Cruise missiles of justice says Minister's Office

national | miscellaneous | news report

Sunday July 28, 2002 19:00

by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace

info at refuelingpeace dot org

087-6942060

Refueling Peace recently received a letter from the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in response to a letter sent by myself to the Minister some weeks ago. In it the Minister's Private Secretary explains why we're refueling US war planes at Shannon, why the so-called "war on terrorism" is legal and generally okay, and how our government feels about Iraq.

[ FOR THE FULL TEXT PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.refuelingpeace.org/ ]

The letter begins....

23 July 2002
(Ref: POL020402)

Dear Mr. Dubsky,
I refer to your recent letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerning the Government's decision to allow the use of Shannon Airport by US military aircraft.

In giving permission for US military aircraft to overfly or land in Ireland the Government is acting under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, which allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs, exceptionally, to grant permission to foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State. Confirmation is required that the aircraft in question are unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and that the flights in question do not form part of military exercises or operations.

In addition to this, landing and refueling facilities continue to be provided for US military aircraft pursuant to the Governments' decision to offer such facilities in accordance with our obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1368 of 12 September 2001 which classified the terrorist attacks of 11 September as a threat to international peace and security. This Resolution, which is binding on all Members of the United Nations, calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the terrorist attack of 11 September and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting and harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of those acts will be held accountable.

In offering overflight and refueling facilities to States whose forces are engaged in bring to justice those who carried out or assisted in the dreadful attacks on the United States and are seeking to prevent further such attacks, Ireland is living up to its responsibilities under resolution 1368. As a member of the Security Council, Ireland has a particular responsibility in this regard. In the case of the offer of assistance made to the US after September 11, the normal conditions were waived in respect of aircraft operating in pursuit of the implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1368.

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

Re: Further comment

by Terry

Tue Jul 30, 2002 18:39

I note that the letter stated:
"This Resolution, which is binding on all Members of the United
Nations, calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and
sponsors of the terrorist attack of 11 September and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting
and harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of those acts will be held accountable."

Does this mean, since the CIA used to be a sponsor of Bin Laden, that we
should be urgently working together to hold them accountable.

And if some of the other reports going around, stating that one of
the leaders who was involved in some kind of direction over the hijackers
was visited by a CIA agent back in July 2001 and also handed a
large sum of money, that this would directly point to complicity and
sponsorship by the USA for the attack.

And if the UN rightly want action against terrorism, what about having
some resolutions against the sponsors of the Contras in Nicaragua
in the 80s or support for the Indonesian terrorist army that annexed
East Timor for 24 years or so and killed almost have the population of
East Timor during that time?

Keep up the good work.

bollocks!

by MG

Mon Jul 29, 2002 12:17

Totally illegal of course

Sun Jul 28, 2002 23:28

"doheochai" I'm in a process to take the government to court over this very issue. Its quite interestiong: The government have said up to now that they don't need to ask for the assent of the Dáil for participation in the war in Afghanistan because lending our airports and airspace to the US military isn't the same as, say, Irish troops bombing and killing in that country. That's what Bertie has been singing for months.

Now they're telling us that they've waived the normal conditions under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952 for the US military "in pursuit of the implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1368". Which is another way of saying: for the US military engaged directly in the bombing of Afghanistan.

The government proudly proclaim how engaged they are in the "bring[ing] to justice" and "prevent[ing] further such attacks" process in the letter above. As they understand UN SCR 1368, that means helping America bomb Afghanistan to pieces, arm the warlords there who have been implicated in some of the most retched human rights abuses in the 1990's, and create a "safe-space" for an oil pipeline through that country.

Is it legal? Not at all. Even if the entire Dáil voted unanimously in favour of participation in the war it wouldn't make a shred of difference. The war it self is of course totally illegal! Nowhere in the UN SCR 1368 does it talk about the use of force, bombing, or installing new regimes anywhere in the world. The UN is quite clear when it authorizes war (remember what it was setup to stop?) and it simply isn't there.

Legal question

by doheochai

Sun Jul 28, 2002 20:08

Does the Government have a legal right to waive the conditions for overfly and landing of military aircraft under Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952??

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Cruise missiles of justice says Minister's Office

Comments (4 of 4)