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.