What is going through Shannon and why?

edanto

There's a story on the lead of the IT with a call for the flights through Shannon to be inspected.

Have we been told the truth about the CIA/USAF/XYZ filghts?

Minister Cullen (funny, I thought this might be a Defence issue, not a Transport one - given there's a war and all) says that 43 CIA filghts have been through Shannon over the last four years, but Amnesty say it's more like 50 in the last three. Who is on those flights and are they being treated with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in mind? Do they deserve any protection under that?

Particularly, are they safe from torture as we would understand it, not just from the tight US definition of torture? That definition where you're only being tortured if you're feeling pain equivalent to losing a major organ.

These questions deserve the merit of a government investigation, as the Irish Human Rights Commission have called for. But that would cost us some money.

Is it worth it?

Nuttzz

It think this is the crux of the matter

Irish Times wrote:

Up to now, the State has said that credible allegations would be investigated by the Garda

A plane landing in an airport isn't really evidence

Minister Cullen is responsible for civilian airports, O'Dea would answer if the planes were landing in Baldonnel.

I cant see why the Americans would land a prisoner plane at an unsecured civilian airport when it could have access to its own secured air bases in the UK.

bonkey

Nuttzz wrote:

I cant see why the Americans would land a prisoner plane at an unsecured civilian airport when it could have access to its own secured air bases in the UK.

Remove the word "prisoner" from that sentence, and replace with "troop-carrying".

Also...

Secured flights through secured bases would spotlight trends far more quickly, and would - using the reverse of yoru logic - immediately beg the question why a civilian airport wasn't suitable for what was being done. It would be tantamount to an admission of underhandedness if not guilt.

On the other hand, we have CIA-chartered planes moving through civilian airports.....so they could just be doing the same type of accepted, legitimate stuff that CIA-chartered planes normally do.

Deviating from SOP always asks questions. The US would be asked what was special if they didn't use civ airports for specific flights, when they would normally avail of them. Send 'em through as normal, while refusing (as normal) to give details about whats on them.......

jc

patzer117

I don't see why the government should be doing anything in this situation. Planes are stopping, generally to refuel, but there is no evidence to suggest that these planes are carrying prisoners - merely that they are CIA planes. In order to investigate there should be a credible suspicion, based on evidence, that they are carrying prisoners, and being a plane of the CIA (and therefore it must be carrying prisoners), is not a credible suspicion.

It's rather like the idea that the Gardaí can't just wait outside pubs for drink drivers - they must have a credible suspicion that a certain driver is drunk before they do anything. It's all to do with presumed innocent until proven guilty, and so far the CIA have given us no reason to suspect they are guilty, apart from the (often trumpeted) fact that they are the CIA.

seamus

I would prefer that all non-Irish, non-commercial aircraft (including aircraft chartered by agencies) are subject to inspection on landing at any Irish airport.

Much like the idea of random breath testing for drink drivers. You can't claim that someone is in the wrong before they do anything wrong, but you don't have to wait for them to show you they're breaking the law.

patzer117

seamus wrote:

I would prefer that all non-Irish, non-commercial aircraft (including aircraft chartered by agencies) are subject to inspection on landing at any Irish airport.

Much like the idea of random breath testing for drink drivers. You can't claim that someone is in the wrong before they do anything wrong, but you don't have to wait for them to show you they're breaking the law.

Hehe, That's why random breath testing is opposed so vehemently by certain politicians. It removes the presumed innocent until proven guilty. With random tests you're making it guilty until proved innocent by this inspection.
The idea is nice, but also very unpractical - just think how many non-commercial flights arrive in every day to ireland. To chance upon a CIA one would be lucky if it was a completely random inspection.


Edited for an awful spelling mistake

Manic Moran

The reason the troop-carrying flights that land at Shannon land there is because the government chartered a civilian commercial company that happened to make the business decision of using Shannon as a base of operations believing that using Shannon Aerospace (Or whoever) gave the best benefit/cost for things like maintenance. Which is exactly what Shannon Aerospace should be doing. As far as Shannon is concerned, they are just carrying out a commercial contract to a commercial airline.

I took a different charter airline outbound, OAI used Frankfurt airport as its commercial base. Purely business decisions by commerical companies.

You have to admit, the flights are a serious moneyspinner for Shannon. You have the landing fees mounting up for all aircraft, charter or military, and if ATA (The charter airline in question) loses business, it has less need for its contract with the Shannon mechanics/fuel people. There may well be a certain real-politik at work: If the government did run the US and the charter airline out of Shannon, it would just have to deal with the political issues of unemployment instead, and given the intent to abandon the stopover requirements entirely, any income Shannon -can- get on its own merits becomes vastly more important. Even the Duty Free and coffee shop earns loads of dosh off the Yanks. The first chance they get to buy alcohol after a year in Iraq is... Shannon. (I bought Middleton's)

As for the CIA flights, I'm inclined to agree with the earlier poster. Why on Earth would they land sensitive aircraft in Ireland when they have their own military airbases to play with in the UK and Iceland?

NTM

lili

well, if european governments ask for an explaination about those flies, it might be for a valable suspicion.
seems condoleezza rice had to do the bad job.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

As for the CIA flights, I'm inclined to agree with the earlier poster. Why on Earth would they land sensitive aircraft in Ireland when they have their own military airbases to play with in the UK and Iceland?

NTM

By that rational why bother landing troops in Shannon when they have thier own bases elsewhere.

Akrasia

Everything on this thread is speculation about what the CIA are doing. There is without doubt a prima facia case to investigate these planes. The CIA are accused of torturing people, they have been shown to have used the same planes to transport those people to places of torture as they are using through Shannon.
The fact that the Gardai aren't investigating the planes is not because there is not a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, it is based on a political decision, and the Gardai are supposed to be independent operationally from government.
The Gardai and airport police are perfectly prepared to stop and search Irish people using the Airport for perfectly legal reasons for no good cause (Ed Horgan, A retired army seargent a peace activist who was going to England to visit his family for christmas was stopped and questioned and had his posessions confiscated (a camera and mobile phone) at Shannon Airport yesterday morning, but they refuse to investigate the CIA flights.

Manic Moran

By that rational why bother landing troops in Shannon when they have thier own bases elsewhere.

The US government doesn't choose Shannon for the troop movements. The airline does. The US just contracts out ATA and says "Get passengers from this American airport to Kuwait City Airport."
The commerical airline chooses to transport its passengers via Shannon, presumably because Shannon makes the most business sense for them.

If the government starts harrasing commercial enterprises for using Irish facilities instead of foreign ones, what's that going to do to the airport's business interests?

If the US cared where the troops landed, they would presumably require all the airlines that they charter land at the same place. They don't. Hence I landed in Germany going one way, and Ireland going the other.

Akrasia wrote:

The Gardai and airport police are perfectly prepared to stop and search Irish people using the Airport for perfectly legal reasons for no good cause (Ed Horgan, A retired army seargent a peace activist who was going to England to visit his family for christmas was stopped and questioned and had his posessions confiscated (a camera and mobile phone) at Shannon Airport yesterday morning, but they refuse to investigate the CIA flights.

The constabulary might have a better argument in that case. Given his final destination was in the EU, and Shannon was the point of entry to the EU, it would be reasonable to pass through immigration there before continuing on. I have to pass through British immigration when flying to Dublin via London, after all, why should it not work the other way? Similarly, if I stop at JFK on the way to SFO, I pass through the US system at the first point in which I'm in the destination's jurisdiction.

I'm fairly sure the same rules don't quite apply when neither the origin nor destination are in the EU.

NTM

BrianD

I think the concern is about certain flights going through Shannon. Obviously there is the regular movement of troops that are carried by commercial charter companies who have obviously done a deal with Shannon for refueling etc.

There does seem to be other military planes - transport types - using the airport. Or at least they seem to be featuring prominently in news reports.

The thirdtype seem to be these unmarked aircraft that are flying allegedly for the CIA. When I was returning from the States in October there appeared to be one alongside my plane. From the CIA's point of view, a civilian airport is as secure as a military airport. The plane slips in with the other traffic. It's unlikely to be there long. There are plenty of people watching what comes in and out of military airfields. Nobody would know who or what is on the plane. Furthermore, I'd say that security in Shannon is pretty good otherwise it would be a weak link in troop movements. It is unacceptable that these rendition flights should travel through Ireland. If random Garda spot checks were introduced it might be a solution to the problem. I think that the Gardai should have the power to spot check any international craft that enter our air or sea space.

A Dub in Glasgo

If there is an allegation that someone committed a crime, how do the police normally gather evidence?

One of the ways is to search a persons property or belongings. This will either rule them in or out of an investigation. This happens hundreds of times per year. Now tell me why the police do not want to investigate these allegations of CIA torture flights into Ireland? Is it the 'appalling vista' scenerio?

Manic Moran

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

One of the ways is to search a persons property or belongings.

Which requires a search warrant, I believe. (The deal with inspecting passengers/baggage at airports is for going through customs entering the EU. Doesn't apply in this case) Which will only be granted if sufficient cause is demonstrated. Which brings us back to the original problem of 'How do they know that any particular flight has a torturee aboard?'

Unless I'm confusing American with Irish law...

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

Have the Gardai been refused a search warrant? Have they ever sought one?

Manic Moran

Probably 'no' and 'no'

Which doesn't negate the pre-requisites before wasting the judiciary's time on spurious requests.

(Assuming warrants are required, of course: Any aviation lawyers around?)

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Which requires a search warrant,

Customs do not require a warrent to search any vessel that has entered Ireland. Which does apply btw even if you are only passing through.

The reason the troop-carrying flights that land at Shannon land there is because the government chartered a civilian commercial company

Which is immaterial to Ireland. If the US is transporting troops and has bases elsewhere then they should use them. Using a 3rd party to do the logistics doesn't make the question moot.

It is also silly to assume that Shannons main business is from US army troops. It isn't.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Customs do not require a warrent to search any vessel that has entered Ireland. Which does apply btw even if you are only passing through.

I doubt if you could use customs laws to ask passengers if they are being tortured.

Which is immaterial to Ireland. If the US is transporting troops and has bases elsewhere then they should use them. Using a 3rd party to do the logistics doesn't make the question moot.

you're right, It doesnt.
It's just coy Irish business sense versus the anti war movement ie jobs versus the anti war movement.
Guess who wins every time?

It is also silly to assume that Shannons main business is from US army troops. It isn't.

Nope it isn't but its a significant part of it.
Taking it away would be a perilous move if it meant cutbacks elsewhere ie job losses.
The other main deterrant against the Irish government kicking up a fuss in relation to this that a request for boarding/searching would be viewed as hostile.
Theres no way Ahern would want the IDA looking for US DFI into Ireland with the current administration viewing him as hostile.
It's like a lot of things,it boils down to money again.
If troops out of shannon became a major election issue which is unlikely, then there might be a different stance.

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

Which is immaterial to Ireland. If the US is transporting troops and has bases elsewhere then they should use them. Using a 3rd party to do the logistics doesn't make the question moot.

It is also silly to assume that Shannons main business is from US army troops. It isn't.

Your missing the point, a commerical company is doing the transportation, they will land were they can get the best deal, Shannon has given them a better deal than french/UK/german/swiss/insert contry name here airports. If we dont want them here then up the landing charges, simple economics really but why would shannon turn away customers when it is trying to develop itself as a stand alone airport

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

I doubt if you could use customs laws to ask passengers if they are being tortured.

Considering nearly all people who are transported by the US as unlawful combatants are chained together, with bags over thier heads it wouldn't be too hard to determine if they were transporting people to be tourtured or not.

Even if this is not the case and a person claims they are to be tourtured if we don't offer asylum do we just ignore them?

anyway the fact of the matter is that Ireland is obliged under our laws and international law to ensure that people are not being transported to other countries to be tourtured.

BuffyBot

..yet no one seemed to have ponyed up with any convincing evidence that people being tortured are actually being carried via Shannon. Bit circular this..

Hobbes

BuffyBot wrote:

..yet no one seemed to have ponyed up with any convincing evidence that people being tortured are actually being carried via Shannon. Bit circular this..

Its a bit hard to do when no searching has been done to date. However the US administration credability is in the toilet and recent evidence in other countries is certainly bringing it into question.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Which is immaterial to Ireland. If the US is transporting troops and has bases elsewhere then they should use them. Using a 3rd party to do the logistics doesn't make the question moot.

It is also silly to assume that Shannons main business is from US army troops. It isn't.

Bearing due skepticism to Wiki, can anyone verify the claim on its Shannon page that "Figures released April 2005 showed Shannon lost 2.5m Euro whilst income related from US troop movements was 18m Euro" IF this is true, that's a fairly substantial chunk of change you're talking about.

It's bigger than that though. If Shannon/Aer Rianta/Government/Whoever starts harrassing private commercial enterprise because they happen not to agree with their choice of client, then what signal does that send to every other commericial airline who might be looking for a new place to set up shop? The Iraq stance might be acceptable, but how about troops rotating via Shannon to Kabul? Even Ireland has soldiers in Afghanistan. What if Ireland chages its mind about Afghanistan? You start going down a very slippery slope when you allow political opinion to affect commercial operations.

Further, look at the long-term reprecussions. Let's say Ireland kicks ATA out of Shannon, and five years down the line, the US has withdrawn sufficient troops that the use of charter airline is no longer reasonably cost-effective for the numbers rotating. ATA starts servicing more 'politically acceptable' clients. The airline is not suddenly going to decide to risk going back to Shannon just because Ireland says 'It's all right, we like you now', and the cargo/charter airline industry as a whole isn't likely to forget any time soon either.

That's all for the regularly scheduled movements, though. Back to the CIA thing, we again still have our circular argument of whether or not the Gardai need to have reasonable grounds to search any particular aircraft before doing so. I believe they probably should. Granted, I tend to be more conservative on such matters than most. Granted also that what I believe should be, and what actually is, do not always necessarily match.

NTM

monument

Earthman wrote:

Nope it isn't but its a significant part of it.
Taking it away would be a perilous move if it meant cutbacks elsewhere ie job losses.

There was recent calls from the DAA saying such a significant reliance on troop movements was dangerous business sense for Shannon (ie the jobs are not safe). But, yeah, we should do whatever we can for the war effort.

Manic Moran wrote:

You start going down a very slippery slope when you allow political opinion to affect commercial operations.

What state has not allowed their "political opinion" to "affect commercial operations"?

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Bearing due skepticism to Wiki, can anyone verify the claim on its Shannon page that "Figures released April 2005 showed Shannon lost 2.5m Euro whilst income related from US troop movements was 18m Euro" IF this is true, that's a fairly substantial chunk of change you're talking about.

You have already pointed out that troop movements is seperate to CIA flights, unless you have something to the contary.