Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US seeks the extridition of three Irish men over selling of military hardware to Iran

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Eh?

    I specifically divided the argument between MORAL and LEGAL arguments. Let me know what part in particular was unrealistic.


  • Options
    #33
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    jimmmy wrote: »
    I think we need to do all we can to hang on to whatever US multinational jobs we have in Ireland - I think its something like 100,000 direct jobs.

    So Ireland should do whatever the US government wants to hang on to some jobs (of course this line of logic is dubious as companies will come here anyway)?


  • Options
    #34
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    sovtek wrote: »
    So Ireland should do whatever the US government wants to hang on to some jobs (of course this line of logic is dubious as companies will come here anyway)?
    Ireland should either respect its extradition treaties, or revoke them. I'm not sure why this is up for discussion here; it's a question of law, not opinion.


  • Options
    #35
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    If it is not against Irish Law to sell these parts to Iran then I do not see why they should be extradited to the US just because that is their laws, should all Irish business owners selling Cuban cigars also be extradited?


  • Options
    #36
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mikaboshi wrote: »
    If it is not against Irish Law to sell these parts to Iran then I do not see why they should be extradited to the US just because that is their laws, should all Irish business owners selling Cuban cigars also be extradited?
    It's against US law to purchase something in the US for sale to Iran.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's against US law to purchase something in the US for sale to Iran.

    Not true. There is not a total embargo on Iran.

    This alleged offence would have come about from legally binding declarations the importers would have made prior to purchasing the equipment, ie they shouldn't have sent the equipment to somebody the US says is involved in WMD profileration, or maybe would have needed to obtain permission before passing them on again no matter who the recipient was.

    If they were sending lawnmower engines or medicine to Iran the same (probably - these things were denied to Iraq) wouldn't apply.


  • Options
    #38
    tfitzgerald
    Registered Users Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭tfitzgerald


    reminds me of the joke that the americans were so sure that iraq had wmd was because they kept the invoices. with the yanks its one law for them and a different one for everyone else i would hand over no one to them


  • Options
    #39
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,429 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

    While the accused may have a case to defend in the USA, I don't think a court is going to extradite them unless they also broke Irish law (the usual test for extradition is equivalence).
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    When you do the analysis, you'd most likely find that the helicopters and military hardware that they are seeking these replacement parts for, were sold to them by the CIA, this seems to be the way of it with every other dispute they get themselves into...
    No, many of the sales were above board approved by American presidents. And then, remember that Oliver North chap?

    Were American and British companies similarly treated when they exported aircraft parts to Iraq in the 1990s?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Ireland should either respect its extradition treaties, or revoke them. I'm not sure why this is up for discussion here; it's a question of law, not opinion.
    And those treaties have equivalence clauses. Did the USA extradite the pair that did the assisted suicide in Donnybrook a few years ago? They broke Irish law in Ireland.


  • Options
    #40
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Victor wrote: »
    So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

    While the accused may have a case to defend in the USA, I don't think a court is going to extradite them unless they also broke Irish law (the usual test for extradition is equivalence).

    Tell that to the hang 'em high brigade. What a joke some of the reponses on here are. Our economy is going down the tubes because we won't extradite a couple eijits selling helicopter engines. There was a comment about realism up above. I politely suggest to that poster he start looking elsewhere first.
    No, many of the sales were above board approved by American presidents. And then, remember that Oliver North chap?

    Were American and British companies similarly treated when they exported aircraft parts to Iraq in the 1990s?

    To quote a famous tribunal witness, were they ****.


  • Options
    #41
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Victor wrote: »
    So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

    While the accused may have a case to defend in the USA, I don't think a court is going to extradite them unless they also broke Irish law (the usual test for extradition is equivalence).

    thats a very interesting point. I know we don't have an extradition treaty with Iran, but if we did, and this was the case, what would happen then? I'm not legally minded at all, but I'd hazard a guess that when these treaties are being drawn up things like this maybe accounted for in clauses etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's against US law to purchase something in the US for sale to Iran.

    Yes it's against "US Law" but not against Irish law as far as I am aware, the entire point of extradition laws is that if someone has committed a crime in another country severe enough that it would be of concern to the current inhabited counrty that they ship them back. For serious crimes like murder we of course extradite as Ireland also shares laws regarding murder however for laws that Ireland do no share with the US ie drinking ages, cuban cigars and selling to Iran why should we bow down to their law?

    Should we extradite single women that are sexually active to countries with Sharia law in effect to be stoned to death as well?


  • Options
    #43
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,429 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Oh, Irish courts have been slow to extradite for what have been perceived as political offences (mostly in relation to NI). Hence, Irish law allows offences committed in the UK to be tried here.


  • Options
    #44
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Victor wrote: »
    is probably the wrong word.

    Yes, it is, changed.


  • Options
    #45
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

    Not equivalent, there's no jurisdiction over the contract.

    The contract was sealed in the US, making it subject to US law. Iran has nothing to do with it.

    Equivalence requires not an exact match, just that there is nothing in principle which is contrary to Irish jurisprudence. You would have to show that the Irish government could not put restriction clauses in place or that such restrictions were inherently unfair or illegal.

    NTM


Advertisement