Gerry Adams and truth
Gerry Adams has been doing a few interesting things of late. As Pete has noted below, he has been in a form of correspondence with the Orange Order. In addition he has implied that he would support a truth commission with comments including this:
“Republicans have clearly acknowledged many times the hurt they inflicted during the conflict.
“I have expressed my personal and sincere regret and apologised for that hurt.
“The IRA has also acknowledged what it has done. That is the right and proper thing to do.”
Of course unless Mr. Adams has had some form of Damascus Road conversion all this interest must be seen as his previous wish for what might be called a quarter truth process. He is prepared to admit that the IRA killed people (difficult to avoid that one) but of course explains that unfortunately bad Prods or Brits (depending on the audience and often he seems not to distinguish between them) drove the IRA to it and that that explains and essentially forgives the unfortunate times when the IRA did things which cannot be seen as anything other than sectarian. When a given crime is utterly and completely impossible to explain away it becomes a one off or a mistake: a mistake for which they have already apologised. Except of course those one offs do tend to mount up.
Adams himself of course does not want to tell us what he truly knows about any of the murders here. He has certainly threatened legal action in the past. Equally McGuinness hardly wants a discussion of the circumstances surrounding the murder of a number of people in Londonderry such as Frank Hegarty. Were they not so sickening, the denials of any significant IRA involvement by Adams and McGuinness would be comical. They do, however, make belief in any truth from them completely impossible.
In contrast of course Adams wants to castigate the British, unionists and everyone else for a supposed vast conspiracy against the nationalist population and make a truth of the lie that practically all the loyalist murders involved collusion and that practically all the security forces were involved in this collusion. That of course helps explain away a good many more murders: suddenly the policeman on patrol was actually colluding with loyalists rather than trying to stop general crime or that the UDR man was colluding whilst milking the cows. Of course if the British government did detail all the loyalist / security force collusion there would be some significant pain for the British government and security forces. However, since such collusion was very limited, it is extremely likely that Adams would be able to denounce the Brits as still holding information back. A position which would be helped by the vast conspiracy Brit / loyalist conspiracy the republican movement has created as one of its favourite Shibboleths.
The reason why I call it a quarter truth process is that as well as not wanting to tell the whole IRA truth Adams clearly does not want the “Brits” to tell the whole truth. He wants no comments on the security forces penetration of the IRA. Not for him the possibility that those who died in the hail of SAS bullets at Loughgall had been set up by one of their own number: worse still if it had been done by the IRA leadership to get rid of inconvenient people. Certainly not the possibility that leading republicans and SF leaders were actually giving information to the British: that would never do.
The question does of course arise as to why Adams is doing this now? Clearly he may have a number of motivations. The apparent failure thus far to force the DUP’s hand on policing and justice along with the failure to make progress on the Irish language and the Maze stadium may both be playing fairly ill in republican circles. To up the ante with these sorts of issues which can be guaranteed to antagonise unionists and please republicans is of course a good idea. In addition when the DUP et al. inevitably denounce his latest manoeuvrings Adams can play one of his favourite roles: that of the thoughtful intellectual trying to hold out the hand of friendship to his former enemies and being rebuffed. In addition any slight wavering by any unionist in their approach to Adams can be heralded as an example of the walls of unionism beginning to splinter and a sign of imminent further republican victory.
An additional motivation for Adams is likely to be the soon to come Eames Bradley report. Eames Bradley have of course been repeatedly attacked from many quarters but to begin now to appear to support a report which is very likely to be well received everywhere outside Northern Ireland (as any supposedly “moving forward” typed initiative is) would be a good idea. Furthermore a pretended willingness to participate in a “truth and reconciliation” typed event would help divert attention away from republicans’ failure to cooperate with Eames Bradley. It would allow Adams to say effectively: “Look we are interested in such things and I said it as long ago as September 2008, months before Eames Bradley came out.” The fact that this would be utter nonsense would most likely be lost on many outsiders and of course ignored by republicans.
To an extent this is absolutely classic of the Adams / McGuinness approach of the last couple of decades: whilst McGuinness gets on with the day to day political fight with the DUP et al. Adams continues to prepare the ground further in the future especially with international opinion. One has to admit that they are extremely good at their work. The question remains, however, have they factored in the possibility of the DUP continuing to hold the line on P&J etc. and grass roots republican reaction to this. I strongly suspect they have and whether or not the executive is collapsed; I have little doubt the republican movement has a number of strategies prepared for each and every eventuality.
Cairin
The proof that God exists: My last book is entitled – The Book of Revelation Revealed: The proof that God exists. I can say no more but the outworking of the Book of Revelation is a monumental discovery on a par with the Human Genome Project in science but without the cost and the purposelessness.
Nurse
No, cotton.
Greagoir
Great news only my comment was intended as Jesuitical and rendered so by mentioning Bosnia. As the Provos used to say (to Britain): Peace or War, the choice is yours. But there will never again be a terrorist campaign. It is Bosnia/Rwanda or Peace. that’s my thinking anyway, and who am I, only God’s only begotten.
Comrade Stalin,
I don’t think the analagy with blowing up abortion clinics is a strong one. For example the US (for all its flaws) is a democracy, the northern Statlet was not. Additionally, the North quickly came under military occupation with emergency powers available to the civil administration (which they abused), the US did not and does not labour under either of these undemocratic conditions (despite Bushs’ best efforts). We also have a judicial system which ensures a trial by jury to deal with crime, you guys did not (and I believe you may still use Diplock courts). These undemocratic “special circumstances” and the resulting violence cannot seriously be compared to someone who wants to blow up an abortion clinic.
The IRA did have left wing ideologies in the 70′s but this was common in other groupings at that time such as the ANC. I feel in this age most (but not all) of that ideological baggage has been set aside, just the same way the British Labour party of today have little resemblance to the Labour party of the early 70′s.
I don’t think the analagy with blowing up abortion clinics is a strong one.
A large number of people oppose abortion. A small number of those oppose it to the extent that they believe it is appropriate to kill and murder those who carry it out. The majority of people completely oppose that minority, even though some of them may be sympathetic with their thinking rather than their means.
A large number of people in NI oppose the union. A small number of those oppose it to the extent that they believe it is appropriate to kill and murder those who enable it to exist. The majority of people completely oppose that minority, even though some of them may be sympathetic with their thinking rather than their means.
Point out where I’m going wrong here.
For example the US (for all its flaws) is a democracy, the northern Statlet was not.
Let’s explore this one. Stop me if I’m wrong here. Wasn’t the the US civil war was fought when a subsection of the states attempted to break off and go their own way ? Rather than recognizing the right of those states to independence/national self determination (the same self-determination sought by Ireland from the British empire), the northern states invaded and subjugated those states back into the union.
And is it really a democracy when a president can be declared elected after a kind of gerrymandering process where people likely to oppose the President’s party are removed from the electoral role, and then the Supreme Court (dominated by appointees of the President’s party) vote to stop a recount taking place of a disputed election ? Is it a democracy where people have to queue for well in excess of half an hour to cast their vote, and where neither candidates nor citizens can observe the vote counting process to ensure that it is being conducted properly and fairly ?
If Gerry Adams and his contemporaries had attempted to stick their heads above water in the USA, they’d have been penetrated by the FBI, gunned down, dismissed in public as un-American, and given the death penalty. They’d have been banned from voting or standing in elections.
Additionally, the North quickly came under military occupation with emergency powers available to the civil administration (which they abused)
If that is “military occupation”, then I can remember many situations where the National Guard in various different states have “occupied” regions, eg the LA riots. Wouldn’t you say ?
, the US did not and does not labour under either of these undemocratic conditions (despite Bushs’ best efforts).
Do you think most black people would agree with you ? How about American Indians ?
We also have a judicial system which ensures a trial by jury to deal with crime, you guys did not (and I believe you may still use Diplock courts).
What’s wrong with diplock courts ? Several European democracies, eg Sweden, do not use jury trials AFAIK. And to be honest, if I was an IRA bomber in the dock, I’d take a diplock court over a jury trial any day – a jury comprised of ordinary NI citizens would never give a paramilitary member an unbiased trial, whereas a panel of judges would at least be legally bound to try. Think about it.
The IRA did have left wing ideologies in the 70’s but this was common in other groupings at that time such as the ANC. I feel in this age most (but not all) of that ideological baggage has been set aside, just the same way the British Labour party of today have little resemblance to the Labour party of the early 70’s.
Yup, so why do you think a bunch of them went over to see the FARC then ? Why do you think SF MLAs are pro-Venezuela ?
sorry john i probably didn’t make myself clear. I would like real proof.The demented ramblings of a man who believes god communicates only with him really will not cut the mustard. As I said before, if thomas the doubting apostle can have physical proof then why not me?
comrade stalin, If I remember correctly, around the time the colombia 3 were visiting farc so was the head of the new york stock exchange.Was he a left wing activist, maybe plotting the downfall of the western economy?
Cairan
Thomas didn’t prove that God exists by touching Jesus. He simply proved that Jesus was still alive after being crucified.
Have a look at my website and you might find it interesting, but God only proves herself to the humble and the meek, and they usually don’t get evidence to prove it to others. Try Medjugorje where you’ll get a presence of God.
comrade stalin, If I remember correctly, around the time the colombia 3 were visiting farc so was the head of the new york stock exchange.Was he a left wing activist, maybe plotting the downfall of the western economy?
An excellent question, which I didn’t have a clue about, so I googled it. And apparently he was there to talk about “a message of cooperation from U.S. financial services.”
The republican types haven’t gone to the trouble of explaining what they were there to talk to FARC about, but I suspect it won’t have been the advancement of US capitalism in Colombia.
Actually comrade they did explain,The reason for visiting the FARC zone was given as an interest in the Colombian peace process and an exchange of political strategies, an intercambio if you will, regarding the differing experiences of the Irish and Colombian efforts. Plus an abiding interest in Colombian nature and wildlife.
Now while that may sound a bit contrived I think it is worth noting that,Following the press coverage of the case the House International Relations Committee in DC decided to look into the alleged FARC/IRA contacts. Initially the committee staff prepared a report titled “International Global Terrorism: Its Links With Illicit Drugs as Illustrated by the IRA and Other Groups in Colombia.” The staff report was led by John P. Mackey, committee investigative counsel, and an important bureaucratic promoter of Plan Colombia. Mackey insisted that the US government was convinced of IRA involvement in Colombia and collaboration with the FARC. He furthermore claimed that various ordinance techniques used by the FARC had their roots in the IRA’s playbook. Neither the DEAs administrator Asa Hutchinson nor the deputy director of the State Department’s counter terrorism office supported Mackey’s conclusions, despite the title of his report. Pressed by Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) another witness, Colombian Joint Chiefs of Staff Head Gen. Fernando Tapias, said he had no information about any organizational links between the IRA and the FARC. Nor had the Colombian government detected any terrorist assistance or training in his country by Iran or Cuba, another fantasy suggested by Mackey.
Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) said he had asked Colombia, Britain and the U.S. intelligence community “if there is even one scintilla of evidence of connection between the IRA or Sinn Fein,” the IRA’s political arm, with the FARC, “and the answer is no
The article this was lifted from can be seen here
http://www.counterpunch.org/davis04272004.html
Comrade Stalin,
An excellent and challanging response. I will see if I can find some time tomorrow to formulate a considered reply.
In the meantime let me deal with the easy stuff first.
You wrote: “If Gerry Adams and his contemporaries had attempted to stick their heads above water in the USA, they’d have been penetrated by the FBI, gunned down, dismissed in public as un-American , and given the death penalty. They’d have been banned from voting or standing in elections.“
Check the hyperlinks.
You also write “What’s wrong with Diplock courts…think about it”. Well I have thought about it and I totally disagree with you. A trial by your peers is a non negotiable building block of a democratic society. You see the government can never be both judge and jury – that is called tyranny. You do actually understand the meaning of FREEDOM don’t you? It’s not just a word.
You ask how the African-American population feels here in the United States. In my discussions and observations feel they have much in common with the northern nationalist community, except of course that we will have a black president within the next 2 months. How far along are you guys with your reconcilliation project? Any chance of an Irish Catholic leader of the Assembly?
Glass houses, stones Comrade?
You also criticise the vote counting in Florida, and I won’t disagree with that other than to say I would not overestimate the level of mismanagement. All democracies are flawed, I happen to feel this one is just less flawed than most. Personally I would borrow your Proportional Representation (STV) system to replace our First Past the Post voting system. But the established party assholes in congress would oppose that tooth and nail. You are lucky to have it, hold on to it.