Irish Anti War Movement

Annual General Meeting (AGM) - 11 AM Sat 21/02/2015 - The Teachers Club Dublin

21/02/2015 - 11:00

The Irish Anti-War Movement will hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) on Saturday 21st February 2015 in The Club Parnell Square Dublin starting at 11am. For details of who can attend and submit resolutions at the AGM see below. A full agenda will be available soon.

 

Agenda

This will be available shortly.

 

Who can Attend and Vote at The AGM

  1. All members may attend the annual general meeting provided that the current membership fee has been paid in advance of the meeting. All affiliates may send one delegate to the annual general meeting provided that the current affiliation fee has been paid in advance of the meeting.
  2. All members and delegates have one vote each at annual general meeting.
  3. A decision of annual general meeting of the IAWM is binding on the steering committee (SC) and overrides any previous decisions. This constitution may only be amended by annual general meeting. However, amendments to this constitution may be made by the next quarterly delegate meeting held after the annual general meeting of 08 May 2004, which adopted this constitution.
  4. A steering committee shall be elected at each AGM.
  5. Draft resolutions and nominations for the steering committee should be submitted to the Secretary at least 14 days beforehand. The secretary shall publish draft resolutions at least 7 days beforehand.

 

Submitting Resolutions

Resolutions may be submitted in the following ways:

IAWM CONDEMNS IRISH GOVERNMENT'S COMPLICITY IN U.S. TORTURE REGIME

IAWM CONDEMNS IRISH GOVERNMENT'S COMPLICITY IN U.S. TORTURE REGIME

Press Release Saturday 13 December 2014 From Irish anti-War Movement

 

The Irish anti-War Movement (IAWM) is angered but not surprised by the revelations in the US Senate Report into torture used by the CIA. 

 

John Molyneux, Secretary of the IAWM noted that “this confirms what has long been known – namely that in its so called ‘War on Terror’ the United States has made widespread and systematic use of barbaric interrogation techniques that are, quite simply, torture.”

 

UK Govt admits defeat over claim renditions court case will damage UK-US relations

UK Govt admits defeat over claim renditions court case will damage UK-US relations
 
The British Government admitted defeat in court today over its claims that a renditions case could not be heard for fear of embarrassing the US.
 
Government QC James Eadie told the court that he accepted they had “come second” when it came to arguments over “Foreign Act of State” – the theory that a British court cannot hear cases where the UK has cooperated with another state in wrongdoing.
 
Today’s hearing concerned Yunus Rahmatullah, who was seized by UK forces in Iraq in 2004 before being handed over to the US and ‘rendered’ to Bagram, Afghanistan. Mr Rahmatullah suffered years of torture before finally being released in June this year.
 
The UK long denied any involvement in rendition, before being forced to correct the record in Parliament in 2008, when then-Defence Secretary John Hutton finally publicly admitted that the rendition of Mr Rahmatullah and another man, Amanatullah Ali, had taken place.
 
Today’s hearing also considered written testimony from a former senior US Ambassador, Thomas Pickering, who contradicted the UK Government’s claim that hearing the case would endanger UK-US relations. In written testimony, Ambassador Pickering stated that “I firmly believe that adjudicating Mr Rahmatullah’s case in UK courts is highly unlikely to cause damage to the relations or national security cooperation between the US and UK," adding that the UK Government’s claims “misunderstand the value the United States places on the rule of law.”
 

UK Govt attempts to push rendition case out of High Court

UK Govt attempts to push rendition case out of High Court
 
The High Court will tomorrow (Tues 11 November) consider whether a case concerning UK involvement in rendition and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan should be heard. 
 
Judges will hear arguments from lawyers for Yunus Rahmatullah, who was seized in Iraq in 2004 by British forces before being handed over to the US, who rendered him to Bagram prison in Afghanistan.  During his ordeal Mr Rahmatullah was subjected to torture on multiple occasions, held at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and held without charge or trial for a decade in Afghanistan before his release earlier this year.
 
Lawyers for the UK Government however are arguing that the case should not be heard, as to do so would damage relations with the USA. The legal team for Mr Rahmatullah – who is being assisted by the charity Reprieve and solicitors Leigh Day – are expected to point to the testimony of a former senior US diplomat who believes that the Government’s argument is false.
 
Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who represented the USA at the UN under George HW Bush and served for four decades as a diplomat, states in written testimony that that “I firmly believe that adjudicating Mr Rahmatullah’s case in UK courts is highly unlikely to cause damage to the relations or national security cooperation between the US and UK." Pickering further said that the UK Government’s claims “misunderstand the value the United States places on the rule of law.”
 

UK Govmt to release secret policy on lawyer surveillance - case brought by victims of rendition and torture.

UK Government to release secret policy on surveillance of lawyers after last-minute u-turn
 
The Government today agreed to release its until-now secret policies governing how and when it eavesdrops on confidential communication between lawyers and their clients, in response to a case brought by victims of rendition and torture.
 
The concession was made ahead of a hearing of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) – a highly secretive quasi-court which considers complaints brought against the intelligence services – in response to a claim brought by two families who were ‘rendered’ by MI6 and the CIA to Col Gaddafi’s prisons in 2004.
 
The IPT case concerns whether the Government had spied on confidential communications between the victims – the Belhadj and al Saadi families - and their legal teams, concerning a separate, ongoing claim which they brought against the UK Government in the High Court.   If the Government has spied on these communications, it will have breached the long-established principle that each side is allowed confidential communication with its legal team.  Doing so would give the Government an unfair advantage, and threaten the victims’ right to a fair hearing.
 
Today, the Government conceded shortly before a rare public hearing of the IPT that it would release its policies on the interception of legally privileged material, although only in redacted form.  It has been given until 17:00 GMT tomorrow (Thursday 30 October) to do so.
 

Washington Piles Lie Upon Lie: new lie, Russian invasion of Ukraine

Syndicate content