US torture flights never landed at our airports

monument

Coyler wrote:

Dignity.

Again...

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?

I’d agree with an outright ban on any military/intelligence/security landing/flying over, but there’s little logic for calls searches (see my last post for reasoning).

In all reality, a total ban – at the moment – is just as likely as searches.

One of the most realistic scenarios for a search is when the Irish government is put under extreme pressure from an event or whatever; the government has no choice but to take a hit so in advance to limit damage they alert the US what aircraft they are to search, and what time etc.

The aeroplane is searched, no smoking gun is found. The Irish government is now armed with the line “we search the plane and damaged the country’s reputation with our US friends” and the US now has a clean bill of health from an apparently neutral state.

Coyler

Evidence.

monument

Coyler wrote:

Evidence.

Err...

We're sorry, but this video may not be available.

Try refreshing the page to see this video.

To see more videos visit our home page

Hagar

When Dubya said that no nobody was being transported illegally through Ireland should we take into account the fact that he believes he is not doing anything illegal in transporting people in this manner? Does this mean he is legally, in his view, transporting people through Ireland?

The report should probably read more along these lines.
"Yes, we are transporting people, but it's all legal, now p1$$ off or we'll pull a few factories out of Ireland to teach you a lesson"

Diogenes

http://indymedia.ie/article/77258

The poster is Edward Horgan former army commadant and one of the people who challenged the government in the high court, over the use of shannon by the US government

He details and photographs a CIA jet in Shannon

the article wrote:

368CE had the following flight itinerary earlier this year:

Jan. 8, 06 -- Kabul to Frankfurt, Germany
Jan. 9, 06 -- Frankfurt to Baghdad
Jan. 06 -- Frankfurt to Baghdad and Baghdad to Frankfurt
Frankfurt to Kabul and Kabul to Frankfurt
Feb. 1, 06 -- Frankfurt to Kabul
Feb. 2, 06 -- Kabul to Frankfurt

I sincerely doubt that the investigation by the garda consisted of anything more of a garda walking up to pilot

Garda
"So er any prisoners on the plane then?"

Pilot
"Nope"

Garda
"Grand so"

aidan24326

Surely even Bertie has to be fcuking joking when he describes him as 'the great George Bush'. Unbelievable.

Like Hobbes pointed out the fact is that there may be nothing illegal about what the US has been doing in Shannon. Nothing illegal under Irish law at least. That they have used Shannon as a stopover for at least some of the flights used to transort prisoners and even torture victims is highly probable though. Why wouldn't they have? The issue is what can we do about it, and the answer to that question is probably not a whole lot other than banning all US military flights from Shannon, with the government wary of doing anything that might damage diplomatic relations with the US.

Hobbes

AbusesToilets wrote:

for the sake of a foreign national

For the sake of a human being you mean? I don't know how anyone can justify ignoring rendition. Especially after watching the Amnesty International film interviewing a German National who got one of those holidays.

What if the person was Irish on the plane? Not that it matters our justice minister signed into law some time back allowing the US to take any Irish person off Irish soil and bring them to trial in America once charged of a crime in the US, regardless if they ever stepped foot in the US.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

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.

You seem to have highlighted the wrong part.

Didn't you mean to highlight "face-to-face assurances from US President George Bush"

redspider

Ireland has no moral backbone in its Government when it comes to this issue. I would like to see the leaders of our political parties (yes, even Joe Higgins) answer these simple questions:

Q1: If you were in Government, would you establish a process whereby the Irish Police/Gardai Siochanna can randomly audit/inspect/board all flights landing in Ireland and have the power to detain personnel and flights if Irish laws are being broken? (Yes or No)

Q2: If you were in Government, would you prevent all military traffic (apart from those agreed to within the context of EU co-operation) from using Ireland for logistical purposes? (Yes or No)


I have yet to hear what FG and Labour will do on this issue.

I am extremely dissapointed in the kowtowing and unequivocal acceptance going on by FF/PD. I didnt expect anything different from PD's, who's policy is something like, "well, they may indeed be moving prisoners around the world for torture but we daren't complain as aren't they giving us loads of jobs!"

The FF/PD position is especially weak given the changes that even the Americans are now realising in their own country, as dumbed down as they are, that they are doing a lot of wrongs, and Guantanamo and torture and rendition flights are among the long list. Yet given this weakness, I have not heard the FG/Lab come out and say anything remarkabley different than FF/PD or put it very clearly.

Did I miss something? Does anyone have any quotes/sources?

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.

I agree. Saying that you have asked the 'top man' and he has given assurances is naive and plainly idiotic. Bertie, we are not 2 year olds!

Didn't the British get an assurance from Hitler that he wouldnt invade? Not that I am saying Bush is Hitler but the point is valid.

Also, given that many of these operations are covert, carried out in civilian marked aircraft, by no doubt secret service operations, and secrecy at a level that I'm sure not even Dubya knows the details of whats going on.

I'm sure he didnt know that torture was being carried out in Abu Ghraib, and I'm sure that Bertie Ahern would have received 'to be sure, to be sure' assurances before it was revealed that no way was the US Army carrying out torture!

And of course, weren't we assured that Iraq had WMD and was ready to use them in 45 mins !?!?

to be sure, to be sure .... indeed.

Redspider

redspider

I was actually shocked whan I read this:

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/12/03/story19340.asp

Suspicions over US flights not enough
Sunday, December 03, 2006 -
The existence of the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay remains one of the blackest marks against the presidency of George W Bush. The admitted practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’ is highly questionable, being justified in only the most extreme circumstances.

The secrecy and legal ambiguity that surround these unsettling aspects of the so-called ‘war on terror’ do no credit to the United States, its leadership of the international community or those principles for which it aspires to stand.

Last week, Ireland was again drawn into this legal and moral quagmire when a committee of the European Parliament questioned Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the measures taken - or not taken - to police American military and paramilitary traffic through Shannon Airport.

A first draft of the committee’s report was leaked in advance, ensuring maximum publicity for the event and discomfort for Ahern, who expressed his and the government’s annoyance at the insult to his dignity.

His ministerial equilibrium was further upset by having to face interrogation from Proinsias de Rossa, the MEP for Dublin and an old socialist for whom many in Ahern’s party retain a special loathing.

A similar concern for human rights never seemed to dull de Rossa’s admiration for the totalitarian Soviet Union and its bonded satellites; but that doesn’t mean that he can’t have a valid point about the use of Shannon. However, he hasn’t yet made it sufficiently. While we know that the US has transported prisoners, and that some aircraft have passed through Shannon, there is no evidence to suggest that Irish airports or airspace have been used to transfer prisoners for torture abroad.

More to the point, the Irish government has received categorical assurances from the American authorities that Ireland has not been used for the practice of extraordinary rendition. These promises were made, the Taoiseach told us in his own inimitable style last week, by the American President, in the Oval Office.

Bound by ties of blood and history, Ireland maintains an extraordinarily fruitful and beneficial relationship with the United States today. American companies employ hundreds of thousands of Irish workers in some of the best jobs in Ireland; in the two months before Christmas, many of those workers will be among the estimated 100,000 Irish people who fly to New York, Chicago and other cities, to fill their Christmas stockings.

That’s not to say that Ireland should never consider inspecting US flights at Shannon. It’s not say that we should follow the line of the US whatever the circumstances.

But if we choose to reject the word of the American President, treat the US government as liars and their armed forces as suspected criminals, we need a lot more to go on than the suspicions of Proinsias de Rossa.

sbpost@iol.ie

This is turning the argument on its head. As I've stated before, our Government should be obligated in its global role to ensure that so-called rendition and other nefarious activities are not taking place under our watch. This OBLIGATES us to check all suspicious areas in oure remit, and last time I looked, Shannon was in Ireland, even if we have only a slight suspiscion and even if that turns out to be 100% incorrect. The onus is on US to inspect, and indeed inspect often.

Its a bit like seeing someone with a smoking gun - even if they said they didnt pull the trigger, we need to assure ourselves that is the case. If we dont do this, our law becomes a farce. We take the word of the suspected. Cases will be like:

Judge: "So, Mr O'Reilly, did you steal the money from the bank?"
Mr O'Reilly: "Errm, No".
Judge: "Thank You for your unequivocal assurances. You are free to go!"

The Minister for Justice becomes the Minister for the Blind, or rather the Minister that is blind. We also have a Taoiseach that is blind.

What is galling though is that the line of argument put forward in the editorial above in the Sunday Business Post is 'disgusting'. Confusing the message with the messenger and bringing any past issues with P-P-P-Prionsais De Rossa into this is detracting from the real nub of the argument.

Should US flights be inspected?

Of course they should.

QED

Our Government is failing those people that are being tortured. Guantanamo Bay IS the evidence if any is needed.

Redspider

lostexpectation

redspider wrote:

I was actually shocked whan I read this:

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/12/03/story19340.asp



This is turning the argument on its head. As I've stated before, our Government should be obligated in its global role to ensure that so-called rendition and other nefarious activities are not taking place under our watch. This OBLIGATES us to check all suspicious areas in oure remit, and last time I looked, Shannon was in Ireland, even if we have only a slight suspiscion and even if that turns out to be 100% incorrect. The onus is on US to inspect, and indeed inspect often.

Its a bit like seeing someone with a smoking gun - even if they said they didnt pull the trigger, we need to assure ourselves that is the case. If we dont do this, our law becomes a farce. We take the word of the suspected. Cases will be like:

Judge: "So, Mr O'Reilly, did you steal the money from the bank?"
Mr O'Reilly: "Errm, No".
Judge: "Thank You for your unequivocal assurances. You are free to go!"

The Minister for Justice becomes the Minister for the Blind, or rather the Minister that is blind. We also have a Taoiseach that is blind.

What is galling though is that the line of argument put forward in the editorial above in the Sunday Business Post is 'disgusting'. Confusing the message with the messenger and bringing any past issues with P-P-P-Prionsais De Rossa into this is detracting from the real nub of the argument.

Should US flights be inspected?

Of course they should.

QED

Our Government is failing those people that are being tortured. Guantanamo Bay IS the evidence if any is needed.

Redspider

would you want to arrest (as in stop or impede) the men who do this?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15740.htm
video of torture majorly disturbing/loud

AbusesToilets

Not sure what purpose that video you posted serves,i don't have sound on my pc but i didn't see any indentifying factors in that clip.All it shows is a pretty nasty treatment of a prisoner,somewhere,by some unknown people.

I have to wonder a bit at the general consensus here.There is a lot of indignity at the fate of people being transported through Irish airspace.People who could quite legitimately be terrorists and are more likely than not to be such.This apparently stands as an affront to human dignity.Extraordinary rendition is a necessary action in combating terrorist organisations,many of which exist in states with no extradtion treaties.
Note that i am separating the action of rendition and the subsequent instances of torture.Torture is never justified and is one of the blackest stains against the US in it's recent history.The reputation of the US has been signifcantly damaged by it's use. It's intirely counter productive to intelligence gathering and has a serious negative impact on successful psychological operations.An example of a successful one would be the 1st gulf war when the Iraqi army surrendered en-masse.They knew that the US would take care of them properly in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

Not sure what purpose that video you posted serves,i don't have sound on my pc but i didn't see any indentifying factors in that clip.All it shows is a pretty nasty treatment of a prisoner,somewhere,by some unknown people.

It was a video of torture carried out by Egyptian officials in the presence of American agents.

It's not a pleasant document to watch by any means. the sound makes it even worse. You can clearly hear American accents in the background.
This is the kind of 'interrogation technique' that Bush would categorise as acceptable according to his newly redefined definition of torture as excluding anything below the 'the levels of pain felt during organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"

I have to wonder a bit at the general consensus here.There is a lot of indignity at the fate of people being transported through Irish airspace. People who could quite legitimately be terrorists and are more likely than not to be such.

More likely than not? And how do you know this? You trust the CIA? are you mad? It's hard to think of another organisation on the planet with a more distinguished career in deception and lies.

This apparently stands as an affront to human dignity.Extraordinary rendition is a necessary action in combating terrorist organisations,many of which exist in states with no extradtion treaties.

Ah, so that's why America had to kidnap Canadian citizens and transport them to the middle east, or German Citizens, or Italian citizens... oh wait, all of those countries have extradition treaties with the U.S.

Note that i am separating the action of rendition and the subsequent instances of torture.

How considerate of you. Do you mind if i separate the act of drink driving with the subsequent instance of killing an innocent family in a road traffic accident? Or would you join reality put blame where blame lies.

Torture is never justified and is one of the blackest stains against the US in it's recent history.The reputation of the US has been signifcantly damaged by it's use. It's intirely counter productive to intelligence gathering and has a serious negative impact on successful psychological operations.

so what exactly is the point of the rendition program? why on earth would America snatch foreign nationals around the world and transport them to third party countries who, by a strange coincidence, also have a terrible human rights record, if they were interested in due process?

An example of a successful one would be the 1st gulf war when the Iraqi army surrendered en-masse.They knew that the US would take care of them properly in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Ah, so now, the victims of rendition are volunteering to be kidnapped because they know they will be treated humanely.

brilliant

AbusesToilets

Why would i assume that the majority of them are legitimate targets? Because it's a an intelligence operation,meaning that the rendition was the final act in a operation that involved surveillance,multiple assets,gatrhering of evidence etc.Do mistakes happen? Absolutely.How many people get mistakenly arrested in the course of police investigations?
Why use rendition?Use it in instances where there is perishable intelligence,for instance if you know a suspect is only going to be in a particular place for a short amount of time.Or if the involvement of local authorites would jepordise other intelligence assets.
I readily blame the US for abandoning the Geneva conventions and allowing the various human rights abuses to take place.But i still recognise the necessity of being able to grab suspected terrorists before they can escape.Like i said i don't agree with torture,nor with getting others to torture for you.I do agree with snatching suspects for questioning,it's a tactic that works and is used on a smaller scale by police forces all over the world.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

Why would i assume that the majority of them are legitimate targets? Because it's a an intelligence operationon

The same kind of intelligence operation that declared that Saddam had WMD that he could launch against Britain in 90 minutes? The same kind of Intelligence that that comprised of Colin Powells presentation to the U.N.?

Do mistakes happen? Absolutely.

And that is exactly why the principle of Habeus Corpus was invented. Do you think the millions of russians that were sent to Gulags were all guilty of the offence they were accused of? What is an acceptable ratio of guilty versus innocent? 10%? 50%? 90%?

Why use rendition?Use it in instances where there is perishable intelligence,for instance if you know a suspect is only going to be in a particular place for a short amount of time.Or if the involvement of local authorites would jepordise other intelligence assets.

if there is enough intelligence to justify detaining an individual indefinitely in a prison camp, then there is enough intelligence to be able to monitor that individual and gather evidence until there is enough proof for a legitimate trial. Unless you are suggesting that these people were rendered just as they were about to carry out a terrorist activity and the authorities had to act immediately to save lives?

I readily blame the US for abandoning the Geneva conventions and allowing the various human rights abuses to take place.But i still recognise the necessity of being able to grab suspected terrorists before they can escape.

Grap them based on what evidence? escape to where? All of teh information that has come to light so far implies that suspects have been 'grabbed' based on purely circumstantial evidence' (in the wrong place at the wrong time). Taliban fighters picked up off the battleground in Afghanistan are by no means potential terrorists, they were engaged in legitimate warfare, trying to defend their homes from attack from a foreign aggressor. The act of simply visiting Afghanistan has been proven to be 'reasonable cause' for rendition activity as decided by the U.S. intelligence community. Is that a just cause?

Manic Moran

redspider wrote:

Its a bit like seeing someone with a smoking gun - even if they said they didnt pull the trigger, we need to assure ourselves that is the case. If we dont do this, our law becomes a farce. We take the word of the suspected. Cases will be like:

Judge: "So, Mr O'Reilly, did you steal the money from the bank?"
Mr O'Reilly: "Errm, No".
Judge: "Thank You for your unequivocal assurances. You are free to go!"

Forgive me, but isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

I always thought that you defaulted to believing the person in the dock, and you had to make the DPP work to prove he's lying, and doing so within the law.

Boarding a foreign government aircraft to have a look-around just on the off-chance that there might be something of note is pushing the bounds of diplomatic niceties to put it mildly.

NTM

Hobbes

AbusesToilets wrote:

Why would i assume that the majority of them are legitimate targets? Because it's a an intelligence operation,meaning that the rendition was the final act in a operation that involved surveillance,multiple assets,gatrhering of evidence etc.

In a magical world where nothing goes wrong you would be correct, however if you look at some of the renditions where they captured innocent people you might see a pattern which doesn't match what you just described.

The funniest one being someone being renditioned because the CIA operative that organised the capture said "They had a hunch".

Do mistakes happen? Absolutely.How many people get mistakenly arrested in the course of police investigations?

Ok so its perfectly fine to pick people up off the street, kidnap them to another country and torture them then without being charged of anything? Because thats what is going on now.

Use it in instances where there is perishable intelligence

I don't think you fully understand what rendition is. It isn't capturing someone from another country so you can question them. It is removing a person from one country (in some cases even the US) and bringing them to a country where Torture is legal so that you can circumvent your own countries laws.

I do agree with snatching suspects for questioning

Again this isn't what rendition is.

So you agree that an Irish national can be taken by the US from Ireland without being charged of any crime and sent to say Syria so they can be tortured? That is what you are basically agreeing to.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Boarding a foreign government aircraft to have a look-around just on the off-chance that there might be something of note is pushing the bounds of diplomatic niceties to put it mildly.

Hardly. If your in another countries soil unless you have diplomatic immunity (which these flights don't) then there is no problem with it.

After all nothing to hide right?

monument

There's a lot of talk here of 'moral' this and that, and that's fine if you going to stay to moral talk, but if you're going to ask for searches you're into legal talk.

I requested “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”…

All I got back was a link to a video that did not work and a flight itinerary for an aeroplane.

redspider wrote:

This is turning the argument on its head. As I've stated before, our Government should be obligated in its global role to ensure that so-called rendition and other nefarious activities are not taking place under our watch. This OBLIGATES us to check all suspicious areas in oure remit, and last time I looked, Shannon was in Ireland, even if we have only a slight suspiscion and even if that turns out to be 100% incorrect. The onus is on US to inspect, and indeed inspect often.

You appear to be confusing the mind set of many Irish people towards of the US government (dislike or distrust etc etc etc), and our States’ relationship with the same government.

(Stop using ‘US’ to stress ‘us’ btw)

redspider wrote:

Our Government is failing those people that are being tortured. Guantanamo Bay IS the evidence if any is needed.

That’s only evidence that such things are happening there. It is not evidence that any one flight that is searched will have prisoners on board. If a flight was searched and no smoking gun was found it’d only leave our government’s current stance stronger.

Hobbes wrote:

Hardly. If your in another countries soil unless you have diplomatic immunity (which these flights don't) then there is no problem with it.

The simple fact is our government is allowing them to land as a part of some "diplomatic niceties".

If we as a state know it’s high likely they’re doing something wrong then we ask them to stop, not search them.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Hardly. If your in another countries soil unless you have diplomatic immunity (which these flights don't)

Do they not? If they are in use (or owned) by a foreign government, and are just passing through, I'm not convinced they don't.

NTM

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

Forgive me, but isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

I always thought that you defaulted to believing the person in the dock, and you had to make the DPP work to prove he's lying, and doing so within the law.

Boarding a foreign government aircraft to have a look-around just on the off-chance that there might be something of note is pushing the bounds of diplomatic niceties to put it mildly.

NTM

good point hobbes these are civlian nondiplomatic flights...

I can see what you saying they'd stop em sooner then they'd search these flights,(you still talking denial and lies) but isn't wth the example of the drug smuggling at weston airport reason to have random inspections of all private jets?

there no what happening on all those flights, with the lack of customs at certain airports, from drugs to money laundering to bent businessmen and politicians.

monument

lostexpectation wrote:

good point hobbes these are civlian nondiplomatic flights...

With the friendly relationship Ireland and the US have they might as well be seen to have an unwritten status similar to a diplomatic flight.

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

I can see what you saying they'd stop em sooner then they'd search these flights,(you still talking denial and lies) but isn't wth the example of the drug smuggling at weston airport reason to have random inspections of all private jets?

Well, the drugs were being onloaded in Belgium, but would it not be the case that if the aircraft flew back from Belgium with its destination being Ireland/Weston, Customs would have grounds to conduct a random inspection just as if it were passengers arriving on a Ryanair flight at Dublin?

NTM

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, the drugs were being onloaded in Belgium, but would it not be the case that if the aircraft flew back from Belgium with its destination being Ireland/Weston, Customs would have grounds to conduct a random inspection just as if it were passengers arriving on a Ryanair flight at Dublin?

NTM

Well there's simple probable cause.

We know US intelligence is engaging in extraordinary rendition, taking "suspects" from and to countries with "dubious" human rights practices.

We know these unmarked CIA jets have flown through Irish and European practices. According to Amnesty International at least fifty of these jets have come through Ireland.

Thats why your analogy is so suprious, it's not as if we're demanding we search every Air America, or Delta airline flight stopping off on Irish Soil. We're talking about jets used by US front companies, or subcontracted out and used by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies. That we know have already been used for extraordinary rendition.

Now theres two questions here. 1. Do you consider it acceptable for the US administration to kidnap people, fly them to countries, where they will be imprisoned indefefinetly, and tortured? 2. You consider it acceptable for the Irish government to "just take the US governments word on it" and allow planes, that we know have previously carried people to countries where they will be tortured and imprisoned without trial.

If the US government is so confident that these planes never contain prisoners, than it should be acceptable that they occasionally allow the planes to be inspected to see if their cargo does not leave Ireland exposed as being negligent to our duty to uphold EU and international law.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, the drugs were being onloaded in Belgium, but would it not be the case that if the aircraft flew back from Belgium with its destination being Ireland/Weston, Customs would have grounds to conduct a random inspection just as if it were passengers arriving on a Ryanair flight at Dublin?

NTM

wasn't it the case that there was little or no customs there and other small airfields

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

wasn't it the case that there was little or no customs there and other small airfields

Whether customs decides to bother exercising its right to inspect flights terminating in Ireland is another question entirely.

2. You consider it acceptable for the Irish government to "just take the US governments word on it" and allow planes, that we know have previously carried people to countries where they will be tortured and imprisoned without trial.

It doesn't matter what the aircraft have done in other countries. Do you have reasonable grounds to believe that aircraft N8145 has a prisoner aboard when it lands in Shannon on 21st of June as opposed to that aircraft just stopping over for fuel on an unladen flight? e.g. Has an informant said that he saw a prisoner being loaded onto that aircraft in Poland before it took off, or what have you. If you don't have reason to suspect those specifics, then probable cause does not exist.
To go back to the drug-smuggling car analogy, if a person is convicted of drug-smuggling in his car in Canada, and then he's driving that same car around in the US, the mere fact that the car was once used in Canada for smuggling does not give US law enforcement sufficient probable cause to search his vehicle. Anything less than that is going to be considered something of a violation.

It is, of course, always possible that there are fewer protections on personal privacy in Ireland.

NTM

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

Whether customs decides to bother exercising its right to inspect flights terminating in Ireland is another question entirely.



It doesn't matter what the aircraft have done in other countries. Do you have reasonable grounds to believe that aircraft N8145 has a prisoner aboard when it lands in Shannon on 21st of June as opposed to that aircraft just stopping over for fuel on an unladen flight? e.g. Has an informant said that he saw a prisoner being loaded onto that aircraft in Poland before it took off, or what have you. If you don't have reason to suspect those specifics, then probable cause does not exist.
To go back to the drug-smuggling car analogy, if a person is convicted of drug-smuggling in his car in Canada, and then he's driving that same car around in the US, the mere fact that the car was once used in Canada for smuggling does not give US law enforcement sufficient probable cause to search his vehicle. Anything less than that is going to be considered something of a violation.

It is, of course, always possible that there are fewer protections on personal privacy in Ireland.

NTM

Again to reiterate do you object or see the objection of people using ireland as a stopping off a torture flight.

Again to apply the analogy that you use, if someone who you know has been smuggling drugs in this car, in between two countries you share jurisdiction with, do you feel it odd, that customs should not be allowed to make a cursory check of the vechicle? I mean if the US government knew a car had been used to bring drugs between two country and was being driven around by a known drug dealer, would you just take assurance from the drug dealer that the car doesn't have drugs? And leave it at that?

Manic Moran

Diogenes wrote:

Again to reiterate do you object or see the objection of people using ireland as a stopping off a torture flight.

It doesn't even get that far. I object to the searching of anyone or anything without legal grounds or due process. By way of another analogy, just because John Smith is accused of raping and murdering cute little Jenny Craig doesn't mean that I think that we can ignore the requirement for a search warrant to search his house for evidence to be used in a trial.

in between two countries you share jurisdiction with, do you feel it odd, that customs should not be allowed to make a cursory check of the vechicle?

By way of a practical daily example, let's say you take a flight from Moscow to New York, with a stopover at London. When the airplane lands in London, only the people getting off in London go through customs. People carrying on until New York do not go through customs until they arrive in New York.

I mean if the US government knew a car had been used to bring drugs between two country and was being driven around by a known drug dealer, would you just take assurance from the drug dealer that the car doesn't have drugs? And leave it at that?

Yes, because that's US law. You cannot stop and search a vehicle around here on sole the basis of prior history, even if proven that he's a drug dealer in the past. If Ireland does not have those protections, my argument here fails, but I would be surprised if that were the case: Otherwise, what stops police harassment?

NTM

AbusesToilets

By HobbesI don't think you fully understand what rendition is. It isn't capturing someone from another country so you can question them. It is removing a person from one country (in some cases even the US) and bringing them to a country where Torture is legal so that you can circumvent your own countries laws.

Rendition refers to the act of snatching a person. From http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Rendition_%28law%29

Since the 1980s, the United States has increasingly turned to rendition as a judicial and extra-judicial method for dealing with foreign defendants. The first well-known case involved the Achille Lauro hijackers, who were in an airplane over international waters that was forced down by United States Navy fighter planes in an attempt to turn them over to United States Government representatives for transport to and trial in the United States. Later, the practice expanded to include the deportation and expulsion of persons deemed enemy aliens or terrorists from countries into United States custody.

The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive that dates to the Clinton administration, although very few uses were documented during that time. The practice has grown sharply since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and now includes a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on American soil. Because such cases do not involve the rendering country's judiciary, they have been termed extraordinary rendition.

I don't think you fully understand the dynamics of intelligence operations and how you go about recovering an asset. Like i said, i don't have any moral problems with snatching somebody up for questioning.I think it is a very necessary tactic in counter-terrorist operations. I don't agree with denying a prisoner the protection of the Geneva convention,or ultimately, due process of law.It's counter productive and reflects negatively on the the US

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

It doesn't even get that far. I object to the searching of anyone or anything without legal grounds or due process. By way of another analogy, just because John Smith is accused of raping and murdering cute little Jenny Craig doesn't mean that I think that we can ignore the requirement for a search warrant to search his house for evidence to be used in a trial.

But there is evidence. We know the US is transporting people to countries that they are being tortured in, we know that jets that have stopped off in Ireland have been used in other extra ordinary renditions. But we are supposed to take assurances that honestly its not occuring on flights through ireland?

Rather lame sidestep btw, I'll ask again. Do you agree with the practice of sending people to countries who torture as a means of gathering information?

By way of a practical daily example, let's say you take a flight from Moscow to New York, with a stopover at London. When the airplane lands in London, only the people getting off in London go through customs. People carrying on until New York do not go through customs until they arrive in New York.

Thats nice but again these aren't passenger jets. These are planes often taking off in Kabul, stopping off here, and then flying to a third country, where there is a possibility the people on board will be tortured? Isn't there a moral imperitive to investigate this beyond a "don't ask, we won't tell level?

Yes, because that's US law. You cannot stop and search a vehicle around here on sole the basis of prior history, even if proven that he's a drug dealer in the past. If Ireland does not have those protections, my argument here fails, but I would be surprised if that were the case: Otherwise, what stops police harassment?

NTM

You have probable cause don't you? If a car thats been used to carry drugs, is being driven by a known drug dealer. From the house of his supplier, to the house of his dealer, you're trying to tell me US law won't let the officer use PC to stop and search? Really?