Wednesday, December 21, 2005
conspiracy theory suffers from fundamental flaw
In the Belfast Telegraph, Ed Moloney argues that “Not only does the Sinn Fein conspiracy theory not hold water, but the evidence about securocrat behaviour is strongly to the contrary.”
Boiled down to essentials, what the Sinn Fein leadership is saying amounts to this: in an attempt to prevent Sinn Fein staying in government, and as part of an effort to kill off the peace process, MI5 and the PSNI leadership conspired to subvert the policies of their democratically elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair by inventing a spy ring at Stormont, thereby ensuring the collapse of the Executive.
If this is true, and the spooks had managed to get away with it, then Stormontgate would represent one of the most audacious anti-democratic plots in British history - one that dwarfs the allegations of spookish dirty tricks against Harold Wilson in the 1970s.
Common sense suggests that in such circumstances, amounting to a grave constitutional crisis, Tony Blair would have to move quickly to crush such dangerous dissent or see his authority fatally eroded. But he hasn’t. And that is because he knows Adams and McGuinness are playing politics and that what they say is so much eyewash.
The Sinn Fein conspiracy theory - that the spooks are out to destroy the peace process - suffers from a more fundamental flaw. Not only is it rubbish, but the exact opposite is the truth. The peace process represents the wildest fantasies of the security establishment come true and the last thing the spooks want is to see it destroyed.
The peace process has enabled MI5 and the PSNI Special Branch to achieve something that very few if any security forces have ever accomplished: to see their enemy defanged by its own leadership and led out of violent revolutionary ways into constitutional politics and a world where the principle of consent overrides the Armalite.
MI5 and the PSNI know they could never have done this themselves, that they needed people like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to do it for them.
Pete Baker @ 12:08 PM
It would have been shorter und less painfull to say; Martin, Gerry, you never get a christmas card from me.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 12:43 PMCan anyone provide the exact quotes from Joe Pillings’ widely cited speech in the US in which, according to McGuiness and others, he describes the emergence of SF as the biggest nationalist party at the ‘worst-case scenario’? I see it widely cited by SF but have never actually read Pilling’s words. This would help clarify whether he is so squeaky clean and earnest as Moloney makes him out to be.
Moloney conflates two different ‘stages’of the ‘process’ here to make his case, and misrepresents SF’s argument about ‘sections’ of security working to undermine their strength. One doesn’t have to go all the way with the SF line to see the holes in Moloney’s account, and I am unpersuaded. Of course the NIO, Lowry, others--including ‘securocrats’--much preferred that Adams and the GFA supporters come out on top in the internal debates (though I hadn’t known previously that Special Branch took steps to ensure that dissenters were physically unable to attend the SF discussions). And of course they would have been realistic that an agreement that demanded surrender of arms upfront without anything to show for it was off the table. But their support for an agreement at this stage does not mean that they (or Blair, or Ahern) were happy to see SF emerge as the largest of the nationalist parties. The whole thrust of mainstream commentary over the past three years has been a collective whinge over the collapse of the ‘centre’, by which they mean isn’t it horrible that the SDLP, UUP have fallen apart. Are we to believe that this is not a perspective shared, and actively promoted by the NIO? There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that they have done all they could to undermine SF’s electoral strength, and to support the argument that elements in security are working at cross-purposes.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 12:43 PMThe phrase he is looking for is “appaling vista”.
It couldn’t have happened because it would be terrible if it did. Much easier to blame the usual suspects.
To flog the Watergate analogy a bit harder it’s just as well it wasn’t Woodward and Moloney. Because Presidents don’t do that kind of thng do they?
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 12:50 PMpete,
as you said in the other blog:
a strange kind of common interest, if not collusion, has evolved between Downing Street and Sinn Féin.. and Dublin.. oh, and the Guardian Leader writer from a couple of days ago
The same applies here I suggest.
If I may, I see things in pictures:
SF and Brit Gov’t are in the deep jungle trekking and trying to capture the wounded but roaring lion Ian Paisley. Suddenly SF men and MI5 bump into each other accidently..very tense… but rather than shoot each other.. they grin...and signal safety to each other.. as they realise they’re both on the same mission.
They agree not to expose each others position, and work together to set the traps needed to haul in Mr.Big, the wild one. They’ve agreed that this crazy guy is the threat and therefore the real Kurtz in this heart of darkness.
Wish I could draw cartoons ;)Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 12:58 PMA very very weak argument by Moloney. As I see it it is not unlikely that people employed in the security apparatus conspired in an act of political vandalism (note not a conspiracy) to F.U. the assembly. The motive may have been nothing more than anger, revenge or both.
No one really doubts Blairs commitment, it is the commitment and professional detactment of the security services that is in doubt. After all if a friend of colleague of yours was killed or injured by the provisionals I think it would be very difficult to have the necessary professionalism to resist the temptation of political vandalism if the opportunity arose.
The appaling vista is very much a probabilty and done once and unchecked could well happen again.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 01:07 PM‘but evidence about securocrat behaviour is strongly to the contrary’
The evidence is provided by an NIO Official, ex Branch man Lowry and a mixture of Brian Nelson and Gordon Kerr. Rock on Ed you’ve really got your finger on the pulse there.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 01:17 PMThis seems a very vague rebuttal to me. I believe this was Political-Policing by the PSNI and MI5. The entire Stormontgate case was based on Denis Donaldson - a British agent - possessing thousands of documents. I rest my case.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 01:25 PMThe reason the securocrats get away with “ one of the most audacious anti-democratic plots in British history - one that dwarfs the allegations of spookish dirty tricks against Harold Wilson in the 1970s” is that Blair is in hock to them to his tonsils over the WMD in Iraq issue.
They know what he did to sidle up to Bush - he joined an unjustified military invasion of Iraq, murdering thousands of unarmed civiilians in the process and sacrificed his own soldiers in the pursuit of a ‘grand political adventure’. And if they tell tales - and we know that they have their pet journalists to tell their tales for them - then the New Labour project would be fatally holed below the waterline.
The problem with the likes of Ed Moloney is that his analysis is predicated on one point: his personal animus towards Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. That very point undermines the analysis of others too - has anyone read the ad hominem attack of Kevin Myers on Gerry Adams in today’s Irish Times. Some people are glorying in the Donaldson revelations as indicative of some lack of judgement. Perhaps Denis Donaldson was a master of deceit?
Those who are putting this line forward are trying to obscure the real issue which is how can Hugh Orde and whoever try to portray this as a SF spyring when the only SF link to it was a British agent?
Another question which should be asked: Did the Ombudsman know about Denis Donaldson and his role when she issued her report last year, a report which is now being disingenuously used to give the PSNI a ‘clean bill of health’ on SF’s allegation of political policing.Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 01:27 PMDidn’t Rowan, a former Special Branch detective, tell RTE that he thought Stormontgate was a plot by securocrats to collapse the Executive?
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 01:28 PMThe Ombudsman will have known nothing about Donaldson at anytime previous to his recent unmasking.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 01:48 PMCommon sense suggests that in such circumstances, amounting to a grave constitutional crisis, Tony Blair would have to move quickly to crush such dangerous dissent or see his authority fatally eroded. But he hasn’t.
Bill Lowry is no longer head of Belfast Special Branch is he? He himself claimed that he was ousted by MI5, and that they had put him under pressure to leave Sinn Fein a way out in Operation Torsion.
Lowry’s appearance at the DUP annual dinner last year, suggests there was at least one key ‘securocrat’ who wasn’t signed up the official agenda if it meant power-sharing with Sinn Fein.
By constantly referring to “MI5 and the PSNI” as if they were a monolith, Moloney elides all of this.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 01:56 PMOC -
The reason the securocrats get away with “ one of the most audacious anti-democratic plots in British history - one that dwarfs the allegations of spookish dirty tricks against Harold Wilson in the 1970s” is that Blair is in hock to them to his tonsils over the WMD in Iraq issue.
a) the unjustified military invasion of Iraq took place in 2003.
b) The raid on Stormont took place in 2002.
A leading to B would require a Delorean, a diminutive high school kid and a mad professor. Congrats on proposing the most laughable conspiracy theory in the face of very stiff opposition.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 02:56 PMI’m not a SF supporter. I consider the party’s project to be underpinned by sectarian rabble rousing and I think that they are, therefore, making the case for an island wide nation harder to argue. So I’m not about to jump slavishly to their defence on this.
That said, I’m not convinced by their many enemies, who are lining up to take a swing over this one, that Sinn Fein are at fault.
Ed Maloney’s assertion that the ‘securocrats’ wouldn’t want to thwart Sinn Fein’s project holds water only up until the decommissioning and emasculation of the IRA. Once that process was finished, do they really need them any more?
Would they rather not deal with the SDLP, who from their formation campaigned on the basic principles which have been fundamental the peace process?
Republican militarism is in tatters, both in terms of its physical ability to wage war and its morale. The Reals and the Conties can barely lift their heads without the Brits pouncing. The Provos have left the stage. There will not be a return to the really bad old days in the forseeable future.
The rise of Sinn Fein may be seen as a threat to stability here with Unionists lurching to the right in response. It is a matter of fact that levels of sectarianism have increased since the peace process began. The creation, and exploitation of, Ethnic tensions are the weapons of choice in the electoral war.
This process is not about real peace. It is, to a large extent, parties playing the zero-sum game without the bloodshed.
I think Sinn Fein were shafted at Stormont.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 02:58 PMRingo
If that’s your best shot, then you’re pitiful.
1) the intelligence provided for Iraq was being concocted around the same time or before Stormontgate
2) Either way the intelligence services such as they are probably have plans and operations on the go all the time - when one comes to fruition has no bearing.
So no time machine is necessary for such theories.
It may seem fantastic to you, given your limited intelligence, but imagine how plausible it is in comparison to the theory being put forward by Hugh Orde that there was no political motivation for the policing operation to shaft Sinn Féin even though the only documents discovered were at the home of a PSNI agent!
In the field of competitive and laughable theories propulsion, I bow to Sir Hugh as being an undisputed champion. The likes of Ed Maloney and co are only snapping at his heels.Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 03:36 PMCongrats to Maloney on an insightful piece.
‘The Sinn Fein conspiracy theory - that the spooks are out to destroy the peace process - suffers from a more fundamental flaw. Not only is it rubbish, but the exact opposite is the truth. The peace process represents the wildest fantasies of the security establishment come true and the last thing the spooks want is to see it destroyed.’
Where have you been during the dirty war Ed? Under the bed? Pillow over head?
Some of them are fairly violently opposed to SF and any political project they attempt (emphasis on V-I-O-L-E-N-T-L-Y).
The stolen docs (if they were stolen and not provided) were in the hands of someone on the payroll of those who carried out the raid - wakey wakey!
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 04:00 PMI see Tones is meeting woth the Mc Cartneys today.
“Quick, quick, this smear’s going sour, the Mc Cartney bull£@*t still has legs - wheel that one out!”
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 04:03 PMOilbhéar,
I would have thought it was very different departments looking at Iraq vs. NI. The former would be MI6 (foreign) and the latter MI5 (internal), so unlikely to have a canny year-in-advance plan to somehow blackmail blair.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 04:09 PMIrish Times online poll.
Do you believe the PSNI raid on Sinn Féin’s offices in Stormont three years ago was politically motivated?
78% YES 22% NOPosted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 04:43 PMThe question that has not been asked todate is this:
Did Dennis have Police participant informer (PI Status)if he did not, then not only is he liable to prosecution his Handlers would also if they were involved in the criminal act.
Before an Agent can legally be involved in the comission of a criminal act the police if he was a PSNI source must apply for it. This status is not open ended and should be applied for on each occassion required.
If he was a BOX 500 asset which is likely post Patten then he is OK, the Ombudsman would have no right to have any input into any investigation if one was to be established because she cannot investigate either the Army or the Security Services.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 05:13 PMDualta
“This process is not about real peace. It is, to a large extent, parties playing the zero-sum game.”
I agree, in the dim and distant past we had an agreement that was overwhelmingly supported. There was a desire to move on, for leadership and vision, but instead and our political classes dug deeper trenches. They played the process for self interest without regard to the ethics of what they were doing. Deals on deals, progress based wringing painful incremental concessions from each other, whilst all the time monitoring their own opinion polls or reflecting on past dark deeds and the need to cover up. Mean while the thugery continued, in many communities amid rumours of collusion and deals. Any wonder the support collapsed.
Now we are at the dying end of a fading Labour government, with 4 years to linger on, an administration without coherent vision, a government of expediency, a Prime Minister who no one trusts and no one here willing to take the high ground and do what is necessary and put their own house in order. It is a disgrace.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 05:32 PMDid Dennis have Police participant informer (PI Status)if he did not, then not only is he liable to prosecution his Handlers would also if they were involved in the criminal act.
You’re asking us? Silly ####
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 05:49 PMHave to say, fair play to all the Shinners who have taken over the Slugger O Toole airwaves in recent times. You’re devotion to duty is truly awe inspiring.
I wonder how many of you lot are all the payroll of SF MLAs MPs etc.
(A payroll BTW paid for by us British taxpayers)
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 05:50 PMEvery card that has been played in this game from the moment the media was tipped off about the raid to Donaldsons outing, has been made by players who SF opposes - the PSNI, British Intelligence, state prosecutor, the High Court etc. Normally there is a bit of to-and-fro, with one side reacting to the other, but in this situation it has been all one way traffic. SF are ‘unarmed’ in this game. It has nothing of substance to counter with or force the situation.
So they resort to the usual ‘victim’ mode (and I don’t doubt they are the victims in this case, but we don’t know of what), and adopt ‘political policing’ as the mantra. SF didn’t, as Gerry Adams momentarily suggested, ‘uncover’ Donaldson. He was handed to them by the other side. SF are playing with a hand of cards that their opponents have conciously dealt them.
If you spread meaning of the phrase ‘political policing’ wide enough it can encompass anything. But finding common ground between this and the arrest of Francie Brolly a couple of weeks back is stretching it too thin.
The fact that they were involved in an intelligence gathering operation against TD’s around the same time would suggest that the claims that they weren’t spying in Stormont sounds very hollow. Why not? Last week there were no documents in West Belfast - now there are loads of them because the circumstances around the person in possession have changed. It all smacks of desperation, and the hopeless certainty, as best displayed by Oilbhéar Chromaill’s 12.27 above, just goes to show that despite all surity that is on display, that nobody has the slightest clue as to what it was all about.
We know that the IRA and SF’s explicit aim is a UI. We don’t know what the aims of the various intelligence services aims are. There is plenty of theory going around, but without that fundamental bit of information it is impossible to determine their motivation, and consequently, the reasons behind the minute fraction of their actions that come into the public domain.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 06:18 PMincisive contribution slugger reader. hard to know how to come back after such a devastating blow…
are you concerned about all your taxes wasted moving people around to give credibility to a an elaborate security scam, or to carry out war crimes in iraq, or do you whinge and moan only selectively?
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 06:18 PMSlugger Reader,
Number of pro SF posts = (level of guilt x assessment of political damage) to the power of ego factor (which is always somewhere in the stratosphere and because of this the response like a lie detector is swift and immediate).
It is a simple mathematical equation that helps us gauge their integrity.
Posted by on Dec 21, 2005 @ 06:24 PM
