Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 20 Dec 2005

Shannon Airport: Presentation.

No. 2 on the agenda is a discussion with the Midwest Alliance against the War, MAMA, on the use of Shannon Airport. I thank Ms Mary Kelly, Mr. Tim Hourigan, Ms Deirdre Morgan and Mr. Edward Horgan for appearing before the committee this morning. The joint committee welcomes this opportunity to hear their views on this important issue. As they are probably aware, we have had various discussions in the past year and half on this subject and we are happy to hear their contributions at this stage.

I advise the witnesses that whereas the Members of the Houses enjoy absolute privilege in respect of utterances made in committee, witnesses do not enjoy absolute privilege. Accordingly, caution should be exercised particularly with reference to anything of a personal nature. That is a standard statement and not one reserved for these witnesses. It is made to all witnesses appearing before the committee in order that they understand the position.

I call on the witnesses to make their presentation. I understand that each of the four witnesses will make a presentation. They supplied us with a good deal of information last evening. Members have received that and members who are not here, of whom they are not many, will receive it. The witnesses may synopsise their submission. I invite Mr. Edward Horgan to make his submission.

Mr. Edward Horgan

I advise members of this important Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that our time is short and their time is precious, just as the precious time of life ran out for up to 100,000 people in Iraq since 20 March 2003. On that date the Government of Ireland decided to authorise and Dáil Éireann approved a motion approving the use of Shannon Airport by US troops for the purpose of the Iraq war. This was in contravention of the spirit of Articles 28 and 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, of the articles of the Hague Convention on neutrality and of the spirit and articles of the UN Charter.

There are four main issues we wish to raise with the committee, which we have outlined in detail in our written submission. They are: issues of international law on public safety, which presentation I will introduce; the issue of US troops using Shannon Airport with which Ms Kelly will deal; the issue of CIA torture planes using Shannon Airport which will be dealt with by Mr. Hourigan; and Ms Morgan will deal with breaches of Irish law and, in particular, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention against Torture) Act 2000.

Because we do not have time to delve into history perhaps highlighting a similar geographical matter is appropriate. Ireland is closer to Iraq than it is to most of the United States. While we all agree that the Irish have a special friendship with the people of the United States, how can we justify declaring the people of Iraq to be our enemies? There is no clearer way to declare a people one's enemy than to help to kill 100,000 of them. In this increasingly inter-dependent world we believe our neighbours are all human kind and that assisting with the killing or torture of one's neighbour amounts to the most serious of crimes.

Neutrality is only important in so far as it helps to promote peace and security for the Irish people and international peace. Neutrality, nevertheless, is an important matter of international law, which gives privileges to neutral states as well as imposing responsibilities. Constitutionally, Ireland does not have to be neutral but having publicly declared internationally that Ireland is neutral, we are obliged to comply with our neutrality obligations, the most basic one of which is that foreign troops on their way to war may not be allowed to pass through our territory. Mr. Justice Kearns ruled in the High Court on 28 April 2003 that what was happening at Shannon was in clear contravention of international laws on neutrality. However, since that date and that court ruling, Ministers have repeatedly stated that Ireland is still a neutral state. That amounts to international fraud. We are claiming something we are not entitled to claim.

Our primary concern, however, is the reality of what is happening at Shannon and what that is doing to the people of Iraq, rather than the theories of international law. The issue of the safety of Irish citizens arises because they are now being exposed daily at Shannon Airport to serious risk of death and injury because large numbers of weapons, explosives and other materials of war are being transported through Shannon Airport. Serious safety issues arise for the people of Dublin because of the risk of retaliation against Ireland by people who might feel victimised by Ireland's facilitation of the Iraq war.

Most serious of all is the actuality of death and destruction in Iraq. I draw the committee's attention to an article in The Sunday Times last Sunday sent from Falluja. It describes the reality of what is happening in Iraq at present. Each of the committee members, as Members of the Oireachtas, has special responsibilities to ensure that they, by their decisions or inaction, do not facilitate unlawful killing and torture.

Mary Kelly will now discuss the factual issues surrounding the use of Shannon Airport by the US military over the past three years.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on something which I consider to be of grave import, that is, the continuing use of our civilian airports as a refuelling stop for the US military. More than 650,000 armed US troops in uniform, accompanied by large amounts of munitions and war materials, have passed through Shannon Airport over the past three years. It is a fact that many of these same troops have been directly involved in the unlawful killing of up to 100,000 Iraqi people, up to 46% of whom may have been children. Members of the committee who have children might give some special attention to those dead Iraqi children and the horrific manner in which many of them died.

These 650,000 troops were carrying approximately 650,000 M16 type automatic rifles, 650,000 rounds of 5.56 rounds of high velocity ammunition and tens of thousands of tonnes of other munitions of war through Shannon Airport. A total of 303,323 troops used Shannon this year, double the number that was recorded for last year, which was 158,549. One thousand soldiers go through the airport each day, that is, approximately 20,000 in the month of December.

As well as flights carrying troops, there is roughly an equal number of flights carrying military cargo, flights of military aircraft such as those used to refuel military fighters and bombers in mid-air and an unknown number of overflights, all of which contravene the Hague Convention. Well over 500,000 armed US troops and enormous amounts of munitions and explosives have transited Shannon since 1999, supplying the war in Kosovo, Serbia and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars have all been in contravention of the UN Charter.

Why is the use of Shannon against the law? To claim that Ireland is still a neutral state while being actively complicit in such support for a war that has been declared unlawful by the United Nations is to twist the truth and Irish neutrality beyond breaking point. By declaring itself to be a neutral state, Ireland accepts customary international laws on neutrality and is, therefore, bound by laws such as the Hague Convention V 1907 on neutrality. This convention states in its articles that belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power and that a neutral power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them at a distance as far as possible from the theatre of war.

We have enclosed the full 25 articles of this convention, which lay down the rights and duties of neutral powers relating to war, in our submission. I strongly recommend that this committee and the Government seek independent legal advice in addition to the advice of the Attorney General on the constitutional implications of the Irish Government offering and providing substantial material support and facilities to a military alliance prosecuting a war that does not have UN sanction.

I will now turn to the long-term effects of war and sanctions. I draw the committee's attention to the Medact report, which is included in our submission. Medact is a group that assesses the direct impact of armed conflict on matters of life, death and health. It reports on the devastated lives of Iraqi civilians who live in constant terror and insecurity. It reports that since April 2003, at least 400 women and girls, some as young as eight years old, have been raped. There is much under-reporting due to stigmatisation of victims of sexual violence so the real figures are far higher.

Medact estimates the death toll since the invasion of March 2003 at 100,000. Many died horrific deaths caused by use of landmines and cluster bombs, which contravenes the Geneva Convention on war. The report also speaks of medics unable to work effectively due to lack of medical supplies and equipment. Chronic malnutrition in children under five years is very high and is likely to have permanent effects on their development. The destruction of the water and sanitation infrastructure due to deliberate targeting during the war has led to the spread of preventable infectious diseases, such as cholera and typhoid. The group reports a huge increase in maternal deaths, stillbirths and premature births. An increasing number of babies are born with low birth weight as well as cancers caused by the use of depleted uranium munitions by the US and UK forces. Due to time constraints I can only present this brief account of the searing daily reality of life under occupation. I refer the committee members to last Sunday's article by Hala Jaber on Falluja in The Sunday Times.

I now turn to the Irish connection. Ireland is directly connected and bears a responsibility for this suffering. It is five days before Christmas, a time associated with peace in this privileged part of the world. This unsanctioned war is a crime against peace and humanity which has brought disastrous consequences for relations between the Muslim world and the west. I implore the committee members to give hope to the Iraqis and a way forward towards a more peaceful world by using their influence to break this connection immediately. Ireland must promote peace, not make war.

Mr. Horgan

Tim Hourigan will now discuss the CIA planes rendering prisoners through Shannon Airport for the purpose of torture.

Mr. Tim Hourigan

I am glad to make this presentation. As Members of the Oireachtas, the committee members not only have absolute privilege in committee meetings but they also have greater powers and authority than an ordinary citizen such as myself, who has been attempting to monitor Shannon for the past four years. I hope that authority will be put to good use.

My friends and I have been monitoring the airport for the past four years and have tried to find out as much as we can about what is happening there and inform the public. There have been many obstacles. When we tried to photograph some of the mid-air refuelling aircraft we were subject to harassment and instructions to move on by the authorities. In some cases, cameras were snatched to prevent us acquiring evidence to bring before the committee. When taking the photograph I am showing now, I had to make a quick getaway on foot. It shows a World Airways jet which was carrying troops through Shannon Airport. However, the paint scheme is the Aer Lingus paint scheme. That is something that obviously would concern a few people. I waited up quite a while to get that photograph, but immediately after I had taken it I was subjected to intense interest by the authorities at Shannon. I had to make my own quick exit.

We have also found that other information is not being put before the relevant bodies. We were prevented for more than an hour from attending a safety review at the airport. We found out later, after we had made our short submissions, that the latest safety review at the airport does not include military use of the airport. If we are having that much trouble in trying to get small facts like that, I hope the joint committee will understand the trouble we have had with the latest controversy of the CIA jets. I hope the joint committee can clearly see that it is probably better for it to push this further rather than ordinary citizens like ourselves.

We first saw the jet, which later came to be known as the Guantanamo Bay express, on 18 February 2003 at Shannon on the day of a peace protest. We did not know at the time what it was, just that it was something that aroused our suspicion. Later, through contacts with people investigating in Sweden, we found out what it was. When we had more information, a complaint was lodged in October 2004 by me and other members of our group at Shannon Garda station. It was a formal criminal complaint, copies of which I am sure members of the joint committee have in the material before them. In the time available, I cannot go through it.

The complaint was mainly based on the UN Convention Against Torture, which was passed into Irish law by the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act. We outlined quite clearly how we had reasons to believe that in their various flights and missions, these aircraft were involved in taking people without judicial process to places where there was great danger of them being tortured. We outlined that we had seen these aircraft personally. I witnessed them at Shannon Airport. I put all this in the complaint to the gardaí at Shannon.

We did not hear anything back from them until November when the detective who ended up investigating the case rang each of us who had made the complaints. Basically, he asked us to amend the complaint to emphasise that we had no direct evidence of what was on the plane at Shannon. He would discuss almost nothing else, but the impression we got was that, in effect, a retraction was what was being sought.

As more information came to light, we sent in more correspondence to the Garda Síochána. For example, when the aircraft in question was sold and changed registration, we found out the new registration and the name of the new owners and passed all this information on to the Garda Síochána so that it had as much information as we had and could follow what was going on as closely, should it choose to do so.

It is my belief that no real investigation has taken place because, as has been stated repeatedly, none of these aircraft has been investigated. However, even during the time we were corresponding about these complaints, more of those aircraft landed. I even photographed one, another CIA aircraft, in October this year at Shannon Airport, about a year after I had made my initial complaint. My great concern is that despite doing as much as I felt I could do as a citizen — gathering the evidence and information and passing it on to the Garda Síochána and the relevant bodies — what I believe to be a great crime against humanity still continues at Shannon Airport. I hope the joint committee will take these things further than we can.

Mr. Horgan

Ms Deirdre Morgan is a third year law student. She will discuss the UN Convention Against Torture and, of particular Irish interest, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act 2000.

The purpose of this presentation paper is to open up a discussion on the implications on the use of Shannon Airport by US military and CIA-contracted airplanes. Owing to time constraints I will summarise part one of the paper by saying that torture is prohibited under customary, treaty and regional law. There are no legal loopholes and the position cannot be derogated from. It has been incorporated into Irish law by the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act 2000 and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. Part two will outline the extraterritorial nature of the prohibition under Article 3 of the ECHR, and part three will outline the positive obligations on the State to protect individuals and provide a prompt impartial investigation.

The principle of extraterritorial obligation was explored in the unanimous decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Soering v. the United Kingdom. The court held that the extraditing state had some responsibility under the convention for the potential and subsequent maltreatment of extradited individuals. This judgment has been subsequently extended to include deportations. The obligation of non-refoulement is also incorporated through section 4 of the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act 2000. This landmark case clearly places a responsibility on a state, even in cases of an extraterritorial nature, to protect persons where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited or deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting country. In assessing whether these grounds are met, the court will consider a number of different factors of both the requesting country and the personal circumstances of the victim.

A subsequent case, Vilvarajah v. the United Kingdom, placed a further onus on a state to beware of the foreseeable consequences with reference to those facts known, or which ought to have been known, to the contacting state at the time of the expulsion. A crucial factor considered in Soering was the death row phenomenon, which arguably presents itself in Guantanamo Bay today. I submit that the uncertain conditions surrounding deportation for torture would suffice as causing sufficient mental anguish to amount to torture. Detaining somebody who is aware that detention and transportation is to bring them to a place where they will be subjected to torture is, of itself, torture.

Amnesty International has been challenging the USA with secretly rendering detainees to countries with dubious torture records, such as Syria, and has accused the US of actively engineering deportations to Georgia, Morocco and Egypt. Officials have been reported in press articles to have openly stated that the USA may deliberately send some detainees to countries where they are abused during interrogation. The conditions and policies practised by the US in the war on terror are well documented by the media and non-governmental organisations, so that it would be reasonable to assume that substantial grounds of a risk of foreseeable consequences pertain in the face of covert and illegally ambiguous practices.

The prohibition of torture is absolute and under Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the UN Convention Against Torture there are no exceptions. The general acceptance of no defence in the public interest or national security was confirmed in Cahal v. the United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights held that considerations of national security had no application where violations of Article 3 were concerned and that its guarantee is not circumscribed by the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable and dangerous.

In discussing Ireland's responsibility, it is important to consider that Ireland is not being held directly responsible for the acts of another state, but for the facilitation, through the process of extradition and deportation, of a denial of the applicant's right by another state.

Article 3 of the ECHR and the relevant provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture are not limited to negative obligations on states, but include positive steps that have to be taken to prevent torture and other related acts being committed. Article 12 of the UN Convention Against Torture places an obligation on the state to protect individuals and to provide a prompt impartial investigation where there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture is likely.

As outlined in part two, and as my fellow speakers have outlined, the deportation for torture policy adhered to by the US would amount to reasonable grounds within Article 12 to suspect torture is likely to occur. The obligation was considered by the committee against torture in Hajrizi Dzemajl et al v. Yugoslavia where a violation of Articles 12 and 16 was found when the state failed to provide adequate protection and due diligence by failing to provide an adequate investigation.

The ECHR jurisprudence has outlined states' obligations with regard to Article 3. States are obliged to take every reasonable step to prevent real and immediate threat to the life and integrity of a person when the actions threatening it could be perpetrated by a person or group of persons with the consent or acquiescence of public authorities. States have an obligation to provide an effective remedy, including a proper and effective investigation with regard to the actions committed by non-state actors, undertaken with the consent or acquiescence of public authorities.

In Aksoy v. Turkey it was found that the nature of the rights safeguarded under Article 3 of the convention has implications for Article 13. Article 13 imposes, without prejudice to any other remedy available under the domestic system, an obligation on states to carry out a thorough and effective investigation of incidents of torture.

It should be noted that, when considering what constitutes torture, the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence in Ireland v. UK and the Greek case, Article 3 of the ECHR includes the infliction of mental suffering by creating a state of anguish and stress by means other than bodily assault. I submit that the mental anguish suffered while waiting in a plane in Shannon would constitute torture or inhuman and degrading treatment under both the ECHR and the UN Convention Against Torture as incorporated into Irish law. I would further submit that given the well-known facts of the US behaviour in regard to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition this would suffice as amounting to the substantial grounds of real risk to the individuals involved. Consequently, the State is obliged both under the ECHR and CAT, as incorporated into Irish law, to prevent persons being deported to torture and to investigate the situations that surround this practice.

Mr. Horgan

I will sum up using the theme of justice. If one thinks allowing 650,000 armed US troops to pass through Shannon Airport on their way to kill up to 100,000 Iraqi people and allowing dozens of CIA aircraft to refuel at Shannon Airport for the purpose of rendering prisoners for torture is not a serious matter of foreign affairs or international law, then ask the relatives of the 100,000 Iraqi dead and the survivors of torture what they think. Many probably did not survive torture. If the concept of justice means anything to the committee and to all of us, then for humanity's sake stop the use of Shannon Airport to facilitate mass murder and torture now.

The decision of Oireachtas Éireann to approve the use of Shannon Airport by US troops for the Iraq war has been the most shameful act by any Irish Government since the foundation of the State in 1922. We do not yet know who has approved the use of Shannon Airport for the purpose of facilitating the transport of prisoners for torture but many people are complicit in allowing it to continue. We ask the committee to ensure these matters are not only investigated but are stopped.

The purpose of our submission was to inform the committee of what we know, the evidence we have and our belief as to what is happening. It is now the committee's duty to verify these matters for itself and to take appropriate action. We thank the committee sincerely for hearing our plea for truth in relation to Shannon Airport and justice on behalf of the Iraqi people.

I thank the four people who made submissions. They were quite right in saying the Dáil approved what is going on in Shannon Airport in March 2003. What would the delegation say to the point that the presence of a multinational force in Iraq was approved by the UN in Resolution 1511 of 26 October 2003, was reaffirmed and, as a result, what is going on in Shannon Airport could be seen to be in compliance with UN resolutions? I would like a response to that point.

Will Mr. Hourigan say who attempted to prevent him from taking photographs in the terminal of Shannon Airport? We do not live in a police state and we should not, at any time, attempt to erode the rights of people to take photographs in public areas. I presume the terminal in which Mr. Hourigan attempted to take photographs is a public area and, as such, he should have been entitled to take whatever photographs he wanted. He also said attempts were made to prevent him taking the photograph he produced here. Did Aer Rianta staff try to prevent him from doing so? Were complaints lodged in that regard?

In regard to CIA aeroplanes passing through Shannon Airport and the suspicion they are carrying prisoners to centres in Europe — to Guantanamo Bay-type detention centres or prisons — we have invited the US ambassador to appear before the committee to get explanations from him and to give us an opportunity to question him on those matters. To date, we have not received a response but we hope to discuss this issue with the ambassador at the earliest possible date.

I compliment the delegation on the thoroughness of the presentation. I also note the detail which went into preparing different aspects of the report since these are citizens from organisations which do not have the resources of the State. It is important I state that.

The delegation's submission contains the detail of the Dáil report of last Wednesday, 14 December, in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs was asked specific questions about some of the matters raised by Mr. Horgan. I would say to the delegation that there has been a fairly thorough and comprehensive discussion in Seanad Éireann on some of these issues which is to the credit of Senators.

I do not need to go back over the detail of the submission but I wish to raise what I believe are a number of fundamental, important political points with which the committee must deal. The committee finds itself trapped, no more than Members of the Oireachtas, by the simple assertion that the United States is a friendly country and that an assurance has been given on a number of matters — specifically what is called extraordinary rendition — and that we should be satisfied.

The points raised on the legal side are very important and they call into question many serious aspects of our international policy and credibility. I will give a straightforward example which is, in a way, a summary of some of the points made. In regard to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and even taking into account that we have not signed or ratified the optional protocol which we are supposed to do in 2006, the protocol on torture requires one not only not to practice torture but to seek to prevent it. We have reached an absolute stalemate in that regard. Is that a positive requirement? I, and other parliamentarians in both the Dáil and Seanad, have suggested that compliance with the United Nations Convention Against Torture requires one to seek to know that one is in compliance. The assurance we got from the Minister is that we should be satisfied with that. That assurance has not been accepted by a number of countries, including Sweden and other European countries. It has been regarded as insufficient.

As late as Wednesday, 14 December, the Minister, in reply to one of my questions, said the Government did not accept rendition or extraordinary rendition as a principle of international policy. However, the issue is that if one knows the aeroplane which landed in Shannon Airport on a number of occasions and on specific dates is one of 33 aeroplanes leased to ferry prisoners from one location to another, that people may have been rendered and that people at the point of origin or point of destination have no assurance that they will not be tortured, can one say that because one got an assurance, that relieves one of any responsibility in regard to rendition? I believe it does not. Once again the assurance is all one has.

One then moves on to a point which is very important in this regard. The European Convention on Human Rights, which is the creation of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, is equally concerned. This committee is responsible to both the Dáil and Seanad and the inspections which could answer the questions as to whether the assurance means anything and whether we are in compliance with international instruments may be something which may only be sought by external agencies, that is, by the monitoring committee of the United Nations or by Mr. Marty who is issuing a questionnaire on flight plans and so forth from the Council of Europe. There are no grounds at all for denying random or regular inspections to answer questions which are matters of public concern. It is interesting that both the United Nations and the European conventions specifically refer to matters of public concern.

I turn to another point, that is, the complaints, in which I am interested and on which I would perhaps like more detail, although it may well be in the report and I skimmed over it. The suggestion has been made in response to all our questions in both Houses that if we have hard evidence, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would be glad to make sure Ireland is not in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture but how are we to know? Various Ministers have stated that if anybody has hard evidence, he or she should inform the Garda but this raises the question of the different roles of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the DPP. Two complaints were lodged on a specific day with the Garda in Shannon. Has the DPP taken a decision regarding what will happen to such complaints, information about which has been provided by the Minister in the Dáil or the Seanad? Once again, we cannot make progress regarding what is suggested might be hard evidence.

I refer to the original decision relating to 24 October 2003 on the use of Shannon Airport. At the time, Oireachtas Members were aware a UN Security Council mandate had not been issued but, quite separate from that, there was a debate on the principle of pre-emption. While everyone acceded to the principle that countries had the right to defend themselves under the UN Charter, only one eminent lawyer in the English speaking world agreed with the principle of making a pre-emptive strike that equated with the danger and to a proportionate response. That was the British Attorney General but he did not believe in it, according to documents leaked afterwards. The 12 senior professors of international law in Great Britain signed a unanimous statement in which they said in their view pre-emption is a breach of international law. A country cannot retrospectively put a matter right when it has acted pre-emptively, although this does not preclude the country from addressing conditions and so on, as happened, for example, with the reconstruction of Iraq. The breaches of international law are clear but the issue that arises is whether the simple assurance from a friendly country suffices for Ireland to honour its obligations to comply with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Everybody, including the Government, agrees rendition is illegal but, at the same time, the mechanisms for verifying whether rendition is taking place are not available to us. With regard to the suggestion that hard evidence might be required, what constitutes evidence? International law and the conventions to which I have referred contain the phrase "widespread public concern". Has widespread public concern not been demonstrated internationally?

If a country at the mid-point of a flight plan chooses not to know and evidence is presented about the use of the instrument at the point of origin and the point of destination, it has not absolved itself of responsibility. The report refers to Question No. 44 to the Minister for Transport on Thursday, 24 November 2005. The two planes referred to in the question were N379P and N80868V and they were used to move the German citizen Khaled al-Masri from Macedonia to Afghanistan. He was imprisoned and, later, the US Secretary of State apologised and suggested the Americans had made a mistake. We are faced with a serious set of impasses and it behoves the committee to ask itself a number of questions. It needs to examine whether Mr. Justice Kearns' decision on the general use of Shannon Airport and the Hague Convention is being observed; whether Ireland can vindicate its acceptance of the UN and European conventions; and whether procedures are available for citizens to work through the Garda without the need for a political decision. Perhaps I am entirely wrong. If a decision has been made by the DPP, I would be delighted to hear it. The final question relates to the comment made by Ms Morgan. I agree that if an individual is being held on an aeroplane, which began its journey elsewhere and is travelling to another country, Ireland is involved if it lands at Shannon.

The delegation made a good presentation and we should calmly seek answers to these questions. We should also seek to advance in the way we have been asked by the alliance to resolve the blockages in our way. Otherwise, as night follows day, evidence at the point of origin or destination will emerge and we will be found to have done nothing. Parliamentary debates are ongoing worldwide. Poland, which had rejected the notion of black holes surrounding rendition, is conducting a government inquiry. The position has also changed in Sweden. Suggestions have been made that, as a result of parliamentary investigations in a number of EU member states, a flurry of activity took place in November to move a number of prisoners to north African countries, which do not accept the disciplines of the UN Convention Against Torture.

I salute the four witnesses. They behaved honourably, remarkably and wonderfully. They have done what our authorities should have done and significantly failed to do both politically and in regard to policing. I thank them, as an Irish citizen, for behaving the way they have. They have at least maintained some shred of integrity in this island. As Deputy Allen stated, they should not be hindered in taking photographs. I am glad they did because, clearly, the US is queasy about what it is doing and it is disguising the identity of the aircraft. As a result, a Minister misled Dáil Éireann by saying aeroplanes that had been named had not passed through Shannon Airport. Following an analysis of the material the alliance sent to me, I was able to demonstrate the US had changed the registration and the same aeroplane had passed through. Those aeroplanes are international pariahs and they are not accepted in many other countries. One of our European neighbours scrambled fighter jets to see them out of its airspace, yet Ireland cravenly allows the US to use ours.

I do not salute the behaviour of our authorities, which is contemptible and disgraceful. I would like the Chairman to withdraw the briefing note we received late this morning. It is an insult to the committee to be given such material. A number of allegations are listed and reference is made to repeated clear and explicit assurances from the US. Nobody believes the US authorities, not even their own people. A headline article in Newsweek last week laughed at and scorned European governments because of the ease with which they accepted the assurances from Condoleeza Rice. President Bush and Condeleeza Rice — and it pains me to have to say it — are confirmed, consistent and deliberate liars. They have lied and we know this perfectly well. Secretary of State Rice said the USA did not render prisoners to torture, but it has been proved repeatedly that it does, including proof by parliamentary committees in Sweden. We know prisoners are taken to Egypt. We may accept bland assurances from the American ambassador that what happens in Guantanamo is not torture, but that is a lie too. We should certainly not accept such assurances in this country as it was the State which took the United Kingdom Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of the Castlerea interrogation centre. Practices at the centre which were found to constitute torture were hooding, sleep deprivation and the use of white noise. The assurance on Guantanamo is, we know, another deliberate lie.

Paragraph 3 of the Department's briefing note states that the focus on the definition of "torture" incorporates a distinction which does not affect the assurances the Irish Government has received. It could not more materially affect it. According to the note, the USA assurances "state categorically that no such prisoners have been transported through Irish airports or airspace, nor would they be without the Government's permission". This is an evasion. Paragraph 5 says the Government is "completely opposed to the practice of ‘extraordinary rendition'. That such a practice might have the aim of delivering a prisoner to a jurisdiction in which he or she might be tortured or otherwise ill treated is disturbing and objectionable". It is a hell of a lot more than that, it is criminal. The note states further that the Government "has not and will not permit any flight engaged in extraordinary rendition to pass through Ireland". I demand that the document be withdrawn. It drags us into the lies. The Government has permitted at least one flight — but probably several — which was engaged in extraordinary rendition through the national airspace. The flight may not have been on the way out, but it was certainly on the way back and it means the statement that the Government has not permitted a flight "engaged in extraordinary rendition" is untrue. Chairman, I repeat my demand that the document be withdrawn.

The Government is attempting to create a situation whereby it can protect itself in international law by pretending not to have the requisite knowledge or mens rea. The best legal advice is that refuelling aircraft constitutes “facilitating criminal activity”. The contrary argument is that the accused party must know of the activity. How was it that the Government did not know given that the ordinary citizens in attendance today knew? I am an ordinary citizen who happens to be a backbench Member of Seanad Éireann and I know. Suspicions have been reported to the police. If the case was one involving drugs and the aircraft were vans which had been known to do nothing but transport cocaine and were found in the car park at Shannon Airport, the Garda would attend to the matter pretty bloody quickly. Why is the Garda not represented here today? I have written to Commissioner Noel Conroy to make my complaint and state my belief that a crime has been committed. In any other circumstance, the matter would be investigated. The briefing note continues:

In the light of the absolute assurances the Government has received, the Government will continue to follow the long-standing practice whereby details supplied to the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area by the US authorities are accepted in good faith as being accurate.

I do not so receive them. The document, which is supposed to be helpful and assist us, should be withdrawn as an affront to our intelligence.

We should be extremely grateful to the witnesses for collecting the invaluable information with which we have been presented. I hope the alliance will continue to collect information and make it available to us to enable us to continue these investigations. As a number of very important points, including specific, clear legal points, have been raised and teased out by Deputy Michael Higgins, I suggest we engage independent legal advice to establish what the position is under international law. Have the witnesses or their associates gathered information on the use of Baldonnel? There is media speculation, presenting itself as fact, to the effect that the CIA uses Baldonnel for rendition flights. The Department of Defence is sending bills for fuel to CIA shadow companies at post office boxes in central Africa. This is the extent to which our involvement may be miring us further in this appalling filth.

I salute the witnesses who are speaking out on behalf of the people, including an entire Christian family who were blown to smithereens in Baghdad when Bush tried to target Saddam Hussein by dropping a high impact bunker buster bomb down the chimney of a family home. What has happened in Iraq is appalling and the witnesses are among those who have stood up against it. I honour them for it and hope we maintain a positive contact with them.

I agree with the general view expressed thus far that the information with which the witnesses have provided the committee is invaluable.

Due to the nature of international diplomacy and the relationships between countries, it is inevitable that we must wait for history to write the real truth of what happens in intergovernmental and bilateral relations. I agree with much of what Deputy Michael Higgins has said about the function and remit of the committee in the context of what the witnesses are asking it to do. The Deputy used the word "trapped" which we are as politicians when one considers the questions which have been put to us. We have been asked if we believe the Government is lying and, if so, whether we have specific evidence to prove it. We have also been asked why the Government should lie and how, as members of Government parties, we should respond to continuing denials by a friendly country with which Ireland has very close cultural, emotional, familial and personal relations. America has been very good to Ireland in general and the part of Leitrim from which I come in particular. I am usually very reluctant to go out of my way to criticise the Government's attitude to bilateral relations with the United States of America. The Taoiseach said in the Dáil that the two most important bilateral relationships Ireland had were with the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I adopt that position as my starting point and make no apology for it. The witnesses have set out their stall and I have no criticism for what they do. I go some, though only a very short, way with my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Norris, in his admiration for what they are doing. I acknowledge that they do it for the noblest motives and wish sometimes that I had it in me to stand outside an airport, take photographs and protest.

I feel strongly about the same matters as the witnesses but while I do not criticise their motives and aspirations, I find much of what they have said to be somewhat one-sided. Nearly all of the destruction in Iraq over the past 12 months has come from insurgents and bandits and has resulted in suicide bombings and the killing of children. While some subscribe to the conspiracy theory that it has all been organised by the Americans, the consequence is that innocent people are being killed. It is salutary to remember that the general election in Iraq last week attracted a turnout of more than 80%, which is quite extraordinary in the circumstances. Rather interestingly, there was no violence in the day leading up to the election, during the election and in its immediate aftermath. It was switched off. The Sunni leaders complimented the insurgents for not carrying out violence. Some 70% of those who manned the polls and provided security in Iraq are Iraqis. Increasingly the "coalition of the willing" is standing back from active involvement in security operations in Iraq. From my perspective, what the people of Iraq are attempting to do is to be admired. They deserve our full support. By their actions last week they have, in effect, given the two fingers not just to the Americans operating in Iraq but to the insurgents as well. They do not want any more violence. They want to get on with their lives. We are all agreed that the sooner that happens, the better it will be for life in Iraq. What is going on right now among the people of Iraq is quite extraordinary and they deserve our full support.

In the context of the torture, do the witnesses have any comment to make on last week's announcements, specifically on the McCain amendment on torture which has been accepted by the White House? It would appear that the American Congress is going to put a fetter on the American Administration's ability to use torture in the way in which it allegedly has been used. On the face of it at least, it would appear that Congress will impose restrictions, as it has done in the past with previous administrations.

This next comment is not really directed at the witnesses. I am sure it was not the intention of Deputy Michael Higgins, by merging the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's duties and obligations with the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to infer that somehow the complaints that emanated from this group of distinguished people were not acted on because of political interference.

It is more than an inference. Clarification is required.

We have always accepted the independence of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Whenever anybody has attempted to draw the DPP's office into partisan politics it has always stood firmly for its independence and integrity.

I can recall, for example, a difference of opinion between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in regard to the use of tennis clubs for non-alcohol parties. The DPP had a strong view as to what was to be enforced by way of the law. In many cases it is not clear what has happened to the complaints that were genuinely lodged. We can ask questions of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but it is no longer clear to me that he is in a position to give any assurances in regard to compliance.

I am grateful for that clarification. However, I would be concerned if we as politicians were now to involve the independent office of the DPP in a political controversy to the effect that there is somehow a link between the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, specifically that complaints which have been made by the witnesses have not been acted on because of political interference. It is no more than an inference and it is really just a drawing together of innuendo. If one wants to embark on the conspiracy theory, this goes all the way back to the White House. There is a perception that somehow this Government is being manipulated by the American Administration, particularly in regard to issues such as those under discussion here today.

As an elected politician I am proud to be a Member of this Oireachtas. I totally and absolutely reject any suggestion that this is the case. I will hold to that view until evidence is put before me to the contrary. This is an important issue and one that requires a little more clarification. If Deputy Michael Higgins is uncertain as to the role of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, vis-à-vis, his relationship with the DPP, on these specific complaints, then it behoves the Administration to clarify them. Even in the absence of clarification, I believe there is no link between the two offices. The whole apparatus of jurisprudence here and the confidence the people have in the DPP’s office would collapse overnight if the view was taken that there was political interference in regard to this. This is about the normal diplomatic relations and arrangements between friendly nations. I know Deputy Higgins does not accept this but I do. In spite of what Senator Norris said and in light of the repeated denials by the US Secretary of State for the US, Deputy Michael Higgins does not have to believe it——

I do not believe it at all.

——but this is the reality of normal diplomatic relations and intergovernmental and intercountry relations, particularly between friendly nations.

I have already outlined the closeness of the relationship between Ireland and America. Americans, especially Irish-Americans, would not understand if a troop of gardaí was to board a plane in Shannon Airport on the basis of what has been suggested without any specific evidence. This point has been made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He will act on it if the evidence that has been referred to earlier is shown to him. That is fair enough if the United States is in contravention of the law or if we are in breach of our international obligations. I accept those assurances from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Government. I also accept them from the American Government until such time as there is evidence to the contrary. No evidence has been produced other than circumstantial evidence. Even those countries in Europe who have shown concern say they accept what the Government of the United States says until evidence to the contrary is produced. The United States was so concerned that it dispatched Condoleezza Rice off to Europe a couple of weeks ago to reassure its allies.

I will not change anyone's mind on this but I am putting forward my view. I understand that this is a very emotive issue. It is important that this group should appear before the committee and bring the information it has before it. As parliamentarians, we should also investigate what is going on. I fully support this view that was expressed at the previous meeting which, unfortunately, I could not attend. Such an approach would also highlight the independence of this committee which has a proud record of independence, irrespective of what Administration has been in power. I have been a member of the committee for ten years. I fully support any move by the committee to embark on an investigation similar to those being carried out by our parliamentary colleagues in Europe. There is no doubt that there is a growing body of evidence. Mr. Dick Marty, whom I know from the Council of Europe, is a most distinguished Swiss politician who has embarked on a number of reports in the past on issues that related to human rights.

Overall, I welcome the fact that the Midwest Alliance against the War is here. The information the group has provided is important but there is a one-sided nature to what has been said. In all that has been said about the condemnation of the United States and what is going on in Iraq, not once have I heard it said that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing for the people of Iraq or that what is going on there currently is an abomination and that people are being killed who have nothing directly to do with the United States forces. In the context of Ireland's engagement of support for the war in Iraq, why is it, if we were being seen to support Iraq that when the US issued a list of countries that could tender for contracts in Iraq, Ireland was not included on that list?

I thank the delegation for appearing before us. I was not at the last meeting at which the committee decided to invite the Midwest Alliance against the War to attend. I missed one speaker but heard the other three.

As so generously acknowledged by Deputy Michael Higgins, the Seanad has been debating this issue on and off for quite a while. I had to discipline myself very strongly because I wanted to be as objective as possible, stand back from the issue as often as I could, read everything I could about it, listen to the views of others and watch programmes that addressed it. I wanted to try gathering in my head, in an intelligent way, the various points and reach a conclusion. I do not agree with everything said by the delegates but I am totally of the view that there have been incidents of which we would not be proud as a country. To that end, Senator Norris proposed in the Seanad one morning that we have a Seanad committee to report on this matter and feed in, if possible, to the deliberations of the Council of Europe.

The spokespersons for the five groups in the Seanad met the Clerk of the Seanad and she introduced us to the legal adviser of both Houses, who said we had every right to set up a Seanad select committee to deal with the issue. Having garnered that knowledge, we met on approximately four occasions to hammer out the terms of reference. When we adjourned very late last Friday evening we had not clarified them completely. They are nearly complete and we have had valuable input from both Senators Norris and Minihan in this regard. We have deferred the issue until the middle of January, when we are to meet again. On that day or the following day, our terms of reference will be agreed and they will have to be put on the Order Paper of the Seanad and agreed in the House.

The proposed inquiry is not about bashing but to feed into the growing democratic wish that there be sound knowledge gained on what is happening — that is really the point. People do not want to go off at half cocked but want to know exactly what has happened. Of late, particularly since the rendition issue appeared on the agenda, they want to know where, when, why and how. I do not see any conflict between desiring the truth and our being a friend to the United States and it being a friend to us. I do not understand arguments to the effect that, if one feels fine about the United States and it feels fine about us, we should keep our mouths shut. This argument does not lead one anywhere but into a cul de sac. We can all be very pleased about our fine relationships with the United States and, as I discerned last May, about the McCain proposals and what they hope to achieve. This does not cloud my judgment or intellectual curiosity in respect of finding out what exactly is happening.

Just as Christ said there are many mansions in his Father's house, it can be said there are many mansions in the US house, and therefore, because one feels good about the country, one does not have to say everything its authorities does is good. I assume the same applies to our country. I do not analyse this issue in terms of conflict.

The Chairman invited the US ambassador to appear before the committee. I would bet any money that he will not come because he will not get permission from Washington to do so. Apparently he must have permission for everything he says or does. He is an employee of the Department of State and takes his orders and does his job accordingly.

The Seanad has, in principle, taken the decision to set up a select committee of the Seanad composed of members of all the groupings on a cross-party basis. We are preparing our terms of reference, which will have to be put on the Order Paper and agreed by the House. We are preparing them in light of the fact that there is growing democratic unease and disquiet among various countries right across Europe. It is culminating in the Council of Europe, which is asking questions of Ireland to which it requires full answers by 21 February. We want to join in that debate.

The Dáil and Seanad are composed of people with different inclinations and ways of looking at matters. We are not all like Dolly the cloned sheep, bobbing our heads up and down. If we were, there would be no democracy. We are all of different minds, capabilities and parties. I followed all Ms Kelly's escapades — I hope she does not mind my using this word and I do not mean it in a nasty way — and do not approve of them. It is not the way I would do my business. I do not mean this in a punitive or derogatory way. Just as other people spoke from their hearts around the table, I am speaking from mine. At the same time, I admire the tenacity with which the group has addressed and continues to address this issue, and I was very taken with the various qualifications of the delegates. I felt this boded well regarding the final outcome.

The democratic process benefits by having people who question matters. What is the point in living in a democracy if we cannot do so? I admire the Chairman and members of the committee for deciding to invite the Midwest Alliance against the War to tell its tale. Nobody else saw fit to do this and in this regard I congratulate Deputy Woods, who could have turned his head the other way and said there was not enough time in the run-up to Christmas. This would have caused further delays, with the consequent results.

I do not know what success we will have in the Seanad. People will ask what we can achieve. The terms of reference will be important to us but we have shadow terms of reference. When one sets up a select committee, the Seanad provides the office and administrative personnel to deal with it. This will also be helpful to us. It would be good if everyone present kept in contact so the representatives will know what the committee is doing and vice versa. As Leader of the Seanad, I should bend my mind to this issue. I hope we can all do so fruitfully and that there will be a very positive outcome within Europe. Europe is moving towards this.

I am not a member of the committee and am therefore very grateful to the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to speak. Unfortunately, I did not hear all the contributions although I am very familiar with the arguments and know many of the delegates personally. Elected representatives and the people owe the delegates a great debt of gratitude for all their work, which is unpaid. I know how hard they work, day and night, to bring us the truth. We are talking about the truth, which is what we all want.

Senator Mooney stated he has friends and family in the United States — so do I and many people present. However, our objection to US foreign policy does not make us anti-American. If this were the case, the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in George Bush would be anti-American. It simply does not make sense to insinuate that those of us who find objectionable what is happening right now in American foreign policy are somehow anti-American. I speak for everyone, including the delegation, when I say that. The fact is George W. Bush has been shown to be a liar, as have the neo-conservative troupe who back him. I regard him as nothing more than a puppet while these people are ideologically driven and believe in the necessity of lying. This war was based on a massive lie. Colin Powell went to the United Nations and lied barefacedly. Listening to his latest interviews, he appears to be slightly ashamed of what he did.

He would like to get out of it.

At least he is aware what he did was wrong.

Senator Mooney mentioned what is going on in Iraq. In Iraq suicide bombings are happening because of the invasion. There are no two ways about it. Yes, there is a war going on in Iraq and that war continues today. We should not buy the Bush line that somehow the war ended and now there is only a terrorist action; the war is continuing with horrendous casualties for all involved, most especially Iraqi civilians.

We are looking for the truth but when 100,000 people marched in the streets of Dublin, it was interesting to see how the truth was bent when the Taoiseach and other Government representatives said it was fantastic so many people were out supporting the Government. That was an eye opener to the twisting of reality.

The presentation has been interesting in the way Mr. Ed Horgan has revealed another lie, the lie that is repeated in the Dáil when the Minister for Foreign Affairs time and again says this tradition of assisting the United States goes back 50 years. That is a lie, it is simply not true. If this committee does anything, I hope it nails that lie and we state that it is not true. We have a proud tradition going back to the late Deputy Frank Aiken, who stood up for Irish neutrality. That tradition, however, has now been dismantled, and more by this Government than by any other, including Fine Gael, which does not believe in Irish neutrality. That is the irony.

I commend the group on its work. I had occasion to be in the peace camp one evening and I recall going into the airport in a car and being stopped. The gardaí said in quite an arbitrary manner that we could not go any further and it was only when they discovered there was a Member of the Dáil in the car that they allowed us to continue. That is the Ireland in which we now live, where the law is made up as the gardaí see fit. That is the scariest thing, to kowtow to the United States, and the Garda Síochána and other authorities are making up the law as they go along. That is fundamentally wrong. I have seen people such as Tim Harrigan and Ed Horgan, who are identifiable to the authorities in the area, being told to move along when they are in the airport and being questioned. That is a clear infringement of their civil liberties.

It is clear from all of the evidence that has been gathered and the legal opinions we have received from other parliaments, most recently the British, that even the mere refuelling of planes at Shannon is a breach of international law. No American plane should land in Shannon because it breaches our neutrality and the Americans should not treat Shannon as a military airport. I have had telephones calls in the past week telling me that not only is Shannon being used, but the environs of Shannon are full of American troops in uniform treating the country as if it is another state of the US. That is how far the situation has gone. If it were not for people like the delegation, this would never have been revealed.

The group has been vindicated today and its appearance before a committee of the Oireachtas is a good sign. I am also encouraged, even though there are diverse views around this table, that for the most part people are genuinely concerned and want to get to the bottom of this. The way to do that is by carrying out a full investigation. If people do not fear the truth and have nothing to hide, they should allow searches. The fact is they have much to hide. Our airspace and airports have been used and we have breached international law. It is time to stop kowtowing to the United States.

I am reminded of a teacher I had in Enniscorthy CBS many years ago called Micheál Tóibín. Many of the committee would know his son, Colm Tóibín. When discussing matters of great gravity, he used to say, "I have not time to be brief," and would keep us half an hour longer than all the other classes. Today is an example of when it is difficult to be brief because of the levels of emotion this debate incites. Most people have taken polarised positions on the war in Iraq but, unfortunately, we cannot rewrite history and it has happened. We are morally bound, therefore, to facilitate the emergence of a peaceful, democratic Iraq, if democracy is the best way forward for the country.

We have a role to play and it is important, because of the polarised positions, with statements that MAMA makes and the statements Condoleeza Rice and the American Government make to our Government, to present proof that Shannon is being used. I received the group's document only this morning and I have not time to read it; perhaps it contains proof that prisoners are on board the planes. If the group can give us that proof, as a committee we might be able to become involved. Until we get it, however, we can talk emotionally from morning until night and make compelling speeches on both sides, some of which will grab the attention of the media, but they do not bring us any further down the road to knowing exactly what is happening. I believe what the Government is saying to me and I will continue to believe until someone proves differently to me. Then I will be prepared to listen and to act.

I welcome the group, although unfortunately I was not able to be here for the start of the presentation. I saw most of it on the monitor in my office.

As a committee and a nation, we should set out certain principles on this issue. From my party's point of view, we have always advocated, since the time of Éamon de Valera, a strict policy of military neutrality, where we do not involve ourselves in any foreign adventures or wars. In so far as the Irish Army has been involved in military activity, it has been exclusively in peacekeeping activities under the authorisation of the United Nations. We all know about the triple lock mechanism, which serves as a brake on any Irish Government thinking of participating in military activity. Some political parties, such as the Fine Gael Party, have advocated a change in this policy. Fine Gael advocated Ireland's membership of a European military alliance. I found repugnant the idea of increased militarisation, floated in the draft EU constitution. It is not Europe's business to become involved in the arms industry in a centralised way or in military adventures. It is good for Ireland, as a militarily neutral country, to have the UN as its policy umbrella in this area. Once we stick to this rigidly, Ireland Inc. and the nation cannot go wrong.

I welcome the Midwest Alliance against the War highlighting the issue of Shannon Airport. As Senator O'Rourke said, it requires further discussion and investigation. I am stronger, however, in my condemnation than Senator O'Rourke about some of the group's activities. The most eloquent protest is the peaceful one. The best people who have affected change have done so peacefully. In so far as some of the group's activities may not have been peaceful, I must dissociate from them.

Mr. Horgan

Chairman, may I reply?

Mr. Horgan can do so in a general reply.

Mr. Horgan

It is an important point. One of the group's members is currently before the courts and her case is up for appeal. As we are not in a position to respond to this point, we ask the committee to honour this. Some of us, including myself, have been arrested and through the courts. I am no longer involved with the courts, so I will take the questions on that matter.

I was just setting out a statement of principle and was not referring to specific events or people.

The strongest and most eloquent protest and statement of principle is that which is expressed peacefully. I will not be cowed into not saying this. In the first part of my contribution, I welcomed the group's highlighting of the issue, but in so far as it needs to be taken further, it must be done peacefully.

The question of neutrality and Shannon Airport is an interesting one. As our briefing note indicates, all political parties and Governments since the 1950s have allowed for certain refuelling and stopover facilities at Shannon Airport. To what extent, if any, does this impinge upon our neutrality? I would answer that rhetorical question in the following way. It is a question of degree. For example, various Irish computer firms make sophisticated software, some of which may find itself into US military hardware. Is that a breach of our neutrality? The beef of certain Irish food processors may end up being used as food for armies of illegal occupation. Is that a breach of our neutrality? I think not as it is a question of degree and intent.

Is it a breach of our neutrality to merely allow a military aeroplane to stop and refuel at an airport? The answer is probably not, more so if there is UN authorisation for the particular activity. I agree with some of the comments made by Deputy Michael D. Higgins. At the last meeting, I condemned any illegal use by the US or any other country of the rendition of people. I subscribe to the Strasbourg convention that outlaws any degrading or inhuman treatment of anyone, prisoners or otherwise. The highest standards must apply.

I would have not the slightest problem in establishing a protocol whereby inspections of US military or any other aircraft could be carried out if we allowed them use of our facilities. Why would the US have a problem with this? However, I will not say that Ireland Inc. will close its mind and heart to those to whom it is closest? We have our interests and relationships which are important to us.

I certainly would not support any more military activity in Shannon Airport. Bombers landing there and loading ammunition would be crossing the line. The challenge to the Oireachtas and the Government is that it is high time a protocol was drawn up for the use of Shannon Airport for all aircraft involved in conflicts. It must be approved by Dáil Éireann and understood by the people and other countries. If there was another war which was not authorised or sanctioned by the UN, would Ireland allow a belligerent power in the war to stop at Shannon? I would be horrified if we did.

This infringement of neutrality, which I have demonstrated is a question of degree, shows that Deputy Gormley's argument is simply wrong. To argue that even indirect assistance is a breach of neutrality is fallacious. Many other strictly neutral countries have some of the largest armament industries. They supply arms to every second battlefield in the world while maintaining strict neutrality on their own territory. I am critical of those talking up the notion that Ireland has abandoned its neutrality. I reject that argument. Ireland's adherence to neutrality has been fully observed. All Governments have shown great respect to the umbrella of policy that is the UN. Some groups, including Deputy Gormley and the Green Party, are talking up the notion that we have abandoned our neutrality for their own political ends. I am offended by this suggestion because it has not been demonstrated to me that any Government, especially this one, has abandoned the policy of neutrality, of which I am very proud.

Like other speakers, I have friends and close relatives in the US. I would like to feel the US and this country have had a good relationship since the foundation of the State and before. That does not necessarily mean that one should succumb or acquiesce to the view put forward at any given time by friends or otherwise. Within that ambit we should feel free to speak in this committee and in the House.

Much has been made of the neutrality issue. We have been neutral when it suited us as a nation. If circumstances were different and the cards had fallen differently we might have had to declare our hand one way or the other. Accordingly there is no sense in us promulgating the notion of neutrality on the basis that it was the great saviour of the human race or that it is a tradition which we would all espouse in the future. That is not the way things work. It is not the way history works, nor is it the way history illustrates how neutrality works. I will briefly recall, vis-à-vis neutrality, a discussion I had with a military person here many years ago.

In respect of the anti-conscription league?

It was not that far back, though the person I speak of would have gone back that far. He suggested to me that in the event of a landing, during the Second World War, by one or other of the main protagonists, we would have been capable of withstanding such an attack. I took that with a grain of salt, and still do. I do not think we could have withstood such an attack. What worried me was that he believed it was possible, and he was upholding the neutral tradition, which he thought right, and was probably correct in thinking that. However, in the event of there being an aggressor, I believe he would have learned a hard lesson very quickly. Such events befell much greater neutral powers than this country. It is therefore no harm for us to remember that neutrality is not necessarily the great all-saving device people make it out to be.

The rights and wrongs of war are another issue, as is the truth. There has been reference to various people telling lies. I do not know whether they are lies, but in any war, the truth is usually embellished. In peacetime the truth is often embellished, but without any doubt the truth becomes well and truly embellished in a war, and is very often the first casualty. Everything surrounding a war, whether it be right or wrong, always carries propaganda with it. What is put forward does not have to be the truth — it is propaganda. Half of the time, yarns are being told. That is still propaganda, meant to sell a product, the product being the cause, whatever it may be. The cause may be right or wrong.

Like many people, I initially felt this war was unnecessary and was based on very dubious grounds. It would appear this was the case at the time, but the difficulties have moved on since then. The sun has risen and set since then and we are now facing a different situation in terms of whether there should be an immediate withdrawal or a climb-down. I worry about that because as any military authority or writer will point out, the last thing one does in such a situation is walk back over the ground, even though one is wrong. Those involved do not do so.

I previously expressed in the House, as did all the committee members present at various times, dissatisfaction with the notion that perhaps the rules might be bent to suit a particular situation. When I spoke in the House some time ago about the possibility of prisoners being mistreated, I very quickly received an interesting letter from the US, which took only a couple of days for it to arrive on my desk. I resented that letter and still do, because we have the right to comment on such matters. Nobody has the right to mistreat a prisoner, whoever he or she may be. Mistreatment of prisoners has always reflected poorly on those who mistreat them and has usually led to undermining the cause involved, whatever it may be. We have ample illustration of that in this island and across Europe. We need to be clear that mistreatment of prisoners is wholly unacceptable and we should never lend any kind of imprimatur or authority to those, under any guise, who take it on themselves to mistreat prisoners, because a prisoner, by virtue of being a prisoner, is in the hands and the total control of the captor. The onus is on the captor to be magnanimous.

Another issue is whether Shannon Airport or any other airport is being used to transport prisoners for interrogation or mistreatment elsewhere. A distinction needs to be drawn. It may well be that a legitimate prisoner who has done wrong must be transported somewhere. However, to transport a prisoner from one location to another for the purpose of mistreatment is not acceptable under any guise.

Like everyone else here, I can only depend on what the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can tell us. They tell us they have no evidence — though it is a little facetious of them to suggest that the Opposition or some Members of the House should go and get evidence. The fact is that we do not know. We must presume that the Minister or Ministers are telling us the truth. We must also presume they are being told the truth.

Within those two elements hangs a tale and a question. If the Minister is not being told the truth, there will unfortunately be consequences for all concerned — the Minister and the people from whom he receives his information. If the information is found to be false, there are consequences for the Minister receiving that information and passing it on to the rest of us, and for the people who give that information. I need not spell out matters further, but there are serious international consequences, and it would be very foolish of the Minister to accept any information given unless he has ways and means of verifying it. It would be equally stupid and ridiculous of a major power to give false or misleading information to a friendly country. I am not referring to a neutral country but to a friendly country, a different article.

The Minister has a responsibility to ascertain, in so far as he can, the truth or falsity of the information made available to him from various sources, and to ensure that the onus is put on the people who give this information. International diplomatic circles have a rule of thumb that they tell each other the truth at some level, that they engage with each other. They may say one thing publicly and another thing privately. That is not unknown in those circles. Nevertheless, whatever is happening should be put on a level at this stage so that we might all know what we are talking about and whether things are more serious than they might appear on the surface.

I do not uphold or support any attempt by anyone to subvert the laws of the land or to interfere with airports, for example. Such interference is very dangerous for those who interfere and those at the receiving end.

There are other elements which need to be clarified for us as Members of the Oireachtas. If further information comes to hand, the Minister or Ministers have a duty and obligation to make it available to the House. Those providing information also have a duty to seek out verification from whatever authoritative source they can find and bring that to the attention of our Minister or Ministers. I want to put that on the record, in case some members have a different view or interpretation of what I said. Like everyone else, I am here to seek the truth. I will continue to say exactly what Deputy Durkan has said. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, have received information from the head of a friendly country repeatedly and consistently denying what has been alleged, until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, we must accept it.

We have had an extensive discussion on the matters that we came here to address. Before I ask the delegation to reply and make any relevant points — there is no need to reply to everything — I thank the witnesses for using their discretion to not refer today to matters before the courts. They are not required to respond to any issues raised by members that might intrude on them.

The delegation has heard various contributions from members, and its work has obviously stimulated a great deal of interest. Deputy Michael D. Higgins pointed out that the Council of Europe has undertaken an investigation. It will be a very important inquiry into torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and any activities taking place in that regard. The European Parliament is also carrying out such an investigation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has given a commitment that he will co-operate fully with those investigations. There will be a great deal more to be said regarding the investigations, and international interest in the affair and in trying to get to the bottom of it has grown considerably, particularly in parliaments, as the witnesses are probably aware. We will seek answers to the questions they have put today, once again as proposed by Deputy Michael D. Higgins.

The committee sent a delegation to Iraq before the war began and has been interested and involved all the way through. It has tried from the very outset to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict that unfortunately took place there. The issue has been repeatedly raised and debated in the Dáil and in Seanad Éireann. As Senator O'Rourke and others have pointed out, the latter is establishing a select committee. We welcome that committee and trust that it will enjoy success in its work.

I welcome Senator John McCain's proposal to ban all torture and degrading or inhuman treatment, something that appears to have President Bush's support. This is all very recent to us, but we are fairly familiar with Senator McCain, who is working with us on the problem of the undocumented Irish. He is a very forceful and strong member of the Senate in the US. He has been working on the undocumented Irish with Senator Ted Kennedy. He has therefore been prepared to go out on a limb on such issues, and we hope the step that he has now taken, regarding which we do not have all the information, owing to its recentness, is a sign of a very strong and explicit commitment on the part of the US. We will wait and see what happens in that regard.

That he could not get the numbers in Congress might be a more realistic assessment of the reason, welcome as it is.

There are also hopeful signs in Iraq after the recent elections; it is another matter on which we must simply hope. The committee sent a delegation to Israel and Palestine, meeting both sides and having very good discussions at a fairly important time.

It was very depressing, since the situation has worsened.

Yes, that is currently so. Some of the discussions were very depressing and indicated what is apparently on the horizon. Before we conclude, I invite the witnesses to deal with any key points raised in the discussion.

Mr. Horgan

I express our sincere thanks. If we did not feel this committee is genuine, we would not be here. We know from its recent history that it has done excellent work. We appreciate the opportunity to address it. I am quite sure that members' remarks are genuine.

I would like to address the main points that arose. Several Deputies, especially those from the west of Ireland, mentioned the connection between Ireland and the United States. I am American, since my mother was an American citizen. I happened to love her. At the moment I have a nephew who is a US marines sergeant in Falluja. I have another who is British and is an RAF sergeant in Basra. Whenever I hear that a US marine has been killed, particularly in Falluja, as has happened several times recently, it takes me between 24 and 48 hours to find out if my nephew is still alive. I have more relations in the States and more respect for that country as a democracy than for most, if not all, others. In many respects, I am an American type of person, and I also have strong British connections.

If I might speak for the others, we are not anti-American. Neither would we be so. I have a small number of friends in Iraq, and one of them is here as a visitor. I am very concerned at the idea that our friendship with America is being used as justification for what can only be the other side of the coin: enmity with Iraq. How can we possibly justify supporting an illegal war that kills so many Iraqi children in particular? We must not adopt a "them and us" mentality.

Who said that? I would like to know.

Perhaps Mr. Horgan might stick to the factual questions raised and make his own points very clear. He has already clarified his position.

Mr. Horgan

Fine. With regard to Deputy Allen's point on the UN, it has been a common response recently that what is happening now in Iraq is supported by a UN resolution. The war itself in 2003 was quite clearly not supported by such a resolution. It was unlawful, unjustified and hugely disproportionate by any international standards. After the war, which is arguably still ongoing, but at any rate at a certain stage, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1483 purporting to provide retrospective justification for the war and occupation. I draw members' attention to a UN General Assembly declaration of 1970, which enshrined as a principle of the United Nations that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal". One cannot justify an occupation in hindsight. The UN is quite capable of——

I do not think they did. With respect, Mr. Horgan has been making that point repeatedly. The resolution was not about that but about the United Nations supporting it. The organisation cannot go in there, owing to the security situation, as Mr. Horgan well knows. I do not accept his interpretation of that resolution. I must put that on the record, since it is a key issue.

It is now on the record.

Yes, the issue is whether one can retrospectively pass a resolution, for example, to justify pre-emption. We can have all that investigated, as Deputy Mulcahy suggested.

Mr. Horgan

The issues of the Hague Convention were raised, in particular——

The issues of law and interpretation are worthy of investigation.

We could go back and debate every issue, as Mr. Horgan can see. Are there any other points he would like to make?

Mr. Horgan

The issues of neutrality and the Hague Convention were raised. It was suggested by Deputy Mulcahy, I believe, that Ireland is still a neutral country and he expressed a contradiction to the effect that he would be opposed to Shannon Airport being used in any future war that did not have a Security Council resolution. What about the war in 2003? Was he opposed to it being used then, and what is the difference? Quite clearly, the Hague Convention is very specific. The territory of neutral powers is inviolable. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions for war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power. It is there in black and white. If Ireland wants to be a neutral country it must abide by very basic rules and it is not doing that. We are not a neutral state. I would love if that were the case, but we are not and it is wrong to claim that we are. We must be either one or the other.

I appreciate the views expressed by Deputy Allen. Quite clearly he does not support the concept of neutrality as some of us do.

I have a brief supplementary question on this for the group. If the UN authorised military activity in some part of the world, would the group be opposed to US airplanes participating in that action refuelling at Shannon?

Mr. Horgan

Yes, in the same way that Switzerland would oppose the landing of US military planes in its territory.

That is the point of departure. On the one hand we have always lodged our foreign and security policy under the UN umbrella. This group is now saying we should alter that——

Mr. Horgan

That was so except in March 2003, when we walked right over the UN umbrella.

Can we leave that for the moment as a matter of disagreement?

Yes, but it is important to note it.

Let us note it and we can discuss it again.

It is a matter of whether we are in compliance with the United Nations Charter. All these issues could and should be clarified. I stick to the point and state it baldly, for example, as regards when the matter is being investigated, that pre-emption is in violation of the UN Charter.

Following on what Deputy Michael D. Higgins has said and because of the Chairman's remarks and the controversial and emotive nature of this issue, I do not believe we will resolve the differing positions. I am not attempting to diminish the group's contribution in urging it perhaps to address specific questions that were raised rather than expressing views on a position it has already made. I am only trying to be helpful because we have been sitting for over two hours.

Mr. Horgan

We will try to be brief. The specific issues raised concerned US planes being searched and investigations being carried out at Shannon Airport. Several members of the committee made the point there is a duty on a mysterious somebody such as this group or whatever to provide the evidence. There is not. There is a duty vested in the power of the State, namely, the Garda Síochána, to investigate and it is failing to do so. I am not empowered to do so. I have done so at great expense to myself, but it is not the duty of members of this group. It is the committee's duty, in part, and that of the Garda.

The important issue of the Director of Public Prosecutions was raised. That is an issue I want to address. Up to one hundred peace activists have been arrested, searched and imprisoned. I can speak about this because I have been arrested four times. I have been brought through the courts and found not guilty of spurious charges. The DPP has had no problem in agreeing that Mr. Edward Horgan should be prosecuted for spurious alleged offences of protesting in a non-violent and legal manner. When I made a complaint to the Garda at Shannon Airport, requesting planes to be searched, and troops or whatever arrested, that was referred to the DPP. However, no American troops were arrested or CIA planes searched, and that was a decision taken by the DPP. There is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Mr. Horgan has made that point. Perhaps he can go on to the next one.

Mr. Horgan

The situation in Iraq is grievously serious. We, the people of Ireland, as citizens, and members of the committee, as legislators, are part of that situation. We have become unjustifiably involved in what has happened. Our neighbours are all mankind. Senator O'Rourke made a point about "my Father's house", but we have absolute responsibilities under the United Nations to the people of Iraq. I pointed out in my submission that the United Nations is quite capable of being in breach of its charter and has been on several occasions, including the Korean War. Ireland is not bound to obey a flawed decision of the UN Security Council. It is, however, bound to obey the broad principles of international law and those of the UN Charter, especially the principles of non-violence. It is very important that we respect, support and reform the UN and not abuse it. Most importantly, we should not abuse the innocent people who are being killed in large numbers.

I do not want to re-open the debate, but it was I, not Deputy Allen, who made the reference to neutrality. My views on neutrality are quite well known. I am quite happy to debate them with anybody, anytime, anywhere and in any forum.

We are way over time, so I am afraid we will have to bring matters to a close.

Mr. Hourigan

I will try to be as brief as possible. Some questions were directed specifically towards me. The first was from Deputy Allen, who asked who had attempted to prevent us taking photographs at Shannon. While not wishing to tar the airport police and the Garda Síochána with the one brush because some of them behaved quite respectably, others have repeatedly pushed us around and taken cameras from us. At night-time they have placed power spotlights on top of vans and shone them down the lenses of cameras and telescopes, which could cause great damage to eyes. Cameras have been taken and film destroyed.

We were asked whether we had made complaints about such incidents. A colleague, who is not with us today, and I met the airport director to voice complaints to the effect that what we were doing was not illegal and we would not accept being treated in that manner. We were simply told we were not being treated in that manner and there has been no resolution to that.

We were also asked what evidence we had about the Government's involvement. Unfortunately, there are different standards for evidence depending on the occasion. Without going into matters in detail, the evidence demanded by the investigating detective is of the highest level, namely, a photograph of someone being tortured on the plane at Shannon. Not only is that evidence so strong as to render any defence impractical, it is more than sufficient to justify intervention by the Garda. In any event, the Act, which makes torture a criminal offence and seeks the punishment of the torturer, does not require the presence of the victim.

As for evidence to the effect that the Government lied, it does not give me any pleasure to say that I was at Shannon Airport, as were two of my colleagues here, on an occasion when the State's response to the situation there was that troops were returning home from Germany. I saw that the troops were wearing desert uniforms, so that certainly was not correct information. When it was being said repeatedly that it was hoped the weapons of mass destruction issue would be resolved, it later emerged that Department of Foreign Affairs experts who saw the dossier — as Ireland was still on the Security Council at the time — said they did not believe it for technical and political reasons. Like millions of other citizens, I believe we were not given the full picture.

We were invited to comment on the McCain resolution. While we welcome another law banning torture, there are plenty already and I should prefer if those were adhered to rather than new regulations and protocols being invented. The problem with congressional oversight is that many CIA activities are designed to be deniable. Part of the problem is that the aircraft are not marked as military aircraft and not declared as diplomatic aircraft, nevertheless we treat them as if they have diplomatic immunity. I explain to the Garda Síochána at each stage that the register owners are fictitious companies. Unfortunately, the McCain resolution will not have much force and effect unless there is actual verification.

We have a long-standing relationship and respect for the United States. The late US President Ronald Reagan came up with the phrase "trust, but verify". Relationships are built on respect and if the US respects us and we respect it, it should have no problem with the assertion that procedures must be adhered to and searches must be carried out. If the US states there is nothing to find, it should not be concerned if we look. That does justice to the laws that were set down after a great deal of work by the legislators.

It has been asserted in discussion that there is no power to carry out a search of the aircraft, however I have been forced by my experiences at Shannon to look into the laws and that assertion is not true. The Air Navigation and Transport (Indemnities) Act 2005 enables an authorised officer, which is not necessarily a member of the Garda Síochána but can be a warranted officer of the airport police, to inspect any aircraft to check that the goods on boards match what was declared on the manifest. I understand that the manifest is not filled out in many cases. It distresses me to hear Ministers stating the opposite is the case. The powers granted in the Act should be enforced. It erodes our laws, democracy and international relations not to enforce it.

We should remember the highlighted cases where people were taken and later released without charge, having endured terrible things, lest anybody try to suggest that we standing up for the rights of terrorists. Khaled al-Masri or the Canadian, Mr. Maher Arar, were not terrorists, but they were taken on these aircraft, some of which were in Shannon, and the same practice might possibly be going on through Shannon Airport and we have a duty to stop it.

It has been stated that much of what we say is one-sided. The majority of the group is based in Limerick and Cork and not in Baghdad. If Iran, Iraq or some other country were flying through Shannon to attack the United States or Canada, we would be making the same effort to expose and stop it as we were doing to stop the US military coming through Shannon to attack Iraq. We do not favour one side over the other. We assert that we must adhere to what is legal and not to what is politically expedient.

On behalf of the joint committee I thank the witnesses for appearing before us and for dealing with these very contentious and serious issues in a calm and considered way.

Mr. Horgan

We appreciate the manner in which the joint committee addressed this important topic.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.45 p.m. and adjourned at 1.50 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share