The Americans impose their "Democracy" on Ireland aided by Irish Govt.

Stark

Article 8 Part 3

In accordance with its laws and practice, the Requested Party shall permit the
presence of such persons as specified in the request during the execution of the request,
and shall allow such persons to ask questions directly of the person whose testimony or
evidence is being taken or indirectly through a legal representative qualified to appear
before the courts of the Requested Party.

In the recent RTE radio program, McDowell was adamant that the "Requesting party" would not be allowed either directly or indirectly question the subject, only forward on questions to the "Requested Party". This is in stark contradiction to what's written down in the treaty. Doesn't say much for the man' integrity.

bonkey

Well its hardly the first time our government have assured us something was not on the table / in the agreement.

jc

Meh

Hagar wrote:

Another thought will these CIA be armed?
Theoretically could they draw weapons and fire on Irish citizens in Ireland and not be subject to Irish law? Even shoot unarmed Gardai who might step in on the citizen's behalf?

Do you see anything in the treaty allowing for this?

Hobbes

Stark wrote:

In the recent RTE radio program, McDowell was adamant that the "Requesting party" would not be allowed either directly or indirectly question the subject, only forward on questions to the "Requested Party". This is in stark contradiction to what's written down in the treaty. Doesn't say much for the man' integrity.

Well as I read that part it seems to match up with what McDowell said on the show (that part was brought up), however there is another part earlier in the treaty where it says the requesting party can send on the questions to be asked by the requested party.

Stark

Stark wrote:

In the recent RTE radio program, McDowell was adamant that the "Requesting party" would not be allowed either directly or indirectly question the subject, only forward on questions to the "Requested Party". This is in stark contradiction to what's written down in the treaty. Doesn't say much for the man' integrity.

I'm guessing that the key thing there is the phrase " In accordance with it's laws and practice "

Unless theres a law or practice here allowing foreign agents to interview arrested people then it wont be allowed to happen.

Something though tells me that as it stands outside of this treaty, it has already happened that police officers from other countries have came to Ireland to interview suspects.

But going back on what you said,surely fowarding questions to the Gardaí would amount to an indirect questioning?

Essey

I for one think its a great idea! You see my friends in the terrorist game - you are not suppose to let them go - perhaps we need a few lessons here yeh what??

Clare Champion:
Gardai hunt Indian suspected of terrorism


CALLS are being made this week to track down the Indian national who told Gardai he was accused of being a terrorist in his home country before jumping bail and fleeing Ennis.
And questions are being asked about the judicial system which allowed Banjit Singh bail, despite garda objections that his identity had not been fully established.
This comes amid renewed terrorist fears following the London bombings, which it is now believed had been carried out by four British nationals in a suicide mission, and revelations by Minister for Justice Michael McDowell that extremists are using Ireland as a base for terror attacks.
Twenty-eight year old Mr Singh, who claimed he was a farm worker when arrested, is believed to have fled the country, possibly to the UK. County Councillor Brian Meaney demanded that he be found immediately.
“In the aftermath of the appalling incident in London last week these sort of incidences need to be fully investigated. The path he took after absconding needs to be tracked down, that is the responsible thing to do,” he said.
Meanwhile, Independent Councillor Patricia McCarthy described the situation as “worrying”, adding, “It’s a bit strange that somebody whose identity we don’t fully know could be allowed to move so freely.
“If there is any doubt about the identity of a person who arrives in this country there must be some system put in place where they are monitored. This man was immediately picked up by Gardai at Shannon and was given bail, with us still not knowing who or what he was. Is the system so lax?”
Tony Mulcahy, Mayor of Shannon, praised Gardai for their quick action in apprehending the man.
“The Gardai did all they could do and in the circumstances, it was reasonable for them to ask that bail not be granted. This just shows that we must be more diligent, particularly in the light of what happened in London last week,” he said.
Chief Superintendent Liam Quinn told us he would not comment on what is a “security issue”, though he confirmed that Mr Singh was still at large. The press office of the Department of Justice were also unable to comment on the matter.
Mr Singh was caught by Gardai holding a false French passport at Shannon Airport on June 28. He told Gardai that he was fleeing India because he had been accused of being a terrorist. He denied this was the case.
He was granted conditional bail at a hearing at Ennis District Court.
At that hearing Inspector Tom Kennedy sought to have the man remanded in custody to allow Gardai find out more details about the man’s background.
“I don’t like the suggestion that he may be connected with terrorism. We don’t known anything about the man and would need time to verify that he is who he says he is,” he said.
Mr Singh failed to turn up for a subsequent court hearing a week later. The court was told that Mr Singh didn’t sign on once at Ennis Garda station which was part of his bail conditions. A bench warrant has been issued for his arrest.

pete

Earthman wrote:

But didn't operation amadeus originate in the States and based on credit card transactions got without the users permission lead to the arrest of people here and in Britain?

No. The US authorities raided the offices of Landslide, an internet payments processing company specialising in "adult" age verification systems who had been processing payments for child porn sites. They siezed Landslide's customer databases and sent the customer details to their law enforcement counterparts in relevant countries, including Ireland, who then used this information as the basis for obtaining search warrants to sieze computer equipment in their own jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, it turned out that the US guys sent the foreign guys a complete list of Landslide's customers, including the "regular porn" one's, and not just the one's who'd paid for child porn. Oops.

(ref: August edition of PC PRo)

In relation to the many tax evasions in the cayman islands,there was information handed over to Irish authorities without any input or knowledge from the accused.

No. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ansbacher Cayman, an Irish company, handed over information on their clients on foot of an Irish court order. The courts in the Cayman Islands were involved because that's where the money was, and the Caymans have some super double secret banking privacy regulations.

TimTim

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg46g7Ks0cvBEsg7OWirIStPSk.asp

I haven't done major research into this but if this article it true, I am very worried about what the US will/are up to....

I like the only people knowing my bank details, being my bank and myself.

And the whole idea that gardai are just going to hand people over to the CIA (any means necessary) to find out about anything they want to know. And we won't even know.

Dyr

This just reminded me of something I heard on t'raddio a while back. irish guy coming back through custom's got stopped by customs. They ask him a few questions and telll him to go over to two other official's who begin to question him. Hes gets suspicious after a while as they had english accents. Turn's out they're UK customs officers over on a visit. Yer man walks away and demands to know what irish customs are up to but gets no joy from them. They dont need Mickey Mac D to table legislation when they can just bend the rules whenever they like

limerick_man

Actually, this whole thing is to make us safer, not to make us all targets! ... Just thought I'd throw that in there!

Lemming

limerick_man wrote:

Actually, this whole thing is to make us safer, not to make us all targets! ... Just thought I'd throw that in there!

Go back to sleep Ireland, your government is looking after your interests. You are free to do what we tell you ....

:rolleyes:

ANd how do you figure that one out?

To quote Jefferson:

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither security or freedom"

Stark

My thoughts exactly. Even if we were sure our government had our best interests at heart(which tbh, I think most of the ministers do), something of this magnitude shouldn't be trusted to just one minister, especially one so prone to judgement errors. It should have gone through a rigorous debate process and have been exposed to public view (maybe a few prime time slots etc.) long before it ever got this far.

Instead it was sneaked in, like many of McDowell's measures in recent years. The man deserves to be impeached.

To limerick_man: It's your unthinking attitude: "It's all for our benefit, ALWAYS, let's shut our eyes and ears, after all they're cleverer than us and without them we'd be hopeless at governing ourselves" that caused many countries to slide into dictatorship without their people ever realising until it was too late. It's pretty obvious that process has already begun in America. Despite all the goings-on in the world, we still had a genuine democracy here in Ireland. However this little decision by McDowell has seriously eroded that.

I cannot see how this could possibly benefit Ireland. We shouldn't be entering into the "war on terror". America's problems are its own. Ireland is a sovereign state. We already have laws to enable American/England to retrieve terrorists that escape from their shores to Ireland. We don't need laws that make Irish citizens themselves at risk.

It's the part about being subject to American law that most goads me. It's fair enough that we should have a law that allows America to do something if say someone is operating a child porn ring from Ireland and Americans everywhere are downloading the porn from Ireland. But something like that is covered by Irish law. In fact anything that could possibly justify an international policing "alliance" is covered by Irish law. We do not need US law which had become more based on fear than reason over the years.

Cork

We shouldn't be entering into the "war on terror". America's problems are its own. Ireland is a sovereign state. We already have laws to enable American/England to retrieve terrorists that escape from their shores to Ireland.

As a soverign state - Michael McDowell has made a decision. He is Minister For Justice.

Countries need to co-operate. Spain was attacked. The UK was attacked. Intelligence has to be shared and meaures have to be constantly reviewed in respect to the menace posed by international terrorisim.

Stark

Cork wrote:

As a soverign state - Michael McDowell has made a decision. He is Minister For Justice.

He should still be answerable to the Irish people. This treaty should not have gone through without due process. While some co-operation is necessary, McDowell should be acting in our interests and not America's. There should have been public debate and the treaty should only have gone through when it was in a form that people were generally happy with.

Cork

Stark wrote:

He should still be answerable to the Irish people. This treaty should not have gone through without due process. While some co-operation is necessary, McDowell should be acting in our interests and not America's. There should have been public debate and the treaty should only have gone through when it was in a form that people were generally happy with.

He is answerable to the Irish people. He was on the last word discussing it.

We live in a global economy. Ireland's interests are linked largely to that of other countries.

There should be public debate. Both national and local government seriously have to get involved in e democracy projects and to start engaging more with people.

Stabshauptmann

I havent studied law and I dont have the resources to hire someone who would know what to do but arent there cases where private citizens have challenged the constitutionality of new laws and have had them thrown out?

Though Ive never ever (and I want to stress this) EVER had dealings with my SU I think this is actually something Id petition them to do something about (they have money and manpower, I dont)

Stabshauptmann

Stark wrote:

In the recent RTE radio program, McDowell was adamant that the "Requesting party" would not be allowed either directly or indirectly question the subject, only forward on questions to the "Requested Party". This is in stark contradiction to what's written down in the treaty. Doesn't say much for the man' integrity.

And his rebuttal when that exact quote was read out is that that part refers to court preceedings and previous questions put to him were about interrogations.

Lemming

Cork wrote:

He is answerable to the Irish people. He was on the last word discussing it.

We live in a global economy. Ireland's interests are linked largely to that of other countries.

WTF? (must resist urge to ,..... )

Cork, if you consider that to be "answerable to the people" I fear for this country's future survival. He sneaked through a proposed bill, calculated for a time when there would be nobody around to debate it with him in session. That to me, seems like he *knew* this would raise a sh*tstorm in the Dail chambers.

Not very answerable eh? :rolleyes:

Further, while the global economy may be more intertwined, that does not give any one nation carte-blanche, nor does it mean that anyone should expect us to say "how high" when they say "jump". And to suggest that we should kowtow is, quite frankly, a f*cking insult to every citizen of this island.

There should be public debate. Both national and local government seriously have to get involved in e democracy projects and to start engaging more with people.

Can you not see the blatant hypocracy in what you've just said? At one hand you defended McW@nker's snub to democracy and the people by pushing through this bill on the sly, then you say there should be public debate. Well which is it? One or the other. Time to choose.

Nuttzz

What is FF/Labours stance on this? They are the proposed alternative government, I havent seen any comments by them

The Clown Man

In fairness, I don't like the bill but I'd be afraid that if Ireland wasn't seen to help with America's lunacy then the lunacy would be directed at us. We'd be labeled in the US as a Country harbouring international terrorists and profiles of Muslim leaders and icons living in Ireland (reportedly of which there are a few) would be paraded through the American media. People would be burning whiskey in the streets and Ireland's economy would not be able to take the pounding that the French economy took as a result of their previous digression.

Welcome to the Hegemony.

Of course, I doubt America will be able to continue their madness too much longer as the world as a whole is starting to get very p*ssed. Also, subtlety is not a noted American trait. But in Ireland's best interest I think we can wait until we can join a new crowd before leaving the current one.

I think there is a lot more worrying subject matter to look at than the possible breach of freedoms that might occur (and probably won't) as a result.

Blub2k4

I have just gotten off the phone with the ICCL (Irish Council for Civil Liberties)
and got some interesting information there.
I have this morning also phoned 2 sitting FF TD's and am awaiting their callback.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties,
Dominick Court,
40-41 Lower Dominick Street,
Dublin 1, Ireland.
Telephone: + 353 1 878 3136 / 878 3137
Fax: + 353 1 878 3109

Ok the PDF of the signed agreement is here http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/pcJUSQ6EACY3-en
and it is the Bilateral Instrument between Ireland and the United States of America on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

I was advised to have a read of the treaty as the headlines are attention grabbing and a little sensationalist and only contain an essence of the truth.
The main points of contention are:
Article 8.
Article 16
Article 3 Subsection 16.

Have a read with these sections particularly in mind.

If you are going to complain to a TD then bring up ( this is on ICCL advice).
- Lack of transparency.
- When was it debated, not in the wider scheme of the EU treaty but this treaty specifically.
- Explanations of the implications of the above named articles.

I think people are going off a little half-cocked on this, do it right if your going to get righteously indignant.

TD's are calling me back later, I'll let you all know how I get on.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

BleakestH

This is outrageous, an affront on our sovereignty once again. From a British imperial province to an American one, Ireland moves one step closer to becoming a US client state. As usual, public debate has been all but side-stepped in favour of doing things beneath our noses, media debate has been non-existent and McDowell has acted beyond what should be his means.

The Clown Man

Oh we are most certainly part of the crowd alright.

From a military perspective we are recognised and respected as neutral. When it comes to helping the USA, we can't and don't say no. Shannon. If we signed a similar agreement with Iran do you think GWB would let it go on account of our neutrality?

And, France did it on the large scale yes. And will be fine. We, on the other hand, cannot afford any slight alienation from the rich western nations. And most of them are hopping on economic bandwagons left right and centre regardless of what their voters think.

The Clown Man

I also like the termination clause of the treaty.

Basically, even if it does get binned, America has 6 months to start as many investigations as it likes and is free to finish them at their will.

SpabSFW

Deleted User wrote:

Ouch. Now that wouldn't be fun. Based purely on a suspicion any of us could be taken by them, locked up without charges, and then finally tried under American Law? Hmmm.... This is kinda worrying.

Yes.

Not only that, you will not be afforded the rights of an American judiciary, because the U.S. has transferred the power from the judiciary to the executive for those falling under the U.S. - U.K. Extradition Treaty this is related to.

Here's that. It's a pdf and I can't copy it in but the link is here:

http://www.useu.be/Categories/Justi...hcroftMLAT.html

More information on the U.S.- EU Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance treaties is available at:

U.S., EU Sign Legal Assistance, Extradition Treaties;

Extradition Agreement Extends U.S.-EU Counterterrorism Efforts;

Text of U.S.-EU Extradition and Legal Assistance Treaties.

It does say under Extraditable Offenses under Article 4 that whole bit exactly as the article from the paper stated... that it doesn't have to be a crime, or as serious of a crime under Irish law, for the U.S. to be allowed to extradite. It also states that the rule of law followed for U.S. arrests doesn't have to be followed. In other words, proof isn't necessary.

Pull up the pdf file. Check it out.

The U.S. is already holding Irish people with and without charges for extended periods of time, with no proof and who aren't wanted for anything and deporting others. Of course, most of you probably don't care. It's just republicans at this point.