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

Rock Climber

Originally posted by irish1
Rock Climber,
but I dont see where the Government clearly stated that these men were outisde the agreement to the voters, I dont remember reading it in the leaflets that were circulated by the government at the time explaining what the agreement was.

It couldn't be made any clearer at the time that the killers of McCabe were not to be included, it was well stated before the vote.
Nothing like that was done in relation to any other case, there was no ambiguity at all.
The literature never stated that all prisonerors would be released and the government clarified many times who exactly would not be released before the vote.
What could be clearer.

In regards to the other people I spoke about the only reason you can give that these men were entitled to early release and the men convicted of MANSLAUGHTER are not is that you believed they were excluded by the Irish government, why wasn't the man convicted of the MURDER or James Morgan excluded, his act was not political it was racial and he was released after 1 year!!!

Racial, don't you mean sectarian? like all IRA murders( with some exceptions including this one)?
theres a difference between racism and sectarianism , and a marked difference.

Also if you are prepared to distinguish in such a manner between manslaughter and murder in the case of the IRA, you must also conced that you would do the same for all killers...
Unless of course you are being particularally apologetic in the case of the IRA
Which of course you aren't are you

Therefore have you any idea of how dim a view the public would take of anyone prepared to say a killer convicted of manslaughter somehow deserves better treatment than a killer convicted of murder?

The only difference is they serve shorter sentences...
But thats immaterial to the public at large, they are convicted of an evil act nontheless.

Also remember the Government agreed to release these men in October!!

Cough...
But why Irish 1 why?
Not because the government felt they came under the ambit of the GFA...
It was because they were bargaining with SF on behalf of the IRA.

Thats no argument at all that they were entitled to release under the GFA, in fact it argues the opposite!

Villain

Originally posted by Rock Climber
It couldn't be made any clearer at the time that the killers of McCabe were not to be included, it was well stated before the vote.
Nothing like that was done in relation to any other case, there was no ambiguity at all.
The literature never stated that all prisonerors would be released and the government clarified many times who exactly would not be released before the vote.
What could be clearer.

Oh I think it could have been made a lot clearer, I also think they were incorrect to exclude them, here again we will have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Rock Climber

Racial, don't you mean sectarian? like all IRA murders( with some exceptions including this one)?
theres a difference between racism and sectarianism , and a marked difference.

Well I think he was killed because he was a Catholic, I dont think he was linked to any illegal groups, that to me is racial, the men didn't care who he was just that he was catholic, he could of been a unionist (unlikely I know, but there are many Protestant nationlists).

Originally posted by Rock Climber

Also if you are prepared to distinguish in such a manner between manslaughter and murder in the case of the IRA, you must also conced that you would do the same for all killers...
Unless of course you are being particularally apologetic in the case of the IRA
Which of course you aren't are you

Therefore have you any idea of how dim a view the public would take of anyone prepared to say a killer convicted of manslaughter somehow deserves better treatment than a killer convicted of murder?

The only difference is they serve shorter sentences...
But thats immaterial to the public at large, they are convicted of an evil act nontheless..

manslaughter:
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury

murder:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

If you cant see the difference I think you need educate yourself a little more in the area.

Originally posted by Rock Climber

Cough...
But why Irish 1 why?
Not because the government felt they came under the ambit of the GFA...
It was because they were bargaining with SF on behalf of the IRA.

Thats no argument at all that they were entitled to release under the GFA, in fact it argues the opposite!

In you eyes that is, the government obviously believe these men are entitled to early release if the IRA complys with the GFA.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
It wasn't made clear to the SF negotiating team during the GFA

If you're suggesting that the government told the people of Ireland one thing, and Sinn Fein something different, you'd better be prepared to show some evidence for that assertion.

The Irish government and judicial system continues to view these prisoners as IRA prisoners and has treated them as such from day one.

Where's the definition of "IRA prisoner" in either the GFA or any of the enabling legislation?

Yes, I'm repeating a rhetorical question. I feel I have to, because you keep repeating this point as if it has any bearing on the discussion.

SF didn't "start" applying pressure or recently use it as a bargaining chip. SF position has been crystal clear from day one. The fact of the matter is the Peace process is requiring that the IRA disband (not in the agreement) while the Irish government doesn't even fulfill whats in the agreement.

As I've already said, that's the height of hypocrisy. Both governments have gone to extreme lengths to fulfil their obligations under the agreement. The fact that the vast majority of paramilitary prisoners has been released is a measure of that commitment. The republican movement's willingness to allow the process to founder over the fate of these common criminals, along with its refusal to fulfill other obligations as I've pointed out, is a much greater obstacle to peace.

Its madness to even believe that hardline republicans are gonna disband without at least seeing that both governments are serious about the agreement.

See above. Constitutional changes, hundreds of early releases, cross-border bodies - how can you say with a straight face that the governments are not serious?

Whats happening here goes completely the good faith that the agreement was drafted in.

Sez you. Once more for the cheap seats: I voted for the agreement, in good faith, on the understanding that these men weren't covered. As far as I am concerned, releasing these men under the terms of the GFA goes completely against the good faith in which I voted for it.

Do you think that because an piece of legislation has an "escape clause" that the whole document is pointless due to this one escape clause.

What's with you putting words in my mouth? I don't see the document as pointless; on the contrary I'm still fully behind it.

My point here is that a scheduled offence is defined in this document and the escape clause is not there to undermine these definitions.

On the contrary, the document contains no such definition.

Whats the point in taking the trouble of defining a scheduled offence or any law for that matter. Why not just write "every crime is defined uniquely and independantly by the AG/DUP"?

The point is that early release is not an entitlement, it's a privilege. Laws are not vague by accident - if there's an "escape clause" as you call it, it's to allow for discretion in individual cases. That discretion was exercised in the case of the McCabe killers, which is one of the reasons the agreement was accepted by the majority of Irish voters.

So government politiking means that the Castlerea prisoners are not covered by the agreement. Give me a break.

Give me a break, MM. This is not about politicking - it's about assurances given to the people as to the scope of the agreement before we voted for it.

The point here is that the agreement was intended for the release of all prisoners convicted of a scheduled offence (on ceasefire).

I've already pointed out that the agreement explicitly doesn't say this.

the government is responsible for the ambiguity surrounding this issue. You seem to think that "everyone is a little wrong and a little right and we all have a part to play"......... Its not. The governement has caused this. The government has changed its position.

By implication, you seem to be suggesting that if the government had maintained a firm stance on this, you would have been satisfied? I doubt it.

It's this type of refusal to accept that all sides have their part to play that's resulted in the current standoff.

1. give an answer to decommissioning and you will receive the nobel prize.

Granted - but the fact remains that the IRA are refusing to move any further with decommissioning, and yet are making the release of a few men - notwithstanding the many that have been released - a sticking point.

Understand that decommissioning can only ever be a symbolic gesture towards the unionist camp that the IRA are serious.

If it's just a symbolic gesture, why not make it?

As negotiated in the agreement the IRA has completely fulfilled its commitements.

Really?

All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.

(Emphasis mine.)

Why does an organisation not using guns (ever again) need to get rid of them?

That's a logical fallacy - if it never intends to use them again, why not get rid of them?

Policing: Dont know whether to laugh or cry here. Patten has been implemented as far as the PSNI is concerned. Thats it done!!

That's simply untrue. On April 27th, Al Hutchinson was quoted as saying:

Fifty-four recommendations out of 175 are completed and 63 have made substantial progress - we are steadily on the road to achieving those changes.

Part of what's holding back the implementation is Sinn Fein's refusal to co-operate.

What's the difference between unionist intransigence on decommissioning and republican intransigence on policing?

Recently Alex Attwood met with the Police Federation. After the meeting Mr. Attwood claimed that members of the Federation who are members of the PSNI were not committed to the Patten reforms!!!

If that's true, it's an issue that has to be dealt with. Besides, that's another example of hypocrisy: Sinn Fein obviously isn't committed to the Patten reforms, one of which is the establishment of the Policing Board (Patten Report, section 6.2).

Whats the point in regulating an organisation which is unacceptable?

That cuts both ways - what's the point in creating an organisation that's acceptable to Sinn Fein, but unacceptable to Unionists? The only answer is compromise, which can only be achieved by co-operation.

Whats the point in nationalists joining the RUC when the special branch, interfering with evidence, collusion, murdering of catholics members are all still existing in their senior positions!!!

What the hell is the point in nationalists copperfastening the status quo by refusing to play their part in creating the necessary reforms?

Sinn Fein stayed out of the current arrangements and instead focused on negotiating with the British government on getting policing structures right and I think their right.

For whose version of "right"? If they want to get police structures right, they should join the Policing Board and get to work on it.

Remember in all this that a significant porportion of NI society does not have a police force. Why? If you say its because SF wont join. your wrong. refer above and maby read patten.

"No, your wrong!" :rolleyes: All of NI society has a police force. Just because you don't like the cops doesn't mean that there isn't a police force. There's an agreed mechanism for reform, and Sinn Fein are refusing to play ball - whose fault is it if reforms are not proceeding as they should?

Now because of your narrow insistent "answer the question" type retoric I have answered your silly misleading close-ended questions again.

You should look up the meaning of open vs. closed questions. Anyway, why should you be afraid to answer questions, if you believe in the answers?

By that argument your own reasoning is illogical!!

You'll have to explain that one to me.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by irish1
Oh I think it could have been made a lot clearer

Really, how much inteligence are you crediting the average Irish voter there then?
Not much apparently...
They don't read news papers, listen to radio talk shows or watch primetime...
Incredible...

Furthermore when the agreement didn't state that all Ira members should be released from prison under the GFA, you'd hardly expect it to be in the explanatory leaflets.

Well I think he was killed because he was a Catholic, I dont think he was linked to any illegal groups, that to me is racial, the men didn't care who he was just that he was catholic, he could of been a unionist (unlikely I know, but there are many Protestant nationlists).

Thats a definition of sectarianism not racism,further down in your reply you have used a dictionary, you should have used it aswell here...

manslaughter:
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury

murder:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

If you cant see the difference I think you need educate yourself a little more in the area.

Oh I know the difference, your being pedantic and pointing out that I was merely pointing out the consequences of the difference rather than the actual difference doesn't change the nature of the crime of unlawfull killing, more especially when the intimidation of withnesses were responsible for the change in plea's...
Now tell me do you also make a regular rush to be pedantic when other unlawfull killers might be described as man slaughterers?
If I said this man murdered his child would you rush to inform me that it was manslaughter for instance or is it only in the case of the IRA that you would do this.
Either way it looks unsavoury to be doing so given that manslaughter is very immoral.

In you eyes that is, the government obviously believe these men are entitled to early release if the IRA complys with the GFA. [/B]

Where is that obvious? if they were going to be released it was going to be part of a completely separate secret negotiation process...
Other parties weren't there...
It wasn't part of the review process as the other parties weren't informed...
Trimble certainly says he wasn't...
So explain where it's obvious?

I put it to you that it's not obvious at all and rather as I said earlier its an example of a process where SF on bealf of the IRA was negotiating the release of these killers as a bargaining chip for further progress in NI.
Now I've already told you for pragmatic reasons I don't really have a problem with that, but I have also told you that I don't think that it makes the case for their early release any more moral but if it moves the process on well and good in my view, I'd be prepared to put up with it.
But given what people knew they were voting for at the time of the GFA ( and please don't say the people were ignorant of the fact that the government stated several times that the release of the McCabe killers was not included because thats a ridiculous position and patently not the case unless there was a two year ESB black out or summat... )
It doesn't do SF much good from a PR point of view to be promoting their release to such an extent when they will be out soon enough anyway...

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1
Oh I think it could have been made a lot clearer, I also think they were incorrect to exclude them, here again we will have to agree to disagree.

Aw, come on Alan. On April 21, 1998, then Justice Minister John O'Donoghue stood up in the Dáil and said:

...the Government has made clear in its contacts with all groups its view that persons who may be convicted in connection with this murder will not come within the ambit of the Agreement.

The Táiniste reiterated this later in the debate. During the same debate, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin did not mention the issue - you'd think if the Minister's comments went against what his party had been told in negotiations, he would have taken the opportunity to raise it.

manslaughter:
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury

murder:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

Pop quiz - which of those do you think more closely describes the killing of Jerry McCabe?

If you cant see the difference I think you need educate yourself a little more in the area.

Right back atcha.

sceptre

Originally posted by irish1
I saw what the Minister said in Sceptres article but I dont see where the Government clearly stated that these men were outisde the agreement to the voters, I dont remember reading it in the leaflets that were circulated by the government at the time explaining what the agreement was. I at the time like a lot of other common voters would not have known what was said in the Dail.

I'm not a habitual reader of Dail debates either but then that's why the important bits are put in the paper. And on the front page in this case.

In case you're not a fan of the Examiner, here's an article from the Irish Times on April 22, 1998:

McCabe killers would not be covered - O'Donoghue

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr O'Donoghue, said persons who may be convicted in connection with the murder of Det Garda Jerry McCabe would not come within the ambit of the agreement concerning the release of prisoners.

The Minister said the manner in which the issue of prisoners had been dealt with in the agreement had attracted much media comment already.

The reality was that the agreement would not provide a basis for a settlement of the Northern Ireland conflict and a fresh start unless the issue of prisoners was addressed. Let there be no mistake about it.

This Government, along with its predecessors, had sought to underpin the peace process and the Provisional IRA ceasefire by granting early release to prisoners.

The agreement provided that both governments would put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners convicted of offences with the Northern Ireland situation.

That would be by way of a review process.

It would be necessary to facilitate the release of as many prisoners as possible who were affiliated to organisations which had established and were maintaining ceasefires in the period ahead.

"While emphasising that I will not speculate about the implications of the agreement for individual cases, I feel it right that I should comment on one, and only one case, that is the case of those facing charges arising from the murder of Det Garda Jerry McCabe, which has been the subject of certain recent media speculation.

"While obviously it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on any case pending before the courts, the Government has made it clear in its contacts with all groups its view that persons who may be convicted in connection with this murder will not come within the ambit of the agreement," the Minister stated.

On decommissioning, the Minister said he welcomed the fact that the agreement recognised that a resolution of the decommissioning issue remained an indispensable part of the process and committed the participants to the total disarmament of paramilitary organisations.

The participants had also confirmed their intention to work constructively and in good faith to achieve decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within a period of two years following endorsement of the agreement in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.

"The decommissioning of illegally held arms would send a powerful signal that the agreement represents the new beginning that we all hope it will be," he said.

Progress on decommissioning would also play a very important role in building up the trust, which would be vital to making the institutions and arrangements provided for in the agreement work effectively for the good of all the people of Ireland.

He said that as Minister for Justice he welcomed the decision to establish a Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland as part of the agreement.

He also welcomed the fact that the agreement recognised that the development of a peaceful environment could and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices.

They had, in the weeks leading up to the agreement, however, seen attempts by groups on both sides opposed to the negotiation process to subvert it by the recourse to violence.

It was possible that those groups would continue to ignore the will of the people and continue to have recourse to violence in an attempt to frustrate the agreement.

"I want to assure the House that the Government will ensure that the gardai have the resources necessary to act decisively against any such organisations," the Minister said.

He said he would commend the agreement which, if implemented in the spirit in which it was negotiated, could open a new chapter in our history.

The Irish Times mentioned that the McCabe killers wouldn't come under the ambit of the agreement on the front page. This at a significant time when (in my own recollection) lots of people were buying papers due to the significance of the agreement for this island.

While I don't have a link to an RTE news video from that night, I'm pretty sure it was one of RTE's top stories.

At this point, I think you should dump the "could have been made clearer" line of reasoning as it's a laughable dead duck and concentrate on the possible discrimination thing. Run with that one. Some day some court might even agree, though I rather doubt it.

Mighty_Mouse

If you're suggesting that the government told the people of Ireland one thing, and Sinn Fein something different, you'd better be prepared to show some evidence for that assertion.

On a general point, it has been asserted several times in this thread that the onus is on me to prove or disprove assertians I have made. The onus is equally on disagreeing parties in here. For example, a simple answer to the above is for you to prove they didn't!!!

I would argue here that SF have been solid on this from day one. There is no way that SF accepted that the Irish government would pick and choose the release of prisoners based on puiblic opinion. The government definitely did not explicitely state that the Castlerea 4 would not be released if public opinion stipulated otherwise.
IMO thats exactly what the government have done. The same as the Brits who released similar (rot in jail) statements at politically sensitive times and retracted them to release their prisoners. ie politiking

I feel I have to, because you keep repeating this point as if it has any bearing on the discussion.

The fact that these men HAVE been treated as IRA prisoners and thus recognising them as IRA prisoners does have an influence on a debate in which you insist their not

What's with you putting words in my mouth? I don't see the document as pointless; on the contrary I'm still fully behind it.

We are talking about the definition of scheduled offence as provided earlier in the thread. Which you dont accept because there is an excape clause included for the AG.

The point is that early release is not an entitlement, it's a privilege. Laws are not vague by accident - if there's an "escape clause" as you call it, it's to allow for discretion in individual cases.

The discretion is in the NI legal definition of "scheduled offence" which I think the GFA used. However the GFA wasnt drafted so that both governments could excercise "discretion" in who they released or not. THe only clause in the agreement in the ceasefire. The government completely ignoring the intention of the GFA by failing to release these prisoners.

I've already pointed out that the agreement explicitly doesn't say this.

Again the GFA was drafted so that all parties would implement it. You could just as easily argue the supreme court judgement here but at the end of the day not having an onus on you to implement the GFA does not mean you shouldnt

By implication, you seem to be suggesting that if the government had maintained a firm stance on this, you would have been satisfied? I doubt it.

Yes, their origional stance when they signed the agreement. that all prisoners of terrorist organisations once once on ceasefire should be released

Granted - but the fact remains that the IRA are refusing to move any further with decommissioning,

That's a logical fallacy - if it never intends to use them again, why not get rid of them?

See this is my problem. People insist on total disarmament/decommissioning. Accept the logical argument of "how long is a piece of string" and immediately return to "the IRA should get rid of all its guns"!!!!

If it's just a symbolic gesture, why not make it?

:eek: The havent!

That's a logical fallacy - if it never intends to use them again, why not get rid of them?

and again!

That cuts both ways - what's the point in creating an organisation that's acceptable to Sinn Fein, but unacceptable to Unionists? The only answer is compromise, which can only be achieved by co-operation.

nail on the head! At last we agree! What kind of a police force do you think republicans are looking for here!

If that's true, it's an issue that has to be dealt with. Besides, that's another example of hypocrisy: Sinn Fein obviously isn't committed to the Patten reforms, one of which is the establishment of the Policing Board (Patten Report, section 6.2).

Your obsessed with a policing board. Whats the point if it has no teeth? The room for facilitating change is not incorporated into the police board. These serious structural changes have to be made before republicans can join. As for your own quote - --- 6 years later and only a third of the less important changes have been made. Again i refer to the lack of reform and the lack of will to reform. Theres a load of other stories about the brick walls encountered by the SDLP etc etc but set up a policing thread

No, your wrong!" All of NI society has a police force.

Really, wow and there I was thinking that republicans still live in fear and mistrust of the PSNI. There I was thinking that the reason for republicans policing their own areas was the lack of a trustworthy police force. maybe the dont. Maybe I've only met republicans who don't REALISE that the police force won't beat them , shoot with rubber bullets, barracade them in their homes, watch them get beaten to death by loyalists in prtadown..................

The point is the necessary structures need to be created to facilited radical change in the RUC. They havent and it would be impossible to change the PSNI unitl they have been facilitated

sceptre

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
On a general point, it has been asserted several times in this thread that the onus is on me to prove or disprove assertians I have made. The onus is equally on disagreeing parties in here. For example, a simple answer to the above is for you to prove they didn't!!!

Actually, no it isn't. I've posted three firm and irrefutable sources where the government said X. Two newspapers and a link to the original Dail debate. That is fact.

You're saying that the government said X but was also saying Y. No link for Y, nothing but conjecture and opinion. That, in the absence of any evidence, is not fact. And that's a fact. You're building an argument house on a sea of sand. All people seem to be doing it pointing out that it's on sand and may well be sinking. Lob a few foundations in there willya?

Villain

God Lads 1 one at a time:D

Ok in work at the moment and under a tad bit of pressure so wont have time to repond to each of you.

I regonise that the government stated the men would not be covered under the GFA, however I dont believe the ordinary Voter on the ground was sure of this, I know my ma and da weren't, now there very intelligent but dont remember being told that when they voted.

Now I'm not saying it wasn't stated I just think it could have been stated more clearly.

I understand that you can interpet the Murder as sectarian, and perhaps my use of the word Racial was inacturate, but I dont belive it was political I believe he was simply killed because of his race, i.e Irish Catholic.

I dont think his killers should be intitled to early release while men convicted of Manslaughter during (what I believe to be) sanctioned IRA activity.

Oh and Oscar it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe it was Murder or Manslaughter because out Justice system convicted the men of Manslaughter.

Better do some work now

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
On a general point, it has been asserted several times in this thread that the onus is on me to prove or disprove assertians I have made. The onus is equally on disagreeing parties in here. For example, a simple answer to the above is for you to prove they didn't!!!

That's not an answer, it's an evasion - not that I'm surprised. I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence. I provided evidence in my last reply to Irish1. What have you offered?

I would argue here that SF have been solid on this from day one. There is no way that SF accepted that the Irish government would pick and choose the release of prisoners based on puiblic opinion.

So how come Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin didn't bring it up in the Dáil debate where it was made unequivocally clear that these prisoners were not included?

The government definitely did not explicitely state that the Castlerea 4 would not be released if public opinion stipulated otherwise.

You're the one dragging the public opinion red herring into this. It's not about public opinion. It was clearly stated that these men were not going to be covered under the terms of the agreement. If, as you insist, the agreement covers all prisoners - how come this statement wasn't challenged by Sinn Fein at the time as being in breach of the agreement? Methinks they knew - despite their "solid" position - that the government were within their rights.

The fact that these men HAVE been treated as IRA prisoners and thus recognising them as IRA prisoners does have an influence on a debate in which you insist their not

Point me to the post where I said they are not (not that you've defined "IRA prisoner" for me).

We are talking about the definition of scheduled offence as provided earlier in the thread. Which you dont accept because there is an excape clause included for the AG.

I accept it perfectly - including the discretion. You seem to want to accept it selectively.

The discretion is in the NI legal definition of "scheduled offence" which I think the GFA used. However the GFA wasnt drafted so that both governments could excercise "discretion" in who they released or not. THe only clause in the agreement in the ceasefire.

If the GFA wasn't intended to include discretion, it would have explicitly defined "qualifying prisoners". It didn't.

The government completely ignoring the intention of the GFA by failing to release these prisoners.

You keep coming out with statements like this as if they were conclusive facts, when in reality you're just expressing an opinion.

Again the GFA was drafted so that all parties would implement it. You could just as easily argue the supreme court judgement here but at the end of the day not having an onus on you to implement the GFA does not mean you shouldnt

This is the crux of the argument. Your point might make sense - if you accept that the government is not implementing the agreement. My argument is that the agreement, as I have already said, explicitly doesn't stipulate that all prisoners must be released. Therefore, you can't argue that the agreement is not being implemented on this basis.

Yes, their origional stance when they signed the agreement. that all prisoners of terrorist organisations once once on ceasefire should be released

Once again: the agreement doesn't say that, and the government made that clear to all parties before the referendum.

See this is my problem. People insist on total disarmament/decommissioning. Accept the logical argument of "how long is a piece of string" and immediately return to "the IRA should get rid of all its guns"!!!!

I'm puzzled as to the point you're trying to make. You rant on about the government not implementing the agreement - which I disagree is the case - while trying to gloss over the fact that the IRA have not totally disarmed - which is explicitly required by the agreement.

:eek: The havent!

Exactly!!

and again!

I'm lost. I'm making the point here that if, as you say, the IRA don't intend to use their weapons - why keep them? It's not unreasonable to assume that keeping a weapon is a sign that its owner is prepared to consider the posibility of using it.

nail on the head! At last we agree! What kind of a police force do you think republicans are looking for here!

No, we don't agree.

The die-hard unionists wanted no changes to the existing police force - unrealistic. The die-hard republicans wanted to throw away the entire police force and build a new one from scratch - unrealistic. The agreement called for a review into policing. Patten provided that review. Now Sinn Fein are complaining that the compromise didn't give them everything they wanted. Duh! That's what a compromise is - if you're serious about peace, you take the rough with the smooth, engage in the process and help to make things better. Sitting on the sidelines complaining about not getting it all your own way is not going to help.

Your obsessed with a policing board. Whats the point if it has no teeth? The room for facilitating change is not incorporated into the police board. These serious structural changes have to be made before republicans can join.

In other words, the compromise didn't give us everything we wanted, so we're not playing ball. Very helpful.

As for your own quote - --- 6 years later and only a third of the less important changes have been made. Again i refer to the lack of reform and the lack of will to reform.

Can't you see the irony of refusing to participate in a process, and criticising others for a lack of will?

Theres a load of other stories about the brick walls encountered by the SDLP etc etc but set up a policing thread

No-one said it would be easy. Refusing to participate is not exactly going to facilitate the process.

Really, wow and there I was thinking that republicans still live in fear and mistrust of the PSNI. There I was thinking that the reason for republicans policing their own areas was the lack of a trustworthy police force. maybe the dont. Maybe I've only met republicans who don't REALISE that the police force won't beat them , shoot with rubber bullets, barracade them in their homes, watch them get beaten to death by loyalists in prtadown..................

Two things: when was the last time someone was shot with a rubber bullet in Northern Ireland? And what's the point in setting up a police force that republicans can trust, but unionists can't?

The point is the necessary structures need to be created to facilited radical change in the RUC. They havent and it would be impossible to change the PSNI unitl they have been facilitated

The real point is that Sinn Fein say that these radical changes are required, but don't face up to the fact that there are two communities to be accomodated in this process. Many unionists feel that the changes have already gone too far (I don't agree) - what's the point in alienating them further?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1
Now I'm not saying it wasn't stated I just think it could have been stated more clearly.

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ on a scooter, HOW exactly could it have been any clearer??

Oh and Oscar it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe it was Murder or Manslaughter because out Justice system convicted the men of Manslaughter.

I grant you that they've only been convicted of murder, but seriously - look me in the eye (metaphorically speaking) and tell me whether you honestly believe they had no intention of hurting Jerry McCabe when they pointed a gun at him and pulled the trigger.

BuffyBot

I regonise that the government stated the men would not be covered under the GFA, however I dont believe the ordinary Voter on the ground was sure of this, I know my ma and da weren't, now there very intelligent but dont remember being told that when they voted.

That's a bit anecdotal isn't it?

How can we say for sure that that applies to other people?

sceptre

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Jesus H Tapdancing Christ on a scooter, HOW exactly could it have been any clearer??

Oh that's easy. Person goes into polling station. Says hello, offers identification if required. Takes ballot. Goes to booth. Gets stopped along the way by a kindly old man with a wizzened face and a cheery smile. "Now, you know the government said that any men convicted of the killing of Garda McCabe are outside the ambit of the agreement? John O'Donoghue called to your house last week in case you missed the extensive writeups on the front of the national papers and the news so he sent me down to tell you. Enjoy your vote, use it wisely"

It'd give Santa something to do in his time off.

Sarcasm aside, the case was under investigation at the time. Making extensive commentary on the progress of the investigation would not have been a good thing and it was made as clear as anyone could reasonably have expected. Not only was it not kept a secret, it was publicised on the front of the Irish dailies. Frankly I'm surprised that anyone can claim not to have known.

Villain

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Jesus H Tapdancing Christ on a scooter, HOW exactly could it have been any clearer??

LOL, just my opinion, I think if you polled the electorate and asked them whether or not they knew the McCabe killers were going to be excempt or not, you'd be surprised at how many would say they weren't aware, or maybe I would be vice cersa.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I grant you that they've only been convicted of murder, but seriously - look me in the eye (metaphorically speaking) and tell me whether you honestly believe they had no intention of hurting Jerry McCabe when they pointed a gun at him and pulled the trigger.

I take it you meant manslaughter and as I said it doesn't matter what I believe, they were convicted by our Justice System, the saying "well if thats the law, the laws an ass" may apply but doesn't change their conviction.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by irish1
I take it you meant manslaughter and as I said it doesn't matter what I believe, they were convicted by our Justice System, the saying "well if thats the law, the laws an ass" may apply but doesn't change their conviction.

Thats interesting.
You are saying when questioned about it by oscar bravo that the laws an ass and it's murder they should have been convicted of.
Why then did you get so tetchy and pendatic here just one page back when I called it murder (and thats what it is I'm afraid, regardless of how many withnesses they intimidate to squeeze out a lesser conviction...)

Villain

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Thats interesting.
You are saying when questioned about it by oscar bravo that the laws an ass and it's murder they should have been convicted of.
Why then did you get so tetchy and pendatic here just one page back when I called it murder (and thats what it is I'm afraid, regardless of how many withnesses they intimidate to squeeze out a lesser conviction...)

I love the way people twist posts, I never said the law was an ass and they SHOULD have been convictded of Murder, I said the saying MAY apply.

But it is MANSLAUGHTER and not murder they were convicted of and as I have said again and again it doesn't matter what you or anyone else believe the justice system did not convict them of murder.

Rock Climber

I see,I presume you rush to clarify that with every case of manslaughter then and not just with the IRA I hope...
So lets sumarise again, we have a fifth point now, the other four having been made as summary and remain standing ...

• That it was made very clear before during and after the GFA vote in the 26 counties that the killers of McCabe were not to be released under its terms
  
• That the IRA denied responsibility initially which would indicate that it wasn't initially a sanctioned operation and ergo that it never did qualify for that reason
  
• That the IRA claimed the act after their initial denial which transparently looks like a fishy attempt to hoover up the murder as an act of IRA official service.
  
• That the government only changed it's mind on whether McCabes murderers could be released under pressure from SF when they started to use their release as a further bargaining chip to kick start the peace process.
  
• That SF tells us now in 2004 that the killers of McCabe were to beincluded under the GFA early release programme despite the minister for justice stating otherwise in the Dáil debate prior to the vote and despite Caoimhin o Caoilain of SF not challenging him on the matter in that debate

Oh I rest my case lets agree to disagree,I'll stay in the shop that most people go to, the breads fresher