Farce at Shannon

by R. Isible Sun Oct 29, 2006 17:15

The black comedy of incompetence sometimes mixed with malice and sometimes with indifference is revealed whenever the state gets too much power. The liberties that have been taken (quite literally in some cases) by government on foot of the excuse of the War on Terror will show their inevitable outcome as the unwieldy apparatus just can't do what they claim it can do: protect us from fear. For individuals exposed to the thrashings of the beast the results will range from the disgusting and tragic [1] to the ludicrous. Mikhail Bulgakov would have recognised [2] this world.

1. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79321
2. http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/00015...1.php

by Francis Sun Oct 29, 2006 21:31

I myself was in Shannon Airport on Saturday.I had the pleasure to witness this woman outside the terminal building.i have to say it wasn't as amazing as she makes out.what i saw was a old woman,maybe in her 70's with long dreadlocks standing in the middle of the road shouting.there was maybe three gardai there and then another two came along in a car and brought this lady away.there was me and my friend and maybe another six or seven people there looking at her.riviting stuff altogther!!!the gardai weren't 'stunned' at this MAJOR breach in security and handled it very well.why wouldn't there be alot of gardai in Shannon on Saturday when Ciarian O Reilly came out on national airwaves saying that Shannon would be "de-militarised"through intentional public disorder.has everone forgotten what has happened in the past with these protesters intentionally causing millions of euro worth of damage to american planes?people like me having to pay taxes to pay for these people to have defence solictors because they have no jobs and get legal aid.i mean come on.the protesters that are in Mayo against shell were there also there in Shannon.is this a sort of rent-a-crowd or something?going from town to town looking for something to whine about?or do they just like standing up to THE MAN at every oppertunity they get?saturday really showed what this country thinks about American aircraft landing at shannon.how many turned up at the protest?100-150?please.and a number of these were kids from Shannon who thought it might be fun to call the Gardai 'pigs' for a hour or so.do you honestly believe these kids or the majority of citizens in this country have sleepless nights thinking about the american planes in Shannon.ammm no,no they dont.honestly at this stage its getting a little embarrasing if the biggest story from a long organised protest is that a little old lady got on a bus and went to Shannon airport.

by participant Sun Oct 29, 2006 21:39

Dunno who Francis is but he's delusional if he thinks the majority of Irish people support the presence of the US war machine at Shannon airport. About 250 to 300 people attended yesterday's demo but they were representative of a far larger segment of the Irish population who oppose this war and the misuse of Shannon airport. It was a shame that more activists didn't travel - swp were completely absent - but the big problem facing the anti-war movement is how to turn passive support into active support. We need to find imaginative ways to bring people back to the streets. It won't be easy but it will happen. Yesterday's funeral procession showed great imagination and the whole event was very well done. We can build on that.

Trolls like Francis are best ignored. Well done Margaretta! Well done everybody who made the effort to get to Shannon yesterday!

by Concerned Taxpayer Sun Oct 29, 2006 22:21

"people like me having to pay taxes to pay for these people to have defence solictors"

They were acquitted dufus.

You would have had to pay them court costs for 3 prosecutions that flopped. This sound slike the lie published on the fornt page of the Irish Times (never retracted) that the ploughshares cost the Irish taxpayer $US2.5 million. It was evident in the 3rd. trial that the Pentaon paid the bill for repairs that should never had happened.

The policing on Saturday was a waste of my taxes, as was the millions they spent on the 18 hour (complete with military deployment). Bush visit,so frat boy could win a few more Irish votes. The sychophancy of the Irish government is expensive for us taxpayers. It's a lot more than the bowl of shamrocks Bertie delivers as he grovels at the White House on St.Patrick's Day.

by Deirdre Clancy - Formerly Pitstop Ploughshares Mon Oct 30, 2006 01:32

Actually, Francis, the majority of us did have jobs through our legal process, though we did lose out on work time because of incompetent actions on the parts of judges who necessesitated the collapse of two trials. It was actually the legal system that cost the taxpayer most by causing the legal process to drag out to an unnecessary extent and wasting several weeks (time when we could have been working) at a time in court before they made it necessary for trials to collapse. We have paid taxes in Ireland just like you. And, in case it somehow escaped you, a jury of randomly chosen people heard our story and the stories of people who had been to Iraq, and unanimously found us ... not guilty. Do your research before you make ill-informed comments about our lifestyles, please.

Well done to Margaretta for a most entertaining report.

by James Campbell - Tyrconnell St Brigadistas Mon Oct 30, 2006 01:51

I raise my glass and think how all the Margaretta Darcys, from the Plaza Del Mayo to St Winceslas Square, and from Montgomery Alabama to Long Kesh, who have the cheek to get on their high buses and use their imaginations to make us think about those in different places, and connect them to us.

Then there's the bad writers like Dick Francis who try summon their energy to shut our imagination down, hopeful for some crumb of recognition from authority that never comes, a pat on the head if they're lucky; and then they return to the jobs they bust their guts on, unseen, go home unremembered, turn their TV on, and disappear into the lines on the screen.

Here's to the little old lady protesters. Here's to not forgetting.

by Mark C Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:21

If you changed the structure of your last comment, you might have a nice little poem on your hands.

Just a thought.

by omg Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:33

though we did lose out on work time because of incompetent actions on the parts of judges who necessesitated the collapse of two trials.

ive noticed this also, tis never ever your fault, tis always some1 elses!!
jasus fancy that!

the bottom line is you leeched resourches from the state

you lot are very good at leeching in general methinks

350 people max at your demo, 1/2 of em crusties with nothing better 2 do
hardly says Ireland is behind you now does it
stick to your day job! I mean that lads and lassies, please stick to it and try to be a bit reliable in one area of your life

by Seán Ryan Mon Oct 30, 2006 14:42

When you attempt to manufacture statistical analysis, you should look at all pertinent data.

Let's try it this way for example:

Let all the people who turned up for the event = representative of the people of Ireland.

All those who turned up to express revulsion at American use of Shannon Warport as a pitstop for genocide = those of the population who think Shannon Warport should be taken away from the US.

All those who turned up to express solidarity with the American War Machine = 0.

I spose a creative troll could answer that the Gardaí were there to support the War Machine. I'd answer that this is interesting, in that the War Machine Cheerleaders had to be ordered to attend.

I also note that our resident trolls never turn up at events with their placards. There's belief in a cause for you (sarcasm).

by Duine Mon Oct 30, 2006 15:11

Maith sibh, a lucht na hagóide!

by OMG watch - anti-war Mon Oct 30, 2006 16:48

Methinks OMG/Francis (one in the same person) is either a representative of the State or a Shannon security worker. The wilfull ignorance as to the reality of who these people are and the sense of being threatened by the truth are typical of any reactionary, but only someone involved in the cops or security forces could actually know so many details of the incident involving Margaretta D'arcy, in order to then create a crude and hateful distortion of what she stands for.

Of course, police or not (and there are as many police who sympathise as there are who are threatened by the anti-war movement), this is at base just an ignoramus who knows he/she has lost the argument and therefore must resort to the basest form of personalised commentary, worthy of a pureile, disturbed schoolboy with serious psychosexual problems. The mindless caricaturing of all anti-war activists is typical of this ignorance. I have met people from the right-wing Freedom Institute who treat us with courtesy and respect, and would never resort to such baseness, because they at least believe in meaningful debate, though they might highly dislike what we stand for. These are the ramblings of a semi-literate, sub-standard intellect, and one that is full of hate. Go and get some psychological help - your comments about both the direct actionists and Margaretta are not only factually inaccurate, but also suggestive of a highly disturbed psychological state (for readers who are wondering, perhaps check out the ones that have been hidden).

by omg Mon Oct 30, 2006 16:55

and therefore must resort to the basest form of personalised commentary

and away ya go...lol..talk about shooting yourself in the foot

i post under OMG--check ips with indymedia, i give my express consent for them to tell you we have to be from diff ips(because i have no idea who the other person is)

and i am entitled to a viewpoint eom

by Redsox Mon Oct 30, 2006 18:35

"the bottom line is you leeched resourches from the state" OMG

50% of U.S. federal taxes goes to the Pentagon for past present and future wars and that ain't leechin????

The state decided to charge the Plowshares 5 and drag them through the courts for 3 1/2 years on a baseless accusation that they were guilty of criminal damage without lawful excuse. The state failed to convince one juror, after spending hundreds of thousands of € on the task, that what the five did was a criminal activity in disabling U.S. military equipment at Shannon Airport.

OMG sounds like one of those Rambo (we really one honest) movies that came out post-Vietnam - you lost that one baby and you lost this one. It's like blaming the Plowshares for "wasting Garda resources" presently at Shannon. It wasn't their decision to send the army and 40 Garda down there (they have been patiently waiting for them the last two months). Just like it wasn't their decision to deploy a solitary Garda in the hangar days after the same plane was disabled by Mary Kelly. Tactical brilliance that!!!!

OMG believes in the present system...socialism for the rich (50% of U.S. federal taxes going to arms corporations, Halliburton etc) and capitalism for the poor (and napalm, cluster bombs, nukes if need be if they get too uppity).

Hey you folks at Shannon on saturday had more people than we had at the Boston Tea Party...and that was an act of criminal damage with reasonable excuse that got the good ol' USA up and running.

by OMG Mon Oct 30, 2006 18:58

OMG believes in the present system...socialism for the rich (50% of U.S. federal taxes going to arms corporations, Halliburton etc) and capitalism for the poor (and napalm, cluster bombs, nukes if need be if they get too uppity).

THX for telling me what i think, shame you do that to all people that disagree with you thus explaining why your support is dismal.

the basic fact is they did 2.5mill or whatever damage to the plane and then proceeded to LEECH off the government, last i looked at the pentagon, it was PART of the government, suttle difference fellow

Just how much did they LEECH?
you criticise and say how your way can make it better whilst you LEECH cash from the government to fund your very excistance

BTW you prove that 50% figure?

nahhh didnt think so eithier, why do you people always excagerate and dig holes for yourselves then when busted you resort to name calling and general bs

yes your smarter than everyone else that must be it ehh.....

by Cow Mon Oct 30, 2006 20:09

I don't think OMG is a cop or even a Rambo - if he was, he'd be fighting in Iraq right now.

OMG is just bullish on America

by Redsox Mon Oct 30, 2006 20:37

Ok shit for brains you're trying my patience.

50% of U.S. federal taxes go to the Pentagon, fact.

You are arguing that people imprisoned by the state or released on bail like the innocent Plowshares are leeching from the state by exhausting the oppressive resources of the state is it?
Like Nelson Mandella did a runner on his 26 year bill for the hospitality of Robin island.
Those Iraqis are leeching off the government by soaking up all that napalm and cluster bombs!

OMG you're not making sense that's why we forced to guess.
You're just a classic kill the messenger, blame the victim kind of guy!
Nothing unique there.

by Huck Teeper Mon Oct 30, 2006 22:18

I always get a chuckle when some rightard bleats on about protestors 'leeching money from the state' or blurts out some other similar inanity. The voices of those same individuals are strangely silent when it comes to the leeching of taxpayers money by through overspend on public contracts, or the utterly crazy and costly move to introduce a fundamentally flawed electronic voting system. I could go on to list other examples of the deliberate wastage of taxpayers money, but I am sure you get the idea by now.

Bleet about all you want OMG, the fact remains that Ireland is a neutral country, declared as such by our constitution. The government have NO BUSINESS allowing the armed forces of any foreign countries to operate on our soil, whether they are participating in the illegal invasion of a third country or not. The government is NOT ABOVE the constitution, and Irish people, whether they are 30 or 30 thousand, have every right to protest against this abuse of our neutral status.

By the way, to Redsox...
100% of federal taxes go to service the US national debt. The Pentagon budget is paid for out of corporation taxes. Google Video has the Aaron Russo movie 'America - Freedom To Fascism' for more info on same.

by OMG Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:32

50% of U.S. federal taxes go to the Pentagon, fact

LOL, coz you said so...it must be true

The government have NO BUSINESS allowing the armed forces of any foreign countries to operate on our soil, whether they are participating in the illegal invasion of a third country or not. The government is NOT ABOVE the constitution, and Irish people, whether they are 30 or 30 thousand, have every right to protest against this abuse of our neutral status.

my little friend, i would check again, dont want to give you a history lesson, i shall just whisper..NATO

by Fred Johnston Tue Oct 31, 2006 14:44

Just came through Shannon this morning and there they were, a huddling group admittedly, but present nonetheless, in full US army camouflage uniform in a small adjunct on the ground floor. They stared out impassively at disembarking passengers. I saw that some of the Bush-whackers our jellybaby government so readily welcomes were smoking cigarettes, which practice I understood to be illegal here in a public place. But why should they care? I was not pleased to see a uniformed, kitted-out foreign army on Irish soil. I found it offensive and insulting. I'd seen it before, of course, on demos at Shannon. These soldiers, curiously, in their isolation, resembled some rare quarantined species of of grey-green amphibian restlessly pacing a glass cage before being shipped off to a more natural habitat. I had the oddest feeling that they thought the same. Some of them stared back through the glass at us as if they had never seen such strange creatures before.

by Abbie Hoffman Tue Oct 31, 2006 16:22

I hardly think the fact the US soldiers passing through Shannon were breaking the smoking ban is relevant. If you were so concerned about it, you should have performed a citizen's arrest. But then that would have required some bravery, which posting crap on the internet doesn't.

by Huck Teeper Tue Oct 31, 2006 22:37

OMG titled the post...
"more thrash, low on fact, high in BS"

which I suppose gave a warning of how he/she/it planned to proceed
and then it bleated the following nonsense in a highly superior tone...

"my little friend, i would check again, dont want to give you a history lesson, i shall just whisper..NATO"

Why not continue your little history lesson, OMG, and let me know precisely when Ireland joined NATO? Are you really THAT clueless? Let me give you a cluestick. Feel free to hit yourself on the head with it until the facts soak in. The Republic Of Ireland is a NEUTRAL country. Get it?

Let me guess, you must be one of our transatlantic cousins... If you are going to talk about Ireland and Irish politics then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Irish constitution before opening your big mouth. Then you'll stand a better chance of avoiding looking like a complete gobshite. Then again, going by your performance in this discussion, that likelihood is very slim indeed.

by Fred Johnston Tue Oct 31, 2006 23:38 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie 087.2178138

The cowardice of anonymous contributors has finally reached a new low.

In order to have a go at my remarks about passing through Shannon, a post has been put up above signed 'Abbie Hoffman'.

Shame on the sad and sick individual who posted it - the real Abbie Hoffman was a true revolutionary, and he died in 1989. Indymedia, surely you know that.

So now even the honourable dead can be used to cover the tracks of the socially-inept and politically hypocritical. If such is the type of creature using this site, then Indymedia has some serious policy rethinking to do. The lonely goon who posted that attack is not interested in politics, but in berating me. And they can contact me any time they like and stop wasting Indymedia time and space. Am I the only contributor to find this sort of thing disgusting?

It is of course possible that this tragic figure did not know who Abbie Hoffman was.

by OMG Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:15

Why not continue your little history lesson, OMG, and let me know precisely when Ireland joined NATO? Are you really THAT clueless? Let me give you a cluestick. Feel free to hit yourself on the head with it until the facts soak in. The Republic Of Ireland is a NEUTRAL country. Get it?

Err Mr huck, where did i say that Ireland Joined NATO? Heres your cluestick again because you obviously grasped the wrong end of it

shhh...debate...motion passed ...NATO troops in transit.....Ireland..agrees...motion passed in Dail....eom

another shining example...Kosovo, u do the research

and is Ireland Nuetral or non-aligned?
Neutral, really>? why then take part in peacekeeping ops all over the world? Somalia decision for example in 1993,
Irish participation in the ERRF,everyone knows Ireland has a policy of Non-Alignment, the myth of nuetrality was lost a long long time ago.

Ireland is not nuetral as it is prepared to use military force for collective security actions, including peace-enforcement if necessary

Stop adding 2+2 and coming up with 56

by OMG Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:55

another small example of Irelands **Nuetrality** was of course the falklands war

Are you aware that Ireland supported the UK in that war? Ireland backed an EU motion to place sanctions which was passed(Ireland at that time chaired it ffs!) thus confirming once again it is not Nuetral

neutral n(y)ootrul
One who does not side with any party in a war or dispute

And that includes placing of sanctions, sending of troops in any capacity et all

its all in the history books my friend, history never lies.

by omg Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:24

If you are going to talk about Ireland and Irish politics then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Irish constitution before opening your big mouth.

Well mr huck, had enough yet?

No arr shucks, I am very familiar with the Irish constitution, much more i would hazard a guess than you are.

perhaps you would be kind enough to point out to a poor ould sod like myself where exactly it mentions neutrality in the irish constitution.

You will be looking for a while because nowhere does it so mention my little uninformed friend

oops egg on face is nasty is it not?

next time know what you are talking about please because you never know who you are talking 2! gluck now

by Caobhin Wed Nov 01, 2006 18:07

As usual your pompousness exceeds your knowledge - Ireland pulled out of the EU sanctions against Argentina during the Malvinas conflict because of Thatchers war-crime in sinking the Belgrano.
Try at least getting a qualification in Junior cert.history next time before mouthing off with your imbecile soundbytes.

by omg Wed Nov 01, 2006 18:30

As usual your pompousness exceeds your knowledge - Ireland pulled out of the EU sanctions against Argentina during the Malvinas conflict because of Thatchers war-crime in sinking the Belgrano.
Try at least getting a qualification in Junior cert.history next time before mouthing off with your imbecile soundbytes

ERRR...noooo incorrect, the sanctions expired and Ireland and Italy did not renew them, a SUTTLE but nonetheless IMPORTANT distinction. I suggest you brush up on your history before you try to knock someone down with incorrect thrash, It was ACTUALLY Denmark that refused to implement saying the EU had no constitutional right to impose sanctions and denmark in fact did not join the Eu sanction but instead imposed identical sanctions on their own

Your point is actually therefore invalid to the current arguement of neutrality as Ireland did vote, Led the chair and voted YES to sanctions even though at the time there was fierce controversy in the North(ill let you figure that one out genius)

get it right FFS!

by Caobhin Wed Nov 01, 2006 19:15

I really shouldn't be having a go at juveniles with goldfish memory but this is what "omg" originally wrote;

Are you aware that Ireland supported the UK in that war? Ireland backed an EU motion to place sanctions which was passed(Ireland at that time chaired it ffs!) thus confirming once again it is not Nuetral

When Ireland pulled out of sanctions it provoked a temporary low in Irish-Brit relations, and unleashed hysteria in the English establishment and shitrag press but of course this is just a "SUTTLE distinction" and (my) "point is actually therefore invalid to the current arguement of neutrality as Ireland did vote".

SUTTLE distinctions aside, when did Ireland's non-renewal take place and when were EU sanctions actually removed then eh?

by Huck Teeper Wed Nov 01, 2006 23:38

OMG

No matter what you say, Ireland is not in NATO, as you claimed. Remember your little educational whisper, or have you promptly forgotten your stellar display of ignorance?

You are the one with egg on your face. In fact, the rancid contents of the egg appear to have penetrated through to whatever is inside your skill. Your familiarity with the Irish constitution therefore remains in question. As for what the Irish Government have done, that is another matter. The constitution and its provisions remain above them, even if they choose for whatever reason to ignore it.

by Huck Teeper Wed Nov 01, 2006 23:43

OMG blurted out...
"Are you aware that Ireland supported the UK in that war? Ireland backed an EU motion to place sanctions which was passed(Ireland at that time chaired it ffs!) thus confirming once again it is not Nuetral"

A little lesson for you. Our consitution and its provisions not only take precedence to the actions and decisions of our government, but also supercede any EU motions or laws. So, no matter what the rationale, the presence of foreign troops on our soil is illegal. You can say what you want in retort, but you can't change the legal supremacy of the constitution, no matter how much you hold your breath and blow it out the other end.

by Ernst Udet 7th - Jasta 2 Thu Nov 02, 2006 00:24

Ahhh, Poor old Francis is outraged that HE would have to pay for scratches to American Warplanes at Shannon. Does this poor soul not know he is paying through the nose for America's illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq. Has he been asleep, does he cycle the old bike or perhaps he has his very own oil well in the back garden. Wake up man, just look at the cost of petrol before Bush and his greedy buddies caused this war then go have a look at it now.

Ernst

by OMG Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:34

A little lesson for you. Our consitution and its provisions not only take precedence to the actions and decisions of our government, but also supercede any EU motions or laws. So, no matter what the rationale, the presence of foreign troops on our soil is illegal.

Little lesson for you

please show me where in the Irish Constitution is states ANYTHING about NEUTRALITY or passage of foreign troops through Irish soil
the constitution debate is a straw one initiated by antiwar when in fact they KNOW that the constitution does not mention any of it, they just tell ignoramusus like yourself that hang and believe every word without researching themselves as they are most likely incapable of doing so.I suggest you read and then reread article 27(i have attached a copy of the constitution in case you cannot find one yourself, for ease of reference)

SUTTLE distinctions aside, when did Ireland's non-renewal take place and when were EU sanctions actually removed then eh?
From my memory they expired in late April/May and were not renewed by Ireland and Italy and the war ended in June and the sanctions were removed in 2nd week of June from the top of my head, my point caobhin is that Ireland VOTED YES origionally and supported sanctions just as they have troops all over the world ENFORCING peace operations

once again i submit to you the definition of Neutral
Neutral:Not supporting or favouring either side in a war, dispute, or contest

Ireland favoured Ireland voted Ireland showed how Neutral it was! that is a small example of how Ireland changed its policy to a policy of non-alignment long long ago, be it wrong in your eyes or right in your eyes the fact is that well basically it is a fact! Irish history is littered with such decisions wheter you like it/admit it or not. Kosovo proved that beyond doubt, if any action was to be questioned it was the shipping then of US arms through Ireland WITHOUT UN approval. You missed your boat fellow by quite a few years, since then Irelands neutrality no longer exists, you have the rapid reaction force et all, dont get me wrong fellow, i dont disagree with the idea of Neutrality, i am merely stating the facts--Ireland is not currently neutral, to get Ireland to a neutral status would require a clause to be added to the Irish constitution, something which given the rapid reaction force commitments is not going to happen

by omg Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:44

There is no neutrality and we are not neutral
Sean lemass 1960

If a war occurs we may take one side, or we may take the other or we may be neutral.
Eamonn de Valera 1948

here endith the message, good luck in your quest

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 02, 2006 13:27

From the Preamble:
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Article 15
6. 1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

6. 2° No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

Firstly, the Constitution does not mention by name every aspect of existence. However all law must derrive from it.

So according to the preamble, the individual is the foundation of social order and the common good, and concord must be established with other nations. So: in what way are we currently establshing concord with Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? The Preamble in very unambiguous terms describes a State that should act in no fashion other than neutral.

The passage of foreign troops (especially on their way to indulge in genocide and invasion) is covered by the preamble also, but is dealt specifically in Article 15 as outlined above. Foreign troops being maintained in this country were not raised or maintained by the Oireachtas, and Article 15.6.2° says specifically that because these troops were not raised by the Oireachtas that they shall not be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

by omg Thu Nov 02, 2006 13:39

No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever

Yes i would think that that is in relation to internal rebellion against the state, your interpretation is flawed to say the least

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 02, 2006 13:49

If it only referred to an internal rebellion it would have said so in fewer words, and does so in the article on treason (39 I believe).

This particular article says "NO military" not "NO Irish military." As a further example to the point this article is making, there is no mention in the Constitution that allows foreign troops to use our facilities. If you reckon differently, please quote and explain the relevant article/s.

In other news, Kyle Snyder, 23, a former combat engineer has gone AWOL for a second time rather than be returned to Iraq or be Court Martialled. He refuses to return to Iraq due to the injustice that the US has perpetrated on Iraq and for their subsequent failure to properly investigate one of these acts specifically.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...EWS01

by OMG Thu Nov 02, 2006 14:14

A little lesson for you. Our consitution and its provisions not only take precedence to the actions and decisions of our government, but also supercede any EU motions or laws. So, no matter what the rationale, the presence of foreign troops on our soil is illegal. You can say what you want in retort, but you can't change the legal supremacy of the constitution, no matter how much you hold your breath and blow it out the other end.

Ok huck 1 final point on your superior knowledge here perhaps you can therefore explain article 29 point 10 of the constitution which states:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State

dont take up law anytime soon...