Monday, June 25, 2007
No prosecutions to follow Finucane collusion probe…
THERE isn’t enough evidence to charge any police officers or soldiers with involvement in the murder of Pat Finucane, the Prosecution Service revealed today. Collusion investigator Lord Stevens has already established how the state collaborated with loyalist terrorists in the lawyer’s murder, but no-one will be prosecuted. While republicans will see this as another whitewash to cover up state involvement in the political murder of a nationalist, it will be interesting to see what practical help a mainstream Republican Movement which shares the Government’s aim of airbrushing history can offer Mr Finucane’s family.
Update:
Here are some quotes from the third Stevens Inquiry report of 2003.
I have uncovered enough evidence to lead me to believe that the murders of Patrick Finucane and Brian Adam Lambert could have been prevented. I also believe that the RUC investigation of Patrick Finucane’s murder should have resulted in the early arrest and detection of his killers.
I conclude there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them. Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder.
...
The unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killings.
My three Enquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants
and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes. Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from Senior Investigating Officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved.
My enquiries with regard to satisfying the test for prosecution in relation to possible offences arising out of these matters are continuing.
Now it seems that test for prosecution will not be passed.
Belfast Gonzo @ 12:04 PM
Never mind republicans thinking its a whietwash. If there is definiet organised collusion, this place (or here for any SF ministers) will split ultimately into two camps on such issues that will crosss the unionist/nationalist divide somewhat.
Those who think we need to get all this out and those who think its better to just keep it quiet.
Both without any selectivity I hasten to add.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 12:23 PM“it will be interesting to see what practical help a mainstream Republican Movement which shares the Government’s aim of airbrushing history can offer Mr Finucane’s family”.
Eh? A fuller explanation of that opinion would be helpful, because essentially, it’s complete and utter nonsense.
It’s also not unusual for Slugger that the lead thread on this story winds up putting a challenge to Sinn Fein. Never mind the most disgraceful cover-up of state-sanctioned murder in the past history of this place. Lets use it to lamabast Sinn Fein, of all people…
Slugger has become so one-sided lately that it’s now actually becoming embarrassing…
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 12:27 PMQue Nationalist cries of injustice and British conspiracy etc etc etc!
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 12:28 PMmacswiney
Yes, Slugger is actually a pan British/Unionist/ securocrat propaganda machine which is totally bent on destroying the political credibility of SF! You’ve come dangerously close to blowing the lid on the whole damn system, which of course runs right to the top of the British establishment. There should be an immediate and impartial public enquiry into this one.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 12:36 PMAppears to me, Oranges and GB, so embarrassed at their beloved state again being shown for what it is and was, neglects the real point of the story, and with a terribly mis-timed lob (what with wimbledon and all that), awkwardly and desperately try to return the ball! Lost the point, lost the plot, losing the argument!
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 12:40 PMSeriously though Gonzo - why the challenge to SF here? Every single post man… Fair Deal is able to highlight the issue without descending to the anti-SF line again.
A return to some balance would be good for Slugger.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 12:44 PMOranges for Sale,
Yeah…
And all those people on Bloody Sunday who were’nt actually shot by The British Army at all…
And all the children murdered by plastic bullets…
You should write to John Stalker and ask him about what he thinks, or maybe ask The Police Ombudsman about her report detailing that police colluded with loyalist paramiltaries involved in a series of murders.
To quote Peter Hain on 22.1.07 - “Nuala O’Loan’s report has shone a torch into a very dark corner...”
In light of todays announcement though - Obviously not far enough…
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 12:49 PMwhat a giant step forward in ending once for all collusions between the security forces and then loyalists paramilitaries..
for a new ireland!Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:01 PMWhile this case might be tragic, it is no more so than the murder by Sinn Fein IRA death squads of border Protestants. If Sinn Fein IRA members are going to get away with murder, does this not apply to everyone else?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/columnists/lindy-mcdowell/article2698698.ece
(Scroll down to ‘We need an inquiry into McGuinness’)What about all the other victims e.g.
“the IRA in Fermanagh shot dead a 21-year-old Protestant woman, Gillian Johnson in March 1988 apparently because they wrongly suspected she had become engaged to a young man who had joined the Ulster Defence Regiment. It turned out her fiance had no connections with the UDR.The IRA unit that murdered Gillian Johnston was led by a woman who later emerged as a member of Sinn Fein.”
I don’t expect the sectarian Sinn Fein IRA death squad supporters on Slugger to ask for the name of that Sinn Fein IRA woman to be revealed. Why? Because the victim was an innocent Protestant.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:02 PMFar be it from me to dangle a not unreasonable (if a little sarcastic) opinion on slugger and sit back while all the nationalists get all a fluster.
Mayoman, “embarrassed at their beloved state again being shown for what it is and was”. What was done, was done. What is now labeled as ‘collusion’ between local paramilitary organisations and security forces was at the time probably viewed simply as a case of pro British forces jointly targeting what they thought was an anti British threat. I direct your attention to other conflicts of the late 20th century such as the Mau Mau uprising in Nigeria, the Malay Emergency or the Aden Crisis, or even modern day Iraq and Afghanistan where the British work with local militia to eliminate threats to either British military or civilian personnel. We always hear SF mentioning the word ‘war’, well then does this not mean that ‘collusion’ was legitimate tactic of war?
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:07 PMOranges for Sale,
“We always hear SF mentioning the word ‘war’, well then does this not mean that ‘collusion’ was legitimate tactic of war”?
You are actually hanging yourself out to dry here…
Your initial post clearly indicated that you thought Nationalist claims of collusion were simply paranoia. Now you seem to have turned full circle in the space of half an hour and you are now saying that collusion did exist but that it is totally justified...!!
So, which is it then...?
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:12 PMmacswiney
Did I actually mention Bloody Sunday and plastic bullets etc in the post you so wryly refer to? No, I didn’t.
I was simply aping your paranoia about Belfast Gonzo’s impartiality concerning this article. Obviously I seem to have struck a nerve prompting a torrent of facts and figures. For what its worth, its a bit of a cheap shot bringing up that old Bloody Sunday chestnut (no pun intended), and as far as plastic bullet fatalities are concerned, my view is that those children should have been kept indoors by their parents during a riot and not indoctrinated by republicans to ‘throw stones at the peelers’ while their still in primary school. I suggest you pin the blame the republicanism for using kids as cannon fodder during bouts of street violence. Any Unionist will agree.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:26 PMWhen state collusion with loyalist murder gangs is mentioned Unionists go on the defensive with the ‘what about ....’, they always miss the point. STATE COLLUSION IN MURDER of the people it is supposed to protect. We all know the IRA were murdering innocent protestants, now its time for the Unionists to admit to state collusion.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:26 PMThis is the most pathetic step yet by the Brits.
Nornal practice is to inquire into crimes, especially murders, determine if there are sufficient grounds to prosecute, etc.
But in this case, the Crown legislates to prevent a full, independent inquiry, starts setting it up in a most feeble way, and then the CPS declares that there is not enough evidence to prosecute anyone.
Sounds like something one would expect from Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
And Finucane is not just some poor Catholic, like the Protestants mentioned above, but a solicitor who was warned by Home Office minister Douglas Hogg in the Commons that he might well be assassinated if he continued to deal with known Provisionals, especially ‘Steak Knife’ apparently aka DUKE, DOOK, etc., and when Finucane continued to deal with this client, he was murdered because of fears that killing ‘SK’ would result in most damaging blowback by the legal representative of apparently its most important tout.
This is a whitewash, BG in true Hunter Thompson style, and you accomplish nothing to diminish it by suggesting that the PIRA Council volunteer to clear up this darkest secret of The Troubles.
The Brits killed him to persuade ‘SK’ to overlook how their security services had set him for the cull on The Rock - what led to the Provisionals going all out in their killing campaign, to Thatcher seeking a negotiated settlement with them, and to Captain Simon Hayward going all out against her government for setting him up on a drug-trafficking charge here in Stockhom.
Britain is a banana republic.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:26 PM“Mau Mau uprising in Nigeria”
Kenya.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:28 PMto use a word that Mick hates
typical
This just proves my point that the prosecution service needs to be reformed.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:29 PMmacswiney - “you are now saying that collusion did exist but that it is totally justified...!!”
What ‘Oranges for Sale’ is saying is that Sinn Fein IRA call it a ‘war’. If it was a war then there should have been organised and complete collusion between the security forces and Loyalist groups. That’s what other countries would have done. However, luckily for Sinn Fein IRA, Unionists treated them as terrorists to be dealt with by the forces of law and order with only a few exceptions.
So Sinn Fein IRA can’t have it both ways. If it was a war then any methods used to fight them were legitimate. If it wasn’t a war, then they were just a bunch of murdering scum.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:33 PMP&J;"If it was a war then there should have been organised and complete collusion between the security forces and Loyalist groups. That’s what other countries would have done.”
It’s what was done, standard operating procedure for Britain, as your pal already highlighted.
What is your point, you want them tried as war criminals rather than merely criminals?
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:39 PMmacswiney
I suggest you read my first post again! for you convenience I shall repeat it:
“Que Nationalist cries of injustice and British conspiracy etc etc etc!”
The fact that Prosecution Service does not have the evidence to successfully prosecute security personnel WILL inevitably prompt calls from the likes of SF to call foul and declare a cover up on the part of the PPS which (in this day and age) is obviously ludicrous.
Where did I actually say that collusion was justified? Some might agree that it was, but I was simply asking a question.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:56 PMRoisin - “What is your point, you want them tried as war criminals rather than merely criminals?”
Are you talking about Adams and McGuinness now? If not, you should be e.g. torturing people and dumping their naked bodies along the border after murdering them.The point is, it is Sinn Fein IRA who say it was a war. If so, why all the enquiries? Obviously to divert attention from their hate crimes against Protestants.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 01:57 PMTrowbridge H. Ford
You seem to have an amazing insight into the inner machinations of the British establishment. Do explain.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 02:02 PMPandJ
Despite your name, its clear who has hate around these parts.
Did you know Gillian Johnson personally?
If not, why do you use her tragic death for your political agenda?
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 02:03 PMThe fact that ‘there’s no evidence’ should be a red light signal to all those involved that relevant evidence has been destroyed or ‘disappeared’ and should in itself be the focus of a criminal investigation.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 02:04 PMP&J;: “While this case might be tragic, it is no more so than the murder by Sinn Fein IRA death squads of border Protestants. If Sinn Fein IRA members are going to get away with murder, does this not apply to everyone else? “
You mean besides the obvious concerns, such as the state is supposed to maintain law and order and other assorted trivia? If the murder of a non-combatant is of no concern to you, then I expect we shan’t be hearing any more about the bombing campaigns and other matters, shall we?
P&J;: “What about...”
I guess I was wrong—you apparently can’t manage an approach to the subject matter that encompasses your own argument… You can’t handle the issue, so you descend quickly into “whataboutery,” aimed more at muddying the waters than providing any light on the subject.
P&J;: “What ‘Oranges for Sale’ is saying is that Sinn Fein IRA call it a ‘war’.”
Ah, but the STATE did not, P&J;.
P&J;: “If it was a war then any methods used to fight them were legitimate. If it wasn’t a war, then they were just a bunch of murdering scum. “
Actually, you have it precisely backwards—no real shock there, given the above…
If it was a war, then the IRA weren’t terrorists, now were they? They were simply making war to the best of their means and, lacking the assets of the British military, did what they could with what they had.
If it wasn’t a war, what was the state doing in bed with a bunch of drug-pushing hoods that would be relegated to the status of “hate group” in any other civilized nation? Come to that matter, even if it WAS a war, why bother with these hoods? Examining the numbers, they were far more proficient in killing innocent by-standers than anyone with a gun, killed their share of police and military personnel and made a fortune pushing drugs and extorting monies from ordinary citizens. In short, the “cure” was as bad, if not worse, than the putative disease.
State cooperation with the Loyalist mobs was a rum deal from the start, ranging from the idiots who gave these amateurs battlefield rifles for an urban conflict to covering for their criminal endeavors.
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 02:14 PMP&J;You said: “If it was a war then any methods used to fight them were legitimate.”
Sorry to have to break it to you and shatter your delusions, but you’re just plain wrong. If it was a war then those who colluded in the targetting and killing of civilians should be tried as war criminals. If it wasn’t a war then they should be tried as criminals.
Which one is your preference?
Posted by on Jun 25, 2007 @ 02:15 PM
