Why Shannon is a Time-bomb

by nerraw Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:33

Chomsky's visit highlighted nothing. Indymedia have been banging on about this for years

by Richey Wed Feb 15, 2006 17:59

Of course it highlighted it. Chomsky got plenty of coverage in the media and the issue was raised. End of story, your comment is totally illogical

by Coilín ÓhAiseadha Wed Feb 15, 2006 18:59 086 060 3818

Please note what Chomsky actually said at the Amnesty lecture:
During the question-and-answer session, Richard Boyd Barrett of the Irish Anti-War Movement pointed out that about 300,000 US troops had passed through Shannon on their way to Iraq last year, making for a total of some 500,000 since the war began in 2003, and that about 50-60 of aircraft used for the CIA's extraordinary had also passed through Shannon in recent years.

Mr Boyd Barrett asked Chomsky if he would agree that, as a result, the Government was complicit with state terrorism, war crimes and breaches of international human rights.

Chomsky replied: "I can only respond conditionally. I don't know the facts. But if what you say is correct, and if in fact even a part of it is correct, yes, that's participation in what was declared at Nuremberg to be 'the supreme international crime which encompasses within itself all of the evil that follows'. Participation in that is, yes, a crime. And from then on, it's your business."

So, here at least, Chomsky did not refer to a "war crime" but "the supreme international crime". And, as this is a quotation from Judge Jackson's judgement at the Nuremberg Tribunal, this is unquestionably a reference to the initiation of a war of aggression.

Curiously, in his article in the Irish Times the following day, Deaglán de Bréadún interpreted Chomsky's remarks to refer to the torture flights, as follows:
"If Shannon was being used by the CIA for transporting prisoners then the Government would be participating in a war crime as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal after the second World War, prominent anti-war academic Noam Chomsky said last night in Dublin."

- But from the context I cannot see that this interpretation can be justified. I have written a letter to the editor, which AFAIK was not published, and also written to de Bréadún himself, who says he stands by his report, but without explaining his interpretation.

I note that de Bréadún was very quick to write about the Irish Independent's front-page story, published in late December, about Chomsky's remarks re Bertie shining Bush's shoes. It turns out that Chomsky was referring to a group of European leaders, not to Bertie specifically. So the Indo's interpretation was merely a matter of emphasis on the specific detail that Bertie was one of these leaders.

In this light, I am disappointed that de Bréadún himself has been so slow to either acknowledge that he has missed Chomsky's point or to demonstrate what comment Chomsky made at the Amnesty lecture to the refer to the facilitation of the torture shuttle as a war crime.

Now, this may seem like a pedantic point, because I know that Chomsky agrees that torture is a shameful thing, but please bear with me:

While the facilitation of torture is indeed a grave crime, it may not always be a war crime - e.g. in the case where a German citizen (Khaled el-Masri) is abducted for torture. After all, how can it be a war crime if the United States and Germany are not at war?

Also, however grave the crimes of torture committed by the CIA in recent years, the act of initiating a war of aggression such as the invasion of Iraq constitutes a much, much bigger crime - the SUPREME international crime.

If anybody can find _anything_ Chomsky said during his visit to assert that the facilitation of CIA aircraft at Shannon was or is a war crime, I would love to see the quotes, with time and place.

Best,
Coilín.

by Hanlon Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:46

"Also, however grave the crimes of torture committed by the CIA in recent years, the act of initiating a war of aggression such as the invasion of Iraq constitutes a much, much bigger crime - the SUPREME international crime."

The invasion of Iraq was a war not a crime.
But if during the course of the invasion there was willful murder of noncombatants then those acts would be war crimes - however the invasion of Iraq though perhaps unjustified with the subsequent discovery of the absence of WMD does not make it a crime or the bombing of military targets with resulting collatoral damage is likewise not a crime. Torturing terrorist suspects is not a war crime but torturing innocent civilians who you have no reason to suspect are terrorists is a war crime.

Hitler's invasion of Poland provoked the Allies to declare war on Germany but the invasion itself was not a crime - the Allies invaded Germany against the will of the German people later in the war. But the deliberate murder of millions of Jews, Poles and other noncombatants considered "subhuman" was the crime. The bombing of German cities by Bomber Harris and the bombing of Japanese cities by Curtis LeMay were not justified because they targeted civilians directly and did not contribute to winning the war so could well be classified as war crimes. However the deliberate bombing of German and Japanese industry although they resulted in huge cvilian collatoral damage were not war crimes.

Terrorists can be classified as combatants but are not soldiers - they are not wearing recognisable uniforms or subject to military discipline and can therefore be threated as spies - there is no prohibition on the execution of saboteurs or spies during war. In World War 2, Otto Skorenzy's commando units donned US uniforms and infiltrated American lines to assassinate officers and to create disruption and spread misinformation just prior to the Ardennes offensive - those who were captured were shot subsequently by American firing squads.
German saboteurs were also dropped off by submarine with plans to commit acts of terrorism on the mainland US. They were arrested tried by military tribunal and executed.

The detentions in Guantanamo Bay and the rendition of terrorist suspects is percisely the same.

by Coilín Sun Feb 19, 2006 02:00

Thanks for your well-considered comments, Hanlon!

You write:
"The invasion of Iraq was a war not a crime.
But if during the course of the invasion there was willful murder of noncombatants then those acts would be war crimes -"

Please note what Judge Jackson concluded at the Nuremberg Tribunal:
‘‘to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

From this, I understand that the invasion of Iraq contains within itself the accumulated evil of willful murder of noncombatants you mention.

Please note that these murders could not have taken place without the invasion of Iraq.

You write:
"... however the invasion of Iraq though perhaps unjustified with the subsequent discovery of the absence of WMD does not make it a crime ..."

Since there were no WMD, nor any other threat to the invading countries, it was not a war of defence but a war of aggression, and hence qualifies by Judge Jackson's criterion as the supreme international crime.

You write:
"Torturing terrorist suspects is not a war crime but torturing innocent civilians who you have no reason to suspect are terrorists is a war crime."

Pray tell how it can be a war crime for Americans to abduct a German citizen for torture at a time when the United States and Germany are not at war?

Best,
Coilín.

by Jacobite and the Minty Teas Sun Mar 02, 2008 16:32

I'd bet a dollar that more drugs have passed through Shannon than prisoners. Its the perfect landing pad on the way from the Opium fields of Afganistan en route to the US and Europe and its completly unchecked by anyone.

The Taliban were actively burning crops of poppies to rid their country of the scourge of the drug overlords. Now the industry is in full swing again, and produce has never been higher.

Refering to an article previously published on Indymedia, a plane went down on the other side of the Atlantic that was supposedly run through Shannon and it has 4 tons of drugs on board.

Now if thats not reason enough to seach the planes, I dont know what is. Are the Irish government colluding with clandestine "off the reservation" drug lords. Many people have written about the involvement if CIA in this industry.

If there is a shred of truth in these reports and the Irish Government are unwittingly aiding and abbeting the industry.......thats a fairly hefty nail in the Teeshocks coffin.

Get the dogs to Shannon to have a sniff !!!