No shamrock for Bush

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Monday January 09, 2006 17:14

by Justin Morahan - Peace People (individual)

If inspecting torture planes is a hostile act, so be it, inspect them

We continue to kowtow to the present incumbent of the White House using all kinds of lame excuses for so doing.
Enough!
Let us end the empty charade of "friendship" with this man now and demand that our leaders present him with no more bowls of shamrock, an idea already tainted by the events surrounding 17 March 2003.

It's the right time to begin a "No Shamrock for Bush" campaign. Remember that before George W Bush invaded Iraq, the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had visited Washington for a pre-St Patrick's shindig and presented Mr Bush with a bowl of shamrock - which is a long-standing tradition.

The Taoiseach had gone to Washington promising the Dáil that the Irish Government would not sanction the use of Shannon airport for such an invasion unless it was sanctioned first by the United Nations (unlawful and dastardly as it was).

When he returned from the shamrock-presentation, however, he began to use a new ominous expression in reply to questions about the use of Shannon. He said said that to withdraw a facility that had applied for more than 40 years would have been seen “as a hostile act" and "it was not something I was prepared to do”. He said this was not participating in the war. (Breaking News 19 March 2003) http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/03/19/story92308.asp

The term "hostile act" is itself ambiguous. On the face of it, it could mean any act showing enmity, ill-will or antagonism. In a US military context it could mean acts of war as serious as the attack on the Twin Towers or as nebulous as the alleged inaction of the Afghan Government or their alleged failure to prevent terrorist organizations from running multiple camps that would, in the opinion of the US, train people to return to attack them.
(Cf Terrorism and the Acts of War, multiple authors, http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/attack-turns.html)

The term "hostile act" was probably used by George W Bush or one of his subordinates to Bertie Ahern at that fateful St Patrick's day meeting. It was probably used in the knowledge that it had varied shades of meaning. It had dark shades in particular that could frighten any gift-bearing Prime Minister. If Bush did not get Shannon along with the shamrock, who knows what might have happened - Ireland might no longer be considered a "friendly nation", the Taoiseach might be sent home in disgrace or even all the accumulated bowls of Shamrock might be flown to Boston and thrown into the Harbour there.

The Taoiseach said that he was angry later at what he had been told about the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but he never quite got around to telling Bush off.

Now, the crime of Shannon's use has escalated with numerous sightings there of US planes that have been used for extraordinary rendition, i.e. carrying prisoners , shackled and chained, to countries where they are later tortured. The Irish Government doggedly refuses to search or inspect any or all of these planes. pleading that, if people have evidence (that they are carrying prisoners) they should give them the evidence and then they will take some action - though going on past performance that action would be expected to be minimal. How can people procure such evidence when there is no access to the planes and no order to the Gárdaí to examine them? They also plead that the present US President and Government are a "friendly" nation.

To end this myth, there should be no Irish visit to Washington on St Patrick's Day this year, no vapid exchange of pleasantries about historic friendship, no cap-in-hand "thank yous" to the President who has demanded such a price in blood for the little help he has managed to give to the Peace Process, no kowtowing, no servitude, no cover-up of ugly facts, no fear of the threats from "hostile acts" - and of course no shamrock

save preference

Comments (6 of 6)

Fair Play But

by Timothy

Mon Jan 09, 2006 17:43

Presumeably if US forces are prepared to shoot dead unarmed Iraqi civilians and kidnap them on torture flights surely they are prepared to shoot dead unarmed Gardai?
Are you prepared to force a confrontation in which innocent Irish men and women must confront armed genocidal killer and forcibly disarm them?

Reply to Timothy

by Eoin

Mon Jan 09, 2006 18:20

The CIA probably wouldn't use Shannon for dirty business anymore, if they knew that they could be caught. See example of New Zealand's anti-nuke policy, including random searches aboard ships.

timothy

by pat c

Mon Jan 09, 2006 18:22

it may come as a shock to you but there are many armed gardai about. i'm not talking about the emergency response unit. i mean the special branch: all of those plain clothes guys & gals you see "observing" political demos are armed.

they would be well able to inspect any US planes. and if any should fall in the line of duty, i would be the first to start a memorial fund for those valiant workers out of uniform.

Inspired to quote from Alice

by Coilín ÓhAiseadha

Mon Jan 09, 2006 22:47

If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.
...

"Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterward.”

“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”

“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.

“I won’t!” said Alice.

“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
...

http://www.authorama.com/alice-in-wonderland-12.html

It seems to me that Bertie is operating on the principle of "verdict first—evidence afterward". And since the verdict he has already passed on our torturing friends is "not guilty", there's no need to send the gardaí in search of evidence at all.

Coilín.

Gun toting gardai

by Fiona

Tue Jan 10, 2006 01:09

Pat c is correct Timothy. I've been confronted by gun toting gardai at Shannon on several occasions.
Some of us lodged formal complaints at Shannon Garda Station in October 2004 concerning the use of Shannon Airport for extraordinary rendition. The 'investigating officer' subsequently asked us, individually, to withdraw our complaints: in fact, pleaded with us might not be too strong a term to use.
He seemed to be of the opinion that the onus was on us to actually capture the perpretators, and deliver them to him on a silver salver.
Abetting torture is a serious international crime, and failure to fully investigate such crimes is a serious dereliction of duty.
Maybe pat c or Timothy could also let us know who exactly are the men in black at Shannon airport. Those mean, lean, athletic types, totally clad in black and sporting shades (absolutely necessary when it's pouring down on a dark winter's day in Shannon). I presume they have some other function other than loitering: they are definitely not Irish which causes one to wonder if loitering requires a work visa.

fiona

Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:29

hard to say exactly who the men in black are. US state dept & INS officials are "legitimately" base at Shannon. These organisations have security and intelligence sections. As senior US officials including Dubya often pass through Shannon, it is quite possible that the Secret Service also have a permanent squad there.

the CIA often uses other US federal agencies for cover.

aer riante (or whatever itis now) is exempt from FOI. Is the IAA? They could be asked about US Federal staff based at Shannon.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

No shamrock for Bush

Comments (6 of 6)