wants to crush us, tehy can. If they don't, they won't. Banning their soldiers wearing uniforms cause they're plane broke down (and they possibly didn't have any other clothing with them or readily at hand) isn't going to defend us from this terrible threat.

Put a different way - this has nothing to do with the law, nor the reason for its existence, nor the reason why it should or should not be enforced in this (or other) cases.

It has something to do with the reason you don't want them here, but as I said...I'm not questioning that you don't want them, nor the reasons why. I'm questioning whether the law should reasonably reflect those wants.

do i want soldiers from another counntry parading around Ireland uniformed ,

These soldiers were not parading around Ireland uniformed. They were outside the hotel they were staying in due to an unexpected and sudden change of plans which caused them to have to stay there.

In general soldiers from any foreign nation aren't allowed parade around Ireland uniformed. You may have exemptions made when you have visitations from marching bands (parading! geddit?), or say an aircraft carrier on a PR exercise, but thats about it.

Did you feel really threatened when all those smiley TopGun-types from the US aircraft carrier were chatting up the Dublin women when it was in port some years back? Y'know...before all the current wars n stuff? Should we have told the US to shove its PR exercise because we were scared its soldiers might take over our country and shoot everyone?

[if for instance they were armed who would stop them ? the Gardai ?? i think not ..

Who do you think goes after armed criminals?

Seriously...this "armed" thing has nothing to do with this. No-one has suggested allowing it, its not allowed, and I doubt anyone has a problem with it not being allowed.

Do you somehow fear that if we don't kick up a fuss about some poor stranded marines who's only wish is probably to get home to their loved ones as soon as possible that next thing you know we'll have batallions of US troops parading through every corner of the nation, armed to the teeth and poised to take over our nation which they enter and leave at their whim? It sounds ridiculous, I know, buit its about the only way I can see how the issues are connected.

tbh · 27-06-2006 03:28PM

bonkey wrote:

I definitely missed a point, but possibly not the one you think....

I take your well-made point.

RedPlanet · 27-06-2006 04:34PM

The US soldiers could have been advised of our laws beforehand.
Since they didn't pack civvies, it could have been arranged to have someone go to the local Dunnes Stores and shop for them.
Maybe they'll be more mindful in future, and spend a few dollars.

hmmm · 27-06-2006 04:55PM

If he was really concerned all he had to do was tell them that they shouldn't be walking around in army uniforms. If they refused to listen he could have rung the guards.

Instead he had to go and be a self righteous plonker about it by attempting a "citizens arrest". Like someone else said, I'm sure if it was a bunch of Irish people he wouldn't have pulled that trick. I wonder during the riots in Dublin was he to be seen wading in to restrain rioters.

Morlar · 27-06-2006 05:04PM

hmmm wrote:

I wonder during the riots in Dublin was he to be seen wading in to restrain rioters.

Exactly - a coward imo - he was trying to score an anti-war political propaganda point and not too bothered about wasting public resources in the process (garda time and effort for a 999 call).

american soldiers arrested

Comments