Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:25 am
Now, this guy normally speaks about economics and philosophy and big banking bailouts all sorts of shite like that but here he is talking about something different...
He begins by saying that he subscribes to Alex Jones because for him Jones is like a radar or a Watchman and if anything untoward crops up over there in America then Jones is all over it like a whatever. At about 5 mins he proceeds to talk about the lack of a European Alex Jones and gives a European example of something Jones would be all over. He basically says that the Lisbon Treaty abolishes the Death Penalty but in the footnotes, introduces it in the event of civil unrest, political disturbance and presumably economic trouble ....
That's fucking scary lads (if true)
Last edited by Auditor #9 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:00 am
I think it does have a clause regarding emergency powers in time of war
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:15 am
Why is this a surprise to you. Most on this site think they are dealing with Mother Theresa whose only concern istheir welfare.
It is amazing to watch millions believing in Santa
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:25 am
Didn't America introduce some Bill recently too with this kind of provision in it - invocation of war powers in the event of (domestic ??) economic turmoil ? I can't remember the name of the Bill or whatever it was - an Act or Executive Order ??
That's frightening.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:27 am
Frightened Albanian wrote:
I think it does have a clause regarding emergency powers in time of war
So does the Irish Constitution in regard to practically everything except the Death Penalty, the latter exclusion being a very recent phenomenon. I'd also love to see someone pull up the precise citation where the Lisbon Treaty allows the use of the death penalty. I think I will be waiting a while.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:41 am
Maybe it's in the ECHR only but the Lisbon Treaty relies on the ECHR at some point??
Here’s what Section I, Article 2 of the ECHR actually says: - - - - - - - - - 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person unlawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
"Some legal scholars are of the opinion that this last clause does not open the door to applying a death sentence in the case of insurrection, and that the bloggers and journalists who say it does are being hysterical. A cautious reading of the text supports the idea that 2(c) simply absolves the police or military personnel from blame if they are required by circumstances to shoot and kill rioters during an insurrection."
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:48 am
Precisely. The article you cite does not give legal effect to the death penalty, which is totally banned by Protocol 15 of the ECHR. It merely gives the defence of lawful excuse to security forces when involved in particular situations. Such a law already exists in Ireland given that murder is not merely killing, but unlawful killing. You can make an equally absurd conclusion that that article is permitting non jury trials, given that on the basis of it introducing the death penalty it also makes the security forces the arbitrar.
Protocol 15: Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed. Article 2 – Prohibition of derogations No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention. Article 3 – Prohibition of reservations No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:52 am
johnfás wrote:
Frightened Albanian wrote:
I think it does have a clause regarding emergency powers in time of war
So does the Irish Constitution in regard to practically everything except the Death Penalty, the latter exclusion being a very recent phenomenon. I'd also love to see someone pull up the precise citation where the Lisbon Treaty allows the use of the death penalty. I think I will be waiting a while.
It's a confusion of Lisbon and the ECHR, protocol 6.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:04 am
Well back here the president can declare a state of emergency and then it is shoot to kill. Anyone looking to call John Fas will be too full of lead to even send him a text.
Any one that thinks that a piece of paper means anything must not be too sharp.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:27 am
Maybe it's in the ECHR only but the Lisbon Treaty relies on the ECHR at some point??
Here’s what Section I, Article 2 of the ECHR actually says: - - - - - - - - - 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person unlawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
"Some legal scholars are of the opinion that this last clause does not open the door to applying a death sentence in the case of insurrection, and that the bloggers and journalists who say it does are being hysterical. A cautious reading of the text supports the idea that 2(c) simply absolves the police or military personnel from blame if they are required by circumstances to shoot and kill rioters during an insurrection."
Gates of Vienna is a racist/Islamophobic site...hence the name. In general, their reading of legal texts is indeed hysterical.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:06 am
That is the type of reply that is both insulting to Audi and shows yourself in a poor light.
The fact is anyone can check what the article says regardless of whether it is reported by the pope or someone of lesser credibility.
You can choose to stick your head in the sand or anyplace else should you decide.
Audi, you are right and the sentence is as you state. If a state of riot is declared you do not have to worry about a costly lawyer because they can just shoot you.
Ibis will argue this or ignore it or say it is racist. You can read it yourself.
He won't say it is a lie, he will say it is a BLATANT lie. Papal Kmight is departed but if he was still around he would call you a nut-job who can not read
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:25 am
youngdan wrote:
Audi, you are right and the sentence is as you state. If a state of riot is declared you do not have to worry about a costly lawyer because they can just shoot you.
They cannot "just shoot you", "they" are subject to "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", which seems reasonable to me.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:29 am
Maybe it's in the ECHR only but the Lisbon Treaty relies on the ECHR at some point??
Here’s what Section I, Article 2 of the ECHR actually says: - - - - - - - - - 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person unlawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
"Some legal scholars are of the opinion that this last clause does not open the door to applying a death sentence in the case of insurrection, and that the bloggers and journalists who say it does are being hysterical. A cautious reading of the text supports the idea that 2(c) simply absolves the police or military personnel from blame if they are required by circumstances to shoot and kill rioters during an insurrection."
Gates of Vienna is a racist/Islamophobic site...hence the name. In general, their reading of legal texts is indeed hysterical.
The text in blue is from that site and expresses doubt that issuance of the Death Penalty can be interpreted as a conseqence of that text in bold - (c). It is bloggers and journalists who say it can be construed so who are being hysterical.
Is their reading of that bit of legal text hysterical do you think?
btw - that was the first time I'd seen that site
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:32 am
tonys wrote:
youngdan wrote:
Audi, you are right and the sentence is as you state. If a state of riot is declared you do not have to worry about a costly lawyer because they can just shoot you.
They cannot "just shoot you", "they" are subject to "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", which seems reasonable to me.
In order to "quell an insurrection" ...
e.g. shoot a 15 year-old Greek boy in the back who was protesting ...
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:37 am
When maritial law is in effect, constitutions are suspended. It does not matter what is written in it.
If in the future there are Bulgarian troops on Irish streets I suggest that you not bother trying to explain the fine print to them. Watch out for Blackwater as well because your hero from Clara would bring them in as well. Was Murach Mac Diarmaida or whatever his name was from Offally as well
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:39 am
Auditor #9 wrote:
tonys wrote:
youngdan wrote:
Audi, you are right and the sentence is as you state. If a state of riot is declared you do not have to worry about a costly lawyer because they can just shoot you.
They cannot "just shoot you", "they" are subject to "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", which seems reasonable to me.
In order to "quell an insurrection" ...
e.g. shoot a 15 year-old Greek boy in the back who was protesting ...
I don't think you could make that fit with "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", if on the other hand the 15 year old was armed with a machete and running at you with serious intent, I wouldn't see a problem.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:42 am
youngdan wrote:
When maritial law is in effect, constitutions are suspended. It does not matter what is written in it.
If in the future there are Bulgarian troops on Irish streets I suggest that you not bother trying to explain the fine print to them. Watch out for Blackwater as well because your hero from Clara would bring them in as well. Was Murach Mac Diarmaida or whatever his name was from Offally as well
who are you addressing here Dan?
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:44 am
tonys wrote:
Auditor #9 wrote:
tonys wrote:
youngdan wrote:
Audi, you are right and the sentence is as you state. If a state of riot is declared you do not have to worry about a costly lawyer because they can just shoot you.
They cannot "just shoot you", "they" are subject to "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", which seems reasonable to me.
In order to "quell an insurrection" ...
e.g. shoot a 15 year-old Greek boy in the back who was protesting ...
I don't think you could make that fit with "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", if on the other hand the 15 year old was armed with a machete and running at you with serious intent, I wouldn't see a problem.
I'd be inclined to agree with you there though I'm not sure the boy was. The American man who was shot in the back, Oscar Grant, was shot because he was causing an insurrection lying face-down handcuffed with a policeman's knee on his neck at the time.
Where is the line drawn? At damage of policemen with machetes? Damage to policemen's cars? Damage to public property? Banks for example?
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:47 am
Auditor #9 wrote:
tonys wrote:
Auditor #9 wrote:
tonys wrote:
youngdan wrote:
Audi, you are right and the sentence is as you state. If a state of riot is declared you do not have to worry about a costly lawyer because they can just shoot you.
They cannot "just shoot you", "they" are subject to "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", which seems reasonable to me.
In order to "quell an insurrection" ...
e.g. shoot a 15 year-old Greek boy in the back who was protesting ...
I don't think you could make that fit with "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary", if on the other hand the 15 year old was armed with a machete and running at you with serious intent, I wouldn't see a problem.
I'd be inclined to agree with you there though I'm not sure the boy was. The American man who was shot in the back, Oscar Grant, was shot because he was causing an insurrection lying face-down handcuffed with a policeman's knee on his neck at the time.
Where is the line drawn? At damage of policemen with machetes? Damage to policemen's cars? Damage to public property? Banks for example?
I would think the words "no more than absolutely necessary" don't leave much room for doubt.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:57 am
I guess I am addressing myself Tony. I am despondent because I am a doommonger granted but how can doom be avoided. In my opinion drastic action is required but all I see are lemmings content to go over the cliff.
The plight of those getting the squeeze is horrendous and it is only beginning. I expect marchs similiar to 1981 soon. Even the Russians are rioting today.
Bad news is a daily event now.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:08 am
That is the type of reply that is both insulting to Audi and shows yourself in a poor light.
The fact is anyone can check what the article says regardless of whether it is reported by the pope or someone of lesser credibility.
You can choose to stick your head in the sand or anyplace else should you decide.
Audi, you are right and the sentence is as you state. If a state of riot is declared you do not have to worry about a costly lawyer because they can just shoot you.
Ibis will argue this or ignore it or say it is racist. You can read it yourself.
He won't say it is a lie, he will say it is a BLATANT lie. Papal Kmight is departed but if he was still around he would call you a nut-job who can not read
I can also read a site and work out where it's coming from - and my comment was in no way intended to reflect poorly on Audi, although your defence of such unmitigated tripe I would say reflects on you, although it casts you in no new light.
There are people who don't seem able to view the world except through a prism of fear and difference - and those amongst us are just as much of a problem as those who they themselves are fearful of. None of those people, on either side, have improved the world or made it a better or a safer place - that's been done by us foolish optimists, and by the dialogue you disdain.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:39 am
What are you gibbering about reading the site. Everyone else is reading the document which is the same on every site.
I was correct in my prediction of your response. You will go to any lenght to avoid the sentence.
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
You don't want to see it so in your mind it does not exist. As always you prefer to keep the head well burried in the sand
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:40 pm
Auditor#9 wrote:
Now, this guy normally speaks about economics and philosophy and big banking bailouts all sorts of shite like that but here he is talking about something different...
He begins by saying that he subscribes to Alex Jones because for him Jones is like a radar or a Watchman and if anything untoward crops up over there in America then Jones is all over it like a whatever. At about 5 mins he proceeds to talk about the lack of a European Alex Jones and gives a European example of something Jones would be all over. He basically says that the Lisbon Treaty abolishes the Death Penalty but in the footnotes, introduces it in the event of civil unrest, political disturbance and presumably economic trouble ....
That's fucking scary lads (if true)
The argument that Lisbon/the Charter reintroduces the death penalty is the most outrageous piece of horsecock to come out of the debate. It's a convenient marker as to whether a site is run by loons and cretins or not - if they push this particular piece of shite then they are, full stop.
Here are the reasons the Charter cannot reintroduce the death penalty in Ireland (or Europe):
1. first, exemptions do not have the force of positive law - that Article 2 of the Charter forbids the death penalty except in certain circumstances does not create any positive right or obligation to introduce the death penalty for those circumstances - it merely recognises that those circumstances are those in which such a penalty would be tolerable.
2. therefore, no EU country that has already outlawed the death penalty could conceivably use the Charter to reintroduce it - any lawyer who's not actually dead will confirm that - both on account of the above and because the Charter does not apply to domestic law in any case.
3. Every EU country is a signatory to Protocol 6 of the ECHR (of which Article 2 TOFR is a copy), and virtually every country is a signatory to Protocol 13 ECHR, which bans the death penalty under any circumstances including time of war/rebellion. Ireland, for example, is a signatory to Protocol 13, which is why we inserted a total prohibition on the death penalty into Bunreacht.
4. So, coming back round to point 1, it is impossible for the exemptions allowed in Article 2 of the Charter to be used to reintroduce the death penalty, because they do not in any way supersede the banning of the death penalty under Protocol 13.
5. Who pushes countries to sign up to Article 13? Why, the EU does. The EU is the main advocate of the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. Abolition of the death penalty is a major goal of the EU, is a requirement of entry to the EU, is pushed by the EU on every one of its trading partners. Here, for example, is the point being made on the website of the EU Delegation to Singapore:
Quote :
The European Union (EU) is opposed to the death penalty and has consistently espoused its universal abolition, continually working towards this goal. In line with the majority of international views, the EU considers that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. The EU's position is rooted in its conviction in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person.
So, in order to propagate this argument, you have to ignore basic principles of law, existing treaties, the history of the EU, and pay no attention to the very visible efforts of the EU - and pretty much the EU alone - to abolish the death penalty worldwide.
That makes it a handy marker. Anyone who pushes this line is a liar or a fool - full stop, no exceptions. Their understanding of law doesn't rise above that of a dog, their willingness to subject their material to basic sanity checks is non-existent, their capacity to swallow lies about the EU is almost infinite. They are as reliable as a bridge made of jelly.
Last edited by ibis on Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:54 pm
Well, Ibis, did the site get the wording right, or not?
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Privatisation of Irish Politics Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Well I'm certainly not pushing it as a 'marker', whatever that means nor could it be said I was pushing it at all. Exploring it out of confusion might be more accurate.
The statement appears in the ECHR which bears what relation to the TOFR (?) which bears what relation the threaty itself and if there's an exemption or a case where this cannot happen in Ireland but can happen in Greece then that would concern me as much as if it were allowed to happen in Ireland.
You know my line on this - there's huge confusion around this treaty and the auxillary documents and that confusion is very productive in sowing hardy seeds of doubt for many people on many levels.
I'd like to pursue this one until I'm happy with it or so confused I'll give up but at the moment all it seems to me is that there is a statement somewhere which says that
in certain cases fatal force can be used against people and justified by the authorities and this may apply in the political case where an 'insurrection' or 'riot' might be the occasion
and I'm being asked to vote for it
I appreciate this is an inflammatory subject at the moment and it would be better for all if some of the confusion were to be dispensed with rationally/calmly or at least that a rational rather than heated debate come out of it as we just won't get anywhere if all of us are at each other.
Last edited by Auditor #9 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:06 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : added the green line)