US torture flights never landed at our airports

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?

redspider

monument wrote:

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.

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

If the same principle was applied in Tax Audits we wouldnt do any. It would be a case of asking IBEC or wheoever would represent company tax payers:

"Did you pay all your tax correctly?"
"Yes, we did, we all did. We are aussuring you that we did."
"okay, we'll ask you again next year, maybe".


It is not a case that checks, audits have to find something. They are a deterrent as much as anything else. At the moment, no checks are being made, so it is 'carte blanche' - a known safe route.

Even if we checked 100% of flights, the US authorities would then probably use another route from another 'friendly' country. If the Irish Authorities did act, they would lose more than what they would gain. A few people may or may not be saved from turture, probably not, but the political fall-out would be much higher and the Irish authoirties dont want to risk that.

But this is where I think the Irish people are failing, where we ourselves have not collectively enough of a moral backbone to fight this issue and other issues that are similarly difficult:

I have two simple questions:

1. is there any party in Ireland that will (if in Government) bring in random checks on all flights/boats, etc into and out of Ireland?

2. For those party's that answer yes to the previous question, will they get elected by the Irish populace on that policy?


I think that for 2, Irish people wont vote for them as they dont follow up. There is too much of this "well, what good would it do", and "we have more to lose", etc, etc. I think that with the current Irish population, when push would come to shove, we wouldnt respond, and thats the current track record.

Too many people are comfortable, too many people working in Intel and IBM and the likes that think such a stance could affect things, so we take the Government line as that is easier and safe. The Government thinking probably does reflect the majority of people perhaps, a case of collectively turning a blind eye to a misdemeanor to benefit our own ends. The people did protest in their droves, but nothing was done about it. So why bother again. The Government didnt move on it and forced the situation upon us. A case of like it or lump it. The fight to change that among the general population has dropped dramatically, I feel.

Dissapointing to say the least if that is the case.

Redspider

Redspider,
You cant be comparing tax audits done on those liable to tax with international relations.

I think a more valid but separate comparison would be when Air force one landed here in Ireland.
Why not subject that to a search aswell-after all everybody on board is by the logic of the complaint suspect or complicit to the alledged illegal rendition through Shannon?

We should also enter the Ballsbridge embassy and arrest anyone involved there.

I'm saying these things because I'm assuming that most of the posters here are by the looks of things 100% convinced of rendition most fowl here.

I mean why not go the whole hog?

Quite apart from the possiblity (tiny in the view of most posters here it would seem) that theres nothing amiss here,it would be reasonable to assume that the distrust shown by doing these searches and possibly arrests would in itself have severe economic disadvantages for us given the large numbers employed by U.S companies here.
I'd imagine these companies would listen to Washington if it decided to make Ireland the last place on earth U.S companies should continue opperating in.


I have a feeling myself that the tide is changing at the other side of the Atlantic and even "if" these things have been happening,they mightnt be happening for much longer.
So I'd be of the view that the central tenet running through this thread is probably going to be eventually sooner than later shelvable.

Oh did I say I like Nancy Pelosi,She's a fine woman.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

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

They are not diplomatic flights so they do not fall under diplomatic immunity. Ireland not checking these flights and taking Bushes word for it is nothing but a courtesy.

Just curious does USA allow any such military flights of other nations to do the same thing in the US? I suspect they don't.

lostexpectation

my god manic you so bloody concerned about the letter of the law, while these are breaking dozens of laws and the highest laws in the world

Manic Moran

Diogenes wrote:

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.

That is not evidence. That is cause for suspicion. But if you try taking that to a judge to sign a search warrant to search Learjet N8573 on 7th December, he will laugh at you. You have to have reasonable grounds to believe that a specific thing will be found in a specific place at a specific time. Such a general claim that 'Planes used by the US Government have been used for rendition' on its own is simply, blankly, insufficient to violate privacy.

But we are supposed to take assurances that honestly its not occuring on flights through ireland?

Find better evidence. Put an undercover Garda on the ground where the aircraft is loaded. Get someone in a foreign intelligence service to report "N8573 has a prisoner on board, you might want to search it if it lands at Shannon" Find some way to get probable cause that when you search an aircraft you are likely to find what you are looking for. Speculative searches are not good enough.

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?

No, I think it's a bit dishonourable. There are more honourable ways of doing it. Either torture them yourselves, or get the foreign country to do the snatch and pick-up. :P (Deliberately flippant answer because the argument is a red herring. Do the ends justify the means? i.e. Is breaking conventions, and I submit law, in order to search a plane any more wrong than breaking conventions and possibly law to torture someone?)

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?

Show me where Irish or international laws or convention makes exception for private jets from Kabul.

Isn't there a moral imperitive to investigate this beyond a "don't ask, we won't tell level?

I'm sure there is. There is also a moral imperative to investigate it in the correct manner, one that runs risk of neither falling foul of legal issues or international opinions. If you go about randomly boarding US government flights (Or even private commercial flights whose destination is not in the EU), who's to say that you won't do it for other countries next year? You have set a dangerous precedent.

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?

Yes. Really. I realise this may be hard for you to comprehend, but there are a bunch of pre-requisites you must present to the judge around here before he'll sign a warrant. You must specify the specific location to search, the specific item you are looking for, and you must convince the judge why you believe that that specific item will be in that specific place when you search. Worse, the cop absolutely cannot just on his own initiative put on his flashing blue lights and pull him over for no reason at all other than suspiscion. Even if he's speeding, and can be pulled over, the cop cannot search the car without further grounds such as drugs being in plain view. Again, it's a protection against harassment, and unreasonable search.

They are not diplomatic flights so they do not fall under diplomatic immunity.

Are they chartered to, owned by, or leased by, the US Government? If so, they have diplomatic immunity. For example, a good friend of mine is an ambassador. He has a government-provided car, which has diplomatic immunity, despite the normal registration plates. If the car goes into service, and he borrows another car from Hertz, the diplomatic immunity transfers to the car, in addition to the original car retaining its immunity.

It is possible to violate the immunity, at great political cost. But you'd damned well better find what you're looking for.

NTM

monument

There’s an absurd amount of abstract moral thinking here. Lets simplify things – the US and our government are like close friends.

Diogenes wrote:

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?

If you really have such a high level of disregard for your friend, and think it’s highly likely he is doing a wrong in your back garden, you don’t randomly search him, you ask him to leave your backyard and tell him not to enter again – you don’t have trust so you ban him, you don’t play around.

With international political relationships there’s no middle ground or very little, even more then with human relationships, you can’t play around.

It is black and white; there are few shades of grey and no colour. You treat counties as hostile or not. You don't search a few flights, you ban them all.

redspider wrote:

If the same principle was applied in Tax Audits we wouldnt do any. It would be a case of asking IBEC or wheoever would represent company tax payers:

"Did you pay all your tax correctly?"
"Yes, we did, we all did. We are aussuring you that we did."
"okay, we'll ask you again next year, maybe".

It is not a case that checks, audits have to find something. They are a deterrent as much as anything else. At the moment, no checks are being made, so it is 'carte blanche' - a known safe route.

As Tristrame said you can’t compare the two.

But if you really want to take tax as an example, I’d say have another look at the tax system and you’ll see that the state/government 1) audits a small percentage of companies/people (not 100% on this) 2) doesn’t normally treat a company being audited as hostile (the tax man normally sees the big picture etc) 3) there are tax breaks and systems that favour the governments business friends – A) very rich people paying little or no tax car users being penalised for their road use more then construction or transport companies who are far heavier users and do more damage to the roads C) [You’ll love this one!!!..] No checks on the private aircraft of rich business people who claim to be none residents for tax reasons – so nobody knows if they are on their aircraft of not.

redspider wrote:

1. is there any party in Ireland that will (if in Government) bring in random checks on all flights/boats, etc into and out of Ireland?

2. For those party's that answer yes to the previous question, will they get elected by the Irish populace on that policy?

This is not an election issue, one way or another. So this is more abstract posting on your part.

Maybe I’m wrong here, but I’d guess most posting on this section of boards – including your self – are not marginal voters, so have their minds well made up on who they will vote for and why. Furthermore, very few people will vote on any single issue like this.

redspider wrote:

Too many people are comfortable, too many people working in Intel and IBM and the likes that think such a stance could affect things, so we take the Government line as that is easier and safe. The Government thinking probably does reflect the majority of people perhaps, a case of collectively turning a blind eye to a misdemeanor to benefit our own ends. The people did protest in their droves, but nothing was done about it. So why bother again. The Government didnt move on it and forced the situation upon us. A case of like it or lump it. The fight to change that among the general population has dropped dramatically, I feel.

It’s not that too many people work in one US company or another. There are far greater wrongs that need to be sorted out (that Irish people are more connected to) before people get worried about Shannon.

Examples – our messed up health system, how we treat people with mental health problems, or disabled people, or the old. Hell, even the perceptions that crime is widely out of control – which it isn’t – has massive amounts of people living in fear. And then there are a minority, but still a large amount of people, who in some areas that actually have reasonably grounds for having such fears. The state and its people turning a blind eye to these is a greater wrong.

Hobbes wrote:

They are not diplomatic flights so they do not fall under diplomatic immunity. Ireland not checking these flights and taking Bushes word for it is nothing but a courtesy.

And that courtesy in reality leads to - at least - an informal diplomatic immunity.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Show me where Irish or international laws or convention makes exception for private jets from Kabul.
NTM

I'm not going to search for it as I know Ireland does have different laws applicable to private passenger jets and jets used by the miltary/intelligence agency of another country. I think you would be hard pressed to find any country that allows any foreign military/intelligent agency to come and go as it pleases.
They have to have permission and abide by any conditions set in that contract.
There is no privacy issue here.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Are they chartered to, owned by, or leased by, the US Government? If so, they have diplomatic immunity.
NTM

Wrong. They only have diplomatic immunity if they are in service of the ambassador. The military of any country do not have any immunity when they are on foreign soil.

monument

sovtek wrote:

Wrong. They only have diplomatic immunity if they are in service of the ambassador. The military of any country do not have any immunity when they are on foreign soil.

As I just said, the relationship we have with the US creates a courtesy that in reality leads to - at least - an informal diplomatic immunity. Debating legalities seams pointless when faced with this.

sovtek

monument wrote:

As I just said, the relationship we have with the US creates a courtesy that in reality leads to - at least - an informal diplomatic immunity. Debating legalities seams pointless when faced with this.

One side already violated that courtesy. So even if I agree with you (I don't) then your point is still mute.

monument

One side have violated that courtesy? Do you mean they are highly lightly to have violated that courtesy?

To quote Proinsias De Rossa from the letters section of the Sunday Business Post – “There is no evidence that prisoners have been moved through Ireland. Equally, however, there is no evidence they have not”.

Anyway, what matters this agreement of courtesy is not what you or I think, but what the two parties, or two friends, think. As our government (one party in the agreement) does not agree with you, I’m afraid your point is invalid or misplaced.

AbusesToilets

sovtek wrote:

I'm not going to search for it as I know Ireland does have different laws applicable to private passenger jets and jets used by the miltary/intelligence agency of another country. I think you would be hard pressed to find any country that allows any foreign military/intelligent agency to come and go as it pleases.
They have to have permission and abide by any conditions set in that contract.
There is no privacy issue here.

The impression you're setting is that the US is walking all over Irish authorities and casually contravening the laws of the country when that isn't the case at all.There's no hard eveidence that there were any prisoners onboard these flights,the planes all followed the proscribed procedures for an aircraft landing in the country.So what reason exists for a search?Your general dislike of the US? Your desire as an anarchist to see an end to regular diplomatic relations between the two governments?
Even if prisoners are being transported throught the country,what eveidence exists that they aren't legitimate prisoners being taken for questioning? There are no individual examples of people being taken through Shannon and then on to being tortured.Has torture happened?Unfortunately yes,it's a disgrace,no doubt about it.Is there any evidence of people being brought through Shannon who have subsequently been tortured?None that i have seen any prove of.
So,what to do? Doubt the word of one of our biggest Allies and serious transgress the boundaries of diplomatic relations on the back of feeling of distrust among certain members of the public?

sovtek

AbusesToilets wrote:

The impression you're setting is that the US is walking all over Irish authorities and casually contravening the laws of the country when that isn't the case at all.

The US military is landing in Shannon by the graces of the Irish government/people. My point is they have no rights. And they have already lied to the Irish government about their use of those flights.

.So what reason exists for a search?

They have used those same planes to illegally transfer people for torture..etc etc so the Irish government has every right to search them. In fact any plane arriving from another country has the right to be searched by customs and their passengers/crew interrogated by immigration.

Your general dislike of the US?

I'll give you three guesses where I'm from.

Your desire as an anarchist to see an end to regular diplomatic relations between the two governments?

The US government has already overstepped the line in regards to diplomatic relations. I see no reason for a government not to look out for the interest of it's people.

Even if prisoners are being transported throught the country,what eveidence exists that they aren't legitimate prisoners being taken for questioning?

This has already been addressed in this thread.

So,what to do? Doubt the word of one of our biggest Allies and serious transgress the boundaries of diplomatic relations on the back of feeling of distrust among certain members of the public?

Allies and foes alike must abide by the Geneva Convention and anyone complicit in the violation of it is subject to the consequences....and Bertie saying he didn't know isn't a proper defense.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

Bertie saying he didn't know isn't a proper defense.

Sure it is...if he can also say that he did everything within his power to find out.

Hobbes

monument wrote:

One side have violated that courtesy?

May be referring to US take on it. First Bush denied any renditions took place. Then when it was proven said it was required, and then after the torture bill went through even said it will continue.

I don't know about you but if someone lied the first time then continues to do it I certainly wouldn't take their word for it after the fact.

monument

sovtek wrote:

The US military is landing in Shannon by the graces of the Irish government/people. My point is they have no rights. And they have already lied to the Irish government about their use of those flights.

I’m afraid, you’re wrong, again.

They have in fact been given what amounts to an informal unwritten (and possibly unspoken) immunity.

You can talk about legal and moral obligations all you like, or our rights or their lack or written rights, this is the current reality.

sovtek wrote:

They have used those same planes to illegally transfer people for torture..etc etc so the Irish government has every right to search them. In fact any plane arriving from another country has the right to be searched by customs and their passengers/crew interrogated by immigration.

If it is a right, it’s one the Irish government clearly have no current intention of using.

sovtek wrote:

The US government has already overstepped the line in regards to diplomatic relations. I see no reason for a government not to look out for the interest of it's people.

Not in the view of the parities involved, this is what matters.

sovtek wrote:

Allies and foes alike must abide by the Geneva Convention and anyone complicit in the violation of it is subject to the consequences....and Bertie saying he didn't know isn't a proper defense.

Talk about another move away from reality.

I can see the picture now; Warmongers sit out their retirement in the US and UK, while Bertie is done for war crimes in the Hague. :rolleyes:

Hobbes wrote:

May be referring to US take on it. First Bush denied any renditions took place. Then when it was proven said it was required, and then after the torture bill went through even said it will continue.

I don't know about you but if someone lied the first time then continues to do it I certainly wouldn't take their word for it after the fact.

First off, what you’re saying here is that he lied/misled about renditions in general. You’re not saying he lied directly to the Irish government about rendition flights landing at Irish airports - am I right?

We’re not talking about me. If you want to talk about what you, I or other boards.ie users would do political theory may be better suited.

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote:

In fact any plane arriving from another country has the right to be searched by customs and their passengers/crew interrogated by immigration.

Arriving, yes. But if that's not the final destination, they're not arriving, are they? They're just passing through. Do containers coming off ships at Singapore get checked by Customs before they get put onto another ship to go out of the country? I refer also to the example of passengers on a commercial jet mentioned above, who are not going to a destination in a stopover point. I never hit Dutch Customs when changing airplanes at Schipol when going to Korea from Dublin, for example.

NTM

DamoKen

Manic Moran wrote:

Arriving, yes. But if that's not the final destination, they're not arriving, are they? They're just passing through. Do containers coming off ships at Singapore get checked by Customs before they get put onto another ship to go out of the country? I refer also to the example of passengers on a commercial jet mentioned above, who are not going to a destination in a stopover point. I never hit Dutch Customs when changing airplanes at Schipol when going to Korea from Dublin, for example.

NTM

try going transit through the US and you may think different. All passengers on my flight were required to stand behind a line as a sniffer dog was walked up and down the line, go through customs and have your photo and finger prints taken (handy way of profiling people not even staying in your country), go to baggage claim, go to departures and have your bag checked again before checking it in, have your hand luggage scanned again, and then if you're real lucky actually make your onward flight (made mine with 2 minutes before it was scheduled to depart, airport officials were demanding it take off as I walked through the boarding gate, to which the air crew flatly refused until all the passengers that had come from London of which 3/4's were still trying to get through were on board).

redspider

Tristrame wrote:

You cant be comparing tax audits done on those liable to tax with international relations.

I think a more valid but separate comparison would be when Air force one landed here in Ireland. Why not subject that to a search as well.
We should also enter the Ballsbridge embassy and arrest anyone involved there. I mean why not go the whole hog?

it would be reasonable to assume that the distrust shown by doing these searches and possibly arrests would in itself have severe economic disadvantages for us ...

I have a feeling myself that the tide is changing at the other side of the Atlantic

The tax audits are an analogy and an apt one. An audit/check/call-it-what-you-will is of course a valid and reasonable action to be carried out. At the moment we are not carrying these checks out. We do so for tax. So why not carry out some checks for safeguarding Human rights?? Surely it is not too much to ask. In fact, are we not obligated to do so under the UN charter for Human Rights.

Suggesting to search Air Force One is turning the argument on its head. I'll use the tax analogy - the suggestion is NOT to audit everything, that is impractical and not needed. But audit a reasonable sample and at random and with no warning. Again, we do that for tax so why not for Human Rights?

I agree that there is a perception that if we did these checks, that the US wouldn't like it and that it could affect us economically. But this fear is not necessarily based on fact as US Government is not US Business. And as you point out, the tide is already turning even in the media-washed US.

We are going to be shown up as a weak nation if it is revealed in the future that rendition flights were facilitated by us and we in effect turned a blind eye. We facilitated the US war in Iraq, which is enough blood on our hands as it is as we turned a blind eye to that. Saying that it had nothing to do with us is not a valid excuse in my opinion.

Why should we be a cog in the US machinary when it is ill-used? We should stand up and show some moral backbone, not roll-over and give in and be afraid to ask and to challenge, especially when we are in the RIGHT !

redspider

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

Arriving, yes. But if that's not the final destination, they're not arriving, are they? They're just passing through. Do containers coming off ships at Singapore get checked by Customs before they get put onto another ship to go out of the country? I refer also to the example of passengers on a commercial jet mentioned above, who are not going to a destination in a stopover point. I never hit Dutch Customs when changing airplanes at Schipol when going to Korea from Dublin, for example.

NTM

Anyone arriving from outside the EU are subject to customs and immigration. The only exception is the UK/Ireland common travelling area.
And yes customs do have the right to inspect cargo in transit.

sovtek

monument wrote:

Anyway, what matters this agreement of courtesy is not what you or I think, but what the two parties, or two friends, think. As our government (one party in the agreement) does not agree with you, I’m afraid your point is invalid or misplaced.

What matters is if the US has broken Irish or international law. Wether Bertie wants to kiss Bushes ass isn't relevant as Bertie is subject to abide by Irish law as is he required to investigate that the US is violating international/Irish law by using Irish sovereign airspace and airports to do so. If he does not then he is subject to Irish and international law.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

What matters is if the US has broken Irish or international law. Wether Bertie wants to kiss Bushes ass isn't relevant as Bertie is subject to abide by Irish law as is he required to investigate that the US is violating international/Irish law by using Irish sovereign airspace and airports to do so. If he does not then he is subject to Irish and international law.

Well it's not really Berties fault that he might have to proverbially kiss Bushes Ass,it would be the voters, the tens upon top of tens of thousands of them that benefit from American multinationals being based here...

Try preaching that to them and see how you get on...

AbusesToilets

It's seems funny to me that you are happy to lambast Manic_Moran for his dedication to maintaining due legal process in the face of crimes commited by the US, yet you claim that the Irish government has a duty to detain and search these planes coming through Ireland because they have violated Irish and International laws. Surely the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and no unwarranted search and seizure would form a part of those selfsame laws?

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Arriving, yes. But if that's not the final destination, they're not arriving, are they?

There have been reports from America where people have been detained (some renditioned) in the US airport who never had a final destination of the US.

Customs in the US can also take your stuff off you even if passing through.

But cargo going through a third country is generally inspected. In fact for example in US law this is a given (especially if you are a US company outside the US).

Hobbes

AbusesToilets wrote:

Surely the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and no unwarranted search and seizure would form a part of those selfsame laws?

Actually when it comes to customs no it doesn't.

Especially in the US who for example can take your laptop off you for no reason or scan and copy its contents (even deleted data) for no cause. Oddly enough not for anti-terrorist reasons.

Irish customs is somewhat similar.

AbusesToilets

But the question is if the US flights are operating under diplomatic protection either official or unofficial,in which case it is more a question of probable cause.

monument

I don’t like using the word ‘reality’ so much, but there’s far too many posts here that are dealing highly theoretically with this issue, discounting practical matters, and ignoring arguments countering their own.

If this hypothetical thinking was just on moral grounds it wouldn’t be so bad, but when it merges with fact and law then clouds realities, then there’s a problem, and this is more twisted legal theory then anything.

redspider wrote:

The tax audits are an analogy and an apt one.

No, they are not.

And as you have decided to ignore my many points on why it is not, I guess the people disagreeing with you might as well ignore your points.

redspider wrote:

We are going to be shown up as a weak nation

Internationally, we are a weak state. FFS.

redspider wrote:

Why should we be a cog in the US machinary when it is ill-used? We should stand up and show some moral backbone, not roll-over and give in and be afraid to ask and to challenge, especially when we are in the RIGHT !

If your and other poster’s arguments were purely based on morals we could have a similar debate. But a lot of people are dragging law in to this by comparing and invoking unnamed Irish and international laws.

sovtek wrote:

Wether Bertie wants to kiss Bushes ass isn't relevant as

In reality, I’m afraid, it is.

sovtek wrote:

Bertie is subject to abide by Irish law as is he required to investigate that the US is violating international/Irish law by using Irish sovereign airspace and airports to do so.

What exact Irish or international laws does Bertie have to abide by in this matter, what is exactly stipulated in such, and what is the likely punishment for falling to abide by such?

sovtek wrote:

he required to investigate that the US is violating international/Irish law”

‘Investigate that the US is violating’? So, you’re back to saying you know for sure they are, or was that a misuse of words?

sovtek wrote:

If he does not then he is subject to Irish and international law.

As above, please give a practical example of how this will/could apply to Bertie?

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote:

Anyone arriving from outside the EU are subject to customs and immigration. The only exception is the UK/Ireland common travelling area.

It worked coming the other way too: When returning from Korea, stopping off at Schipol, and then continuing to Dublin, I did not need to pass through Customs or Immigration in Holland either.

But how does that relate to claims such as

But cargo going through a third country is generally inspected.

or

And yes customs do have the right to inspect cargo in transit.

As a result of the International Convention on Hamonisaton of Frontier Controls of Goods (A UN jobbie), The EC issued http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31984R1262:EN:HTML a regulation containing the following about goods in transit:
1. The Contracting Parties shall, wherever possible, provide simple and speedy treatment for goods in transit, especially for those travelling under cover of an international customs transit procedure, by limiting their inspections to cases where these are warranted by the actual circumstances or risks.

There are no risks or actual circumstances involving a private jet stopping off for fuel which may or may not be carrying a detainee. You could perhaps make an argument about an actual circumstance if you had probable cause. Which brings me right back to my initial point: If you have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a detainee on that specific 'plane, fine. If not, leave it alone.

Similarly, the GATT contains this snippet:
"Except in failure to comply with applicable Customs laws and regulations, such traffic coming from or going to the territory of other contracting parties shall not be subject to any un-necessary delays or restrictions".

A mandate that "You shall not land your aircraft here without being boarded and searched on the offchance that you might have a detainee" is, I submit, not going to be categorised as a 'necessary restriction.'

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

There are no risks or actual circumstances involving a private jet stopping off for fuel which may or may not be carrying a detainee.

Lets get the wording right. We are not talking about detainees. Detainees have to under Irish laws be registered on the planes manifest.

We are talking about rendition flights. The people in the plane are normally untried, suspected or alleged supporters and are certainly not documented on the manifest. The only way to know if they are on the plane is to search the plane.

Please tell me how sending these people to a third country with the intention of torturing them is acceptable (unless American in which case Bush made it acceptable by law). Last time I checked such a thing was illegal in Ireland, again unless your being shipped off to America which our country felt the need to put such a law in.

The issue at hand is if actual searching planes coming through Ireland if there is a law to cover this. Odds on there isn't.

However Bush has clearly stated that such renditions not only took place but they will continue to take place. Ireland should not support such actions and I wouldn't take Bushes word for it, not after lying after the fact.

Hobbes

by limiting their inspections to cases where these are warranted by the actual circumstances or risks.

A person who has never been charged of a crime either in the US or in Ireland being shipped off to Syria to be tortured would fall as "actual circumstances or risks".

You can bet your ass if you are known for say people trafficing that all your shipments are going to be searched.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

We are talking about rendition flights. The people in the plane are normally untried, suspected or alleged supporters and are certainly not documented on the manifest. The only way to know if they are on the plane is to search the plane.

Seems akin to saying that "The only way to know if the famous bank-robber Bugsey Jones robbed the bank is to search his house and see if the money's there" or "the only way to find out if she's a witch is to throw her in the lake and see if she floats" But you can't search a house without good cause, and if you're wrong about the supposed witch, you have another problem.

Yes, you could certainly find out one way or the other in that particular instance that you happen to search, but it costs you a whole hell of a lot if you're wrong. Either legally, if my advocations are correct, or internationally/politically if not.

Please tell me how sending these people to a third country with the intention of torturing them is acceptable

Please tell me how violating common practise and courtesy is acceptable. My objection is not over the arguments against rendition, it's over the manner being suggested to take action against it. Find another way, one which is more likely to result in a successful definitive proof, else the risks of getting it wrong are large, morally and practically.

The issue at hand is if actual searching planes coming through Ireland if there is a law to cover this. Odds on there isn't.

Police (and customs) are granted powers by legislation. In the absence of legislation to cover something, I submit that no power exists.

A person who has never been charged of a crime either in the US or in Ireland being shipped off to Syria to be tortured would fall as "actual circumstances or risks".

If you have reasonable grounds to believe that he's actually on that aircraft, yes. If some lass is kidnapped in a town, and we have good reason to believe that she's being held in a house in that town, (and we'll say there's a viable threat to that girl) does that give the police the right to enter and search every house in the town? Absolutely not.

NTM