Irish Neutrality - A Licence to Kill?

by . Tue Jun 17, 2008 17:35

.

by Starstruck Tue Jun 17, 2008 18:26

Keep up the good work Ed tour records will be valuable in years to come.
Shannon is a national disgrace.

by Contrarian Tue Jun 17, 2008 23:58

Ed: "Irish Government ministers and Taoisig are ignoring that fact that complicity with torture, or aiding and abetting torture, or failing to take all possible steps to prevent torture contravenes the UN Contravention Against Torture."

Two out of three ain't too bad, I suppose. You are correct to state that complicity with torture and aiding and abetting torture contravene the convention. However, you are wrong when you state that "failing to take all possible steps to prevent torture" contravenes the Convention.

Articel 2.1 states:
"Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."

Article 4.1 states:
“Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture”.

Nothing about "all possible steps" which is a MUCH higher requirement than "effective....measures."

by Coilín Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:39

Thanks for your well-referenced contribution, Contrarian.

Your references speak for themselves of the extremely high standard required by the convention:
"Each State Party shall take EFFECTIVE legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."

So the Irish state, for example, is obliged to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture. And these effective measures shall be "legislative, administrative, judicial or other" - i.e. whatever measures are effective.

This is an extremely high standard. No standard could be higher than the requirement to be "effective". So I look forward to seeing the convention being put into effect. Effectively.

Best,
Coilín.

by TD - Free Palestine Campaign Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:47

Pointing out as ever, Edward, that this country is bollock naked when it comes to neutrality, you give the lie to the self serving delusion, the emperor's clothes of this government.

by A10 Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:29

Abit on aircraft recognition.The evergreen aircraft is a 747 not a757. Nor does an Antonov look anything remotely likea C130 Hercules.Nor my dear sirs,does an aircraft landing and having smoking tyres when it touches down constitute any idea that it is heavily laden.That is caused by FRICTION of stationary tyres touching asphalt at appx 150mph[give or take].In fact an aircraft is LIGHTER on landing than on take off.Due to fuel burn off. Kind of amazed that such basic fk ups would be posted by now two such experianced plane watchers....If you are screwing up in thebasic details...How accurate are you in the pertinent details????

by Mary Kelly Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:35

Contrarian, thanks for your comments it spurs more input!

When Human Rights Watch published information about secret prisons located in Europe where detainees were subjected torture,The Council of Europe responded by setting up a temporary committee to investigate. Its report contained strong indications that the CIA carries out illegal operations in Europe and of over one thousand flights chartered by the CIA to carry out its rendition operations involving COE member states. Shannon Airport has been distinguished as one of seven ‘stop over points’ where aircraft lands to refuel, mostly on the way home. Human rights Rapporteur Dick Marty’s investigative report documents that the system of targeting apprehending and detaining terrorist suspects is not an overnight creation; he describes it as a global spider’s web that has been spun incrementally over several years. Question’s were submitted to governments via their national parliament delegations under Article 52 procedure of the ECHR. The Irish Government were requested to respond comprehensively on whether its internal law ensures that adequate safeguards exist to prevent unacknowledged deprivation of liberty of any person within the jurisdiction by action or omission. Also requested was an explanation of available effective procedures for prompt independent investigation of such illegal detention which may have occurred at the instigation of foreign agencies and whether these agencies are subject to adequate controls.

The Government did not answer the questions asked, instead it gave detailed evasive responses, for example focussing disingenuously on whether unacknowledged detention occurred in lawful places of detention within the state. No claim has been made in this context that unauthorised detentions are taking place in Ireland’s lawful institutions. It says that officers from the Governments departments and Army Directors of Legal Services and Intelligence gathered together to “…formulate a process which would answer...” the Article 52, request rather than physically carry out any investigation into the unacknowledged deprivation of liberty in unacknowledged unofficial unlawful places of detention such as in CIA aircraft at Shannon and Baldonnel airports in particular. It contains several misleading statements and at least one blatant lie by purporting to have consulted with a highly principled and honourable former judge in his position as Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention. Instead of inspecting the planes the Government have given repeated public assurances to the government of the suspected perpetrators of these illegal acts, that its planes would not be searched. Further support is given to the suspected perpetrators by the Irish government using Irish taxpayer’s money, by waiving flight fees for the US military and civilian aircraft using Irish airspace and airports. It is estimated that a sizeable percentage of the people of Ireland have unwillingly paid well over ten million euro to subsidize the US invasion of Iraq

by EINN Wed Jun 18, 2008 15:59

The work of highlighting and US troop movements and possible CIA flights through Shannon is very important. It's a moral test, which Ireland has been failing for a long time.

But this important work is undermined by factual errors and exaggeration. I'm afraid that the corrections posted by "A10" are to the point. Very basic errors are contained in the report by Ed: he twice states that he saw an Evergreen 757, put posts pictures of a 747. This may seem like a minor detail, but for anyone who knows about these things, it's a fundamental error. The type or amount of smoke which tyres produce on landing have nothing to do with the payload.

If really basic errors like this are made, how can we know if anything else in the report is true?

Unfortunately, careless reporting like this makes it all too easy to discredit the important arguments being made about the use of Shannon. And for those who are concerned about the use of Shannon, and want to follow up or pass on the information posted, there are real doubts about its accuracy.

Others continue to lie or obfuscate about the use of Shannon and the role of the Irish state, but this is not a reason for us to play fast and loose with the facts. Not if we want to be taken seriously, or to influence people. Sadly, many people who care about the issue treat these reports with great caution. A *realiable* source from Shannon would be very useful.

For noticifation in advance about flights by certain aircraft, such as N54PA and N71PG, see www.flightaware.com. You can set up an alert which will notify you of their movements. The code for Shannon is EINN. Flights by this particular plane on at http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N54PA

For more on this aircraft, which was in Guantanamo in early June, see separate posting [link to be added below]

by EINN Wed Jun 18, 2008 16:25

Below is the link to a posting with more info on the Phoenix Air Learjet, N54PA, which has been through Shannon and Guantanamo (on separate trips) this month

by karl Wed Jun 18, 2008 17:07

I worked for Evergreen International at the IT Manager in their maintenance facility in Marana, AZ for a couple of years until the year 2000. They own the planes that were spotted in Shannon. They are an airline that grew out of 'Air America' to become a kind of 'marchant marine' with wings. Obviously since the wars they have become more active as government contractors. I used to live 'on-base' in 'bachelor officer quarters'. I must say the place had a reputation for being a hotbed of CIA activity. I never saw any CIA guys but then they don't wear badges, do they? I also worked in Raytheon in Tuscon where they made the the Tomahawk, stinger, TOW missiles etc...very interesting place that was!

by A10 Wed Jun 18, 2008 22:56

Out there in Tuscon.When I was training to be a pilot, we used to fly out in the direction of Tuscon.My flight instructor pointed out the Evergreen airfield,and we were told under NO circumstances were we ever to attempt a landing on that field! Bar in flight emergencies and even that prefably ditch it in the desert or on a highway.
The most intresting fact for the plane watchers might be...There was every type of aircraft on that field...and I mean everything!
That is from old ww2 Dakota DC3s to Super Constellations,to 707s to 747,and a clatter of small executive jets. The fact that this is an offshoot from the old Air America is they have held onto a fleet of aircraft,and that our intrepid plane watchers are going to have their work cut out for them,as there was a few planes down there that looked like and were painted in commerical airline colors as well.OK,airlines do mothball their aircraft down there piror to scrapping or selling on.But I doubt Evergreen would hold onto planes in Aer Lingus colors!!!
So maybe they do know you are watching them and holding a "bait" out to you in well recordable aircraft,but are moving if they are moving prisioners via normally painted european or US ghost flights.
Smoke&mirrors ,and they have been playing it for years.

by Eddie Fri Jun 20, 2008 19:09

Why would you enshrine neutrality in our Constitution? What happens if there is a war that we want to get involved in? A war for good reasons say? Being neutral in conflicts has to be dealt with on a case by case basis and anyway, anyone who thinks we have ever been neutral in conflicts that affected us such as WWII is living in dream land.

Also for all of you neutrality campaigners out there, not once have I ever heard any of you mention that to be strictly neutral, Swedish style for example, would require a major investment in our military. To be neutral you have to be able to back it up by force but I can just imagine the outrage from you lot if that idea was mooted. Our military funding is a disgrace, the lowest of the low. To be truely neutral this would need to change dramatically. We cant have both.

by anon Tue Jun 24, 2008 17:22

You tools!

The evergreen is a 742.

Go away and learn something about aviation before going around making silly little remarks like such

by Alfred Nobel Tue Jun 24, 2008 18:13

(in response to a comment above)

Sweden is one of the largest suppliers of arms to the global market from Europe and always has been. It's natural abundance of minerals and ores combined with heavy industrial plants which were not damaged through either WW1 or WW2 and its history as one of the first states to embrace the scientific revolutions of the 17th century provided all the conditions for its current position in aviation and other key sectors of arms production.

Rather than this being an effect of a state or government policy which in the Swedish context could be credited with their educational or social welfare systems - their defence has been a byproduct of their private production sector.

= If you want Ireland to be neutral like Sweden, then you will have to catch up on almost 200 years of privately owned arms industry development. Like did you never hear the swoosh whizz zoom in the soundtrack of a Saab advert?

resource for data on armsflow and international analysis of the arms trade :-
http://www.armsflow.org/

".......The National Inspectorate of Strategic Products (ISP) publishes an annual report on Swedish arms exports each spring. The report contains information on export licences and actual exports, including a description of the equipment, and its value. The report also includes information on export licence denials, including the equipment involved, its intended destination and the crieteria invoked. ....."
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atlinks_gov.html#SWE

by A10 Wed Jun 25, 2008 13:39

The Evergreen is a 742??????????????????????? Enough said!!!

by CC Wed Jun 25, 2008 13:48

The evergreen plane is a 747.200 but in the trade they are often refered to as 742's. No big deal really.

by Edward Horgan Thu Jun 26, 2008 16:44

Response To Eddie, "Neutrality is expensive",

The simple answer is that it is not. Killing people with expensive weapons is very expensive. Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Finland are all neutral states with vulnerable borders or close proximity with aggressive neighbours. Neutrality for these states has necessitated relatively strong armies, but in all cases they have relied on large reserves, and national service, with small permanent forces.
Ireland is a different case. Our peripheral and island location, "isle derere d'isle" as the French have called us, means that we have a natural defence based on our geography. The Germans decided not to invade Ireland during WW II because it was just too bloody awkward to do so. Even with modern warfare, Ireland would be a very difficult country to hold with military forces, if there was a persistent guerrilla type resistance.
The Celtic Tiger was possible in Ireland because we spent proportionally far more on education than on defence compared to most European states, and that should continue.
The truth is that Ireland was far more neutral than Sweden throughout WW II because Sweden allowed a corridor through its territory for German troops to and from Norway which contravened the Hague Convention. Such incidents in Ireland were confined to fairly minimal over-flights over Donegal, and reports that some British prisoners were 'allowed' escape from the detention. However, there were three prison camps in the Curragh throughout WW II, one for Germans, one for British and one for IRA prisoners.

"Our military funding is a disgrace, the lowest of the low."
It is anything but.
We should be proud of the fact that we spend far more on social welfare, health and education than on useless military spending.

The cost of equipping Ireland with tanks and defensive air power would bankrupt Ireland within a few years, and it would all be wasted anyway, because these weapons are obsolete within a few years of purchase. The Vietnamese in the 1960/70s and the Afghans in the 1980s beat the two most powerful armies that the world has ever experienced with poorly equipped but highly motivated guerrilla forces.
One stealth bomber costs in the region of two billion dollars, which is the replacement cost of the one that crashed recently in Guam.
Cheaper fighter planes come in at around $80,000,000 dollars, each.
One main battle tank can cost anything up to €8,000,000.
Defence Minister O'Dea referred in 2005 to "the 65 Mowag armoured personnel carriers delivered in the last few years at a cost of €84 million. Mowag is owned by US multinational General Dynamics so Ireland is contributing a substantial amount to the Military Industrial Complex.
The purchase of such a large eight wheeled "battle taxi" type of armoured vehicle was a mistake. The Irish Cavalry (or armoured corps) had been recommending the purchase of much smaller armoured vehicles for the past 30 years but was over-ruled by other vested interests on several occasions.
The battle-taxi concept is that these large armoured personnel carriers would transport the soldiers from the base camps to the battlefront, where they would then dismount and fight on foot, or be protected by tanks in front and fighter aircraft overhead.
This scenario will almost never apply to Irish troops serving in Ireland or on Peace missions.
The real need for Irish peace keeping troops was for a greater number of much smaller armoured vehicles. It was ludicrous and irresponsible for the Army Ranger Wing to be patrolling in Chad for the past 6 months in un-armoured jeeps.
Belatedly there is now a tender system for the purchase of over 50 small armoured vehicles over the next several years.
http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/fba727373c93a4f080256...a060/$FILE/RFT.doc

if these are eventually procured they will carry a max of 4 soldiers. If one of the existing Mowags serving in Chad, in an inappropriate EU mission, is hit by an anti-tank missile, up to eleven Irish soldiers could be killed, defending French national interests. This would be two more than died at Niemba in the Congo.
As I have said previously, Irish soldiers should not be serving with the EU in Chad at all, but should be serving with a UN force in Darfur, preventing the ongoing Genocide.

by A10 Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:54

"The Germans did not invade Ireland because it was too blooddy awkward to do so."

Really???It was more like there was no strategic value in doing so untill England was under German occupation,or like a Vichy State.There were more than enough troops to have done so,and it was well within German capability to stage an amphibious/airborne assault on Ireland.

So Ireland wouldnt be easily controlled by an invading force???Hmm well I think 200,000 Czehs would disagree with you there Ed.After Reinhard Heydrich ,the SS Reichs protector was assinated in Prauge.German SS units went to work on the town where the two resistance fighters came from and massacred and scorched the village off the map of Europe.Then started on reprisals.It was so bad the Czechs started shopping any gureilla units in the area,and many promptly joined the German armiesand work groups.Now I think the Irish would do the same just as quick.Plus we have a good record of Touts and selling our ownout in our history.So I think any SS Einsatzgruppe wouldnt have been too hard pressed to root out a few villages in the partisans in the Kerry mountains.Well, we wouldnt have to go that far either.The Black and Tans,if they had continued another four weeks give or take.Would still have had us in the British Empire.

Amazed as an EX military man you still spout the old nonsense that the Afghans and Viet Cong won over superior armies.Historical Fact.The US army had pretty much left Vietnam,by 1972.Saigon fell in 1975,it was then under control of a corrupt and incompetant South Vietnamese army armed with US equipment. The Soviet army ,was NO WAY bigger than anything the US had sent into Vietnam,plus it was a conscript army,badly led,supplied with horrible moral problems.Not only that if it wasnt for the US supplying Stinger missiles to the mujhadeen,it would be a lot different.
Of course
Hmmm,lets see,would you be rather sitting in [a] A Mowag state of the art APC,that is designed to survive a hit by an Sov made RPG fired by a scruffy islamist in some dump of the 3rd world. or [b] in a politically correct smaller and cheaper made APC???
Remember Murphys rules of war. Your equipment and weapon is made by the cheapest bidder!
I think Ed, you would find any ground pounder will say to fuk with politics if this thing saves my arse.I'm all for it.