Monday, June 11, 2007
“I’m not a criminal. I was never a criminal…”
No confirmation yet from the Secretary of State for Wales, etc, that he is actually calling for a review into how either the unsolved murders of the Troubles, or the legacy of the Troubles, are to be dealt with. Meanwhile it seems that the much quoted NIO source was actually talking to Liam Clarke in the Sunday Times. In another article in the Sunday Times Clarke also accused the then[?] Sinn Féin Director of Unionist Outreach Martina Anderson, et al, of hyprocisy in calling for the criminal records of former paramilitary prisoners to be removed - “We had a political situation which produced political prisoners”.
From the Sunday Times, via the indispensible Newhound
For Anderson, political motivation means that, here and now, IRA actions should not be dwelt on except at republican commemorations when ex-prisoners are congratulated and the dead remembered. At best the political motivation, now that the campaign is over, becomes a springboard for political action of a more conventional type.
“Let us take on this task readily, with determination and with container-loads of energy, following the example of the people down the years who gave their lives in pursuance of this struggle,” Anderson said at the Edentubber commemoration for the four IRA members and civilian whose lives were wasted when a bomb exploded prematurely in Co Louth in 1958.
This sort of thinking may be useful as a psychological device to deal with her violent past, years in jail and the death of her friends.
Otherwise, she might suffer the full mental anguish that would normally be associated with such memories. But as a line of argument it won’t be accepted by anyone who did not support the IRA campaign. She is speaking a different language from most of the population.
Sinn Féin operates a seemingly unconscious double standard in which the wrongdoing of others is to be remembered and probed, but IRA activity, although it caused pain, sits outside the criminal justice system and truth-recovery process. Anderson, now a member of the policing board, speaks of instances of politically motivated collusion between the security forces and paramilitaries as “crimes against humanity”.
Yet IRA actions were never crimes against humanity, because they were inspired by the same sort of political motives she attributes to the police.
The point featured in a recent exchange between Martin McGuinness and Stephen Nolan of the BBC, who has a gift for bluntness.
Nolan asked McGuinness if he had killed anybody. McGuinness hedged and talked about being an IRA leader at a time when people suffered.
“I’m wondering if I am looking at a killer,” Nolan persisted. “You can wonder all you like,” replied McGuinness.
Asked if, now that he supported law and order, McGuinness would like people to report anything he had done wrong, he replied: “I’m not a criminal. I was never a criminal . . . I’m not asking or advocating that republicans and nationalists should give information on the IRA over the IRA campaign. I can’t do that.”
This attempt to close the book on the IRA campaign because of its political character, while calling for public inquiries into other acts of violence that sprang from the political conflict, won’t wash.
It leaves Sinn Féin looking like hypocrites, having no answers to the hard questions.
Pete Baker @ 10:51 PM
They do not look like hypocrites to me infact if any thing its points out the severe hypocracy of the state and their role in terrorism
Posted by on Jun 11, 2007 @ 11:50 PMThe above post is what you read when you look up ‘Whataboutery’ in the latest edition of the Ulster-Irish Dictionary.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:29 AMI suppose Clarke would have a good point if it was true.
From a quick google I found SF had tried to initiate a debate on similar terms to those suggested by the NIO in 2003.
Maybe Mr Clarke doesn’t have google?
So instead of hypocrisy I see misinformation on the part of the journalist. That doesn’t do anyone any good.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:39 AMceci n’est pas un pipe
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:41 AM“The above post is what you read when you look up ‘Whataboutery’ in the latest edition of the Ulster-Irish Dictionary” - Gonzo
There is too much denial of reality in it for that. ‘Whataboutery’ nominally acknowledges an unpleasant act committed by one side of the sectarian divide by attempting to deflect the topic onto an equivalent unpleasant act committed by the other side - they must recognise the nature of act by their own side in-order to find an equivalent to it.
I don’t know which quaint term to apply to his post. There is certainly deflection in it, but it is a blinkered form of it that only accepts the reality of the equivalent that it deflects to (and not the reality of that which it deflects from). It reminds me of another unclassified ‘Sluggerism’ - whereby you say something to a Shinner like ‘Gangsters who are involved in organised crime such as PSF should not be elected to public office’ and they’ll retort with something like ‘Didn’t Charles Haughey receive brown envelopes?’ The fallacy of the ‘logic’ is that it’s okay for x to do z because y did w which was similar to z.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:02 AMno such thing the crown forces have a duty to uphold the laws of the crown something they clearly did not. The IRA by contrast did not have a duty to uphold the laws of the crown just a duty to pay the price when they were legaly caught! Seldom were they legaly caught and more often they were inocent or at most guilty by association. These convictions in themselves were illegal acts.
just today on the beeb there was a story about crown interogators involved in the torture of prisoners, for which he expressed no remorse nor did he view his actions as torture but he tried to dismiss them as the normal actions of interogators. Too bad it should have seen him either tried as a criminal or a war criminal, depending what side of the divide you hail from.
So yeah as long as they let scum like the RUC criminals wander around free why should MMG have a care
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:37 AMoops sorry it wasnt the beeb i misremembered here is the link
http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/article2640769.ece
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:47 AM‘ The IRA by contrast did not have a duty to uphold the laws of the crown just a duty to pay the price when they were legaly caught! ’
Sean, who paid the price for these brutal murders of some fellow Catholics by the IRA?
Eamon Collins 45-year-old ex-prisoner was beaten and stabbed on January 27, 1999, because he wrote a brutally honest book, Killing Rage, about his role as part of the murderous IRA’s South Armagh Brigade. He also testified in the Sunday Times libel case against IRA boss, Thomas ‘Slab’ Murphy. Police who attended the scene said they had never encountered such injuries, which at first made them think he had been mangled by machinery. No one has been charged.
Paul Daly (38) was sitting with his 11-year-old daughter in his car near the nationalist Unity Flats on May 4, 2001 when two gunmen approached and shot him.
Christopher O’Kane (37) was shot dead outside a Derry pub on April 21, 2001.
Andy Kearney (33) was involved in a fist fight with a notorious north Belfast IRA man. The IRA man sent an armed gang to Kearney’s seventh-floor flat in the New Lodge area on July 20, 1997. They overpowered Kennedy, tied his hands behind his back, dragged him out onto the landing and shot him three times in the legs. They then tore out the telephone and disabled the lift so Kearney’s girlfriend had to run down 16 flights of stairs to raise help. He bled to death.
Michael Magee (34) was recovering from a savage IRA punishment beating at his home in Downpatrick on June 11, 2001 when a masked gang broke in and shot him dead at point-blank range. Family and friends said he was shot because he had a fight with a local republican.
Gareth O’Connor (24) disappeared while travelling through south Armagh on March 11, 2003. Gardai believe he was murdered by the local IRA
Belfast Telegraph, 15th March 2005
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 03:06 AMIt seems to me that putting a gun to the head of an unarmed man is wrong, regardless of who’s head and who’s gun.
If we can’t agree on that, I would suggest that any further discussion, while not entirely pointless, at least holds little hope for reconciliation.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 03:50 AMCurious
Well said. Killing Rage by Eamon Collins is a remarkable expose of what went on within the IRA, and the excesses that came to characterise it, from the viewpoint of an idealistic man who was prepared to take up arms to defend his country against the injustice he saw being inflicted, but who eventually became so sickened by the actions of the IRA that he could no longer be a part a part of their activities. And look how they proved him right.
Ironic after the previous discussion of whataboutery that Sean should simultaneously exonerate heinous crimes like those you list, and cite the example of an interrogator who spat on an IRA bomber in mitigation.
Doublethink at work. The attempt to whitewash the history of the IRA and excuse it’s actions makes my blood boil. They may not have been the only offenders, but they sure as hell are guilty of crimes. And before you say something stupid Sean, crimes doesn’t just mean actions for which you can stand trial in a British court.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 04:02 AMThe bottom line is MMG is a criminal on both sides of the border, today he is a minister in a small regional council but in a similar way to the crown prince of saudi Arabia who is protected from prosecution, the real power as and will always remain in London (HMG). If London wanted him dead he would be dead, London protected him and will continue to protect him as can be witnessed when they stopped the Operation Phoenix arrest.
I tip my hat to Liam for that expose Oh so many years ago.
Criminal????? 100% North and South , today he acknowledges both states so MMG is talking absolute brussel sprout language.
Best regards.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 09:23 AMSometimes you really do not know where to begin with the likes of Sean and Emerald Pimpernel.
“The IRA by contrast did not have a duty to uphold the laws of the crown just a duty to pay the price when they were legaly caught”.
Sean this means the IRA can do whatever they want and if caught by the state they can be put in prison (how “rerasonable” of you). Did they have absolutely no moral responsibility not to murder people? So their actions were always acceptable to you. I always thought murder was also a crime in the Republic and come to think of it throughout the world. Can you find it in your mind to say that any IRA act was wrong. Maybe Enniskillen?
Yet again we see that there are those who feel IRA/SF can have it all ways. All their acts were entirely justifible by the fact that they were taking part in a “war”. When they “occassionally” killed the “wrong” people a quick apology made it all okay.
The real worry I have about the mindset demonstrated by IRA/SF and some posters on this site is that if there was nothing wrong with their campagin and it was entirely justifable then surely the only logical position to proceed from that would be that they would have the “right” even “duty” to start again if they do not get their own way. Once one is in that parallel moral univerise I do not think there is any human way back (though I believe with God all things are possible, but that is a different issue). In view of that how can unionists, normal nationalists, anyone proceed to have political dealings with these people.
In a kind of a way though a agree with the Emerald Pimpernel and FS about them not being hipocrites, that is like calling Ian Huntley a liar for denying he murdered those school girls. Of course it is true he was a liar and they were hipocrites but their other criminal immoral acts are so vastly more severe that calling them hipocrites does not really do them justice.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 09:43 AM`It is the duty of the state to protect innocent civilians from threat of terrorists. This the state tried to do under extremely difficult circumstances. Maybe some of the tactics used could be described as contriversal, but how do you deal with gutless killers who hid behind wemon and children.
There were mistakes made and innocent people were killed. Of the total killed republicans were responsible for 90 percent of the human carnage. It is a little bit rich for the Sinn Fein Director of Unionist Outreach to be demanding prisoner records to be cleared. How is this reaching out to Unionists. More importantly why are SF not reaching out to the people who have suffered. This just shows the double standards that SF expect people to accept.Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 09:45 AMIts interesting that you never hear loyalists demanding their slate wiped clean? But then I’ve always thought loyalists tend to feel more remorse and ashamed on what they did in genereal.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:14 AMWho gives a toss for political prisoners. They commited the crimes so they should live with the consequences of their actions.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:19 AMPoor old Martin. There’s everyone else telling you you were and are a criminal killer, and there’s you telling them you’re not. Still, you’ve got the consolation of that grand office, Papa Croc for a boss, the Union in place and Sinn Fein flatlining in the Free State. Well done Martin, well done. And imagine if you had murdered a few more people, just think how well off we’d all be now. For as your handful of apologists on this site keep rushing to tell us, it’s only because of all those people you murdered in the past that we’re in the Happy (forgetful) Place we are today.
Oh well. I’ve said it before, been ranted at for saying it, and will now say it again: Martin McGuinness’ murderous past *is* going to catch up with him. And somewhere not so deep down, he knows it, even if Slugger’s Keyboard Republicans don’t.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:23 AMMcGuiness is a criminal. He broke the Law. If government forces broke the Law then they are also criminals.People like McGuiness have a need to rationalise their involvement in a murderous sectarian campaign against their Protestant neighbours.There was no justification for the IRA campaign-no problem that would not have been resolved or could not have been resolved by dialogue.What problems did working class Roman Catholics experience that were different from those experienced by their Protestant neighbours?
It is hard for the IRA to rewrite history and portray themselves a s freedom fighters-they were squalid,cowardly sectarian murderers.The top guys have done really well financially-while the footsoldiers took all the pain and got little gain-and ultimately got sold out by the top men who wanted power.It would be good to have more people provide information about the contribution made by Gerry and Martin and their like.
T.RuthPosted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:27 AMJust goes to show what an awful police force we had.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:36 AMAs a SF supporter I can see why some people think they are being hypocritical on this issues in calling for investigations into state killings but saying their own were political so everyone should basically forget.
The state (and other commentators who are anti SF) are also being hypocritical though using the fact that SF say they was a war to say SF have no right to protest about State actions. The fact is that the State told SF for 25 years it wasn’t a war and refused to treat them as political prisoners so they cant have it both ways either.
Personally (I may not be representative of SF supporters here), if the state came out with the following statement I would be happy for no convictions and to let everyone get on with their lives with no more inquiries etc. Perhaps a T&RC;in a few years time but that’s it:
The state had been at War with the IRA for 25 years. The state was involved in many acts of war which now seem outrageous. We believed it was necessary at the time and also believed it was necessary to fight the war while pretending that the IRA were in fact criminals. This was all part of our war strategy. We acknowledge that many innocent people were killed by the State but these were what we now call collateral damage.
No individual soldiers or police officers should shoulder blame as they were only following orders.
We regret all loss of life on all sides.
Signed Gordon Brown PM
If the government is not prepared to make such a statement then surely SF should pursue all State violence. IRA volunteers collectively spent thousands of years in jail. Surely the state has to pay some price for its role in the violence.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:37 AMSo what statement would the IRA put out in return?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:45 AM“The fact is that the State told SF for 25 years it wasn’t a war and refused to treat them as political prisoners “
Is this an admission that Sinn Féin and the IRA were one and the same Pól ?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:47 AMExcept, Pol, it wasn’t a ‘war’. The only people who claim it was a war are Sinn Fein/IRA supporters. Everyone else says it was terrorism plain and simple. And that ‘everyone else’ includes: the British government, the Irish government, the American government and all the other governments in the EU; in north, the Unionist parties and the SDLP; all of the Southern political parties too - FF, FG, Labour, the PDs and the Greens; the Protestant churches said it was terrorism, and, the Catholic church said it was terrorism; and last but hardly least (for everyone else, for everyone democratically, constitutionally and morally minded), *every* opinion poll ever taken on the subject north and south of the border deemed it terrorism.
So, we have supporters of the IRA (the people carrying out the terrorism) saying it wasn’t terrorism, and, we have everyone else saying it was. Pol, do you not even begin to see why it’s insufferable arrogance for Sinn Fein, and them alone to tell all the rest of us that we’re wrong, and they happen to be right?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:48 AMIt would be interesting to see which members of the Army Council ended up taking responsiblity Shore Road Resident. Bit tricky for Martin and Gerry.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:51 AMMy point is Whatever Next that if the govenment and everyone else want to continue to treat the IRA campaign as a criminal exercise, then they have to face the consequences if they use extra-legal force.
In that circumstance, any collusion (especially in light of O’Loan inquiry) should be investigated using public inquiries.
My point is that anyone who looks at it logically can see that the British government felt it was fighting a war and its soldiers certainly felt that way. If they just admitted this there would be no need for all the enquiries instead of keeping up the pretence that it was just an unexpected surge of criminal activity which lasted for 25 years.
In answer to Shore Road resident, I believe their statement could be very similar to British one in tone and content with obvious changes.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:56 AM“if the govenment and everyone else want to continue to treat the IRA campaign as a criminal exercise, then they have to face the consequences if they use extra-legal force. “
Fine by me. That’s the way it should be.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 11:05 AM
