"Citizen's arrest" of US soldiers in Shannon

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote:

It most certainly can be. I've already cited the relevant legislation.

Not in this thread, at least not that i can find.

oscarBravo wrote:

Do you accept that Cregan acted unlawfully?

Not really. Why didn't the Gards charge him with a crime if that were the case?

jmayo

Akrasia wrote:

So when something is bypassed then it stops existing? There are still roads to these places, and If you tell someone from Carecastle that they're in Ennis you'd better have something to defend yourself cause you won't be given any mercy.

Yes there are hotels between Ennis and Shannon, Dromoland and the Clare Inn are two, and there are are also a number of hotels in Shannon and on the limerick side of the airport.

Look, this is a stupid debate. Ennis is not in the immediate vicinity of Shannon.

The Soldiers were breaking Irish law by wandering around my town in full military uniform.

Fair dues Akrasia.
Some people on here seem to think Ennis resides somewhere between Shannon and Limerick, while Mr V seems to think because they are bypassed they no longer exist. By that logic Maynooth, Kilcock and Naas should be wiped form the map.

Regarding use of Shannon, after good old Aer Lingus screwed all the passengers that use the Heathrow link as a means to get to major European and international connections, I say the airport needs the money from US troop movements all the more.
Regarding the troops staying over, some interprising entrepeneur should have found a way of moving them into one of the local hostelries and depriving them of some of that danger pay they receive for operating in a warzone. Just look how the sales of Midleton would have increased.

It is time people cop on, our government will not and as a nation we can not afford to pee off the US.
After all we are now fully Americanised, much more so than any other country in Europe.
It has to be remembered that the few people working in this country that are not part of the property bubble, primarily work for US multinationals. When they up sticks because of economic reasons then we can scream all we want.
Something people should also note is we have never really been neutral, we are always neutral on one side, usually that of US and Britain.

Anyway our esteemed fearless leader wouldn't have the balls to say boo and even if he did their esteemed fearless leader would not understand his inane mumblings.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

Not really. Why didn't the Gards charge him with a crime if that were the case?

Probably for the same practical waste of resources reasons that led them to not charging me for passing them at 125kmph on the m50 today in a 120kmph zone.

And yet twice the Gards chose to usher the troops back into the hotel they were staying at.
Why Tristrame, would the gards hassle the troops if they hadn't done anything wrong, instead of moving Mr. Cregan along?
Why also would they be moved into the hotel out of public view? Why not move the troops down the street?
Doesn't add up Tristrame.

It's more a case I think that you don't want it to add up.
Most times when they ushered me inside a building it has been out of public view too,which is irrelevant aswell to why they ushered me anywhere.
It's clear to me as I said already, that in this case they were ushering the troops away from Mr Cregan and a potential altercation.

I think, claiming to make a citizen's arrest was probably just naivety on Mr. Cregan's part. If the US Embassy feel their troopers were wronged they can of course pursue damages. However i suspect we'd be seeing An Garda Síochána in the dock as it was their members that actually infringed upon the soldiers (alleged) rights by escorting them into the hotel

How do you know but the soldiers simply took the Guards advice to stay away from a "loon"?

(and probably asking them to stay out of public view)

Nice fictional addition there to the story.. Are you that desperately worried about this incident that you'll add in a bit of your own padding ?

I'll deal with the legal facts of the matter and these are unknown.I've other more pressing things to be concerned about untill such time as those worried about this "incident" come up with some beef for the claims that the troops were there unlawfully.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote:

For feck's sake! "my decision [sic]as to "...WHAT ? There was NEVER any question over whether or not the troops are entitled to be in a hotel, or even in Ennis! What part of that sentence is not getting through to you ?

Can you please show me an actual quote from me where I indicated that that I had "....arrived at [that] decision" ? If there's any chance that someone could draw that conclusion from one of my posts I want to edit it to clarify the matter asap.

I made no such query or decision. And that is DEFINITELY a FACT.

The troops, like anyone else, are perfectly entitled to be ANYWHERE in the country that they like, just like any citizen or visitor or tourist. The legal issue is to at what stage they were legally obliged to abandon their uniforms and wear civilian clothes.

FOR THE LAST TIME. I, AT NO TIME, MADE ANY SUGGESTION OR DECISION THAT THE TROOPS MERELY "BEING IN ENNIS" OR "BEING IN A HOTEL" COULD POSSIBLY BE ILLEGAL. :rolleyes:

If they had stayed "in the immediate vicinity of Shannon Airport", they would have been entitled to both be/stay there AND to wear uniforms; the relative proximity (the measure of which was originally the ONLY thing open to debate from me) would then only relate to the uniforms, but NOT TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE TROOPS ACTUAL MOVEMENTS IF SUITABLY ATTIRED.

Comprendez ? If not, and if your reply contains similar misquotes and misrepresentation, then I'm sorry.....I really don't think I can make the above any clearer, and this is my third or fouth time trying.

P.S. This post is an attempt to clarify my position, which has been clearly misinterpreted or something given the way I've been misquoted, and in that context is hopefully on-topic.

Eh ? I don't have to search very far,you've done it again in the above post.
You have arrived at a decision that they shouldn't be in Ennis wearing uniform despite not knowing if they were given dispensation to do so.

But see'ing as you have forgotten post 3 of this thread yet again,which was in reply to your post 2,I'll link it for you post 3
Now I've repeatedly asked you, have you sight of what permission was given to these troops?
You are stating as fact that they have no permission to wear their uniform in that Ennis hotel and ergo they were in the Ennis hotel illegally despite (1) the leeway being there to give them permission and (2) you not having sight of whatever permission they have which by the way could include any reasonable distance from Shannon where enough room is available to have the troops on the one comlex.

You've several posts including this one going on about the definition of "immediate vicinity" and how Ennis isn't and that the troops had no right to stay there. When I asked you later whether you had sight of what permission these troops had,you showed you had none.
Clearly in that post you decided that the troops had abused their permission on "immediate vicinity" despite you not see'ing any permission they had on that night [the law allows and Minister Cowan has stated that they can be given extra permissions].

Happy now?

Do you want to obfuscate some more in this thread, a thread a few pages ago that you said twice you were leaving-so shocked as you were at being asked to back up your assertions...

oscarBravo

Hagar wrote:

Also the sailors I have seen are usually in full formal dress uniform not battle dress. A major difference.

Is there a distinction in law between the different uniforms that can be worn by foreign troops on Irish soil?

eoin5

This thread is a victory for everything pedantic, its all about the trees and the forest has been burned in the meantime :P

Liam Byrne

Tristrame wrote:

so shocked as you were at being asked to back up your assertions...

That's a rich comment, coming from someone who gave RedPlanet a ticking-off for adding a fictional element to their post :rolleyes: Who gave you the right to assume why I felt the need to leave the thread ?

Even your references are out of context, but I'll leave it to the intelligence of the readers to spot the gaping difference between what I said - that IMHO, the troops should not have been wearing uniforms in Ennis - and your repeated suggestion that this equates to an objection to the troops actually being in Ennis.

And stating what is a known fact, that the base rule of law is that no troops are allowed wear uniforms while in Ireland, then reading that the U.S. had a derogation for the "immediate vicinity", and then querying by what definition or stretch of imagination that phrase might somehow cover 13 miles is a perfectly logical progression, thank you very much.....I never suggested that the bare rule of law applied, since it's common knowledge that a derogation exists - the question was always simply whether the derogation covered a distance of 13 miles.

Anyways, the bare facts are that Cregan appears to have overstepped his mark while there is no way of checking without paying for an FOI request of checking whether the U.S. troops were within their rights.

And (*providing I'm not misquoted, selectively quoted or taken out of context yet again) that IS my last word on the matter.

A Dub in Glasgo

eoin5 wrote:

This thread is a victory for everything pedantic, its all about the trees and the forest has been burned in the meantime :P

lol... very true

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote:

That's a rich comment, coming from someone who gave RedPlanet a ticking-off for adding a fictional element to their post :rolleyes: Who gave you the right to assume why I felt the need to leave the thread ?

This is getting tired Liam.
Either come onto this thread to discuss the topic or go elsewhere.

Even your references are out of context, but I'll leave it to the intelligence of the readers to spot the gaping difference between what I said - that IMHO, the troops should not have been wearing uniforms in Ennis - and your repeated suggestion that this equates to an objection to the troops actually being in Ennis.

so you want the troops in Ennis then? You could have fooled me.

And stating what is a known fact, that the base rule of law is that no troops are allowed wear uniforms while in Ireland, then reading that the U.S. had a derogation for the "immediate vicinity", and then querying by what definition or stretch of imagination that phrase might somehow cover 13 miles is a perfectly logical progression, thank you very much.....I never suggested that the bare rule of law applied, since it's common knowledge that a derogation exists - the question was always simply whether the derogation covered a distance of 13 miles.

You stated as fact that it didn't.
For is it the fourth time,I'll quote you again.. in bold "it DOESN'T cover them for going 13 miles away!
Mind you, considering that the U.S. Administration ignored even INTERNATIONAL law, should we be surprised ?"
Now I asked you several times to back this up and you haven't because presumably you can't.
Your obfuscation is laughable at this stage. link

And (*providing I'm not misquoted, selectively quoted or taken out of context yet again) that IS my last word on the matter.

Go on explain how the above link was taken out of context by me.
This I'd love to hear,I've only asked for it 5 times now...


*edit* forget it

I've re read this merry go round thread again and it's done the same rounds so many times it would make you dizzy.
Folks you are welcome to start another one when you have that FOI and we have facts to go on.
Theres too much opinion as fact posting here (specifically disallowed in the charter) and not much sign of a change to in my opinion etc etc despite obvious guidance to do so.