Open letter to Mary Harney 5

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 1:19pm #1

Ms Mary Harney T.D.
Tainiste
Dail Eireann
Dublin 2

Dear Mary

Hope yoy had a nice weekend- maybe had a barbie and caught the footie on the telly.

In case you didnt know what your friends were up to recently here are a few reminders.

Daily briefings by the Central Command typically feature dramatic films that follow precision-guided bombs as they hit their targets.
The Central Command never shows films of any bombs that missed, nor does it issue statistics on what percentage of the munitions went astray.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/opinion/31MON1.html

'The Yank opened up. He had absolutely no regard for human life. He was a cowboy out on a jolly'.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-629644,00.html

541 Iraqi civilians now killed since the US attacked Baghdad 11 days ago.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net

One interesting fact Mary. You may not consider the loss of 541 Iraqi civilians as significant in the greater scheme of things, but if 541 of your voters were killed prior to the last election in the following constituencies, your party would not now have a TD in Galway West, Laois Offaly or Longford Roscommon.

Food for thought Mary, don't you think?

Peter from Sandyford

Bard · 31-03-2003 1:22pm

Forgive me for missing it, but what exactly is the point in this letter? To inform Mary Harney that there's a war going on in Iraq?

31-03-2003 1:32pm

I have to agree, whats the point of this? Or were you just in the moost to complain?

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 1:34pm

You may or maynot be aware that Mary Harney is the single biggest advocate of the continued use of Shannon Airport as a layby for US troops to take a whizz on route to blasting the s**t out of the innocent Iraqi people.

She has not once iadmitted that the munitions, weapons etc that pass through or over Ireland end up in part being used in violent crimes against Iraqi children and women

She has stated that being anti war is being anti American. Bulls**t.

She has stated that Ireland is closer to Boston than to Berlin. Bulls**t.

She formed a political party on integrity and morality. She has now divested it of both those qualities.

She is quite frankly a hypocrite and she will be exposed as such.

In addition this letter 5 in a series that I have sent to her and posted on this site, and will continue to do so unless a more well informed moderator than I tells me not to.

31-03-2003 1:41pm

HFXOC, i'm not giving out to you, for doing this. In my opinion, you have the right to send such mails, and post such opinions. I was just wondering why you sent it to her. She's obviously pro this war, so i was wondering the point of sending said document to her. I would have figured you'd have more luck with mailing the papers or such your opinions, than bashing your head off her decision.

31-03-2003 1:44pm

Originally posted by HFXOC

One interesting fact Mary. You may not consider the loss of 541 Iraqi civilians as significant in the greater scheme of things, but if 541 of your voters were killed prior to the last election in the following constituencies, your party would not now have a TD in Galway West, Laois Offaly or Longford Roscommon.

Food for thought Mary, don't you think?

Peter from Sandyford

she will probably hit the delete key and classify further mails from you as spam.
mm

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 1:56pm

The story here, brother, is that this woman and her party, are the achilles heel of the current Government.

The Governments decision to let the US miltary continue its use of Shannon as a pitstop, is voiced by Biffo and Mary Harney. While Biffo is as safe as houses with nearly two qoutas every election, Mary Harney and her party ire not.

I know that, short of civil disobedience, I cannot change the minds of the Government directly. But what I can do, and with the help of others, is to attack unmerclessy the weakest link and in this case it is Mary Harney.

As with all politicans, she is only as good as her last vote. And this woman knows only too well that the difference between 8 TDs and a seat at the table, and 3/4 TDs and no voice at all is only a few hundred votes.

If I can indicate to her, in however small a way as I can, that the public do not support the Governments position on Shannon and that there could be a negative electoral impact on her and her party then I will.

31-03-2003 2:19pm

HFXOC - i have no problem with that. However i think you would be more successful if you hit at the voters, not at her. Politicans have shown that they don't care about the publics opinions, except when it comes up to elections. I just think you would be better off at getting your opinions published in papers and such. The government will not reverse their position of unofficially supporting this war, until the loyal supporters of their party start to question their judgements. This is where you need to target.

However, i admire your attempts. I'm perfectly happy to post here, my opinions. I haven't sent any such letters to the government. The cynic in me tells me, that it would be a waste of time. I'm glad you don't have that cynic in you.

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 2:40pm

tanx Squire

I appreciate the support although sometimes I feel I am ploughing a soul furrow.

I 'm currently comiling a list of email addresses for every FF & PD TD, MCC, Sen and MEP. When I have completed it I will post it on this board with a view to co-ordinating a bombardment ( no pun intended) of our public representatives asking them to justify their party leaders views regarding Shannon.

bug · 31-03-2003 2:43pm

No matter how much we discuss this, we can catch them up, show them up etc, they will NOT LISTEN.

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 2:48pm

Don't worry bug, watch them squirm and wriggle, in an insect kind of a way, when they lose Horgans Supreme Court challenge as to the constitutionality of the continued use of Shannon.

When they come out of their reinforced bunkers, it will be like' shooting fish in a barrel' to quote a US pilot as he shot retreating Iraqi conscripts on the road to Basra in the Gulf War.

31-03-2003 3:17pm

Originally posted by HFXOC
The story here, brother, is that this woman and her party, are the achilles heel of the current Government.

The Governments decision to let the US miltary continue its use of Shannon as a pitstop, is voiced by Biffo and Mary Harney. While Biffo is as safe as houses with nearly two qoutas every election, Mary Harney and her party ire not.

I see where you are going with this, but, how much is this governments direction to support shannon landings in Irelands economic interests, down to just the P.D's??
I would suggest that it is more than just them.
You will have a job and a half convincing Bertie, when he knows, his many visits to the States, talking with Irish America, convincing them to allow the Irish more green cards than other countries our size and using agencies like the IDA to invite U.S companies here.
Thats what you are up against-pragmatism.
Though your aim is laudible enough, as I've said many times, when it comes down to brass tacks, people will vote with their pockets, whilsts expressing their dislike of whats going on.
Bertie knows that, and can ride out marches of discontent.

His party are in the nice position ( don't ask me why 'cause I can never understand it myself ) of having core support of roughly 40% at every election .
That means he has only to convince a few to get into government.
mm

bug · 31-03-2003 3:36pm

Don't worry bug, watch them squirm and wriggle, in an insect kind of a way, when they lose Horgans Supreme Court challenge as to the constitutionality of the continued use of Shannon.

Is this going on at the moment? Do you really think he could win.
Someone in a previous thread said that it wasn't in the constitution that it had just been policy since 1939 to be neutral.

Bard · 31-03-2003 3:39pm

Oh right, thanks for clarifying that. Now I'm more sure than before that you're wasting your time.

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 4:28pm

Bug

The constitutional challenge is not on the grounds of Irelands neutrality but rather on the grounds that allowing the US to continue using Shannon Airport contravenes Articles 28 & 29 of the constitution.

Article 28 S4.1

War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

Article 29

1.Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2.Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the specific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

3.Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

In essence, what Horgan is saying is that as this attack on Iraq is illegal ie. no international arbitration or judicial determination, then Irelands participation in it ie. by providing facilities at Shannon to the beligerents, specifically contravenes Article 28 4.1 and Article 29 3.

Whether you agree with him or not, that is the basis of his challenge and the Supreme Court will decided thereon.

Ps Note to Bard - hope your contributions to Gaeilge and Theatre are more educated!

Bard · 31-03-2003 4:36pm

Originally posted by HFXOC
Ps Note to Bard - hope your contributions to Gaeilge and Theatre are more educated!

Nothing uneducated about my contribution, my dear HFXOC. I said that it seemed to me that you were wasting your time, and in my estimation, writing such a letter to Mary Harney IS a waste of time that could be better spent.

(Of course, so is speaking to her...)

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 4:58pm

Bard

we will have to agree to disagree - maybe i'll take a pot at you over the Abbey or something

HFXOC

kamobe · 31-03-2003 5:24pm

The story here, brother, is that this woman and her party, are the achilles heel of the current Government.

It's Hulk Hogan in disguise!!

31-03-2003 8:32pm

Originally posted by HFXOC
Bug

The constitutional challenge is not on the grounds of Irelands neutrality but rather on the grounds that allowing the US to continue using Shannon Airport contravenes Articles 28 & 29 of the constitution.

Article 28 S4.1

War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

Article 29

1.Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2.Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the specific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

3.Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

In essence, what Horgan is saying is that as this attack on Iraq is illegal ie. no international arbitration or judicial determination, then Irelands participation in it ie. by providing facilities at Shannon to the beligerents, specifically contravenes Article 28 4.1 and Article 29 3.

Whether you agree with him or not, that is the basis of his challenge and the Supreme Court will decided thereon.

Ps Note to Bard - hope your contributions to Gaeilge and Theatre are more educated!

Well firstly, did the Dáil not approve the use of Shannon by the U.S military, on the 20th of march??
That sort of weakens the case with respect to 28: 4.1

The Governments advice from the atorney general also states categorically in his view that giving the U.S re-fueling facilities does not mean we are participating in a war.

And, as regards the 29:3, I'm sure , one of the judges first questions, would be , has the war been declared illegal??
It hasn't officially as yet, and untill it has, it cannot be stated that we are aiding or participating in a war that does not have the approval of the United nations.
Now I know, that the majority of nations in the UN general assembly may dis approve of this war, but it is the UNSC position that carries the weight, from a legal perspective.

The U.S and the UK already believe that previous resolutions, together with 1441 give them the right to go to war with Iraq.
That will first have to be disproved in an international court of law before,the war can be declared illegal, from my understanding.
Now, ...the U.S and U.K veto, means, the UNSC are powerless to tighten up any case for declaring, the coalition war against Iraq illegal.
So, such a declaration, in an international court won't be easy
and untill such a declaration can be arranged,the constitutional challenge here will be at best on very shaky ground and probably a waste of money.
mm

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 10:26pm

The Dail reaffirmed the Governments longheld position regarding the use of Shannon by US armed forces. I believe, that if this was the first occasion a request was received to use the airport it would have been refused. Fearing being labelled 'hostile' the Governement refused a free vote to ensure the staus quo. However, the Attorney General, himself a political appointee remember, released only a condensed version of his opinion to TD's, so his complete view is unknown.

As regards the staus of the war, the Supreme court can, in the absence of a formal statement of legality, rule in the context of Ireland. In other words, they can make the assessment as to the constitutionality of the Governments decision. This is particularly important, in view of the Governments long stated view that a second resolution was needed.

31-03-2003 11:41pm

Originally posted by HFXOC
As regards the staus of the war, the Supreme court can, in the absence of a formal statement of legality, rule in the context of Ireland. In other words, they can make the assessment as to the constitutionality of the Governments decision. This is particularly important, in view of the Governments long stated view that a second resolution was needed.

They can and are being asked to make an assessment of the constitutionality of the use of Shannon, theres no question about that.

That would have to be made in the absence of a formal declaration of the wars legal status as they have no jurisdiction over the legality of this war.
They cannot declare on a case that has not been put in front of them. There is no precedent,that I know of unless you can find one for me, of a war involving third party countries being declared illegal by an Irish court.
It will depend on any case, made in the proper forum, and on whether, the war is declared illegal or not.
Thats why, I think, the case for the un constitutionality of the use of Shannon is very shaky, and may only have the value of a rather expensive stunt, without the international case having been heard and proven elsewhere.
mm
mm

HFXOC · 31-03-2003 11:47pm

All I can say is that a large number of very eminent advocates have questioned the constitutionality of the decision.

This case simply relects that unease.

Open letter to Mary Harney 5

Comments