Anti-War Activist places US Soldiers under (Citizens) Arrest in Co Clare.

by Conor Cregan Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:48

.

by . Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:52

.

by Black Guard Fri Jun 23, 2006 13:01

Fair dues Conor. Every little bit keeps them under pressure ...

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland Fri Jun 23, 2006 13:02

Well done, Conor. The poor response from the local gardai is scarcely a surprise, but shouldn't discourage people from taking similar action in future.

Likewise, it might be a good idea for people to write to the management of the hotels that take these troops to enquire if they are happy to garrison soldiers on their way to and from war. Indeed, a list of hotels that have provided, and are willing to provide, accomodation for the US war machine would be very, very useful.

I certainly wouldn't stay in a hotel that billets the US military, and I think it would be reasonable for us to alert the general public as to which are the offending hotels.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 23, 2006 13:19

Fantastic story Conor....more power to you - well done. I hope it makes news in the US as well..

Solidarity

by shane - FEIC Fri Jun 23, 2006 13:56

Feckin fantastic!

by A10 Fri Jun 23, 2006 14:02

That was a fine bit of impromptu comedy routine supplied by your good self and the Gardai.
Really wonder what the GIs made of all this and what quaint local chacters they can meet here.
Shows also how seriously the Gardai are taking you ,by asking wether GWB was with them or wether they were armed.Anyway,keep it up we all need a laugh.

by Edward Horgan - PANA Peace and Neutrality Alliance Fri Jun 23, 2006 14:17

Ireland, or any other state, does not have to be neutral in a war situation. The Irish Government is entitled to declare war on other states, if of course such a war is justified, and in accordance with international law.

see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm,

However, if a Government declares its country to be a neutral state, as the Irish Government has repeatedly done, it has very grave responsibilities under the Hague Convention V on Neutrality 1907, and other more modern customary elements of international law.

The key provisions of this binding international law convention include:
Article 1.
The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 11.
A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.

It may keep them in camps and even confine them in fortresses or in places set apart for this purpose.

Art. 14.
A neutral Power may authorize the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither personnel nor war material. In such a case, the neutral Power is bound to take whatever measures of safety and control are necessary for the purpose.
Art. 16.
The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered as neutrals.
By falsely claiming to be a neutral state, and then acting in gross breach of the laws of neutraliy, the Irish Government is putting the citizens of Ireland at serious risk of retaliation by the states being attacked by the US, or by the citizens of such states, whose relatives are being killed by these unlawful wars.
Under international law, a state unlawfully attacked through the territory of another state, are entitled to take all necessary means to prevent the beligerent troops passing through that neutral state.

The Irish state and the Gardai therefore are in gross breach of the their duties under international law, in failing to arrest these US Soldiers.
Furthermore, they are in breach of Irish criminal law, in failing to investigate whether any of these US soldiers have been involved in crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as much as they would have been in breach of Irish criminal law if they failed to investigate individuals who were passing through the Republic of Ireland and who may have been involved in the Omagh boming.

The courage and determination shown by Conor Cregan in temporarily arresting these soldiers contrasts with the cowardise and dereliction of duty of the Gardai. These same Gardai have had no hesitation in wrongfully arresting several peace activists at Shannon airport.

Well done, Citizen Cregan

by Brendan Fri Jun 23, 2006 15:08

I met them four of the troops in the hotel restaurant and bought lunch and drinks for them. I did the same thing last year in Dublin when I met some US navy guys in town. I always buy a round of drinks when I see US military out and about. It is the only chance I get to thank them. Who do you think they will remember more?

by krossie - wsm personal capacity Fri Jun 23, 2006 15:28

Well skillful piece of propoganda - they look so bemused!!!

Brendan: Who do you think they will remember more?

At a guess the person who tried to keep them alive.

which would be

wait

oh

wait

Conor!

yeah

Krossie

by MG Fri Jun 23, 2006 15:30

I am sure they were very amused at this deranged Irish bloke who spent his money on food and drink for members of an army that were brutalising nations in the middle east. I am sure after all the scandals of the degrading treatment that the US army has enacted and mass murder that they have perpetrated that they were delighted that you bought them drinks and food. Would you buy food and drink for their victims? Would you thank their victims for being so powerless to prevent the US from destroying their communities? Well done Brendan, waste all the money you want.

by Coilín Fri Jun 23, 2006 15:39

if it happens to be a suicide bomber.

These people are putting themselves and the Irish citizens around them at risk by wandering around as highly visible targets.

The officer in charge of the crew of a Hercules who landed at Shannon and took lodgings at a hotel in Limerick on 30 December last was allegedly very concerned for the safety of his people. Fair enough, but what about the safety of the civilians staying at these hotels?

Best,
Coilín.

by guydebordisdead Fri Jun 23, 2006 16:02

Where do you stand legally if you walked up to one of these foreign troops and hit them a good slap in the head? If they're not legally meant to be here surely you'd get off? Perhaps pieing them would be a more humane tactic.

by pat c Fri Jun 23, 2006 16:09

assault is assault. if you assault an illegal immigrant you can be charged. but if you assaulted a us soldier then it might be difficult for the charge to stick. would they come back for a trial?

the danger is that they might hit back. if they over did their defence then you might well be able to bring assualt charges against them.

i dont think that anyone involved in the anti war movement has ever assaulted a pro war person.

by Brendan Fri Jun 23, 2006 16:10

MG,

I don't consider it a waste of money. I consider it money well spent. Besides it is my well earned money to spent as I see fit. I trust you do the same with yours. I consider myself honored to have the opportunity. The protestor has every right to express his views toward the US military, as he should. And why the ad hominem attack calling me deranged? Can we stick to the posting policy and play the ball and not the man?

Brendan

by MG Fri Jun 23, 2006 16:17

Yes Brendan it is your money to spend. As I stated waste all the money you want. I called it deranged because you said you were thanking them, the reality is they have nothing to be thanked for. The US has perpetrated monsterous acts against communities in the middle east and to thank them for it is to agree with these monsterous acts. Also they were not doing it on our behalf, or on the behalf of democracy or the other lies that the US claims.

by krossie - wsm personal capacity Fri Jun 23, 2006 16:47

Brendan: Besides it is my well earned money to spent as I see fit.

Of course it is - in so far as the tea and sandwiches you bought for the soldiers is concerned (crusts on or off - butter or maggy rine)

HOWEVER MY tax cash (and its a fair bit these days) is being spent ferrying the troops of a beligerant war through a "neutral" (har har) country where I am a tax paying citizen against the wishes (in poll after poll) of the majority of the tax paying citizens.

And there's the nub of our little problem.
Bertie takes my cash from my pocket - pays the aviation and overlanding fees against my wishes and most people's wishes.

krossie

by tom eile Fri Jun 23, 2006 17:03

I know these soldiers are potential murderers and war criminals ,but I think the anti war movement in Ireland should take the risk of addressing US soldiers as human beings. We should make an address to them in an open letter /leaflet along the lines of :
"US Service men and women passing through Shannon
Your government is sending you to fight an illegal war in Iraq . In this war over 2,500 of your comrades have been killed and countless thousands other have been permanently maimed . The amount of Iraqis who have died we do not know because their deaths are not considered worthy of counting by the occupying forces.
There may come a time during your tour of duty when you will be called upon by your superiors to perform acts that constitute crimes against humanity. Such crimes by US as well as British forces have been well documented in Fallujah , Haditha and Basra .We believe a day will come when the organizers of this illegal war will face war crime tribunals such as were faced by the Nazi defendants in Nuremburg after the second world war.
The Nuremburg tribunal found that soldiers had not only the right but the duty to refuse to obey illegal orders . As soldiers you have a duty to your country to your companies and to your comrades. But do not forget that you are first and foremost members of the human race and as such , your first duty is towards humanity . We urge you to act accordingly even if this entails putting your own lives at risk ."

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Fri Jun 23, 2006 17:10

Well done Conor.

I would like to know what action the Gardaí will take with regard to the soldiers who were handed over to them.

If they take no action, does this mean that the Gardaí, and more importantly, the Government, now believe that it is lawful for troops engaged in war on behalf of a foreign power to walk around the roads of this country unimpeded.

If they take no action, does the Government thereby renounce all claims, however spurious they had rendered them, to Irish neutrality

Or will it be an acknowledgement that Ireland is a participant in the war and ongoing occupation of Iraq

On the other hand, if charges are brought against the soldiers (and through them the US Government that sent them here) will the State be as assiduous in their prosecution as it has been in the prosecution of the Pitstop Ploughshares and Mary Kelly.

by krossie - wsm personal capacity Fri Jun 23, 2006 17:24

The lads are fierce busy shure give them a break!

krossie

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0720/tipperary.html

Garda charged with public order offences

20 July 2005 22:14

A garda inspector has been charged with three public order offences, including being drunk and disorderly, following a disturbance at a fast food restaurant in Co Tipperary last weekend.

The inspector was arrested along with his wife and his brother-in-law at the Abrakebabra fast food restaurant in Templemore last Friday night.

All three were taken to Templemore Garda Station and were released on station bail after being charged. They are due to appear before Templemore District Court in September.

It is understood the garda inspector, who has 30 years service and is based at Garda Headquarters in Dublin, became extremely agitated after he put money into a jelly bean machine and did not get any sweets.

It is understood the man put a euro coin into the machine twice but the machine accepted different coins and did not return his money or any sweets. The man became extremely upset and staff at the outlet called the gardaí.

Gardaí tried to calm the man but when he refused to move on he was arrested. His wife subsequently became annoyed and she was also arrested along with the man's brother-in-law.

In a separate incident, a garda in north Dublin is under investigation after he is alleged to have picked up a woman in an official garda van while on duty and took her for a walk on Dollymount Strand.

The man was reported to senior officers by a probation garda who was with him on duty.

The matter is now being investigated by a chief superintendent.

krossie

by Johnfunk Fri Jun 23, 2006 17:53

Im actually a little disapointed after reading this article. Fair enough US troops have no place being in this country but to try and place the soldiers under arrest of any kind is ridiculous after all they hadn't commited any crime while in Co. Clare. I am sure they would rather not be here in the first place and would much prefer to be at home with friends and family. Do you honestly believe that they want to fight Bushes war.

The 999 telephone number is only to be used in an emergency not by cranks looking for some cheap publicity. Stunts like this bring great shame on the anti war movent.

Add to this the poor spelling and grammer. I mean come on use spell check that is what its for.

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Fri Jun 23, 2006 18:26

Well done, Conor. Far from this being a cheap stunt, I think it was a creative and humourous protest. To say it brings 'great shame' on the anti-war movement is ridiculous. Conor is someone who has been engaged with these issues for years, so his actions are the product of long thought and experience. Yes, the troops are mostly working-class cannon fodder and are not to blame for the war. However, at least there are three or four soldiers now aware that not everyone in Ireland agrees with their presence here for the purposes of servicing the US war machine. He may even have planted seeds of doubt in some of their minds about what they are involved in. Some of the most effective anti-war activists are veterans. I hope this is their future fate, as opposed to being brought back through Shannon in a body bag or on a stretcher.

"Add to this the poor spelling and grammer."

Given your remarks about the action taken by Conor, it is hard to resist pointing out that you have spelt th word 'grammar' incorrectly.

by goody two-shoes Fri Jun 23, 2006 18:31

Then why don't they desert and apply for asylum ...

by delighted Fri Jun 23, 2006 19:07

They leave Texas (hot) to be stationed in Iraq (hot) and as part of their journey ( & presumedly preparation of both psychology & phsique) get to walk around Ennis (quite cold). Maybe the Irish Government could offer them sunbeds & saunas on the stopover so that they are in tippy toppy condition and properly acclimatised. & the locals could start leaving their waste shopping bags all over the place with little "could be an IED" sign next to them. Or maybe the Irish government could just suggest they be re-routed through a hotter member of NATO, or at the very least a member of NATO with plentiful hot-tubs.... Iceland for example.

by w. Fri Jun 23, 2006 19:16

"Add to this the poor spelling and grammer. I mean come on use spell check that is what its for."

It's spelt GRAMMAR you gobshite, I hope the irony isn't lost on you.

by Damien Moran - Pitstop Ploughshares Fri Jun 23, 2006 20:39

Well done on your vigilance and pro-activity Conor.

There is lots of anti-war activism occuring in the country over the next few weeks. And as a consequence there is going to be a heightened sense of interventionism from State authorities - subtle and not so subtle.
The Galway war show will be counter-balanced with peaceful manifestation staged by the GAAW demo on Sunday coming June 25th where they will be joined by the Green Party City Mayor (Fair play to you Niall).

Margaretta D is organising an unwelcome for the US Ambassador when he comes to Galway to speak to the Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday next, June 28th.

We will be having a gig in Conways on Parnell st. next Wednesday June 28th with great music, spoken word, cabaret lined up -entry donation, so you'll even have the price of an extra pint if your that way inclined!

The HMS Ocean looks like it's lining up for a nice reception going by this thread.

In association with Afri we have a meeting next Thursday June 29th in Wynne's Hotel on the theme of 'Women and Non-violence'.

U.S. Citizens For Alternatives to War are facilitating an event on Sunday July 2nd - the 'ALTERNATIVE Independence Day Picnic' which keeping to the importance of maintaining the initiative will actually be held two days before the actual day I was due to be born on in 1980 - July 4th. I finally gave up and was born on Orange Man's Day - irony at it's best.

Our third trial starts on Wednesday July 5th - meetings and other events due to take place around this period will be announced to Indy shortly.

Regarding our daily vigils at the GPO from 12 noon to 2pm, Ciaron, Colm and I were joined at the GPO today by French Anti-Fa activist and ex-homeless shelter work colleague Alban, Baldonnel arrestee Niall D, IAWM steering committee members Michael Y and social justice stalwart Gearoid K, seminarian Francis from Tanzania, Columban Derry Healy fresh back from supporting equality for students in Chile. There was no cop in the vicinity to utter ludicrous demands like on Wednesday last - the following is a paraphrased version of the dialogue I had with him:

Guard: You can't show images like that in public. There's a law against that sort of thing.
DM: What are you talking about? That's an image of someone killed in the Iraq war. How could it be against the law when it was published in most of the newspapers here in Ireland two years ago?
Guard: I'm telling you it's against the law. You can't be showing children that sort of thing.
DM: That sort of thing is a child killed by a US bomb. Quote which law you think it breaks.......there is no such law.

And quite literally, that was the end of the story - the law which it supposedly breached was never quoted. It reminded me of the time 15 of us gathered with Caoimhe Butterly at the top of Grafton street in '03 and held a peace walk through Stephen's Green towards the Department of Foreign Affairs. 100 metres in and the security halted our peaceful walk saying that the images we were holding (Iraq sanctions/war victims) amounted to advertising and it's against the law to advertise in a public park without permission from the relevant authorities - on that occasion we actually just ignored their ridiculous comments and kept walking.

Keep vigilant, keep dissenting, keep the peace!

by number 6 - legalize freedom campaign Fri Jun 23, 2006 21:20

Excellent stuff Conor. Your Article clearly states just where this Country is at.

This needs to be put 'on the record' through registered mail by as many People as possible. Register Letters to Ministers and Po-lice Chiefs responsible and C.c. to the rest.

Then 'they' will be legally culpable.
Lets flush them out.

B.C.N.U.

by Fiona Sat Jun 24, 2006 01:28

In reply to Johnfuck re US troops not committing any crime in Clare I beg to differ. Haven't got a copy of Bunreacht na hEireann to hand but there is an article which specifically forbids the wearing of the military uniform of a foreign nation on sovereign Irish territory. Why else do you think the Gardai were ushering them back into their hotels? It has nothing to do with their lack of popularity in Ireland. They are breaking Irish law. Conor Creegan was quite within his rights putting them under citizen's arrest..

by Seán Ryan Sat Jun 24, 2006 01:51

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.

The above shows why the Gardaí should have taken Conor's request seriously. Our Constitution takes it very seriously.

Article 9
2. Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental
political duties of all citizens.

Article 9.2 offers the justification for Conor's action. 'Justification' is a word I use only to silence the trolls, Conor did his duty as an Irish citizen. Buying lunch for beligerant forces is not a fundamental duty of Irish citizens, it is more a case of arse licking.

Excellent work Conor, as usual. It's great to see that you can keep a sense of humour, despite the gravity of the situation. This idea of arresting beligerants has been talked about for a few years now - and off you go and arrest six of em at once!

Can't wait to hear what our 'democratically' elected betters have to say about this.

by anon Sat Jun 24, 2006 08:21

Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, claimed in an Internet posting that it had killed 81 workers who were "building a new American base".

Baghdad shut down after 'free-for-all' gun battle

by Eoin Dubsky Sat Jun 24, 2006 14:38

Keep at them! I don't understand why the soldiers don't carry a spare pair of normal clothes with them?

by bbgun Sat Jun 24, 2006 16:42

More correct to say "American slum army terrorists" visiting Ireland.

by Santuary????? Sat Jun 24, 2006 17:30

Prompted by a Fort Lewis Army officer's decision to refuse to fight in
Iraq, the First United Methodist Church of Tacoma has declared itself
a sanctuary for servicemen and servicewomen who also don't want to go
to Iraq.

The 300-member congregation's administrative council voted last
weekend to open its doors beginning this Saturday after 1st Lt. Ehren
Watada announced that he thinks the war in Iraq is illegal and that he
has sought to resign his commission.

Is there a church in Shannon or Limerick that would declare
"sanctuary of the church" for U.S. soldiers jumping ship f at
Shannon Airport rom this immoral/illegal war.

More info on 1st Lt. Ehern Watada & the Tacoma (Washington USA)
church offfering sanctuary on the
link below...........

by Seán Ryan Sat Jun 24, 2006 18:50

Our Constitution recognises that we enjoy a 'special' relationship with some nations, due to our history. America is definitely covered by this. Our Government boasts often, about having one of the best asylum systems in Europe. Due to our special relationship with the peoples of the United States, American soldiers seeking political asylum would be seen as primal candidates for asylum.

Not only that!

A soldier being forced to fight in a war that was not his war, and indeed, a just or a legal war, would be under severe duress. This is torture at the very least - it is a crime against humanity. We are bound by European law not to facilitate torture or crimes against humanity.

On the downside...

Despite our obligations and our desires and identity as a nation, our Government often ignore the concepts of prudence, justice and charity. And our Government constantly facilitates torture and crimes against humanity. As for the 'special' relationship with the US, well that's become very 'special.' It's now a relationship with the American Government and Corporations, the little guy doesn't count.

As for the church providing sanctuary. Good luck with that.

by Joe Sheehan and Mary Hughes Sat Jun 24, 2006 19:14

What you did took a huge amount of courage and conviction that the rest of us are lacking all too often, Thank you once again!!!

Joe and Mary.

From Bilbao!

by chavez frias Sat Jun 24, 2006 22:36 chavezfrias at gmail dot com

Will you be arresting the pilots and crews of the huge antonovs carrying weapons from Russia to Venezuela? Or is that OK?

by A10 Sun Jun 25, 2006 01:15

To the dope who suggested leaving "possible IED" packages lying around.Please do,as even suggesting that is a crime or threatning or leaving a hoax IED is a punishable offence.Of course hopefully some twat will do this and get themselves arrested,thussly giving the IAWM more publicity,for once some bad publicity.
BTW remember citizens arrest,you must surrender your prisioners to the Gardai at once.If the Gardai do not want to do anything like following it up or charging them,you are out of luck.And if you detained them illegally,or laid hands on them or deprived them of natural daylight .YOU are up for kidnap and illegal detaining under Irish law.

by Statin' the Obvious Sun Jun 25, 2006 13:20

The pacifist position,althoough an honorobale one, has always been a minority position in the diverse anti-war/peace movements of the modern era (eg. War Resisters League, Catholic Workers, Quakers).

My hunch is that the few peace activists, with limited time & resources, in Ireland are prioritising the U.S. weapons & cannon fodder because they are presently involved in many illegal invasions. The U.S. is an empire, adying one but still an expanding empire.

Venuazela maybe tooling up because their hunch is that are the next on the U.S. list to be invaded, after the failure of recent US sponsored coup.

by ReConor Sun Jun 25, 2006 18:24

How many times has he been arrested for breaking Irish Law ??

If he wasnt making a nuisance of himself in shannon alot of garda resources could be put to good use around the town.

So many burglaries and robberies occuring with uniformed and armed detectives stuck monitoring a group of nohopers and so called peace activists.

by Seán Ryan Sun Jun 25, 2006 18:30

Tisn't about how many times he's been arrested 'for breaking the law.' It's about how many times he's been convicted for breaking the law. 0.

Don't forget, it's not for the Gardaí to label someone a criminal.

by Elaine Sun Jun 25, 2006 18:35

"So many burglaries and robberies occuring with uniformed and armed detectives stuck monitoring a group of nohopers and so called peace activists."
You should write a letter to your TD, so you should - tis shocking altogether!
Seriously though, a complaint to the Guards is what's needed. Imagine treating anti-war and peace activists like criminals? "Armed Detectives" too, you say? Anyone would think it was a political decision!
Maybe the letter to the TD isn't such a bizarre idea after all.

Well done, Conor.

by AMC Sun Jun 25, 2006 19:42

Sorry you feel the need to harrass our troops in Ireland. We've always been there for you in the past and have asked nothing in return. To think our soldiers can't even walk on the roadside in Ireland but are treated like common criminals saddens me greatly. May the mosques in Ireland multiply and sharia law implemented asap is what I now wish for Ireland. What goes around comes around and we'll not be available when you cry for help!

Oh, and may the wind be always at your back.

by lebeaux Sun Jun 25, 2006 20:20

I don't recall all these so-called 'peace activists' making a fuss when the Russians killed 30 million of their own, or protesting Fidel Castro (who still runs gulags), or protesting Saddam Hussein (who murdered over a million).... but show them an American and watch out.... I guess to them McDonalds is a much bigger crime against humanity than Marxist death camps. Perhaps this is why no one takes you swampy losers seriously.

by Cat Sun Jun 25, 2006 20:28

...Rule #1 for Irish Pacifists....

Has any Irish "peacemaker" attempted to make a citizens arrest on the more local Irish Republican Army?

by Arty - US Army Retired Sun Jun 25, 2006 23:49

The story did make it to the U.S.

It is making some of the Irish look like idiots.

Again, way to go.

by Allyates Mon Jun 26, 2006 00:50

A letter to Common Sense.

When Presidents of nation presume to lie to their own people to get a war.
Then that nation usually belongs to that small club called Facist.
Facists like to pretned to be nice and usually imagine they they are doing the work of a humanitarian. However be warned, Facist, like well trained dogs, do not understand what they are doing. They will sit and fetch and bomb, but they do so because they are told to, not because they understand the truth of their situation, the blindly follow the farmers orders and they think they are doing a good job.

They might say they are sheepdogs protecting the herd. The problem is though is can they go from protecting herds to attacking other sheep because they (rather stupidly) think that a sheep can become a wolf?
Of course not because the dont understand the difference, they simply do as they are told by their masters.

They neither think nor care to think that what they are killing may be another sheep, to them they just kill what they are told to kill and tell the reat of the herd that such killing is needed to protect them.

Bush lied for war, outside of that is simply an attempt to rationalise that lie, but dont be fooled, God knows that Bush lied and God commands "thou shalt not bear false witness", Bush has broken gods law and turned his dogs out to carry out their orders.

Do not trust these dogs because the will blindly attack you too, you dont matter to them.

by Dennis Mon Jun 26, 2006 01:36

As an American, I fully support the right to peaceful protest and without question support the right of the Irish to make, implement and enforce laws for their country.

That said, this action was nothing other than a public show doing nothing other than making people like me strike Ireland from my list of vacation countries.

For your edification, US soldiers deploy to a war zone without personal clothes. The time spent in Iraq is done so without Levis, Nikes or any other form of civilian clothing. There was no intent on the part of the United States to stop in Ireland and "demean your constitution". What happened was a simple mechanical malfunction that necessitated the soldiers being placed in a hotel (which I would assume benefitted financially) pending repairs. Would you have them banned from such a simple thing as taking a walk because of their lack of civilian clothing?

I am offended. Not because of Ireland's constitution, which after all is determined by the Irish people. I am offended by a publicity seeking Irishman stopping honorable young men serving their country from the sin of walking about on the soil of Ireland in uniform.

I have Irish blood in my veins, but on this day I am ashamed of it.

by Seán Ryan Mon Jun 26, 2006 01:55

Well Dennis, if you'd read my comment above, you'd have learned that Conor's act was not a publicity stunt. It was Conor performing his duty as a citizen of Ireland is supposed to.

You hinted that you have or at least had respect for the Irish Constitution.

Do you respect your own?

Would you expect me to adhere to the laws of your country if I were to visit.

If somebody stopped me whilst I was in the act of violating the American Constitution, would you the consider act of preventing me from further abusing the American Constitution a 'publicity stunt?'

Or would you consider this to be an irrelevant distraction from the issue at hand?

Maybe if I gave you some money, it'd be ok. You as much say this.

You say you have Irish blood in your veins and that you are ashamed of it.

And well you should be. I'm ashamed that you carry it too.

by R. Isible - Ancient Order of Paddywhackers Mon Jun 26, 2006 02:54

Sorry you feel the need to harrass our troops in Ireland.

And right there, that says it all: YOUR troops in OUR country. Keep them out. We're not part of your war and we're not part of your empire. Your illegal occupation of Iraq and murder of it's innocent citizens have shocked but not awed the rest of the world.

We've always been there for you in the past and have asked nothing in return.

My hole. The USA has benefitted from a supply of hard-working, desperate Irish people for generations and centuries: Irish people that were subjected to racism as bad as that to which any that any ethnic group has been subjected. The USA was ready to invade the Republic from Northern Ireland during WW2 if we choose to refuse to allow British ships to access our territorial waters and seaplanes to overfly our boundaries. The USA has always done what is expedient for the capitalist masters controlling it and that's nothing to do with whatever maudlin, racist imaginings you may be entertaining.

I'd imagine you're off on some cock-eyed dream about giving money to NORAD or someone. Or maybe even Ted Kennedy visiting the Falls Road.

Big fucking deal. I didn't see the USA bombing London in support of removing the sectarian, murdering British army from the 6 counties.

To think our soldiers can't even walk on the roadside in Ireland but are treated like common criminals saddens me greatly.

To be a soldier of a foreign power in uniform on the roadside in Ireland is a crime unless permission has been given by our government.

May the mosques in Ireland multiply

Hopefully not. I hope that the number of people attending mosques, churches, chapels, temples and yoga-rooms drops dramatically. On the other hand if people are going to be idiots and believe in gods then Islam is no less repulsive than any other religion.

and sharia law implemented asap is what I now wish for Ireland.

Sharia law is only practiced by some versions of Islam. Those versions would tend to be the ones practiced by regimes backed by the USA e.g. Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (why don't you write and complain to the Saudis? I'll tell you why: because people like you don't care about morality (unlike Conor, who does and who has the guts to do something about it))

What goes around comes around and we'll not be available when you cry for help!

Everyone knows that about the USA already.

Oh, and may the wind be always at your back.

Bejasus, hasn't he the fine tongue on him!

As P.I.L. said: may the road rise with you.

by hedgehog Mon Jun 26, 2006 03:43

What goes around comes around and we'll not be available when you cry for help!

Quite aside from the obvious good your Aid has done for afghanistan and iraq (Afghanistan is destroyed as a country and at this stage, most people in Iraq feel they would be much better off to be back under saddam)

2 words: NEW ORLEANS. These were your own citizens.

And also, its makes very interesting reading to explore the trade conditions the US attaches to much of its so called "aid" to third world countries

US aid? an oxymoron if ever there was one

by Synova Mon Jun 26, 2006 08:18

I'm sure that everyone involved feels very proud of themselves.

I've noticed a trend in the US which seems to also be alive and well in Ireland. Everyone can see it clearly enough... here is a person who believes that he's a *good* person and believes, I'm guessing, in protecting the down-trodden, and defending the defenseless and all those other do-gooder things...

And he, and his cheerleaders, take outright *pleasure* in causing other human beings pain.

I find myself asking people *this* question with distressing frequency... "Are other people even *real* to you?"

I'm guessing not.

So you stood up to some Americans. How *brave* of you to stand up to someone who was completely and utterly constrained from responding in any way. How laudable. How virtuous. Probably you even made them feel bad too. Would you get extra points if you made them cry?

Speaking of Katrina... Would you also take pleasure in enforcing the old segregation of the US South if you saw a black person where they didn't belong? It *was* the law. You'd just be enforcing the law. It really wouldn't matter if that black person was thirsty, that water bubbler is whites only, it wouldn't matter if that woman had been on her feet all day, the only bus seats open are in the white section... it's just enforcing the law.

Because only the law matters, right? Caring about other people, treating even your enemy with kindness, or at least like a human being... you know, liberal values... screw that because today you feel the need to be legalistic.

And proud of it.

by anon Mon Jun 26, 2006 09:04

Cregan immediately called for the six to stop. “I am placing you all under citizen’s arrest. Do not move” he shouted as the stunned men came to a halt. After assuring the men that they were not in jeopardy the peace activist made an emergency call to Ennis Garda Station.

Cregan called for the detective to take charge of the soldiers. Fathy followed him out to the front of the building where the six were sheepishly edging their way towards the entrance to the hotel. One polite young trooper leaned over and extended his hand towards the peace activist and apologized. Cregan again assured the young man that he was not in trouble and informed the lost patrol that in fact this was a diplomatic matter and that the Irish government was the wrongdoer in this situation. He thanked the men for their cooperation and left them in the hands of DGda Fathy who ushered them back into the hotel.

We're congratulating him for the very case that he was polite to them while making his point, and for showing us a way to do it

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73658

by surrender Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:35

I haven't read a more one sided article for a while - "tried to frame him for a crime he didn't conmmit". This is a poorly written, propoganda fuelled piece that does not even clarify as to why these soldiers were seen fit to be placed under citizens arrest in the first place. Yes whats going on in Shannon is a joke, but farcical articles like this do nothing to help the cause.

by Seán Ryan Mon Jun 26, 2006 14:34

If you search Indymedia you'll find an account of the trial that Conor is referring to.

As fate would have it, I'm in possession of a full transcript of the trial (one that was stamped and created by the court - and therefore it's a matter of public record - just in case you claim I'm biased too). Allow me to quote from Judge Mangan's closing statement and judgement to the court.

"There is a total conflict of evidence between the two main Garda witnesses,...

...Firstly, Garda Fahy seized the dictaphone for no apparent good reason; it is not a weapon. Secondly, he did not surrender it to the member in charge, and thirdly, the dictaphone was not referred to in the custody record. Regarding the dictaphone, there are too many holes in the State's position.

Consequently on this ground, if on no other, the State's case is flawed and I am dismissing the case on its merits."

It would seem Surrender that it was your effort that's a one sided piece of propaganda, lifted straight from your less than functional imagination.

by Ruairi Mon Jun 26, 2006 14:56

Why all the praise for this article?

This man could have simply voices his concern over the events at Shannon instead of his attention seeking tirade against the gardai. They havent created this situation so why waste the time of emergency services in a poor attempt to paint the gardai in bad light.

Citizens arrest?? maybe we should give conor a medal for his exploits! get off the stage and leave these educational articles to the objective people that dont try to glorify themselves in the process!

Fair enough, this article is written to be humourous (i hope), but why blame the gardai for everything thats wrong. I enjoy reading comments on this website but I find the constant negativeity towards gardai does absolutely nothing for improving the level of policing in the country

by anon Mon Jun 26, 2006 15:21

the context for the hard headed

http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-03/29Jan/Sect4.htm

29th January Mr Cowen State requires the permission of the Minister for Transport to carry, military weapons or munitions. Civilian aircraft carrying unarmed troops are treated as normal passenger freight and do not require special authorisation to overfly or land, aside from permission to wear military uniform. As I have indicated, under the 1973 order carriers of troops accompanied by arms are obliged to seek exemption from landing and overflight prohibitions.

Mr. Cowen: Another matter on which I have acted to tighten the application of regulations relates to the wearing of military uniforms by foreign troops. Under section 317 of the Defence Act 1954 military personnel are forbidden to enter or land in the State while wearing a uniform except with written ministerial permission. Following discussions between my Department and the United States Embassy, ministerial permission to wear duty uniform in the "immediate vicinity of an arrival-departure airfield" was sought and granted. Any requests for exceptions to this policy are to be submitted to my Department.

Mr. Gormley: When did that happen?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. Cowen: That happened on or around 13 January last.

Mr. Gormley: I knew it.

Mr. Cowen: The Deputy should allow me to explain the matter.

Mr. Gormley: The Minister has explained.

Mr. Cowen: I hope that this description-----

Mr. Gormley: I have heard all that I need to know.

Mr. Cowen: The Deputy needs to know more.

Mr. Gormley: I knew that it was all retrospective.

by eoino Mon Jun 26, 2006 15:50

of course Irish were made to look like idiots in the US media over this incident. You hardly think that the mainstream US media were going to give a balanced and fair account of Conor Cregans motivations or the fact that the "Hague Convention V on Neutrality 1907" was and is being breeched by the Irish government? Sure the only footage of from Iraq shown on US television is the "heroes" walking into the sunset. All the same I would be quite confident that Americans who oppose their governments involvement in Iraq would be able to read between the lines of what you saw reported and give full support to Conor Cregans actions.

by krossie - wsm personal capacity Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:07

dennis takes the high moral ground to inform us:

"I am offended by a publicity seeking Irishman stopping honorable young men serving their country from the sin of walking about on the soil of Ireland in uniform.

I have Irish blood in my veins, but on this day I am ashamed of it."

Take another look at the photos!!!

Given your powers of observation on that one we might have to take your other comments with just a pinch of salt

Krossie

by mojoe Mon Jun 26, 2006 20:03 jofus224 at hotmail dot com

As an American that has lived most of my life near Boston, I have many Irish friends. Some recent arrivals, some that have been here for several generations. They are some of the nicest, funniest people I know. I have in-laws from County Kerry, again wonderful people.
I have to say I got a chuckle reading this story, but stopped laughing while reading these comments. I expect this from the French, but the Irish? Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought you folks like the U.S. Lord knows there are enough of you over here, and from what I've heard many more that would like to come.
I've encountered soldiers from many nations walking around Boston on leave, and I can tell you few of them ever paid for their drinks. But hey, different strokes for different folks huh?

by Noel Mon Jun 26, 2006 20:44

Krossie,
Dennis' powers of observation are far better than yours.
It was indeed brave men in uniform this self-righteous embarrassment of a man stopped.
The photos are of a different group of US soldiers.

Read the report from the buffoon and then apologise to Dennis.
Good lad.

by eoino Mon Jun 26, 2006 21:02

It's not personal Mojoe. Those soldiers look like nice folk who I am sure that on a personal level we would all get on with. However, there has been a war and continued conflict in Iraq, triggered by the army these soldiers represent and as such Conors action was a legitimate tool of opposition to US state involvement there. This says nothing of the fact that their presence in uniform on Irish soil is illegal under international law. We didn't write that law...

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate all Americans. Sure didn't nearly half of those who voted in the last presendential election vote to kick GWB out? I don't even hate the other half! I disagree with US Foreign Policy though so if a citizens arrest of a few G.I.'s indirectly helps save a few lives in Iraq then I would give it priority over the 100,000 welcomes that the soldiers were denied...

by Johnny Jump Up - none Mon Jun 26, 2006 22:19

The right to make a citizens arrest is conferred by S.12 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991.
It states:
12.—(1) This section applies to an offence under this Act other than section 5 or 13 (4).

(2) Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence to which this section applies.

(3) Where an offence to which this section applies has been committed, any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence to which this section applies or an offence under section 13 (4) has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(5) A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be about to commit an offence to which this section applies.

(6) For the purpose of arresting a person under any power conferred by this section a member of the Garda Síochána may enter (if need be, by force) and search any place where that person is or where the member, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.

(7) This section shall apply to an attempt to commit an offence as it applies to the commission of that offence.

(8) This section shall not prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law apart from this section.

The substansive matter of this act makes it an offence to damage property, threat to damage property, possess anything with intent to damage property as well as the unauthorised accessing of data.

Note: This does not make any other offence, real or otherwise, and does not entitle citizens to arrest American Military soldiers for walking down a street.

And S.18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 offers no protection to you either.

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

( a ) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or
( b ) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or
( c ) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
( d ) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or
( e ) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

(2) "use of force" in subsection (1) is defined and extended by section 20.

(3) For the purposes of this section an act involves a "crime" or is "criminal" although the person committing it, if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that—

( a ) he or she was under 7 years of age; or
( b ) he or she acted under duress, whether by threats or of circumstances; or
( c ) his or her act was involuntary; or
( d ) he or she was in a state of intoxication, or
( e ) he or she was insane, so as not to be responsible, according to law, for the act.
(4) The references in subsection (1) to protecting a person and property from anything include protecting the person or properly from its continuing; and the reference to preventing crime or a breach of the peace shall be similarly construed.

(5) For the purposes of this section the question whether the act against which force is used is of a kind mentioned in any of the paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be.

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who believes circumstances to exist which would justify or excuse the use of force under that subsection has no defence if he or she knows that the force is used against a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of the member's duty or a person so assisting such member, unless he or she believes the force to be immediately necessary to prevent harm to himself or herself or another.

(7) The defence provided by this section does not apply to a person who causes conduct or a state of affairs with a view to using force to resist or terminate it:

But the defence may apply although the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise.

(8) Property shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) and (d) as belonging to any person—

( a ) having the custody or control of it;
( b ) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
( c ) having a charge on it;
and where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

Property of a corporation sole shall be treated for the purposes of the aforesaid provisions as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

However, S.15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 does put you in jeoperdy, Conor.

15.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—

( a ) takes or detains, or
( b ) causes to be taken or detained, or
( c ) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,
another without that other's consent.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person acts without the consent of another if the person obtains the other's consent by force or threat of force, or by deception causing the other to believe that he or she is under legal compulsion to consent.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

( a ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or
( b ) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

So, Conor, for your pathetic little publicity stunt, you are possibly liable to spend as much as life inprisonment, but if you're just being dealt with by Judge Mangan, he can fine you fifteen hundred quid and lock you up for a year, which you probably deserve for being such an annoying little swine.

Are you nervous?

by R. Isible Mon Jun 26, 2006 23:15

American soldiers in uniform are not. I have every sympathy for a soldier that's joined the army because there was no other option. And recruiters specifically target young, working class people trying to get out of dire poverty and lie to them about how it'll help them go to college or train them for a career in civilian life afterwards.

However, the US is waging an illegal war based on the complete and absolute outright lie that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and that Al Qaeda were in Iraq. US soldiers (whether they want to or not ... that's the deal with the army ... you become a machine) are implementing that illegal war. And even if they weren't they're not supposed to be on sovereign Irish soil in uniform without permission from the people of Ireland.

I don't know which part of the above quoted act the poster thinks applies to Conor. I see several parts in which it looks to me like he acted properly within the meaning of the act (unlike the Gardai who were once again derelict in their duty and standing around like blue leprechauns).

Perhaps you'd care to make a coherent argument about which bits you see as a problem for Conor instead of demonstrating the results of Advanced Mouse Technique 404 - Cut and Paste For Experts.

by eoino Mon Jun 26, 2006 23:38

I am going to lower myself to your level of language for the purpose of this comment. First though I see you don't say why Conors action actually annoyed you only that it did annoy you. It would be interesting to hear a coherent argument as to why you think he was wrong to engage in this "anti war" action which is quite obviously just part of an ongoing "anti war" campaign. It would also be interesting to hear why his action annoyed you so. Hardly because of the misuse of citizens arrest law you claim? I mean when I had a provisional driving licence I drove all over the place unaccompanied and the Guards didn't mind so what can we say about technical breeches of the law in this country?

Anyway for my own unsupported random insulting comment I would say that it is rats like you who help keep the capitalist ship afloat. What's your level of ambition? To be a bigger bastard than your current boss? Sounds like they are training you well anyway.

In general I think it is quite amusing to se how far Conor has got up the noses of the defenders of the establishment this time. He has really annoyed them. Hhhhhmmmmm. A weak spot in the Fianna Fail armour? I'm impressed anyway. More power to you Conor! Some day their house of cards will collapse!

by Seán Ryan Mon Jun 26, 2006 23:40

Well Johhny Jump(ed) up, looks like you'll have to aim a little higher.

The act you specifically point to, is about detaining someone who is not at the time perpetrating a crime.

Have you some evidence that points to the uniformed personell having permission to roam the countryside?

..........?

I didn't think so.

However if you referred your point to the manner in which Conor was arrested, in the case I quoted from above, you'd find that certain members of the force should be due a visit to Mangan's courtroom.

It's striking that you and the other trolls like you, have it in for an activist upholding the Irish Constitution and our obligations under Irish law and international law. Yet you've nothing substantive to add whatsoever to the point that US soldiers in uniform have no business walking around without the right kind of permission.

You should understand the law before you choose to practice or explain it, numbskull.

by Johnny Jump Up Mon Jun 26, 2006 23:47

Firstly, these soldiers were not causing criminal damage, nor attempting to cause criminal damage at the time of their arrest. Nor did they possess anything with the intent to cause criminal damage, or to access data without authorisation. Therefore, the facility for Conor to make a citizens arrest is not provided for under the Criminal Damage Act 1991.

Secondly, Conor could have justifiably used force if any of these applied:
( a ) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or
( b ) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or
( c ) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
( d ) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or
( e ) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

They did'nt. Further down S.18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, deals with the trespass issue (just in case Conor contends that these soldiers were trespassing on Irish soil)....
Any possible attempt to justify himself under b, c or d are made invalid by paragraph 8:
Property shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) and (d) as belonging to any person—
( a ) having the custody or control of it;
( b ) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
( c ) having a charge on it;
and where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

None of this applies to Conor.

Now, as stated in my previous post, Risable, Conor himself committed an offence, and admitted this himself. “I am placing you all under citizen’s arrest. Do not move”. Eejit.

Under S.15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act 1997:
(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—
( a ) takes or detains, or
( b ) causes to be taken or detained, or
( c ) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,
another without that other's consent.

Furthermore,
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

( a ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or
( b ) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

In other words, Conor made an unlawful arrest, therefore is liable for a big penalty.

Now, Risable, I provided all this and more in my previous text, for you to read the legislation in context. Now, it seems, I've to break it down for you too.

If you really want, I can WRITE IT IN BIG WORDS IF THAT HELPS YOU ANY BETTER, or perhaps break down the legislation into small words if you cannot comprehend it. If I have to go to such effort, however, then you're not at the level of intellect for me to stoop to to converse with.

by Johhny Jump Up Mon Jun 26, 2006 23:57

Ryan, it is for the person who makes the arrest to explain where in the Statute he believes he was entitled to make the arrest. Conor makes no attempt to justify his actions with any legal backup.

Where is it an offence for unarmed soldiers of foriegn armies to walk our streets? State the Section, Act and year. References please.

It's not good enough to say "well the Constitution says so" or "because the law says so". Not good enough at all.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 00:04

Johhny Jumpped up.

Uniformed American soldiers wandering our countryside, is not about trespass nor criminal damage.

It is based on constitutional law, which is primal law. All other law is secondary to the constitution, and in this case your quotes have no relevence.

Try reading my comment again, if what I have said in it is wrong, your points might have relevence.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76801&comment_limit=0&c...55215

by Johhny Jump Up Tue Jun 27, 2006 00:08

It's because jumped-up crackpots like Cregan get delusional notions of grandure and righteousness, and think that that can supercede the law of the land. They are devious and malicious. The Conor Cregans of this world are quite simply embarrassing by their stupidity.

You talk about the Gardaí having the discretion not to haul your ass to court for driving on your first provisional, and how you got away with committing an offence. Yet you applaud Cregan for "arresting" six US soldiers for going for a walk, contrary to some legislation that he made up in his head? Is that fair, really?

by Memory Woman Tue Jun 27, 2006 00:10

Security alert as US troops from Iraq go 'AWOL'

Wednesday November 19th 2003

A GROUP of US soldiers, returning from active service in Iraq, sparked a security alert in Co Clare yesterday after they left their hotel without permission and went sightseeing in Ennis while still in uniform.

The seven soldiers were among 213 US military personnel who were staying at the Clare Inn Hotel, near Newmarket on Fergus while repairs were being carried out to their plane at Shannon airport. The aircraft had landed in the early hours at Shannon after developing problems. The troops, who were all wearing desert fatigues, were travelling back to Baltimore in the US for a two-week break, having spent several months based in Kuwait and Iraq.

Soldiers of a foreign army require permission from the Defence Department under the Defence Act to appear in public in uniform on Irish soil. The personnel at the centre of yesterday's drama did not have authorisation. Their American Transair Lockheed L10-11 Tristar was en route from Kuwait to Baltimore via Cyprus and Shannon when the aircraft developed a technical problem. It is believed the pilot had to close down an engine.

Inspector Tom Kennedy of Ennis garda station said that while he did not feel there was a threat to the soldiers, he was concerned that "wearing their uniforms in public might be seen as provocative by some people, particularly those who hold strong views about the situation in Iraq".

"The soldiers did not have permission to leave the hotel and evaded our security personnel by apparently leaving through a rear door. As soon as we became aware of the problem, security at the hotel was increased and we also spoke to the senior US military officer there," he said.

Pat Flynn

© Irish Independent
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/ & http://www.unison.ie/

by Johhny Jump Up Tue Jun 27, 2006 00:27

Ryan, nobody is "raising" or "maintaining" a "military or armed force" in the state, there is no question of any army being raised. Raising an army is substantially differant to transiting an army. Using the Constitution to substantiate your claims is ridiculous, quite frankly. Article 15 is irrelevent in this regard.

With reference to the wearing of uniforms, under S. 317 of Defence Act, 1954, foriegn military personnel are forbidden to enter or land in the state while wearing a uniform, except with written Ministerial permission. Brian Cowen, when Minister for Foriegn Affairs, gave this permission which has not been recinded.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 00:44

Everybody on the island commonly referred to as Ireland, is being 'maintained.'

American Soldiers are not under the direction of the Oireachtas.

Cowen's tripe does not supercede this fact. Nor does he have the right to grant permission that lasts forever.

Foreign troops wandering my home without justification are committing an act of war. I think arresting them was quite a humane way of dealing with the situation.

Also one mustn't forget, that these foreign troops are belligerants, in an illegal war of oppression, and should be interred for the duration of the war, not put up in a hotel, wasting valuable Garda (wo)man-hours. We have a duty to international law too.

by Snake173 - US Army Tue Jun 27, 2006 01:16

Most US Army (and other Armed Services) Initial Entry Recruits are White and Middle Class (65% Caucasian, with Blacks and Hispanics each making up approx 13%).

Most Staff NonCommissioned Officers have Associate or Bachelors Degrees.

The "poor, unpriviledged kids" trope is a lie.

I apologize for interjecting facts into your stream of propoganda.

I had two Soldiers in my Platoon who were from Ireland, during my 1st OIF deployment. They were good Soldiers. Guess I know why they left their homeland.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 01:23

Any idea how many people in the American Government, have children, serving or who have served in Iraq (the second illegal invasion)?

by redjade Tue Jun 27, 2006 01:35

To Snake173 - US Army
I apologize for interjecting statistics in context into your stream of propoganda....

'...following analysis of race is based on a com­parison of the 2003 recruit data and Census popu­lation data for ages 18 and above (not just 18–24). Table 3 provides a summary of racial data, reveal­ing that enlisted recruits are similar to the popula­tion with a few sharp differences. Table 3 also includes a breakout comparison of the 2003 Army recruits, since that branch bears a larger share of danger on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the data show that, proportionally, blacks make up 43 percent more of the Army recruits than does the general population, but this is not in place of whites, who make up 1 percent more (not less). Other racial categories—notably American Indians/Alaskan Natives (53 percent) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (249 percent)—are even more overrepresented.'

Source: The (rather Right Wing) Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05...8.cfm

'I had two Soldiers in my Platoon who were from Ireland, during my 1st OIF deployment. They were good Soldiers. Guess I know why they left their homeland.'

Did you bother to ask them from which part of Ireland they were from? North or the Republic? Or is it all just too confusing for you?

by Snake173 - US Army Tue Jun 27, 2006 01:38

Not a whole lot. So?

That has nothing to do with the conduct of the war. Someone hauled out the old trope of "Recruiting NCO's lying to poor/minority kids to get them to bleed for the rich white folks". I rebutted with facts, which you responded to with a straw man argument.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 01:46

You've just established that the rich kids are not dying for the cause.

Methinks the straw man argument is your argument.

by Snake173 - US Army Tue Jun 27, 2006 01:48

No. Only volunteers are dying for the cause. If more rich kids don't want to serve their Country, screw them.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 01:55

Tis the rich kids who'll benefit from this war (financially).

You might get a pension. What will your kids get?

by Snake173 - US Army Tue Jun 27, 2006 02:34

Aside from:
$50K for education (used it and have about another 3 semesters on my Engineering BS)
$20K Enlistment bonus.
$10K Re-enlistment bonus (1st time).
$15K Re-enlistment bonus (2nd round, coming up in a few months).
$2989.50 /month base pay.
My housing and medical is paid for, and my SGLI covers fatality.

When I am 39 years old, I'll be eligible for retirment. At that time, in today' $, I will likely take home approx: 4717.80 (E-9 base pay). My retirement pay, beginning immediately and for the rest of my life, will be %50 of my base pay. So, after retiring, I will recieve, $2358.9 /month.
Most likely, if my investments (mutual funds, etc) don't render me independantly wealthy, I'll use my Mech Engineering degree and go to work for one of our Defense Contractors, such as Lockheed.

My kids will get the same opportunities I had. GI Bill and serve their Country, or go to College and be a leech.

by Snake173 - US Army Tue Jun 27, 2006 02:36

Actually, -I- am benefiting from this war (financially). I've got 34 months income, over the past 56 months, which have not been taxed, as I've been deployed to Hostile Fire Zones.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 03:43

Well Snake, first of all I'd like to caution you about saying, "Actually, -I- am benefiting from this war (financially)."

Remember this is an illegal war, even the head of the UN says so. Admitting to financially profiting from an illegal war........Well it's obvious where that leads.

All and all though, that doesn't seem a whole heap of money, what with the cost of housing, living and kids etc. So I reckon the 'profit' statement not to be incriminating. At least you're not a private.

I know lots of Americans who've fought in this war. Some would even see it the way you tell it. Most others however paint a very different picture.

A picture where even a child approaching looking for chocolate (US soldiers have a rep for being thoughtful and generous in this regard), must be viewed as a potential enemy (might lob a grenade when (s)he gets close enough). Constant state of alert. Guarding construction workers etc. who earn multiples of what they earn, taking virtually no risks. DU poisoning, PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder, shellshock, combat fatigue or whatever this affliction is labled nowadays). Not to mention guilt.

I know many vets from America's previous wars. I don't know of any content with their lot. Many vets of the Vietnam era have type 2 diabetes. Very high incidence rate, that towers above the average. US army vets traditionally look forwards to a very painful old age.

Most vets of the first gulf war are sick, the vast majority are unhappy with their lot and their government.

America boasts an incredible Constitution. If you look at the life of an Iraqi, and pretended for a moment that he or she was an American citizen too. How violated would your Constitution be?

Would it be ok to carpet bomb a high crime (terrorist) neighbourhood, in Downtown Los Angelas?

And you think you're profiting?

You seem like a decent guy, and that's the great pity of it all.

by Snake173 - US Army Tue Jun 27, 2006 03:56

Your argument is well structured, but crafted to appeal to emotion and not facts. Aside from all that, it is still fundamentally wrong.

1) I've nothing to fear from the UN. My Country is taking steps to neutralize their ability to influence American domestic affairs. I abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Law of Land Warfare, and as long as I continue to do so, I have nothing to fear from the legal side of the house.

2) Reenlistment rates for the Regular Army are up significantly, since Fiscal Year 2002. the only reenlistment troubles are in the Guard and Reserve, as they are stressed by a full mobilization (although, that -is- known to happen in a Total Force system). We knew that was going to happen going in. Morale is up.

3) Most vets of -any- of the Gulf Conflicts are not sick. Stick to factual arguments.

Finis

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 04:23

3 - Re: health condition of vets from first Gulf War - check out this article. It's based on what Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, has to say about the topic.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...=1771

2 - High enlistment figures are hardly proof that morale is up. A much better way of checking morale issues is to canvass those who've completed their tours. It's my bet (looking at the growing lack of support for the illegal war, in the US itself) that morale is plummetting.

1 - Prisoners of war vs. unlawful combattants. Unlawful combattants are not afforded the rights bestowed by the Geneva Conventions. Therefore the army you serve in has not obeyed the rules of war, even though you personally have. And that's only the tip of the iceberg with regard to this particular argument.

As for what I said previously, sure it's got emotional content. But it's quite factual too.

Veritas in Caritate

A beginning...

by LRS Guy - International Brotherhood of Trunk Monkeys Tue Jun 27, 2006 04:28

Actually I have known several Irishmen who are working in Iraq, ether in the British Army or as civilian contractors. They were all very supportive of the war effort.

As a rebuttal that the American Army is made up of poor, uneducated, minorities, please keep in mind our Army is all volunter and is likely the most educated military force in history.

by LRS Guy - International Brotherhood of Trunk Monkeys Tue Jun 27, 2006 04:39

Sean,

Have you ever meet a soldier who has served in Iraq? As I have spent almost 18 months there. I feel pretty qualified to back up Snake173. Its pretty much the way he paints it. The war is being won in spite of the best efforts of the terrorists and their backers( this includes most of the worlds and US's media).

I'm also a Gulf War vet as well......no Gulf War Sickness problems for me or anybody I served with (9 months that time).

I would suggest you read some of the blogs being put out by servicemen stationed there...it might enlighten you and your friends a bit.

by RickyRecon Tue Jun 27, 2006 04:59

From where comes this passive hostility to the Americans? It is funny, sure, but my great- grandfather came to America from County Wexford. I was raised with respect for my heritage. I studied the Easter Uprising and politics of the troubles years later. I am no expert, but I know that seldom is it the soldier who directs the policy of nations. A soldier can no more choose not to fight than the sun can choose not to rise.

I was a Marine because I wanted to serve my country. Illegal war or not is open to debate, though I do not believe it is illegal. Regardless, I am saddened to see my cousins in Ireland treat my fellow soldiers like that. Even more alarming is to hear banter of assaulting soldiers. Why would anyone do this? To somehow press their point home?

I expect this type of behavior from loud, arrogent Americans, not from my cousins in Ireland.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 05:01

LRS Guy, I'm not sure what you mean when you say the war is being won.

If you mean reducing Afghanistan and Iraq to rubble and slavery. Then yup, the war is being won.

If you mean the 'war on terror,' there are more people afraid now than before this war was started.

I dunno what to say to you about the world's media. I think it's mostly shite and propaganda too. I think our governments, yours and mine, are much worse though.

I know quite a few vets who've served in either Gulf war. As I said earlier, some take the position yourself and snake take. Others don't. Either way history will be the judge. There is no war in history that is remembered fondly.

I've read loads of blogs, some are pro war and some are anti war. I see the suffering caused by this motiveless and sensless war, and I say to myself, there is no pro war child. There are no terrorist children. Yet they've died in their thousands. And still that elusive terror remains, to be vanquished some vague and distant time into the future.

Enlightenment is a strange thing. It goes where the shadows are. Your version of enlightenment doesn't.

by But really.. Tue Jun 27, 2006 05:36

Honestly, yes, the war is pathetic and Mr. Colin was playing the hero. But, once again, this has not even hit the news in America. I only heard of it when I happened to check an Irish blog (due to Irish ties), but it has not hit our news wires (check out CNN, MSNBC, etc.) and I'm sure it never will. I noticed the same thing re. crossover Irish/US news when I lived in Ireland. For better or for worse, that shit never will never get covered here, full stop. The troops will just think Colin is some crazy man, and, yes, he and the Gardai will all look very quaint.

That said, there is no draft in America, and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would join Bush's ridiculous army. Unless, of course, anyone has seen Fahrenheit 911, in which case you will know that joining said army is the only way underprivileged people in the US can ever afford to go to college and break the poverty threshhold. Hmm,so..

To the few who have sympathy w/US troops: you have humbled me. I am American, but, if I were Irish, I'd probably be backing old Colin. Just, please remember, as unbelievable as it may seem, the vast majority of we, Americans, do not support the bastard Bush (he was not even popularly elected-we know that) and will be glad to see the back of his clown head leaving office asap.

by Cormac - U.S. Army Tue Jun 27, 2006 14:27

As an American soldier of Irish heritage, I have never been more ashamed of my background. If it wasn't for the despicable "American War Machine" you spineless socialist lackeys would all be either goosestepping to the Swastika or saluting the hammer and sycle. I've got news for all of you who think Americans are bloodthirsty warmongers- Where do you think most of us came from? Ireland, baby. The Americans you hate are shadowy reflections of yourselves. So unless you want your women in burqas and your men banging their heads into the ground 5 times a day several generations from now, you best let America handle the muslim hordes. Surely none of you Europeans are man enough to handle it, so don't worry- we will.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jun 27, 2006 15:25

Well Cormac, I must admit, I found your link very funny.

Twas all idiots like yourself, talking tough. There was no content. Tis very easy to be tough when you bitch slap a third world country. Well done!!

As for Goosestepping. That helmet you guys wear looks very similar to the helmets worn by nazis. And hey, invading other nations illegally and stripping them of their resources is nazi-like too.

Commander in Chief Bush... Now there's a nazi if ever there was one. Remember Granpappy Bush's nazi gold?

You might not salute a sickle, but you sure salute a sicko.

Now getting back to hating Americans. What shite. Looks to me like you've been clubbed in the head too many times. I don't like scumbags, their nationality is irrelevant. Their profession is irrelevant too.

Why not just confine yourself to your site and work out that pent up anger?

If I'd a wanted your opinion, I'd have beaten it out of you.

by Oldfart Tue Jun 27, 2006 18:22

I've read through all the comments and noticed that they're all written in either Gaelic (sp?) or English. I think it might be worthwhile to point out that, if it weren't for American servicemen much like those shown in the above photos, this whole discussion might be in German.

by losers Tue Jun 27, 2006 18:23

Maybe conor you should head off to Iraq and try preaching your goody-goody 2 shoes crap there. you might even convince some US soldiers but its more than likely that they would end up saving your poor white ass from some unrepentant, uncaring people that would just love to cut your head off with a nice shiny sword regardless of the fact that you are from Ireland

by R. Isible Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:02

The fact that all the comments above are completely unrepentant and unapologetic about a major breach of protocol and discipline tells us a lot about US attitudes to Ireland and the civility and training of its armed forces.

Again, the central issue is that US troops are not supposed to be in Ireland. Wandering around in the uniform of a foreign power (which is the belligerent in an illegal international conflict) in a neutral third country is completely undefensible.

As regards the composition of the US army and its "middle class" composition I'd suggest you read redjade's link supplied in a previous comment and reflect on the fact that many of the initial soldiers who actually died in service in Iraq (instead of bigmouthing on blogs) weren't even US citizens, they were some of the despised and hated latino immigrants that every redneck decries (see link below for an obituary of one of them).

The "money for college myth" and others are addressed here:
http://www.afsc.org/pacificsw/notjustajoblocalcontact20...v.pdf

Here are some alternatives to the army:
http://www.afsc.org/pacificsw/counter-recruitment.htm

As for turning this into a "why do you hate us US servicemen?". I don't. I only hate people that believe the war is right and vote for Bush. If you're one of them then you're on a par with the islamonazi headhackers for me.

by Cormac Tue Jun 27, 2006 20:13

BTW- the only reason this whole charade even took place was because the U.S. soldiers in question were female. If it had been me and my teammates, you wouldn't have had the balls to approach us like that, and if you had, you'd have been spitting teeth.

And I love your delusion assumtion that the U.S. military is populated only by the uneducated lower classes. I've got news for you pal- I'm from an upper class upbringing in New York City, and I have a college degree from a damn fine univeristy. I'm in the military because I find jumping out of airplanes and blowing things up to be far more stimulating than sitting like a vegetable in a cubicle all day.

Maybe in Ireland, where you have no need for a real army (because if you were attacked, the U.S. and the U.K. would defend you), soldiers don't make a decent wage. As a senior noncomissioned officer in the U.S. army, I take home a paycheck that far eclipses what ever you people make selling hemp products or pulling pints of Guiness in the local pub.

by Richey Tue Jun 27, 2006 23:32

Yup, Sean has it spot on Cormac, you've exposed yourself as a whiney little geek with a chip on his shoulder. God help us all if you actually ARE a soldier.

BTW, when Irish people hear the sort of ignorant, anti-democratic rants that we see on this thread, it just encourages us to oppose the US empire, cos we know the world won't be safe with a mentality like that in charge

by Simon Wed Jun 28, 2006 00:43

All I can say is well said Cormac. This guy with his citizen arrest makes me utterally ashamed to be Irish. Rest assured Cormac the majority of Irish people are not this bad. Wasting police time simply for an ego trip is hateful. Hopefully he will be charged with wassting police time and thankfully this ego trip did not result in a life been lost due to wasted Garda time.

by the way the above person who said."BTW, when Irish people hear the sort of ignorant, anti-democratic rants that we see on this thread, it just encourages us to oppose the US".

You have it spot on save for the part of the sentance that says oppose this type of stunt only weakens the anti-war movement.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 28, 2006 00:57

Dunno where you dig up yout facts Simon, but you ought to lay them to rest again.

More that three quarters of Irish people are opposed to the American Military use of Shannon. It can be readily deducted from this that more than 3/4 of the population are against the illegal war.

As for wasting a Garda's time. Conor only took a few minutes of the Garda's time. It would be more correct to say that the Garda wasted Conor's time, and the tax payers time. He was afterall guarding the soldiers in the hotel. The six that Conor stopped, had obviously escaped from him (probably not intentionally either). Conor was doing him a favour by returning these wayward soldiers.

But again the point slips away.

These soldiers should not be on Irish soil, period.

I cannot figure out how you think Conor upholding the Irish Constitution, in open defiance to those who oppose it, weakens us. You might elaborate.

by A10 Wed Jun 28, 2006 01:01

And any other US personel or others...
YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN IRELAND ANYMORE.
Wether you are civillian,or military personel.It is high time people in the US realise what sort of hyprocritical,backstabbing,backwardand mean minded little people the Irish race is.

As a Irish /US citizen I am ASHAMED to call myself Irish anymore.Since this place got money from Europe and the US it has become an arrogant,spiteful,nasty little country with pretenses at first world status when it is actually no better than some third world shit hole.
The quaint image that Ireland peddles to the world of us being modern,friendly etcetc.Is Blarney AKA BULLSHIT,and belive me the Irish are the greatest bull shitters on the planet!!!

They will smile to your face and say what a miserable ol bollocks the Yanks /Brits/EU are behind your back.They whinge because they dont get prefential treatment for visas into the US and expect that their illegals should get work permits handed out.What God given rights to the Irish have in the US over everyone else???FUCK EM!!Send the Irish home as well in orange jumpsuits and manacled on the next plane.It's so damn great here why would they want to be in the evil old US anyway?
They hate the British,yet watch Brit soaps,on Brit TV channels ,shop in Brit stores,follow Brit football teams and ape their 800 year[another Irish lie] oppressors in every way possible.What a bunch of hyprocrites.

Strip your industrys out of here and go to the East block or Nam or som place like that.At least the workers out there are happy to work,are not full of pretentious bullshit like the average Irish worker plus they are better educated than the average Irish dullard.

True,they dont want you here,apart to come over to spend your hard earned dollars on their crummy overpriced hotels,below average scenery,and general third world country,and then please piss off and come back next year to be fleeced again.

America you DO NOT need Ireland,and the smartest thing you will be doing is flying OVER this rock not landing here. At lleast out in the former East blocks will be happy to make some money out of you at least they will do it with a smile,here you will get a sour scowl from the Irish service personel,[it is below the Irish psyche to have to serve anything to anyone] unless it is a foreign worker who is being exploited and is looking for the chance to get off this rock as well.

Ireland, who needs it??I really feel sorry for any US troops that have to spend any time here.

by Simon Wed Jun 28, 2006 01:22

Sean

Firstly could you please point to the law that these people actually broke which they were arrested for.

Also do you think 3/4 of people approve of this stunt. Just because people are against the use of Shannon does not make them in favour of any action in connected to that.

Also please point out the part of the constitution Conor was upholding

by Jonnyone Wed Jun 28, 2006 01:50

They didn't break any law. Its a pity for them that they were caught up in this whole mess but hey! thats life. They should not be in Ireland as US soldiers. Had they come as civilians they would be most welcome.

But "dont mention the war, I did, but I think I got away with it".

Its that simple but the us government has bullied most of the world into taking part in the "War on Terror" and we all know how much good that is doing on a global scale. 3/4's of the world is against that. the other quarter seems either to be fighting in it or gaining from it in some way. Some gain alot for example alot of Dick Cheneys friends at Haliburton are making millions but on the other hand you have people like the workers at Shannon Airport who's jobs are pretty precarious. They see whats happening at Shannon as something hard to swallow but do it so they can feed and clothe their kids. Its very hard to argue with that but we have to.

Now there is alot of shite talk about how the US soldiers were treated badly in someway but thats seems to be just that.

Now Simon whaty do you gain from the "war on terror". I suspect that its just some warm feeling inside you that this troops are doing the right thing. of course I may be wrong and you are Dick Cheney making millions from the suffering Iraqis but I dont think you are.
so its the warm feeling. I hope its not the same fussy feeling that rasist get when picture's of African children deing deported are shown on TV.

So to argue I mention how the war is killing loads of people and then you talk about how saddam was killing loads of peole. We are both right.

Then I mention that Saddam was backed by the CIA and the US government of the time. we laugh about the foto of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam. You know how it goes.

Really this is about imperialism and stuff like that which goes way over the heads of many other people that have posted on this thread.

So there you go. Its may be seen as a stunt but it will stick in the side of many up in the Dail and Ballsbrigde. The cops are a bit pissed off because they were caught out (again) but they also know that the US troops are here illegally.

Imagine if the cops did bring this to court. The two guards mentioned in this story would be in trouble for a start and then all that mess diplomatic stuff would come up agfain and the consitution would be brought out.

They Superintendent would look a right fool and blow all chances of becoming a chief super. I don't think Conor is nervious at all. Do you?

by genethefarmer Wed Jun 28, 2006 01:54

Thats great Conor. I hope your actions get a huge amount of publicity back in the States.

I particularly hope that all those who contributed to causes like NORAID get to see just what gratitude the people of Ireland feel towards the US.

I'd also like to see you "arrest" the various foreign military students that are trained by the Irish Army.

Clown.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 28, 2006 02:17

Here you go Simon. The info you requested. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76801&comment_limit=0&c...55215

With regard to your comment about 3/4 of the people not being in favour of American troops in Ireland, you say that this does not prove that the same 3/4 would be in favour of Conor's actions.

I think it points more in that direction, than it says they would not be in favour.

by simon Wed Jun 28, 2006 02:58

the constituation is as interperted by the courts. Article 15 has already been addressed in this regard.

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f158025...ument

the main line.

"I am satisfied that the respondent’s argument is correct as to the true meaning of the Article, and that the facilities offered do not constitute maintenance by the respondents of an army within the State, contrary to that Article".

So i ask again what law was the citizen arrest carried out on and what part of the constituation.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 28, 2006 03:17

As it so happens I'm quite familar with the Dubsky case, and Mr. Horgan's too.

That judgement is concerned with American troops using the airport. Ie the American army have been offered the facilitation of overflight and use of Shannon airport.(You'll note too where the judge gets it wrong, where he says troop movements are not increasing.)

It is not concerned with this case. Where American troops are clearly in breach of our Constitution. Nowhere near the airport where they are allowed. They have not been offered the right to walk around outside the airport in uniform.

Interesting point, but off the mark nonetheless.

by Paddy Wed Jun 28, 2006 03:19

I wonder whether your last thought, as you jump out of your plane, blow some stuff up (probably some women and children which won't be reported by your corporate media) and then are shot by some poor iraqi , will be that you are proud to have been cannonfodder for US corporate interests.

here's some homework for you since you value education so much. read this:

http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html

See a pattern by any chance?

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 28, 2006 03:53

Here's a link that somewhat contradicts your notions on American investment in Ireland. And your deluded idea that we owe America something.

Employment and the results of slave training - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74011

by Cormac Wed Jun 28, 2006 04:21

Paddy- unfortunately the "corporate" media pays far too much attention to when we accidentally kill women and children in combat ( unless of course, the savages on the other side kill them intentionally- then it's okay). It's a cold world, blood. I guess your idea of how troops should be used is perhaps akin to the cowardly Norwegians and Danes who hid in their armored personel carriers in Bosnia and watched helplessly as the Serbs raped and pillaged, rather than to intervene.

I don't give a shit what kind of "cannon fodder" you or some rich fat cat who works for the WTO thinks I am. The truth is, both you people and the rich assholes who run the military industrial complex are too pussy-whipped to ever fight for anything yourselves. That's okay- I get enough personal satisfaction fighting battles on the behalf of those too weak to do so themselves- however heinious their cause.

by hedgehog Wed Jun 28, 2006 04:52

Thanks! heh. Voiced many thoughts I had myself. I once worked for an american corp. Glorified US tax write off, money laundering operation with big tax break from our govt to boot. Large layoffs when the tax break ran out. If they had just given each employee a big pile of money then they would have made most people who worked there independent and solvent for life and would have fostered many indigenous businesses and avoided lots of expensive wasted infrastructure costs such as roads and electricity, buildings, and advisory costs (all paid for by irish taxpayer) and a fair bit of pollution cleanup too We would have saved taxpayer money, given independence to the whole workforce and spawned local industry and had a nicer environment. Instead we ended up with wasted money and lots of miserable people on the dole.

the dirtiest word you could utter in the workplace was "union". It really sucked on so many levels

by Paddy Wed Jun 28, 2006 05:19

Interesting to note that the atrocities escalated above their baseline level only AFTER the bombing. (as those involved in the bombing knew they would) You can argue with Noam Chomsky and lots of good documentation on that one.

rather akin to the way the worst shit happened in iraq AFTER your lot wrongly invaded on the premise of finding WMD.

And before you give me the "Saddam was evil and are you not glad we got rid of him" argument thats usually trotted out at this stage, I will ask you this question: If you had a very sore knee, would you be grateful if the surgeon amputated your leg?

And anyone who is happy to kill innocent people and die for corporate profits is an unprincipled idiot

by hedgehog Wed Jun 28, 2006 05:54

to the "wonderful" US economy If other countries began to use the euro instead of the dollar as the baseline currency in all oil deals. You lot have bullied your way to a free lunch for too long now

Interesting to note that all members of the axis of evil and venezuela have threatened this and saddam actually did it shortly before he was invaded of course. What a co-incidence!

Ye are up to yer bollix in loans from china used to buy weapons to enforce your free lunch. China is laughing and sitting back waiting and playing nice until your economy collapses. Rather like you lot did to russia. Poetic justice or what?

While on the subject of economics driving world events, here is a really clever way people could protest against this stupid war

http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/douthwaite0...0.htm

Mr douthwaite also has a lovely idea to make carbon allocations on an individual level since global warming affects everyone, everyone should have an individual allowance. Corporations would have to pay poor people in developing countries for their allocations. I love the idea, but I digress

by Chris Wed Jun 28, 2006 09:58

Sorry, this just looks like a poor stunt to me. I think if some stranger had told me to not to move then started making phone calls i would have been off like flint, fearing a possible setup for an attack.

Anyway, it would appear that a minister of the Irish govt (ie an elected official) gave permission for American troops to be in Ireland. Until that permission is rescinded by himself, another equivalent member of the govt or courts, then that permission stands. If you dont like it, thats what elections are for...

Please may i remind you who actually started the war on terror. It wasnt the Americans, it was fanatical terrorists who deliberately murdered 3,000 people and hoped to kill more. What would u expect the US to do? No government in the world could just stand by and not react to an attack.
Lets talk a little more on the fanatical terrorists. AQ wishes nothing more than world wide islam. But they wish it in the form of the Taliban, thats why they got on so well. They follow a strict version (could call it extreme) that bans all forms of entertainment (goodbye Internet, music, TV etc), democracy as it is apparently anti islamic, removal of any form of women rights such as education and jobs. Women would have to dress in the burqa and risk being stoned to death for showing more than an ankle. A petty thief is punished by a hand being amputated without anaesthetic (spelling?), adultery punished by death and so on. This is what they want for YOU! They do not want to co exist or talk, they view themselves as being holy warriors acting out gods will. And as far as they are concerned, Allah wants them to kill the infidel. Hence 9/11, Hence Bali, 7/7, madrid and the rest that have been prevented and those still to come.
I dont know about you but i am willing to fight for your and my way of life.

By the way, i have been to Iraq as well, and trust us, they do want us there, very much so. A minority dont, and i guess it is a significant minority, but the majority know that it would be a whole lot worse without the coalition. Ok, so maybe we should not have gone in. That point is now irrelevant, as we have a responsibility to help them back on their feet.

by china Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:18

some idiot said:
Ye are up to yer bollix in loans from china used to buy weapons to enforce your free lunch. China is laughing and sitting back waiting and playing nice until your economy collapses. Rather like you lot did to russia. Poetic justice or what?

China holds most of the USA treasury bonds, in the region of 400billion, it is not in Chinas interest to see the US go down because if it did china would also you dumb twat, also if the US went down most of the world would follow including Ireland, ever heard the saying...when the US sneezes the world catches a cold...

by Santie the Rantie Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:14

It's great to see the few American's here thinking that they are far better than other countries/nationalities in the world... I suppose in their views, why have other countries; invade the lot with the stars & stripes, to be fucked.
Great to show the bully boy tactics here too that we have come to expect from a country so consumed with violence & destruction (even if it's in text via the net... pathetic).
Look where it's got you, sending your daughters & sons to the slaughter... in a war that has been brought about by the same government that has caused it. (Read between the lines on FOX "News" or the other propaganda drivel someday... you might learn something). You're your own worst enemy...literally.

America a Parent eh! A dysfunctional one, me thinks.
If Ireland is the upstart teenagers or whatever the fuck he said... what is the UN eh!
It probably should be seen as a grandparent figure... filled with the wisdom of the world and understanding the consequences of rash decisions/actions, namely an unprovoked war.

The reason why American's are not as fondly loved, as they themselves think they are... is because of the American superior attitude. USA Rule... we're No.1 bullshit that we have come to expect from a certain section of their population.
America/Americans should not see itself as Special in this world... Special Needs would be more fitting.

Fuck Sake ,most of you haven't ventured out to experience the great wide world yet (that isn't military related travel), let alone point out countries on a map. A lot of the ones that do travel internationally are occasionally too ashamed to say where they're from... and Canada comes from their lips instead.
So who gives a Fuck about your opinion eh?

Getting back to Cregan... he has a point about soldiers wandering around Ireland willy-nilly, but he went about it arseways... don't be hassling the poor war torn soldiers, leave them alone. Address it through the proper channels... without making an amadán out of himself & the country as a whole.
But he's right, US soldiers shouldn't we walking around the back roads of Ireland without permission.
If the same scenario was in the States, I'm sure the authorities wouldn't be too long before making arrests, given the current situation of illegal immigrants in the US.

Now that that's off my chest...
May I be the first to wish you all a Merry Christmas (or Happy holiday in the US).

Oh and as for American thinkin' they have Oirish blood in them because their great-grandparents had the legs to walk onto a ship/plane.
Sorry you're not Irish... if you're born in a country, that's the blood that runs through you veins... don't fool yourself just because Daddy on Grandma was born in Ireland it doesn't mean you are Irish in the slightest of ways... Sorry to burst the auld bubble on that myth.

Cheers,

Santie the Rantie.

P.S. You're all off my Good list, ye've pist the shit outta me.

by gallowglass Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:37

It would appear that Mr. Cregan - like many Irish anti-war activists - seems a little ill-informed about the Republic's 'neutrality'.

Perhaps he would like to explain why U.S. soldiers were allowed on Dublin streets in uniform both during and after the Second World War (I know this because my father saw them);why Allied airmen were not interned (but Germans were) during the Second World War (it became habitual with the Gardaí and Army to allow Allied airmen answer the 'call of nature' near the border...); why the Irish Army's G2 Intelligence branch operated closely with both British Military Intelligence and MI5 during 1939-45; why some 5,000 officers and men deserted from the Irish Army to serve in the British Army; why British flying boats and other aircraft were allowed overfly Irish territory.

More recently, has it never occured to Mr. Creagn and his ilk to wonder at just why an airport came to be built at Shannon, the most westerly point in Europe during the height of the Cold War (and therefore of enormous strategic importance); has he never wondered why the runway was built to take the weight of fully-laden bombers; does he really imagine that the U.S. Government would have permitted any such enterprise as Shannon Airport to have been built without its permission; and from where do Mr. Cregan & Co. imagine the funding for Shannon Airport came from? (Let's not even mention the Mount Gabriel 'NATO' radar station in Co. Cork...don't take my word for it Mr. Cregan, ask the Green Party and the INLA - the former are never done whining about it, and the latter tried to blow it up).

How would Mr. Cregan and other anti-war 'activists' explain the funeral through the streets of Dublin for L/Cpl. Ian Malone of the Irish Guards, killed during the British assault on Basra in April '03 - at which both the Irish government and Army were represented and uniformed British soldiers bore L/Cpl. Malone's coffin? Does Mr. Cregan really believe that the jihadists care to make a distinction for 'neutral' Ireland (hardly neutral to your average jihadist - white, Christian, and Western) when they face the Irish regiments in the British Army and such units as the 69th New York Irish National Guard in Iraq. To finish - are Mr. Cregan & Co. utterly detached from the reality of the past and present?

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 28, 2006 13:21

As one of Conor’s “ilk” – what a disgusting word to use by ‘gallowglass’ but then politeness and respect of the democratic right to disagree have never been hallmarks of supporters of US interference in Irish affairs – I would like to share some ideas on Irish neutrality. To begin with, let us read carefully the following quote:

Address by Minister Dermot Ahern to National Forum on Europe, 21 April 2005

“It is clearly stated that mutual defence shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. This was inserted at the behest of Ireland, supported by Finland, Sweden and Austria. It is intended to safeguard the policies of neutrality or non-alignment of these Governments. It means that Ireland is bound by this commitment only to the extent to which it is consistent with our traditional policy of military neutrality.”

In words at least, the Minister accepts that, constitutionally, Ireland is a militarily neutral country! Now let us look at this issue a bit more in depth.

The historical reason of the Constitution's adoption of neutrality was the fact that there was overwhelming political support for neutrality among the Irish people. When World War 2 broke out, the entire Dail, with only one exception, voted to support the policy of Irish Neutrality. I believe that the great majority of the Irish people still support Irish neutrality Indeed an MRBI poll in June 2001 showed 72% support for it. So the need for the Government to play along…..

Unlike critics of neutrality, however I do not believe that neutrality has its origins in World War 2, and all the shananigans around it, but is deeply rooted in our struggle for National Independence.

Neutrality was advocated by Wolfe Tone, leader of the United Irishmen during a time of potential war between Britain and Spain in the 18th century. The United Irishmen in the 1790s sought to establish a United, Independent and Sovereign Irish Republic. They were part of an international democratic revolution against Monarchy and privilege. Their inclusive aim was to, 'Unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter in the common name of Irishmen.

They were ruthlessly crushed by British Imperialism and its Irish allies. Over 30,000 United Irishmen, or 'terrorists', as they were called, were assassinated. The commitment to Irish neutrality and independence was maintained in the 19th century by the Young Irelanders and the Irish Republican Brotherhood who in the early 20th century led the 1916 Rising and the War of Independence. The Treaty which established the Irish State and the subsequent steps taken ensured our right to Neutrality and Independence. This independence was expressed through our support for international organisations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, or sponsoring of the Non-Proliferation Nuclear Treaty and our active role in UN peacekeeping.

Yet those Irish that supported Imperialism did not go away; they stayed in the long grass, waiting for their time to come again, which they now see in the emerging European Union and the Empire. With a variety of arguments, they attempt to revive the tradition of Redmond and Lord Kitchener. Instead of being 'British' we are told we are all 'Europeans' or that we are so intricately linked with US money and politics (like a ‘Bermuda’ in fact as an American think-tank called us recently) that not going along is simply a no-option. They seek this because they now identify with the rich elites of United States and European Union States that seek to maintain of a world economic order that has made the rich even richer and the poor even poorer.

So that’s where the argument is situated. We have a Constitution, we have the majority of our people who believe in neutrality and we also have a Government and a political elite that are running roughshod over both. To that extent gallowglass’ arguments and facts are pertinent. However, contrary to his conclusions, the outcome of the above is that our ilk, the progressive movement, the Left, the anti-war movement, our conscious younger sons and daughters, the Conor Creggans of this world in short, will continue to struggle with all means at our disposal. We will fight the democratic deficit rampant in our country. Of that there is no doubt …….For a United, Independent and Neutral Ireland!

So keep a careful watch gallowglass....you know where we're coming from and must have a good idea where we are going. With a very favourable wind pumping our sails.

by A10 Wed Jun 28, 2006 13:59

Sean
Your unintresting piece of anti American claptrap is just that considering that YOU wrote it yourself and are anti American
.And yes Ireland owes America a shitload more than the USA owns this pest hole.Ever since Famine times and if the Irish Americans never supported and financed the struggle for Irish freedom,this rock would be still the preserve of her Majesty the Queen.And proably better off too.
Hedgehog,
Glad to see you taking time off from supporting the whips and chains animal rights terrorists.So you worked for a US multi national...was that MaC Donalds??
RE your point on the US going bankrupt buying in China.Ever think of it like this,we could be destroying a dictatorship by giving its people materialistic goods.The more freedom China gives it's people to act capitalistic,the less power central govt has. And yes the Euro will become a standard for oil,in about ten years.By then proably alt fuels will be becoming a norm so oil will be becoming a less valuable commodity.
I would be glad if the US pulled out of world affairs abit more,let the rest of the world go to Hell and kill each other off.We get no thanks for it.
Let that bungling incompetant corrupt world organisation whom Ireland whores for the UN sort it out without the US military logistics behind it to fly mercy flights or move supplies,why should we?Fuck the rest of you.

by Simon Wed Jun 28, 2006 14:03

If the court ruled that the refueling jets was not maintance how is walking around considered maintance of an army.?

the constitution says nothing about the preseance of an army which is what you would need to make the case ye are trying to make. Remember the spirt of this article as well. This was brought in 1937 to be used against the IRA.

I really fail to see where the " American troops are clearly in breach of our Constitution."

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 28, 2006 15:11

Glad you liked my piece A10. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling and brings a lump to the back of me throat, which isn't my breakfast this time.

As for your other points: Wrong! And proven thus time and time again. Cept about the UN of course. The UN is a flaccid and currently useless organisation. It is an enabler for the American War Machine.

Simon:

This is complex, so please bear with me.

I'm going to break my arguments in two areas, the first area is opinion, but it is logically and factually based. The second part is fact.

In the Dubsky case, the case that you refer to. The onus was placed on Mr. Dubsky, to prove that the war on Afghanistan was a 'war' as defined by our Constitution. (Remember here that the Judge in question, is one of the world's foremost experts in patenting laws.) Dubsky's legal team failed to prove the war in Afghanistan was a war as defined by our Constitution, to the Judge's satisfaction. We are left with the 'fact' that the war in Afghanistan was not a WAR(tm).

I've talked to many Americans (some who disagree with me bigtime too) and many folks from Afghanistan. And every last one of them with no exceptions, believe there was and indeed that there is a war in Afghanistan. The Judge's ruling on this point is wrong, period. It will be challenged at some point, and her arguments will be laughed (in a very serious tone) out of the court.

Similarly, the ruling that refueling American War Planes, was not an act of maintenance. Is stupid at the very least, and in my opinion is criminal. We even fix these planes etc. Ie. we maintain them. Again remember the Judge's backround in patenting, and indeed her background in the USA itself, where she was associated with a very wealthy and famous Texas Oil Baron.

Ok that's the opinion bit done with.

Troops on Irish soil, wearing a foreign military uniform.

This is an act of war, if these troops do not have permission to be here wearing the uniform of a foreign, imperialist, warmongering, genocidal belligerant. I'd be very within my rights to consider this an invasion, what with America's fondness for pre-emptive use of force. As I've said already, Conor Cregan's act was probably the most humane way possible of dealing with the situation he was confronted with. And again, the citizens of Ireland are empowered and indeed commanded by the Constitution, to be guardians of our Constitution.

According to the (deeply flawed) Dubsky case, troops are allowed in close proximity to the Airport and not beyond. See the excellent comment by Memory Woman somewhere above. It could easily be debated that these troops had no business in an hotel, wearing their uniforms either. This argument hasn't seen the inside of a courtroom yet, but should. It wouldn't be as easy an argument to defeat as the argument concerning, American troops wandering the countrside wearing their uniforms argument. I'll give you that. It's made complex by the fact that the Gardaí are supposed to be guarding these folks (it's internment Irish style). However because of this fact, it lends more weight to the argument I'm making. That they shouldn't be wandering the countryside in uniform. You'll note that the Garda in the piece made sure the troops were 'locked up' again before Conor left. Why would he have done this if these troops were not violating our laws and Constitution?

by Simon Wed Jun 28, 2006 17:33

This is an act of war, if these troops do not have permission to be here wearing the uniform of a foreign, imperialist, warmongering, genocidal belligerant.

But they do from the democratically elected government of this state. Also I have seen many troops around Ireland of all nationalities (mainly sailors) to me that does not constitute a act of war at all.

As for not judging it as a war. I think World War II was not considered a war either. Funnly enough I think only Ireland and Russia have different names for World War2 . Russia the great patrotic war and Ireland the emergency. So is it surprising Afganisatn was not a war

Look this discussion is getting no where. We are not going to agree on this. So it is a waste of yours and my time. So I will leave this here.

For future referance may you should arrested them for jay walking. Stand up better in court.

by A10 Wed Jun 28, 2006 20:51

At least you agree with me that the UN is a useless,corrupt,money spinning,incompetant beuraccy that does fuck all good .That Ireland likes to whore for?? Getting somwhere then at least.
So on what else am I wrong on then???Always like to hear from " superior " Irish leftist anti American people like yourself.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 28, 2006 21:54

Well for a start, we're not "hyprocritical,backstabbing,backwardand mean minded little people the Irish race is."

Our government fit that description and I think you'll agree on this.

However, in as far as activists are concerned, our position has been constant and unchanging. We can be sneaky at times, true but only to highlight the issues themselves, which have never been hidden.

Not wishing to participate in a war doesn't make us mean minded.

Tempers have flared on both sides of this conflict. Lots of stuff has been said that shouldn't have. That's passion, not mean mindedness. And all parties have suffered it and offered it.

You see all this as an act of hatred. That's where you're wrong. At least in as far as hating America is concerned. We hate being manipulated, and we hate being forced. But we don't hate Americans or America. Methinks the clarification of the difference between the regime and the US is mostly ignored by most activists, myself included. The point being that I have made this clarification many times, and rarely do so anymore, to avoid repeating myself, and to avoid readers having to read my repeating myself, and becaue I'm usually very specific in what I say (It takes the application of 'spin' to see it any other way).

You and I have had many rows in the past, some of them very cutting. I hope and I believe, that you do not think I hate you. Jesus you know I disagree with you on a lot of stuff, but hate?

All I want is to live in a society, where the truth is freely discussed and not a thing that is hidden and that is used as a fulcrum to exert influence and power to subvert and enslave.

It's a tall order, I hope you agree. But it is far from being underhanded or hateful.

There's nothing shameful about being Irish, just like there's nothing shameful about being American.

The freedom of speech, the freedom of thought and action, and the freedom of Sovereignty. Are my wants. And they will be achieved. Without hate or prejudice.

by Mayosligo - CSOL Wed Jun 28, 2006 22:58 mayosligo at yahoo dot com

Strange how so many of us Irish forget our past and seem to be taking some "high road" when it comes to world affairs. I met a number of Irish who seem to hate the Americans, The US and in some cases Republicans from the States.

How we quickly forget that for many many years it was the Yankee dollar that supported us through tourism. How quickly we forget the American Corporations that came to our country to hire our young people.

How quickly we forget that in the eyes of the world, Ireland would be placed in the same category as the Yanks and much of the western world.

We can play our cheeky politics and pretend to be nuetral, but in the end we will need to stand for something and it better be more than the clowning crack of Conors and mates like him.

We no longer have the excuses of nuetrality that we so clung to during World War II. We are no longer that poor country., and we best remember the Americans who backed us and are now spilling their own blood so that our soft underbellied youth don't have to.

Another Brendan

by Steve Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:22

Sean - if the troops were granted permission to be billeted away from the airfield, does this not meet the required law? I have transited many places where diplomatic permission was asked for and granted before we could leave the entry point. We used to have to get clearence to land at Shannon beforehand. Again, permission was granted. So if permission was asked for and given, what part of Ireland's constitution was violated?

You say your comments are not hatred, but what you type says differently. You do seem to hate America and Americans. You use words and phrases that are hyperbole and inflated: "carpetbombing", "warmongering", etc.

As to what you think you know about the US military - it is exactly ZERO. You can talk to whoever, read whatever, and google everything but it still adds up to ZERO. Unless you have been a part of it (as I was for 23 years), you will never know. Morale is NOT "plummeting". It is actually pretty high.

What was done was silly and grandious. Personally, I would have kept walking.

As to what Americans are told on TV, well our lovely unbiased press shows very little of anything good despite numerous reports to back that up. They report doom and gloom.

What "law" was actually broken that makes the operations in Iraq "illegal"? I have asked this question on several boards and never have seen an actual reference. While the UN may not have sanctioned OIF, that does not make it illegal. Neither does Koffi "my son was making money from Saddam" Annan stating so. Fact is, no country needs the UN "permission" to take actions it deems in its defense or best interests. The UN is a political organization where countries can take greivences, but it isn't the almighty. It is actually very disfunctional in the field. And prone to inaction on the diplomatic front. Dafur is but the most recent example of the UN inability to act. Rhawanda and Somalia were others. As were Checzkoslovakia and Hungary.

As far as president Bush "lying" - it is only a lie if you know it not to be the truth. The president had reports from our own intelligence agencies along with those of England, France, Israel, Russia, and some middle-eastern countries. 85%-90% of the reports given the President all said that Saddam had the weapons and was wanting more. Saddam's own actions served to solidify this conclusion. The fact that Saddam duped everyone doesn't make President Bush or any other country's leaders "liars". BTW - over 500 chemical shells have been found in Iraq, which violates the cease fire agreement signed at Safwan in 1991. They were old and somewhat degraded and militarily "ineffective", but they were found. They still had the capability of being used in terrorist style attacks. As far as Afghanistan goes, the Taliban brought that on themselves. Given the objectives when the US first went in, the operations have wielded very few civilian casualties. While any are too many, it could have been a whole lot worse.

by A10 Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:49

As an Irishman, to my now eternal shame,I think I can speak as well as anyone on the nature of the Irish,and we fit this bill nicely.Not only that we are the most begrudgeing nation of people ever.

A govt repesents it's people it elects,so if we elect mean minded back stabbing little hyprocritesare we not electing ourselves??

We are not particpating in any war,and I doubt we ever would as our psyche would rather we let somone else do our dirty work for us.Nor could we defend ourselves,nor do we fully want to pay the price of our neutrality.It wouldnt do that we would have to defend our terrority.

The US is not maniuplating or forcing Ireland to do anything.
We offerd the use of Shannon a long time ago to the US a a refueling stop.It was even an American ,Lindbergh that chose the sight with DeVelaras aquisence in the 1930s.If the US was maniuplating Ireland,this place would be totally different.But then no doubt you will use the point that the US will threaten to pull it's multi nationals out,yet you yourself said this is a nonsense.Which is it to be??

You,meaning the anti American peace activitists claim not to hate America.Going by some of the graffiti in Dublin and Shannon,you would swear we were living in Bagdad or N Korea[if they allow grafitti there that is].So you personally may not "hate" America or me,but unfortunetly you are with a group that does not make fine distinctions.Ergo you must hate me and Americans.It's kind of being German and trying to differ between the Germans and the Nazis.All Germans were Nazis,not true at all ,but as Napoleon said history is the lies of the victors.The innocent Germans suffered as much as the Nazis.So now all Americans are war mongers?Fine so now the lines are irreverseably drawn. Also what gets up my nose on this point is the concentration on the US actions in Shannon and the dead silence of the anti war on the Russians,running arms to Bolivia,Cuba,and Venezuala.It looks very hyprocritical and one sided.

You know,what you want freedom of expression,thought ,action,etc is freely available in the USA,despite all the yelling and screaming about the Patriot act and what not.You can still stand on a soapbox on the corner of 5th Ave in New York and yell about warmonger Bush and that Bin Ladin is a really nice fellow who should be next US president. Could you do that here on an Irish subject?
I wonder how many of the anti US activitists have actually been in the USA??Have you?I always like to make my comments about somthing after I have tried it.True,it isnt perfect either,but it is a damn sight better than many places I have had the fortune and mis fortune to be in. Ireland being one of them.
You would be better employing your talents trying to change Ireland first,God knows it needs it .Also dont you think it a bit utopian to think that there will be a totally open society???Any form of govt will have to have secrets from it's people.

by redjade Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:52

'As far as president Bush "lying" - it is only a lie if you know it not to be the truth.'

Whew! after years of this ugly stupid war and 150.000+ dead and 500,000 or so refugees, billions wasted, billions corrupted and is all but lost at this point and this is all you have to explain it all?

'it is only a lie if you know it not to be the truth'?

How utterly pathetic.

———

The question I have is this....

When Tourists coming from N. America come through Shannon to go to some other country or maybe just Dublin and their plane needs to be repaired - what happens to the passengers?

Sure, they stay at a local hotel, right? But as they leave the airport - are their passports stamped as they leave the international airport and into the Republic?

My assumption is yes.

Were these soldiers' passports stamped?

by JDog from USA Thu Jun 29, 2006 00:25

Everyone on both sides of this argument need to chill out.

Americans need to remember that Ireland is historically one of the most invaded islands on earth, so they're naturally sensitive to and repulsed by foreign uniforms on their soil.

Irish need to understand that not all Americans agree with the war in Iraq, but we all support and love our troops regardless.

The wandering troops probably wanted to look at the refreshing green fields of Ireland on their short stroll because they've been stuck in god awful deserts for months. I respect that Ireland is officially neutral, but please don't place our young troops on the same moral plane as the Islamofacist suicide bombers and head choppers of Iraq. We're the GOOD GUYS! We don't bomb train stations in Spain - THEY DO. We don't blow up buses in London - THEY DO.

I served in the US Air Force. My grandfather was born in Donegal. In fact, I'm Irish on all sides. If I happened to find myself in uniform in Ireland, please don't impede me progress. If you do, the spirits of my forefathers will rise up from the ole sod, angry fairies will appear in the mist, gargoyles will spring alive, and haunt ye' for the rest of yer life!

by Vietnam Thu Jun 29, 2006 00:38

and other places that where bombed by the US. The list is goes on and on with hundreds of innocents killed in piontless wars. Trains, office blocks, paddy fields, buses etc etc all bombed by the US so how are you the good guys. I am sure their is good guys in the US army but Siir yes Sir you are the good guys in Iraq or Afghanistan. The good guys are the teachers, doctors etc who try to hold their people together will your people walk all over their human rights without a clue of their culture.

by so bored with the U S A Thu Jun 29, 2006 00:45

'Irish need to understand that not all Americans agree with the war in Iraq, but we all support and love our troops regardless. '

Most Irish know this already - your love for your troops is not important to ireland - just get them out - they do not belong here.

You have to know that there is no country in europe that is friendlier to America than Ireland - Yet is also 80% Anti-Bush/Anti-Iraq War

YOU have to ask yourself why that could be.
Hint: it is not about 'Public Relations' its about American Policy.

'The wandering troops probably wanted to look at the refreshing green fields of Ireland on their short stroll because they've been stuck in god awful deserts for months.'

This really is not about these troops, personally - its about Ireland being sucked into a war that it wants no part of. These troops represent this fact.

They are in Ireland not as tourists (if they were they would be welcome) but they came here as warriors.

'My grandfather was born in Donegal. In fact, I'm Irish on all sides.'

I really mean no ofense, but i really don't give a shit, ok?

'We're the GOOD GUYS! We don't bomb train stations in Spain - THEY DO.'

Yes what happened in Spain, London, NYC, DC, Bali and so on was bad and wrong - i agree.
{what was the total death toll?)

But America is responsible for the deaths of 150,000+ dead Iraqis.

what you have just read is not 'anti-americanism' - it is just the facts - please turn off the TV and read.

by popsiq Thu Jun 29, 2006 01:58

The initial post made reference to a mechanical problem that caused the plane to land at Shannon. a later remark would lead one to believe that arrivals of American military transports at Shannon are a regular occurrence.

Given the proximity of British airports, why are these flights not scheduled through that Coalition partner? Does it have anything to do with Irish economics (cheap landing fees or Avgas)?

Maybe an internment laager serving tea and wee cakes would be in order. How about a squad of the Ballykilgallen Horse Marines on permanent post at the airport?

But be careful, however, your churlish treatment of the fighters for truth, purity and the American way has unleashed the ire of some Bubbas and Dooks who are more than willing to open a can of whup-ass on ya! Besides them was chicks you dissed!

by JDog from USA Thu Jun 29, 2006 02:44

Are you guys mostly leftist commies or something? Some of the comments are dripping with leftist hatred for the USA.

I think the war in Iraq was a huge mistake, too. But I love both America and Ireland. We're the good guys! Our troops in Ennis were strolling, not marauding. Nothing to get your knickers in a wad about. We come in peace.

We're trying to help Iraq, but they seem to enjoy killing one another too much to take much notice of our efforts. Now our troops are caught in the middle. At least Sadaam had things under control.

by T Kelly Lee Thu Jun 29, 2006 03:01

Is the Air Traffic Control system in Ireland a government entity?
Does Ireland abide by the conventions and treaties governing aircraft in distress?
Do the citizens of Ireland have the individual right to abrogate treaties and agreements made by the Irish government?

As an aside, the soldiers in question were in Ireland because the Irish government follows its agreements in regards to aircraft in distress. Their plane was broken, Ireland was the most convenient place to land it.
They didn't have civillian clothes unless they bought them at the hotel. Since they're not allowed to travel with more than a small amount of currency and with very few exceptions, no credit cards at all, exactly how were they to purchase these clothes?
Get over yourselves. You phrase, "The Antiwar Movement", as though it's some tremendous, monolithic entity driven by a consistent set of goals and intrinsic objectives. You can take the time to quote sections of the Irish Constitution that may justify the citizen's arrest yet you ignore the fact that the "crime" for which this arrest was made was excused by the very same Constitution.
A broken airplane is a situation of duress. Duress doesn't have to be a gun held to the head of your daughter or a Provo with his finger on the switch of the bomb at your local pub.
I freely admit I'm from the US. My cultural heritage is irrelevant to the fact I was born in a different country than you. Unlike many of you, I was raised to be nice to people if I possibly could. The person trying to make the "arrest" was not only not justified by the laws of his country, he was being a dick besides.
I'm not in favor of killing innocent people. I try to avoid it when I can. I also understand that in the United States, when you voluntarily enlist in the Armed Forces, you no longer have the option of saying, "I'll follow some orders but not others."
The officer who was mentioned as refusing to deploy. He's simply a liar. He signed a contract that gave him very specific obligations under the laws of the US and pertinent international laws. He's in violation of that contract and the laws that apply. He's a criminal, not a hero. He didn't have the balls to try to become what the US military calls a, "Conscientious Objector." He simply suggested, "I don't like this war, I won't go."
Ireland is neutral. Good for Ireland. Ireland's Constitution and laws specifically allowed for the US Soldiers to be where they were. There's nothing in any of the Geneva or Hague accords that prevent a nation from providing humanitarian aid regardless of the clothing the victims are wearing.

by MARINE - USMC Thu Jun 29, 2006 03:49

To the Gentleman that mentioned slapping the Soldiers, My advice too you would be "Dont Try It" I am a US Marine with 23 years in the service from Boston. If you ever tried too slap me or one of my Marines trying too enjoy themselves while away from a hell you can only imagine! I can promise you that you would think twice of ever lifting a hand too another human being again after you recover from your first attempt. I have nothing but respect for Ireland and it's people, I have family in Kerry and Tipp. and have visited a number of times. We may not agree on the current situation but I would never try too harm or make a fool of those who dont agree with what I do. I wish you the all the best in future.

SSgt TD Ryan USMC

by Seán Ryan Thu Jun 29, 2006 13:45

I'm kinda getting sick of people, deliberately missing the point and using this ignorance to feign misguided offense.

This act happened in order to highlight the Irish Government and its hypocrisy.

There was no personal insult intended or given to the soldiers in question, as is made very clear in the piece.

The "gung ho" attitude of some posters on this thread, is personal and is very condescending at the very least.

Basically, insult is feigned, turned into a reason to attack, and all the troops run in to back each other up. The truth is lost in the melee, but who cares, you guys are defending your god given right, to be any where you want to be, irregardless as to whether you violate the concept of sovereignty or offer huge insult.

Will we be termed, "terrorists" next?

Shall we become part of the "Axis of Evil" too?

Will you soon tear down our statues, and rip up our flag, and use the orange to make trendy jumpsuits, for the more vocal of us, too?

Learn how to read.

Learn how to listen.

Learn how to communicate.

Learn to not throw your weight around, it doesn't ammount to much more than hot air.

Learn that you are a nation in its infancy and that you don't know Jack's shit. You don't even have the questions, never mind the answers.

Then your opinions will have value.

by aspec Thu Jun 29, 2006 14:11

Do you condone this or is it anti-american?

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2006497&page=1

A10 did you just point your weapon, shot and people fell down or did you shoot to kill?

by Steve Thu Jun 29, 2006 15:26

redjade - I did not use the explanation/clarification of what denotes lying as justification for the Iraq Operation. I put that in there as the term "Bush lied" is way overused and incorrect. Look up the definition of what constitutes a lie. The anti-war factions latched on to it without any proof that there was verified information beforehand that the President knew there were no WMDs. Just like the term "illegal war". I am still waiting for an exact reference as to what law was broken.

Some questions I have is where were all the protesters when Saddam was violating UN sanctions? Or when he was terrorizing and killing his own people? Where were they when the Taliban were dismantling Afghanistan to make it their idea of utopia? Where were they when Hamas or Hezbollah commit acts of aggression or terror? Where are they when the DPRK does something provocative? Where are they when China shoots down a US recon plane in international space? Where were they when al Queda committed 5 major attacks against the US in the 90s? (The 1993 WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, the embassy attacks in Tanzenia and Kenya which killed many local people but few US personnel, and the USS Cole)

Nowhere I can find.

No, some things never change. It is mostly the Western powers that get protested.

Bottom line is that the US personnel that were involved were only there due to circumstance and not as part of any US planned rotation or staging through Ireland. They evidently were given permission of some sort since they were allowed to be transported to the hotel. If you want to protest or make a statement, fine. But grandstanding and involving people who are not aware of your politics or anything else is just garbage. As I said before, I would heve kept walking.

To the person who mentioned passports. If they were traveling with them then yes, they would heve ben stamped. Whenever I entered a country and we had to leave the quarentine/international area or the acft, we were required to have our passports stamped without exception. I do not know if current deployments requrie passports, but it is usually prudent to have them just in case events require them.

by Gerry Mc - None Thu Jun 29, 2006 22:24

What a stew we seem to have got ourselves into. Three hapless and probably none to bright US soldiers step outside a provincial hotel for a breath of fresh air. Lo and behold here is "Super Protester" making his citizens arrest. It is true that they were in uniform and therefore representatives of a regime that is oppressing another nation probably for the benefit of the oil. But for goodness sake get some perspective on this "crime" and for heavens sake get a life.

by Devil Dog Thu Jun 29, 2006 22:38

Gerry you didn't read the article so your analysis is trite. Why would you insult the soldiers in the picture for no other reason than your own prejustices? Its obvious you, like most of the Americans who have posted here, didn't understand the fundamental question of why are these soliders walking around Ennis but still you offer your opinion. I hope this helps you understand why I think you are full of shite.

by Seán Ryan Thu Jun 29, 2006 22:52

I see Gerry that you've only read the pictures, and seeing that they were coloured in already, have moved on to offering your opinion on something that you haven't read.

Any chance you'd post the lotto numbers, I know of someone who'd like to win.

Although, don't bother. You need to practice this psychic 'gift' a bit more.

It was 6 soldiers that were arrested, not 3. And your idea that they stepped outside the hotel for a breath of fresh air is conjecture, and indeed that their reasoning for 'stepping out' is quite irrelevant, unless of course their intent was criminal, which I'm confident it wasn't, as indeed is Conor.

As to why this was a serious crime, well try reading, and then use your powers to come a conclusion.

And once more: Conor and the soldiers were on friendly terms when they parted company, and he had informed them, that the problem was not with them, but with our government.

How's that for 'perspective?'

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 30, 2006 20:34

This came on the wires about an hour ago. It demonstrates further who are the real potato heads and who deserves a bullet where it hurts.

BEIJI, Iraq - Five U.S. soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three relatives, an American military official said Friday, describing the latest allegations of abuse of Iraqi civilians. The soldiers also allegedly burned the body of the woman they are accused of assaulting in the March incident, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

The U.S. command issued a sparse statement, saying Maj. Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of coalition troops in Baghdad, had ordered a criminal investigation into the alleged killing of a family of four in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad. The statement had no other details.

The case represents the latest allegations against U.S. soldiers stemming from the deaths of Iraqis. At least 14 U.S. troops have been convicted.

The United States also is investigating allegations that two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha on Nov. 19 in a revenge attack after one of their own died in a roadside bombing

by John A.Campbell Fri Jun 30, 2006 21:56 garryowen1 at earthlink dot net 520-743-0583

Conor Cregan is a rascist and a hate monger who would - for selfish political goals - condemn the people of Iraq to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or the terrorists who are attempting to take over Iraq. He's a peace activist in the same manner as Neville Chamberlain was a peace activist-and he gave us WW11 WITH CLOSE TO 60 MILLION DEAD.
When Paidrig Pearce read the proclimation of independence in 1916, the English did not immediately leave because someone waved a piece of paper about. No, the decaration had to be enforced by warriors and as a result of warriors laying their all on the line Conor Cregan is free to malign those who would sacrifice their today so others may have a tommorow. For shame Mr Cregan, for shame.

by Pogo Sat Jul 01, 2006 01:11

I wonder why so many pictures are included when they aren't even pictures of the soldiers involved (frankly, most of the pictures appear to be unrelated to anything). Was permission given by those soldiers to have their images posted on the web, Mr. Cregan? If so, would you make the authorisation available for readers? Wouldn't want to violate any laws in our efforts to uphold justice, would we?

I think that it speaks highly of the courtesy and politeness of the soldiers that they did NOT react violently to Mr. Cregan's gentle bullying, in contrast with more than a few of the posters here on both sides of the debate. Given that there were 6 of them, they certainly could have overwhelmed Mr. Cregan, had they been war-mongering child killers. Apparently Mr. Cregan stopped the wrong ones.

by John Kennedy Sat Jul 01, 2006 01:14

I would suggest that further protests at Shannon and or Baldonnell should be replete with hundreds/thousands of BLACK FLAGS to symbolise the oppossition of the Irish people to this army of pillage, rape, and death, on the soil of our country. Cromwell's skin was white but he is known here as "Black Cromwell" BLACK for death, for the butchery of men women and children. It is plain his spirit is alive and well, while our craven politicans facilitate Bush and the big oil Mob.

What a shame, my uncle fought in the U.S army in WW2, he is sickened at the destruction of what he sees as fundamental values of civilisation by Bush and Co, values such as the "rule of law" and democracy flushed down the toilet (WHAT WAR DID BUSH FIGHT IN?) in the very name of democracy and a law based society, when the REAL gameplan is about big big bucks for Dubba and his clique.

BRING ON THE BLACK CLOTH. "JESUS CHRIST IN HIGH HEAVEN WHAT CRIMES WE COMMIT IN YOUR NAME".

.

by Wolf Tone Sat Jul 01, 2006 01:52

"NeoNazi, Zionist"- easy there, your True Colours are showing. I take it you are an Anti-Semite by your comments? can you tell me why there are entire classes of Arab Muslims in Israel who enjoy FULL citizenship rights? Why there is the "Sayeret Hadruzim" in the Na'Hal?
Your fooling no one Mr. G.N. your rhetoric is from bygone days, and as a Progressive I firmly believe you have an agenda of violence towards a persecuted People. Even if you do not agree with the American President, he is still by far better than any other "so-called "leaders in the Middle East. It always amazes me how virulent the lies are towards americans in general, Name any other country- that with their forces being beheaded & tortured would publish to the world mis-deeds of their own troops? When was the last time say, Hamas had a press conference announcing a trial for some of it's gunmen? Or PIRA/Sinn Fein? It's Hypocritical auld boy. Only the americans seem to understand that . By the way who used chemical weapons on his own citizens & that of Iran? Batthists & Al- Queda are directly decended from Fascism, we should not be rallying to their cause- For SHAME

by Wolf Tone Sat Jul 01, 2006 02:30

Well, perfect example of practice what one preaches, I see that HMS Ocean, a British Royal Navy Vessel is currently Docked in Dublin. Am I to assume Conor & Sean will be arresting that ships complement anytime soon?
When will we be regaled with your further exploits? Or is it that old Jolly Jack Tar might not take kindly to it?
Well, well auld sods what will it be? somehow I dont think you've the stones for it.

by Reality Check Sat Jul 01, 2006 09:21

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

by Mr. T. Sat Jul 01, 2006 21:39

Why haven't any courageous activists gone down to the docks and placed the entire british war ship's contingent under citizen's arrest? Surely they're wearing british naval uniforms.

For that matter, why hasn't anyone gone down to place those attending the Somme commemoration under citizen's arrest? There were rakes of military uniforms at that event...

Is there a reason for this apparent selective approach to enforcing Irish neutrality?

by Proud American Sun Jul 02, 2006 01:38

All the above anti-USA comments only show one thing. The anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-USA idiots around the world are basically all the same. Conor is an idiot activist who should have been shut down years ago. You anti-war folks all profess your hatred of big bad USA but conveniently overlook the tyrants in the world over the years. Did you protest when Saddam was killing and torturing his own people. No. Did you protest when the many tyrants (too many to name) in Africa kill and torture their own people. No. Do you protest Castro's treatment of dissenters in Cuba. No. Did you protest the slaughter by Stalin of his own people. No. Do you protest that nut running North Korea and starving his people. No. Did you protest Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania. No. Did you protest the killing fields of Cambodia. No. Did you praise the USA for what it accomplished during World War Two. No. Did you praise the USA for ALL the foreign aid it distributed over the years. No. It is obvious you are only anti-war when it comes to the USA. I am a first generation American with my parents coming from Ireland and you are an embarrassment to me.
Desmond H. McKenna

by R. Isible Sun Jul 02, 2006 02:37

who disgrace the name of America by supporting a vicious, illegal occupation of Iraq and a criminal administration that supported Saddam Hussein while he was a tyrant.

All the above anti-USA comments only show one thing. The anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-USA idiots around the world are basically all the same.

Yes, anti-war, anti-Bush activists all share a desire to see the war stop and Bush indicted for war-crimes. Must be some sort of conspiracy or something. Well done.

Conor is an idiot activist who should have been shut down years ago.

Why should he be "shut down"? Don't you understand that in some parts of the world we have rules where the government is not allowed to "shut down" people?

You anti-war folks all profess your hatred of big bad USA but conveniently overlook the tyrants in the world over the years.

I can't speak for anyone else anti-war, but I don't "hate the USA". I hate evil people like you that support this disgusting war which has been prosecuted illegally and stupidly. Most Americans would tell you to go fuck off with your opinions according to any recent opinion polls, so don't presume to speak for the entire nation which is unlucky enough to have given citizenship to someone like yourself that doesn't respect the ideals upon which the USA was founded.

Did you protest when Saddam was killing and torturing his own people. No.
No, I didn't. I didn't know much about it at the time. Also Ireland only had the slimmest of economical relationships with Iraq (beef exports) and all the TV coverage of that area at the time presented Hussein as a bulwark against those dangerous Iranians (note that right around then is when Rumsfeld was selling poison gas and helicopters to Hussein so that he could fight illegal wars against the major US target: Iran. Don't hear you decrying that mister). By contrast, Ireland is deeply integrated with the USA and so we have more responsibility for helping the decent, peace-loving, copped-on citizens there to do the right thing and bring Bush and his supporters to trial for war crimes.

Did YOU protest? What about now? Are you protesting the current Islamic extremist regimes (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia to name just a few) supported by the country that you betray like a cuckoo in the nest? Or do you spend all your spare time defending war crimes of the Bush administration on the internet?

Did you protest when the many tyrants (too many to name) in Africa kill and torture their own people. No.

Take a look at the newswire dumbcluck. You'll see at least one protest in Dublin against the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76984

Do you protest Castro's treatment of dissenters in Cuba. No.
Yes. Did you? (And I'm not talking about just posting a message on some website talking about how evil cuban communism is, I'm talking about you moving your plump buttocks out the door and onto the street).

Did you protest the slaughter by Stalin of his own people. No.
And what in the name of fuck would the point be of that? The only possible point of ever doing any protest is to try and change something. Stalin, contrary to your apparent belief, has been dead a long time and isn't going to listen to me.

Do you protest that nut running North Korea and starving his people. No. Did you protest Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania. No. Did you protest the killing fields of Cambodia. No.
Again, what's the point? You seem to think that protests should be about declaring some sort of moral position instead of about getting something done.

Did you praise the USA for what it accomplished during World War Two. No. Did you praise the USA for ALL the foreign aid it distributed over the years.
Do YOU know what the USA accomplished during WW2? Do you know about how IBM and other companies (including Granddaddy Bush's) helped build up the Nazi war machine because it was good for business and stopped commies? Do you know about how the dirty dealing US of A recruited Nazi torturers all across Europe and protected them from justice so that the US could retain control in Europe? I don't feel any great gratitude to the capitalist leaders of the USA that helped create the Nazi monster. I don't feel gratitude to anyone that was drafted. I do respect and admire anyone that enlisted specifically because they wanted to fight the Nazis. Most of those people would have been "commies", "reds", "wobblies" and other socialists of whom the US used to have a proud tradition.

No. It is obvious you are only anti-war when it comes to the USA.
No. I'm anti Stalin, Mao, Bush, Clinton, Mussolini, Kennedy, Pol Pot and all the other monsters that have murdered innocent civilians in order to control the world. Any American that is defending the invasion and occupation of Iraq is defending the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. You can take that and shove it up the place that you speak from.

I am a first generation American with my parents coming from Ireland and you are an embarrassment to me.
Desmond H. McKenna

As asked above: who cares? You have NOTHING to do with Ireland beyond your own romantic imaginings. You are an AMERICAN. You are NOT Irish. You live there, you display ultra-patriotic, jingoistic attitudes that more mainstream Americans would find repulsive, but that's their problem, not ours. (Maybe they could revoke your citizenship on the basis that you don't believe in Freedom though?).

Now, take your ill-infomed emotings and run off to the library and read a bit about the world instead of disgracing yourself by exposing your ignorance. Your opinion is not interesting. Everyone has them and only the ones that are backed up with facts carry any weight.

by Oliver Hardy Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:28

"Bush is the classic playground bully, swaggering around and terrorizing smaller, more vulnerable kids to win his classmates’ fear or admiration (and their candy and lunch-money), but suddenly cooperative and conciliatory when faced with a bigger bully, or with someone genuinely strong and respected -- the big brother of one of the little kids, or a good teacher."

"And it is evident that even Bush knows we dare not attack North Korea. Unlike Iraq, North Korea is capable of doing serious damage to us and to the world."

The above pieces of text have been taken from: "Time To Stand Up Against Bullying War Talk"

By Caroline Arnold (Ex member of staff for United States Senator John Glynn).

by A10 Mon Jul 03, 2006 01:13

Still,and the usual Irish foul langauge.
Riseable being case in point,Riseable,you wont impress anyone to your way of thinking by calling them dumbclucks,etc.Another point that makes your points spurious is trhat YOu claim to know what the American people think.Abit egotistical on your part.
Of regarding Conor being "shut down"He is more likely to have that happen in good ol free democratic Ireland than the USA..
Also you never knew about Irelands beef deal with Iraq???You mustnt have watched much Telly in the 90s it was all on every bloody day when that ruffian Haughy was in power.A small deal??Right.Without Irish beef Saddo wouldn't have been able to feed his army.But no doubt us Irish supplied the Iranians as well.So in fact we are no cleaner than the rest of Europe who supplied WMD technology as well.
You display the usual Irish hyprocisy,on this American issue.We like Americans BUT........ We welcome Irish Americans,but fuck off anyone who is 1st Gen American.Pity you lot wernt around in 1916.Dev would have been shot and dumphole Ireland would be still part of the British Empire.Your hyprocisy and HATE[which you deny you have]leaks out in every venemous post you make,as do most of the Anti American posters here.BTW you say opinions only count with facts.Biased in your favour no doubt.

Americans reading this,either civillians or US military personel .
STAY AWAY FROM IRELAND!!YOU OR YOUR MONEY IS NOT WELCOME HERE ANYMORE..Ireland doesnt need you....for the time being
USA ...BOYCOTT IRELAND

by A9 Mon Jul 03, 2006 01:50

Its great to see that there is Americans that have see war come out against unlike the last armchair general of the US marine corps (retired) who never say action. Otherwise I am sure his posts would be a hell of alot different.

by R. Isible Mon Jul 03, 2006 08:07

A10, I don't claim to know what most Americans think: I use opinion polls (which are probably biased against the expression of anti-war views) which all show that as the US public has become aware of the murder, torture and rape of Iraqis and the mass-murder through war and sanctions of Iraqis, of the inevitable destruction of the country of Iraq and the destabalisation of the region as a result of all of the above, that Bush and the neo-con strategy of illegal aggression are failures. The recent court-rulings on the illegality of the Guantanamo detentions indicates that the elite is slowly reacting to pressures from the public and that we may yet see Bush impeached. I think it would be ideal if he were tried for war-crimes but I suppose that won't happen.

I HATE murderers, rapists, torturers and their supporters, whether they're Islamic fanatics or Republican fanatics.

I LOVE most Americans as they don't support you as evidenced by the polls.

People like you and Declan, or whatever his name is, are traitors to the ideals of democracy and freedom and should be expelled from the USA as destablising, un-American, foreign elements.

Bush is fucked according to US polls (these ones are only until April 2006, it's even lower now). True conservatives are no keener on a lying, cheating war-monger that has done everything in his power to remove the traditional system of checks and balances and has dragged the name of America into the mud and caused the deaths of thousands of soldiers who swore an oath to defend their country, not to wage illegal wars of aggression internationally.
http://www.thinkandask.com/2006/040706-bush.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls...shtml

WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval rating has slumped to 31% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the lowest of his presidency and a warning sign for Republicans in the November elections. May 8th 2006
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-08-bush...x.htm

George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of polling at this point in his tenure as reported in a June 9th Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/15/141946.php

Pro-war scum like yourself, A10, and Declan, always try to wrap yourself in the flag of nationality and patriotism to try and cover your true nature: murderers, liars and cowards.

You're not fit to lick the boots of someone like Conor Cregan

by Pogo Mon Jul 03, 2006 16:03

Just to revisit the question of the use of the images in the article, the individuals in the picture may be authorised to sue the poster of the images if the use of those images:
* defames the person in the image through captions or narration
* portrays them in a false light
* libels them or slanders them with falsehoods
* injures their reputation
* holds them up to ridicule
If the soldiers pictured feel that their images are wrongfully representing them, they could well lodge a legal suit. Given that the individuals in the images are unrelated to the article, and that the article casts US soldiers and what they represent in a very negative light while implicitly presenting the images as representations of what you are railing against (despite their apparent disconnect with the story), you are indirectly portraying those soldiers in a false light and holding them up to ridicule. The fact that a number of the responders have incorrectly assumed that the soldiers "arrested" were women underscores the problem, obviously based on the posting of the irrelevant images. There is more to legal public use of images than simply being public photos. Are the photographed soldiers aware of your use of their images?

by R. Isible Mon Jul 03, 2006 18:12

by peace activists:

by W. Finnerty. Tue Jul 04, 2006 08:45

The following piece of text is from an article dated June 30th 2006 by Rosa Brooks (Common Dreams News Centre):

"But here's where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty."

The full article by Ms Brooks can be viewed at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0630-27.htm

by Golgo Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:41

You are the typical pro-war advocate. Bush does not need to look like a brutal arab dictator. He, the lobbies behind him and the media are much smarter than some radical islamic or pan arabic dictator. The americans use third countries to get their torture done. Their media cover up their crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq colombia, cuba etc. You saying Bush being so much better than any of these so called fascist in the middle east. Well first of all it was the presidents before him who armed the taliban, armed saddam hussein and Bush himself is still the best friend of the most reactionary regime in that region, the royal saudi family. Not to mention that dictatot Musharaf. And of course any critisism of Israel is = antisemitism. Keep watching CNN, NBC and all those Bush regime media outlets.

Besides you should not use the name Wolfe Tone, it really does not fit to what you write here.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 09:35

All I can read from this is that you have nobody in the US to talk to. No wonder by Bush's all time popularity low. Even your own troops start deserting and you have to look for poor mexicans to do the work in Iraq. It is interessting, you mention all those dictators. Why is that??? Are you saying there are as bad as the US.

By the way if you do start counting, what about Hiroshima, Vietnam, Cuba, Guatemala, Grenada, Chile, Cambodia, Venezuela, Panama and now Iraq only to mention the worst outbreaks of your american regime? You mention the killing fields of cambodia, it was your friend Nixon who supported Pol Pot and his mass killing. And the vietnamese army intervened to put an end to it. Vietnam got than blamed by the US for illegally occupying a country. Get some information about saddam, where he got his biological wapons from and weapons in general. Have a read about it before you start talking garbage.

But that is the problem with you americans, you don't read and listen. Keep wasting the planets resources with your lifestyle, the true reason for all your aggression against smaller and weaker countries. You have not got the balls to attack China, am I right? You also mentioned Castro, its cuba that has been exposed to daily terrorism by the US be it spraying pesticides over their sugar fields, hijacking a cuban airliner, the blockade, the bay of pig invasion etc.

The sooner you disapear as a superpower the better!!!! Like all the empires before.

by Golgo Wed Jul 05, 2006 09:58

Totti you said it all. Proud american also talks about, the greatness of his nation for giving us all finanical handouts. He does not understand the economics of his own country. Its called dependency investment. The US invests, wants absolut loyality and then makes 500% profit with those poor third world countries. The money goes than to a small white elite, who uses the disadvantaged to fight their wars.

Maybe he should channel his energy towards making good in his own country. After all they are the main polluters, 45 million live below the poverty line, they still have institutional racism, the highest crime and murder rate in the western world (he probably call it the free world) and still treat the native americans like second class citizens.

Proud american: You know the saying? Charity starts at home.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:36

Golgo, these americans warriors make me laugh. Did you read what this A10 (does not even has a name, maybe its one of these cloned half human half robot war machines) said. He actually compares a beef deal with selling strains of biological weapons to saddam as done by his government. May be we should start looking for the irish beef as we can not find the WMD's.

Another one said, that the americans are a reflection of the irish as most americans are of irish origin. They don't even known their own population census. The irish are only 15% of the overall US population and german-americans top the census with 60 million of them. I can see the reflection there: Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf, Kissinger, Rumsfeld and of cause Arnold Schwarzenegger (although austrian counts as german american in the census). All very nice guys alright.

Please, proud american, A10 & Co. can you get the facts right before making half baked and unqualified statements about the irish. You are the one's that have to do the explaining not us.

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 13:59

Hi All,

Before I start I'd like to say that I believe in the free market, free trade, and true and fair globalisation. I am not a communist, and I have to say that I resent the fact that the Socialist Worker crowd seem to hijack anti-war movements to their own ends. (Clue: you know you're at a Socialist Worker demo when all the placards are printed in the same easily recognised Socialist Worker format, usually either black and white, or black and white and red). Anyway, in my view, anti-war movements should transcend the politics of right, left, or centre. For the record, I am generally right wing in my approach to politics. I believe a more conservative approach to government is best for the prosperity and well-being of any democracy. I believe in an independent judiciary, and I believe in holding political leaders to account to the electorate. I believe in freedom of speech and the right to protest.

I really like American people, I like America. I don't like US foreign policy. As a citizen of a democratic state I am entitled to say what I like about my own government. On the whole I think they're doing a reasonable job of managing our country. I think they've made a disgrace of us in relation to this phony "war on terror". If I can criticise my own government, I can certainly criticise the US government.

With regard to these soldiers, I think it was a very good move to arrest them. This is not becase it will make an impression on Americans, and it is nothing to do with those soldiers. I'm sure those soldiers are good people - most military people are excellent people with high morals, and this is why they are willing to sacrafice themselves. The purpose of the citizens arrest was to put pressure on our government to step up to their obligations under international law, and under our constitution, and to raise awareness amongst our sleeping citizenry that our constitution is being undermined by the government we elected to uphold it.

To the other Cormac - the bloodthirsty lad who thinks he's tough. If I put you under citizens arrest in this country, you'd do your duty as an American serviceman and shut up and submit to the laws of the country that you are illegally wandering around. You'd find yourself in serious trouble with your own government if you assaulted a civilian in this country, let alone our legal system. This is because you'd have embarrassed your government, and they don't take kindly to it. Look at the way they've abandoned their servicemen over the torture in Abu Ghraib. Those servicemen and women followed policy as conceived and articulated by Rumsfeld. Guess who took the fall? Well Rummy is still there, still shaking hands with dictators, and several servicemen are disgraced and in jail.

Our government can flout our laws to some extent, but in the situation where you assaulted an Irish citizen there'd be no bending the rules. You'd go to jail, here, in this country. Probably Limerick prison, where you'd have to shite in a bucket in the corridor, and bunk down with drug addicts and perverts. Incidentally, you have a high opinion of your personal martial ability. There are many people in this country who'd kick seven colours of shite out of you, and I'm one of them. It isn't smart to pick fights, because there's always someone tougher than you out there. Given the proximity of Shannon to Limerick, I wouldn't fancy your chances in a scrap. Your military training would count for bugger all in a street fight against a trained and experienced opponent.

Here's my two cents:

1. People have to learn to distinguish between individual soldiers and the military organisation they belong to. Those soldiers are most likely fine people, but this doesn't mean that they should be ignored if they break the law, unwittingly or not.

2. As a citizen of a democratic state I am not obliged to act respectfully to anything at all.

3. However, as a citizen of a democratic state I am obliged not to disturb the peace

4. As a citizen of a democratic state I may make a citizen's arrest if I believe that the subject of that arrest is commiting a crime

5. As a citizen of this democratic state I am constitutionally obliged to be loyal to the state of Ireland, but this doesn't require me to be respectful

6. I like people from the United States, and I've travelled to the States many times, to New York, Boston, Dallas, Detroit, and other places. I've found Americans to be friendly, generous, welcoming, mostly open-minded, and definitely hard-working.

7. It is the responsibility of all citizens in democratic states to be critical of their government. In the same way you'd check the work of a plumber you hired to fix a leak, democrats of whatever political persuasion have to take their government to account. It is not enough to take them at their word, the results of their work must be examined and assessed. You wouldn't take a plumber's word for it without also checking to ensure that the leak was fixed, and neither should you take a political leaders at their word. This is even more important when the government is engaged in military action.

9. However, I've found that many Americans find it hard to take a critical view of their government's policies and actions overseas. Even the liberal ones, (it would seem to me), would rather think of a their international history as basicaly well-meaning, but that sometimes made mistakes or had to conclude distasteful agreements for the greater good. This is because the average American person is a moral, generous, and good person, who would only wish health, happiness and prosperity on others. The problem is that it can be proven that the US government has acted in abominable ways internationally for well over 100 years, it is just that the American people don't know it. They used to know it, and this led to the peace movement in the 60's and 70's, but this movement has been undermined and emasculated by the government, and particularly by the recent repressive legislation there. I challenge any pro-war person here to stand on a street corner on any major city in the US and openly criticise the government and the war, and see how long you are allowed to without being arrested.

10. I think it is an excellent thing that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. I think he should be tried in an International Court, outside Iraq.

11. Now lets see the "Coalition of the Willing" go into Darfur, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, and all the other dictatorships that exist. Why is Iraq so important in the grand scheme? Surely the people of Darfur and Zimbabwe deserve to be liberated?

12. I believe that this war has little to do with bringing democracy to Iraq, and everything to do with Oil, and control of that geographical region. See here for the history of US and British hegemony in the region : http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75879?author_name=Corma...56981

13. It is possible for me to like and love Americans while detesting the actions of the American government.

14. It is stupid to act rudely to American people just because their government is acting badly

15. I think American people who are pro-war should try to get to the bottom of the arguments their opponents make. Amidst all the shrill and panicked emotionalism there are real arguments and there are real historical facts.

16. I think anti-war people should also study the arguments made by pro-war people. Amidst all the strident gung-ho cant there are real arguments and there are real historical facts.

17. The historical facts is that the US since before the Monroe Doctrine has engaged in foreign wars of adventure and empire, and it continues to do so today. These wars have been carried out with absolutely no respect to the lives and well-being of the inhabitants of the theatre of war. By this I am not referring to the average US soldier, but to the policy of the government of the time, who only ever acted to the benefit of US interests. This is how a WW2 ally called Ho Chi Minh became an implacable enemy of the US. The US promised him Vietnamese independence after the war in return for military support in the field. After WW2 the US reneged on their promise, and handed Vietnam back to the French. This forced Ho Chi Minh to turn to the communists for support in his struggle for national independence. So while I'm sure he probably wasn't a pleasant man, it would seem that he started out as an American ally, and who was denied independence and democracy by the US.

18. It is important to note that neither the US nor Britain has ever established democracy in any country on the face of the earth except their own. However, democracy in those countries is very shaky. In Britain, democracy is a veneer, as the Home Secretary can suspend democratic and civil rights for any person on British soil. Furthermore, the government retains the Royal Prerogative, so that where a law is inconvenient to a government's immediate concerns, that law will be overridden by Royal Prerogative. (This is not the case in Ireland, where the state is obliged to obey the law. Eventually, our government will be called to account for it's actions in relation to this war). Democracy in the US is undermined by the electoral process. To even run for presidency requires so much money, that the only source is big business. Before a president gets into office, he or she will be so bound by obligations to supporters, that he or she will not be able to policies of benefit to society, if those policies run counter to the aims of the supporters. It remains to be seen whether or not Iraq will have a real democracy.

19. The Allies in WW2 didn't establish democracies, but restored some in Europe. There is a massive difference.

20. Britain and the US have consistently acted to suppress democratic movements and even to topple democratic governments where the policies of such democratic governments disagreed with US interests. This is not the work of a freedom loving and democratic government.

21. If Russian planes are transporting weapons through Shannon, then they should be told to stop. However, I don't criticize Chavez for arming Venezuela, given that the US has already attempted to oust Chavez' democratically elected government twice in military coups.

22. As a neutral country we should not provide support to any belligerent regime, no matter that there is a special relationship between Ireland and the US, or any other country.

23. As recently as the 1960s, Britain and the US conspired to steal the Chagos Islands from the native inhabitants. These islanders had lived there for over 5 generations (as evidenced by their graveyards), yet the British pretended that these were transient workers, and deliberately transported them off their islands, leaving them in Mauritius. The Chagos Islanders have fought long and hard to get their islands back. In 2000 Blair's government lost their case, and the Islanders were vindicated. At the subsequent High Court appeal, Blair's government pulled the trump card of "Royal Prerogative" to deny the Chagos Islanders the possibility of ever returning to their own lands, which were stolen from them in the first place. It will be interesting to see what happens in the European Court of Justice, where this case is now heading. For those of you who don't know, the Chagos Islands are now known as Diego Garcia, a massive US base on some territory "belonging" to the British government.
( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=3702 )

24. Pinochet in Chile was put in power by the US and Britain, in a coup that toppled the democracy in Chile. Saddam was put into power by the CIA, in a coup that toppled the democracy in Iraq. The US installed the Shah into power in Iran, and in doing so toppled democracy there. Ollie North bought guns from America's great enemy, the Ayatollah (who ousted the Shah), using drug money laundered through a fake bank in Australia, and provided those guns to the Contras in Nicaragua, who fought a terrorist war against the democratically elected Sandinista government. The Sandinistas brought democratic elections to Nicaragua. Pro-contras will say that these were not true elections, but the facts tell a different tale. The Sandinistas lost power in an election, at the end of that governmental period the regained power, and lost it again at the end of the 80's. These changes in government were peaceful, and through the democratic electoral system. Incidentally, Ollie North travelled on false Irish passports while doing these nefarious deeds. I'd like to see him in jail for this, for his drug dealing, and for his support of the contras, who tortured and killed many people using the material that North supplied. The contras were also trained to torture in the School of the Americas in the United States. Torture is a core article of US military training, no matter what the US government says. The US manuals can easily be found. It was edited in the 90's so that where before it gave positive intructions, it now gave negative. By this I mean, where before it said "insert the electro-probe into the urethra", now it says, "do not insert the electro-probe into the urethra". The book is still used, and evidence for this is to be found widely across the internet, and it has been raised by US Senators.

25. The Indonesian invasion of Timor was a core part of US policy in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The US wanted a strong Indonesian dictatorship to establish hegemony over the region, subject to US military policies. This was supposedly to prevent the incursion of "communist" agitators. I have a friend who was evacuated from Timor along with her family when the Indonesian terrorists were shooting in the streets behind her. Her father was arrested and imprisoned. Several people he shared cells with were tortured to death. His factory and his farm were confiscated. Luckily he was eventually released and escaped to join his family. All of this occurred with the blessing of the US, whose president asked the Indonesians to delay their invasion until he had left the area.

26. Interestingly, both of these fascist dictatorships were supplied with armoured cars manufactured by the Timoney Engineering firm based near Navan. Professor Enda Timoney, who used to be a professor in the lecturing department in UCD started this company. He has supplied these machines to questionable regimes all over the world. Even more strangely, this tiny little engineering firm in rural Ireland produces parts for the Arianne Rocket programme. How they managed to get this contract is a mystery to me. To make things really freaky and topical - Prof Timoney is said to have introduced the Opus Dei organisation to Ireland. It isn't just recently Irish people sold poor people down the river for twenty pieces of silver.

27. Incidentally, I think Putin is a disgrace with his imperialist and murderous behaviour in Chechnya. But what can you expect from a KGB man.

28. I think that Castro is a murdering, dishonest, immoral and evil man. His regime is a dictatorial disgrace. I would like to see democracy take hold in Cuba too.

29. Someone above asked where were the anti-war people when Saddam was murdering his own civilians, and where were they when the Taliban was remaking Afghanistan in their own interests. It is more useful to ask where Rumsfeld and George Bush were. Rumsfeld was busy supplying Saddam with helicopters and chemical factories, and shaking Saddam's hand (while Saddam was busy gassing Iraqis), and George Bush was happily negotiating gas pipeline deals with the Taliban, who were a fantastic ally against the warlords who had previously controlled Afghanistan. I suppose it is easier to negotiate gas pipeline deals with one lunatic rather than several. In relation to the Chinese shooting down that spyplane, what about the US bombing the Chinese embassy in the former Yugoslavia?

30. With regard to arresting PIRA scum. Plenty have been arrested and imprisoned over the years. You'll even still find them and the INLA scum in Portlaoise prison. The problem with arresting them is that they tend not to wear uniforms. However we get them when we can. There is no doubt that they are murdering, drug dealing scum today, whatever they were in the past.

31. I have never seen a single item of mainstream american media reporting that was anything but 100% pro the war. Mind you, I've mostly seen Fox, Sky, and NBC. Before anyone says that Fox and Sky are owned by Murdoch, an Australian, those companies toe the US line, and are pathetically unworthy of attention. The only real news available on this side of the Atlantic on television is the Channel 4 news. God Bless Jon Snow (if I believed in God).

32. Just so you all know, the A-10 is a US warplane. It is a subsonic jet, and is quite impressive. It is also known as the warthog, and has very impressive abilities. It is ironic, because the A-10 on this site hasn't got the smallest percentage of the cleverness of the warthog.

33. Speaking of Irish Beef, we don't need to look for that. Wasn't it all stored in cold storage units around the border counties?

34. Jaysus, I could go on all day, and I'm sure many of you will think I have.

I love Americans, and I wish the US government reflected the values and beliefs of the average American person, but it doesn't.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 14:28

Cormac, some contribution you made there. I do understand your love for the american people, but in a democracy the people have to take accountability for their governments. I can therefore do blame the majority of americans for not asking question or for being passive about their governments adventures. I am not even sure if our american troopers on this thread will read your statement as it is of extrodinary lenght for them.

What is this socialist party thing? I am not linked to any of this stuff but one thing I have to say is that socialist have always been at the forefront of fighting war. In comparison to you, who is everybodies darling, a bit of pro- war here and a bit of pro-peace here.

Your point 28. "I think that Castro is a murdering, dishonest, immoral and evil man. His regime is a dictatorial disgrace."

Can you produce evidence?

by redjade Wed Jul 05, 2006 14:41

Sooo.... maybe this idea of citizen arrests isn't so illegit after all?

if the people lead, maybe the gov'ts will follow?

-redjade

—————————

ROME - Police arrested two officials from Italy's military intelligence agency on Wednesday and a judge issued arrest warrants for four Americans over the alleged CIA kidnapping of a terrorism suspect in 2003, officials said.

Three of the Americans were alleged CIA agents and the fourth worked at the U.S. military air base in Aviano, northern Italy, a statement from the Milan's prosecutor's office said.

It said Marco Mancini, director of a division of the Sismi military intelligence agency, and another Sismi official, had been arrested.

The new arrests and the warrants relate to the 2003 abduction of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar. He says he was kidnapped in Milan, flown to Egypt and tortured.

An Italian court has already issued arrest warrants for 22 suspected U.S. agents over the abduction.

But it was the first time Italian officials have been linked to the abduction.

more at
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2154982

—————————

Italy spy held over 'CIA kidnap'

As the head of military counter-espionage, Mr Mancini is one of Italy's highest-ranking intelligence officers. He has taken part in negotiations to free Italian hostages kidnapped in Iraq.

He was arrested on Wednesday, Italy's Apcom news agency and judicial sources said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5149464.stm

by Johnny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 14:53

You've covered a lot of ground there and I'm not interested in responding to it all, however I must correct you regarding point no. 4.

You say "As a citizen of a democratic state I may make a citizen's arrest if I believe that the subject of that arrest is commiting a crime".

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the Gardaí cannot arrest at will.... there are very specific rules on the matter. It has to be an arrestable offence.

Section 2 of the Criminal Law Act, 1997 provides, in part, that an "arrestable offence" is an offence for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or a more severe penalty. This definition does not include offences punishable under common law with a term of imprisonment of five years or more, where there is no statutory penalty provided for.

US Soldiers walking over to the Statoil across the road for some snacks does not, therefore, constitute an "arrestable offence", by anybody, let alone some deranged lunatic like Conor Cregan.

As I explained above.....

"And where was his actions covered by the Acts? Nonsense!
by Johnny Jump Up Mon Jun 26, 2006 22:47

Firstly, these soldiers were not causing criminal damage, nor attempting to cause criminal damage at the time of their arrest. Nor did they possess anything with the intent to cause criminal damage, or to access data without authorisation. Therefore, the facility for Conor to make a citizens arrest is not provided for under the Criminal Damage Act 1991.

Secondly, Conor could have justifiably used force if any of these applied:
( a ) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or
( b ) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or
( c ) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
( d ) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or
( e ) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

They did'nt. Further down S.18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, deals with the trespass issue (just in case Conor contends that these soldiers were trespassing on Irish soil)....
Any possible attempt to justify himself under b, c or d are made invalid by paragraph 8:
Property shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) and (d) as belonging to any person—
( a ) having the custody or control of it;
( b ) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
( c ) having a charge on it;
and where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

None of this applies to Conor.

Now, as stated in my previous post, Risable, Conor himself committed an offence, and admitted this himself. “I am placing you all under citizen’s arrest. Do not move”. Eejit.

Under S.15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act 1997:
(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—
( a ) takes or detains, or
( b ) causes to be taken or detained, or
( c ) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,
another without that other's consent.

Furthermore,
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

( a ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or
( b ) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

In other words, Conor made an unlawful arrest, therefore is liable for a big penalty.

Also, it is for the person who makes the arrest to explain where in the Statute he believes he was entitled to make the arrest. Conor makes no attempt to justify his actions with any legal backup.

Where is it an offence for unarmed soldiers of foriegn armies to walk our streets? State the Section, Act and year. References please.

It's not good enough to say "well the Constitution says so" or "because the law says so". Not good enough at all".

'nuff said!

by Johhny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 15:09

Where is the anti-war outcry over this? Whatever you might think about President Bush, you have no idea what Kim Jong-Il is likely to do, but rest assured it won't be good.

He's already been murdering his own people, starving his own people and such. Not a nice man really.

Would you be upset if the North Koreans started bombing the sh1te out of Japan, Alaska, Hawaii and the west cost of the US? I have a feeling you wouldn't give a crap.

by bbbzzzzzt! Wed Jul 05, 2006 15:16

Johhny Jump Up

on indymedia you can always tell when someone has lost the argument when they attempt to completely change the subject.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 15:31

Johnny Jump Up, I don't understand why someone opposing american wars has to be pro-north korea. I don't know anyone on this thread who supports North Korea. Again its this attitute of the Bush regime, You are either with us or against us. Maybe your neo-con friends should have taken care of North Korea instead of Iraq. But I forgot, there is no oil in the east chinese sea. Besides I only know one country that ever used a nulear weapons on japan.

by Golgo Wed Jul 05, 2006 15:45

The americans not only dropped one they dropped two A-bombs on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USA invented the bloody weapons technology and are therefore primarily responsible for its proliferation. They gave it to the british and the french. Allowed the russians to steel the technology. The russians gave it to china and india and china to north korea and pakistan. The french further proliferated the techology by giving it to israel and that's why iran wants it too.

Besides, all this talk about Kim Jong il killing its own people on mass needs to be treated very carefully. As we all know, there are people in the CIA, who get paid for creating spin in order to soften up puplic opinion in order to launch new invasions.

by Johnny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 15:50

However, I hate these people who post comments with no substantial contribution to dialogue or debate.

That said, if you want to get back to the true subject matter, let us only discuss the validity of Conor Cregans "arrests" two Fridays ago and dispense with any discussion on the war itself, how great or not America might be, or any other side issues. After all, my question about North Korea is no more "off-the-point" than any of these matters.

Indeed, if you read my posting immediately prior to that which I posed relating to North Korea, you will see that I have been decidedly and consistantly "on-topic" throughout all my postings on this discussion.

As for Totti, I do not necessarily subscribe to this "for us or against us" principle. However, I simply maintain that I have not, up until your posting, read any comment on Indymedia.ie protesting against North Korea to plot rallies outside its consulates, etc.

Indeed, having searched for "North Korea" in the search-bar on the site, it substantiated my contention that few visiting this site are bothered about the humantarian crisis caused by Kim Jong-Il. Only one post article was posted in over a year relating specifically to the North Korean armament attempts, and it only received one post, and that was a link to CNN. Other than that, nothing. This hardly indicates a concern among the indymedia community to global human rights.

Again, it only serves to substantiate my claim that this is just one big Anti-American hippy-camp.

Disappointing.

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:01

I agree with you. I laboured the point about loving American's because I wanted to avoid being accused of being anti-american. The point I was generally making was that as citizens of democracy, we have a duty to criticize our governments. Failure to criticize is a failure of duty. As far as I am concerned, many American's are derelict in this duty. (As are many many Irish).

It is the malaise of our time that so many people are asleep.

For Castros crimes against humanity, simply go to Amnesty International's site and search on Cuba.

Basically, no independent judiciary, no free elections, no free press. He does what he likes.

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:08

Thanks for clearing that up. You are quite correct regarding arrestable offences. I accept your argument.

However, Conor won't be subject to prosecution for this, and there is plenty of case law around to demonstrate why. These kinds of cases generally appear where a shoplifter has been detained by security staff (these are citizens arrests). The circumstances in which unlawful detention arise are very strictly defined. In the unlikely event the government has the balls to prosecute Conor, they would lose. The American's wouldn't touch this case with a barge pole either, as it would be too embarrassing.

Ed Hogan has already set out why it was and is illegal for foreign soldiers to wander our streets in uniform. It is near the top of the page, have a look.

Furthermore, if Conor was prosecuted, or sued, then the Gardai in question would have to be disciplined for dereliction of their duty to ensure that these soldiers remained interned. (The way the government speaks of it, the Gardai's duty is to protect the soldiers. This isn't the case, the duty of the Gardai is to prevent these soldiers from wandering about - to intern them, however temporarily).

by Johhny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:10

Your denial or talking-down of the humanitarian wrongs caused on his people by Kim Jong-Il is insulting to all of those who suffer under his regime.
A cursory search of Amnesty International reports confirms this. I choose AI as I would assume that you would not even suggest that they have been influenced or infiltrated by CIA.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/prk-summary-eng

According to AI:
"The government continued to fail in its duty to uphold and protect the right to food, exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis. Chronic malnutrition among children and urban populations, especially in the northern provinces, was widespread. Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, association and movement, continued to be denied. Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions".

And, by the way, it was the Chinese who invented rockets hundreds of years ago, Hyder Ali, prince of Mysore, India invented the first war-rockets using metal cylinders to hold the combustion powder.

Robert Goddard of the US invented the first liquid-fueled rocket in 1926 but it was the Germans who put the new technology to use first against Britain, Americas ally, by means of the V-2 rockets during WWII.

Facts. You should try using them sometime.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:11

What's all this name calling about. You must be running out of arguments. As to North Korea, we still don't know the facts. Maybe its american spin. I have not seen any hard core evidence of all those american claims. I would be very greatful if you could provide me with some evidence. Should be no problem for you as it is so obvious. Until then I will highlight the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the Gaza Strip and Sudan.

by cormac Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:13

There is plenty of evidence that the regime in North Korea deliberately starves its own people. There was a documentary last year on British television, in which video cameras had been smuggled across the border from China, and used to film everyday life. It featured such horrendous moments as a woman actually dropping dead on the street from starvation. One moment she was shuffling along, the next lying dead on the street from starvation. Noone even looked at her.

The person with the camera was also given a mobile phone. After being given extra tapes, and going back, he/she was never heard from again.

Have a look at www.amnesty.org for more

by Johhny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:17

i agree, it is not likely that he will be prosecuted, even though he acted outside and against the law. However, that is not to say that he couldn't be prosecuted.

He, or anyone else for that matter, would be foolish to attempt such a stunt again assuming immunity from prosecution just because Conor got away with it.

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:20

Major General Smedley Butler anyone?

Double Congressional Medal of Honour winner, would have got a third but for the fact that during a moment of great bravery he used the words "Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever?" (Which subsequently became a marine slogan, apparently).

Smedley Butler had a long and distinguished military career, after which he wrote a book condemning the US Governments approach to foreign policy and military matters. Have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

and here:

http://www.flagrancy.net/salvage/smedley.html

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_Racket

Just so people can see that this current war is nothing new, and even US military heroes used to be able to speak out in public about their own experience, and their knowledge of the reality of modern life.

by Golgo Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:23

If North Korea is such a closed and secret society, where does Amnesty International get all their information from. Is it satellite pictures or spies?And if so, what country you think supplies them with all this info?

The chinese invented the firework, I was talking about nuclear technology. So much to your childrens encyclopaedia facts.

by Johnny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:24

Are you so blind that you cannot see? There is disaster in the world outside of Iraq, Sudan & Gaza Strip. There is horrendous suffering in the world not caused by the US or globalisation. There are causes in the world that have few crusaders fighting for them. Just because you don't read it in the papers every day and just because the left/socialist front choose to ignore it does not mean that it does not happen.

Could it be because North Korea is the last remaining Leninist country that you choose to ignore the brutality of the government there against the people?

Is it because of a sympathy of ideals for its government that you forgive its vast, long enduring human-rights violations?

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:25

(how's that cider by the way?)

Well, that is getting down to brass tacks. In the end, this was clearly a stunt designed to create publicity here in Ireland. It worked.

In the end of the day, we should stop bullshitting. Our government is ignoring some very questionable activities. At the very least we should be grown up enough to acknowledge what is going on, and either "get with the programme" or put a stop to it.

I fully understand the threatened consequences of crossing the US in their "War on Terror". In my view, I think such consequences would be limited. Companies have shown in the past that financial well-being will over-ride any other concern, and as long as they're making more money by being here than elsewhere, they'll stay, regardless of what our government does.

by Mr. T. Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:32

I think much of your lengthy post is good food for thought and strikes an interesting balance between the "warring" sides here at Indymedia. Unfortunately you have at least one serious factual error that my brief perusal has uncovered...

regarding:
21. If Russian planes are transporting weapons through Shannon, then they should be told to stop. However, I don't criticize Chavez for arming Venezuela, given that the US has already attempted to oust Chavez' democratically elected government twice in military coups.

The US has not ever in fact been proven to have supported any coup attempt in Venezuela. That was propaganda generated by Chavez and his supporters to frighten his opponents so they would forget Chavez's mismanagement, torture campaigns, election improprieties and blatant financial corruption and vote for him against the Uncle Sam bogeyman.

Chavez is arming his country to the teeth - throwing away billions on mig fighter jets and Kalashnikov while his national bank is unbelievably losing money even with his filthy oil lucre. His people are going hungry while he's playing with his guns, helicopters and fighter jets. Are these weapons really to defend against the US or are they more likely to be used to extend Chavez's military reach to fulfil dreams of a red flag empire throughout South America? I think the latter is far more realistic given his jingoistic inflammatory comments.

And as for arguing with Golgo, it is best not to argue with the brainwashed SWP zombies - a comment like this one from him says everything I need to know about the SWP concept of human rights:

Besides, all this talk about Kim Jong il killing its own people on mass needs to be treated very carefully. As we all know, there are people in the CIA, who get paid for creating spin in order to soften up public opinion in order to launch new invasions.

by Johnny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:43

Nuclear? You never mentioned "nuclear". All you were talking about was "weapons technology" and I disproved your claim. You were wrong on the point in question.

True, the US did develop the nuclear bomb, and yes, they did use it. In fact, very soon after, Japan surrendered and that brought to an end that horrible WWII. I don't think they "allowed" the Russians to steal it, by the way.

The North Koreans didn't fire nuclear missiles today and yesterday, but the fact that they are firing ballistic missiles and inter-continental ballistic missiles at all is what worries me.

Why must you be so argumentative, really? It's getting boring.

And Golgo, as Cormac mentioned, there was a documentary last year showing footage, smuggled illegally out of the country, under the risk of death, which gave all the evidence one should need. Why are you so adamant that nothing is happening in North Korea? What does it take?

How can you think that North Korea is such a model of human rights and yet be as equally adamant that the US ferries rendition prisoners through Shannon. On one hand there's plenty of PROOF against North Korea, on the other there is absolutely no PROOF to substantiate the claim that we are implicit in transiting prisoners to Guantanimo.

Such hypocrasy.

by Golgo Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:47

Here we go again, we debating North Korea instead of the real subject, some reclusive, stalinist regime that is easy prey due to it's lack of friends world wide. Similiar with Saddam, no one liked him, therefore it made it difficult to oppose the invasion initially. Why is it that you pro-war advocates are always picking on these small countries be it Cuba, N. Korea, Iraq etc. How about China for a change? All this CIA/CNN spin must soften up your brains.

I saw that program about North Korea and I find it hard to believe. Find out who exactly made this program and come back to me. The same about all the info on Iraq its all spin and lies, day by day.
Since Vietnam, the americans have learned that the media war is as important as the actual conventional war. Therefore I can't believe anything from those sources.

by Johhny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 16:58

I don't know how to have a proper discussion with you!!! You are so brainwashed into the cult of complacancy with all things communist that you are beyond redemption.

You think the whole thing is an American conspirasy? People are dying on the streets in N.Korea and you won't believe it unless you see it first-hand? Then please, go. Go to North Korea and see it for yourself. Please, won't you do that for me? And, go unannounced, so that they don't guide you through the few streets of perfection that they have around Kims palace.... see how the normal people, the real North Koreans, live. Then, if you do make it out alive (which I'm almost wishing doesn't happen), then come back and tell me that North Korea is unblemished. I have seen what I need to see in the press, on television, and in conversation to accept that North Korea is in crisis.

If you and your pea-brained, SWP zombie comrads refuse to accept it then go ahead, but I will no longer converse with somebody as blissfully, and intentionally ignorant such as you.

Goodbye.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:00

You know nothing about Venezuela. The whole world knows that the CIA , together with the venezuelan oligarchs and pro american generals organised the coup. Its getting embarrassing now. You just hate anything left wing passe. You should volunteer and join the US forces, to spread freedom and democracy. They are short of volunteers and recruit poor mexicans at the moment.
But you won't have the balls, you armchair soldier, keep playing with your playstation

Uncle Sam needs you!!!!

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:01

Golgo is not for real.

If he took half a second he'd see that I am anti this war, and any war of imperialism.

If he/she took two minutes he/she would see that I haven't only taken a potshot at North Korea, but also the US, Russia, Cuba, China, and a wide variety of other regimes too, on this same page.

He/She would also note that Johnny Jump Up and I have been in disagreement. I've simply conceded a point of law to him, in which he was correct about Conor's citizen's arrest of those soldiers.

I think that Golgo is simply posing as a radical leftist in order to discredit the position.

It won't work, because I'm right wing and anti-war, and as far as I'm concerned, pacifism and anti-war stances are not inextricably of the left.

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:07

Mr. T.

It has been widely reported, and on balance, given the US history with democratic regimes in South America, I'm inclined to give these reports credence before accepting obvious propaganda to the effect that he is such a danger to the world.

I for one would like to see a network of independent, democratic, and prosperous states in Latin and South America, moving gradually to free and open economies when the local economy can sustain it.

The historical and current policies of the United States in South America are demonstrably different. If you don't believe me, simply look up the court transcripts for the Iran-Contra affair, and the World Court rulings on US activities in attempting to bring down the Sandinista government. Nothing has changed since.

What you've done is declare my statement to be factually incorrect, and then followed up with statements that are no more substantiated than mine. However, I'd be willing to bet that in short order I could produce convincing evidence from the web. I doubt you could produce evidence other than statements from bellicose US government officials such as Rummy and Condy.

by Golgo Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:09

Have you seen North Korea with your own eyes? I bet you still searching for those WMD's in iraq as well. Tell me when you have found them, because they made so many TV programs about them before the war. And of course, as in the fifthies anybody not agreeing with american politics is a communist. What's next ? The commitees for un-american activities.

by Mr. T. Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:10

Provide us with one URL to a page other than the typical communist / SWP propaganda that definitively proves the coup against Chavez was US orchestrated. Not talking about conjecture or opinion - but FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

The fact is, the coup succeded, but because the US gov't refused to acknowledge the coup leaders the whole thing fell apart and Chavez regained his authority. That does not sound like a US supported action - that sounds like the opposite of a US supported coup.

Anyway, I'll eat my words if you can point me to a single, legitimate news source that provides ironclad evidence of US collusion, support for or initiation of the Venezuelan coup.

And by the way, I'm very much Anti-Iraq war. So you are yet wrong once again. That appears to be par for you.

by Johnny Jump Up Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:15

Folks, before I rejoin this forum in a few hours (I'm leaving in protest against the idiocy of people like Golgo), can I suggest that we all go take the Political Compass test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index.php) and post our scores on this forum?

Instead of arguing who is "left" or "right" or "far-left" or "far-right" it would be interesting to establish where exactly we all stand on principle. This might help.

For what it's worth, I don't think I could have been more neutral....

Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.38

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:23

I don't know what version of events you got. The reality is/was, that chavez was overthrown(with american help), brought to an island off the venezuelan coast. Because, of the help of one pro-chavez general, a few loyal parachut regiments and the people on the streets, the whole thing collapsed. Only then the american government half-heartedly condemned the coup, in order to save embarressment. This threat is getting to silly for me. All you can come up with are these american media soundbites. Its pointless to argue against all that spin.

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:31

Have a look at the US economy, and the current deficit, versus the military budget. Familiar?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0626/p17s02-cogn.html

(Anti war fundamentalist Christians - who knew such creatures existed!?)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&obje...67169

another record defence budget for 2007

USA: $439.3 BILLION (2007 projection)
Venezuela $2 BILLION (seemingly up from $1.2 billion)

http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200622#2759

Hmm, that's a fairly severe military threat then. I mean the US is only spending over 200 times what Venezuela spends!

The most that Chavez would achieve would be to invade his neighbours. But guess what, his neighbours spend more than him too!

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/may-200...rica-

(This last website is as pro-Bush and pro-War as you can get).

by Mr. T. Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:35

No evidence provided.

No URL provided.

Just a tired old myth repeated over and over again like a lullaby.

The US is capable of projecting its military and covert activities very effectively. If they were involved with the coup attempt it would have succeeded for more than a few hours. A single pro-Chavez general would not have held off a coup successfully, nor would have a few clumps of rag-tag street people.

The fact that the coup failed so miserably and so quickly is proof enough for me that it had no meaningful support from the US military or intelligence. Personally I think the entire episode was concocted by Chavez to energise his failing popular support. When were the coup plotters trials - haven't you noticed how quietly the entire episode evaporated into thin air?

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:47

Following Johnny Jump Ups suggestion, I took that test.

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

Of course, the test has a fundamental flaw, in that the scores are based on someone's opinions about which beliefs are leftist and which are rightist.

For example I believe not only that Marijuana should be legalised, but that all drugs should be. A leftist view? Not at all. I think that we waste a great deal of money on police, health, and social services related to drugs, while drug barons get more and more violent and wealthy. The only way to adjust this situation permanently is to legalise and tax drugs. No need to spend police time and resources chasing drug barons, drug dealers, and drug addicts. Fewer health resources, as distribution anbd product quality could be controlled, and finally, with a ready supply of better chemicals, addicts would have fewer social problems. (See Iggy Pop and Lou Reed as long term functioning drug users).

Not that this is an ideal solution, as drug use is invariably destructive of a person, but from an economic and social standpoint it is better. Less crime, less cost, and effectively, tough shit on those who choose to take drugs.

Anyway, there you have it. I'm a right wing leftist it seems! lol

by Richey Wed Jul 05, 2006 18:02

More proof, as if it were needed, that "Mr T" is living in an ideological fantasy land where black is white, 2+2=5 and the coup against Chavez was defeated because of the stauch opposition of the Bush administration. Totti is right, he obviously refuses to believe anything that he doesn't want to believe, so there's no point engaging with him, best leave him to stew in his own juice.

by Cormac Eile Wed Jul 05, 2006 18:06

Can you produce actual evidence, other than statements by US industrial, sorry, government spokespeople to the effect that Chavez is a huge danger. Looking at his military spending, he can't really be much of a threat. I'm not going to dig any more evidence out about the fact that he isn't a military threat until you can substantiate your argument.

I don't believe that Chavez is a real threat, other than that he controls oil that the US would prefer to control themselves.

by seedot Wed Jul 05, 2006 19:57

because the US gov't refused to acknowledge the coup leaders the whole thing fell apart

With North Korea and now Venezuela the attempts to bring this thread off topic are obvious. But try to stay somewhere in the vicinity of reality. The Bush regime blamed the coup in Venezuela on Chavez, claiming - "A transitional civilian government has been installed," Fleischer said. "This government has promised early elections." to the criticism of the rest of the Organisation of American States. The Washington Post, in an editorial a few days after the coup called it Bush's Betrayal of Democracy.

you don't need to read the left wing media, watch the film, search the web or even talk to Venezuelans to get the truth of this - just avoid rewriting history and look at what was actually said and what actually happened.

by PaddyK Wed Jul 05, 2006 20:35

I'm surprised Conor Cregan did get away without a beating after tackling those soldiers. For that reason credit is due to him for taking the chance on a point of principle. These soldiers were coming back from Iraq and might well have been involved in some very tense situations over there leaving them highly strung and volatile. Its a credit to them that they also showed diplomacy in a potentially violent situation. I think Mr Cregan made a good point that day, regardless of any dodgy legal grounds, I congratulate him.

I think over the course of this thread something else should be noted. That So many Americans posted is unusual (from what I have seen) so he hit a nerve. I didn't notice one supportive comment from Americans , only those expressing outrage to those making purile threats of violence. "murika kiks ass" HUH!
Note: The Americans really do hate to be challenged, they really do seem to think that they have the right to kick in doors in other peoples countries, and if its to be stopped then it will be by them and not by anyone else. What Mr Cregan did, showed a few thousand gung ho fools that they will be challenged . They need to put on their thinking caps and realise that the time to climb down from the high warhorse is now, when the people who are challenging them in Europe are doing so in a symbolic and diplomatic manner.
If they continue to ram Pax Americana down the throats of an unwilling world things might be different for them down the road.
IMO the American publics welcome, internationally, should be conditionally granted on their will to reel in the mayhem they are allowing and supporting in their rogue governments.
Ditto for the Brits and the Aussies.
Anyone comes into my house and starts clapping their hands for what s going on in Iraq doesnt get in next time. Its time to start applying that to the neighbourhood.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 21:09

In a vote held on Monday the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (TDIP) criticised European states for their inactivity or complicity in the face of CIA-run extraordinary renditions. The report was approved by a majority of 25 members against 14 with 7 MEPs abstaining.

The CIA, noted the Committee in its interim report, has been "directly responsible" on several occasions for the extraordinary rendition, "illegal seizure, removal, abduction and detention of terrorist suspects on the territory of Member States, accession and candidate countries" (compromise AM 2) - all of which constitute violations of fundamental rights under international law. As MEPs determined, the CIA - using aircraft hired by front companies - has made use of such practices for the illegal transfer of terrorist suspects to countries which frequently use torture during interrogations. With that in mind, MEPs call for extraordinary renditions to be "clearly prohibited" in international law (AM 171 as orally amended).

Member States "may be held liable" for failure to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights, added MEPs. Under the case law of the European Court of Justice, EU countries have the positive obligation to prevent human rights violations on their territory (AM 112).

by Wolf Tone Wed Jul 05, 2006 21:17

Point of historical fact it was Gunnery? sergeant Daniel Daley(also a two-time "Medal Of Honour" awardee) who spoke those words in the wheatfield at Belleau Wood. General Butler was more famous, or Infamous depending on your POV for his "War is a Racket" quote in the 1930's.

by A10 Wed Jul 05, 2006 21:59

Finally somone who posted a rational view of what they belive in,except you had to go and then spoil it by personal insults.Must be somthing in the Irish anti American psyche that requires that those that do not agree with you must be belittled.BTW The US army does not have the sole monoipoly on torture,even our boys in green are instructed in these techniques as well.
So supplying Beef is not the same as supplying WMDS?Is that because it was an IRISH deal???And we must keep the moral high ground of this arguement.??What Bullshit!Ireland supplied to a dictatorship knowlingly and willingy and that makes as guilty as any Frenchman or German who sold chemical products for WMDs.Funny that the French refused to supply Isreal with nuke reactor technology in the 70s ,but had no problem with Saddo.Not to matter ,it just shows how hyprocritical the Irish are.

Speaking of hyprocrisy,it is intresting to see the tone change here recently,from we hate all Americans to we hate American soilders....
C'mon Cormac you sound like a Irish convent school virgin who wants to fuck with her knickers on!! Amazing you were suddenly in the US all of the time.Didnt you learn somthing there that patriotism and pride in the US is somthing totally different than to here in Ireland???I am not anti American but.... I am not racist,but...I am not against sex ,but...Usually those people who say that are the biggest anti Americans,prudes and racist bigots.
So Hugo Chavez isnt a therat??Hmm only recently he bought 200,000 AK 47s and the plant [the only one outside Russia] to make a home made version of it.And not to mind two new squradrons of Mig 29 Fulcrums from Russia.Who is destabilising the area now???BTW that stuff came thru Shannon as[bar the planes] well.You were all fierce silent on that as well.

But this is another amusing thing on the Anti American posts here.Distract from the main theme of the arguement with all things America has done wrong.But dont mention the Russians and their totalitarian dictatorship over 50 years of half Europe.Not to mind Castros export of the reveloution to Africa,and the misery that caused.And on and on we could go.

Oh !for the wise person who claimed Rumsfeld choked on a pretzel,it actually was GWB!Or that the new US helmet was modelled on the German helmet,it was and it just shows how advanced thinkers the Germans were and are in military equipment,pity they didnt have kevelar back in ww2,another German invention btw.Do check your facts out,muppet.when you have finished making rascist slurs against the Germans that is.

Bones of this is the majority of posters here are anti American in any shape or form,and protestations to the contrary now make you look like two faced hyprocrites.So at least hyave the decency to stay under the colors you nailed to your mast.
Presonally,I do think the US should stay out of Ireland in every shape or form,including pulling out of all commerical,cultural,political activities,everything.If it is such an evil country it is best we have nothing to do with it.The US should declare the Irish republic a terrorist spnsoring country until we abolish arrest try and detain under our laws all IRA,and protestant paramilitary terrorists,and restrict all Irish people going to it and immediately deport all Irish illegals at once.Sure we have a great ecnomy,a few hundred thousand more wont bother us at all.

All in all the USA needs Ireland less than Ireland needs the USA.
And boards like these do a wonderful job of showing how much we "love"the Americans.We are sowing a whirlwind here in Ireland and one day we will reap it.Guess what??Ireland wont be too welcome in the US anymore.

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 22:54

Golgo never claimed that Rumsfeld choked on a pretzel. He wrote that Bush junior did. So much for your reading skills. Chavez bought 200000 kalashnikovs, so what? Venezuela has a right of national security like any other country. Especially , when siiting on the fifth largest oilfield with the empire being so close. And who is pouring billions of dollars into colombia (called plan colombia) to support the right wing death squads over there. So much for de-stabilizing the region.

How many billion dollars spend (wasted) your government in iraq? How many million personal fire arms are there in the US? And who is the biggest weapons exporter on this planet? Your government boycotts every international agreement be it Kyoto, banning land mines, international court of justice or as recently on banning small arms.

And now you talk about boycotting Ireland. It shows you have to buy your friends around the world. Its getting lonely out there. You country might have all the money and military might but you have no friends. How many countries are left in the coaltion of the willing?

by Golgo Wed Jul 05, 2006 23:16

Castro supported Angola in kicking out the racist apartheid army of south africa. Nelson Mandela thanked Castro personally for it. Mandela said that Cuba's solidarity shortened the life time of apartheid regime. So much for the misery cubans caused in africa. In comparison, wherever your legions invaded countries it caused misery, poverty and terror. Besides I take the russians anytime over your empire. Have you ever travelled to see the world, besides being an invader in uniform?

by Totti Wed Jul 05, 2006 23:30

A10 comment:

"Funny that the French refused to supply Isreal with nuke reactor technology in the 70s ,but had no problem with Saddo.Not to matter ,it just shows how hyprocritical the Irish are."

Hey Golgo, this d....a.... american does not know that France provided Israel with the nuclear bomb in the first place. I am more and more speechless. A10 you are the living example of your education system back home in the great US of A.

by Golgo Wed Jul 05, 2006 23:53

FARC equals Narco terrorist? Do you know anything about those latin american countries? Besides cocain, tequilla and cheap girls. These countries live in abject poverty. Three percent of the population own all the land over there. The so called ruling landowner elite (and their death squads) that your government is protecting. As a result all those poor people form guerilla movements to claim the legimit right to own the land they working on. Of course they have to get finances somewhere and unfortunately its cocain. But I don't know if there is any point explaining this to you. For you they all Al Qaeda and goddamn commies anyway.

I still don't know who this b..... american general is? And who really cares?

by Mr. T. Thu Jul 06, 2006 00:11

By the way, my nom de guerre "Mr. T." is in fact a contraction of my family name, and was not intended to have anything to do with the mohawked monosyllabic wonder. But if you, like many of your comrades on this site, find some mirth in visualising me as the A-Team namesake then work away...

Your statistics on Venezuelan military spending are referenced from a dubious blog and are in fact out of date, out of context and only the tip of the iceberg. I don't contradict that the US military spending is completely out of proportion with the rest of the world - that is not in question and I don't defend US militarism in any way. The question is whether Venezuela is spending significantly more in proportion to its neighbors - which would imply a militaristic policy is emerging rather than one based on diplomacy.

According to arms market analyst Forecast International: Over the past year Venezuela has adopted a force structure revitalization program that could be worth as much as $30.7 billion through 2012. If fulfilled, this would make the country the leading arms buyer in the region through the rest of the decade.

(http://www.forecastinternational.com/press/release.cfm?...le=82)

$30.7B is a hell of a lot of rice and beans, textbooks and vaccinations over 6 years. It also suggests that his spending will increase from $1.4B annually at least $5B annually over the next 6 years. That's a 365% increase in annual spending within a half a decade.

While Venezuela's overall standard of living has improved during Chavez's term, it is still an exceptionally poor country - 75th out of 177 countries surveyed according to the UN (Ireland was 8th, US was 10th, Cuba was 52nd, Albania was 72nd) - http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indicators.cfm?x=28...1&z=1. Why would a so-called champion of the poor spend all that oil wealth on militarising his country instead of improving their education, health care, and housing? And by the way, Venezuela's GDP is ranked the 52nd highest in the world... so it would seem that the wealth generated by the country is still not filtering down to the people - even after 8 years of Chavez's policies. Where do you reckon all that money that is clearly not getting into the hands of the poor is going?

In your article, Cormac, you referred to Castro as "a murdering, dishonest, immoral and evil man. His regime is a dictatorial disgrace. I would like to see democracy take hold in Cuba too." I agree but I am perplexed that you can reconcile this opinion of Castro with a positive opinion for Chavez. After all, the London times says that Chavez "has praised Robert Mugabe as a “freedom-fighter”, hails Fidel Castro as his mentor and defends Saddam Hussein. He is seeking to build military alliances with Iran and North Korea”. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2174786,0....html).

Chavez certainly has very peculiar choices for heroes and ambitions for such a benign, peaceful man of the people. I guess he's just badly misunderstood.

by Totti Thu Jul 06, 2006 00:19

Well spoken Golgo!!!

Bush called FARC the largest terrorist organisation in the western hemisphere, like he calls the ligitimit resistance in Iraq (arabic for vietnam) terrorists.

Some ones terrorist is some one elses freedom fighter.

The british used to call the old IRA terrorist as well. Its the same old principle, trying to criminalise freedom movements.

I still give a sh*t about that american general.

by Totti Thu Jul 06, 2006 00:33

Colombia boaders Venezuela and gets a few billion dollars worth of arms from the USA under the "plan colombia" every year. Therefore no need for neighbouring countries to spend more on arms then caracas. Chavez knows that and protectsVenezuelas national security (Oil Fields). Like it or not, he is absolutely brilliant.

by Mr. T. Thu Jul 06, 2006 00:49

Show me a single press release that says in plain language that the US government recognised the provisional government installed after the Venezuelan coup.

What you provided in your post did not in fact include any such press release. That's because there was never anything close to official US diplomatic recognition of the Venezuelan provisional government - it never happened. Why would the US ambassador have turned information on 2 separate assassination plots between 2002 and 2004 intercepted by intelligence over to the Venezuelan authorities if they wanted him out of the way? I guess that was just part of the grand american conspiracy, eh - the old punch & dodge?

It is a fact that the US would have shed no tears to see the back of Chavez. However, they did not recognise the coup plotters in any official context, the coup failed miserably (as if planned to fail) and the whole situation was all tied up neat as a birthday pressie in a few hours. Oh, and let's not forget about the "documentary crew" that just "conveniently" happened to be around the generalissimo's palace when the shit hit the fan... how "lucky" and uncontrived.

So again I ask you to prove your assertion that the US was involved with the coup planning, initiation or execution. You can't because no such evidence exists or there would be congressional hearing going on right now to impeach Bush or put his cronies in prison. All you have are a bunch of uncorroborated rumours and allegations with no more factual weight than my own assertion that Chavez orchestrated the coup fraud as a means of manipulating the population to vote for him at a time when his popularity was seriously compromised.

by PaddyK Thu Jul 06, 2006 02:07

Connor Cregan,

Fair play to you for arresting six American soldiers, shaking hands with them and parting on good terms, with a well explained diplomatic point.

That's grass roots stuff with a bit of Cead mile failte thrown in.

Up with the Yanks : Down with the War.

by PaddyK Thu Jul 06, 2006 02:34

"Show me a single press release that says in plain language that the US government recognised the provisional government installed after the Venezuelan coup. "

From article:

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,69....html

by R. Isible Thu Jul 06, 2006 03:07

This is increasingly off-topic and rambling. The purpose of the comments section on indymedia.ie is not to have a good old natter about the state of the world, but to supply factual corrections, supplements and additions to the original news stories posted here. The site is not intended for bulletin-board/forum style discussions. Posters should bear this in mind before adding anything further.

A last factual addition is that there has been absolutely NO move by the Irish government to either attempt to prosecute Conor Cregan for his citizen's arrest of foreign, uniformed troops, nor to discipline the slack, unprinicpled Gardai on duty on the day.

by Seán Ryan Thu Jul 06, 2006 05:49

Hi A10. Sorry about the late reply - been busy - as you might have noticed. ;O)

You claim the term redneck to be a racist one. But you should remember rednecks come from all over the shop and span racial divides (for instance: there's loads of Irish rednecks). It is no more a racist term than 'arsehole' or 'asshole' as you guys call it. I'd suggest that thinking that rednecks come only from a single race or country, to be verging on racism itself. I realise that many view the term 'redneck' as applying to Americans only, I disagree with this view, but maybe I should have explained this in my comment. Sorry about the confusion, to rednecks everywhere.

As for using foul language... I call em as I see em. I'd not censor myself anymore than I'd allow you to dictate, what I can and cannot write or say. I'll remind you here, that you suggested, that Irish illegals in the US be put in orange jumpsuits, and strapped onto or into the first plane back to Ireland. If I though you were being serious, rather than angry, I'd have accused you of gross insult - at the very least. But I knew you were just venting. Please allow me the same courtesy by exercising your intellect.

by B52 Thu Jul 06, 2006 07:09

You stated the following:

"I'll remind you here, that you suggested, that Irish illegals in the US be put in orange jumpsuits, and strapped onto or into the first plane back to Ireland. If I though you were being serious, rather than angry, I'd have accused you of gross insult - at the very least. But I knew you were just venting. Please allow me the same courtesy by exercising your intellect."

Do you understand the definition of 'illegal'? They are breaking the law. What do you suggest we do with them. Shoot them. Put them in jail. Have them do labor in the fields. I wish you would allow some courtesy here by exercising your intellect. All A10 suggested was that they be deported. Do you understand they are illegal. In other words that you may understand. they broke the damn law by sneaking in or over staying their visa. Law breakers. Use your damn head and don't criticize someone for telling the truth.

by Cormac Eile Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:55

Gotta say that I was only quoting the Wikipedia reference, which said he was denied a third congressional medal of honour, for using the phrase "you sons of bitches"...

If that is wrong, fair enough. He was still a highly decorated and respected marine who wrote a book called "War is a Racket", and that is the main thing. AFTER he wrote that book a naval vessel was called after him.

by Cormac Eile Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:37

Hey, there were no personal insults, just a bit of a friendly piss-take about the name you post under - A10. I haven't belittled anyone.

Tell me what proof you have that Irish soldiers are trained in torture? What Irish army manual has ever been published that demonstrates that torture is a core part of military training in Ireland? I doubt if you'll ever be able to produce such evidence, because it has never been part of Irish army training. I know because my cousins and uncles are in the Irish army, and have served with the UN all over the world.

Supplying beef is not the same as supplying weapons of mass destruction. There is no equivalence between beef and the various chemical and biological agents the AMERICAN government supplied (along with the Germans and the French).

Yes, patriotism and national pride is different in America. It can give rise to the closed-mindedness and indifference that leads us into economically driven wars of empire, just like this war.

So, you think that Chavez is a threat because he arms his nation? Have a look at the relative military budget between Venezuela and the US, or between Venezuela and his neighbours. He is spending LESS. This doesn't mean that he may not turn out to be a military threat with dreams of empire. Of course he may. However, you can't scream about Chavez and his "destabilising" influence, when the USA is spending over 200 times the budget on military material than Chavez. No matter how you look at it, the USA has overwhelming force on its side, so what kind of threat does Chavez represent? What do you mean by destabilising?

The destabilising influence that the US fears is one in which Chavez leads Southern American states to independence from US economic exploitation. If you take the time to study US involvement in the region going back well over 100 years, even looking at both sides of the story, you will see that it has been less than beneficial to the local populations.

If you read what I've written you'll see that I've explicitly said that US military personnel are probably fine people, like most military people around the world. So you are not correct to say that I've attacked US soldiers, I haven't. I've attacked their government and their foreign policy, just like I think our current government is mishandling this issue.

What has prudishness got to do with anti-Americanism? You'll find that the Americans most solidly behind this war are some of the most prudish and fundamentalist people on this planet.

In relation to helmets, they were referring to the shape not the material. The shape happens to be an effective shape for helmets. Why change a good design. It makes no difference to me what shape helmet armies use.

You'll find that US companies will continue to invest in this country as long as we retain our low corporate tax level, and maintain our liberal tax and accounting regime. (Such as it is). US companies aren't sensitive to the feelings and beliefs of host nations.

Finally, you'll also find, if you read what I've written, that I think that Putin's Russia is a disgrace for Chechnya and other issues, that China is a disgrace, that North Korea is a disgrace amongst others.

I don't single the US out for criticism, except for the fact that:

1. The US government constantly harps on about their dedication to spreading democracy, which is a lie, as they've never brought democracy anywhere. I challenge you to name one country to which the American's have actually brought true democracy.
2. The US holds itself out as a moral force in the world.

For these reasons I expect more from the US than from those other rogue states that "sponsor terrorism".

(Whatever terrorism means).

I suggest you read the book 1984 and Brave New World. Then come back and engage in this debate again.

by Cormac Eile Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:53

I'm very disappointed that you're probably just an ordinary Irish bloke, and here's me with the imagined sound of bling jangling and mohawks... In fairness, for all the fact that Mr T is probably the long lost missing member of The Village People, and mad as a brush, he is a cool character.

If you look at the links again you'll find that one of them is a blog as you describe, but the other is a strategic institute supported by George Bush Jr. who has appointed people to it. The projections are for this year, based on actual budgets, except the US budget, which is for next year. With regard to future increase in spend, it is conjecture, and has no relevance unless it is framed in the context of his neighbours spend.

It is quite obvious why Chavez would spend on military while spending also on improving social structure and quality of life. Obviously, it would be better that he spend all his money on social issues, but he clearly believes that he cannot afford to as his country is under threat.

Other democracies have tried to make social change in their countries without having massive military force. The US undermined those governments as they did in Chile and in Nicaragua, amongst other countries. If I was in his position, I'd be arming myself to the teeth, and present a front bristling with weapons to the US, because I'd be shitting myself.

I don't think Chavez is an innocent, and I'm always suspicious of South American leaders. There is a long tradition there of the strong man leader, and very dictatorial tendencies. I've worked for a senator from South America, who while he was leftist has the same tendencies. (I still consider myself right of centre despite my result on the left right test). If I've ever met someone with dictatorial tendencies it was him! So, when he makes comments to the effect that Mugabe is a freedom fighter it makes me nervous. On the one hand, I wonder if he is trying to get up the nose of the US and Britain, and on the other I fear that he actually means it. Time will tell.

I do think that South American countries need total independence, and they need to shake off the commercial empire that oppresses them. There is no denying that the presence of foreign companies on their soil over the last 150 years has been nothing but harmful to the developments of society in those countries.

It is important to note though, since you bring him up, that Mugabe was trained in the British army, just like Idi Amin, and many other African dictators, most of whom were put into place by western backed coups. Furthermore, almost every South American dictator was also put in place by the US.

by Mr. T. Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:16

I applaud Connor's action as I find the very idea of any uniformed foreign military walking around our country to be offensive if not illegal. When officially invited any foreign military must respect our neutrality by wearing civilian clothing in public places.

I'm rather disappointed and somewhat sceptical that this action is directed exclusively at US personnel rather than foreign military of all nationalities. It suggests the actions are directed for specific political reaction from the US rather than out of pure concern for Irish neutrality. Why haven't there been similar citizens arrests of German naval personnel who were in uniform in Dublin port last month? Why ignore naval personnel crewing the tall ships in their naval uniforms that have repeatedly visited Dublin for various harbour festivals?

I'd say good on you, Connor, for your actions against the American military, but why limit citizen's arrests to the Yanks? There are military in uniform visiting Ireland on a regular basis - why tolerate some while singling out others? To perform citizen's arrests on just the Yanks could reasonably be interpreted as Anti-Americanism - but to consistently perform citizen's arrests on ALL uniformed military would counter that claim effectively.

by antiamerican Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:31

I'd say good on you, Connor, for your actions against the American military, but why limit citizen's arrests to the Yanks? There are military in uniform visiting Ireland on a regular basis - why tolerate some while singling out others? To perform citizen's arrests on just the Yanks could reasonably be interpreted as Anti-Americanism - but to consistently perform citizen's arrests on ALL uniformed military would counter that claim effectively

INDEED, but unfortunately they dont care, they are just Anti-American, they dont give a shit about Irelands nuetrality, they just want to protest about America and support fucking tyrants who butcher their own people, personally i think they should all fuck off to north korea to learn a thing or two about tyrants, they might change their tune pretty fucking fast when they get a nice unfriendly dose of reality, the problem is most of these people are middle class yups wrapped up in cotton wool who have no idea

by Richey Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:32

Now you're quoting the London Times as a reliable source of information about Chavez. Brilliant! You're just discrediting yourself even further. The Times, of course, is a lying rag, and that editorial about Chavez was just another example of its shameless lies about people and governments it dislikes. Chavez never defended Saddam Hussein, except in the magical fantasy land where everyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq was a die-hard supporter of Ba'athism (guess that means you too, kid!).

The Times, while hostile to an elected, democratic leader like Chavez, was an enthusiastic cheer-leader for tyrants like Pinochet, and carried an editorial applauding his coup against Salvador Allende in September 1973 while his death squads were busy torturing and murdering the opponents of the regime. Glad to see you've aligned yourself with a reactionary, anti-democratic rag like the Times, it lets us all see how seriously you should be taken. You've clearly been trawling thru the Internet, desperately looking for sources that will discredit Chavez, and you have the nerve to accuse others of dubious claims. Laughable - and not for the first time

by Mr. T. Thu Jul 06, 2006 13:20

I wasn't going to respond to the Chavez thread out of respect for R.isible, but I won't let your questioning of my article to go without response.

Your boy Chavez is some piece of work. I chose that Times article to link to because it summarised the credibiilty of St. Chavez but there are plenty of individual credible reports about his bizarre and unstable foreign policy statements. I'm sure the SWP rag prints glowing reviews of St. Chavez, but normal sane folks wouldn't put that yellow stalinist propaganda claptrap under their canary's arse let alone quote from it. So I've ventured to profile St. Chavez with articles from so called centre-left sources:

Guardian: Chavez in pact with N. Korea's Kim Jong Il, and talk of "assymtrical war" (terrorism) against the US
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5909656....html)

In his own speech, Baduel (Ed - St. Chavez's newly appointed Defence Minister) referred to a need for Venezuela to prepare for an ``asymmetrical war'' - a term often used by Chavez, who accuses the Bush administration of plotting to topple his leftist government.

Venezuela's relations with Washington have grown increasingly confrontational as the U.S. has expressed concerns about the health of democracy under Chavez while he builds close ties with Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

Chavez said Friday during a visit to Panama that he will make a trip to North Korea soon to finalize bilateral agreements in technology and science. He did not say when he would travel or what the agreements would be.


Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting: Iran, a model for development: says Chavez (http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200519&n=35)

Tehran, Oct 30 2005- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Saturday his country considers Iran as a model for development and would utilize Iran's help in rendering service to people.


UK Independent: An audience with Chavez, the man with the most powerful enemies in the world (http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article48...1.ece)
Q: What about Mugabe?
Chavez: 'He is my friend. Have you met him?'
Q:I have met many of his victims
Chavez: 'We all make mistakes'


PRC People's Daily: "Venezuelan President Meets Iraq's Saddam, Attacking US", (http://english.people.com.cn/english/200008/11/eng20000....html)
Chavez described Saddam as "a well-informed man who understands everything to do with OPEC. He listened to us very attentively and I had the honour to tour Baghdad in his car which he drove himself."

Best Mates...

Yippee *fucking* KiYay!

by Seamus Fri Jul 07, 2006 04:01

Folks, have ya all gone insane?

I hold dual citizenship to the US and Ireland, having been born and raised in Co Galway, and now living in and serving the US Air Force.

I had the chance to visit home last year during the fall, and talked to quite a few people regarding this "illegal war". Most of ya have no idea at all what you're talking about. You're so blinded by anti-americanism that you grasp onto any tidbit that supports your claim and use it to justify the most ridiculous of actions as this gentleman did.

I've stopped through home on the way back to the states, and we're all informed about the law regarding the wear of the uniform as well. However, we're also informed that the Government of Ireland will allow the wear of the uniform while we're there on layover.

The US military folks are not an "invading army" If you want a good definition of an invading army, ask any Kuwaiti citizen, and they'd be happy to tell you what it's like to be invaded.

This was a publicity stunt plain and simple.

If you'd like to see a good example of life under Saddam, I'd be happy to send a picture of one of his "barbecue pits" near one of the numerous palaces. You see, they were places where Saddam, Quasi and Odai would flay a man alive and use fire to torture him. Usually done to the death, and usually for any reason they felt like. I've met people who lost family there. Not pompus self-righteous Irishmen who're out to protest anything American, but Iraqi citizens who's fathers and brothers died there at Saddams hand.

I fully respect the people of my homeland and their right to protest, but aim your protest where it'll do some good and not at some poor soldier who's staying here for a few hours.

If anyone'd like to sign up, get on the plane to New York and do so. After you see what I've seen, and hear the stories I've heard, your tune will surely change because you're not getting it from some leftist rag, you're hearing them from a gentleman who's eyes were removed, or a leg or hand was cut off or from someone whos father disappeared in the middle of the night never to be heard from again.

Oh, and about the WMDs.....There's a saying in Baghdad when you ask any of Saddams former soldiers about them. It simply says: "Certainly we had them, 3000 dead Kurds can no longer tell you otherwise."

by On The Right Side Fri Jul 07, 2006 04:42

Seamus, Thanks for your service. It is greatly appreciated. Your comments make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, for many who have commented here, your words will fall on deft ears. I'm talking about the people on here who are blindly anti-American, blindly anti-war, blindly anti-capitalism, and just plain socialist idiots. These people have no life. Total losers, whose only occupation is protest. If they had the courage to listen to the truth, maybe, just maybe they might understand what evil is. I doubt it. Losers never let the truth prevail.
Thanks again for your service. I know you will probably be raked over the coals by these losers but you are the true hero.

by Reality Check Fri Jul 07, 2006 08:59

See link for yet another crime the Irish Government have collborated in. What is unusual in this case is a U.S. soldier is being hauled through the courts for raping & killing citizens of a country he is occupying.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060707/ap_on_re_us/ex_sold...trial

It reminds one of the Canadian MASH unit positioned near the village of My Lai who knew of Lt. Calley's massacre but did not report it. When finally questioned they reponded that they knew but didn't think it was worth reporting because it wasn't unusual for the U.S. military to put unarmed Vietnamese in a ditch and massacre them, to carry out rapes as they patrolled.

Ireland stands complicit for delivering the perpertrators of killing, raping & thieveing to the seen of the crime in Iraq. There are dissident Republicans doing decades in jail in Ireland for being convicted of similar roles of facilitating such crimes. Conor Cregan & other such nonviolent anti-war activists struggle (with minimal resources & numbers) to break Irish complicity. Good one Conor.

Is this a record for most posts on a feature on this site?

by The Cat Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:11

"yet another crime the Irish Government have collborated in"

Hey Reality Check, wake up and smell the coffee. This muppet is being tried for his criminal acts. The military are held accountable under both civil and military law.

Of course murder etc. occur. They do so in the civilian world also. But the military, unlike other groups, actively ensures that conduct and discipline is maintained by having it’s own police force.

So lay off the military, who are doing an extremely difficult job.

by Reality Check Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:22 Take me back to Georgia

Hey Cat,

Last time I was in Colombus, Georgia, Lt. Calley was running a jewellry store. What was his sentence for the My Lai massacre, refresh my memory...6 months home detention if I recall.

I was in Colombus to support 2 other Vietnam Vets Fr. Roy Bourgeois & Congressinal of Honour winner Charlie Litkey who were being sentenced for a nonviolent anti-war action a the School of the Americas at nearby Ft. Benning www.soaw.org There was a great little restraunt called Zapata's where we gathered with other Vets the night before sentencing.

Roy, Charlie & his brother Pat were both all down by Judge Massey an old golfing buddy of Calley's who once banned a march by Martin Luther King (see King's bio)

A lot of the cannon fodder being sent through Shannon come from Ft.Benning. They are being sent by two men (rich frat boy) George &Dick ( "I had better things to do in the '60's") Cheney who both avoided military service in Vietnam.

I hope your drinking coffee from a co-op and not some transnational "lood of the poor" brand.

by Wolf Tone Fri Jul 07, 2006 14:33

You talk of Propaganda, yet YOU posted an obviously faked photograph of bush & some shiek, who is bandying propaganda about?

by Wolf Tone Fri Jul 07, 2006 14:38

You talk of a Canadian "MASH" unit near My Lai 4? interesting as Canada was not a participent in the vietnam war. One of the reasons american youth's avioding conscription went to canada was because of it NOT having forces there. What was the name of this unit? who was it's OC? Are you sure your noy confusing Korea & Vietnam?

by Seán Ryan Fri Jul 07, 2006 15:04

I'll happily perform a citizen's arrest on any military personell (who are engaged in a war) on Irish soil, who are not under the control of the Oireachteas, irregardless as to their nationality.

Many have commented that we should have arrested the sailors on the warship that visited Dublin last weekend. This firstly is hypocrisy as they then castigate us for arresting American personell. Secondly it was impossible, access to the ship was impossible as security was tighter than a duck's arse.

Again people who are commenting on this thread are focussing on American soldiers, and mostly complaining that we are focussing on American soldiers. This is false. I've yet to hear of a complaint from any soldier who thinks or feels that we've victimised him or her. Our focus is where it has always been - on our government.

It has consistantly been said on this thread, that American soldiers have the right to wear their uniforms on layovers. This is quite debatable, however it has nothing whatsoever to do with Conor's arrest. The soldiers in question were billited in an hotel, they did not have permission to leave the surrounding area of this hotel and indeed there were Gardaí present to ensure this.

American soldiers are told they are held under guard for their own good. They are told that the people might not take kindly to them. This is pure propaganda. And it is the reason for all the confusion exhibited here. They are not allowed to roam the countryside in uniform because it is illegal to do so, they are not told this, simply because our government are gutless and are afraid of stirring bad blood. Most soldiers I've spoken to understand this, and have not taken offense.

As for being anti-American: this is complete rubbish and is indicitive of stupidity, or is an attempt at spin. My Grandmother was an American citizen, born in the Bronx. If I were anti-American, I'd be anti-me. I'm neither. I'm anti-capitalism, I'm anti-war and I'm anti-inhumanity. This does not make me anti-American, and any idiot who promotes the idea that it does, is himself or herself an anti-American.

by Mr. T. Fri Jul 07, 2006 21:37

Mr. Ryan:

It seems we're both advocates of irish neutrality, however, your latest post got me wondering...
I'll happily perform a citizen's arrest on any military personell (who are engaged in a war) on Irish soil, who are not under the control of the Oireachteas, irregardless as to their nationality.

(sidenote: irregardless is not a word in the English language - you probably mean to use either regardless or irrespective but not both at the same time - look it up in the dictionary).

Since when has the Irish state limited its view of neutrality to apply only to military personnel "engaged in war"? I'm no constitutional scholar and I venture a guess that neither are you, but I understood Ireland's neutrality not to have any preconditions for foreign military at war, but all military including and especially those in peacetime. The state is prohibited from substantive support for or alliance with any foreign military FULL STOP.

That bit you added in the parentheses strikes me as an attempt to have your cake and eat it too - an easy out for feigning outrage at the Americans in uniform but ignoring the "peaceful" uniformed German (for example) naval personnel walking freely around Dublin quays and Temple Bar. The British naval personnel visiting last week were also able to enjoy the freedom of Ireland in their foreign military uniforms, and no citizens arrests took place either. That there was heavy security may excuse citizens arrests of the Brits, but certainly does not excuse the free pass given to the uniformed Germans. Why no outrage? Why the double-standard? And by the way, what does "engaged at war" even mean? The US, UK, etc have not formally or legally (whatever "legal" means in an international context anyway) declared war on Iraq. This is why it's important that if we want to maintain our neutrality we must enforce it without subjective conditions, which it sounds you are trying to append.

Neutrality by its very definition prohibits any foreign military from wearing their uniforms on Irish soil, be they engaged in hot war, cold war, undeclared military actions or merely resting. Suggesting anything less is in bad faith and I reckon simply a vehicle for harassing the Yanks.

By the way, how do you know how tight a duck's arse is? And what the hell does that even mean?

by Sea-moose Fri Jul 07, 2006 21:57

Seamus, I'm afraid people on the Left don't need you to tell us about the crimes of Saddam Hussein. We know all about those crimes. And we knew about them before he invaded Kuwait and became an official enemy. We spoke out against Saddam when he was a US ally, when Donald Rumsfeld was travelling to Baghdad to support his regime, when US diplomats were attempting to cover up his use of poison gas. And "on the right side", Spare us the rhetoric about "idiots" - it just makes us laugh.

by Seán Ryan Fri Jul 07, 2006 22:56

Hiya Mr. T

The reasoning why I'd focus on soldiers participating in a war, whilst performing a citizen's arrest is very simple and quite logical. My act would primarily be an anti-war act. I agree with your reasoning however - no military uniform other than our own should be seen on our streets. But if I were to focus on every event that violated our constitution, I'd have no time whatsoever to concentrate on anti-war activities.

As for the word 'irregardless...' Ah come on now, give me a break, we all butcher the queen's English - some of us with relish, like me. My point being, ya knew what I meant.

As for me description, 'tight as a duck's arse.' Why do you want to know how tight a duck's arse is?

Isn't it enough that it's watertight?

So, enjoy.

by Seán Ryan Sat Jul 08, 2006 03:51

The USA probably has thousands of nazis in the military and definitely one nazi commander in chief.

However this is not enough apparently...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20....html