Could the Irish Military suspend the constitution? (Egypt)

Zillah

The Mustard wrote: »

This was pointed out by infosys in the second post of the thread, and is not disputed.

Sorry for elaborating. You keeping a list of what we're allowed mention and what you feel has been sufficiently discussed then, yeah? We'd waste the whole day chatting away about stuff if it wasn't for you.

Pat Mustard

Zillah wrote: »

You keeping a list of what we're allowed mention and what you feel has been sufficiently discussed then, yeah?

Here is a clue: read the posts in the thread and try to keep up.

infosys wrote: »

The constitution and the rule if law only have power as long as the people can protect the constitution. If I seize power and say this is the new law and these are the new judges and this is the way as long as I am powerful enough then that's it.

infosys wrote: »

Yes of course the military can say we are in charge it's called a coup, it happened in Greece not so long ago I assume they just took the rule of law or constitution and either suspended it or ignored it. As I said the constitution or rule of law is only as powerful as its people.

"In a further effort to consolidate its power, the regime, after a perfunctory attempt at public consultation, organised a referendum in September 1968 on a new constitution to replace that of 1952. Given the regime's control over the media and the fact that martial law was still in force it is not surprising that there was a 92 per cent vote in favour (4,638,543 for, 391,923 against). The constitution was a highly authoritarian document, which sought to give the military a permanent voice in the government of the country."

From http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/coup_in_athens.html

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

It would be a simple matter to surround leinster house and the TV stations and take the Government ministers and members of the Oireachtas prisoner and announce a coup. There would be nobody in a position to do anything much about it.

28064212 wrote: »

Obviously in the case of a military coup, the constitution is irrelevant. But a legitimate government are not able to and never will be able to pass a law making the current TDs life-long positions. At least not without a majority of the people voting for such a change to the constitution

The Mustard wrote: »

If the Defence Forces took power by some putsch, they could host the coronation of King Joffrey if they wanted.

touts wrote: »

Could the militaty suspend the constitution. Well enough men with enough guns and enough motivation can always overthrow the government and impose their will.

Zillah wrote: »

Sorry for elaborating.

There was no elaboration on your part. But apology accepted anyway.

Cody Pomeray

The only way you could effectively have the military running the country within the parameters of Bunreacht would be if a political wing of the Army were to come to power under the legitimate electoral process. This party would theoretically be controlled by the defence forces themselves, and would persuade the Government to declare an Emergency by staging some petty armed conflict, or by citing an international conflict that somehow affects national interests.

The Army could then be allowed to interfere with fundamental rights of citizens persuant to Article 40.4.5.

Special courts could also be established to impose emergency justice under the new regime, persuant to Article 33.3.1.

A lot of people are aware of the Emergency powers provision of our Constitution, but I'm not sure many people realize the extent to which the 'Special Courts' provision is open to political abuse. As you may know, this is the provision which allowed the state to establish the Special Criminal Court.

Some people believe, and I agree, that the special criminal court is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

Manach

On the plus side, a military coup might be solution to other issues:
- link to the humourous site The Onion.

Grolschevik

Read all about it...








Ooh, that's big! Howd'ya resize again?

Victor

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

The Curragh incident involved British officers.

If I'm correct, there was another incident with Irish officers. Most of them being based in the Curragh.

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

Recent changes in the defence forces have increased the risk of a coup (admittedly from a low base). All senior officers of the Defence forces are based South of a line between Dublin and Cork.

So what?

There are now only two brigades so command of most troops is in the hands of only two officers.

Strictly speaking, command has always been with a single chief of staff. the willingness of individual soldiers to obey orders ina coup situation is another matter. Popular armies rarely support unpopular coups.

There would be nobody in a position to do anything much about it.

Well, except the rest of the country.

amen wrote: »

What I meant was if a party was legal elected into power could then they then use 28.3.3 to declare an emergency (if a war anywhere in world) ala Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany ?

Potentially. In could be argued in court that it was contrived and there would actually need to be an armed conflict (can be arranged if needed ).

The problem of course, is getting a Dáil majority to declare such a situation exists. One man can declare war willy-nilly, two will, three .. even 10, but will 84?

The Mustard wrote: »

3. This question might be better answered in the military forum, but I suspect that a rogue Chief of Staff would have a short lived term of office. I don't know a lot about military procedure, but I assume that if he started subversive activity, his immediate subordinates would have him quickly arrested and detained pending appearance before a court-martial.

Most coups are done either by juntas or by mid-ranking officers with the connivance of senior officers.

The Mustard wrote: »

So if the Oireachtas resolved that there was a state of emergency solely arising out of the Syrian Civil War (as matters stand), then I doubt that it would be legal.

They could of course, just declare war on Syria.

Bluegrass1

Victor wrote: »

If I'm correct, there was another incident with Irish officers. Most of them being based in the Curragh.

Link please.

Victor wrote: »

Strictly speaking, command has always been with a single chief of staff. the willingness of individual soldiers to obey orders ina coup situation is another matter. Popular armies rarely support unpopular coups.

There has been one chief of staff but he has not had full operational control. The army has in fact being run by quadrumvirate at Army HQ.COS (Chief of Staff, 2 by DCOS and an ACS. In addition there has always been at least three territorial commands to which most troops are attached and controlled by their Command O/Cs. The key to preventing a coup is dispersal of power away from one individual and keeping the individuals with power apart. having a situation where two individuals could combine and take over the country is not sensible.

Victor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The only way you could effectively have the military running the country within the parameters of Bunreacht would be if a political wing of the Army were to come to power under the legitimate electoral process. This party would theoretically be controlled by the defence forces themselves, and would persuade the Government to declare an Emergency by staging some petty armed conflict, or by citing an international conflict that somehow affects national interests.

Members of the PDF aren't allow be politicians. RSF members are allowed be councillors, but that may change under the current reorganisation.

A lot of people are aware of the Emergency powers provision of our Constitution, but I'm not sure many people realize the extent to which the 'Special Courts' provision is open to political abuse. As you may know, this is the provision which allowed the state to establish the Special Criminal Court.

Some people believe, and I agree, that the special criminal court is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

Would you like to expand on this?

Some court to deal with subversives and organised criminals is necessary and justifiable.

BornToKill

infosys wrote: »

...the removal of the Seanad so allowing one house or in reality the cabinet to make decisions

But that is already reality. The winners of a general election get to appoint sufficient members of the Seanad as to ensure they have a majority in that House. Combined with the whip system, this means that the Seanad plays no effective role as a counter-point to the Dáil which in turn is controlled by the Cabinet.

Bluegrass1

BornToKill wrote: »

But that is already reality. The winners of a general election get to appoint sufficient members of the Seanad as to ensure they have a majority in that House. Combined with the whip system, this means that the Seanad plays no effective role as a counter-point to the Dáil which in turn is controlled by the Cabinet.

Quite a lot of legislation is amended as a result of amendments tabled in the Seanad. The members of the Seanad are less involved in constituency clinics and can put more effort into scrutinising legislation. The diversity of backgrounds in the Seanad often means there is more expertise in some areas than there is in the Dail.

amen

The problem of course, is getting a Dáil majority to declare such a situation exists. One man can declare war willy-nilly, two will, three .. even 10, but will 84?

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

Pro Hoc Vice

amen wrote: »

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

Interesting!

Bluegrass1

amen wrote: »

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

It is invariably a majority of those present and voting. Those not voting are assumed to be absenting themselves deliberately.

Pat Mustard

amen wrote: »

I has a quick read of the constitution and I couldn't see where majority is defined i.e. majority of elected TDs or majority of TDs present in the Dail at the time of the vote?

Members present.

Article 15.11.1° All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

Cody Pomeray

Victor wrote: »

Members of the PDF aren't allow be politicians.

I don't suggest otherwise. My hypothesis is not reliant upon a political party made up of army men and officers, rather of a political party that is associated with army interests, e.g. retired army men and officers, or simply those of a militaristic/militant inclination, which would be effectively influenced by the defence forces.

Would you like to expand on this?

Some court to deal with subversives and organised criminals is necessary and justifiable.

Again Victor, I don't suggest otherwise. At this stage, there has been a reasonably well established debate on the constitutional and human and civil rights questions hanging over the Special Criminal Court. This debate relates to the procedures of the SCC, and the procedures that determine eligibility for trial at the SCC, and the fact that the SCC has significantly departed from the objects of its formation, no longer trying only those prosecutions of a subversive, paramilitary nature.

Rather than my expanding on this, I should relate the opinions of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in Joseph Kavanagh v. Ireland.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/819-1998.html

...Parliament through legislation set out specific serious offences that were to come within the Special Criminal Court's jurisdiction in the DPP's unfettered discretion ("thinks proper"), and goes on to allow, as in the author's case, any other offences also to be so tried if the DPP considers the ordinary courts inadequate.

No reasons are required to be given for the decisions that the Special Criminal Court would be "proper", or that the ordinary courts are "inadequate", and no reasons for the decision in the particular case have been provided to the Committee.

Moreover, judicial review of the DPP's decisions is effectively restricted to the most exceptional and virtually undemonstrable circumstances.

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 26 of the Covenant... [Ireland] should ensure that persons are not tried before the Special Criminal Court unless reasonable and objective criteria for the decision are provided.

The fact is that the procedures of the SCC have not changed, and the scope of the SCC has widened to include what appear to have been some reasonably petty crimes down the years suggests - I suggest - that the SCC has a vary large anvil teetering dangerously over its head. Despite the previous affirmations of the procedures of the SCC by the Irish High Court and the Supreme Court, I would not be surprised if there were a legal challenge taken to Europe. I suggest that Ireland is eventually going to wake up to a constitutional crisis with regard to the ongoing, apparently open ended continuation of this court and its dubious procedures.

Owryan

A couple of points to make, DF personnel are not allowed be members of a political party and are supposed to be apolitical. As for supporting a coup, ,my memory is a bit hazy but the oath soldiers takes mentions "obeying all lawful orders" and the authority of the legal government of the state , (my words).

These would prohibit any illegal actions by the DF, or are at least designed to. Also there are other mechanisms in place to maimtain a lawful military presence

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

unless reasonable and objective criteria for the decision are provided.

Membership of a subversive organisation or an organised crime gang would seem to cover it.

Cody Pomeray

Victor wrote: »

Membership of a subversive organisation or an organised crime gang would seem to cover it.

It doesn't. That is not a requirement. The minimum requirement is that the DPP forms an opinion that the ordinary courts are inadequate, and as the UN Human Rights Committee pointed out, there is practically no right to judicial review of that decision.

When you have cases like cannabis offenses, and a priest receiving a stolen caravan coming in front of the SCC, nobody should be surprised when people start raising constitutional concerns. It looks like a joke, except it's not funny.

JillyQ

Manach wrote: »

Offhand there used to be clauses within the original constitution to allow the State to go to state very close to martial law. Then it is just a short step to the actual thing. However, since the Curragh incident Irish Officers have been completely apolitical in this regard so the chances of this happening are very remote.

What Curragh Incident?

Manach

JillyQ wrote: »

What Curragh Incident?

see Post #17.

BuilderPlumber

In theory, this would be possible in Ireland. The military has in relatively recent times (in the last 50 years) jumped in to overthrow governments in Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Pakistan, etc. In practice, for now it seems very remote as an occurrence in Ireland.

Traditionally, Ireland is not a military dominated state like say Egypt is. The military here are apolitical and have no official role in government beyond such ceremonies to welcome world leaders and to install new presidents.

However, the longterm prognosis for this to continue highly depends on the attitude of this and future governments. There is a lot of anger here and justified at how governments break promises, implement policies to protect cronies and with people suffering from harsh cutbacks sold through a policy of fear (it will be much worse otherwise, etc). Everyone is beginning to realise Ireland is not a very democratic place but there is still a chance at reform of the current system (tackle the rich, give more money to the people, bring in legislation to bring banksters to justice) for the foreseeable.

What would another 5 years of so-called austerity do to Ireland? Tilt it much closer to a restive situation where people have lost all faith in a legal system where banksters and politicians hide behind technicalities cherry picked by their barristers, where politicians cut back people's jobs and income while paying themselves exhorbitant salaries, in a country where worries over alcohol and sports events promotion (damaging events and thus jobs) and abortion are of more national concern than reducing unemployment, job insecurity and pricing ourselves out of the world market. The army could step in to halt anarchy on the streets and could sack the government but would unlikely hang onto power as we have no military dictatorship history plus the people here would not accept it. Perhaps a new constitution, legal framework and of course faster justice (e.g. criminals go to court and jail within a week to month of doing a crime unlike the 2+ years it often takes now; anyone who owes the state money conned from the state like the banksters would be forced back from America under an extradition arrangement) would be implemented and the old guard and their protected interests disbanded and the worst of them jailed.