Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06DUBLIN467
2006-04-27 16:42:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Dublin
Cable title:
IRELAND AND THE SWEDISH EXAMPLE: SUSPICIONS ON
how-toVZCZCXRO6883 RR RUEHAG DE RUEHDL #0467 1171642 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 271642Z APR 06 FM AMEMBASSY DUBLIN TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6848 INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES RUEADRO/HQ ICE DRO WASHINGTON DC RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS RUEAIAO/HQ ICE IAO WASHINGTON DC
C O N F I D E N T I A L DUBLIN 000467
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2015
TAGS: PREL EAIR MARR PGOV PINR SW EI
SUBJECT: IRELAND AND THE SWEDISH EXAMPLE: SUSPICIONS ON
DEPORTATION VS. RENDITION
REF: STOCKHOLM 527
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Jonathan Benton. Reasons 1.4
(B) and (D).
C O N F I D E N T I A L DUBLIN 000467
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2015
TAGS: PREL EAIR MARR PGOV PINR SW EI
SUBJECT: IRELAND AND THE SWEDISH EXAMPLE: SUSPICIONS ON
DEPORTATION VS. RENDITION
REF: STOCKHOLM 527
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Jonathan Benton. Reasons 1.4
(B) and (D).
1. (C) Post read reftel with interest, having confronted
similar sensitivity from the Irish Government over a criminal
deportation flight in late 2005 that was originally scheduled
to transit Ireland. At the time, we quietly informed the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) that the charter flight
would deport two sentenced criminals from the United States
to their African countries of origin. Out of apparent
concern that the flight would be seen to involve a rendition,
the DFA requested informally that the charter be rerouted to
avoid transiting Ireland. We explained the difference
between rendition and deportation and emphasized the
importance of U.S.-Irish law enforcement cooperation, but the
DFA stood by its request. In the end, after we communicated
the DFA's concerns to ICE, the flight's routing to the
African destination was changed.
2. (C) Comment: The Irish Government's willingness to
ratchet back cooperation on deportations because of the
public's possible inability to distinguish deportations from
renditions was troubling, and we wonder whether the
similarity of our experience with Embassy Stockholm's signals
a wider trend among EU Member States to withhold help on
deportations as a result of the politically sensitive
renditions issue. In July 2005, Ambassador and the Irish
Minister of Justice signed a new instrument for bilateral
mutual legal assistance, which we see as a potential
mechanism for discussions to resolve Irish Government
concerns about future deportation transit requests, as well
as to improve Ireland's woeful bilateral extradition record.
We would value whatever guidance the Department could provide
for such discussions. We would also suggest that Washington
agencies consider visits to Ireland and other affected Member
States to address questions about U.S. deportation practices.
KENNY
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2015
TAGS: PREL EAIR MARR PGOV PINR SW EI
SUBJECT: IRELAND AND THE SWEDISH EXAMPLE: SUSPICIONS ON
DEPORTATION VS. RENDITION
REF: STOCKHOLM 527
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Jonathan Benton. Reasons 1.4
(B) and (D).
1. (C) Post read reftel with interest, having confronted
similar sensitivity from the Irish Government over a criminal
deportation flight in late 2005 that was originally scheduled
to transit Ireland. At the time, we quietly informed the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) that the charter flight
would deport two sentenced criminals from the United States
to their African countries of origin. Out of apparent
concern that the flight would be seen to involve a rendition,
the DFA requested informally that the charter be rerouted to
avoid transiting Ireland. We explained the difference
between rendition and deportation and emphasized the
importance of U.S.-Irish law enforcement cooperation, but the
DFA stood by its request. In the end, after we communicated
the DFA's concerns to ICE, the flight's routing to the
African destination was changed.
2. (C) Comment: The Irish Government's willingness to
ratchet back cooperation on deportations because of the
public's possible inability to distinguish deportations from
renditions was troubling, and we wonder whether the
similarity of our experience with Embassy Stockholm's signals
a wider trend among EU Member States to withhold help on
deportations as a result of the politically sensitive
renditions issue. In July 2005, Ambassador and the Irish
Minister of Justice signed a new instrument for bilateral
mutual legal assistance, which we see as a potential
mechanism for discussions to resolve Irish Government
concerns about future deportation transit requests, as well
as to improve Ireland's woeful bilateral extradition record.
We would value whatever guidance the Department could provide
for such discussions. We would also suggest that Washington
agencies consider visits to Ireland and other affected Member
States to address questions about U.S. deportation practices.
KENNY