Shannon - a tale of two routes.

by Eoin Dubsky Mon Oct 22, 2007 14:46

The point couldn't be made any clearer. Not enough has been made of the security costs at SNN, and the increased likelihood of an armed attack there or elsewhere in Ireland because of our involvement in the Iraq war.

by Dubois Tue Oct 23, 2007 02:33

Imperialist aggression is subsidized and and the Irish people are subjugated to the dictates of the free market.

by Seán Ryan Tue Oct 23, 2007 04:04

Good article Tim.

It's just emerged too that that manacled prisoner (a US military serviceman) who was transported through Shannon and spotted by cleaning staff was brought through without permission (at least this permssion was not given in a public way) and indeed, that our government has no such arrangement or protocol to facilitate such an event.

http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.p...x.php

It's heads in the sand all the way with Bertie and his gang.

Who exactly is ruling this country?

by Sage Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:16

Sean I think we could answer your question if it was slightly changed to ' who is mis-ruling us ?'

by Shannon worker Wed Oct 24, 2007 01:56

Just emerged? Without permission? Wake up! The story was covered by the mainstream media 16 months ago. From RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0613/shannon.html

"The Government has said it was unacceptable that the US authorities did not seek the required consent before a civilian aircraft landed at Shannon Airport last Sunday carrying a US marine who was in military custody."

And in fairness to Prionsias de Rossa, he has been attempting to get answers on this in the EU parliament since July of last year. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-/...-0570

by Seán Ryan Wed Oct 24, 2007 05:09

I wonder would Shannon Worker like to comment on the first link he gives - the RTE one. In the news report Dermot Ahern is said to have said that the Irish Government regarded the US transporting prisoners through Ireland with the gravest of concern. Why were the Government concerned?

They never explained their reasoning for this 'grave concern.' Has this 'grave concern' evaporated or is it still present?

Secondly, Dermot Ahern was to look for a full written report from the US. I wonder did he get past just talking and thinking about this, and if he did, did the US supply a full written report.

Finally, considering Dermot Ahern's and the Government's 'grave concern,' why did the Gardaí Síochána not investigate this incident. We know that they didn't, thanks to evidence offered by the Gardaí at the Ploughshares trial. We also know that this grave concern never once inspired a search of any US plane, whether it be a spook plane or plane transporting troops. Doesn't seem like a 'grave concern' to me - unless the government were gravely concerned that the story got out. Subsequent inaction would seem to back up this hypothesis.

Fair enough, the shackled prisoner news is not new. Fair enough, the news that the US didn't have permission to transport this prisoner through Ireland, is not new. And that there's still no protocol for such an act is hardly surprising either, considering the wilful and brazen uselessness this Government is famous for. However, my link was only a few hours old when I posted it. Eyebrows are still being raised questioningly.

Shannon Worker says that these events took place some 16 months ago. Considering the concern expressed by our Government, media and population. Why is it that Mr. Dé Rossa still has not had his concerns addressed some 16 months later? Why has a protocol not been established some 16 months later, or rather, a ban on transporting prisoners through Ireland?

So many questions - so few answers - no representation.

by Mary Kelly Wed Oct 24, 2007 09:50

Tim, thanks for taking the time to put the Shannon/Aer lingus- Heathrow story in perspective

by Sceptic Wed Oct 24, 2007 22:29

Security is an overhead at airports. It is not at all credible that 95% if the security cost of the entire airport are due to the US stopover of troops to/from Kuwait – can this be backed up? Besides much of the additional cost is to protect against the deliberate vigilantism of “antiwar activists”.. The State did and does subsidize Shannon and Aer Lingus over the years; it has its own tax free zone; the equity of Aer Lingus and the cost alleviation for the Atlantic route as well as the stopover itself and the subsidy flow to the airport itself were all arranged and financed by the State. If left to market forces there would never have been a Shannon to speak of since the demise of the flying boats and the props to and from Gander. If the case you are putting is that it is down to cost benefit alone the issue of wider cost benefit of having US goodwill and friendship would have to be counted in, like for instance the efforts of the Clinton, Reagan and Carter administrations in resolving the Northern Ireland problems and the value of US investment and trade.

by Nonskeptic Fri Oct 26, 2007 00:04

"Security is an overhead at airports. It is not at all credible that 95% if the security cost of the entire airport are due to the US stopover of troops to/from Kuwait – can this be backed up? "

The normal security, pre the invasion of Afghanistand and Iraq did NOT include regular Garda patrols, the Irish Army, and building and maintaining new security systems for the 'military gate'.

"If the case you are putting is that it is down to cost benefit alone the issue of wider cost benefit of having US goodwill and friendship would have to be counted in, like for instance the efforts of the Clinton, Reagan and Carter administrations in resolving the Northern Ireland problems and the value of US investment and trade. "

Oh, that old stick... US investment and trade. Which depends on.... low corporate tax rates, generous packages, an english speaking workforce, access to EU markets... and... what? What US company making a profit here, gives a rats ass if we like GW Bush or not? Would they up sticks and move to a higher tax country? I think not.
We do not owe it to GW Bush to turn a blind eye to the murder of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the manipulation of both those countries for the benefit of a few (Halliburton and Unocal being prominent)

by Sceptic Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:33

But it was not me that brought in the issue of costs in the first place. If costs are to be considered benefits have to be too – that was my main point. It is the judgment of the people involved that the benefits of good US relations are enormous and equally as important that there is no sacrifice of principle in the Shannon troops stopover. Foreign Direct Investment is both highly mobile and competitive – it can’t b e taken for granted and more and more States are moving toward s the low corporate tax regime. Don’t be smug about it – it pays for you and yours. The 95% is still unverified – that sounds like it was thrown out and much of the marginal security costs would be to defend mobile assets against the attentions of antiwar vigilantes taking the law into their own hands quite illegally.

by Seán Ryan Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:57

I wonder would Sceptic or his employers mind if we facilitated the Iranian Air Force and Passanger flights carrying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on it's way to bombing and butchering the Americans? (If and when the next round of Bush's crusade begins.)

As an act to inspire goodwill that is.

"... antiwar vigilantes taking the law into their own hands quite illegally."

This is hardly a fair or a well thought out comment. The Ploughshares trial has established that the principle of 'lawful excuse' is a valid principle. It took a jury of 12 good people to come to this conclusion on behalf of the authorities who'd have locked up the Ploughshares and thrown away the keys if they'd had their way.

Vigilantism is unlawful. I wonder how Sceptic would describe the acts of the State and the Gardaí with regard to the Ploughshares. If the Ploughshares were acting lawfully, then those who tried to stop or to criminalise them were acting unlawfully. The State are the vigilantes not its people and those who stand and be counted for their beliefs in the law, morality and decency.

by Sceptic Fri Oct 26, 2007 20:27

You are ignoring that the US operation in Iraq has the approval of the UN Security Council – hence its legitimacy. In fact as a UN member there is a virtually moral duty to assist in this way. Re the Ploughshares the fact that the State did not get a conviction does not unmake them or others like them vigilantes that have to be guarded against at much expense. It’s not valid to assume a parallel universe of some sort that in an instant makes the Gardai and Army vigilantes (a contradiction surely) and the Ploughshares the upholders of law. People cannot have it both ways – complaining about the cost of security at Shannon and also supporting those who are the reason for the security in the first place.

by Seán Ryan Fri Oct 26, 2007 21:22

Again it is absolutely not vigilantism. Vigilantism is a crime - the Ploughshares have committed no crime and I'll thank you not to anonymously cast you insideus aspersions in such a cowardly fashion. The People have spoken very plainly and conclusively on this issue and your drivel that speaks otherwise is quite worthless apart from its insult value.

UN approval, backwardly applied does not unmake a war crime or any other type of crime. Besides our court system has spelled it out, with regard to lawful excuse. Our courts have not ruled any US war of agression lawful. Some anonymous self-appointed expert jumping up and down and shrieking otherwise does not prove otherwise. Kofi Anan himself described the US's acts as unlawful.

So, remember that your opinions regarding validity etc. are neither expert opinion, nor have they been established to have value beyond your own hopes and dreams. Remember that this is a news site and that your imagination does not constitute substantiation.

by Sceptic Fri Oct 26, 2007 21:44

Vigilantism is indeed a crime which is why the ploughshare people were charged under the criminal code. No domestic or relevant international court has adjudged the coalition intervention in Iraq unlawful. As far as Ireland is concerned there is no need for an Irish Court to pronounce on the matter for the legal position to be clear. Kofi Anan was not a court – he gave his opinion but that in itself does not deem a particular act illegal. Nor does the UNSC resolutions apply retrospectively but the Shannon traffic is to do with the here and now situation and not with March 2003. As regards the intervention of 2003 the main point is that there was no UNSC Chapter 7 resolution declaring it illegal – in the absence of any other judgement it is not therefore illegal under the UN legal order. Furthermore the law officers of the participating states – eg. UK, Spain, Italy came to the view that the intervention was fully lawful. These are the legal realities, however inconvenient for some people, and not imagination.

by Seán Ryan Fri Oct 26, 2007 22:31

This thread is rapidly going off topic, so this will be my last post on this issue. I suggest, Sceptic, that you pen an opinion analysis piece and post it, citing your data and the inferences you choose to make from it. Should you do so I'll be very happy to give you lessons on law, history and many other subjects that I find you very lacking in. (For free too!!)

Being charged with a crime does not make one a criminal - hence 'innocent until proven guilty.' The Ploughshares have been found innocent and to claim otherwise is defamation.

The protesters and activists are not the reason for security in Shannon. Faciltating the US war machine is the reason for both the activists and the extra security and it is very legitimate to protest the cost of this. Of all the threats open to Shannon, the activists constitute the least with regard to the massive security operation. Our government choosing to support genocide, constitutes the real threat.

"No domestic or relevant international court has adjudged the coalition intervention in Iraq unlawful."

Correct. I note you avoided using the term 'war.' But at least now you realise (when you believe it suits your opinion) that this issue does need to visit a Court.

UN law despite the waffle is very clear. A war of agression is unlawful. If war is to be waged, then the war must be a response to an act of war and it must be a response that is proportional to the act of war that caused it. What act of war precipitated the US's just and valid (sarcasm) response with regard to Iraq?

Again, I openly admit that the US needs to visit a Court and have its actions examined, before criminalisation can be considered fully legitimate. However, UN law is quite specific and it's purpose is quite specific and it's very clear that the US and its allies are wilful violaters. If a legitimate international Court should find US personnell innocent, I'll cease and desist with regard to expressing my beliefs that suggest otherwise (as should you with regard to the Ploughshares).

Unlike the US, the Ploughshares have been to court and have been vindicated, and indeed, that they would be was very clear, once they got to put their case to the People and they had exhaused the scumbag efforts of the State and its agents who tried to hamstring them.

Furthermore with regard to the legitimacy of this war of agression - not only is it unlawful in an international sense it is unlawful under American law itself, where a declaration of war is required in order to go to war, according to the American Constitution.

Like I said, please write an article yourself and stop trolling all and sundry where you can withdraw once the going gets hot or you have achieved your purpose which is to pervert. Have some decency and put your money where your mouth is.

by Sceptic Sat Oct 27, 2007 14:23

I am on completely on topic as regards the rights and wrongs of Shannon. Some people prefer mutual affirmation of prejudice rather than a clarification of facts. I did not say the Ploughshares were guilty of a crime. However they made themselves protagonists in this situation and ran a publicity campaign. Public comment on them can be expected. The fact that the jury did not convict in this case does not then mean by some leap that this jury decision then replaces the democratic organs of the State – the executive and the legislature- as the definite manifestation of the national will on the issue. The jury verdict was relevant in this instance only and does not license vigilantism.

“OUR GOVERNMENT CHOOSING TO SUPPORT GENOCIDE”
Stick to facts – our Government is acting in support of a UN resolution for the stabilization of Iraq.

As regards the UN war is only illegal in certain albeit restricted circumstances and the UN itself can wage war or have war waged on its behalf in certain circumstances – eg. Korea and Iraq. The UN has not pronounced on the legality or otherwise or the Iraqi intervention of 2003 hence there is not a UN view on it and by the same token it is not illegal in international law. Indeed much learned opinion supports the view that legitimacy for 2003 flows from the resolutions adopted in 1990/1991 which ended in a ceasefire the conditions of which were not observed.

You are wrong in the assertion firstly that 2003 was a war of aggression and secondly that it automatically follows it is illegal in international law. This view is widely held on the part of the antiwar left, indeed it is a nostrum, but it has no foundation in legal reality.

“IT IS UNLAWFUL UNDER AMERICAN LAW ITSELF, WHERE A DECLARATION OF WAR IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GO TO WAR, ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.” No it isn’t because there is not a common position on the part of the executive and the legislature that the President needs congressional assent for military action or and the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. In any case there WAS congressional approval for the Iraqi intervention of 2003 and in fact the Congress has called for regime change in Iraq in legislation during the Clinton administration, with the assent of Clinton.

by Seán Ryan Sat Oct 27, 2007 15:18

"I did not say the Ploughshares were guilty of a crime"

Well what does this mean: "Re the Ploughshares the fact that the State did not get a conviction does not unmake them or others like them vigilantes..."

A vigilante is a criminal. Or is this where your confusion begins?

I can see why you view them as vigilantes - a vigilante takes matters into his own hands to tackle a criminal (i.e. our government and the US). However vigilantism is illegal. The Ploughshares have not acted unlawfully - period. So enough of the obfuscation and backstepping.

What stabilization in Iraq?

Genocide is the attempt at systematic destruction of a national or racial group. Millions displaced, millions dead since the first Gulf Crusade by Papa Bush, the annihilation of absolute innocents relegated to 'collateral damage' or referred to as 'stabilization.' = Wanton Genocide. Try calling a dead US soldier or a dead 9/11 victim 'collateral damage' and see the value that warmongers place on human life that is not white. Yeah, Genocide is usually racially motivated too and its victims de-humanised. Well done.

Ireland facilitated the US prior to any aproval of the UN - end of story. Moreover, the approval of the US is hardly to be considered legitmate - 'pathetic' would better describe it. I would liken the UN approval to a drowning man grasping at anything to stay afloat. It is and it was testimony to the UN's utter dependance on the goodwill of the US. Very similar to the picture here and that Sceptic is proud to paint.

A preemptive war by it's very definition is a war of aggression (remember Hitler and the blitzkrieg). Remember that UN law demands an act of war to have been committed for legitimate war to ensue. There is and there was no act of war by Iraq. And paranoia doesn't count (although I do concede that US paranoia doesn't quite explain it all - deliberation, inhumanity and greed need to be added too).

Again with regard to your argument regarding the US and their Constitution (Article 1.8) demanding a declaration of war, you've put the cart before the horse yet again. The article exists and therefore doesn't require a court case to determine its existence. Whether this article has been violated or not does require a court case. So in truth both of us are just expressing opinions. However, since there was no declaration of war, I'm willing to bet that it's my opinion that's grounded in reality.

by Seán Ryan Sat Oct 27, 2007 15:45

7th. paragraph, where I say "Moreover, the approval of the US is hardly to be considered legitmate..."

I should have said 'UN' not 'US.'

Apologies to all.

by Sceptic Sat Oct 27, 2007 17:21

”GENOCIDE IS THE ATTEMPT AT SYSTEMATIC DESTRUCTION OF A NATIONAL OR RACIAL GROUP”. Yes and the US or its allies have not executed genocide in Iraq. People being displaced or killed by terrorists or insurgents or by way of collateral damage does not constitute genocide. Collateral damage was merely a name for a feature of all wars that was brought in by the Pentagon in the 1960s. It does not mean one is indifferent to such causalities. Because there will be civilian causalities in all wars means the conscientious should be very slow indeed to get into a war. Are you against all wars or just ones prosecuted by the west? Unless you are a pacifist you are willing to accept collateral damage in the wars of which you do approve. The term collateral damage refers to civilian targets - it would not be applied as you absurdly suggest to military causalities. By bringing 9/11 into it you are conflating the actions of an illegitimate private and obscurantist religious war-making and terrorists NGO with sovereign and law bound states (e.g. US, UK, Spain, Ireland, Italy) which posses armed forces which are uniformed and bound by law and various codes of conduct.

A preemptive war is not by definition a war of aggression as you put it – it depends on the circumstances. Something could be adjudged to be an act of aggression (e.g. Resolution 666 plus of the UNSC effectively so declared the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990). Several Israeli military actions have been preemptive but that does not make them acts of aggression (e.g. against Egypt in 1967; against Uganda at Entebbe in 1976 and against Iraqi nuclear facilities in 1981).

MOREOVER, THE APPROVAL OF THE UN IS HARDLY TO BE CONSIDERED LEGITMATE - 'PATHETIC' WOULD BETTER DESCRIBE IT. The body might be imperfect but its pretty well all there is. I suspect that your attitude is disingenuous anyway as if the UN had declared it illegal you would have trumpeted the fact with great fanfare. Now that the UN has legitimized it you start calling it names and thereby trying to invalidate it. Face it – the Iraqi operation is fully legal in international law and the Shannon transit facilitates a UN endorsed operation.

by Whistleblower Sat Oct 27, 2007 18:41

This is why Katherine Gunn risked her life to tell the world that the offices of the UN were being
abused by UK spying at GCHQ- I love how short term memory works, I would consider it a
victory for mass media and propaganda that grown up adult males like Skeptic actually believe
that the UN itself has not been damaged by the Bush Regime or their apologists in Spain, Italy,
Ireland, UK and of course Russia(who it appears have had enough abuse by western corporatism
and have Vlad re-igniting the missile crisis due to the EU satellite's willingness to house
weapons of mass destruction on behalf of the US).

by Sceptic Sat Oct 27, 2007 22:22

If you read my postings you would have seen that I am not starry eyed at all about the UN which is in many ways deeply dysfunctional and amoral. But its all there is and arguably something is better than nothing, Its commonly asserted that the Iraqi intervention in 2003 was illegal. This is not so though it did not have the imprimatur of a UN SC approval. But just as important neither was there a SC motion condemning it. The situation is that the neither the UNSC nor a court belonging to the UN legal order pronounced on the issue. It is therefore wrong to state the intervention was illegal. It was not.

PS – anti missile missiles are not classified as WMD.

by Jimbob Sat Oct 27, 2007 23:42

" Its commonly asserted that the Iraqi intervention in 2003 was illegal. This is not so though it did not have the imprimatur of a UN SC approval. "

Of course. Attacking a country which was not attacking anybody, had not threatened to attack anybody,
and which was not in a position to attack the US or the UK, cannot possibly be illegal. Occupying the country, securing the oil infrastructure, and allowing everything else to be looted (including ammo dumps) and also bombing TV stations and hospitals, and stealing the oil... all totally above board.

"But just as important neither was there a SC motion condemning it."

And which two countries that invaded Iraq have a veto on the UN Security Council? The US and the UK.
So, because the council which is at the mercy of the 5 veto powers, did not pass a resolution condemning two of the veto powers, there must be nothing wrong with the actions of those countries?
I see NO importance in the absence of a UNSC motion condemning the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Anyone with a brain can see that the US and UK went into Iraq, on a tissue of lies, violating the sovereignty of a country which they knew posed no threat, and unleashing massive firepower resulting in the deaths of many thousands of people.

Our government knows this, and did know this prior to the invasion. They went ahead with their facilitation of it anyway.

by Sceptic Sun Oct 28, 2007 00:15

The UN is the system we have like it or not. The previous League of Nations system which had no club of great powers was totally ineffectual in the face the fascist powers breaking the peace in say the war of conquest against Abyssinia. At least there have been significant achievements over a longer period with the Security Council System for all its flaws. The fact remains that the Iraqi intervention was not illegal and the US is now acting in a fully legitimate supporting role for a democratic and representative Iraqi Government. The reasons for the intervention were well documented and are not the hyperbole instanced “stealing oil” etc. The right to national sovereignty is not sacrosanct. It can be legitimately violated for a number of reasons – you appear to adhere to an absolutist and outdated Westphalian notion of national sovereignty where sovereignty in more important than say the internally repressive policies of the governing regime. In fact the commission of genocide is a reason under the UN codes for intervention and Saddam had form in that regard. The “tissue of lies” bit is just the usual leftist trite along with “illegal” making up the normal mantra. The problem was a lack of up to date intelligence not any deliberate deception. Saddam had not only abandoned his weapons programmes but kept the fact secret from his own top circle and generals as well as the internal community through UNMOVIC. In the absence of good intelligence it was reasonable to assume the WMD was still extant. This was the professional judgment of the main foreign intelligence agencies with an interest in Iraq.

by Jimbob. Sun Oct 28, 2007 00:54

"The fact remains that the Iraqi intervention was not illegal "

It is not a fact. IF we are too take the UN (imperfect, and hamstrung by the fiver permanent members) at it's word, then its Charter outlaws making war on any nation, other than with a vote of approval by the Security Council. It is dishonest to claim it was self defence, (which would gain an exemption under article 51 of chapter VII). Likewise, it is dishonest to claim that resolutions like 1441 gave legitimacy. None of the resolutions cited, permit the use of force.

"The reasons for the intervention were well documented and are not the hyperbole instanced “stealing oil” etc. "

Selling off Iraqi oil, not metering it, and using those revenues to fill the pockets of companies determined by appointee Paul Bremmer, is STEALING. It's not hyperbole.
What did Saddam do in 2002-2003 that caused the invasion, given all the crap he got away with in the 70s, 80s and 90s,... I'd love to know what exactly that scumbag did in 2002, when he had been stripped of his abilties to over run his borders.

"In fact the commission of genocide is a reason under the UN codes for intervention and Saddam had form in that regard. "

This is the former US/UK ally Saddam Hussein we're talking about? What tough actions were taken against him for internal repression? None. Only when he invaded Kuwait did the US/UK act. And then again in 2003 when he... ah, remind me what he did again...? Refused to give up the non-existent WMD?

"The “tissue of lies” bit is just the usual leftist trite along with “illegal” making up the normal mantra. The problem was a lack of up to date intelligence not any deliberate deception. Saddam had not only abandoned his weapons programmes but kept the fact secret from his own top circle and generals as well as the internal community through UNMOVIC. In the absence of good intelligence it was reasonable to assume the WMD was still extant. This was the professional judgment of the main foreign intelligence agencies with an interest in Iraq. "

Your parroting of the official line is a tissue of lies. Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the summer of 2001 gave the assessment of Iraq as not being able to project force or pose a threat. The minute they wanted to invade the place, suddenly the assessment changed to meet the requirements of the policy. That is called lying. Killing innocent people and using lies to justify it, is illegal. Nothing trite about that. apologising for the murder of so many people, and saying 'shucks it seemed reasonable at the time' is your mantra, and not an original one either.
.
It was not reasonable to assume WMDs were extant when verifiable UNMOVIC inspections after the 'Gulf War' showed that Iraqi facilities had been identified, and plugged.
The absence of good intelligence in 2002-2003 was due to the US and UK NOT WANTING the UN Inspectors to continue their job because they KNEW that Saddam had been kept in his box, and also kept in power, good health etc, while ordinary Iraqis died under the sanctions.

by jinkees Sun Oct 28, 2007 08:52

Skeptik retorted that anti-missile missiles are not classified as WMD. They do what they say on the tin. they cause destruction.
Poland was accepting US WMD on the borders of Russian territory, that is an act of aggression and Vlad responded.

Now wtf is Europe?
A satellic extension of unsustainable US policy or a federal union or a loose amalgamation of nation states.?