Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
    But that just doesnt make sense, man. I mean FFS what world are you living in. Release nobody!!!! Why delude yourself with a high moral ground when it would never work in NI. Ever.

    You have completely failed to grasp the situation in NI if you think the voilence would of stopped by people turing to god or hating themselves for killing people!!! I just cannot understand this argument. Do you recognise that without the GFA there would not be peace in NI. I think people have forgotten very very very very quickly how desperate NI was and what it took to resolve.
    I think you may have misread me - I am opposed to people "who were convicted after the agreement and still were released." The main reason that I am opposed to McCabes release is because (a)we were assured when voting for the GFA that his killers would not fall under the remit of the GFA, and (b)because they were acting independent of the IRA at the when the murder/robbery took place - we know this because SF/IRA said so.

    I know that without the GFA we'd never have peace. That's why I voted for it. But without SF/IRA/UDA/UFF we'd never have had 3000+ people murdered.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by ReefBreak
    I think you may have misread me - I am opposed to people "who were convincted after the agreement and still were released." The main reason that I am opposed to McCabes release is because (a)we were assured when voting for the GFA that his killers would not fall under the remit of the GFA, and (b)because they were acting independent of the IRA at the when the murder/robbery took place - we know this because SF/IRA said so.

    I know that without the GFA we'd never have peace. That's why I voted for it. But without SF/IRA/UDA/UFF we'd never have had 3000+ people murdered.

    All the murders took place before the agreement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    Originally posted by irish1
    I'm not going to rise to that
    ..that's because you simply can't justify supporting an organisation that with a terrorist wing that murdered over 1500 people, of which over 800 were innocent civilians with no links to paramilitary organisations.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
    The IRA shot someone in Dublin 5years ago? Are you sure? This could end the peace process in NI!

    Yes, I am sure.

    However it was not an IRA killing. Merely an IRA member committing a murder.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by ReefBreak
    ..that's because you simply can't justify supporting an organisation that with a terrorist wing that murdered over 1500 people, of which over 800 were innocent civilians with no links to paramilitary organisations.

    Believe what you want to believe, but I have never insulted you and respect your opinion, pitty you couldn't afford me the same.

    I have discussed my reasons for supporting SF many many times, I condemn terrorism and have done on many occasions. I find your post ignorant and insulting.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
    Tell you what put all Shinners on IGNORE and argue why they aren't democratic!

    I dont see why I should have to listen to people who support murder.

    If they want to accept that yes the IRA committed CRIMES along with the loyalist paramilitaries, then maybe I'll listen.

    But I consider Sinn Fein to be Vermin of the lowest order. I also have as much time for them or their supporters as I do for supporters of Al Qaida.

    Now living in a democracy I am entitled to that opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by The Brigadier
    I dont see why I should have to listen to people who support murder.

    I dont support and never have!!:rolleyes:

    Do people actually read what others say before posting??


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    Originally posted by irish1
    Believe what you want to believe, but I have never insulted you and respect your opinion, pitty you couldn't afford me the same.

    I have discussed my reasons for supporting SF many many times, I condemn terrorism and have done on many occasions. I find your post ignorant and insulting.
    You say you've condemned terrorism, but it's completely meaningless if you're going to vote Sinn Féin. You might feel insulted, but I wasn't actually insulting you - I was just stating facts:
    You are going to vote Sinn Féin - Fact (by your own admission).
    Sinn Féin have a terrorist wing - Fact.
    This terrorist wing is still present, only it's on a ceasefire - Fact.
    This terrorist wing have "murdered over 1500 people, of which over 800 were innocent civilians with no links to paramilitary organisations." - Fact.

    You also call it ignorance, I call it the truth. You might feel insulted, but I feel ashamed that Irish people would actually consider voting for Sinn Féin. Off-topic, according to the recent SBP opinion poll, their vote increase (fortunately) seems to have levelled off, with a 2% and 1% drop in support since the last polls.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by ReefBreak
    Off-topic, according to the recent SBP opinion poll, their vote increase (fortunately) seems to have levelled off, with a 2% and 1% drop in support since the last polls.

    lol

    http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-444005791-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FNews-Features.asp :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    Laugh all you like. When RTE (TV) News were reporting this on saturday, they stated that their support had dropped 1% and 2% from the previous polls, note - not the previous election, which is what the SBP is referring to:
    "Sinn Féin will be delighted with the poll, which puts it neck and neck with Labour. The party has climbed to 12 per cent support in the local elections, and 11 in the Euros - a mammoth increase on its 7 per cent of first preferences in the 2002 general election. Its core strength comes from younger voters. "


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    Sinn Féin will be delighted with the poll, which puts it neck and neck with Labour.
    }a quite smile to myself{
    and the abuse I had to listen to 5-6 years ago. People who fervantly believed SF would never be a significant party in the South.................

    .......excuse me Brigadier general , what seems to be the trouble ...............he said "don't forget your shovel"......... Was this IRA man arrested and tried? Do you want to give details? (curiosity only. I can understand if you don't want your friends dads name on the Internet)

    But do you see the point you've just made also. The IRA had nothing to do with it. Drug dealing is not something tolerated by the organisation. Of coarse I accept that a couple of rotten apples try their luck but they receive the kind of justice that ppl have refered to here earlier.

    Drug dealing and


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by ReefBreak
    Laugh all you like. When RTE (TV) News were reporting this on saturday, they stated that their support had dropped 1% and 2% from the previous polls

    lol yea but they have still increased, The Week In Politics spoke about this HUGE increase in their program.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Rock Climber


    Originally posted by irish1
    I said I believed the them men were on active IRA duty at the time, raising money for the terrorists. Read back and youl get a more detailed view.
    How were they on active service when the IRA initially denied that they were, presumably in a quick realisation of the furore that would surround the murder of a Garda? ... Quickly followed by a realisation that if, the IRA didn't claim them and didn't intimidate withness's that their Garda murdering friends would rot in jail...
    {sarcasm}Let me see, I wonder if I was in jail for a robbery committed around then, could I pay off the right man in the IRA with some of my stashed loot in order that they say I was robbing on their behalf...I'd get out, what would they want 50% I'd settle for that...{sarcasm}
    Your justification just doesn't wash with me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    Well puny mouse,

    the point I was making is that the IRA are engaged in illegal activities.

    What you seem to have missed is that while my friends dad was killed by a member of the IRA, he was only involved because the IRA were selling drugs to finance other operations. If the IRA hadn't been trying to sell drugs to his son, he would not have got mixed up in the whole affair.

    Now I am not prepared to go into details on this board. I think his memory deserves better than that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭swiss


    Okay. This thread has gone from discussion the release of the killers of Gerry McCabe to a nitpicking session including name calling and personal mud slinging.

    As a result, I have decided to lock this thread for a few hours. This is to give everyone time to stand back a little and think before posting again.
    What you seem to have missed is that while my friends dad was killed by a member of the IRA, he was only involved because the IRA were selling drugs to finance other operations. If the IRA hadn't been trying to sell drugs to his son, he would not have got mixed up in the whole affair.
    I am genuinely sorry to hear that, and from my own beliefs about IRA activity I believe you. However, boards.ie is not a court, and unless you have evidence that the IRA were involved beyond simply saying "I know they were involved" you are going to get people who are going to disagree with you. I think you have some very valid points about SF/IRA but I also think you're a little too close to be impartial. Sorry if that offends you, I'm just calling it like I see it. It also does not condone what constitutes a personal barb at another poster. "puny mouse"? Please, don't lower yourself.

    Reefbreak, what possible motive did you have to give out names of posters on this board, in red no less? Feel free to let me know either on this board or in PM.

    Edit: I see that he didn't name another poster, the name is that of a 16 y.o youth that was murdered. I apologise for assuming otherwise.

    This debate is becoming more and more vitriol saturated. Locked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Guys I haven't been following this thread but reading the last few comments swiss was right to close it. No matter what your feelings on the subject you should keep your interaction civil. This thread was rapidally moving away from civil.

    I would expect you all to calm down now and I do not want to see any more mud slinging of the variety that has gone on here!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭swiss


    Thread reopened. What gandalf said.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    I would like to state that I condemn all terrorism, I do not support the IRA.

    I support Sinn Fein who I accept have links with the group, but it is through these links that the peace process has advanced and the IRA have decomissioned a large number of weapons.

    ReefBreak has made personal comments about my upbringing and I will not discuss that in this thread, if you which to discuss this please send me a PM.

    The Brigadier has me on his ignore list and so I can't really say much to him, but as you will see from the attachment I posted here I have sent him a PM to discuss his problems with me, I am more than willing to do so in the future.

    I can understand why people think that the Killers of Jerry McCabe should stay in prision, but I think under the GFA which was passed both north and south they are entitled to be released early.

    I have posted a link to a story by Vincent Browne shich shows the Supreme Court was incorrect on a matter of fact in its judgement and it also discusses other murderers that were convicted after the GFA and set free, this includes the murderer of a Soldier and a 16 year old.

    Please try and keep this civil and on topic, if anyone has a problem with me please take it to PM.

    Regards,

    Alan


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Rock Climber


    Originally posted by irish1

    I have posted a link to a story by Vincent Browne shich shows the Supreme Court was incorrect on a matter of fact in its judgement and it also discusses other murderers that were convicted after the GFA and set free, this includes the murderer of a Soldier and a 16 year old.
    That still doesn't address the question of why the IRA initially denied responsibility in the probable knowledge that there would be a furore amongst people who SF would like to at least persuade to vote for them..
    or the fact that this was an armed robbery in a country that has never given the IRA a mandate..
    or the fact that the murder was not , nor could it conceivably be considered an act of war under any reasonable definition-even given your own definition of IRA prudence vis a vis engaging what they would call the free state forces..
    but I think under the GFA which was passed both north and south they are entitled to be released early.
    Your opinion on the matter isn't good enough and isn't reason enough for them to be released.
    The very fact that the Irish government one of the main facilitators of the agreement haven't released them to date shows what their interpretation of the early release conditions were...
    Furthermore it seems perfectly clear that they are being used now as a bargaining chip for further progress with the peace process.
    That seems highly smelly to me given that SF were prepared to take up their seats in the new assembly and their ministerial positions even though , it was being made perfectly clear post GFA that the Dublin government did not see Garda McCabes murderers as qualifying prisoners.
    The smelly bit is that they now are openly admitting, at this stage that they are on behalf of the IRA using their release as a bargaining chip for further progress.

    This is the same IRA that at first denied involvement, and then admitted involvement, because and this is what it looks like,their friends who murdered the garda (that was only doing his job upholding law and order) would remain in jail otherwise..
    The Brigadier has me on his ignore list and so I can't really say much to him, but as you will see from the attachment I posted here I have sent him a PM to discuss his problems with me, I am more than willing to do so in the future.

    To the best of my knowledge, if you are on someones ignore list, they cannot receive pm's from you.
    The brigadeer probably didn't know that ,I certainly didn't untill recently.
    You don't even get an email notifying you...( although the homepage will tell you that there is a new pm, it will not be in your inbox, so you have no way of knowing from whom or of reading/receiving it unless you take the person off ignore )
    which by the way is excelent and the very essence of what an ignore feature should be :)
    So in all fairness if the brigadeer was not aware of that which is highly probable, It's understandable that he may have thought you were lying.
    Your attachment proves of course that you weren't but you will understand how someone that has you on their ignore list wouldn't know that you are pm'ing them because as far as they are aware, the pm from you doesn't exist :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by Rock Climber
    That still doesn't address the question of why the IRA initially denied responsibility in the probable knowledge that there would be a furore amongst people who SF would like to at least persuade to vote for them..
    or the fact that this was an armed robbery in a country that has never given the IRA a mandate..
    or the fact that the murder was not , nor could it conceivably be considered an act of war under any reasonable definition-even given your own definition of IRA prudence vis a vis engaging what they would call the free state forces..

    I have stated my opinion before on this but basically I think they denied it because it was in breach of IRA rules, but as I said the gun used in the McCabe killing was used in 4 other robbery's in Ireland that were carried out by the IRA. It was not an act of war as such but it was when the IRA was not on a ceasfire and I believe it was sanctioned by the IRA.
    Originally posted by Rock Climber

    Your opinion on the matter isn't good enough and isn't reason enough for them to be released.
    The very fact that the Irish government one of the main facilitators of the agreement haven't released them to date shows what their interpretation of the early release conditions were...
    Furthermore it seems perfectly clear that they are being used now as a bargaining chip for further progress with the peace process.
    That seems highly smelly to me given that SF were prepared to take up their seats in the new assembly and their ministerial positions even though , it was being made perfectly clear post GFA that the Dublin government did not see Garda McCabes murderers as qualifying prisoners.
    The smelly bit is that they now are openly admitting, at this stage that they are on behalf of the IRA using their release as a bargaining chip for further progress

    Well the Government may have kept them in but it was stated that there was an agreemnet done to release them in October. I dont think the killing of James Morgan was war related and his killer was released after only 1 year and he was convicted of Murder after the GFA.

    Originally posted by Rock Climber

    To the best of my knowledge, if you are on someones ignore list, they cannot receive pm's from you.
    The brigadeer probably didn't know that ,I certainly didn't untill recently.
    You don't even get an email notifying you...( although the homepage will tell you that there is a new pm, it will not be in your inbox, so you have no way of knowing from whom or of reading/receiving it unless you take the person off ignore )
    which by the way is excelent and the very essence of what an ignore feature should be :)
    So in all fairness if the brigadeer was not aware of that which is highly probable, It's understandable that he may have thought you were lying.
    Your attachment proves of course that you weren't but you will understand how someone that has you on their ignore list wouldn't know that you are pm'ing them because as far as they are aware, the pm from you doesn't exist :)


    Well I would but it says e-mail notification was sent so I assumed he would know it was there not sure if he could read it even if he wanted to do?? I have sent another one and will wait and see.:D


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Rock Climber


    Originally posted by irish1

    Well the Government may have kept them in but it was stated that there was an agreemnet done to release them in October.
    Yes but thats what I'm saying, they were in october using the release of Garda McCabes murderers as a bargaining chip last october to further the process and still are.
    I'll be frank with you, that doesn't look good, even if it is meant to be and is pragmatic.
    It doesn't look good because of the act itself.
    I can see what you are saying regarding the other prisoners under the GFA who were released under its terms even though their convictions were after the GFA.
    To be honest,I wasn't aware of that, but the same as you I'll offer an opinion, they should not have been released.It's as valid of me to hold that opinion as it is of you to hold yours that the McCabe killers should be released.
    One other point though,Ahern denies that the McCabe murderers were explicitly included under the terms of the GFA and thats consistant with the line the government took for the last six years.
    Well I would but it says e-mail notification was sent so I assumed he would know it was there not sure if he could read it even if he wanted to do?? I have sent another one and will wait and see :D
    Well just for you, I did an experiment this evening,I asked a boards poster on my buddy list to put me on ignore and then I sent him a pm.
    He hasn't received the pm.
    My message tracking says it's unread and an email has been sent.
    He hasn't received the email confirmation of the pm either and that pm was sent two hours ago.
    Try it yourself with one of your buddies here.
    So no matter how many pm's you sent to the brigadeer, he'll never know anything about them, you are wasting your time writing them unless he takes you off his ignore list, which I doubt given the fervour of his conviction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by Rock Climber
    Yes but thats what I'm saying, they were in october using the release of Garda McCabes murderers as a bargaining chip last october to further the process and still are.
    I'll be frank with you, that doesn't look good, even if it is meant to be and is pragmatic.
    It doesn't look good because of the act itself.
    I can see what you are saying regarding the other prisoners under the GFA who were released under its terms even though their convictions were after the GFA.
    To be honest,I wasn't aware of that, but the same as you I'll offer an opinion, they should not have been released.It's as valid of me to hold that opinion as it is of you to hold yours that the McCabe killers should be released.
    One other point though,Ahern denies that the McCabe murderers were explicitly included under the terms of the GFA and thats consistant with the line the government took for the last six years.
    I can fully understand and respect that opinion, it is one that is offered by a lot of my friends but at least you are willing to talk about other prisioners being released. When I raised the James Morgan case with my friends they simply wouldn't believe that the convicted murderer was released after only 1 year, because as they said it wasn't political it was racial.
    Originally posted by Rock Climber

    Well just for you, I did an experiment this evening,I asked a boards poster on my buddy list to put me on ignore and then I sent him a pm.
    He hasn't received the pm.
    My message tracking says it's unread and an email has been sent.
    He hasn't received the email confirmation of the pm either and that pm was sent two hours ago.
    Try it yourself with one of your buddies here.
    So no matter how many pm's you sent to the brigadeer, he'll never know anything about them, you are wasting your time writing them unless he takes you off his ignore list, which I doubt given the fervour of his conviction.

    Thanks for making the effort, I think the system is a little flawed here do, it shouldn't say "e-mail confirmation was sent" if it wasn't. Maybe you can quote me on this so Mr Melody can see it.

    I would like to discuss whatever issues it is that The Brigadier aka James Melody has with me by pm.

    Thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Originally posted by irish1

    I have stated my opinion before on this but basically I think they denied it because it was in breach of IRA rules
    But in itself a bank robbery wouldn't have been in breach of their rules (I've explained above the remit of the rule that you've mentioned above and the most likely interpretation of it). It was either an IRA operation or it wasn't. Using an IRA gun for an unauthorised bank robbery (assuming for a minute that it was unauthorised) is analogous to someone using a company delivery van to ferry the kids to a soccer match at the weekend. And obviously yes, there are better possible analogies, but that one is good enough to ilustrate the point that the guy isn't about company business just because he's using a company van. It merely means that as a company employee he may have access to a company van.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by sceptre
    But in itself a bank robbery wouldn't have been in breach of their rules (I've explained above the remit of the rule that you've mentioned above and the most likely interpretation of it). It was either an IRA operation or it wasn't. Using an IRA gun for an unauthorised bank robbery (assuming for a minute that it was unauthorised) is analogous to someone using a company delivery van to ferry the kids to a soccer match at the weekend. And obviously yes, there are better possible analogies, but that one is good enough to ilustrate the point that the guy isn't about company business just because he's using a company van. It merely means that as a company employee he may have access to a company van.

    As I have said IMHO I believe it was a sanctioned operation, the rule that was broken was shoting a member of the Garda
    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

    This is why I believe the IRA distanced themselves intially. Theres really no certain way to tell whether or not it was sanctioned but I think it was and there is some evidence to support that (circumstantial as it may be).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    quote:
    What you seem to have missed is that while my friends dad was killed by a member of the IRA, he was only involved because the IRA were selling drugs to finance other operations. If the IRA hadn't been trying to sell drugs to his son, he would not have got mixed up in the whole affair.

    Your saying two different things. Either the IRA were selling drugs and killing protective fathers or they werent. If you say the were I dont believe you.

    I struggle a little with your story seeing as I can't recall or google anything even about an IRA man (or republican for that matter) killing a dad who stood up for his son against drub-dealing. I can only imagine the political football an incident even resembling the above would of been at the time.

    Even if it did happen (big leap of fate to discuss a theoretical point!)
    If you say that this guy was a bad apple IRA man who acted alone then maby with a little research etc we might be able to substantiate previous incidents of incidents like this. The only thing I can think of at the moment is Howard Marks who claimed he used an IRA man to help import hash to and through Ireland.(But even Marks in his book says the guy was afraid of been caught by the IRA at the time.)

    The THEORETICAL point here is that the IRA didn't kill you friends dad. He was killed by a drug dealer (who was invoved in the IRA. Although it's hard to believe that the IRA didn't punish the guy for dealing and carrying out an uncommissioned killing against an innocent father)

    If its drug dealers you hate, then you might have some sympathies towards the IRA policing their own areas etc etc .........;)

    From the little bit I know about the IRA the story just doesnt tie together for me

    ABOVE IS JUST A THEORETICAL POINT


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    ps. note the voilent, extremist, murdering, rodent republicans who are the ones losing the cool and causing trouble in this thread:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Originally posted by irish1
    As I have said IMHO I believe it was a sanctioned operation, the rule that was broken was shoting a member of the Garda
    And you've always presented that as a belief you have as far as I can see, which is fair enough. The conflicting statements make the opposing belief pretty much as valid though and that's part of the problem. Because I don't believe it was a sanctioned operation. I'm merely eliminating the re-used gun as valid evidence of anything other than that these were IRA guys who used an IRA gun in an Irish bank robbery.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    That still doesn't address the question of why the IRA initially denied responsibility in the probable knowledge that there would be a furore amongst people who SF would like to at least persuade to vote for them..
    or the fact that this was an armed robbery in a country that has never given the IRA a mandate.....
    There was a delay of one week while the IRA undertook internal investigations. Therefore the IRA had accepted that these men were acting for the organisation before the GFA.
    Where the robbery took place doesnt matter as long as its covered by the GFA. The Republic IS covered by the agreement.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,924 ✭✭✭Cork


    So, the IRA considers bank robbing as political?

    Does it regard rackeering as political?
    The Republic IS covered by the agreement.

    Let us not forget the IRA is also covered by the GRA and it still has given us proof of its intention of further decommissioning, disbanding or stopping punishment beatings.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Cork
    So, the IRA considers bank robbing as political?

    I think the IRa considers bank robbing in the name of obtaining funds for its activities on a par with the activities themselves.

    If you are going to excuse the guy who blew up something, is it not also reasonable to expect the guy who ilegally secured the funding for the bomb to be excused also?

    Does it regard rackeering as political?
    Using the same logic...quite probably.

    and it still has given us proof of its intention of further decommissioning, disbanding or stopping punishment beatings.

    I assume you mean "no proof".

    If thats the case, then ask yourself why they would go any further with decomissioning. The last time they did so, they complied fully with what was agreed upon, at which point their actions were derided by others who agreed upon the same thing originally, and was used (or was attempted to be used) by them as an excuse to put even more brakes on...not to take them off.

    I would hazard a guess that when the IRA start seeing that they are not being billed as the lone pariahs of the process, and that others who should carry equal blame are also being asked to ante up, they may be somewhat more receptive to critique of their actions.

    jc


Advertisement