Business as usual by the IRA

Jackie laughlin

Is it the position of SF/IRA that all information re crimes is to be given to the PSNI or Gardai, or that the instruction refers to crimes after a certain date? If the latter, does anyone know what is that date.

It is certainly the case that a lot of information given to the police is inadmissable in court but it is this information which leads the police to harder, admissable evidence.

Does everyone here want to draw a line at some date and say that NO crimes before that date will be investigated because it might upset SF/IRA or the police, army or government?

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote: »

This poor guy was beaten to death because he got in a fight with some local Provos kid. .

Have you any evidence of that because the newspapers have reported a different story

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Is it the position of SF/IRA that all information re crimes is to be given to the PSNI or Gardai, or that the instruction refers to crimes after a certain date? If the latter, does anyone know what is that date.

It is certainly the case that a lot of information given to the police is inadmissable in court but it is this information which leads the police to harder, admissable evidence.

Does everyone here want to draw a line at some date and say that NO crimes before that date will be investigated because it might upset SF/IRA or the police, army or government?

See your use of the SF/IRA in this case is misleading it is the position of SF that people should give information to the PSNI or Gardai
It is obviously not the position of the IRA since membership of the IRA is in itself a crime and if that was there position they would have to go and inform on themselves.


Seriously though,
What do you think is going to happen the IRA are going to contact the PSNI with the names of all their volunteers and tell them every operation they were involved in going back to 1968.


I would suggest that perhaps a truth commission where people could go and get things out in the open who did what why and on behalf of whom , once you tell the truth you get an amnesty anything you don't tell can be held against you , this would be for everyone from the IRA to the RUC and everyone in between. At least that way we can draw a line in the sand and we would not have the drip drip leaks and allegations going on and on for years.

lostexpectation

Tristrame wrote: »

There are 2 difficulties with that (1) The ultimate arbitrators of who is and isn't a current IRA member is the IRA-ergo (2)anyone who does something that is awkward like this operation can automatically become an "ex" IRA person.

did the family itself not use the phrase 'ex-ira'

Jackie laughlin

A truth commision is often advanced as a solution. However, my point is that SF/IRA (The latter is superior to the former - though FTA69 argues that Adams is now effectively in command of all.) now say that members are to cooperate with the police. Unless a date is applied, the instruction requires members to inform on one another. Not a chance! If a date is applied, it must apply to loyalist, police and army crimes. By the way, I certainly do not favour whitewashing police and army crime.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

A truth commision is often advanced as a solution. However, my point is that SF/IRA (The latter is superior to the former - though FTA69 argues that Adams is now effectively in command of all.) now say that members are to cooperate with the police. Unless a date is applied, the instruction requires members to inform on one another. Not a chance! If a date is applied, it must apply to loyalist, police and army crimes. By the way, I certainly do not favour whitewashing police and army crime.

Try again
SF have said it the IRA have not as commonsense will tell you that the actual fact that you are a member of the IRA is in fact a crime.

Commonsense would also suggest that in the case of SF it is from when they offered support to the PSNI


My suggestion of a truth commission gets us over a lot of this obviously there is no point in trying at this stage to jail people for events of the past that does not mean that the families do not deserve answers whether it is bloody Sunday or Bloody Friday or the Dublin and Monaghan bombings lets get it all out in the open and then we can really start to move forward.

Jackie laughlin

SF is subject to the IRA. Yes, it is commonsense that the the instruction dates from support for PSNI. However, few SF supporters are aware that this implies, that British criminals will not be pursued either.

I think it naive to believe that having everything out in the open will have a soothing effect. Many - perhaps most - would want justice. What a truth comm. might do would be to end the public careers of former terrorists.

FTA69

The Provisional movement is now centred completely around the Sinn Féin party, the IRA has been scaled back dramatically and will largely cease to exist in a few years except in a nominal sense; if anything it is simply becoming surplus baggage to the Provos. Talk of the IRA Army Council controlling Sinn Féin is complete nonsense, that hasn't been the case for decades.

Sand,

the fear, intimidation and power these families have wielded over their neighbours for decades must be intoxicating.

Yes of course, the Provos only ever had support in working-class communities because they blackmailed and bullied everyone around them, and to top it all, they even managed to intimidate people in the likes of Turf Lodge and Ballymurphy into voting for SF in secret ballots. The evil bastards.

The ties between the Republican Movement and the communities in which it operated are quite complex, and to be honest lad, I don't think you have a clue about it.

Rather than the IRA becoming an old veterans organisation [ pass the sickbag] its more likely it will simply morph into a mafia style organised crime syndicate

The IRA is already an old veterans organisation to all intents and purposes, the mafia you have alleged will come about hasn't transpired yet and it is doubtful if it ever will. Most IRA Volunteers have simply gone home and gotten on with their lives, a few have gotten stuck into SF and other projects, but most have simply retired. Of course there have been some instances where ex-IRA types became involved in crime but the numbers are quite small when compared to the size of the organisation at large.

They even tried to claim that a kickboxing champion was a junkie to justify their murder of him, nothing to do with this "junkie" kicking the crap out of some provo and his thugs - no sir.

The IRA never killed anyone for being a drug addict. The person you are on about was alleged to be a drug dealer, whether he was or not I don't know. And neither do you I'd say.

FTA69

Mancduff,

travellers can be subhuman sometimes

Jesus Christ above.

but atleast they settle disputes one on one with rules (from the vids i've seen)

A bit like Francie Barett, stabbed twice by criminals because he refused to fight for money. Many young Travellers are increasingly being bullied and intimidated into fighting so people can video them to satisfy people like you. It is far from completely noble.

but 9 on 1 i just can't get my head round it and these guys fought the British Army.

I doubt they did to be honest, I'd say most of them are in their early to mid twenties and would be what are sometimes termed, "ceasefire soldiers".

murphaph

FTA69, do you like the IRA?

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

SF is subject to the IRA. Yes, it is commonsense that the the instruction dates from support for PSNI. However, few SF supporters are aware that this implies, that British criminals will not be pursued either.

How do you know what most SF supporters are aware of or not

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I think it naive to believe that having everything out in the open will have a soothing effect. Many - perhaps most - would want justice. What a truth comm. might do would be to end the public careers of former terrorists.

I disagree look at for example Bloody Sunday everyone knows that no one is ever going to jail what the families want is the truth.
Same with bloody friday or the dublin and monaghan bombings even if they could try and convict someone they would be entitled to early release under the GFA.
I honestly believe that the families in these cases have resigned themselves to the fact that no one is going to jail what they can llok for now is the truth behind these events.


On putting an end to the public careers or not I presume you have SF people in mind I think if the truth of the troubles in the North was told it would not just be SF people who would have dark secrets.

On the other hand McGuinness's revelation that he was in the IRA in Derry has not affected his career I think people in general have a good idea that SF people were not saints and were as much sinned against as sinned themselves

Voipjunkie

murphaph wrote: »

FTA69, do you like the IRA?

which one

murphaph

Voipjunkie wrote: »

which one

Well, the 'current' incarnation whatever that is, the PIRA?

Out of interest can you give me what you consider the various IRAs?

Jackie laughlin

Voip,
You're right of course. I don't know what the majority would think. I should have referred to the few supporters to whom I've spoken. I guess i was assuming that they were typical. I should emphaise that they are supporters and not members; the latter would be very aware of the implications.

It is distressing that Irish voters will elect people with records. Perhaps the media pay too little attention to the "blots" on particular politicians' CVs.

Yes, telling the truth would shame many shinners but I've no doubt that police, army, civil service and Unionist + British politicians need exposure.

I think that while the authorities have been dragging out the issue of enquiries over just a small number of incidents, the relatives are gradually worn down. I'd make two points. Desire for justice extends far beyond the relatives. Secondly, as the horrors would tumble out at a commission, public reaction might not be as docile as you think.

Come on, do you really believe that shinners were "as much sinned against as sinned themselves"?

FTA 69,
I hope you are right. However, I've asked you before if you knew when the constitutional framework was changed to place the IRA under SF? It can't be decades. This would suggest that SF ordered attacks.

I don't think it's necessary to live in a deprived estate in N.I. to understand the relationship between SF/IRA and the people there. Brave people have spoken out and the absence of witnesses spoke volumes. Juryless courts were required because of intimidation. (They'll very likely be needed again to deal with today's murderers who can command silence.)

FTA69

FTA69, do you like the IRA?

I am a Republican and I would broadly defend the IRA campaign, however I no longer support the Provisional IRA or Sinn Féin. That doesn't mean I think they are evil bastards however, because my experience says otherwise.

Jackie,

However, I've asked you before if you knew when the constitutional framework was changed to place the IRA under SF?

What constitutional framework are you talking about? The IRA and Sinn Féin had and have two different consitutions, the only mention of SF in the IRA Constitution states that the only other political organisations a Volunteer is allowed join are trade unions and Sinn Féin. That's it. The IRA's prominence within the movement was dictated by circumstance, not a constitution. Obviously it stood to reason that when Republicanism became more electorally orientated the onus moved onto SF. It was a natural shift over time.

Brave people have spoken out and the absence of witnesses spoke volumes

No, you're missing the point yet again and again you are trying to spin this notion that the IRA only commanded support because of intimidation when the reality was that people often supported them because they agreed with them and they were liked into that very community by filial and social connections. But then again champagne socialists in Labour and the SDLP always found it hard to understand the problems of communities they long abandoned.

Juryless courts were required because of intimidation.

No juryles courts were introduced in order to bang Republicans in jail on the basis of a policeman's opinion or a confession that was usually achieved by torture. Sometimes even unrecorded "verbal confessions" allegedly made in custody were accepted as "evidence" in the Diplocks. Basically it was all part of the conveyor system; arrest, torture, confession, Diplock, jail. It was internment with a legal facade.

Sometimes Jackie, I despair with the uninformed lark you come out with.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

No juryles courts were introduced in order to bang Republicans in jail on the basis of a policeman's opinion or a confession that was usually achieved by torture.

No, juryless courts were introduced because of witness intimidation. I'm sure that's an uncomfortable fact in deluded Republican fantasyland, but it's a fact nonetheless.

murphaph

FTA69 wrote: »

No juryles courts were introduced in order to bang Republicans in jail on the basis of a policeman's opinion or a confession that was usually achieved by torture. Sometimes even unrecorded "verbal confessions" allegedly made in custody were accepted as "evidence" in the Diplocks. Basically it was all part of the conveyor system; arrest, torture, confession, Diplock, jail. It was internment with a legal facade.

And what about our own SCC? Were the republicans convicted in it tortured by the Gardai beforehand? Why did we need a SCC in the RoI?

Also you conveniently omit that Diplocks sentenced many loyalist terrorists without jury also.

Following on from my previous question, you state you no longer support SF and/or the PIRA. Can I ask, why is this, and who, if anyone, do you support now?

I note your location is North London, did you agree with the pub bombing campaigns over there on the mainland? Do you agree it is sometimes acceptable to commit such acts and if so, would you hold it against an Iraqi 'freedom fighter' to detonate a suicide bomb in a pub you were drinking in in Camden Lock which left you paralysed?

Honestly now.

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

SF is subject to the IRA. Yes, it is commonsense that the the instruction dates from support for PSNI. However, few SF supporters are aware that this implies, that British criminals will not be pursued either.

I think it naive to believe that having everything out in the open will have a soothing effect. Many - perhaps most - would want justice. What a truth comm. might do would be to end the public careers of former terrorists.

Just like the Labour Party is now subject to the rusty guns ( Offical IRA/SF/Workers Party/Democratic left, infiltrated the Labour Party etc ). I'm not saying for a second that jackie is a 'stickie' sympathiser, ? , but a lifelong and trusted member of the Labour Party, as she says herself.

FTA69

No, juryless courts were introduced because of witness intimidation. I'm sure that's an uncomfortable fact in deluded Republican fantasyland, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Witness intimidation? Sure up until 1975 there was internment where people were incarcerated with no trial at all, you'd swear the Brits were actually concerned with upholding a law they broke themselves all the time. The Diplock courts were simply another tactic in the long war that was fought in this country. People were lifted and held for seven days in specially-built interrogation centres e.g. Gough Barracks and Castlereagh. Within these centres the RUC frequently beat and tortured those arrested in an attempt to extract confessions, the main basis upon which convictions were handed out. Coupled with this we similarly had the criminalisation policy within the jails and the Ulsterisation policy which involved the RUC being given primacy over the British Army.

The Diplocks were as much a tactic as anything else and were solely concerned with subduing Republicans.

Murphaph,

And what about our own SCC? Were the republicans convicted in it tortured by the Gardai beforehand?

Some were, like Nicky Kelly who had his head smashed against a steel locker as well as having someone stamp on his testicles. The Garda Heavy Gang were great lads for suffocating people with wet towels. I remember when I used to live in West Waterford a CIRA training camp was raided about half an hour up the road from my house. The alleged ringleader of that escapade was bate so badly by young detectives (the worst these days) he could barely get out of his bed in Portlaoise. You would be a very naieve man indeed if you believed the police were incapable of assault or beatings.

Also you conveniently omit that Diplocks sentenced many loyalist terrorists without jury also.

Oh yeah sure, the Brits took an even hand with all those outside the law. An interesting point, when you consider that Loyalist paramilitaries were actually armed and directed by British agents, a process which is called collusion. Parity of esteem my hole.

Can I ask, why is this, and who, if anyone, do you support now?

I don't support the Provos anymore for a multitude of reasons, some I won't go into. The main reason was that I became disillusioned with their politics.

I note your location is North London, did you agree with the pub bombing campaigns over there on the mainland?

Mainland? Or "England" to the rest of us. I never claimed to support every single IRA action, rather the broader campaign. It is possible to support an organisation without agreeing with every action in its 91 year history.

Do you agree it is sometimes acceptable to commit such acts and if so, would you hold it against an Iraqi 'freedom fighter' to detonate a suicide bomb in a pub you were drinking in in Camden Lock which left you paralysed?

Camden Lock is full of drunken students, middle-class trendies, drug-dealers, Somalian gangsters and would-be hard men. I wouldn't be drinking in that sh*thole in the first place!
Secondly I don't recall the IRA ever using suicide bombings in order to intentionally kill civilians so your point is moot. Thirdly there is no point in saying "if you were blown up you wouldn't..." because I can easily point out that had you been a young man in 1970s Turf Lodge and the Brits kicked the sh*t out of you at a checkpoint you would be in the IRA. I am here to debate based on the facts, not hypothetical whataboutery that can be twisted in all directions.

murphaph

To be quite honest, I am sure Gardai did overstep the law on occasions, that was wrong. However, when the Provisional IRA was threatening the very stability of our state, I wasn't shedding any tears for any stepped on testicles I'm afraid.

You seem to denegrate the agencies of law and order (police, army, courts) on both sides of the border yet stick up for a bunch of criminals who broke every law in the book, on both sides of that same border. You must understand why people aren't falling over themselves to see it from your point of view.

Why is there a need for a Continuity IRA anyway? There is no internment, no gerrymandering, equal treatment in housing allocation and if anything-positive discrimination wrt. recruitment into the police. The likes of the CIRA/RIRA are dinosaurs stuck in a 1970's timewarp-sound familiar?

If you dislike the brits so much, why do you live in Britain? Do you pay taxes to Her Majesty's Treasury?

Jackie laughlin

There were and are people in deprived estates who support SF/IRA but are not members. There are many more who try to live quietly without coming to the attention of same. It's called fear and intimidation. Most of these people would like it very much if more SF/IRA became "champagne nationalists" and moved elsewhere.

Yes, the British army behaved not just badly and brutally but stupidly. Their actions provided recruits for SF/IRA. Many young people brutalised by the Army were mature enough to keep away from violence - some joined constitutional politics - others were more afraid of their parents than either the Army or SF/IRA and those parents saved them from a miserable life, others still went into exile. The weakest, least mature and most isolated youths in their communities were dragged down into SF/IRA. I think you are from N.I. and you know this well.

FTA69

However, when the Provisional IRA was threatening the very stability of our state, I wasn't shedding any tears for any stepped on testicles I'm afraid.

Well first of all Nicky Kelly was never a Provo, secondly he was jailed on the basis of a confession extracted by torture and thirdly he was actually innocent. (He is now a Labour activist). But not to worry sure, you didn't shed any tears over him, or those like him.

yet stick up for a bunch of criminals who broke every law in the book, on both sides of that same border.

Do you believe that breaking the law automatically makes you a criminal?

Why is there a need for a Continuity IRA anyway? There is no internment, no gerrymandering, equal treatment in housing allocation and if anything-positive discrimination wrt. recruitment into the police. The likes of the CIRA/RIRA are dinosaurs stuck in a 1970's timewarp-sound familiar?

But there is a British presence, and like it or not that has always been the root motivating factor for militant Republicans, for instance the 1916 Rising which the Dublin government recently celebrated with such gusto. Personally I don't support armed struggle at this moment in time and think it is a complete waste.

If you dislike the brits so much, why do you live in Britain?

I don't dislike English people at all, neither do most Republicans for that matter. Although it must be very comforting for you to try and pigeon-hole me into some sort of "narrow nationalist" stereotype when the reality is quite different.

Jackie,

It's called fear and intimidation. Most of these people would like it very much if more SF/IRA became "champagne nationalists" and moved elsewhere.

So why then did people in Ballymurphy, Farranree, Cherry Orchard or the Bogside vote for Sinn Féin in large numbers (often overwhelmingly so)? Were they intimidated into voting for SF in a secret ballot? Are the IRA really that powerful?

The weakest, least mature and most isolated youths in their communities were dragged down into SF/IRA.

The most vulnerable youths in deprived areas end up with a needle sticking out of their arm or else spending all of their money in the bookies and the pub, living for the weekend, often embroiled in senseless feuds and other assorted bullsh*t.

These sort of people do not join political movements that demand great personal sacrifice, initiative and resilience. They do not willingly spend years in jail for their beliefs, they do not starve themselves to death for an ideal, they do not sit in police stations for 3 days staring at the wall while two detectives scream in your face and threaten to kill you. The people within the IRA (generally) were sincere individuals seeking change, they weren't thugs, they weren't psychopaths and they weren't weak, stupid people.

murphaph

FTA69 wrote: »

Well first of all Nicky Kelly was never a Provo, secondly he was jailed on the basis of a confession extracted by torture and thirdly he was actually innocent. (He is now a Labour activist). But not to worry sure, you didn't shed any tears over him, or those like him.

I am very deeply sorry to any innocent person convicted anywhere. I am not talking about innocent people however-I am specifically refering to PIRA members who may have been at the rough end of telephone directory. I would not have shed any tears for those individuals given the serious threat the IRA posed to the state itself. We had and have seen quite enough bloodshed on this island and we didn't and don't need any more.

FTA69 wrote: »

Do you believe that breaking the law automatically makes you a criminal?

No, if you park on double yellow lines you are breaking a law. You are not a criminal however. Commiting felonious ofences such as murder/kidnap however does automatically make you a criminal in my eyes. I dare say most right minded people would agree.

FTA69 wrote: »

But there is a British presence, and like it or not that has always been the root motivating factor for militant Republicans, for instance the 1916 Rising which the Dublin government recently celebrated with such gusto. Personally I don't support armed struggle at this moment in time and think it is a complete waste.

There is indeed a british presence-1 million or so british people. Do you believe there may be a time in the future when armed struggle is again supportable by you?

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't dislike English people at all, neither do most Republicans for that matter. Although it must be very comforting for you to try and pigeon-hole me into some sort of "narrow nationalist" stereotype when the reality is quite different.

Hmmm, so you do pay your taxes into HM Treasury! The same treasury that pays for the british 'occupation' of Northern Ireland. You can't feel all that strongly about the whole thing if you live and work happily in the land of the occupier.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

I am very deeply sorry to any innocent person convicted anywhere. I am not talking about innocent people however-I am specifically refering to PIRA members who may have been at the rough end of telephone directory. I would not have shed any tears for those individuals given the serious threat the IRA posed to the state itself. We had and have seen quite enough bloodshed on this island and we didn't and don't need any more.

= I believe in torture & violence against individuals who have not been convicted!

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

= I believe in torture & violence against individuals who have not been convicted!

Well, when these monsters were happy enough cutting bits off dentists (yeah INLA, same difference-all nutters) and sending those bits back to the families, I'd say a beating by a copper was pretty tame! Not correct however.

jank

murphaph wrote: »

Well, when these monsters were happy enough cutting bits off dentists (yeah INLA, same difference-all nutters) and sending those bits back to the families, I'd say a beating by a copper was pretty tame! Not correct however.

Jesus christ, listen to yourself Murphaph. You sound like a Neo-Con Republican who thinks water boarding isnt torture and indefiante interment without trial or repisentation is A OK!!

What you just said there reminds me of the one and only Ann Coulter and her "logic" in fighting terrorism.

murphaph

jank wrote: »

Jesus christ, listen to yourself Murphaph. You sound like a Neo-Con Republican who thinks water boarding isnt torture and indefiante interment without trial or repisentation is A OK!!

What you just said there reminds me of the one and only Ann Coulter and her "logic" in fighting terrorism.

Yeah, you're right though I never stated what you said. The Gardai should never have stepped on anyone's testicles. Let me put it another way-I would imagine that the number of times a Garda overtsepped the mark by physically abusing a prisoner were few and far between, certainly in comparison to the number of times attrocities were commited by the terrorists.

jank

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah, you're right though I never stated what you said. The Gardai should never have stepped on anyone's testicles. Let me put it another way-I would imagine that the number of times a Garda overtsepped the mark by physically abusing a prisoner were few and far between, certainly in comparison to the number of times attrocities were commited by the terrorists.

Yea i get you, but it doesn't make it right and NOTHING excuses it.

FTA69

We had and have seen quite enough bloodshed on this island and we didn't and don't need any more.

Right, we'll end the bloodshed by shedding the blood of others. Great logic.

Commiting felonious ofences such as murder/kidnap however does automatically make you a criminal in my eyes. I dare say most right minded people would agree.

So in your eyes the likes of Michael Collins was a criminal?

There is indeed a british presence-1 million or so british people.

That isn't what I mean by a British presence and well you know it, what I mean is the partition of this country and lack of oppurtunity for Irish people to vote as a unit on the position of the north within the UK.

Do you believe there may be a time in the future when armed struggle is again supportable by you?

Who knows, not in the near future anyway. Irish politics and indeed society is vastly different to what it once was, the battle of ideas must be won before anything else and that means political groundwork and winning people over to your position. Not jousting at windmills (or burning B&Q shops).

Hmmm, so you do pay your taxes into HM Treasury! The same treasury that pays for the british 'occupation' of Northern Ireland. You can't feel all that strongly about the whole thing if you live and work happily in the land of the occupier.

That's bullsh*t. By your logic anyone who buys a pint in Belfast is funding the occupation through their VAT. I came here to work, have an experience and hopefully make a life for myself. There is no contradiction between that and opposing a British occupation of my homeland. Likewise there is no contradiction between opposing the Iraq war and visiting relatives in New York.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

So in your eyes the likes of Michael Collins was a criminal?

How many times does it have to be said to you and some others that times and acceptability aren't a constant.

Asking in comparison terms as to whether Michael Collins was right or the tribes of babylon is a misnomer unless of course you want to bring us back to everything else that was acceptable in their respective times...
I doubt that you do.