Shannon Monitors come face to face with US troops in Shannon

Thursday October 31, 2002 22:06

by Tim Hourigan - Green Party, Gluaiseacht, L4C, RefuellingPeace

Special forces and Special Agents... but we get the boot.

In a bizarre encounter at Shannon airport, two of the war monitors at Shannon today came face to face with a group of US military personnel in the arrivals hall at Shannon airport. The monitors were in the public area, watching the three Hercules C-130s at the airport, and did not expect to see uniformed military personnel in the public part of the terminal. One monitor asked a simple question and both were ordered out of the terminal, at the behest of an anonymous special agent. Two inspectors, two Garda and several security personnel made sure we left the premises. They were very determined to get us out, and the whole thing raises a lot of questions. Today is Halloween so maybe they were just trick or treating? Strange and scary stuff…

At 14:30 today, I went out to the airport to meet up with Conor, who had been there a while. I wanted to check out these Hercules that had been spotted by the night shift.
As I arrived I could see three C-130s at the airport. Two were parked on the centre strip, one behind the other and the third was on the edge of the terminal apron towards the cargo area.
Even from the bus I could see they were different. The single Hercules had a US flag on the tail and yellow stripes on its propellers, while the other two had red stripes and no obvious marking. The two ‘unmarked’ Hercs were also a darker shade of grey than the US C-130.
I went to the viewing gallery to get a better look and I met Conor up there.
He said he had seen cargo being transported from one of the ‘unmarked Hercules’ to the other which was parked in front of it.
I had a look through the binoculars and I could see that the number two engine on the rear Hercules was being fixed. There was a crane hauling parts and three military personnel on ladders working on it. On the ground nearby was a set of propellers and other forward engine parts. It looked like they had just replaced a forward section of the engine.
With the binoculars I could make out the markings of the two Hercules.
The paint has either faded (remarkably evenly) or been sanded away.
The faint outline of the word “Canada” was on both aircraft as was a faint outline of the Canadian flag, complete with maple leaf.
I could also make out the aircraft numbers, 328 on the nose of the first and 343 on the second one. One the tail I could see the full numbers, 130328 and 130343.
The area where the squadron patch usually appears was completely cleaned.
While “Herc 343” was being worked on, I spotted a bunch of big black suitcases near the front left door.
We noted the details, and left the viewing gallery.
We then went into the main hall (arrivals) to get a look at the USAF Herc.
Conor asked the airport ‘police’ / security woman at the arrivals door if she saw the Hercules. She refused to say anything or even look at us. So we went over towards the airport pub to look at the planes.
From the window by the Burren Bar, we could see the aircraft quite well.
Several men in sandy coloured uniforms and brown leather flight jackets were walking around it.
The aircraft was facing the cargo area so we could see the right side.
There was the US flag on the tail, with the letters AMC and the number 40496.
On the main fuselage was the USAF logo. I’m guessing that AMC stands for Air Mobility Command, but I’ll check that up.
While we were watching this and having a friendly banter with some tourists, about 7 men in desert cammo uniforms marched past us accompanied by FBO personnel (FBO is a handling company at Shannon. www.fbo.ie)
We followed the men, and I noted a few of the patches on their shoulder. I don’t think any of them were from the same unit. I didn’t spot any identical patches. One patch was marked “Special Expeditionary Force”. We walked up beside them, andConor politely asked one of them were they were from.
“the States” one of them replied. But that was as much conversation as passed between us. When they got to the arrivals door (usually a one way, NO ENTRY from the hall) the airport ‘police’ woman told them “don’t answer their questions” and turned a key to shut the door behind them. (We weren’t going in, WE would have been arrested for doing that)
We asked her who they were and if they had visas to be in the country. They were, after all inside the public area, not in the controlled arrivals or departures lounges.
She refused to answer. We asked her if she thought she was aiding and abetting a crime by letting these men through the door, if she didn’t see visas, or I.D. and given that they are not allowed in the country under article 28.3.1? I told her that I thought this was a serious issue. She remained silent.
Another airport ‘police’ dude came up and stood next to her, but he was suddenly whisked away by a guy in a blue fleece.
The dude took him to one side and was overheard saying “we have to do something about these two”. So Conor, and his Dictaphone, wondered over to them.
The dude in the fleece, (about 5’9” brown hair, balding in the middle and top,) turned and told Conor, that he took the harassment of his passengers “personally” and would make it “personal”. They both then came back towards me as Inspector Joe Grady arrived on the scene. Joe said nothing, allowing the guy in the fleece to do all the talking.
He told us that he had received complaints that we were “harassing passengers”. I denied harassing anyone, and said that Conor had asked a simple question, got a reply, but no complaint from the soldiers.
The man then told Conor to stop recording or he’d take the Dictaphone.
We told him “You have no right to do that”
“Yes, I do” he replied.
“No you don’t” I insisted “you may ask us to leave, but you cant’ take our recorder”
“Well then I’ll ask you to leave.” He said.
At this point, I should point out, that Inspector Grady had his hand over his badge (even though we know him from previous encounters) and that the guy in the fleece had no ID displayed.
He was wearing a small ‘shield’ shaped, blue and red badge with said “Special Agent” and had either “D o D” or “D o E” on it in gold lettering
I started reading the badge and he immediately removed it and put in his pocket.
He wouldn’t give his name or say what “agency” he worked for.
He repeated his order to leave the terminal.
I told him that I would not comply with his orders unless he proved that he had authority to give them. I again asked him for a warrant card, or other ID. Conor asked for his name and authority.
He said that he was not going to tell us.
When pressed he said that his authority was from the Irish Government "the same one that gives you permission to speak".
"I don't get permission from the government.
I have a RIGHT to speak, and you have no right to order us out unless you say what authority you have" I replied, unimpressed with his lack of civil rights knowledge.

“Well, HE can ask us to leave” I said pointing at “Inspector” Grady who was still covering his Aer Rianta ID. “Joe has a warrant card” but you can’t ask us to leave unless you produce one.
He then apologised for asking us to leave. “Inspector” Grady looked surprised that I knew his first name, even though he has chucked us out before.
The special agent said “your internet is wrong anyway, I’ve worked here for six years and there has NEVER been a B-52 at Shannon.”
After informing him that I don’t own a website, I said
“There were B-52s here in 1991. lots of them.”
I think he was confused with the posting about the B-2 stealth bomber. Doesn’t know his planes I guess.
Inspector Grady then asked us to leave and we left the terminal while politely protesting at being ordered out of a civilian airport, while foreign military are escorted through.
Many members of the public saw this and seemed quite annoyed at the spectacle of uniformed troops coming through, and two people being ejected from the airport for asking questions.

As Conor unlocked his bike we saw Airport ‘Police Inspector’ John Martin arriving for duty. Conor greeted him, and ‘Inspector’ Martin asked how he was.
“Pi$$ed off about these soldiers being in the airport actually” said Conor.
As we went to leave, the airport security guy comes out to the door to guard it.
We asked him who the special agent was. He said he had “never seen the guy before”
“He’s a special agent , who claims to have worked here for six years, he ordered you around in there, took you to one side and you say you don’t know who he is?”
“Nope”
“What agency does he work for and how come he wanted to throw us out while he let unfiromed military personnel through the airport? What is going on here? Why are there secret special agents at Shannon? Why is the military parading through the hall? Do they have visas? Why are Irish citizens ejected for asking this?”
He simply shrugged and turned away, while many people looked on, confused.

We left the terminal, walking slowly, followed by Airport ‘squad’ car AP 10.
We saw the USAF Hercules take off heading 060 and continue heading east.
When we got near the cargo area we were stopped by the Gardai who asked our names (even though they know us well. Garda Keating and Flaherty have spoken to us on several occasions at court, at demos and while planespotting)
We heard the radio say, “stall them, don’t let them get on the news”.
They kept talking to us, asking inane questions, asked us about ‘harassing passengers’
And how Eoin Dubsky was doing etc. They also recommended “six months in the middle east with them lads, that will make men of ye”
I replied that dropping bombs from 10,000 feet wouldn’t ‘make me a man’ neither does wiping out whole villages to kill one suspect.
This probably doesn’t reflect his real beliefs ( I hope) more likely it was his way of stalling us and provoking us to talk on. We were in no rush however.
Garda Keating remarked that he was surprised not to see his picture on Indymedia, while his superiors are featured well.
Perhaps the next time I see him smoking on duty and throwing the butt out the window of the Garda car, I will put a picture of that on the web.
The airport ‘police’ car (AP 10) pulled up in front of the Garda squad car and Garda Flaherty asked us our names, addresses, and dates of birth. We gave him the info.
Politely as ever, I reminded him, that he knows, my details, and that they even have my fingerprints on file at the station. I suggested he was simply ‘looking busy’ for the airport security who had called them.
As we went to part, they asked if we could have the next demo on a Sunday as they get better overtime, we said we’d do what we could. Garda Keating then asked us where we were going, I said I would be at the station later to make a complaint about the illegal landing at the airport and ask for the return of my tent and sleeping bag.
He asked if I was going straight there. I said, “no, I don’t want a lift in the back anyway, people would get the wrong idea. I’ll get some food first”

So we continued on out, and I phoned a colleague who had a camera. He happened to be close by and arrived shortly. We told him what had happened and he drove us to the airport so he could get pictures. Conor and I decided to wait for him by the bus shelter, not wishing to re-enter the terminal.
Lo and behold, Inspector Martin appears with one of the airport ‘police’ (no photo ID on his uniform) and ordered us to leave the airport.
As usual, ‘Inspector’ Martin flashed his warrant card (at least he doesn’t hide it)
And gruffly told us to leave.
We slowly strolled along as he followed. He refused to answer any questions about the ‘special agent’ and was rather rude to us, even though we were simply walking on a footpath. I again asked who the special agent was but he said “I’m finished discussing with you”.
At one stage he bumped me onto the road and stood on my toe, possibly to encourage me to move faster. I complained about being bumped onto the road, as a safety issue.
The toe didn’t bother me in my boots.
He said that if we came back, he would arrest us. I asked him if he had that power.
A Garda Sergeant had told me “the airport police can only detain people and call the Gardai. The Gardai then decide whether or not to arrest.”
‘Inspector’ Martin refused to listen to this and spoke over me, telling me to look up
various acts in the government publications office.
I asked him to clarify his powers of arrest, given what the Garda had told me.
He again interrupted me, and demanded that I listen to him.
“Are you gonna listen or are you gonna talk?” he asked.
I replied that if I listened it would be my usual manners, but if I talked over him, I would be adopting his manners.”
So he talks on saying I can arrest you.
I asked if he was prepared to arrest us for simply standing around, bothering no-one, and if he was not obliged to hand us to the Garda if he detained us.
“I’ll arrest you” he replied.
“Even for this?” I asked “I don’t think you want to.”
“Try me, anytime” he said.
At that point he left, telling his silent subordinate to escort us the whole way to the exit (about a 15 minute walk)
We got about halfway down the road, while talking to this guy. Asking if he was aware of the constitution etc, and telling him that ‘just following orders and doing your job’ is no defence, it didn’t help any of the Nazis.
He refused to speak, although he looked a bit stressed and bored with this assignment.
When we got to the SRS hangar, Inspector Martin appeared again in the squad car, followed by a van, which collected his tight-lipped colleague.
He jumped out, and called me over to show me a copy of an act by which he claimed to have his arrest powers. He showed me section 33 of an act from 1988 and told me to get a copy from the Government Publications Office and study section 33.
He then jumped into his car. Before he pulled off I tapped the window and opened the passenger door.
In a dignified voice I asked “While I’m getting that, would you like me to obtain a copy of the Constitution for you so you can study article 28, and see which one is the more serious law?”
He didn’t seem to like that. He told me he had a copy, and told me to “shut the door of a state vehicle”
We walked as far as the exit, and the car passed us out.
We then crossed the road to check out some by-laws on the wall that ‘Inspector’ Martin had quoted.
After that he returned with another man in a blue car, who we think was a Shannon Garda detective.
They looked towards us but said nothing. We went to the roundabout to wait for our friend to return to take us home.
Sure enough a Garda squad car came by and told us to move on, because we were loitering in a public place. Garda Keating quoted the name and section of the Public Order Act (probably the most used act by the Gardai)
I said we were waiting for a lift and had not been there long enough to loiter.
I seem to remember the act stipulating that a person has to be in a spot for three minutes before it constitutes loitering.
They also said that we had been loitering in the bushes by the wooden building next to the archway.
“If Martin had bothered to ask, I would have told him we were checking the notice with the bye-laws. If I was doing anything in bushes, it wouldn’t be with a scruffy bloke like Conor. How’s about we go lurk at the bus stop just down here?”
“What about the closer one” they asked.
“That’s inside the archway, they don’t want us there.” I replied.
So we agreed after much negotiation, that it would be OKAY if Conor and I stood at a bus stop to wait for a lift.
That’s a lot of hassle for two guys who just wanted a couple of answers.

But instead of a couple of answers we are left with more questions.

Did the US military have the necessary visa to be in the public part of the terminal?
Why were these departing soldiers allowed through the arrivals door rather than departures?
Who is the mysterious special agent who hid away his badge?
What agency does he work for?
Why were the aircraft identification numbers not clearly visible on the Canadian / Ex-Canadian Hercules? Is this not a breach of air safety regulations?
Just how many times can Inspector Martin call the Garda on us for no good reason, before they charge him with wasting police time?

save preference

Comments (40 of 40)

Great Great Article Dude!

by Blisset

Thu Oct 31, 2002 22:37

Real Journalism of the highest order. Keep taping them boyos.

Well done Tim

by Ray McInerney

Thu Oct 31, 2002 23:38

Keep up the noble work. Soon everybody will know the truth.

Jesus, Tim

by Phuq Hedd

Fri Nov 01, 2002 00:12

This is great stuff. I can't believe that Irish airport personnel are such bootlickers that they're willing to break our laws and compromise our neutrality. It would be useful to get photographs of the "special agent", who is obviously a US government handler of the slibheen Inspector Grady.

Note to US "agent": get out of our country, you're not wanted here and you're breaching our territorial neutrality.

what does neutral mean???

by d

Fri Nov 01, 2002 00:25

although i think it's great the way these two guys don't allow airport police to push them around, i do think US planes should be allowed refuel in ireland...

you see it depends on what neutral means... you can be 'neutral' like switzerland where you stick your head in the sand and don't help people in need... for example they did nothing for the jews and helped the nazi's get their gold out of germany... i'd call this an isolationist stance... and i think it's a disgraceful attitude...

or... you can be neutral like i think ireland is at the moment... we are not in a military alliances such as NATO... but we recognise the sept 11 crimes against humanity and support the US's right to catch the perpetrators in afghanistan... we help them in our own small way by allowing them to refuel in our airports...

American Green says thank you

by GreenPartyMike - Green party USA

Fri Nov 01, 2002 02:54

ollamhfaery at earthlink dot net

Tim,
Speaking as an American Green Party Activist I want to applaud you. keep it up.

well done

by silo

Fri Nov 01, 2002 10:49

well done, this is really great stuff. congratulations.

In reply to 'd'

by Paul O'Donnell

Fri Nov 01, 2002 12:15

"D" you seem to have a problem differentiating between neutrality and "turning a blind eye".

Ireland was neutral when we sent our troops to Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon and many other trouble spots under direct UN mandate. They were peacekeepers. The difference with Shannon is that the Yanks were not looking for peace, they were looking for vengeance - and this was loudly proclaimed by George W. Bush.

Nor is the impending war against Iraq in the name of peace. It's about oil - and have a look at what the chairman of BP says elsewhere on today's Indymedia newswire regarding Iraq and oil.

It's time the Irish people copped on to what's going on in our name at Shannon and more people should get involved in monitoring at Shannon and attending rallies there. Shannon must be the focus of all our attention - marches in Dublin, Cork or elsewhere can go so far but we must put all the attention on Shannon - the United States Military base in Ireland.

Next Shannon demo

by Andrew

Fri Nov 01, 2002 12:27

The Grassroots Gathering has called a march in Shannon on Sunday 8th December. Be there!

this article is what Indymedia is supposed to be about.

by iosaf

Fri Nov 01, 2002 14:09

Well done.

I hope our TDs are taking note

by Paul

Fri Nov 01, 2002 14:13

Not that I have much faith in the Dail but it can get some public notice. I hope John Gormley, Caoimhin O Caolain and all the others will be raising this in the Dail at the first opportunity.

No intention of being neutral on terror.

by Tim Hourigan

Fri Nov 01, 2002 14:19

God, how many people don't understand this whole "neutral" thing?

I have no intention of being neutral (or partisan) on terror. I have my own choice guided by my conscience, not by Bush's rhetoric.

I didn't shrug when 9/11 happened. I was close to tears, watching it on the big screen at the company where I was working at the time. It was the most awful thing I have ever witnessed. I will not 'quickly forget' and shrug it off.

And I'm sure as hell not going to shrug off the SLAUGHTER of innocent Afghans by the US military.
By the way, to all the media out there, I will never forget watching it that, day. "A day we will never forget" damn sure. So you can stop replaying the footage. We all know what happened. We don't need the onlsaught of emotional propoganda using the twin towers picture as justification for genocide.

Neutral or not, any intelligent person should be able to see beyond the flag waving and the shameless abuse of the memories of the dead of 9/11. Carpet bombing does not 'get' the terrorists. This is Afghanistan, a huge country, and the terrorists know all the good hiding spots. Instead of sending in intelligence operatives to seek out and capture/kill bin Laden, the US decided all these people were expendable. They are not referred to as casualties, they are 'collateral damage'.
That's what a dead, non-white, non-western, non-car-driving, non-oil-consuming Afghan girl is called when her ceiling comes in and her entire family gets blown to pieces.
And I still hear people give credit to this term.
But you won't see it over and over again on our news. Apparently all people in Afghanistan are 'them' and we have to help get 'them' for what a bunch of (mostly Saudi) lunatics did in a country most Afghans probably couldn't mind on a map, IF they had such a thing as a map.

So while Bin Laden is broadcasting from his bunker, the civilians have no where to go.
They just get killed in their homes, mosques, hospitals etc. But we don't have to watch that.
So why the hell should I call the murder of almost 3,000 people in New York an act of evil, but not the murder of more than 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan? If Bin Laden turned up in Dublin, would you be happy to let the US Air Force level the city to kill him? What if they only "suspected" he was in the city?

And no it doesn't say NEUTRAL in the constitution.
it says

"War Shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dail Eireann."

Which was a wise attempt to prevent our political leader from starting war or aiding someone else's without some sort of approval from the people.
You know, to stop them collaborating in unjust wars.

So no, US military aircraft should not refuel in Shannon unless they are bringing food, shelter and medicine to the starving, homeless and injured people in Afghanistan who they have slaughtered wholesale sine October 7th of last year. If they did it all in one day like the 9/11 sumbags did, would it make it more or less evil for you D?

You can't ignore the civilian deaths on one side of a conflict. We can't be neutral on terror, whether it's done by Al Qaeda or a 'respected' military power. We can't be selective in our condemnation.

We're not alone on this, millions of US citizens feel exactly the same way. Are they anti-American?
For the people of the US who want justice not revenge and for the civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq we have to stop this.

If you want to help stop this please come to Shannon on Sunday December 8th.

Well done guys -- great work!

by Eoin Dubsky

Fri Nov 01, 2002 14:24

Paris, France.

Wow Tim, that's brilliant work. As well as Article 28 of the Irish Constitution though, simply for the issue of armed forces walking about in Ireland I'd refer to Article 15.6:

15.6.1) The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

15.6.2) 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.

This doesn't just go for provos and blue shirts, and is basically an acknowledgement of the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers During Times of War in international customary law (See Hague Convention V in particular). SAS have been arrested in the Republic for coming down from Northern Ireland.

Article 28.4.1 of the Constitution relates to this, but it seems our friends at Shannon Airport have trouble seeing "the big picture" and perhaps we'll have to draw a diagram for them (for the next demo perhaps? On the side of a Herc even?...).

Rgrds,
Eoin

Regulations from Irish Statue Book

by Judge dread

Fri Nov 01, 2002 16:07

Powers of authorised officers at aerodromes.
33.—(1) An authorised officer, in the interest of the proper operation, or the security or safety, of an aerodrome, or the security or safety of persons, aircraft or other property thereon, may do all or any of the following things—
( a ) stop, detain for such time as is reasonably necessary for the exercise of any of his powers under this section, and search any person or vehicle on an aerodrome;
( b ) require any person on an aerodrome to—
(i) give his name and address and to produce other evidence of his identity;
(ii) state the purpose of his being on the aerodrome;
(iii) account for any baggage or other property which may be in his possession;
( c ) order any person
(i) who refuses to give his name or address, or to produce other evidence of his identity, or
(ii) who refuses to state the purpose of his being on the aerodrome, or
(iii) who refuses to account for any baggage or other property in his possession, or
(iv) who gives a name or address or states a purpose of his being on the aerodrome which is known, or is reasonably suspected, by the authorised officer to be false or fictitious, or
(v) whom he knows not to have, or whom he reasonably suspects of not having, a lawful reason for being on the aerodrome,
to leave the aerodrome, or any part thereof, or he may remove such person from the aerodrome, or any part thereof, or he may arrest that person without warrant,
( d ) arrest without warrant any person-
(i) who assaults, or whom he reasonably suspects to have assaulted, another person on an aerodrome, or
(ii) whom he knows to have, or whom he reasonably suspects of having contravened section 12 or 19, or
(iii) whom he knows to have, or reasonably suspects of having, a stolen article in his possession.
(2) Where an authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, arrests a person under this section, he shall, forthwith, deliver such person into the custody of a member of the Garda Síochána to be dealt with in accordance with law.
(3) Where an authorised officer arrests a person pursuant to the powers conferred on him by subsection (1) (d) (iii), he may retain in his possession any article which he knows to have been, or reasonably suspects of having been, stolen until it has been established whether or not the article was stolen.
(4) A person who was ordered by an authorised officer to leave an aerodrome or part of an aerodrome, or who was removed from an aerodrome or part of an aerodrome by an authorised officer, shall not, on the same day, without the permission of an authorised officer, return to the aerodrome or the part of the aerodrome which he was ordered to leave, or from which he was removed, as the case may be.
(5) Any person who obstructs or impedes an authorised officer in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section, or who fails to comply with any lawful requirement of an authorised officer under this section, shall be guilty of an offence.
(6) In this section, "authorised officer" has the same meaning as in section 15 of the Act of 1950 (as amended by this Act).

Possession of certain dangerous articles in aerodromes.
12.—(1) This section applies to the following articles, that is to say—
( a ) a firearm, or any article having the appearance of a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not;
( b ) an explosive, or any article manufactured or adapted so as to have the appearance of being an explosive, whether it is capable of producing a practical effect by explosion or not;
( c ) any article marked or labelled so as to indicate that it is, or it contains, an explosive;
( d ) any article which does not fall within the meaning of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) and which is made or is adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or for damaging or destroying property, or which is intended by the person in whose possession it is for such use, whether by himself or, as the case may be, by some other person.
(2) A person shall not, without lawful authority (the proof of which shall lie on him), have in his possession in or bring or cause to be brought into—
( a ) any part of an aerodrome, or
( b ) any air navigation installation which does not form part of an aerodrome,
an article to which this section applies.

Possession of certain dangerous articles in aircraft.
19.—(1) This section applies to the following articles, that is to say—
( a ) a firearm, or any article having the appearance of a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not;
( b ) an explosive, or any article manufactured or adapted so as to have the appearance of being an explosive, whether it is capable of producing a practical effect by explosion or not;
( c ) any article marked or labelled so as to indicate that it is, or it contains, an explosive;
( d ) any article which does not fall within the meaning of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) and which is made or is adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or for damaging or destroying property, or which is intended by the person in whose possession it is for such use, whether by himself or, as the case may be, by some other person.
(2) A person shall not, without lawful authority (the proof of which shall lie on him), have in his possession in or bring or cause to be brought into—
( a ) any aircraft registered in the State, wherever that aircraft may be, or
( b ) any other aircraft when it is in, or in flight over, the State,
an article to which this section applies.

Definitions for purposes of Part V authorised officer.
15.—(1) In this Part—
the expression "authorised officer" means a person being—
( a ) a member of the Garda Síochána, or
( b ) any person belonging to a class authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by sections 19 and 20 of this Act;
the word "bye-laws" means bye-laws made under this Part;
the expression "State aerodrome" means an aerodrome established by the Minister under section 37 of the Principal Act.
(2) References in this Part to a contravention of a bye-law include references to a failure or refusal to comply with the by-law.

A much better read than anything in the Irish Times

by Niall O Brolchain - Galway Greens

Fri Nov 01, 2002 17:16

niallob at esatclear dot ie

Galway City

091-596680

Wonderful to read such an excellent piece of Journalism. While the art of journalism is rapidly declinining in most of our so-called National Papers, I am delighted to see that it is alive and kicking on this website.

Well done Tim. Keep up the good work.

NICE ONE TIM

by Anarkitty

Fri Nov 01, 2002 18:04

boring office job

Keap up tha gud werk. It put smyles on my phace!

To 'judge dread'

Fri Nov 01, 2002 22:23

QUOTE
33.—(1) An authorised officer, in the interest of the proper operation, or the security or safety, of an aerodrome, or the security or safety of persons, aircraft or other property thereon, may do all or any of the following things—
ENDQUOTE

So, some sort of just cause needs to be cited by the authorised officer which appeals to the "proper operation" and "security or safety". There was no demonstrable evidence for this and thus the "authorised officer" was abusing the confidence reposed in him as an officer of the law. The point of these laws is not to allow the State to restrict politically embarrassing observations of its operation by citizens. I would suggest that the "authorised officer(s)" concerned in this case whether they be Gardai or Airport rent-a-cops are doing three things by expelling peaceful, non-threatening, completely co-operative and open monitors from the airport:

1. they are calling into question the reputation of the force for which they work, seriously eroding the ability of their smarter law-abiding colleagues to carry out their jobs effectively.

2. they are engaging in action which may lay them and their superiors open to public ridicule and revulsion.

3. they are possibly laying themselves and their political task-masters open to serious prosecution and charges.

Time to go and find out which politicians to target kids! Who's going to carry the can for the government this time?! The Flood Tribunal will be a sideshow compared to the prosecution of a government minister for flouting our constitution (but we should also make sure that the individual Gardai are hung out to dry on this one, it requires a special corruption to take part in these actions).

I smell the smell of a lXXr I mean lawyer

by Blisset (slight return)

Fri Nov 01, 2002 23:15

get a job....

by em - none

Sat Nov 02, 2002 19:33

this weeks limerick leader county edition is advertising for respectable looking, reliable persons for security work at shannon airport.......

D o D = Department of Defense

by anon swede

Sun Nov 03, 2002 00:51

I believe DoD is short for Department of Defense.

Very Well Done Tim

by Fionan Lynch

Mon Nov 04, 2002 06:08

komsomol at swirvemail dot com

A very interesting read, please post any other information/incidents you might have concerning Shannon Airport. It constantly confuses me let alone fustrates me when i see people getting mixed up with this term 'Neutrality'!, relating to Iraq well somebody told me that Saudi Arabia is refusing the U.S to use their Airbases in Saudi for this on-comming Gulf War 2, i was just wondering could anyone confirm this statement?

Never mind, we have the Department of The Fence

Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:52

Which came down very easily at Shannon last month!

Go Timmay!

by Delia Ho

Mon Nov 04, 2002 18:07

u hang on in there. I support u all the way:)

Inspiring!

by Dave Donnellan - -

Tue Nov 05, 2002 09:14

daviddonnellan at eircom dot net

Well done on your work at the airport. A really great read.