Police Harass As Emperor Bush Decides To Pass
international |
anti-war / imperialism |
feature
Wednesday May 11, 2005 01:18
by Niall Harnett
Gardai Dealing With 'More Serious Matters' Than War Crimes - As Usual
Article 40 of the Irish Constitution:
3.1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
"6.1. The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
From the Newswire:
On one of the calmest and fairest days of the year so far in the West of Ireland, with hardly a breeze blowing, a huge security operation involving the army and police was stood down when Air Force 1 was reported to have chosen not to land at the American Military Base at Shannon, due to dangerous headwinds!!?
In the meantime a small group of peace activists arrived outside the Airport today asking for the arrest of the war criminal George Bush, who was due to make a pit-stop there this afternoon. It appears that Mr Bush decided he’d prefer not to be arrested and moved on without stopping at Shannon leaving the police with nothing better to do than to get busy harassing and intimidating those very same citizens who work for the implementation of Irish and International Law with regard to war crimes, which is being ignored and abused by all those who claim to work in the service of those laws and our State.
I arrived at the industrial estate beside the airport to see former Irish Army Commandant Ed Horgan’s car stopped in a public place outside the perimeter of the airport and surrounded by a police car, 2 police vans and an unmarked special branch car. After Ed tried unsuccessfully to hand a written request for the arrest of American President George Bush to a Garda Detective, I watched as the detective and a guard opened and searched the boot of Ed’s car and his personal belongings without Ed’s permission, as more guards stood by watching.
This is an account of the conversation that took place between Detective Andrew Hayes, Ed Horgan, myself and Garda 266 who refused to give his name:
Ed: You don’t have my permission to search those bags, OK?
Detective Andrew Hayes: No answer, starts looking through Ed’s bags, takes out camera and binoculars.
Ed: You don’t have my permission to interfere with my camera and binoculars.
Detective: No answer, ignores Ed, continues searching.
Ed: That’s my personal bag, you don’t have my permission to go into it.
Niall: Excuse me, you don’t have Ed’s permission to search that bag.
Detective: I’m searching it under the Offences Against the State Act. I’m quite entitled to.
(Without a search warrant, unless a guard actually suspects you of committing or being about to commit a crime, he is not entitled to search you. In other words he’s not entitled to search you ‘for being a peace activist’!)
Ed: On what basis, what offence against the State have I committed?
Detective : No answer
Niall : Are you suspicious of Ed carrying out offences against the State?
Detective; No answer
Niall : Are you suspicious of Ed carrying out an offence against the State, officer?
Detective : No answer.
Niall : You’re searching his bag, are you suspicious of Ed carrying out offences against the State?
Detective: No answer
Niall: Why are you elbowing me away there officer??!!
Detective: No answer
Garda 266 starts to help the detective search through all of Ed’s belongings and those of Ed‘s friends in the car, without their permission. They police refuse to clarify or give legal grounds why they think they have a right to do this.
Ed speaks to the garda number 266.
Ed: What’s your name guard?
Garda: Wha?
Ed: What’s your name?
Garda: Why are you asking me my name?
Ed: Because you’re searching my car guard, that’s why I want your name. What’s your name guard?
Garda: What’s your name?
Ed: My name is Edward Horgan, what’s your name? Don’t search my car unless I give you my permission.
Detective: Thank you very much gentlemen.
The detective directs the police man with shakes of the head and some tut-tutting not to answer Ed’s questions and calls him away.
Niall: May I ask you why you’re doing that?
Detective: No answer.
They move away, a group of us have a picnic lunch outside the perimeter fence, we meet a local journalist, tell him about the police abusing their powers etc. ‘Ah, the usual story’, he says
I telephone Shannon Police Station this evening at about 8:15 to try to talk to the sergeant in charge and Detective Andrew Hayes about what happened earlier at Shannon, and I speak with the member in charge Sergeant Mick O’Connell and I tell him I’m writing this article for Indymedia and would like to discuss what happened today at Shannon.
Niall: On what grounds does a guard or a detective have…
He interrupts me
Sgt. Mick O'Connell: Listen, I’m on another line at the moment, I’m dealing with a more serious matter.
Niall: OK, could I speak to …
Interrupted again
Sgt: I can’t talk to you at the moment, I’m on another line at the moment trying to deal with another matter at the moment I just picked up the call there …
Niall: Could I ring you back in a while?
Sgt: You can, no problem at all
Niall: What time should I ring you?
Sgt: Whatever time you like, I’m sure you’ve plenty of time.
Niall: Could you give me a time, maybe?
Sgt: 10.30 pm?
Niall: 10.30 pm? Are you saying you’ll be busy on this other call until 10.30 pm?
Sgt: I have an operational job to do and I’m going out and I have to deal with it - nothing to do with Shannon Airport or George Bush or anything like that.
Niall: Could I speak to Detective Hayes, please?
Sgt: He’s finished duty I believe …
Niall: You believe? I wonder could you find out for me, please?
Sgt: Listen, could you come in here in the morning you seem to have more time to do with this thing than I have … ok? Goodnight, take care, bye.
He hangs up, very helpful.
I’m writing all this to highlight again that while hundreds of US troops pass through Shannon every day, carrying weapons and munitions in direct contravention of The Hague Convention on neutrality, instead of arresting them as they are legally obliged to do, the Irish Security Forces, Army and Gardai are putting huge effort into protecting them while harassing and intimidating law abiding citizens, whose personal rights our Constitution provides by it’s laws to respect, defend and vindicate.
To Detective Andrew Hayes, to Sergeant Mick O’Connell, to un-named Garda 266, to Bertie Ahern and ALL involved in this huge and gross miscarriage of justice, I say…
… Shame on you.
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (30 of 30)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Gardai at Shannon have repeatedly failed to search US aircraft passing through Shannon airport, even though they are obliged to do so under international law to ensure that prisoners are not being transported through Shannon in contravention of the Geneva convention on torture. Gardai are also obliged to arrest and intern all US troops passing through Shannon airport under the Hague Convention on Neutrality. They have repeatedly failed to do so.
Yet, they have also repeatedly arrested, harrassed and searched peace activists and have done so unlawfully on several occasions.
Offending against the state? but who are offenders?
Hard day at the office, Peaceniks celebrate with picnik as Bush chickens out and bypasses Shannon fearing a bad photocall.
Peaceniks Picnik
"Gardai at Shannon have repeatedly failed to search US aircraft passing through Shannon airport, even though they are obliged to do so under international law to ensure that prisoners are not being transported through Shannon in contravention of the Geneva convention on torture. Gardai are also obliged to arrest and intern all US troops passing through Shannon airport under the Hague Convention on Neutrality."
Neither of these statements are true.
From:
Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907
---
CHAPTER II Belligerents Interned and Wounded Tended in Neutral Territory
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.
It shall decide whether officers can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory without permission.
---
Perhaps it is your position that Ireland is not infact neutral in this conflict, it cannot be the the United Sates is not belligerent.
i doubt that the united states is governed by any laws that disagree with the corporation body. we in this country have companies that will change the electrical parts in the "voting" machines to agree to the posted vote. it may be true there also.
First I have to say that the majority of posters on this site just plain don't get it. There's no use in trying to explain it using fact and logic because that would fall on deaf, unreceptive ears. In short, these well intentioned folks don't want to get it. That would threaten the naive predisposition that feeds the egos of those who consider themselves intellectually superior to others who dare to have a different opinion. That's sad. I don't mean to insinuate that these folks are bad, not at all. They simply don't get it because sometime we have to muster up the courage to make difficult choices and that is a task some people are just not up to. I love you all anyway for ultimately we are all brothers on the good ship Earth.
7 folks (DCW, Food Not Bombs, ex-Fairview crew, a French anarchist) turned up from a vigil.
A woman passing by claimed the Pit Stop Ploughshares have brought down Waterford Crystal with much of it returned from the U.S.! One of our French vigilers would have been struck by the name change to Freedom Fries over there!
Joe Higgins dropped by and wished us well. Looks like George was scared off by our mobiliastion and did a bypass, meanwhile 30,000 U.S. a month a touching down to and froming form the illegal war on Iraq.
At our Monday vigil had a good chat with 2 young Israelis fresh out of 3 year gig with the Israeli army. They were quite friendly and engaging, but had a pretty State soaked line on Mordachii Vanunu (stste claim that he sold secrets to the Syrians, news to them that he got done for having the photos published in The Times in England and that he first revealed them at a church study group in Sydney!)
Anti-War vigils continue Mondays 4pm-6pm at GPO
I was at work yesterday so I couldn't join ye, but at lunch time I saw a convoy of Irish army vehicles rushing out towards Shannon. looked like a bit of a panic was on.
they came back again a few hours later after
According to an article in todays Star newspaper, the security operation for the non-landing of Bush cost in excess of €250,000
I think you can reduce those costs by ... not letting him land... obvious eh?
Then the "security forces" wouldn't have to face the shame of guarding a mass murderer from opinions of free citizens...
That photo of the picnic is pretty blurry. Is that the best one you have? Who is that on the grassy knoll?
was a dud - Georgian officials say.
"Georgia's security chief, speaking to journalists on Wednesday, did not confirm an earlier report from Washington that said the device had been thrown within 30 metres (100 feet) of Bush during his speech on Tbilisi's Freedom Square.
"A (Soviet-made) RPG-5 hand grenade was found at the square," Gela Bezhuashvili, secretary of Georgia's Security Council, said. It had been discovered 50 metres (160 feet) from where Bush stood, he said, but he gave no more precise details.
"It was not in working condition. In fact there was no chance it could explode. I think the aim was to scare people and attract attention," he said.
Another Georgian official, speaking anonymously, confirmed the device had been found while Bush was making his speech."
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5773554&cKey=1115805028000
''Pablo is the first active duty member of the US Navy to publicly refuse to participate in the Iraq war and occupation. He will be tried inside the San Diego 32nd St. Naval Station, which houses 20 piers and 40 war vessels. Everyone in the San Diego area who opposes this war is urged to come out to support Pablo.''
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/108702.shtml
Official website:
Defend Pablo Paredes
http://defendpablo.org/
Far from being able to ignore two thousand last year when he visited Dromoland, now Dubya turns tail and runs from a handful, in the fear that it might ruin his PR.
Last year they had barricades in place hours before the event. Yesterday, they rushed in re-inforcements at lunch time, only to have them stand down 2 hours later... 250,000 euro wasted on incompetence.
And how the cops have gone from defenders of the law to pushing their grubby little paws into cars and bags without legal authority.
i would like to know exactly what "it" is exactly i dont "get" ?
i know that i dont "get" unaccountability in governments, it baffles me that anyone would... i dont "get" murderous thugs parading around the world and noone being brave enough to say NO... i dont "get" the fear and suspicion that Bush creates all over the world at large... i dont "get" the hippocracy of current U.S. policy... Its about fear folks ... keep people suspicious of the other side and they'll quite happily ignore their own predicament and continue like good worker ants to fuel the hate that floats AirForce-none...
7 at GPO, 8 picnicing at Shannon (count the cameraperson)! €250,000 spent on us....over €15,000 each uhh.....got these guys on the run
I wonder if Bush would also pull strings for the IRA, too? ;-)
--
Iraq's deputy PM over $300m bank fraud
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
11 May 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=637424
King Abdullah of Jordan has agreed to pardon Ahmed Chalabi, the controversial Iraqi political leader, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for fraud after his bank collapsed with $300m (£160m) in missing deposits in 1989.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050511/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Come on Lungs, what is it that we just don't get, you're not clear. Please tell us what we should 'get' , spell it out please. Are you proposing other ways, different ways, and if so tell us please. Vague comments about 'the task of mustering up courage to make difficult choices' don't mean anything Lungs. Come on, be clearer about what you think we should be doing. Articulate please!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050514/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
seems like the gaurds are making fecking idiots of ye, guess who got most of the money that was spent on the non visit - they would be devastated if the protestors stayed at home - overtime is their God. Want to piss the gaurds off - stay at home. That detective must have had a near fit trying to stop himself from laughing in our faces, judging by the photo and the dictaphone I though it was Marty morrissey interviewing some "Clare County Hurler" for the Sunday game who happened to be on duty down there
We intern prisoners of war that land/arrive on Irish soil prior to being POW's. If they are already in lawful custody we are not obliged to intern them Also interesting to note that during WW2 only German soldiers were interned. All the allies were returned to England. This is not a new thing.
You are not entitled to a Gardas name, thats why they wear shoulder numbers which you already had.
On a side note, you could have been arrested for obstructing/interfering with a police officer during the execution of his duties.
Not really, the Gardaí would have to carrying out a legal duty (while searching without a warrant is legal under the Offences Against the State Act 1939, it can only if suspected of carrying out a crime mentioned in the Act) and I think they Gardaí would have a hard time in court claiming he was being interrupting while illegally searching a person.
The problem there is Cathal that the legality of the search has no bearing on your trial if for arguements sake you were arrested.
Say for example you were arrested and it went to court. Your defence would be the search wasnt legal. The response would be "Says who?"
Cathal: "Me" or "The law" or whatever you want to say.
DPP "Were you acting as a legal representative at the time? Whats your legal background?" yadda yadda yadda. "Tell the court what crimes are covered by state act 1939?" etc etc etc.
Then they would move onto explaining why it WAS a legal search followed by explaining that you cannot be in a position to know why that Guard felt the need to search.
Thats all based purely on believing that the judge allowed the argument to go down that road which I seriously doubt. A Garda failing to have reasonable suspicion is for the courts to decide when that goes to trial, it does not give any person the right to interfere. I have to say under the circumstances I believe you would be found guilty. In fact case laws stated show that you would be. But thats all secondary to what this thread is about.
There are any number of "laws" a garda can call on to justify seacrching anyone at any time. They don't need to be able to quote them at the time of the search,or even give a reason.
The one probably most practical in this case (forgive me if i do not have the exact legislation to hand) allows a garda who reasonably suspects that a felony has been commited or is about to be commited,may search a vehicle or person for any item which could be used to commit such a felony. I think its somewhere in the criminal law act.
Section 23 of the misuse of drugs act is a great one also,which allows a person or vehicle to be searched,for drugs of course,and who would deny that a garda did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that any one of you were in posession of narcotic substances.
Failing that,the Common law power of Posession of an offensive face,with intent to intimidate others,is commonly accepted in court.(I didnt like th elook of him).
Your continuing protests against the use of shannon,is only affecting one group. The irish taxpayer,who not only has to foot the bill for military flyovers,but also has to pay for the security provided to prevent more of your kind from causing criminal damage to aircraft,and endangering the lunchbreak of sleeping gardai.
The Gardai have no reason to be suspicious in this case, nor are they justified to call on any law or any act, in hindering known gentleman and peace activist, former Irish Army Commandant Ed Horgan from freely expressing his convictions and exercising his rights under the laws and constitution of this country.
well done Niall and Ed and everyone else involved! Keep up the good work!
Who says the Gardai have no right? It appears they do. Is this based on not having any reasons to believe?
let me put it this way.
1. Former high ranking member of the Irish military with the training/knowledge that provides.
2. In vicinity of military planes.
3. Vocal opposition to the use of Shannon.
4. All at the same time that Bush is supposed to be in town.
No suspicion? Well, I suppose the world would be a better place if we just waited until people walk into Garda stations with a bloody weapon and a admit everything.
Its the same old story, people thinking they know everything when the reality is they know very little.
"There are any number of "laws" a garda can call on to justify seacrching anyone at any time. They don't need to be able to quote them at the time of the search,or even give a reason."
They do actually have to tell you why you are being searched and under what power.
"Section 23 of the misuse of drugs act is a great one also,which allows a person or vehicle to be searched,for drugs of course,and who would deny that a garda did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that any one of you were in posession of narcotic substances."
Ha, I like your reasoning there but they would have to quote that at whoever was being searched.
"DPP "Were you acting as a legal representative at the time? Whats your legal background?" yadda yadda yadda. "Tell the court what crimes are covered by state act 1939?" etc etc etc.
Then they would move onto explaining why it WAS a legal search followed by explaining that you cannot be in a position to know why that Guard felt the need to search"
I somehow doubt it would get as far as the DPP but hell, anyone can read the Offences Against the State Act and list off the crimes it covers.
"Thats all based purely on believing that the judge allowed the argument to go down that road which I seriously doubt. A Garda failing to have reasonable suspicion is for the courts to decide when that goes to trial, it does not give any person the right to interfere. I have to say under the circumstances I believe you would be found guilty. In fact case laws stated show that you would be. But thats all secondary to what this thread is about"
My original point is that I doubt Gardaí would arrest and charge someone off the back of questioning them on what powers they were using to search someone (illegally). I do not advocate interfering either however as frankly I'd rather not get in the way of a Garda from the stories you hear.
Why would it not go as far as the D.P.P or Chief state? Even if it didnt the Gardai would ask the same questions.
Your point is, if Im reading it right, that you wouldnt get arrested because its an illegal search. I already told you the search isnt an issue with your trial. Get this through your head, the search is irelivent in your trial. Its legality isnt relivent. Thats a seperate matter. For your reference if I was searching someone and you came upto me and badgered me about the search you would get one chance to leave and then be arrested.
Now it's you guys who 'just don't get it'.
Arrest ..... trial..... DPP ..... court?
You've gone too far with your groundless arguments boys. You seem to have forgotten one thing, just like the gardai, conveniently. Commandant Ed Horgan and his friends are guilty of no crime, neither are they actually suspected of being about to commit a crime. The Gardai know this and so should you. Therefore you should be thinking more along the lines of .....
Constitution..... Law ..... Rights..... Uphold..... Respect ..... Defend ..... Vindicate ..... Protect
But no, be a good copper Al, be proud, take the bullyboy route ..... Undermine ..... Harass ..... Intimidate.
Tony,
Did you read any of the posts prior to actually posting? I dont see why I have to explain myself again.
When speaking about being arrested I was not speaking about Ed Horgan so what the hell are you talking about?
How do you know whats suspected and whats not? Can you read other peoples minds or just assuming? Oh wait, thats exactly what you have done.
But dont worry about it, you just sit back and talk complete liberal shite, thats much easier than having an intelligent debate.