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 @ 09:51 PM
So Cruimh you accept SF’s right to call for public inquiries and support campaigns such as relatives for justice in looking for public inquires into collusion, shoot to kill policies etc?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:15 AMPol, the point is if your having enquiries into state killings, collusion, etc, then it follows you have enquiries into all unsolved murders assoicated with the troubles. SF appear not to want this, they appear to be very selective in what enquiries they call for.
SF wan tot have their cake and eat it. And everyone else is merely pointing out their double standards that no amount of sophistry can hide.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:29 AMJocky what exactly is the HET for? As I outlined above I am sure SF would prefer for the state to say it was a war and forget about everything but given the existence of the HET and the fact that OTRs are not allowed return, surely the governments extra-legal activities should be investigated.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:32 AMMy guess is that when the conflict was ongoing, no-one gave a thought to the post-conflict fall-out. Presumably all thoughts were on the immediate strategies and how best to pursue them within the strictures of the here-and-now. Not some future full of recriminations and enquiries.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:40 AMWhen I was 16 I bit off a bit more than I could chew with some lads one evening and ended up with a bit of a kicking and an attractively flattened profile. For some reason I felt the need to go and have a pint in the bar where these guys drank just to take a look at them.
I have to say I found it a bit cathartic if embarrasing. We ended up having quite a civilised chat along the “no harm meant we just like giving a hiding to people a few years younger than us now and again.” Given the chance I’d still have returned the favour but that didn’t seem wise at the time.
When people do what seems to you fairly random and disproportionate acts of violence you need to reset something - sense of self or equity or something.
On an entirely different scale, Gordon Wilson wanted to meet the men behind the Enniskillen bomb. I think with his simple Christian soul he just went around randomly loving people and couldn’t get the thinking behind his daughter’s death.
He was told Marie was just collateral damage and it was all the Brits and their garrison community’s (perhaps Gordon’s as he was the type to attend a remembrance ceremony) fault.
He seemed crushed
But the the Irish government seemed to recognize something in Gordon that needed honouring and invited him to be a Senator.
Get to the point Jaffa.
Truth and reconciliation needs some sort of common moral vocab. That wasn’t there for Mr Wilson and he came away empty handed.
It may also need a post-conflict situation.
I don’t think we have one. SF claims it’s simply entered a new and more productive phase. There are (apparently) few regrets about the military campaign, except for the occaisional accident and the imprisonment or martyrdom of volunteers. It just wasn’t their fault - since Bombay Street, Bloody Sunday, Internment and the Hunger Strike the Brits and their 6 county garrison had it coming. There was no alternative but surrender.
To get a TRC going SF would need a militant tendency moment - their version a furious Neil Kinnock raving about liverpool taxi drivers. In SF’s terms it might be a rabid Martina raving about Kingsmill. It would need to be prepared to see Eric Heffer walk out of the mansion house in disgust.
Come to think of it with the 32CSC and Real IRA, a lot of this may have happened, but there’s a reluctance for SF to let the language follow the action. It’s almost as if SF skipped the public militant tendency fall-out and went straight to the clause 4 moment (abandonment of violence) It seems to be a weird case of needing to talk the walk rather than walk the talk. Gusty Spence and David Ervine did it better.
Maybe the best hope for better mental health for all of us is the example of the Irish government’s response to Gordon Wilson and the greater presence of soft Irish republicanism in NI. SF just don’t seem able to do empathy.
Sorry if that all seemed a bit hand-wringy.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:44 AMI agree DK. Bit of honestly would go a long way (from all sides I mean)
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:45 AMJaffa,
I believe (it is only a belief) that many in SF are up for apologies/truth but it needs to come from all sides and can probably only come about if the British Government admit their role. This could happen jointly - I am not saying the British government should take a unilateral step.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 10:49 AMPol, you and other Republicans really don’t get it do you?
Here’s were I stand, if forces of the British state were involved in illegality as seems likely they were then yes they should face the full rigours of the law and be punished (under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement they would face no jail time anyway), why? Because it was NOT a war! It was a terrorist criminal campaign.
Now as I said in an earlier thread about Saville, Republicans cannot have it both ways, if they believe it was a war then tough titty, give over about it, it’s over now.
However if as Republicans claim to believe it was a war then stop whining because the enemy kicked the shite out of you a few times. Furthermore if as a Republican you believe it was a war in which your side were the only legitimate forces then as an Irish patriot you should be demanding to know not why the enemy behaved badly (that is after all an accepted part of war) but why your own side committed so many horrendous atrocities against your own fellow Irish citizens, eg Bloody Friday, La Mons, Donegall Street, Enniskillen, Claudy etc.
Like I said I don’t believe it was a war so I agree any criminal acts by the state should be punished, if you agree it was a war shouldn’t you also demand punishment for the perpetrators of war crimes on your own side, and I mean punishment not by the British state but by your own fellow Republicans?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 11:03 AMHarry,
I do think it is reasonable for SF to believe it was a war but since they were treated like criminals the British government should be held to the same standards.
Anyone convicted would have to spend 2 years in jail by the way (correct me if I am wrong on this).
It is all a circular argument. You say republicans cannot demand the State to be held to account because we believe it was a war - I say they should because they dont believe it was a war!
I agree some of the IRA volunteers were guilty of war crimes and should have been dealt with at the time but what exactly do you propose SF do now?
Dont forget SF represents many thousands of people who did not support the armed struggle so surely they can argue their case?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 11:14 AM“So Cruimh you accept SF’s right to call for public inquiries and support campaigns such as relatives for justice in looking for public inquires into collusion, shoot to kill policies etc? “
Sure - though hopefuly some of those making the most noise will be doing it from behind bars for their crimes. The hypocrisy they show is nauseating.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 11:15 AM“I agree some of the IRA volunteers were guilty of war crimes and should have been dealt with at the time but what exactly do you propose SF do now? “
They would have more credibility if they expelled all terrorists from their party.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 11:21 AMCruimh the whole point is that many Volunteers have served time behind bars for their actions.
British forces - not so much
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 11:32 AMPol,
“I agree some of the IRA volunteers were guilty of war crimes and should have been dealt with at the time but what exactly do you propose SF do now? “
Does this mean that you accept McGuniess is a war criminal?
What do we propose SF do about it now? Well how about tell us that their crimes were morally wrong, that they are actually sorry for what the did.
As has been pointed out previously no one other than SF/IRA (and a few hangers on in the USA) felt that they were committing anything other than crimes. All sorts of people do things they do not accept are crimes that does not change the fact that they are criminals.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 11:44 AMCurious
How original a list of murders, when did I deny that the IRA commited murderKevster
where did I argue it was rightSnakebrain
again another person who attributes arguements to me that I didnt makeGordron
Who sits beside him in his ministerial office but another criminal so enough saidTurgon
Of course the IRA can do whatever they like its called free will. But of course they have to pay the price, its called the forces of law and order, sadly lacking in thew puppet state for the last 85 years but Sinn Fein are working on itBrandx
Total load of bollocks especially when you start with the lie that the IRA was responsible for 90% of the Carnage, try reading the Cain reportWhataboutery
Why would they worry about it their drug dealing cohorts just consider it a badge of honour. I mean killing kids with needles seems to be a respectable occupation in the loyalist communityGrizzle
For many of them the only crime they commited was to have a securocrat “believe” they were in a proscribed organizationwhatevernext
Possibly but theirs lots of others waiting the same thing including lots in uniformsT.Ruth
LOL funny name for some one who doesnt even seem remotely connected to the truth. The UVF started the troubles with the indescriminate murders of innocent catholics, the IRA dont have to portray themselves as defenders and freedom fighters the unionist establishment has done a good enough job of that for themPOL
The Neuremberg trials proved that “I was just following orders” is not a suitable defence for crimes against humanity.Cruimh
No its an admision that they were told the same thing, all lies, but consistent liesWhatever Next
Its now your camp that is trying to claim immunity for the terrorist state forces by saying they were “fighting a war”. You can’t have it both ways either the state forces are guilty of crimes or for 30 years the british cabinet is guilty of war crimes, you make the call. Personally i would love to see maggie in front of the war tribunals in Brussels and then a nice little cell. Maybe her and majors could share a wing and reminiss about the good old days in number 10Cruimh
Gerry was never on the war council but I can’t speak for Martin they play that close to the vestPOl
Wrong if the british considered it was a war then the british government is guilty of Nazi style war crimesCruimh
We finally agree on somethingJocky
How do you propose to have a government style enquiry into a private organisation that keeps virtually no paper records ? And how do you propose to sort out who really is in the IRa and who isn’t?Harry Flashman
Its you who do not get it if you wish to criminalize the IRA then you must yourself respect the rule of law. Clearly the government did not therefor it backs the IRA’s claim it was a warTurgon
They do not believe that they did was wrong so it would be disengenuous to appologize for them, but if you are so concerned get your side to appologize first! they have at least as much to appologize for as the IRA doesPosted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:06 PM“Seldom were they legaly caught and more often they were inocent or at most guilty by association.”
“What problems did working class Roman Catholics experience that were different from those experienced by their Protestant neighbours?”
Oh dear. The airbrushes are working overtime all over the place.
“Can you find it in your mind to say that any IRA act was wrong. Maybe Enniskillen?”
The two cases of NornIronSpeak above would suggest that type of mental leap would be a head above the mental parapets moment for many people on that side, as would a similar admission by their antagonists on the other side.
It would seem the only two options are black and white. Where’s the grey?
Perhaps it’s time for a Director of Republican Outreach. That individual could go, with nothing to lose, to a few people they may bump into in Stormont to see if P O’Neill could be called out of retirement for one final act.
What if the IRA were to produce its own report on events like Enniskillen? And if this document produced accounts by individuals who acknowledged that, at those moments at least, they were the perpetrators of evil deeds on the island, would anonymity be considered the cloak of a coward by that Director of Republican Outreach?
It is unlikely that they would present themselves for the twenty-first century version of the stocks that is the media by signing their names. And if that were a pre-condition then it would all be back to square one, with the two camps quoted above continuing to airbrush across a cyber No Mans Land.
Which would beg the question, which would be more important to both sides - closure or revenge?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:24 PMPol, it appears we are in agreement, you either go all the way or you go none of the way. No side can cherry pick what get’s an inquiry/investigation/HET/TRC or whatever you want to call it.
So EP is your arguement bercause it is difficult it shouldn’t be done? therefore if the varius branches of state that were involved in collusion simply shred all records (hey presto) then they have no case to answer?
or that because the IRA activities have already been investigated then there’s no point going over old ground?
What is your point?
I dont think anyone is arguing that the state claimed it was a war. Hence the current hotch potch of enquiries/coiver ups etc.
The point is the IRA and their supporters position that it was a war and the double standards inherent in that stance. See heading.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:27 PMThe emerald Pimpernal,
quote Gordron
Who sits beside him in his ministerial office but another criminal so enough said unquoteI am not aware of the state preventing a prosecution being pursued against Rev Paisley are you? please explain why you think Mr Paisley is on a par with Marty?
We are certain and the Govt does not deny that it stopped Operation Phoenix from proceeding and the police In Derry will tell you that MMG was protected from prosecution during 2 supergrass trials In Derry when over 135 of the IRA`s leading players were taken off the streets? from a city that was tout ridden to thepoint that Derry ciity PIRA was stood down more time than it was operational?
Of course MMG could ask the police ( HET) to reopen those case files and proceed with the prosecution? ...... That is what a modern leader would do and not avoid a NOLAN type question.
Any idea why poor old Martin was not on that original supergrass list and stayed at home for the duration of the conflict free from attack or charge ? The individuals concerned wanted to offer evidence against MMG but guess what?
Not in the public interest?
LOL
Gordon, the bald one.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 12:41 PM“Snakebrain
again another person who attributes arguements to me that I didnt make”ummmmm, Emerald…
You appear to have jumped the gun a little here.
I never addressed a single comment to you, nor did I attribute a single comment to you.
Perhaps you have a persecution complex?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:09 PM‘Curious
How original a list of murders, when did I deny that the IRA commited murder’The emerald Pimpernal,
You must have a persecution complex common to many SF members and supporters. Like snakebrain, I never addressed a single comment to you, nor did I attribute a single comment to you. My address was to Sean.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:22 PM**Harry Flashman
Its you who do not get it if you wish to criminalize the IRA then you must yourself respect the rule of law. Clearly the government did not therefor it backs the IRA’s**Er, Pimpers old chap, do you want to read what I actually wrote, I clearly stated TWICE that if British government agents committed crimes they should be held accountable, it usually helps if you read a poster’s comments before you reply to them.
So here’s my point to the Shinners; currently the British government is engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the British government believes these wars are legitimate and up to a point I agree with them. However if the leader of the Conservative party was alleged to have been personally involved in the kidnap, torture, murder and secret burial of a British widowed mother of ten I would be utterly outraged, I would demand the resignation of that man and that the full weight of the criminal process be thrown against him, if he never saw another day outside prison I would consider it to be easy on him.
Equally if the deputy prime minister of the UK was believed to have been connected to the abduction of an unarmed civilian man from his home at gun point, tied into his van and made to drive to an enemy checkpoint whereupon he was blown to smithereens I would be sickened and ashamed, I would want to see that politician hounded from office and all his associates likewise expelled from any public sphere, again jail would be a light punishment.
So SF supporters do you feel the same about leading members of your own party?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:25 PME. Pimp,
Never said anyone thought it was right. Sorry if the placement of my post left the impression it was directed at you.
I hoped to make the point that putting a gun to the head of an unarmed man is wrong, in war and peace.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:40 PMJocky
My point is that it is virtually impossible to have a public enquiry into a non-public entity
You can not have an enquiry with out the IRA’s participation and I would estimate that they would not participate unless they recieved blanket immunity. Would that really satisfy the unionists?
And if you are going to do that to the IRA what about the OO,UVF,UFF,UDA and the rest of the alphabet killers
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 02:19 PMGordon
More conjecture backed up by a notable lack of facts. When will you understand that london knows only to well that all they do is have to point the finger at republicans and unionists will swallow it hook line and sinkerPosted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 02:25 PMHarry Flashman
My point isn’t that the agent is guilty but infact the whole government is right up to the prime ministerPosted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 02:26 PMEP, that is what I said, you either go all the way or none of the way, no one side can cherry pick what gets the treatment be it public enquiry, criminal investigation, HET, TRC, whatever.
you seem not to want this for the IRA but for everyone else?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 03:22 PM
