Militarization of Ireland grows

by Edward Horgan - PANA Tue Jan 10, 2006 17:38

When US President George W Bush visited Ireland on 24th June 2004, the Irish Govenment deployed its First Tank Squadron, which were transported to Shannon on tank transporters that were clearly marked KFOR, which is the official markings of the NATO force based in Kosovo, known as Kosovo Force.

The armament of these tanks includes a 76mm main anti tank weapon as well as launchers for the controvertial chemical weapon White Phosporous, which was used by US Forces against civilian targets in Fallujha in 2004, contry to the Geneva Conventions.

Was it intended to use White Psophorous against peaceful demonstrators at Shannon also?

These photos were taken by Edward Horgan, peace activist and former commander of this same First Tank Squadron.

Scorpion Tanks with Chemical Weapons at Shannon?

by Edward Horgan - PANA Tue Jan 10, 2006 17:51

This photo shows Scorpion tanks located at Shannon Aerospace, at the rear of Shannon Airport on 23 June 2004. This NATO maked tank transporter is carrying three Scorpion tanks. One of its 76mm bombs is capable of destroying a tank or a house. Its White Phosporous launchers if used in a crowd control situation, or even if discharged accidently would cause horrible wounds to dozens of people which burn right into the bone.
Why were these tanks deployed at Shannon for the Bush visit, when it is standard practice in all western countries not to use armoured vehicles or tanks for crowd control purposes. The only case where Scorpion tanks were used against civilians was by Indonesian forces in Aceh in 1999, with deadly effect.
The Chinese also use tanks against demonstrators
Were these tanks defending Bush or threatening Peace Activists?

Scorpion tanks defending Bush at Shannon?

by Edward Horgan - PANA Tue Jan 10, 2006 17:57

These photos are just a tiny sample of the militarisation of Shannon airport. All these photos and many more were taken by Edward Horgan
This one shows five US air force Hercules C 130 warplanes capable of being used in a wide variety of roles including gunships, of bombers. They were used in Afghanistan and Iraq to drop the 1000 pound daisy cutter bombs that were used against targets in civilian occupied areas in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

Five C 130 US warplanes at Shannon

by Edward Horgan - PANA Tue Jan 10, 2006 18:02

These aircraft were photographed on 21 Aughust 2004

Hercules warplanes at Shannon August 2004

by Edward Horgan - PANA Tue Jan 10, 2006 18:14

Edward Horgan was arrested for allegedly taking a photo of this Hercules C 130 US Airforce warplane on 4th March 2005.
Note what appears to be long range fuel tanks under the wings. Was this aircraft involved in long range rendition of prisoners from Afghanistan to Guantanamo? Who was there extra Garda security on this aircraft, and why was there extraordinary attempts made to prevent this photo being published?
What was being hidden on this aircraft? The Gardai were requested to search this aircraft by Edward Horgan, but he was searched, and arrested himself, instead.
The people of Ireland need to go and see for themselves what is going on daily at Shannon airport.

Long range death warplane

by Edward Horgan - PANA Tue Jan 10, 2006 18:23

Three Peace Activists, including 'skipper' Edward Horgan being arrested on the Shannon Estuary by a combined force of three Irish Navy Warships, Garda Patrol Boat, Garda Helicopter, Irish Aer Corps Helicopter, with US warship standing off just outside Irish territorial waters, in case the peace activists escaped pass Ballybunion.

The peace activists were eventually acquitted on all charges, in spite of some very doggy evidence given by Gardai.

Arrest George Bush, not peace Activists

by gay geori Tue Jan 10, 2006 18:33 gg at bearla dot ie

I'm sorry, but if Indymedia.ie is to have any credibility, we need to set the record straight on a number of points here. Surprisingly, Edward Horgan comes from a military background, so one wonders if it's really THE Edward Horgan commenting. Never let facts get in the way of emotions, eh, Ed?


1) Firstly, the Scorpion tank doesn't fire 76mm "bombs". Secondly, Those are smoke dischargers on the turret, they don't contain white phosporous "chemical" munitions (what a cheap allusion to Falluja, Mr Horgan).

2) The Irish army didn't "use" Scorpion tanks against civilians like the Indonesian or Chinese regimes. That is a cheap shot. In fact, it's common practice to deploy armoured vehicles on security operations, tracked or not - it's been done by the Bundeswehr frequently for example.

3) I don't see any NATO markings on the tank transporter. Could you explain, Mr Horgan?Or do you have an objection to the markings belonging to a legally deployed peace keeping force?

4) The C-130 is NOT carrying long-range drop tanks. Those are standard fit. They never come off.
A six year old child who'se built an Airfix model of the C-130 could tell you that.

5) The C-130 is not used a gun-ship, That's the AC-130 - radically different airframe.

6) The daisy-cutter is NOT 1,000 pounds (it's a shit load bigger). Nor was there any record of it being used against civilian targets in contravention of the geneva convention - what source to you have for this, Mr Horgan? The US invasion of Afganistan was according to law, and happened only after the half-baked nutters where asked to give up the Al-Qaeda leaders.

Jesus, if this story is the technical analysis of a military "expert", we might as well have Willie O'Dea draw up the 2007 edition of Jane's military encyclopedias.

by Edward Horgan - PANA Tue Jan 10, 2006 18:39

This photo taken by E Horgan on 25 Nov 2005, shows an ATA chartered troop carrier disgorging about 250 US troops into the Duty Free area at Shannon. Each aricraft also carries the an M16 automatic rifles and a 9mm pistol for each soldier as well as tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition.
During 2005 over 330,000 US troops passed through Shannon airport, which indicates that most other West European states are now refusing to allow US troops to pass through their airports.
These troops were directly or indirectly implicated in the unlawful killing of over 100,000 people in Iraq.
It time to stop this maddness. It is not enough to call for searches of US aircraft passing through Shannon, it is now necessary to stop this murderous traffic altogether.

Troop Transporting Aircraft at Shannon ATA call sign Reach 802 parked at Gate 42 Shannon

by Dave Tue Jan 10, 2006 18:41

US would no longer be a global hyperpower if they had to contend with the EU.
Iran might think twice about nuclear sabre rattling.
Russia would not try to blackmail Europe by raising gas prices.
Ossam Bin Laden might think twice about his suicide bombing campaigns in European capitals.

by Edward Horgan Tue Jan 10, 2006 19:08

Dear Gay,

If the Scorpion tanks have been regunned from the old 76 mm perhaps you can tell us what they were armed with at Shannon in June 2004, perhaps they are now 30mm cannon. Is this a suitable weapon for crowd control?
Unless the smoke dischargers have been changed, since I was in the Tank Squadron, they did in fact fire White Phosporous, which was and is extremely dangerous to anyone within a radious of 150 meters of the tank.
Fallugha was no cheap shot. thousands of civilians were killed there and White Phosporous was used. It was highly irresponsible of the Irish Defence Forces to deploy tanks for crowd control purposes.
The use of armoured vehicles such as APCs to protect security forces in crowd situations is very different from deploying tanks with machine guns and heavier weapons.
KFOR is a NATO force, based in Kosovo. It is inexcusable for the Irish army to be displaying NATO Symbols on its trucks in Ireland which is supposed to be neutral state.
see photo below.
So the Irish army are now taking its standards from the Bundeswehr are they? That figures.
I did not describe the fuel tanks as "drop tanks" and all C130s do not have these tanks fitted.
Of course the Hercules Gunship has different configurations, and fittings, and is used for varying purposes, but it is one of the same family of warplanes.
So the daisy cutter is bigger than 1000 pounds? that enables it to kill far more children. Perhaps you could give more graphic details of the damage these bombs do when dropped on a target area?

You claim that the war against Afghanistan was not unlawful? Have your read the UN Charter recently? Go read please. Member States of the UN may not attack other member states without UN Security Council approval. The US neither sought nor was it granted permission to attack Afghanistan.
There are two primary principles in justifying war, "jus ad Bellum" and "jus in Bello", the first means that a state must have just reason to go to war, and without UN approval the US did not, and the second means that states must comply with the rules of war including the Geneva Conventions. In Afghanistan the US broke virtually every conceivable section of the Geneva conventions.
read up a bit on international laws before you come back on this one.
Edward

NATO KFOR logo on Irish Tank Transporter, why?

by Charles B. Tue Jan 10, 2006 21:16

like Gay Georgi should stick to sites like chickswithguns.com or the like (fine site if thats what you're into) but E. Horgan is an expert in the field, and having been in the first tank squadron, or whatever its called these days, he is eminently qualified to advise those of us who are not so familiar with military hardware. It is a very worrying sign indeed that the tanks were deployed. I was there and even the guards, of whom I knew quite a few seemed to think it quite ridiculous. Especially seeing as the main body of the crowd were obviously peaceniks, and even the "blackblock" were having trouble with facial hair (either in growing it in the first place or in removing it adequately once established, however I digress). The point being it is completely stupid to suggest that tanks were required to control the crowd at shannon. even when everyone made a run for it, it was silly, and never got to the stage where it was really going to turn ugly. I actually felt sorry for the riot squad, who did seem very knackered running down the dual carraigeway trying to head off an invasion onto the airport grounds. Anywho, it seems to me the our government in all their wisdom wanted to show old Georgie boy (not the Gay one, well perhaps but...)that we were a serious nation with serious security facilities etc. (What a US military specialist would think of our armies pride in their scorpions I don't know, they might make shite of a few anti war protestors but up against a abrahms or any other common battle tank, I'd say they'd be buggered).
Maybe thats why Dermot Ahern keeps saying that we HAVE to accept the US promises about the content of the planes, i.e. "its tortilla flights I said Paddy" or "rendition, oh yeah one of the guys was just doing a rendition of like, a song or something mr. ahern.".
We are being made fools of. Our government completely supports the US as it doesn't want to lose favour, because that might affect foreign direct investment etc. They reckon they must be protecting our interests, and I suppose they are, well for a lot of people, those who are happy to live in society in its current state of disgusting empathy and materialism.
Nuff said like.

by gay geori Tue Jan 10, 2006 22:55

Clearly Mr Horgan does NOT know jack about modern military hardware. A tank that fires bombs? Remarkable. Keep throwing your medals in the river...

One presumes these oversights are due to a modernisation process since his time.

I flew in C-130s with the California ANG. Those are standard tanks under the wings, pal.

The UN, like the US, also issued an ultimatum to the Afghan gov to turn over the Al-Qaeda leaders and close their terrorist camps unconditionally. This was ignored.

Go an look up the details of the daisy cutter yourself. Since it was used in the Vietnam era, I'm sure the details should be found easily by you.

And where is the evidence that it's a NATO transporter? Sure KFOR is a NATO-led operation, but its is NOT a NATO force ... (ah, but of course, Chomsky had a problem with this intervention as well, so the stars begin to align).

Contributing non-NATO Nations include Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Morocco, India, Malaysia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates.

Thanks

by y Wed Jan 11, 2006 04:12

Is Mr Horgan saying that Ireland can't even take part in peacekeeping now without hearing peace-activists critisising it now. God, they will never be happy.

Is Mr Horgn saying KFOR is not a peace keeping mission? Also the scorpians were used for security just as the British Army used them at Heathrow and the Germans have used them at other events. A bit overkill maybe but thats the idea. Better safe than sorry in these days of terrorist attacks. Do you agree?

Most people I know who are peace-activists to this standard generally show that they know very little about the equipment they write about and take pictures of. By the way, a phospherous grenade or shell isn't classed as a chemical weapon as far as I know but I dont know enough to say for sure.

Also, Afghanistan has been in the UN since 1946 but im not sure if it was classed as a member state under the Taliban. Again i stand corrected if im wrong.

by Barry Wed Jan 11, 2006 04:37

white phosphorous can , and is , thrown in hand grenade form . The WP grenade is little different from a smoke canister save the contents . Any smoke discharger can fire it quite easily . Wp itself has replaced smoke grenades in most modern armies as a marker , being more efficient . It eliminates the need for both flame throwers and smoke grenades in one handy can . A scorpion can discharge it with no difficulty whatsoever .

by los - The Pro Ireland for NATO Lobby Group Wed Jan 11, 2006 13:30

I for one welcome this development. I think it is a great move for Ireland and will benifit us for years to come. As for KFOR being put on the trucks, Irish troops are currently on deployment in Kosovo, as part of the KFOR opperation which is UN backed. The trucks are most likely used to transport AML's as the Scorpians have NEVER been deployed overseas in there service with the Irish Army.

by MELLOW OUT Wed Jan 11, 2006 13:35

FOLKS! don't do the dropper. Its not MELLOW.
er,..... actually KFOR doesn't exist anymore.
It was superceded by EUFOR.
http://www.euforbih.org/

by **** Wed Jan 11, 2006 15:36

EURFOR replaced SFOR. KFOR is still running.

Mr Horgan please explan to me how a 76mm gun or a tank for that mater can fire bombs.

by **** Wed Jan 11, 2006 16:53

Maybe ed, or any other crustie here will quote me the page and paragraph of the Irish Constitution that clearly states that Ireland is a neutral country. Secondly, the Scorpian is not a tank it is a tracked recce vehicle with a 30mm turret. Next, do you classify all C-130's as warplanes?!? I am fairly sure they are used as transport planes by civilian organisations too.

"Was this aircraft involved in long range rendition of prisoners from Afghanistan to Guantanamo? Who was there extra Garda security on this aircraft, and why was there extraordinary attempts made to prevent this photo being published?
What was being hidden on this aircraft?"

Those are fuel pods for long range flight, the plane may have been going to Iraq from the west coast of the US, and civilians are rarely allowed on the tarmac at an airport to interfere with the planes. The extra security is propbly there after your crustie mates took a sledge hammer to another US owned plane. There is nothing to hid, the aircraft is the property of its country of origin. It would be like inspecting an embassy.

by dry mouth Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:03

the convention of Vienna covers embassies and consular missions and affords them national and sovreign territorial rights. Some of these rights are extended to certain members of the diplomatic mission on condition that their credentials have been presented and recognised by the host state, and thus the concept of "diplomatic immunity" which in fact has more vailidity from de facto practise than de jure law.
The final extension of "diplomatic immunity" is the allocation of "diplomatic baggage".

Aircraft are exceptional, US domestic law rules that ifa US citizen is onboard a plane when a crime is committed the plane is considered US territory. (i.e. if the plane is hijacked, the US claims jurisdiction of the vehicle*) But if a crime has not been proved to have been comitted of relevance to the US authorities, the plane remains the property of the aviation company or whomever it is registered to. It is thus and all onboard it subject to international aviation law whilst in international air routes and the domestic laws and airport bylaws of the state in whose airspace it is, or where it is landed / hangered.

* This is yet another example of "ultra-judicial" power claimed by the USA by which its domestic laws (such as intellectual property) take precedence over all the other sovreign territories on earth. Coz its not our planet. We couldn't prove it was round and blue till the Americans took photos of it from Space, and this means its theirs. Which is why we must pay them rent.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:15

And then argue that this does not define a neutral state.

Sláinte,

Seán Ryan

by **** Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:21

I want to see it quoted from the Irish Constitution where it is stated that we are neutral. Clearly!!! None of this individual interpertation bull.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 11, 2006 17:35

PREAMBLE
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our
fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and
unremitting struggle to regain the rightful
independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with
due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity,
so that the dignity and freedom of the individual
may be assured, true social order attained, the
unity of our country restored, and concord
established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
Constitution.

I draw your attention to the second last paragraph and would ask you to concentrate on the word "concord." And note that it states we are to establish this: - "concord" - with other nations.

Oh yeah and I'd appreciate your references from which you rubbish this, since you are moving out of the sphere of "bull."

Sláinte,

Seán

by Speedbird 1 Wed Jan 11, 2006 18:07

That could also mean we were to help build the concord plane. Still there is not one mention of the word NEUTRAL.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 11, 2006 18:49

Allow me to put it in a more modern setting for you.

Here's Barney with slightly altered lyrics.

I love you
you love me
we're a happy
family

With a nicknack
paddywhack
give the dog a bone
unity means neutrality.

Gottit?

Just be glad I didn't avail of Indy's multimedia services.

Sláinte

Seán

by **** Wed Jan 11, 2006 22:27

Concord does mean peacful relations, but it does not mean we are to be a fully neutral country.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 11, 2006 23:14

Yes it does mean peaceful relations.

But when you add to it that these "peaceful relations", are to be achieved using, "And seeking to promote the common good, with
due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity,
so that the dignity and freedom of the individual
may be assured, true social order attained, the
unity of our country restored," you get something new.

I say this "something" is neutrality. I say that even if this "something" doesn't quite stand up to an international definition of neutrality, that it comes ultimately closer than our "military neutrality," abomination. And more importantly it supercedes any international definition.

With this in mind, I wonder would you like to describe and then deal with the two following facts, whilst refuting my position.

i. That the treatment dished out to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq (and a multitude before them), with our complicity and ability to increase American efficiency, did not occur in a fashion that could be suggested that it was, done with due observance of prudence, justice or charity, or any other condition specified. And it did not promote concord with either country (or any of the multitude before it).

ii. That raising the likes of Shrub Bush, to godhead is not an act that sets out to achieve a "true" social order, but a "false" social order, where the individual has no rights. And again this is not how to treat with concord, especially when you claim to be sovereign.

If our disagreement is about an absolute definition of "neutrality," and you agree with my two points, then we have an argument of semantics, and it can wait, I hope you'll agree.

However if you disagree with my two points, I'd like to know, and more importantly I'd like to know why, I don't claim to be infallible, and if you can disprove my argument, the sooner I find out, and the sooner the better.

Sláinte

Seán

by be gentle Thu Jan 12, 2006 00:34

Hi Seán,
just a quick question for you,when Sadam was killing and torturing his own people do you think he used the term "And seeking to promote the common good, with
due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity " to reach his goal.So that the dignity and freedom of the individual
may be assured, true social order attained, the
unity of our country restored, and CONCORD
established with other nations,

by Seán Ryan Thu Jan 12, 2006 01:09

What Saddam's intentions were, are not covered or mandated by the Irish constitution.

However if you mean an Irish reaction to this:

I think the Irish should have investigated this issue, and adopted an independent and consequential opinion on the matter.

The very same applies to the subsequent treatment of the Iraqi people, aided by our hands, beginning with the first Gulf War, genocidal sanctions, and the current occupation, which has left around 2 million people dead give or take a few thousands of collateral damage.

After forming a suitable label for either case. We should have screamed from the rooftops, at the inhumane treatment, and dehumanisation of fellow human beings.

We should have insisted that an international law existed, and we should have and still should enforce it. Irregardless as to American opinion or pressure.

This behaviour would have yielded to the terms of the preamble.

What we did, didn't. And more to the point, what we did violates, the preamble, and consequently violates us, our history and heritage and it robs us of a national identity that reflects any sovereign notion.

I yearn for the gentle approach.

But too many confuse respect and decorum with fear and cowardice.

With respect.

Slainte,

Seán Ryan

by Edward Horgan - PANA Thu Jan 12, 2006 18:52

Statement by Edward Horgan Taken on 12/01/2006, by Garda Jason O’Flaherty, Shannon Garda Station. 31068K

I arrived at Shannon airport at about 11.30 on the 12/01/2006. I noticed a World Airways aircraft transporting troops at Gate 42 which took off shortly afterwards.
I also noticed on ATA aircraft reg no. N557TZ landing on the main runway and parked later at Gate 40. I have reason to believe that this aircraft was carrying US troops, weapons and munitions. I am formally requesting that this aircraft be searched and its manifest and cargo established by the Gardai. This aircraft is likely to be at Shannon airport for at least another hour.

I also noticed a Hercules C 130 US Air Force Warplane reg no. 11651 parked close to the centre of the airport and being protected by both Gardai and members of the Irish Defence Forces. I formally request that this aircraft be searched by the Gardai supported by Defence Forces personnel to establish what passengers and cargo are being carried, and to ensure that no prisoners are on this aircraft and take appropriate action.

I also witnessed a US executive jet reg no. N71P6, being refuelled at the airport. I formally request the Gardai that they establish the identity of this aircraft and if it is in any way connected to the US Government or the CIA, that it be searched and if necessary prevented from leaving Shannon airport.

I also witnessed an aircraft reg no. 9116, with US Navy markings and the letters RS and City of Seattle written on it. I formally request that this aircraft be searched to establish its passengers and cargo and to ensure that it is not carrying weapons, munitions, prisoners or soldiers on their war to war.

All the above aircraft should be prevented from leaving Shannon airport if they are found to be carrying either soldiers, weapons, or munitions, in connection with the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, in contravention of the Hague Convention on Neutrality, 1907, or if there is any evidence that any of these aircraft are carrying prisoners through Shannon airport, in contravention of the UN Convention on Torture.
I have been invited to make any alterations that I deem necessary and I do not wish to make any.
Signed: Edward Horgan
Witnessed: Jason O’Flaherty, Garda
Regd. No. 31068K

US NAVY Warplane at Shannon 12 Jan 06

by Edward Horgan - PANA Thu Jan 12, 2006 19:05

at about noon today, 12 Jan 2006, there were two US troop carrying aircraft at Shannon, World Airways, and ATA (American Trans Air), each carrying over 200 troops, rifles and munitions.
Also at the airport at the same time was a US Airforce Hercules C 130, and a US NAVY transport/passenger jet, and a US executive jet which may or may not have been conntected to the US government. This is now a normal occurrance at Shannon, which has been turned into one of the busiest US military transit bases in Western Europe. Before the day is over, these four aircraft will have left on their bloody business and others will have taken their place.
Does anyone care anymore?
Does anyone care about the dozens of missing prisoners quickly moved from secret European prisons in November 2005 to even more secret and more brutal prisons in North Africa and elsewhere?
Does anyone care that US troops passing through Shannon airport have been involved in the killing of possibly over 40,000 children in Iraq since March 2003?

ATA Carrying US armed troops at Shannon 12 Jan 06

by Ben Murphy Wed Jan 18, 2006 19:17

For a better understanding of the Constitution gotto the Constitution Review Group website

http://www.constitution.ie/constitutional-reviews/crg.asp

The Supreme court and the Attorney General are the only ones who can decide what the constitution says. The CRG give a good laymans interpretation.

Stop making up stories about what it says in the Constitution.

The Preamble is shaky on its legality in a court of law.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 18, 2006 19:35

Article 6
1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial,
derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to
designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to
decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good.



Besides, I don't trust anybody else's opinion above mine own. Websites are fine, but are no excuse not to read it yourself.

Sláinte
Seán

by Ben Murphy Thu Jan 19, 2006 20:51

Article 6
1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial,
derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to
designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to
decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good.

Besides, I don't trust anybody else's opinion above mine own. Websites are fine, but are no excuse not to read it yourself.



So you agree with me. The people elect the Dail who appoint the Govt who appoint the AG and the supreme court. Democracy 101. And the people passed the Constitution allowing the system to work that way. Art 6 backs up what I said.

Secondly.... You opinion, while important, has not legal standing.

by Seán Ryan Fri Jan 20, 2006 13:47

Well Ben, in truth I'd like to agree with you, cause I'm an agreeable chap. And because I'd like to be able to trust my government and our courts. But history and very recent history, for me have shown any such trust to be badly misplaced.

But in this case I disagree with your interpretation of article 6.1.

Article 6.1 is a single sentence, whose subject is the people of Ireland. This article states that everything is decided by the people of Ireland (don't let the word appeal confuse you about courts and stuff), it can be taken that by final appeal, that this means the people may take a constitutional issue to the courts to clarify the constitution. But this is not a certainty from reading the article itself, it may mean a final appeal to the people themselves. The article itself, states that the people, hold the power, to define the constitution. Note I said define, not interpret. Hence my belief that the preamble is outside the court's remit. I believe the preable to be this definition, and that the role of the following Constitution is to expand the aims and sentiment, expressed in the preamble, to cover all areas of Irish life and Irish national interest. I'd suggest that the reason the preamble may be shakey in court is that the court has no right to re-define it.

From your interpretation, of article 6.1. there exists no remedy for when the organs of state including the justice system fails. This to me seems in direct disagreement with the article itself, in that it suggests, that the failure of our system, is not a matter for the people, and that the constitution be derived from the justice system (in practice this seems to be the way, but the theory behind it is deeply flawed).

I disagree with you. And sure it can be boiled down to opinion, but so can the Constitution.

You suggest the preamble may be on shakey ground in the courts.

I don't know if that's true. The point being I don't really care. It's not on shakey ground with me. The Constitution is a legal contract, if the signature of the people (which gives it its legality) is on shakey grounds in a court, then the whole Constitution is in the same boat. Remeber any contract is only as good as the paper it's written on, and signatures are primal in authenticating any contract.

Finally I'd suggest to you, that all legal standing derives from opinion. And that it is possibly you who are on shakey ground here.

Please don't see all this as a put down, it's simple debate, with no offence intended. And thus far you have been a gentleman, I appreciate that.

Sláinte,
Seán

by Ben Murphy Tue Jan 24, 2006 17:57

Ok.... first of all, I am no legal expert. While my job requires me to have an above average of the law (as it pertains to the job), I know what I need to know. For constitutional law, I rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court and the AG. When they define what the wording of the costitution means, I have to accept it.... whether I agree with it or not. For issues that have not been defined by the above, I rely on the definitions provided by the CRG (Constitution Review Group) which, while not legally binding, provide a good legal guess of how the Supreme Court and AG would define the Constitution.

Article 6
6.1 All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of
national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

However the CRG gives no definition of this article..... go figure.

My reading of the Article says that the people have the right to designate the rulers of the state and that the final appeal is a constitutional referendum - ie the people vote. Should the "organs of state" fail, then it is up to the Irish people to elect a new government or amend the constitution. I believe there is no other option. As someone said once - the only thing worse than democracy is no democracy. Another option under article 46 is for a citizen to submit an constitutional amendment to the Dail by way of what is called (I think) a Private members bill. (or something similiar). Tne problem with people being allowed to directly amend the constitution arose in the 20's & 30's and was much abused by the party in govt at the mo.... FF. Hence it discontinuation in the 1937 Constitution.

As for the Preamble being on legally shaky ground, I have to retract my statement as the Preamble has been used in a number of court cases and does have Legal standing.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jan 24, 2006 19:20

Well I'll have to be the first to admit, that where we are now is not where we started. A short debate later and we both know more of ourselves and our rights and duties as Irish citizens.

To a degree, that's what I'm mostly about. I hinted at it earlier when I said I was agreeable. Politics I believe should be about seeking common ground (I think this has been forgotten), but more importantly, I believe community and sovereignty, should be about seeking common ground. Common ground tends to be where all the important stuff is.

I think our original argument now boils down to simple differences in opinion, which in no way contradict, what you have just written. That's progress and it was achieved without a casualty or loss of either honour or dignity. This cannot be said of any ongoing conflict of an international nature.

At the end of the day, some of what I have to say may have a very revolutionary tone to it. I don't apologise for this, I think our society has failed (the mechanisms of it) and I think it's time to try a new approach, rather than a re-working of the old. My point here is that, yes I do consider myself to be at war with my government, but that this war is an ideological war, and that I believe, my Constitution not only condones this war but demands it. I also believe our own "tiff" is an example of how humane and satisfying, for all concerned (I hope), an ideological war can be. An ideological war is a war of education, and in it, all "combattants" legal or otherwise get educated. And education is a tradition as old as and as Irish a tradition as an Irishman. I think our society is failing fast in this subject too. Our national identity will soon be no more.

My intent with recent posts on the topic of the preamble, was to point out that our President as first citizen, must take the first step in fixing what is wrong. Whether this step, places her foot in line with mine or squarely on my forehead, remains to be seen, but nonetheless the right and the duty is hers. You must admit she's been very silent about all this so far. What I'm saying here, is that I believe in my Constitution, despite some very dodgy usage of it and that it would never be my intent to take up arms or to cause anyone else to do it either, I believe in my ideological war and I think it can be won under the terms it implies.

People like yourself Mr. Murphy give me faith in my fellow citizens. You are not afraid to state your opinion, and you are not bound to it like some wraith, forever doomed to repeat themselves and former actions. I'm not suggesting that I've convinced you of anything, but that you strike me as a person with honour. And irregardless of our differences which are minor it's a pleasure to have met you.

Sláinte,
Seán

by Ben Murphy Wed Jan 25, 2006 20:13

Sean,

I still disagree with you ;-) (Then again everyone is entitled to their opinion).

As for the President. I also was annoyed at the way her re-election (or lack of it) was carried out. I also believe that she has been too quiet for a President and should be holding the Govt to task on certain issues (and this coming from a middle to right winger). However I am sure that the issues I speak of and those you speak off are very different.

I did feel better about her questioning of the charging of OAPs and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling.

by Seán Ryan Thu Jan 26, 2006 00:03

Howerya Ben,

I might surprise you with regard to my choice in issues. Obviously my priorities would be stated differently than your own, but I think my overall goal would be very similar.

Without offering priorities, I'd suggest that our president look at every office of government, and compare its results to our preamble, and also compare its actual running to the preamble. And that she put her findings and reasons for them in writing. And if necesary to take legal or moral action.

I want an open and pluralist society, where everything is up for discussion. And where debate rules the day rather than a place where we marginalise some of our great thinkers and patriots. Whether this swings left or right is of no consequence to me. I want the preamble to be a literal part of Irish life. I want the individual rather than the group to be the focus, it is by creating strong individuals that we create strong groups and strengthen and validate society. Focusing on the group rarely produces a strong individual as an intended consequence and thus is a practice detrimental to the group itself.

I think Irish society has been turned into a herd of consumers, or at least that this is the practice of our government to try to cause this. I find this to be abhorent and against the nature of society itself nevermind the preamble or subsequent Constitution.

I'd like to live in a state, where I could interview a young police officer, and find that his or her aspirations, were matched by what the force actually practices.

Today, many young Gardaí go into the force with the noble intention of saving and protecting fellow Irish citizens. Rather than this, they find themselves pitted face to face with others who express the very same sentiment, but with different priorities or more usually they find themselves acting as extra curricular taxmen for the state. Internal morale is at an all time low, and has always been in decline. Why must the state always place those who want what is best for the state, away from anywhere that this could be achieved? The same could be said of Teachers and Doctors.
It is not right to marginalise those who aspire to benefit the state. And it isn't only us lefties who aspire.

I want a society, where the likes of yourself and myself could sit down and laugh about our extreme differences, without fear that either of us were trying to contaminate the other.

Our differences spell out characteristics only and really only serve as points of interest.

I think areas that we agree in or even approach agreement in, should be the main focus. I find with this approach that differences that would otherwise hinder progress, do not interfere with what's important.

I get the idea from what you have written so far, that you may be involved in law enforcement in some way. And if that's the case, I'd like to promise you that should I ever be pitted face to face with a line of Gardaí, that I'll remember that at least one of the gentlemen hidden behind riot gear may be a gentlemen. And like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, if I believe in the possibilty of one just man, I will behave as if the whole group were so.

How's that for a left winger (whinger)?

Sláinte,
Seán