Free Leonard Hardy!

thegeneral

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
156
Justin said:
thegeneral said:
ON THE ONE ROAD said:
think some sort of truth commision could be good for some people, personal view.
The shinners would never agree to that. You'd be able to have kittens before they'd agree to that one.
You say that as if the British and Irish goverments would be ok with the idea.
Justin the shinners cannot admit they or the provos ever did anything wrong, hence gross reluctance to take part in a "truth & reconcilliation" setup. I don't know if the Irish govt. or the Brits are equally reluctant but a demand of this nature will be well low down the list of shinner demands from the 2 governments.
 


DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
badinage said:
my answer would be: I think Kenya should still prosecute them, even if the US and Al Qaeda make a deal.
My answer would be Kenya should not prosecute. If prisoner releases are part of a peace deal, it is ludicrous in my view to prosecute someone for something they would have been released for in the country that made the peace deal, which was its target. Then again, I wouldn't think there is the same level of legitimacy in an attack on an embassy as on an army base. Also you have to understand there is a world of difference between Al Quayeda and the IRA. Al Quayeda's 'cause' cannot be tied to the political situation of any one country, therefore there is no real negotiating with it.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
DOD said:
My answer would be Kenya should not prosecute. If prisoner releases are part of a peace deal, it is ludicrous in my view to prosecute someone for something they would have been released for in the country that made the peace deal, which was its target.
hmm, obviously I didn't think you were going to say that. If the US wants to make a deal with Al Qaeda, that's their choice, but killing hundreds of Kenyans to protest US foreign policy is morally wrong, and I don't see why the mass murderers responsible should get away with it because the USA strikes a deal. Kenya is a separate state, and isn't bound by a USA-Al Qaeda deal.
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
DOD said:
Badboy said:
DOD you sound like Risteard. Expecting a sovereign foreign government to accept definitions that only make sense in your own head.

I voted for the GFA like most people. I did not realise that when I did it I was legitimising an armed struggle carried out in my name against my wishes.
Presumably you mean you voted to change articles two and three? If not, I was unaware we were ever asked to vote for the GFA.
I don't know where that myth came from.
The article being introduced was Article 29, Section 7. There were three subsections. Subsection three is waaaaaay too long for me to write out here and not really relevant.

Subsection 1 reads: The State may consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on the 10th day of April, 1998, hereinafter called the Agreement.

Subsection 2 reads:Any institution established by or under the Agreement may exercise the powers and functions thereby conferred on it in respect of all or any part of the island of Ireland notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution conferring a like power or function on any person or any organ of State appointed under or created or established by or under this Constitution. Any power or function conferred on such an institution in relation to the settlement or resolution of disputes or controversies may be in addition to or in substitution for any like power or function conferred by this Constitution on any such person or organ of State as aforesaid.

The really important one is the first subsection, a suprisingly specific and unambiguos phrase for our constitution. This was voted for by (I think) just under 95% of the south of the border electorate.
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
badinage said:
DOD said:
My answer would be Kenya should not prosecute. If prisoner releases are part of a peace deal, it is ludicrous in my view to prosecute someone for something they would have been released for in the country that made the peace deal, which was its target.
hmm, obviously I didn't think you were going to say that. .
Well you were trying to make the two situations analogous, which they're not, but in the hypothetical situation you proposed, (which would never happen) it would be ludicrously hypocritcal for me to say they should prosecute.
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
Pidge said:
DOD said:
Badboy said:
DOD you sound like Risteard. Expecting a sovereign foreign government to accept definitions that only make sense in your own head.

I voted for the GFA like most people. I did not realise that when I did it I was legitimising an armed struggle carried out in my name against my wishes.
Presumably you mean you voted to change articles two and three? If not, I was unaware we were ever asked to vote for the GFA.
I don't know where that myth came from.
The article being introduced was Article 29, Section 7. There were three subsections. Subsection three is waaaaaay too long for me to write out here and not really relevant.

Subsection 1 reads: The State may consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on the 10th day of April, 1998, hereinafter called the Agreement.

Subsection 2 reads:Any institution established by or under the Agreement may exercise the powers and functions thereby conferred on it in respect of all or any part of the island of Ireland notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution conferring a like power or function on any person or any organ of State appointed under or created or established by or under this Constitution. Any power or function conferred on such an institution in relation to the settlement or resolution of disputes or controversies may be in addition to or in substitution for any like power or function conferred by this Constitution on any such person or organ of State as aforesaid.

The really important one is the first subsection, a suprisingly specific and unambiguos phrase for our constitution. This was voted for by (I think) just under 95% of the south of the border electorate.
I know we were bound by the Agreement, but does this really mean articles 2 and 3 had to be changed? If that was rejected, surely there could have been an ammended version of the agreement, where the texts of the two claims were kept. Having said that, had I a vote on the issue now, I would probably have voted yes as the change in Articles 2 and 3 was extremely subtle and those claims were never worth anything anyway.

I find it strange that given that we are constitutionally bound to the agreement, the courts would give the government permission to violate the agreement in relation to the Castlerea 5, who it acknowledged qualified under the agreement, but still claimed the state had discretion on the matter. So in hindsight, it is unlikely to see the German government complying to the agreement, when we won't do so, despite being constitutionally bound to do so.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
DOD said:
I find it strange that given that we are constitutionally bound to the agreement, the courts would give the government permission to violate the agreement in relation to the Castlerea 5, who it acknowledged qualified under the agreement, but still claimed the state had discretion on the matter. So in hindsight, it is unlikely to see the German government complying to the agreement, when we won't do so, despite being constitutionally bound to do so.
We're not constitutionally bound to release the prisoners. If we were, then the courts couldn't have found that the government had discretion in the matter.

The point about the German government is daft, though. They're not a party to the Agreement, and are no way bound by it, so there's absolutely no reason why they should, even if Ireland and the UK both fully implemented every provision of it. Which is why I suggested that you come up with a better reason why the German government shouldn't seek the extradition of, and prosecute, this guy.
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,686
thegeneral said:
ON THE ONE ROAD said:
think some sort of truth commision could be good for some people, personal view.
The shinners would never agree to that. You'd be able to have kittens before they'd agree to that one.
SF rightly call for inquaries into a number of killings in the last 30 yrs were the british state is suspected of involvement. i presume republicians in other groups would would broadly agree with these calls. The only objection as i understand it is that it would be another PR exersise were everthing is the IRA's fault, but if and i accect it's a very big if wasn't looked at as one side or the other if all files were open regardless all incidancese examined regardless and every one alloud to speak regardless it could provide some answers to some people, and personaly i think thats fair.
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,686
smiffy said:
DOD said:
I find it strange that given that we are constitutionally bound to the agreement, the courts would give the government permission to violate the agreement in relation to the Castlerea 5, who it acknowledged qualified under the agreement, but still claimed the state had discretion on the matter. So in hindsight, it is unlikely to see the German government complying to the agreement, when we won't do so, despite being constitutionally bound to do so.
We're not constitutionally bound to release the prisoners. If we were, then the courts couldn't have found that the government had discretion in the matter.

.
Did they?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Yes.

Supreme Court said:
The fact that the Good Friday Agreement, although it recorded undertakings and arrangements acknowledged by the parties to be binding on them, has never at any stage been incorporated in the domestic law of the State and that the relevant provisions under consideration in this case conferred no rights on individuals which are capable of enforcement by a court in this jurisdiction has important consequences. Not merely does the 1998 Act confer no power of release on the government or the Minister or, correspondingly, vest any right in the applicants to be released: the relevant provisions do not confer any right capable of being enforced on the applicants to be treated as qualifying prisoners. It goes no further than enabling the Minister to specify them as "qualifying prisoners" and seek the advice of the Commission in regard to their release.

The government, as was made clear by the Minister in the statements in the Dáil which have already been quoted, decided as a matter of policy that the release of prisoners provisions of the Good Friday Agreement would not be operated in the case of persons convicted in connection with the killing of Detective Garda McCabe. While it is conceded on behalf of the respondents that the provisions have been operated in the case of other prisoners who have been convicted of equally serious, or even more serious, crimes, including the murder of Gardaí, it is not suggested that any of the persons released were in the same position as the applicants who, at the time the British-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement were entered into, had been charged in connection with the killing of Detective Garda McCabe but whose trial had yet to take place. If they were to be treated as persons entitled to the benefit of those provisions, the consequence would have been that their trial would have taken place in circumstances where, irrespective of any verdict reached, the entire of any sentence imposed on them would have been remitted by the executive. The Minister made it unambiguously clear that the government did not regard that as acceptable

I am satisfied that this was a policy choice which it was entirely within the discretion of the executive to make and could not be characterised as capricious, arbitrary or irrational.

The submission that the failure to specify the applicants as qualifying prisoners should also have been struck down on the ground that it constituted a form of discrimination between the applicants and persons who had committed crimes of equal or greater gravity and who had been released under these provisions is not, in my view, well-founded. The applicants as persons who had been charged but not tried or convicted in respect of the offences in question at the time the Good Friday Agreement was entered into were not in the same position as persons who had been convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment in respect of the murder of Gardaí and other offences and who were already serving terms of imprisonment at the time the agreement was concluded. While it was argued that the Minister's decision was a violation of the guarantee in Article 40.1 of the Constitution that all citizens should, as human persons, be held equal before the law, it must be again pointed out that it is not in dispute that the applicants are in a different category from other persons potentially entitled to the benefit of the agreement to the extent that they had not been tried and sentenced at the time the agreement was concluded. The resultant difference in treatment cannot be said to amount to the form of unjust discrimination which has been regarded in other cases as infringing Article 40.1.
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,686
badinage said:
Yes.

Supreme Court said:
The fact that the Good Friday Agreement, although it recorded undertakings and arrangements acknowledged by the parties to be binding on them, has never at any stage been incorporated in the domestic law of the State

so it should be?
 


Top Bottom