Ireland says no to arrest warrant for Edward Snowden

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If there is one thing we can always count on, it's Xcathdra to enter a thread and peddle the government line and defend them to the hilt. If they said jump you'd ask how high.

Carry on...

Good on Ireland I say.

Like you are doing with Ireland? Ironic yet hyp[ocritical at the same time... Carry on.

You really need to learn to think for yourself. If you actually spent anytime researching instead of jkust making an unfounded accusation you would see I actually support Snowden and the release thus far.

By all means though, feel free to continue your ignorance.

Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Oh really.. and what treaties are they violating according to you?

They are violating the 1983 treaty Ireland and the US signed. Feel free to do some research on your own and maybe learn something in the process. Please pay s[pecial attention to how it actually works and the grounds in which either country can refuse a request from the other country.

Originally posted by Todzer
What are you on about? America did not provide the evidence as to when and where these offences took place, that is why the arrest warrant was denied, nothing to do with treaties, if they were honest about what is happening they might have got it but they weren't. Ireland is not America, here we need proof of wrong doing, we aren't just going to hand out arrest warrants because your corrupt government said so.

As I stated to several other people... Read the damn treaty between Ireland and the US and then get back to me.

reply to post by Xcathdra


America did not supply the EVIDENCE to obtain an arrest warrant, you do realise that in our country evidence is needed to arrest someone. America has a lot of clout but not enough to side step our laws.

reply to post by Xcathdra


thebrokenelbow.com...

Read this article

First the treaty, which was signed in July 1983 and confirmed in 2005. Article IV (b) says that extradition will not happen: ….when the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence. Reference to a political offence shall not include the taking or attempted taking of the life of a Head of State or a member of his or her family;

Then Article VI which has this to say: Where the offence for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State and not punishable by death under the laws in the Requested State, the Requested State may grant extradition on the condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed on the person sought, or if for procedural reasons such condition cannot be complied with by the Requesting State, on condition that the death penalty if imposed shall not be carried out. If the Requesting State accepts extradition subject to conditions pursuant to this Article, it shall comply with the conditions. If the Requesting State does not accept the conditions, the request for extradition may be denied.

Two points as to why the treaty may not come into play and the American has to show evidence if they want the arrest warrant or extradition, they showed no evidence just applied for it, what part of evidence is need treaty or no treaty don't you understand? For all we know all the charges are made up, it is up to the American government to show it has justification for applying for the warrant, they didn't hence no warrant......

Go read the damn treaty yourself and come back to me

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Oh really.. and what treaties are they violating according to you?

They are violating the 1983 treaty Ireland and the US signed. Feel free to do some research on your own and maybe learn something in the process. Please pay s[pecial attention to how it actually works and the grounds in which either country can refuse a request from the other country.

It seems to me it's you who needs to learn a few things; not jumping to conclusions for one. The treaty you are talking about is not even in scope right now and even if it was, there are conditions to the treaty that are simply not met by the US side. I think others before me made that point already.

Ireland denies US arrest warrant for Edward Snowden, citing incomplete request
But the US could try again with new information, Irish justice minister says.

It was a provisional arrest warrant.

However, Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter said in a statement that there is nothing to prevent the US from making a second application to the courts in Dublin with respect to Snowden.

"The determination of the court does not in any way prevent a fresh application being made for a provisional arrest warrant, taking into account the findings of the court," he wrote. "It should be noted that what the court in its judgment today addressed was the issuing of an arrest warrant on the basis of specific information rather than a determination as to whether an individual should or should not be extradited.”

reply to post by Xcathdra

Like you are doing with Ireland? Ironic yet hyp[ocritical at the same time... Carry on.

You really need to learn to think for yourself.

Actually no...because there is a difference. You go into most threads and peddle the U.S. government line.

I advise any ATS member to browse through some of Xcathdra's replies or threads and tell me otherwise.

Your behaviour is regular and consistent.

You are suggesting I go into every thread about Ireland (which is somewhat laughable, as U.S. topics dominate this site) and leave comments which wave the flag for Ireland. That's utter nonsense and you know it. Other than my above comment please show me another where I applaud the Irish government for their stance?

You are part of a particular clique on this website (again ATS members can look at your friend's list) who are all "buddies" and read off the same script. Their comments and replies are sometimes almost indistinguishable from one another.

Generally arrogant ex-military types who scorn other members because "they don't understand" how it is in the military and this therefore seems to make them think that other's people's opinions suddenly become invalid.

You might not be ex-military, but I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong.

Unlike yourself, eating my own words never gave me indigestion.

Good on them, but I don't think he will use Ireland to go to South America. It would be too easy for things to go wrong I think, simply because the UK (yea I know he isnt going thru the UK) is so far up the US's butt. Good luck though, I think Obama may be paying more attention than he says he is..

reply to post by Kram09


By all means I completely support the suggestion for people to take the time to read my responses and learn for themselves. what people will find is the information you and others wish to ignore. Posting information to represent the one side of the argument you decide to ignore doesn't make me a government anything.

What it does make me is educated on the topic because I took the time to understand both sides, to see where the arguments are coming from, and went from there. Something you and others time and time again refuse to do simply because you cant be bothered to research something you don't like.

The goal of this site is Deny Ignorance... Not embrace it.

Reading and understanding peoples posts are important... If for no other reason than you might have understood what I posted if you took the time to actually read my post and understand it.

Specifically the part where I stated I support Snowden and his actions thus far.. Although if he keeps going down the wikileaks road he is going to lose my support.

Contrary to your belief it is possible to support an action while holding a different position when it comes to caveats involved. For example understand the Irish position while reviewing the treaties they signed with the US and if their response was valid under those treaties for what was requested.

Why would that be important? It would allow people to understand that the claim in the OP, that Ireland denied the warrant, is not completely accurate being it was a provisional warrant request.

By all means though keep attacking me simply because your ignorance does not allow you to see both sides of an issue when you don't like one side of the situation.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You were the one saying Ireland was breaking the treaty, which they weren't, hell you are the one that brought the treaty into it when it doesn't even factor into it and then have the cheek to call everyone else ignorant! The only ignorant one is YOU, time and time again you were told you were wrong and when it turns out you are you scream ignorant at everyone else, seems to me that someone can't handle being wrong... But you are so "educated" you won't even take this onboard, I am merely a speed bump on your awesome journey of "denying ignorance"

reply to post by Todzer


If you take the time to read you would see my responses were based on the OP article which does not make the distinction between the refusal and the request being a provisional one.

Ignorance - lack of information.

The refusal was not based on Ireland taking some high ground stand against the US as some wish to make it out to be. They refused the provisional request based on issues on 2 out of 4 total categories. Their government stated the US could submit another request and that Irelands current position has nothing to do with anything other than the request itself.

Something left out of the previous conversations / articles referenced.

So yes, ignorance can be applied to several in this thread, including yourself for failing to follow the conversation and then lipping off about my position.

sinn fein/IRA terrorists funded by the americans give him a welcome mat, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm