Dáil debates

Wednesday, 14 June 2006

Human Rights Issues: Motion (Resumed).

 

7:00 pm

Photo of Peter PowerPeter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I thank my colleagues for sharing their time on this important debate. I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of extraordinary rendition, a practice which is virtually unknown outside the context of the US war on terrorism. The concept of extraordinary rendition is alien to me. It is also alien to the legal system which we operate in Ireland. As a country, we cannot agree in any shape or form with the movement of people from one jurisdiction to another other than by international legal agreements, that is, by extradition, not extraordinary rendition. The debate is welcome because it gives us the opportunity to re-state that position or, perhaps, to state it in the House for the first time.

At the heart of this debate is a wider discussion on the central allegation that, either passively or actively, Ireland has colluded with the practice of extraordinary rendition. As a country, we wholly reject that practice. The Labour Party's motion refers strongly to this fact in the preamble. Notably, it makes no specific allegation that extraordinary rendition has occurred here. If we were to be found guilty of colluding in extraordinary rendition, we would also be guilty of gross hypocrisy, not alone because of our expressed opposition to extraordinary rendition but also because of our long-standing and steadfast opposition to collusion in Northern Ireland.

Members of the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights have examined the issue of collusion regarding the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and other incidents including the security forces in the North. We have a clear insight into what constitutes collusion in this respect. It leads directly to the question of how one defines collusion in the context of this debate concerning extraordinary rendition. The Labour Party motion refers to active or passive collusion "in the sense of having tolerated or having been negligent in fulfilling the duty to supervise". The question is whether we have a duty to supervise or, in other words, to board and inspect flights. Regardless of whether it exists, that duty is at the heart of this debate.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.