The bleeding heart liberals of the PSNI!

Eammon McCann contrasts Hugh Orde’s plea for due process with the effects Labour’s new Terrorism Bill would have were it successfully traverse both parliamentary houses of Westminster.

  • Davros

    Amazing that Gerry is still claiming that the end justifies the means.

  • Occasional Commenter

    McCann says: What Tories, Lib-Dems and a handful of Labour peers demanded was that the measure should be subject to periodic review

    This isn’t a fair summary of the opposition. The Tory, Lib Dem, independent and many Labour Lords want the so called ‘sunset clause’. The Government is offering yearly renewal, which is not an acceptable substitute for the sunset clause. The Government’s opponents are saying (and I agree) this is a bad bill, and needs to be replaced by a new and better bill when Parliament has had time to consider it properly. Renewing the same bad bill every year is no good.

    It’s possible that McCann is referring to the 3 and 6 month reviews that are in the bill at the moment, as opposed to the yearly renewal, but either way it’s not correct to describe the opposition to this bill without fully explaining the ‘sunset clause’, which is the main demand of the Opposition.

  • Occasional Commenter

    I meant to say: … the 3 and 6 month reviews that I think are in the bill at the moment

  • spartacus

    davros misses the point. mccann doesn’t raise adams’ speech to suggest that for adams ‘the end justifies the means.’ he raises it to point out the hypocrisy of mitchell reiss and a us administration that tramples over any law that gets in its way but then has the gall to lecture others on the need to stay within the bounds of law and order. perhaps davros, like reiss, favors the very big bombs over the small, homemade ones. i might point out that mclarnon raised exactly the same point the other day and was accused of ‘whataboutery’ by mick.

    i think that mccann is off, anyway, on the question of due process. here we have had, in relation the the northern bank job, trial by media. prediction: there will never be charges. there will never be a case made in court against republicans. why? that was not the point of the operation.

  • J Kelly

    Spartacus maybe the answer to your question is that because maybe they didn’t do it and it doesn’t help at this moment to take the heat off SF.

  • Peter Reavy

    Let’s summarise McCann:

    Judging by their new Terror Bill, New Labour have little regard for the rule of law. Judging by recent allegations against the American administration, they also have little regard for the rule of law. And the very fact that the Iraq war took place demonstrates this too. Therefore, who are they to criticise Sinn Fein and the IRA?

    The argument is fallacious. Even if McCann’s allegations against Blair, the Bill and the US Administration could be proven, they would not invalidate the criticisms that Blair and the US Envoy have made of SF and the IRA.

    The article only damns the PSNI with faint praise and attacks the British and American governments. It does not discuss whether recent criticisms of the Republican movement are valid or not. Instead it offers distractions.

  • Belfastwhite

    Peter

    McCann’s is simply pointing to and in my view quite fairly commenting that in this case the pot is calling the kettle black. Now life would be rosy for the opponents of Sinn Fein and the Republican movement if some commentators would desist in offering these distractionsparticularly when republicans are under the microscope but unfortunately they have a ring of truth. Until each and every participant in the mess that this country is in take a good look at themselves our future is bleak.

  • spartacus

    not sure which world you live in, peter reavy. i think a very large majority of people would accept that we are a long way past ‘allegations’ in regard to blair and bush’s lies on the road to war. i would love to see it all brought in front of a court, but that is unlikely so long as they have the run of the world.