vous pouvez compter sur moi étant dans le mouvement des droits de l’homme .

Elle semble dire que si elle obtient des evidences sur lesdites vols
A travers l’airport Shannon, la Police Irlandais (Garda Siochana ) dans ce cas Agira .

Naturellement elle peut réellement ne pas dire cela; sa citation
si nous pensons approprié à l’avenir de regarder sur cela nous le faisons.

Les droits de l’homme est essentiel dans le maintien de l’ordre et dans le travail de police son expression n’est pas la plus pleine forme d’engagement possible sur une telle question.

En outre elle est peu susceptible face à n’importe quel dilemme à l’avenir sur cette question.

Le 7 octobre 2004, Dermot Ahern le minister Irlandais des affaires étrangères a dit au Dail ( Chambre basse du parlement Irlandais )

Le gouvernement n’a aucune information pour indiquer que des prisonniers sont transportés a travers les aéroports irlandais à et de Guantanamo ou ailleurs.
La raison- selon lui- est que les autorités Americains
ont confirmé à l’ambassade d’Irlande aux Etats-Unis que Washington n’a pas utilise’s les airports Irlandais a cette fin et qu’elles ne chercheraient pas à le faire sans obtenir l’autorisation des autorités Irlandaises.

En fait,le record de la police Irlandaise (garda) sur cette question n’est pas sans mérite.
Cependant, le record Americain dans ce domaine n’est pas propre.

Comme dans l’affaire ‘Etats-Unis –v- Alvarez-Machain’( 1992,504 US 655 )
ou est apparu que les agents des USA ont transfere’ un accusé du
Mexique et l’ont transfere’ clandestinement aux Etats Unis ou il s’est trouve’ face aux accusations criminels.

En outre le gouvernement Americain ,a travers Theodore B. Olson, a argumente’ que

malgré leur rareté, les actions extraterritoriales d’application de loi sans coopération avec des gouvernements étrangers sont parfois crucial à l’administration de la justice et de la sécurité nationale Americaine .

Bien, il ne l’a pas réclamé réellement étre légal, mais l’idée que, le Governement Irlandais doit accepter –en bonne fois- ce que son homologue Americain lui indique, est une ide’e morte dans l’eau.

Under the deal he will plead guilty to minor sexual offences and will not be tried for rape. He will resign two weeks ahead of the expiry of his term of office.

The complainants do not appear to have agreed to the deal. The first complainant, “Ms A�, stated:

It [the deal]

gave sex offenders license and legitimacy to do anything they want with impunity.

The Attorney General gave as his reason

it was important to spare Israel the sight of a president on trial.

There could be no better example of an act taken for “Raisons d’Etat�, and of course what happened was not a judicial process being a classic insider fix and a denial of the Rule of Law.

It should always be remembered, the State is an abstraction and the women are real. To prefer an abstraction over a person is to promote crime.

The interests of the State, but more importantly, the people, require that the deal not stand.

Jeffrey Archer has written a new book, – “The Gospel According to Judasâ€?.

He says he wanted it to be a gospel; that it be in verse; that it be credible scholarship. So, he had the assistance of Fr. Francis J. Moloney S D B

A report coming to hand says it looks, feels and reads like a gospel, and the author’s name is absent from the cover. (Actually it purports to be written by “Benjamin Iscariot”).

So, Archer being Archer, we can expect heavy advertising for the book.

Which raises the question; what will Today FM do if Archer’s publisher places a radio advertisement with the station?

Will Today FM react as it did when Trocaire placed its advertisement with the station and unilaterally refer the advertisement for clearance by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland?

After all, Archer’s book is clearly a religious book? Right? Did he not support Margaret Thatcher and her voodoo economic programme for the United Kingdom? Was not her great friend Ronald Reagan frequently closeted with his soothsayer?

So, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, to be consistent, must ban any radio advertisement promoting Archer’s book.

To check out the members of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland see HERE

See Eoin O’Dell’s analysis HERE of the background, reciting the legal basis on which the Commission might rely.

Arguably, the Commission’s reading of Section 10(3) of the Radio Television Act 1988 stating “no advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards any religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute�, is a very broad interpretion of the meaning of “political�. That this is the case is underlined by the fact that RTE, the national broadcaster, has taken a narrow interpretion of similar legislation pertaining to it, and is now running the very same advertisement for Trocaire.

Possibly the Commission has been affected by the example of more recent legislation in the form of Section 22 of The Electoral Act Act 1997 as amended by Section 49 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001.

In this legislation “third parties� (persons not being a political party or an electoral candidate) are constrained in the receipt of money for “political purposes�.

The definition of political purposes is surprisingly wide. Significantly, it includes this;

“to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority�.

So, all of civil life is, potentially, constrained by the State in the exercise of its civil rights and entitlements, assuming that the purview of the State has been extended to reach those rights.

The campaign to change the name of Dingle back from Daingean Ui Chuis to Dingle/Daingean Ui Chuis comes to mind.

Did the proponents of that change have to register with the Standards in Public Office Commission as required by Section 23C of the Electoral Act 1997 (as inserted by Section 49 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001)?

It was Government policy that the name of Dingle be changed to Daingean Ui Chuis and therefore it happened. The relevant Minister insisted that it could not be lawfully changed back to Dingle or any derivative of it. However, following the result of a plebiscite in the town the Minister ventured an opinion that perhaps the impossible was not impossible after all.

Surely he was too ready to yield to the people of Dingle? A Government and a Minister should surely be anxious to enforce the law. Should he not now make a complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission?