“None was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury.”
The Guardian identifies the key findings of the Saville Inquiry report. The significant one for the families
“None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description. None was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury. In no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire,” the report said.
The Guardian also points out
Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford did not comply with Brigadier MacLellan’s order to tackle rioters by sending one group of troops into William Street “but not to conduct a running battle down Rossville Street”. Instead, Wilford sent additional soldiers into Bogside. “The effect was that soldiers of Support Company did chase people down Rossville Street,” said Saville. “Some of those people had been rioting but many were peaceful marchers. There was thus no separation between peaceful marchers and those who had been rioting and no means whereby soldiers could identify and arrest only the latter.”
And that
The report said that republican paramilitaries had been responsible for “some firing” but the scale had been exaggerated by British soldiers and “none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of the civilian casualties”.
But that
Saville rejected the contention that the state had authorised the troops to use “unwarranted lethal force” or sanctioned them “with reckless disregard as to whether such force was used”.
And the feces continues to roll downhill. I am speaking strictly to:
“Saville rejected the contention that the state had authorised the troops to use “unwarranted lethal force” or sanctioned them “with reckless disregard as to whether such force was used”.”
When one’s attorney general reports that there will be no prosecution of the soldier owing to the killing occurring “in the line of duty”, he and the state have just sanctioned, with reckless disregard, the unlawful use of lethal force.
[...] 2010, 4:41pm7Former Sunday Times Insight journalist, Peter Pringle, savoured the publication of the Saville Inquiry report. And he had some interesting thoughts on Saville’s methodologyBut questions about [...]
Pete,
are you suggesting here that the statement “None was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury” is an inconsistent conclusion for Saville to have reached?
Yeah, Sammy Mac.
That’s what I’m doing here.
*shakes head*
Pete,
I was pondering whether that is what you actually think of Saville’s conclusions as opposed to the Guardian or were perhaps invitng us to ponder if they were inconsistent.
Many Unionists seem to be having difficulty with the report so I would imagine b> your views will be quite popular in those cirlces.
Of course the soldiers get blamed.
The other blogger on here, Niall (I can’t think of his last name) wrote a superb article on the internal divisions and the decisions made by military brass leading up to BS. It was free to download for a limited time. I suggest you all read it, I have read 2 books on that day and I think his work gets to the heart of how and why BS happened.
I don’t blame the footsoldiers, I blame Ford and other military officers. Pure foolishness.