Friday, July 07, 2006
Not an informer
Nuala O’Loan has said no evidence exists to support the republican claim that Jean McConville, mother of ten and one of the Disappeared, was an informer for the security forces. This would suggest the family’s belief that it was her compassion for a fatally wounded soldier that led to her being targetted is correct.
Fair Deal @ 12:07 PM
Those who committed this atrocious act were nothing but barbaric thugs, who would not understand “compassion”.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 12:17 PMHer brutal murder also helped keep other locals in line. Let’s hope her case and the other Disappeared continue to pop up here until Gerry spits back their bodies.
The issue is not whether a mother of ten was touting but what gave the IRA the right to play judge, jury, executioner and uncaring undertaker.
I hope this blog keeps returning to these cases until the issue s finally laid to rest b all of the Disappeared being returned and explanations forthcoming as to why these “acts of war” were felt necessary. I hope this photo and what it means haunts Gerry in this life and the next.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 12:27 PMCasting such an aspersion on victims of the IRA is not new - the old IRA did the same and sought to equate every single West Cork Protestant who was killed in 1922 as an informer - for them I suppose its all about not losing face - better to play the informer card rather than admit that misdeeds were carried out by individual members and that it is perfectly normal for a large organisation to contain bad eggs who sully the good name of republicanism.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 12:32 PMThis is a pretty serious blow to the credibility of Ed Moloney’s book. I’m glad I never believed a word of it.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 12:50 PMThe killing of Jean McConville leaves a very dark stain not alone over those forces who abducted and killed her but even over the very community from which she sprang.
If, as Ms O’Loan has concluded, any justification for the act in that Jean McConville was a police informer, is missing and if indeed she was murdered for exercising compassion towards a dying man then that stain darkens, spreads and deepens.
When one engages in mortal combat against an enemy then one needs put aside all primary concern for one’s safety and act upon the assumption that the enemy will show no mercy, but in order to retain one’s humanity it is absolutely essential that one is always prepared to render mercy to wounded or dying enemy troops where possible and at all times to captured enemy troops.
If the circumstances of necessaty flight after an engagement denies the rendering of aid to the enemy wounded and then civilians from within your own community step in and take up that task of mercy which were denied you by the logistics of war then they should be praised and encouraged, not villified, abducted and killed.
The IRA and the people of Jean McConville’s community must more clearly answer the concerns and questions that arise from her killing in order to somewhat wash out that stain.
It is also incumbent upon those who control mass communication to allow them fully to make their response.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 12:57 PMRory
I don’t think you are quite right here. Killing an impoverished mother of ten showed the IRA were not going to suffer any dissent in their backyard. If they would kill a mother of ten, who was safe?
The South Armagh IRA did this more effectively by killing Indian touts from Crossmaglen barracks. The fish can’t have any sharks swimming in their waters.
The gun rules. It is hard to argue with the muzzle of a shotgun down your neck. Let Sinn Fein explain how McConville and others got the unmarked grave no claim no blame treatment and Scap and others got a different deal. No weasel words can get them out of that.Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 02:14 PMI don’t have to be right, Taigs. Nor do I even need to be right. And I would be damned pleased and relieved to find that I was wrong. But this killing screams out for clear and total justification for its reasons or for contrite admission of guilt, or possibly both.
But then as a revolutionary I have to admit to being, as Raymond Chandler might put it “a weak sister” I cannot envisage any justification for men killing a woman, less so an impoverished mother of a large family in a ghetto. Maybe I’m just an old sexist.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 03:24 PMAnd then in later years the Provos turned to nutting some of their best and most loyal members at the behest of traitor in chief Freddie.
I don’t think this debunks Maloney’s book at all - for a start, there has never been any suggestion that Jean McConville was working for the police. The allegation (from the Provos to Maloney) was that she had an army radio and was warned to desist from spying before being abducted and killed. IF this was the case, the RUC would have had no knowledge of it. This report is as close to irrelevant as makes no odds.
It’s grasping at a rather pitiful straw to think this undermines Maloney’s book...it smacks of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and singing ‘la la la la la la, I’m not listening’ as the exposure of the treachery rampant in the republican movement grows to a crescendo.Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 03:29 PMNuala’s statement sets an interesting precedent, don’tcha think?
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 03:51 PMWell, Gonzo, we might want to think about it if you would give us lesser mortals just a little hint as to what you consider that precedent might be.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 04:14 PM#
Nuala’s statement sets an interesting precedent, don’tcha think?
Posted by Belfast Gonzo on Jul 07, 2006 @ 04:51 PMAgreed Gonzo, just like the previous precedent set by Peter Hain when there were comments on Martin McGuinnes “not being a Brit agent”
There was a time when Brit security services and politicans never commented on intelligence human sources, for obvious reasons, protecting those human sources.
I am sure when Tony Blair was recruited into MI5/6, as a young man, he was told of the importance of protecting human sources, seems now that rule has been disregarded.
I am not certain of innocence or guilt in this case but it leaves the door open with regards, what is going to be the answer when a real Brit agent is accused????
Do the Brits go back to “no comment” giving a clear hint at guilt???
By making comments about human sources, true or not, leaves the Brits exposed to further compromising those human sources, and could lead to the demise of innocent people who have never been agents but are just pawns in the political discourse.
This is a very dangerous road that is being travelled by the Brits, and politicians alike.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 04:50 PMNow these precedents have been set, when an accusation is levelled at someone of being a Brit agent, the longer the Brits wait to deny it, the increased suspicion of guilt will be thrust upon that person.
A very, very, dangerous self-inflicted situation these precedents have set.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 05:03 PMCommenting on the statement by the Police Ombudsman today into the killing of Jean McConville Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams said:
“I have been meeting with the McConville family for some time.
“My sole interest has been to help the family.
“Whatever about the circumstances surrounding Jean McConville’s killing, the burial of her remains was a great injustice to the family. And the family endured significant hardship in the years which followed.
“Sinn Fein has worked hard in recent years to resolve the issue of those remains buried by the IRA and still not recovered and we continue to talk to the Irish government on this matter.”
Surely, the burial wasn’t the only great injustice perpretated?
If Adams is only talking to the Irish government on this matter does this mean that all the bodies of the disappeared are buried in the RoI?
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 05:09 PM‘When one engages in mortal combat against an enemy then one needs put aside all primary concern for one’s safety and act upon the assumption that the enemy will show no mercy, but in order to retain one’s humanity it is absolutely essential that one is always prepared to render mercy to wounded or dying enemy troops where possible and at all times to captured enemy troops.’
Rory:
Those all very fine sounding words, but what have they got to do with the reality of the PIRA? The PIRA routinely shot dead every prisoner that they took. There were no POW camps ran by the PIRA and this was deliberate policy by the PIRA. If they were at war it was war crime. You can talk about what the humane thing to do is - and what you say is in line with various conventions relating to conduct during wars - but the PIRA never did these humane things. They routinely engaged in inhumane acts, and many of their supporters will use all sorts of bogus reasons to excuse them for what they did.
‘It is also incumbent upon those who control mass communication to allow them fully to make their response.’
Horsecrap. Here you are trying to make out that the PIRA and members of that community have stories to tell about the McConville murder, but the big bad mass media isn’t prepared to spread those stories. That’s nonsense. You know very well that the media lap up any and all statements by the PIRA, endlessly analyzing them and debating them. The PIRA has had several decades during which they could have explained the McConville situation if anything had been missed in the information tghat is known, but the PIRA chose not to do so.
Presumably that’s because they have nothing to add and it is a simple case of they killed a woman and disposed of her body, and then after the event they realised what a whopping piece of bad publicity it all was.
So stop trying to make out that the media is engaged in some sort of campaign of silence over this issue. You know very well that any news about this case is instantly lapped up by the media.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 05:13 PM‘This is a pretty serious blow to the credibility of Ed Moloney’s book. I’m glad I never believed a word of it.’
Henry:
No it isn’t. Moloney didn’t claim ‘here is the truth’. He simply recorded what was claimed by many republicans. And the stories about Jean McC being a spy were spread, and believed by, many republicans. Moloney simply recorded those stories.
You do understand that in books people often quote what other people say, don’t you?
That doesn’t mean that the author shares the opinion of the person quoted. It just means that they quoted them.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 05:17 PM‘But then as a revolutionary.....I cannot envisage any justification for men killing a woman’
You are an odd revolutionary. If there is a war on then why wouldn’t men combatants be in the position of being faced by women combatants and having to kill them?
Many revolutions have involved women fighters. Did you know that?
I’d say you are a sexist.
I don’t see what the problem is. Mairead Farrell chose to become a combatant and ended up dead as a result. I don’t see her as being any different from any other combatants, like her pals who died with her on active service in Gibraltar. If she could set a bomb or fire a gun she is not any different.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 05:31 PMRory
Mrs Thatcher?
You sound like a love child who has taken to many Es.
Get a grip comrade ;).
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 05:44 PM‘Surely, the burial wasn’t the only great injustice perpretated?’
Nevin:
To Gerry it obviously was. If she had simply been found in some back alley close to her home with a bag over her head, that would have been fair enough. The Provos did that to many people and from Gerry’s point of view, that’s just all part of the game. That’s what happens to spies or informers. Thus shooting a woman who is accused of being a spy or informer is no big deal to him.
I must say though that by not saying that if she was innocent of the charge against her then she was murdered and that it was also a crime, he has dropped himself in the soup. He has now stated that no matter what the circumstances of her death, the crime is her being disappeared and buried.
He has a cheek, doesn’t he? Pretending that he doesn’t know the circumstances of her death. Someone on here was saying that the PIRA had a responsibility to come clean about all of this. If Gerry is saying that the circumstances of her death aren’t clear, then why isn’t he pressing the PIRA (supposedly a third party to him) to come clean about it all?
As usual he is giving the PIRA the benefit of the doubt, and that it was OK to shoot a woman dead. Presumably that means it was some act that is in line with his view that there was a war on.
If any other party shot a woman dead, Gerry would be yelling from the rafters, demanding an inquiry. Yet here decades after the event he still pretends that the circumstances are unclear.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 07:04 PM‘You sound like a love child who has taken to many Es.
Get a grip comrade ;).’
mickhall:
I take it you think Mairaid Farrell was fair game then, being a female combatant after all?
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 07:14 PMRory: “But then as a revolutionary I have to admit to being, as Raymond Chandler might put it “a weak sister” I cannot envisage any justification for men killing a woman, less so an impoverished mother of a large family in a ghetto. Maybe I’m just an old sexist. “
No, you’re just a parlor pink, Rory. You talk a good game—and, to be fair, that’s pretty much all Marx did, other than the odd racist clinker.
I can think of several women killed in the name of revolution, off the top of my head, starting with Marie Antoinette, and several more instances of female revolutionaries / partisans. It also not without precedent for women to set-up revolutionaries—look where his relationship got Che Guevara.
For the record, harpo, if you’re toting a gun in a combat zone, somebody on one side or the other is going to figure you’re fair game. And if you’re not, the gov’t troops will shake you down for a bribe or the revolutionaries will rob you and either side may STILL shoot you, gun or no gun.
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 07:24 PMRory
“When one engages in mortal combat against an enemy”
What does this *REALLY* mean, what does non-mortal combat mean, a feather duster fight ??
and then (rather absurdly) you contimue
“It is absolutely essential that one is always prepared to render mercy to wounded or dying enemy troops where possible and at all times to captured enemy troops.”
Captured enemy troops
Rory, were you in Nam, have you a bit of shrapnel in you brain ?
How many prisoners did the IRA “capture”, what prison were they held in, and how were visits arranged, and were the IRA’s prisioners viewed by the IRA as “political prisoners” (RUC/UDR servicemen) in the same way jimmy sands thought he was ?
The only “mercy rendered” was usually a bullet in the head after torture
are you *SERIOUSLY* suggesting the IRA followed the geneva convention.
and your grand finale was your quote
“I cannot envisage any justification for men killing a woman, less so an impoverished mother of a large family in a ghetto. Maybe I’m just a total and utter useless wanker”
well ok, maybe not verbatim, but the theme is just about right
Posted by on Jul 07, 2006 @ 09:39 PMGentlemen: Your points would be stronger by just concentrating on McConville and not broadening it. Here is a constriuent of Gerry Adams MP, brutally abducted and murdered, her children left to fend for themselves, done by an armed group connected with the same MP, denied doing this for over 20 years etc etc.
One good initiative might be for the governments to introduce legislation, GFO or not, to send the perpetrators to the Hague unless all the bodies are spat up within a certain time frame.
Daily Ireland also complains it does not get enough advertising. Well let the PSNI take out two page ads on the Disappeared on a regular basis. You know the type of ads, with seeming op eds included by local politicians. Maybe even put in a Disappeared section into the Feile.Attacking Rory because he has not abducted and murdered harmless folk is a bit rich. The McConville case shows how easily gun toting bullies slip into the moral mire (or well beyond it). This is where the rubber hits the road with armed insurrection and Paisley et al have always known it.
Still: do the crime, do the time. RIRA and CIRA beleive that. Why not PIRA?
Posted by on Jul 08, 2006 @ 01:37 AMAt the time of Ed`s book I wrote about Mrs McConville and at the request of both the family and BIRW I made it public that this lady was not an Informer.Another one to my “right” collection.
She was killed for nothing more than showing some consideration to a dying soldier.The IRA killed this lady and hid her body, denying for many years their involvement in the murder . That compounded the crime and Adams should be ashamed for that crime. He wont though because that is the nature of the criminal.
I am pleased the Omudsman has made this information public. Gonzo makes a very good point about the precedent though.
Martin
Posted by on Jul 08, 2006 @ 07:54 AMHere’s a bit more from the Irish Times
Michael and Jim McConville lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman’s office two years ago, concerning the police investigation into her disappearence. Mrs O’Loan indicated that her inquiries had gone back over police, army and MI5 records, before reaching the conclusion that Mrs McConville was not an agent.
“We have looked very extensively at all the intelligence available at the time,” she said. “There is no evidence that Mrs McConville gave information to the police, the military or the security service. She was not an informant.”
But the Ombudsman also criticised the police. “My investigation has also found that police didn’t carry out a proper investigation into Mrs McConville’s death. She was simply regarded as a missing person.
“The fact (is) that her children were split up, their families destroyed, their lives were very blighted. Their story is a terrible story and they are better placed to tell that story than I can, but they have suffered immensely,” she said.
It was 27 years after her abduction before any information was available on the fate of Mrs McConville. Finally, in March 1999, the IRA confirmed it had carried out the killing but alleged she was an “informer” who admitted passing information to the British army.
The claim was an additional burden on the family, and Mrs O’Loan made clear that her intervention took account of humanitarian concerns. It was outside her “normal” role to confirm or deny the identity of alleged security agents, but the family circumstances made the case unique.
“Jean McConville left an orphaned family, the youngest of whom were six-year-old boys. The family have suffered extensively over the years, and that suffering has only been made worse by allegations that their mother was an informant,” Mrs O’Loan said.
Posted by on Jul 08, 2006 @ 09:39 AMTo those who responded to my earlier post may I say that the position I take regarding women in combat is a personal one and I do not seek to ask or influence any other person or organisation to share it. Less would I argue that because I hold that view then somehow I ascribe it to other people or organisation as Harpo and Taigs both somehow wrongly seem to think I do of the PIRA.
I would imagine the PIRA will have it’s own position on the matter and it certainly doesn’t feel the need to consult with me on issues or policy.
I admit entirely that it is seemingly contradictory to a revolutionary position and while I ascribe to revolutionary ideals I have never claimed to be a good revolutionary, much less a good Catholic, a good Irishman, a good republican, a good husband or father or even indeed a good human being.
But yet I am all of the aforementioned, for good or bad, and, like all human beings, I hold a wealth of contradictions that are a pretty essential part of the woof and warp of the human weave, to my mind at least.
So it’s like it or lump it I’m afraid, guys. Contradictory, screwball or even, paceMick Hall, “e” fuelled, perhaps - but on this, to paraphrase Mick Hall’s current obsession, Margaret Thatcher, “This guy ain’t for turning”.
Posted by on Jul 08, 2006 @ 12:08 PM
