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

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey
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???

Just want to point out that people don't get pardoned
(meaning:To let (an offense) pass without punishment)

They get early release.

I believe the reason these people qualify is because they were acting on behalf of the IRA at the time.

I'm not saying thats right but thats the story as far as I can see it.

I personally think these prisioners should only be released when the IRA totally ends all activity, and even then I'm not sure, I agree with the GFA and voted for it, but this case is not black and white

Mighty_Mouse

I hate repeating myself this much so this is the end of any repetition:

The GFA covers scheduled offences committed before the GFA. Were there cases of paedophillia committed by IRA members before the GFA? Or cases where IRA men shot their wives for wearing Rangers jerseys!? If not whats the point in inventing non-existing situations?

I'll go through the situation as I understand it again:

If we want to discuss applicable crimes for early release then lets discuss them as defined in the GFA
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.

The next question was: What constitutes a scheduled offence:
schedule offence: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/j1996022.htm
(note that within this document theres a right of the AG to review certain cases etc IMO normal stuff and not really relevant to the definition of a scheduled offence)
(murder - no IRA men are up for release after murdering their wives!)

In general the agreement means that IRA prisoners will be released without serving full-sentences for their crimes. (again note: that the IRA were not in jail for paedophilia, wife beating etc but for "Troubles"-related activity.) . The agreement was drafted to mean that terrorists on both sides would be freed. It was deemed a necessary step for getting the peace process established. We voted for this.

The Garda McCabe case is unfortunate but these were IRA men carrying out IRA activity. Its not beyond comprehension to believe these men were acting for the IRA. Certainly they were arrested, detained and tried as "IRA men". It's an unfortunate case but its pretty clear cut to me.

IMO theres no point in discussing extreme cases to clarify qualification. The GFA agreement didnt have to contend with IRA men getting wife-beaters and paedophiles released and it never will.

Finally theres a whole other argument about adhering to the spirit of the agreement instead of trying to tear it apart with technicalities, but its not necessary in this case!

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
What does this mean Earthman. Can you re-phrase?

It matters because it means that the IRA are owning the action that brigade took, when they had previously disowned it.
They appear to only have owned it after the fact so their "friends" in that brigade who carried it out could qualify for GFA release.

To borrow that most British of phrases, thats just not cricket...

bonkey

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
The GFA covers scheduled offences committed before the GFA. Were there cases of paedophillia committed by IRA members before the GFA? Or cases where IRA men shot their wives for wearing Rangers jerseys!? If not whats the point in inventing non-existing situations?

If you supply a list of all existing offences carried out by IRA people, then we can stop with hypothetical situations and pick the specific ones.

You're still dodging the issue....partly, I think, because you know what the probem is with your argument....

The next question was: What constitutes a scheduled offence:
schedule offence: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/j1996022.htm

From this document :

1. Murder subject to note 1 below.

So that would include the IRA man murdering his wife in a domestic, as long as it happened before the GFA.

Or maybe not...we should look at note 1.

1. 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.

So...murder is not a scheduled offence when the AG says that the murder in case is not to be treated as a scheduled offence.

So that would mean that the murder of McCabe is far from a clear case. It is 100% dependant on the AG deciding that it constitutes a scheduled offence, and tehre is nothing in the guidelines to say what criteria such a decision must be based on.

IMO theres no point in discussing extreme cases to clarify qualification.

Because it might show that qualification isn't as clear-cut as you'd like us all to believe?

The GFA agreement didnt have to contend with IRA men getting wife-beaters and paedophiles released and it never will.

Do you know for a fact that there isn't a single IRA person in prison for a non-IRA-related crime?

If not, then to say that the GFA agreement does not have to contend with any non-IRA-related crimes would be incorrect. Once you get to that point, you can either discuss the theoretical - which you refuse to - or the general - which you refuse to, claiming its theoretical.

Sounds to me like you just want to avoid getting into a discussion where you know the inevitable conclusion will be that it si possible that the GFA may not cover what you say it clearly does.

'S alright though...now that you've posted the link to scheduled offences, its clear that its not a clear case, as the AG can still decide that it isn't a scheduled offence.

jc

ReefBreak

The Garda McCabe case is unfortunate but these were IRA men carrying out IRA activity. Its not beyond comprehension to believe these men were acting for the IRA. Certainly they were arrested, detained and tried as "IRA men". It's an unfortunate case but its pretty clear cut to me.

And I would disagree. How is robbing a post office and "killing" a garda considered IRA activity? Remember that the IRA disowned these men for about a week after the robbery-murder (yes, the garda was murdered, only no one has yet been charged for that crime). Remember, the IRA stated themselves that the robbery-murder was not sanctioned by them. And like Earthman said, they then changed their minds when they realised they could use the GFA to get their friends off free. Fairly rich from a party that's constantly harping on about how the GFA should be above politics, and should be treated with the utmost respect. So for you to state that the robbery of a post-office, and the murder of a on-duty garda was an "IRA activity" is plain wrong. The fact that you seem to think that this kind of activity is somehow acceptable, or above the rule of law is absolutely sickening.

'S alright though...now that you've posted the link to scheduled offences, its clear that its not a clear case, as the AG can still decide that it isn't a scheduled offence.

And there's the rub - the AG can decide if they are qualifying. And I would contend that they're not qualifying, because of the my reasons above (i.e. they were not on IRA activity, but were simply murderous, post-office-robbing, criminals).

Villain

Originally posted by irish1
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.

Reefbreak, are you going to retract it??

ReefBreak

Not yet, not until I've checked some more sources. Are you going to stop avoiding any of the questions that you don't like the answer to?

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Not yet, not until I've checked some more sources. Are you going to stop avoiding any of the questions that you don't like the answer to?

lol check all the sources you like your wrong.

What questions have been put to me that I didn't answer???

arcadegame2004

"The GFA covers scheduled offences committed before the GFA. Were there cases of paedophillia committed by IRA members before the GFA? Or cases where IRA men shot their wives for wearing Rangers jerseys!? If not whats the point in inventing non-existing situations? " (Mighty_Mouse)

Mighty_Mouse, actually, the UK Government HAS released paramilitaries in NI for terrorist crimes committed SINCE the GFA. It seems to me that the 2 governments have a different view on how to implement the prisoner-release part of it. However, I feel that this leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy in respect of the McCabe case. They only have 4 years left in their sentence, so I don't think it should be such a cause for outrage if they are released, say 2 years early if it brings about IRA disbandment. We need to think not only of lives lost but also of how many future and current lives may be saved.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

kahlua

i don't think murderers should be given early release no matter if they were in the IRA or not.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
Really? Well my recollection of the events are of the IRA saying that the men were acting independently so go figure.

Your correct they did but I believe they later stated they were acting on behalf of the IRA.

One article I visited stated

The four IRA men who, yesterday, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Det Garda McCabe formed the nucleus of a vital IRA fund-raising gang which carried out at least 15 armed robberies in the Munster area between 1975 and 1996. The gun used to kill Det Garda McCabe was proven, in ballistic tests, to match that used on a raid on a post office in Kilmallock, Co Limerick, in 1994.
The accused were close to the IRA leadership

I think the IRA was responsible for all these robberies including the one in which Jerry McCabe was murdered.

But another article stated that

The IRA issued a statement on the day of the killing, June 7, 1996 that "none of its volunteers or units were in any way involved in this morning's incident at Adare. There was absolutely no IRA involvement."

I don't know, I can see why they would distance themselves from the incident:

General Order No 8 of the IRA's Green Book or rules states that "volunteers are strictly forbidden to take any military action against 26-County forces under any circumstances whatsoever

But I think it was IRA activity.

Originally posted by irish1
Your correct they did but I believe they later stated they were acting on behalf of the IRA.

I know irish1 but that wouldn't be good enough.
If the IRA council knew that they hadn't sanctioned the robbery at the time it took place and stated so,who's to say that these killers might have intended keeping the money for themselves???
It's entirely possible.

Also I'd be very slow to take the word of anyone that murders a Garda, given (a) that the IRA usually wouldn't do that, (b) that the IRA disowned the act at the time it happened and (c) the IRA only owned the act certain in the knowledge that if they didn't, there would be no chance whatsoever that these guys would get any early release under any agreement as they would have acted as ordinary criminals at the time as opposed to doing a sanctioned IRA operation.
It doesn't add up that P O' Niell would deny them at first and then own them unless some pressure was put to bear to have them included.


So in my view, they don't actually deserve early release, but I could stomach it if and only if it was part of an over all agreement to get further progress up north and I would be releasing them under licence, meaning if the IRA went back on any promise, they would go back in.

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
I know irish1 but that wouldn't be good enough.
If the IRA council knew that they hadn't sanctioned the robbery at the time it took place and stated so,who's to say that these killers might have intended keeping the money for themselves???
It's entirely possible.

I agree it is entirely possible but I dont think that was the case.

As I posted earlier this morning the gun used in this robbery was the same used in other roberry's that I believe were sanctioned by the IRA.

I also posted that IRA rules say that

volunteers are strictly forbidden to take any military action against 26-County forces under any circumstances whatsoever

I believe they disaccoiated themselves from the crime because it went wrong.

Just my opinion.

ReefBreak

As I posted earlier this morning the gun used in this robbery was the same used in other roberry's that I believe were sanctioned by the IRA.

Ah, I see. Sort of like the way some companies won't allow you to use a company van to drive to golf on a saturday. Good to see the 'RA have such high-minded principles. "You can blow that whole family to smithereens, but only if you official IRA explosives." And yes, before you ask, the IRA have blown whole innocent families into smithereens on one operation.

pdh

Sick of listening about Gerry McCabe on the radio news every morning. You think he was some kind of saint.

His life was no more valuable than anybody else's. There are loads of people who have killed others, who have got out after 3 or 4 years, what's the point in keeping these Limerick boys behind bars, they have done 8 years already, more than enough. They won't reoffend and its taking up valuable spaces that can be used for real criminals.

Villain

ReefBreak,

You pick 1 line out of an opinion I posted and slag it off is that the best reponse you can come up with??

and you accuse me of avoiding questions:rolleyes:

I gave an opinion and stated how came to that opinion, sorry if it doesn't sit well with you.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by pdh
Sick of listening about Gerry McCabe on the radio news every morning. You think he was some kind of saint.

His life was no more valuable than anybody else's. There are loads of people who have killed others, who have got out after 3 or 4 years, what's the point in keeping these Limerick boys behind bars, they have done 8 years already, more than enough. They won't reoffend and its taking up valuable spaces that can be used for real criminals.

The normal prison term for murdering a Garda is 40 years without remission. This's what those four scumbags should have got. As a garda that spent his life working for the state, his life was certainly more valuable than anyone that has ever murdered for the IRA, and certainly more valuable than the 4 men that got sentenced for "killing" him.

pdh

So ReefBreak, a well paid Branchman, armed to the teeth with Uiz's etc is more valuable than an OAP killed for a few pounds by Junkies ? Don't think so, in fact given the crime rate plus all the **** the guards are up to aka Morris & Abbeylara, I think we should think about bring in wage cuts for those fella's.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by pdh
So ReefBreak, a well paid Branchman, armed to the teeth with Uiz's etc is more valuable than an OAP killed for a few pounds by Junkies ? Don't think so, in fact given the crime rate plus all the **** the guards are up to aka Morris & Abbeylara, I think we should think about bring in wage cuts for those fella's.

An absolutely ridiculous post. I never said that "a well paid Branchman" was more valuable than an "OAP" (he's not). But I DO SAY that the life of "a well-paid Branchman" is far more valuable than any IRA murderer. I have never accepted the dial-a-quote from Gerry Adams when he talks about a "hierarchy of victims." For example, the life of an innocent mother of 2 that gets blown to pieces by an IRA/UDA/UFF bomb is 1000 times more valuable than the life of the bomber that dies in the same explosion.

Originally posted by irish1
I agree it is entirely possible but I dont think that was the case.

As I posted earlier this morning the gun used in this robbery was the same used in other roberry's that I believe were sanctioned by the IRA.

That wouldn't prove anything.
I doubt that the gang said, hey lads we cant use that gun 'cause we aint got sanction for this...
Or We can't use that gun lads 'cause we're keeping the money for ourselves...

I believe they disaccoiated themselves from the crime because it went wrong.

Doesn't matter,they either were or they weren't... They disassociated themselves because it went wrong??
That underlines my assertion that they reassociated themselves with it, because their friends that did it,knew they wouldn't qualify for any early release pending or otherwise unless it was an IRA action.

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
That wouldn't prove anything.
I doubt that the gang said, hey lads we cant use that gun 'cause we aint got sanction for this...
Or We can't use that gun lads 'cause we're keeping the money for ourselves...

As I said earlier I didn't say it proves anything, but I believe in my opinion that all the robbery's were carried out by the IRA and simply used that information to help form my opinion.

Originally posted by Earthman
Doesn't matter,they either were or they weren't... They disassociated themselves because it went wrong??
That underlines my assertion that they reassociated themselves with it, because their friends that did it,knew they wouldn't qualify for any early release pending or otherwise unless it was an IRA action.

I can see you point of view and can accept it is was the reason, but I don't think such members of the IRA would have carried out such an unsanctioned robbery.

I think if it was unsanctioned and they treid to keep the money, the IRA organisation would have come down very hard.

As I have said and will say once more, I believe these men were carrying out the robbery like every other robbery that was carried out by the IRA to finance the IRA's activitys.

I believe they broke IRA rules by shooting the Garda, so the IRA disassociated themselves from the act.

I can totally accept the only reason they said it was IRA activity later was to ensure the early release of the men who commited the manslaughter.

Please note it was manslaughter and not capital murder that these men were convicted of, I think someone mentioned 40 years as a possible sentence, I think (and I quite possibly are wrong) that 40 years punishment is for capital murder and not manslaughter.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by irish1

Please note it was manslaughter and not capital murder that these men were convicted of, I think someone mentioned 40 years as a possible sentence, I think (and I quite possibly are wrong) that 40 years punishment is for capital murder and not manslaughter.

Thats because there was a plea bargain( from my reading of the court notes ) it doesn't change the definition of what they were charged with ie Capital murder which is what the murder of a Garda is.
They just said they would plead guilty to manslaughter and the prosecution accepted their plea bargain.
Happens all the time,it doesn't change the nature or the wrongness of the killing.
Fact is it is very illegal to rob banks no matter what you want the money for and it is very, very illegal and immoral to shoot a Garda stone dead in the process.
You even say it's against IRA rules to shoot Gardaí and why do they have a rule like that??
Because they know it's an un popular thing to do...
Ordinary decent people don't like it down here and those decent people aren't unionists, they are the very people that Republicans want their support from.

With that in mind,It's understandable that the cops are kicking up such a fuss about this and equally understandable that so many ordinary people down here unconnected to Republicanism are too.

Villain

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Thats because there was a plea bargain( from my reading of the court notes ) it doesn't change the definition of what they were charged with ie Capital murder which is what the murder of a Garda is.
They just said they would plead guilty to manslaughter and the prosecution accepted their plea bargain.
Happens all the time,it doesn't change the nature or the wrongness of the killing.
Fact is it is very illegal to rob banks no matter what you want the money for and it is very, very illegal and immoral to shoot a Garda stone dead in the process.
You even say it's against IRA rules to shoot Gardaí and why do they have a rule like that??
Because they know it's an un popular thing to do...
Ordinary decent people don't like it down here and those decent people aren't unionists, they are the very people that Republicans want their support from.

With that in mind,It's understandable that the cops are kicking up such a fuss about this and equally understandable that so many ordinary people down here unconnected to Republicanism are too.

This was a time when the IRA weren't on a ceasefire and before the peace progress had progressed, so I'm not going to start debating why they have such a rule.

Rock Climber they may have been charged with Capital Murder but they were not convicted!

No-one forced the state to accept the plea bargain they choose to do so.

I'm not saying they should have only got manslaughter, I'm simply pointing out the FACTS.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by irish1
This was a time when the IRA weren't on a ceasefire and before the peace progress had progressed, so I'm not going to start debating why they have such a rule.

I would love if you started debating why the IRA have a "don't murder Gardai" rule on their books. Then you can start debating why on earth you, or anyone else, would vote for the political wing of this terrorist group.

Originally posted by irish1
Rock Climber they may have been charged with Capital Murder but they were not convicted!

No-one forced the state to accept the plea bargain they choose to do so.

I'm not saying they should have only got manslaughter, I'm simply pointing out the FACTS.

And the only reason they didn't get sent down for Capital Murder is because the IRA (the terrorist wing of a party that you vote for) were intimidating key witnesses (i.e. threatening to murder them), which meant the DPP had to reduce the charge to manslaughter to ensure they didn't walk. This is also a fact.

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
I would love if you started debating why the IRA have a "don't murder Gardai" rule on their books. Then you can start debating why on earth you, or anyone else, would vote for the political wing of this terrorist group.

LOL, can't think of anything to say so you go back to the SF bashing I see

Originally posted by ReefBreak
And the only reason they didn't get sent down for Capital Murder is because the IRA (the terrorist wing of a party that you vote for) were intimidating key witnesses (i.e. threatening to murder them), which meant the DPP had to reduce the charge to manslaughter to ensure they didn't walk. This is also a fact.

That was widely reported at the time, but I dont think anyone was convicted of harrassing a witness, or maybe there was

ReefBreak

Originally posted by irish1
LOL, can't think of anything to say so you go back to the SF bashing I see

Can't think of anything to say? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was simply asking you to discuss why the IRA have a "don't murder gardai rule" on their books. Why don't you discuss it? Is it because you'd rather ignore the mnumerous atrocities that have been committed by the IRA through the years? As for SF-bashing, well, of course I'm SF-bashing - they're the only Dáil party that have a terrorist wing. They're the only only Dáil party with TDs convicted of terrorist offences. In fact, every time you mention the words IRA/UDA/Sinn Fein/etc I will bash them, because you're the one voting for these murderers.

Originally posted by irish1
That was widely reported at the time, but I dont think anyone was convicted of harrassing a witness, or maybe there was

It's well known in Limerick and by the Gardai, the people that were doing the intimidation, the circumstances of the intimidation, and where and when the intimidation took place. Naturally, the recipient of this intimidation is not going to talk because they don't want their brains blown out by an IRA/SF member.

sceptre

Originally posted by irish1
I believe they broke IRA rules by shooting the Garda, so the IRA disassociated themselves from the act.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
I would love if you started debating why the IRA have a "don't murder Gardai" rule on their books. Then you can start debating why on earth you, or anyone else, would vote for the political wing of this terrorist group

It's General Order number 8 of the little green book. Prohibits military action against forces in the 26 counties under any circumstances. Given that this wasn't the first robbery carried out, either the order has been disregarded before or it isn't intended to refer to robberies where the primary target is the robbery rather than military action. However the order does specifically state that in the event of capture the volunteers are to state that the weapons were for use against "the British forces of occupation only". There's a contradiction in there somewhere given the lack of imperialist evil occupying British tanks in Adare (at least last time I drove through there).

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Can't think of anything to say? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was simply asking you to discuss why the IRA have a "don't murder gardai rule" on their books. Why don't you discuss it? Is it because you'd rather ignore the mnumerous atrocities that have been committed by the IRA through the years? As for SF-bashing, well, of course I'm SF-bashing - they're the only Dáil party that have a terrorist wing. They're the only only Dáil party with TDs convicted of terrorist offences. .

I dont support the IRA, well not the modern day one anyway. I have never ignored what they have done I even linked to a bombing in Manchester in this forum but you probably don't believe that happened because it proves you were WRONG about them being on a cease fire, and you have still failed to retract that statement!.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
In fact, every time you mention the words IRA/UDA/Sinn Fein/etc I will bash them, because you're the one voting for these murderers.

I resent you branding the Sinn Fein organisation as murderers and would kindly ask you to withdraw such statement.

Originally posted by ReefBreak

It's well known in Limerick and by the Gardai, the people that were doing the intimidation, the circumstances of the intimidation, and where and when the intimidation took place. Naturally, the recipient of this intimidation is not going to talk because they don't want their brains blown out by an IRA/SF member.

I never said it didn't happen I simply pointed I didn't believe anyone was convicted of such offense.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by irish1
I dont support the IRA, well not the modern day one anyway. I have never ignored what they have done I even linked to a bombing in Manchester in this forum but you probably don't believe that happened because it proves you were WRONG about them being on a cease fire, and you have still failed to retract that statement!.

I resent you branding the Sinn Fein organisation as murderers and would kindly ask you to withdraw such statement.

I never said it didn't happen I simply pointed I didn't believe anyone was convicted of such offense.

I will find out over the weekend about the ceasefire, and then [edit]possibly[/edit] retract it.

I didn't call the Sinn Féin organisation murderers, but I am saying that members of Sinn Féin are murderers. So no, I won't retract it. Why would I, when Sinn Féin have links to a murderous terrorist organisation.