Monday, May 01, 2006
Ongoing hurt, ongoing fight for redress
Michelle Williamson talks about the importance to her of the legal suit in America against the Libyan government being taken by victims of semtex bombs and the impact the murder of her parents still has upon her.
Fair Deal @ 10:36 AM
I wish them every success in their law suit.
This is very, very sad especially when one compares the treatment of victims and that of the murders. Clearly all that mattered was might.I have met quite a few people injured or bereaved in what is euphemistically called the troubles, and it is clear to me that there is a wound left that will never fully heal. Generally they don’t trust people, they tend to suffer depression, can’t concentrate, become inward looking and morose. To add to this we have treated many of the victims appallingly, but equally we tend to glorify those that carried out the deeds just to add some salt into the wounds.
I have taken a few bits out of the article and copied below, to reinforce the point that violence merely creates more problems that can’t be fixed. No one should be made to suffer like this on the alter of any political dogma. How does anyone pick up the pieces after suffering such trauma? In my view those that espouse violence to further a political objective are simply criminals be they Prime Ministers or leaders of political parties. We should all demand that they account for their actions. Unfortunately political reality dictates that we have to do a deal so those most responsible get off Scot free. This only happens because we as individuals allow ourselves to be pigeon holed into a camp instead of collectively arguing for our collective common interests and standards, and that’s really sad.
“I do find it difficult to trust people. I was refused compensation as a victim of the Troubles, as I was told I wasn’t actually involved in the incident. “I wasn’t actually there, no, but I lost everything that day.
“An hour or so later I was kissing my dad goodbye on a trolley in the Royal Victoria Hospital as the blood poured from his head. I’ll never get that image out of my head.
“My biggest regret is that I never saw my mum again. I never got to kiss her goodbye.
“I have been seeing the doctor every couple of weeks since my parents’ death - I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. I have constant nightmares about the bomb and have been very depressed at times.FOR WHAT EXACTLY!!!!!!!?????
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 01:19 PMI opposed and still oppose physical force republicanism for the simple reason that the British do it better. Surely the successive British governments who backed Unionist tyranny to the extent of forcing so many ordinary Nationalists to dispair of political justice have a great deal to answer for?
Do you feel the ordinary Iraqis murdered by the Allies should similarly sue the British and American Governments?
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 01:38 PMlib2016
As I said above
In my view those that espouse violence to further a political objective are simply criminals be they Prime Ministers or leaders of political parties. And yes I think ordinary Iraqis have a case, but where to take it?
I think we need to be a lot more vocal in our opposition to violence, it simply should not be acceptable. We may not be able to undo the past but we may help to change the future.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 02:07 PMI think this is particularly sad as it is fairly certain to be one more false hope.
In my study of the trauma of the troubles, one of the things that struck me were the fantasies that victims pursue. There is the fantasy of revenge, the fanstasy of compensation and so on. Sadly, they can chase these things for years, and find to their bitterest disappointment that it relieves nothing, brings nothing back.
While I wish Michelle well, I would also fear that this is possibly not the best course of action for someone who suffers the effects of trauma.
I wish to be sensitive in this thread, as it is not an easy issue, and there is great sadness.
I agree with Crat, what was it all about? Civil rights? Governance?
I think we have all been too wound up in this to see the humanity and perhaps it really will take a few generations for us to get the real vision back of respect for our fellow man/woman
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 02:20 PMI was wondering how long the whataboutery would take.
Crat good post.
I’m gald that Michelle has had the courage to be so open and not to kow tow to the pressure to put on a brave face and pretend that everything is OK.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 02:21 PMbertie,
Safer to believe that it wuz all themmuns fault? We’ve seen both communities follow that line and it wasn’t very satisfactory for anyone.
Crat,
Complete pacifism takes a better man than me but thankyou for taking my post seriously.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 02:28 PMlib
not at all, but that is still no reason for whataboutery.
Now back to Michelle and the all to often hidden and ignored results of terrorism.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 02:58 PMThis is the law suit in which Martin Ingram is taking the side of the Libyians., I in NO way support his stand on this issue. I believe he will make things doubly difficult for these victims to gain compensation from Gadaffi. This is one time when MI should keep his nose out.
I wish them good luck. All victims of our conflict should get redress.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 04:39 PMCopied this response from the other forum.
Busty,
You are being over simplistic. The Libyans know full well that the issue is not straightforward.
I accept the Libyans supplied weapons after receiving a request from elements within the IRA . Some of these elements today are suspected of being Agents of the British state.
Once the arms have reached the Island of Ireland a large portion of these arms came into the possession of the IRA and Agents of the state. To give just one example Frank Hegarty.
Not all arms and explosives was recovered in a deliberate plan to allow certain munitions to run, with the aim of catching other fish or to build the profile of the Agent.
Now clearly the Libyans have a responsibility but also the British state does too for the direction and involvemnt of its own Agents in the production and exploitation of these decisions.
My fear is the case could go on for years building the hopes of the Victims only to be felled from a compelling argument that other parties share a similar/greater degree of culperability than the Libyans. If we start this case upon the basis of bring all responsible to the dock together then I believe tnhbhe victims have a greater chance of success.
I invite you once more to explain what is the difference between the Libyans suppling the IRA and the FRU supplying the UDA South African arms?I am interested in ALL VICTIMS including IRA and security force members.
I look forward to your reply.
Martin
Posted by ingram on May 01, 2006 @ 06:22 PM
I can’t see what reason O’Rawe would have toPosted by on May 01, 2006 @ 06:01 PMI dont know, and as I said I want to remain respectful of the individual concerned here, but where would actions like this stop?
Do we sue Shell for petrol bombs?
Rubber plantation owners for rubber bullets?
The Germans for not arriving at Banna Strand?I dont know the Law, but I didnt think the culpability would have lain with the vendor?
BB, that is not to say I am unsympathetic, but as I said earlier, this fantasy of compensation can destroy lives as people chase something that is not going to happen.
And if there was compensation, the awful thing is that she still wont have her parents, and it will all start all over again
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 06:08 PMMartin, I have replied to these posts on the other thread. Phew you are like a sprinter, I cannot keep up.
I believe you are involving yourself where you should not be involved. You contacted the Libyian gov, by your own admission and from that position you must have given them this idea. Why not go to the counsell for the victims and suggest this may be a potential problem, why go to the Libyians whom the victims are trying to sue and offer your services?
This is not about truth martin, these people know the truth. Its about compensation.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 06:20 PMMissfitz,
Other parties have been successful in getting compensation from Gadaffi, why not these people. 160 of them in a class action in the United States. The victims families of Lockerbie did a wonderful job, why not these people? If someone has died and left a family then that family is entitled to redress. There have been too many orphans on both sides of our conflict, they deserve something if they can get it. better to try and fail than not to have tried at all. I believe their chance would have been much easier if Martin had not contacted the Libyian embassy, which now makes things doubly difficult.
Willie Frazier, and remember I am an RC, but he looks after his own. I have no problem with that. If he can get these victims something, fair play to him. Maybe the victims of the UDA who used and procured arms from S Africa will be able to mount an action. What ever the case it’d would have remained simplier for these victims to have got redress if M Ingram had kept his nose out.
No offence Martin, I know you would work on peoples behalf, but in this case you are not doing that. You have of your own violation gone to the Libyians and made things difficult. Why? David Shaylers’ unfinished business.
Bad move.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 06:31 PMI would imagine that most of the victims will beleive in the money if and when it materialises. They have been let down on so many things so many times before. With no win no fee the layers must have come expectations of sucess.
However the money is probably the least issue. It is about accountability and making a stand.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 06:35 PMBB
“Maybe the victims of the UDA who used and procured arms from S Africa will be able to mount an action. “It would be great of thos were possible. It is a shame that any innocent victims are excluded from this action.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 06:38 PMBB
No knowledge in this area at all, but can I ask a question? In the case of Lockerbie, did the Libyan government not have a direct role in it?I’m just thinking of accountability and all that, but what on earth do you mean that Martin Ingram went to the Libyian embassy?
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 06:49 PMBusty,
The cases which have been won to date have involved members of the Libyan Intelligence community in direct involvement.This case would be breaking new ground.
I believe I am acting in the interests of the victims by making clear now and not in five years time the difficulties and requirements for a successful outcome to this legal action.
Martin
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 07:02 PMHonest question.
Why is the US hearing a case involving British citizens against Libya on allegations that relate to activity in Libya, Ireland, Britain or en-route? Why is the case not before a British/Irish/Libyan/European court or UN tribunal?
I’m seriously confused on why/how charges are filed in the US. Can anyone explain?
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 07:14 PMmissfitz,
Martin Ingram contacted the libyian embassy to offer his services to them. he then contacted maurice fitzmaurice of the mirror newspaper to say that the libyians intend to fight this tooth and nail. I feel it was a dirty action done to thwart the victims and I have made my position clear to him more than once.
The Northern Irish situation is different yes in that the libyians did not have direct action, they did it by proxy, ie thru the IRA. But they had already admitted liability in the issue when they agreed thatt they did give the arms to the IRA.
M ingram is a british citizen who has admitted that he contacted the Libyians and then gone on to make that action worse by offering their view point to the press! Why thwart the actions of British (or Irish) citizens and also US citizens since one man is a US citizen hurt in the Harrods explosion, why do that. It all comes back to the David Shayler affair when he claimed British intelligence wanted to kill Gadaffi.
His action are about getting the british government, rather than helping the victims. Yet he has claimed to be a champion of victims. He certainly has lessened their chances.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 07:17 PMmissfitz,
ps I should have said, the Libyians had already admitted they were culpable in giving the arms to the IRA BEFORE M Ingram went to them to offer to contest this case on their behlf. his defence of saving the victims from a later fate is disingenious, since he did not contact the solicitors working for the victims nor the victims themselves, he went direct to the Libyians AFTER the Libyians had already admitted culpability in this matter. For the libyians to fight this case on the grounds of agent provacateurs, ie fulton, this idea CAME FROM Martin.
Nowhere in the media has the Libyians put forward their view on fighting this, Martin is doing the talking for them.
There was no need Martin. You should have kept on the side of right and gone to the victims or their counsel.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 07:27 PM‘International terror,and middle eastern terror and Irish terror are inextricably linked’
a quote from this link:-http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/inac/mideast.html
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 07:44 PMAt least if the Libyians fight it tooth and nail it offers more opportunties to highlight the issues.
BB you inform us of a despicable act made IMO more despicable by the claim the be acting in the victims interests. I’m sure that it hurts him more than it hurts them.
I do not now who this guy really is but I hope that most viotims steer clear of Slugger and so avoid having to read this
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 07:46 PMIs this case doomed to failure, do the american courts have jurisdiction, are the lawyers running a high charging, legally fruitless campaign in the america hoping to embarrass a settlement from which they claim american billed time or do they seek a true judgement in court? I dont see how this american case can have a result for anyone but US citizens signing up but can see how an out of court settlement could benefit a London law company billing US time on a no-win no-fee basis but hoping to skim a large out of court settlement. How much is H2O asking from the families payout? Times/costs plus what percentage? Is the pointless american stuff a billing or publicity ploy? This case being held in the US stinks of a lawyer scam.
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 07:48 PMNYL the Libyian gov have accepted they supplied the stuff to the IRA. the case is to be contested in the US by UK and US lawyers.The US lawyers will argue that Libya is responsible for terrorism here because they supplied the stuff to the IRA. State sponsored terrorism by Libya thru the IRA. M Ingrams contention is that the Brit gov is also liable, since they used agent provacateurs like kevin fulton. BUT my contention is when Libya sold the stuff to the IRA they had no knowledge of agent provacateurs, they sold the stuff to the IRA purely and simply for terrorist reasons. More than 4 boat loads of it I think.
Now what ever your position on that, I also think it was wrong of Martin to go to the Libyians directly, as he has admitted and offer your services to them, and then defend your actions by saying you are trying to save the victims from a later fate.
I understand the immense difficulty involved. No doubt the German and Lockerbie cases felt the same, but Martin should have gone on moral grouds alone firstly to the victims or their representatives to air this doubt, not to the Libyians in my opinion.Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 08:08 PM‘Libya will fight the accusation it is responsible for terrorist murders by saying British agents were involved.’ The article by fitzmaurice where Martin Ingram is interviewed.
http://www.mirrorjobsni.com/news/viewdetails.asp?newsID=55
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 08:30 PMHi,
Just a few points to place into context.
1. It was actually FAIR( Willie Frazer)who found the American victims of the Libyan/ Irish connection. The NI victims are indeed riding piggy back back on this action using the 1991 torture act as case law.
2. The British courts would not entertain this action on a No win No fee basis given the complexity of the case and the chances of victory.Do you not think they would have taken the “ Normal” course of action if they had the opportunity.
3. I did not contact the Lybians to offer any help but to get their side of the story.
4. The victims need to be informed of the truth. To give one example. The murder of RUC Con McMurray involved the use of Libyian semtex. The explosives had been under the control of the British Army for a number of years and the bomb was designed and constructed by an Agent. The bomb killed RUC Con McMurray. Now try arguing to a court that the British do not share responsibiity for this action ALONG WITH THE LIBYIANS.
5. Semtex was made exclusevly by the Check govt and sold to the Libyians,do we also cite the Check Govt for making this deadly compound? or Mr Timex for producing the clocks used in some of these bombs.
6. The victims need to be told the truth about this case and not treated like Mushrooms( Kept in the dark and fed on shit) LIKE THE OMAGH VICTIMS HAVE BY h2O & the security services.
7. H2o will fight to keep the British security services out of this court action, WHY? well let us be kind when we say they have a common Interest.
Night Night.
Martin
Posted by on May 01, 2006 @ 08:31 PM
