Thursday, July 21, 2005
Spooks on Irish soil?Earlier today we linked to this Examiner story which reported on the new agreement between Ireland and the US which, it said, would give US officials, the CIA included, powers to investigate and interrogate Irish citizens. As the story reported:
US investigators, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week. Suspects will also have to give testimony and allow property to be searched and seized even if what the suspect is accused of is not a crime in Ireland.It elaborates further by saying:
Although the Department of Justice insists that the arrangement merely updates existing agreements, it goes much further. The US may ask Irish authorities: to track down people in Ireland; transfer prisoners in Irish custody to the US; [and] carry out searches and seize evidence on behalf of the US Government. It also allows US authorities access to an Irish suspect's confidential bank information. The Irish authorities must keep all these activities secret if asked to do so by the US.All of this can be done following a request by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to the Minister for Justice.
So what's going on? According to the Department of Justice's own statement on the matter, this agreement updates existing arrangements to conform with a new EU-US agreement:
According to the The Instruments signed today update and supplement existing bilaterals agreed dating from 1983 in the case of extradition and 2001 in the case of mutual legal assistance in order to bring them into line with the EU-US Agreements. Once all Member States have completed a similar process, followed by completion of internal constitutional and parliamentary procedures for ratification, the way will be clear for the European Union to adopt the Agreements agreed in 2003.Some people disagree with the Department's portrayal of the agreement. For example, the Examiner quotes the Irish Council for Civil Liberties as saying it "appeared to go far beyond even what has been agreed between EU countries". The ICCL has a website but, as of now, has published no statement on the matter. If one appears in the next few days it may prove useful.
The main changes to the 2001 bilateral Treaty on mutual legal assistance concern the addition of provisions dealing with the identification of bank information, the establishment of joint investigation teams and the use of videoconferencing for the taking of testimony of witnesses or experts in relation to mutual assistance requests.
Later in the day yesterday, RTE reported that the Irish Human Rights Commission will examine the agreement. This is a statutory body created under the Human Rights Commission Acts of 2000 and 2001, and it is mandated to "keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice in the State relating to the protection of human rights".
Taking a look at the agreement itself (PDF format), several sections are of interest. For example, Article 1, Section 3 says assistance can be given even if the crime the person is accused of isn't an offence in Ireland:
Except when required by the laws of the Requested Party, assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct that is the subject of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding in the territory of the Requesting Party would constitute an offence under the laws of the Requested Party.Article 5, Section 6 meanwhile provides for any co-operation to be kept secret on request:
The Requested Party shall, upon request, keep confidential any information which might indicate that a request has been made or responded to. If the request cannot be executed without breaching confidentiality, the Requested Party shall so inform the Requesting Party, which shall then determine the extent to which it wishes the request to be executed.Article 8, Section 3 allows for the presence and participation of US officials at questioning:
In accordance with its laws and practice, the Requested Party shall permit the presence of such persons as specified in the request during the execution of the request, and shall allow such persons to ask questions directly of the person whose testimony or evidence is being taken or indirectly through a legal representative qualified to appear before the courts of the Requested Party.So, are any of these provisions in the aforementioned EU-US agreement? Well, you can read it online here (PDF document). As Article 3 of that agreement explains, Articles 4 to 9 are to be "applied in relation to bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties between the Member States and
the United States of America". The opening of the Irish US agreement mentions which of its Articles apply the EU-US agreement provisions. None of the three provisions quoted above stem from the EU-US agreement. In other words, it looks like the Council for Civil Liberties is right in saying the agreement goes far beyond what was agreed by the EU and the controversial provisions are an Irish-US creation. Just how much this new agreement differs from the 1983 and 2001 agreements is hard to say at the moment since I haven't been able to find these documents online. Those dismayed by the new agreement may say that this is a moot point. If the provisions were already laid out by earlier agreements that wouldn't necessarily mean they weren't excessive.
Meanwhile, Michael McDowell tonight came out and said it was a "fabrication to say CIA agents would be able to question Irish citizens":
He said that Article 8.3 in the agreement, which states that the requested party (Ireland) shall allow persons to ask questions directly of the person whose testimony or evidence is being taken, was referring to a lawyer in court asking questions of somebody.I'm wondering if McDowell isn't being a little disingenuous here. The Article is quoted above and while it does mention legal representatives, it doesn't confine itself to them. It permits "persons as specified in the request" to "ask questions directly" or "indirectly through a legal representative". Nor can I find anything in the agreement that says the taking testimony or statements is to be confined to open court. No doubt the publication of some independent legal opinion may throw some light on the matter and establish whether McDowell is being completely forthcoming.
I'm sure we'll see more on this one in tomorrow's papers and hopefully we'll get a little more explication of the agreement in the coming days.
POSTSCRIPT: Bernie Goldbach's also been writing about this today.
Categories: Ireland , US , Human Rights
posted by Dick O'Brien at 10:57 PM | link |
--------------------
