Should McCabe killers be release as part of IRA disbandment deal?

egan007

what ever became of Not dealing with terrorists?

LoneGunM@n

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
While the IRA at first disclaimed knowledge of the operation this position was reversed a week afterwards following an initial inquiry.

During an interview on Newstalk yesterday/last week, a member of the Garda Representative Association stated that the IRA came out and denied any knowledge/responsibility for the slaying of Garda McCabe, but then changed their statement that if IRA members were involved, they were acting without official sanction/authority from the council!

If this is the case, the murder of Garda McCabe was not a political act!

Either way, murder is murder & I do not believe that murderers should be released early from their sentences!

LoneGunM@n

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Did the government promise Garda McCabes wife that the IRA prisoners would serve their time AFTER the signing of the GFA?

Supposedly the wife of Garda McCabe has a letter from the then Minister for Justice confirming that the murderers of her husband would not be released under the terms of the GFA!

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Obviously not (because its not IRA related). Its a silly argument really because were not talking about any type of crime that might be perceived as being non-IRA activity. Were talking about prisoners who are perceived as being prisoners of war here.

What makes a bank robber a POW any more than a kiddy-fiddler? Are you saying that bank robbery is a political act?

Maby you didn't read it correctly the first time?
Again: the GFA:
"--> Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners under national and international law.

What are the scheduled offences? I can't see a reference to these in the text of the Agreement. Do they include bank robbery?

--> Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. In addition, the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.

-->The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.

Nowhere there does it state that all IRA members should be allowed to waltz out of jail no matter what their crime. I'd like to see a definition of a "qualifying" prisoner.

[edit] Just re-read: a qualifying prisoner is one convicted of a "scheduled offence" - that's just one mystery remaining.[/edit]

Well the "talk" has arisen due to government commitments to implementing the GFA. It was unavoidable really because the terms were so clearly defined.

I don't see a clear definition of "scheduled offences."

Did the government promise Garda McCabes wife that the IRA prisoners would serve their time AFTER the signing of the GFA? I personally dont know. If they did then:
- they were not commited to the implementation of the Agreement or,
- they were playing politics until the time was ripe.

All this is still predicated on the assumption that IRA membership alone is enough to qualify for GFA terms. You've already indicated that this isn't the case, so what is the qualification?

Remember it was the governments intention to have as little public discussion on this topic as possible. This should of happened when Trimble ****ed things up. This discussion has come about due to a leak and at a very unfortunate time for the government. But that said, the situation is not nice, but all the same unavoidable.

I don't accept that premise.

BuffyBot

Are you saying that bank robbery is a political act?

See this is what I don't understand. I can vaguely see the point in releasing the people convicted of terrorist related crimes even if I do not believe it is right.

However, this was hardly that. They shot a member of the Gardai in cold blood while commiting a robbery.

During an interview on Newstalk yesterday/last week, a member of the Garda Representative Association stated that the IRA came out and denied any knowledge/responsibility for the slaying of Garda McCabe, but then changed their statement that if IRA members were involved, they were acting without official sanction/authority from the council!

Now if that is true (and it does vaguely ring a bell from the time of the shooting) then it seems there is even less of a case for their release.

Mighty_Mouse

What makes a bank robber a POW any more than a kiddy-fiddler?

Ok. Let me get this straight. Do you think that paedophilia is the equilivent of manslaughter in terms of how a POW should be defined?Forgive me, I'm struggling a little to understand the whole paedophilia argument here.
I'll enclose a link to clear up the "Scheduled Offence" understanding problems

It's obviously an argument around the terms of whether the IRA men in Castlerea should be considered POW's? I've two points to make here:
1. I fail to understand how robbing a bank fails to qualify these prisoners?
2. It doesn't matter because all five men were accepted and treated as IRA prisoners while in Portlaoise prison and they were moved to Castlerea as part of the IRA unit. They continue to be seen as IRA prisoners by the Dublin government and the prison authorities. Are you arguing that:
- they are IRA men but shouldn't be treated as such
- they're not IRA men?
It's pointless really because it's long been accepted that they are in fact IRA men who were undertaking IRA activities when Garda McCabe was shot and killed.

Are you saying that bank robbery is a political act?

Well I personally thought it was fairly obvious that IRA men robbing a bank are part of IRA activity and therefore part of the political struggle. Are you saying that this wasn't IRA activity?

What are the scheduled offences? I can't see a reference to these in the text of the Agreement. Do they include bank robbery? ..."scheduled offence" - that's just one mystery remaining............I don't see a clear definition of "scheduled offences."

Hopefully this link will clear up any confusion:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/j1996022.htm

Mighty_Mouse

Supposedly the wife of Garda McCabe has a letter from the then Minister for Justice confirming that the murderers of her husband would not be released under the terms of the GFA!

Well he shouldn't of because the government negotiating team in Belfast said different. I think it was Donoghue at the time (but prob wrong)?

However, this was hardly that. They shot a member of the Gardai in cold blood while commiting a robbery

I'm sorry your wrong here Buffy. They are covered by the GFA.
http://www.nio.gov.uk/issues/agreelinks/agreement.htm --> scroll down to Section8

I personaly dislike this situation but I just don't see away around it.

BuffyBot

I'm sorry your wrong here Buffy. They are covered by the GFA.

Am I? I didn't know the GFA stood for how I feel. Amazing document really!

This, to me, was common bank robbery (which apparently wasn't even sanctioned). As I said, I can vaguely seet he logic in other releases, these people in my opinion deserve no special treatment any more than any other set of armed robbers do.

Villain

From breakingnews.ie:

The Government will not consider releasing the four prisoners who killed a Detective Garda until there is an end to all paramilitary activity, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said today.

He said there was no question of the Government making a deal, as has been alleged, to release the killers as part of an attempt to restart the peace process, without consulting Det Garda Jerry McCabe’s family.

“If I gave the impression that this was part of the settlement, to release the gang, it would only be at the end of paramilitarism, at the ending of conflict,” he told the Dáil.

“The Government can consider the early release of these prisoners only with the achievement of all other acts of completion as were assured.

“This means assurance of the complete ending of paramilitarism by the IRA and decommissioning.

“If we ever want to get the end of the IRA then we’re going to have to be brave and take some pain and we’re going to have to get some gain.”

He said the issue of the release of the men from Castlerea Prison was not part of the Good Friday Agreement.

“Our goal last Spring was to clear the way on all outstanding issues, including the Republican movement, finally and definitively making a historic move away from violence.

“We did not achieve the outcome we were working to achieve at that time and because of this the question of the release of these prisoners … could not be pursued,” he said.

In February 1999, the Special Criminal Court handed down sentences ranging from 11 to 14 years to the four-man gang who shot Det Garda McCabe during an attempted post office robbery in the Limerick village of Adair in June 1996.

On the day of the sentencing, Mr Ahern pledged the four men would not get early release under the Good Friday Agreement.

bonkey

I like the way Bertie mentioned "end to paramilitarism" several times, and then slips in the "and decomissioning" once.

Uh-huh.

That would be "when we have the stuff we negotiated, and the stuff we didn't negotiate but now decide we want as a pre-requisite for holding to our side of the bargain", yes?

Personally, I don't think the McCab killers should be released as they were not killed through paramilitary action, but rather through common criminal activity. Just because it was the same people behind the activities doesn't make enough of a difference in my book.

But this line of Berties just gets my goat. The last thing the peace process needs is all of the other major involved groups ganging up to demand something (decomissioning) as a prerequisite in contradiction to the Agreement they all signed on to.

jc

Sand

I'm not saying I agree with but it's part of the agreement, and theres no point in asking me why, because I didn't create the agreement.

I was listening to the sister of McCabes widow giving a radio interview today (Id imagine his wife was too distressed by the concept of the murderers families welcoming home their loved ones whilst she never would ) and she was insistent that the family was promised that legally the killers did not come under the terms of the GFA and what I picked up was that they had that guarantee in writing. Im not a lawyer, but if theyre confident enough on legal grounds to give a written guarantee and only entertain ( however disagreeably ) the release of the killers as a bargaining chip rather than as a requirement of the GFa then maybe its not so safe to say theyre covered absolutely.

What needs to be understood here is that the release of prisoners under the GFA is not a right. Much as the militants on either side would like to legitimise their terrorism by painting the release of prisoners as being similar to the release of POWs at the end of a war, it is in actual fact an extra-judicial act - politics overriding the legal system. It was politically expedient to release the murderers, but it was not just nor was it right - I disagree with it in moral terms, but at the same time it was the only practical solution on the table to try and end the madness.

There is no such context when considering McCabes killers - they were bankrobbers, engaged in common criminality - SF/IRA claimed initially they didnt even know who they were and only later argued they were covered by the GFA. The situation in the north when the GFA was signed and approved is not the situation that faces us here and now in the Republic. Realistically the IRA are not going to go back to murdering people wearing Rangers jerseys over McCabes killers. As such, there is no justification for politics overriding the judicial process here. McCabes killers were found guilty, were sentenced and should serve their sentence in full. If the IRA dont like that- tough tbh, they should be in the cell next door anyway.

From Fianna Fails point of view you have to ask just how bloody stupid are they? I mean every time I think they cant get any worse , they do. They gave a guarantee to the Gardai and to the McCabe family and they even briefly entertain the thought of going back on it? For what? To get those miserable shower of gits in the North back on the bandwagon for another few months of bickering before the wheels fall off again? Theyd sacrifice and shred of credibility they have left, alienate and hopelessly demoralise the Gardai and risk the immense anger of Irish citizens for a side issue that Irish people in general honestly do not care that much about anymore compared to, the economy say, or crime or health etc etc?

How on gods earth can FF be the only party worth voting for when theyre so incredibly stupid? What has Ireland done wrong to deserve politicians like this? Can we not try and persuade the Queen we didnt really mean what we said and try get back on the gravy train?

oscarBravo

I'm still unconvinced about the case for including these men. It seems that the proposition is that (a) they are members of the IRA and (b) they killed someone, and therefore they should be allowed to walk. What if one of them lost his temper and shot his missus? Does the GFA cover that?

As to the bank robbery being a political act, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act of 1998, which was enacted as part of the GFA, in section 13 defines terrorism as "the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear." Now, unless the bank raid was exclusively for the purpose of terrorising the good people of Adare in order to further the cause of a 32-county republic, I can't see how it's relevant at all.

Cork

Originally posted by Sand


There is no such context when considering McCabes killers - they were bankrobbers, engaged in common criminality - SF/IRA claimed initially they didnt even know who they were and only later argued they were covered by the GFA. The situation in the north when the GFA was signed and approved is not the situation that faces us here and now in the Republic. Realistically the IRA are not going to go back to murdering people wearing Rangers jerseys over McCabes killers. As such, there is no justification for politics overriding the judicial process here. McCabes killers were found guilty, were sentenced and should serve their sentence in full. If the IRA dont like that- tough tbh, they should be in the cell next door anyway.

In this country the courts are independent. Those convicted of involvement in this murder were convicted under our legal system. Not in a back ally by a bunch of thugs wielding baseball bats. The release of these people does not come under the GFA. When that the people of this country voted for the GFA, It was clear to the electorate that the release of these people did not come under the terms of the agreement.

The hurt that this saga must have raked up for the McCabe family must be hard. I think that they deserve honesty from government.

Bank robbery far from being a political act is a criminal act.

I think that releasing these people will both damage both our political and legal systems - all for a vague promise that we will see a total end to IRA activities.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Sand

How on gods earth can FF be the only party worth voting for when theyre so incredibly stupid? What has Ireland done wrong to deserve politicians like this? Can we not try and persuade the Queen we didnt really mean what we said and try get back on the gravy train?

I don't recall Bertie's predecessor doing anything at all in the way of advancing the peace process.

Mighty_Mouse

Personally, I don't think the McCab killers should be released as they were not killed through paramilitary action, but rather through common criminal activity.

Is this point not mute due to the fact that:
- The government has never argued that they are not IRA prisoners. They continue to be seen as IRA prisoners by the Dublin government and the prison authorities
- The fact that all five men were treated as IRA prisoners in both Portlaoise and Castlerea as part of the IRA unit.

What if one of them lost his temper and shot his missus? Does the GFA cover that?

All of these fine examples don't apply because the GFA only refers to SCHEDULED OFFENCES before the GFA. It doesnt say terrorists offences as defined by someone here previously.

I bet SF would like if this had never happened at all. But the fact of the matter is that these men are republican prisoners who fall under the terms of the agreement. The IRA have accepted that they were IRA men carrying out IRA activity. (crazy cases of paedophilia dont apply because we dont have any examples if such cases) It's all very well saying that politics should not take precedence to justice, but thats precisely whats needed to develop a peace process.

BuffyBot

Is this point not mute due to the fact that:
- The government has never argued that they are not IRA prisoners. They continue to be seen as IRA prisoners by the Dublin government and the prison authorities
- The fact that all five men were treated as IRA prisoners in both Portlaoise and Castlerea as part of the IRA unit.

So they were allowed to hang around with their mates in prison? Why should make people change there mind and say "ah sure, let them go!"

Alex atwood was on Morning Ireland today and suggested that the people of the 26 counties were aware when they voted for the GFA thatMcCabes killers were not included.

The Garda representative association also repeated that at the time of the killing, the IRA unit did not have the sanction of the ruling council for the robbery.
The Gardaí use this legitimately in my view to describe them as common criminals.

The IRA later changed their story clearly in an attempt to include the McCabe killers in the trems of the GFA.
Not good enough say the Gardaí and they have a fair point.

bonkey

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
All of these fine examples don't apply because the GFA only refers to SCHEDULED OFFENCES before the GFA. It doesnt say terrorists offences as defined by someone here previously.

So if he shot his wife before the GFA...the example would apply, yes?

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
All of these fine examples don't apply because the GFA only refers to SCHEDULED OFFENCES before the GFA. It doesnt say terrorists offences as defined by someone here previously.

That was me. The definition was taken from an Act of Parliament passed as part of the implementation of the GFA.

As to your posted link defining "scheduled offences" - I see it has a note stating that "Any offence specified in this Part of this Schedule which is stated to be subject to this note is not a scheduled offence in any particular case in which the Attorney General for Northern Ireland certifies that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence." In other words, it's a scheduled offence unless the AG says it's not. That's not as black-and-white a definition as you've been making it out to be.

Originally posted by Earthman
Alex atwood was on Morning Ireland today and suggested that the people of the 26 counties were aware when they voted for the GFA thatMcCabes killers were not included.

That was my clear understanding when I was voting for it.

Mighty_Mouse

So if he shot his wife before the GFA...the example would apply, yes?

Its irrelevant because no such case exists

In other words, it's a scheduled offence unless the AG says it's not. That's not as black-and-white a definition as you've been making it out to be.

The definition of a 'qualifying prisoners' is very clear - someone convicted of 'scheduled offences' in the North and 'similar offences' elsewhere. The Adare case falls into this category. http://www.coiste.ie/castlerea.htm

The case against release been made here is that these men were not undertaking IRA activity at the time of murdering Garda McCabe. Whether this is or is not correct, the fact of the matter is that the government have treated and tried these men as such from day one. So therefore given the current situation. These men fall under the remit of the GFA and simply have to be released.

ReefBreak

From todays INdo:

"The day after the shooting in June 1996 the Irish Independent reported on its front page, based on garda intelligence and an analysis of the activities of its main "fund raising" unit in the Munster region, that the mainstream republican movement was responsible for the murder, although the IRA was publicly on ceasefire.

But not everybody could accept that the IRA would break its ceasefire and murder a garda in cold blood. The leadership of the Provisionals seized on those doubts and denied that any of its members had been involved. But this was countered publicly by the then Garda Commissioner Paddy Culligan who made it clear he was satisfied that the buck stopped with the IRA. "

So Mighty Mouse, Irish1, etc, were the IRA on a ceasefire or not? Note that I once stated a couple of weeks back that the IRA were on a ceasefire at the time. I think I subsequently retracted that statement - I hereby officially unretract that statement...

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
From todays INdo:

"The day after the shooting in June 1996 the Irish Independent reported on its front page, based on garda intelligence and an analysis of the activities of its main "fund raising" unit in the Munster region, that the mainstream republican movement was responsible for the murder, although the IRA was publicly on ceasefire.

But not everybody could accept that the IRA would break its ceasefire and murder a garda in cold blood. The leadership of the Provisionals seized on those doubts and denied that any of its members had been involved. But this was countered publicly by the then Garda Commissioner Paddy Culligan who made it clear he was satisfied that the buck stopped with the IRA. "

So Mighty Mouse, Irish1, etc, were the IRA on a ceasefire or not? Note that I once stated a couple of weeks back that the IRA were on a ceasefire at the time. I think I subsequently retracted that statement - I hereby officially unretract that statement...

Well I think you may retract it again, the indo was wrong
From:http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2002/07/16/story60008.asp

But there were setbacks. On February 9, 1996, the IRA ended its ceasefire with the Docklands bombing in London, killing two and injuring 100

The terrorists accused the Government of dragging its feet on all-party talks. A string of attacks followed, including the bombing, on June 15 in Manchester, which injured 200. On July 19, 1997, the IRA announced it was restoring its ceasefire the following day. Sinn Fein entered the all-party talks on the province’s future on September 9.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Its irrelevant because no such case exists

But but but - "the definition of a qualifying prisoner is very clear" - if it's that clear, how come you're not prepared to clarify this hypothetical situation?

The definition of a 'qualifying prisoners' is very clear - someone convicted of 'scheduled offences' in the North and 'similar offences' elsewhere. The Adare case falls into this category. http://www.coiste.ie/castlerea.htm

OK: clearly define "scheduled offences" for me. The link you originally provided specifies murder and manslaughter. Would it cover the hypothetical wife-killer?

The case against release been made here is that these men were not undertaking IRA activity at the time of murdering Garda McCabe. Whether this is or is not correct, the fact of the matter is that the government have treated and tried these men as such from day one. So therefore given the current situation. These men fall under the remit of the GFA and simply have to be released.

A little consistency wouldn't go astray here. Do these men fall under the terms of the GFA because they are "qualifying prisoners" or is it because they have been treated as IRA prisoners? Which is it?

One other thing: am I to understand that the IRA have accepted that the Adare robbery was an officially sanctioned act? If so, doesn't that make their claims not to be involved in organised crime just a little suspect?

Mighty_Mouse

if it's that clear, how come you're not prepared to clarify this hypothetical situation?

I think you know the obvious answer here. I really can't understand the point of debating a theoretical situation e.g. paedophilia, murder of passion which didnt exist before the GFA. as far as I know the IRA have not claimed any paedophiles as acting for the cause!

The situation as it currently stands is very clear. Under the terms of the GFA, these prisoners qualify. Can you make your point more clearly as to why they don't?

A little consistency wouldn't go astray here. Do these men fall under the terms of the GFA because they are "qualifying prisoners" or is it because they have been treated as IRA prisoners? Which is it?

They are qualifying IRA prisoners;)

One other thing: am I to understand that the IRA have accepted that the Adare robbery was an officially sanctioned act? If so, doesn't that make their claims not to be involved in organised crime just a little suspect?

Did the IRA claim it wasn't involved in organised crime?

P.S
Reefbreak you've just settled an old argument regarding the Indo and credibility.

ReefBreak

Reefbreak you've just settled an old argument regarding the Indo and credibility.

I guess the Limerick Leader has also lost all credibility. In fact, I'll take it that any paper that disagrees with the opinions of the cold-blooded serial-killers in SF/IRA can be assumed to have lost any credibility:

http://www.limerick-leader.ie/issues/20030906/editorial.html :
"In the North there is now talk of prosecuting the Provos for 'war crimes.' But the killing of Garda McCabe lacked even the excuse of 'war'. The Provos were supposedly on ceasefire at the time."

Regardless of that fact, you still haven't exactly stated what makes a qualifying prisoner. Someone that murders his wife does not qualify, yet someone that murders a person for wearing a rangers top does? Or someone robbing a post office and murd..., oops sorry, "kills" a garda does also? What if his wife was wearing a rangers top at the time?

I also find it sickening that I can't use the term "murder" simply because key witnesses were intimidated by SF/IRA vermin before the trial. And despite all this, there are actually people out there that would vote for Sinn Féin...I genuinely feel ashamed that these voters can call themselves "Irish".

Villain

There wrong ReefBreak,

Look there was a huge bombing on the 15th of June 1996 in Manchester do you not remember:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/15/britain.blast/update.html

Please retract your statement and stop trying to use incorrect newspaper reports as an argument.

Mighty_Mouse

yet someone that murders a person for wearing a rangers top does?

.Ok. Your reasoning for not releasing the prisoners is because they were NOT carrying out IRA activity? And you go on to raise questions as to how IRA "activity" can be defined in terms of how IRA prisoners qualify for early release.

Personally I don't know of any case where IRA members have claimed paedophiles, or wife-murderers for early release. For that matter I don't know of any cases where a person was excuted by the IRA for simply wearing a Rangers top?

Theres two points to be made here:
1. this is a once off. This discussion is not relevant going-forward because any IRA crime committed after the GFA do not qualify for early release.
2. The term used for qualifying IRA prisoners is "Scheduled Offence". This is defined clearly in a previous link I have posted (the legislation provides for the intervention of the Atourney General)

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. We differ on whether robbery
- should be classified as an IRA activity
- were these men carrying out IRA activity
- was there a ceasefire

I've answered the above

But Mighty_mouse how can one account for the IRA initially saying they didn't sanction it?
And then saying they did...
That makes it look like they said hey wait friends, we'll tag it as ours fully sanctioned and ye will get out...
Or that brigade made the necessary calls to make it so in the knowledge that there'd have to be IRA approval or the guys getting released would be shaky under the terms of the GFA...
Thats what the Gardaí are saying went on and thus they brand McCabes killers as criminal murderers as opposed to IRA murderer's.

Mighty_Mouse

Or that brigade made the necessary calls to make it so in the knowledge that there'd have to be IRA approval or the guys getting released would be shaky under the terms of the GFA...

What does this mean Earthman. Can you re-phrase?

Thats what the Gardaí are saying went on and thus they brand McCabes killers as criminal murderers as opposed to IRA murderer's.

It would of helped to lend more weight to this argument if they had been treated as criminal and not IRA from the start.
But the opposite happened. There was a delay of 1 Week while the IRA undertook internal investigations.
Plus these men were in custody at the time of the GFA negotiations and the government did not make it clear at this time why these men would not be given IRA status.

bonkey

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
I really can't understand the point of debating a theoretical situation e.g. paedophilia, murder of passion which didnt exist before the GFA.

IOf the situation is as clear as you say, then there should be a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question. No debate, no theoretical discussion.....unless of course you answer "no", at which point you would have to explain why it is no, given that it is criminal activity carried out prior to the GFA.

Lets put it another way.....just to avoid all this theory.

Are you saying that under the terms of the GFA, all criminal actibvity no matter of what nature, and which was carried out by people who are paramilitaries is to be pardoned??? If not, then I'm afraid the situation is far from clear, as one first must determine what constitutes qualification.

If you are saying that, then I can't see why you couldn't just answer "yes" to the theoretical question above, as thats the clear implication.

The situation as it currently stands is very clear. Under the terms of the GFA, these prisoners qualify.

Well, apparently not everyone agrees with that, including some of the political principals involved...so I'm at even more of a loss to understand how it is "very clear".

jc