Thursday, June 19, 2008
“requested him to communicate the fact..”
There’s an interesting detail from this report on the Brendan McFarlane trial which failed to make it into subsequent reports
Cross-examined by defence counsel Mr Hugh Hartnett SC, the superintendent said he had no knowledge that Mo Mowlam was due to sign [McFarlane’s] final release papers at 3pm that afternoon but he said that McFarlane informed him of this and requested him to communicate the fact that he has been arrested to the Northern Ireland Office, which he did.
Pete Baker @ 10:32 AM
I’m puzzled as to why this prosecution of McFarlane is being pursued. Is he still liable post Good Friday agreement? Does he have to be convicted before he can then be “released” under the GFA? If so, is it really worth this expensive charade? Or is there another reason for this prosecution - is McFarlane involved in dissident republicanism and if so then is there a political motivation?
Posted by on Jun 19, 2008 @ 11:26 AMI’m puzzled, as well. If it is just a “charade”, what a waste.
Posted by on Jun 19, 2008 @ 12:43 PMOn a separate note there is a hearing today on the case of Michael McAleavy a Belfast man who has been in prison for TWENTY SIX years. While serving with the Irish army in southern Lebanon in 1982 he shot dead three of his colleagues and has been in prison ever since. He is seeking a relaese date but the state wants him to serve a minimum of 30 years.
The Irish state clearly gets vindicative where the deaths of its own are involved and this is no doubt part of the reasoning behind the prosecution of Bik McFarlane.
That is commendable on many levels but FFS after 26 years it is time they released this guy.
Posted by on Jun 19, 2008 @ 01:20 PMPicador, there was a TV programme on some time ago on this case and the families of the victims are opposed to the release of Michae McAleavy, who, judging from reports, should never have been sent there in the first place because of his anti-semitic views.
Posted by on Jun 19, 2008 @ 02:50 PMKeeping the guy in jail for another four years will not resurrect the dead. I’m not sure what any alleged anti-semitism has to do with anything - the man did not kill any Jews as far as I am aware.
The fact that this crime occurred in south Lebanon, a highly volatile area at the best of times and even more so in 1982, the year of the Israeli invasion, is surely a mitigating factor in this case.
This man should be released at once.
Posted by on Jun 19, 2008 @ 05:11 PM
