the murder of pat finucane

paky

i was just wondering what your views are on the murder of pat finucane. is this a hazard people in the law profession must face when representing criminals or subversives or do you think that pat finucane was going beyond his legal obligations to help the ira? its clear from books published by loyalist paramilitaries that suggest ruc involvement

FreudianSlippers

Moved from Legal Discussion.

Min

I was posting on a British forum and a person from Northern Ireland said he deserved to be murdered for getting IRA people off. I was shocked as the person in question is normally mild mannered.

Persoanlly I think he was doing honest work and it is upto the law to find the people he represents innocent or guilty.
What happened to him was a disgrace and the same with Rosemary Nelson.

The amount of collusion between the state and loyalist terrorism was unreal, the state in Northern Ireland was as bad as all the terrorist organisations.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

i was just wondering what your views are on the murder of pat finucane. is this a hazard people in the law profession must face when representing criminals or subversives or do you think that pat finucane was going beyond his legal obligations to help the ira? its clear from books published by loyalist paramilitaries that suggest ruc involvement

I have no opinion one way or the other. What's your opinion?

Son Of A Vidic

On 17 January 1989 Douglas Hogg, then a British Home stated "I have to state as fact, but with great regret, that there are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the IRA." What a truly damming and shocking statement for any minister in a democracy to make. Christ, even the Nazi's were more subtle than that. Yet such commentary would be fitting at a Nuremberg rally.

A few weeks later, on the 12th February Pat Finucane was shot dead in front of his family. British Agent Brain Nelson, FRU and RUC Special Branch were all well involved. Pat Finucane appeared to be a decent man and a highly competent & respected solicitor. His only crime was to embarrass the RUC and the establishment on several occasions over Human Rights abuses. Specifically calling them to account over the Shoot-To-Kill policy.

Why shouldn't he have represented IRA members OP? Everyone is surely innocent until proven guilty.This belief is the cornerstone of his profession and he was a truly brave man to do what he did. How was he going beyond his obligations? He was doing his job against a state which very often acted as judge, jury and executioner. He knew the very apparatus of the state he fought against was rotten to the core, some RUC men who stood in the same courtroom probably wished for a bullet in his head.

In a normal, democratic and free society, the legal profession should be able to conduct their normal business safe from threats or death. But there was nothing normal about the society Pat Finucane worked in. All the more reason for us to admire the man. Thankfully today we live in transformed times with changed attitudes. Indeed, the very topic of this thread makes me realise how far we've come since 1989.

stewie01

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I have no opinion one way or the other. What's your opinion?

good for you well said. great contribution.

Peep O'Day

Min wrote: »

I was posting on a British forum and a person from Northern Ireland said he deserved to be murdered for getting IRA people off. I was shocked as the person in question is normally mild mannered.

Persoanlly I think he was doing honest work and it is upto the law to find the people he represents innocent or guilty.
What happened to him was a disgrace and the same with Rosemary Nelson.

The amount of collusion between the state and loyalist terrorism was unreal, the state in Northern Ireland was as bad as all the terrorist organisations.

That really and truly goes without saying

FreudianSlippers

stewie01 wrote: »

good for you well said. great contribution.

Generally, the rule is that one should not start a thread looking for opinions without giving theirs first.

Wolfe Tone

Why was this moved from the law forum? Seems to me Paky wants a legal pov from solicitors etc on wether or not solicitors often find themselves under threat because they represent certain people or was Pat Finucan unique in that regard because perhaps he went 'above and beyond' what others would have done in his position? He wont get the answer in the politics forum, merely a troubles themed mess.

RMD

I can't speak from a point of view of a Northern Irish solicitor but both my parents are in law. My mom has encountered 1 right odd ball who made her feel genuinely unsafe and as a result the firm dropped him as a client and notified the Garda of him, nothing much could be done but the Garda offered a form of "priority" if this guy was to give trouble knowing his past. My dad thankfully has never faced any trouble but he's generally been lucky in the cases he's been involved in, that said 1-2 of his friends also in criminal law have received threats and "hints" while acting as prosecutors. Depending on what area of law you're in it can lead to trouble if you cross the wrong people.

In Finucane's case representing the PIRA was always going to get the Loyalists angry, which ultimately lead to his death. I'm no supporter of the PIRA but in a Western democratic society someone is entitled to legal representation regardless of their ideals or views. Finucane knew the area of law well that he was dealing with and was an asset to the Republican community, obviously he should never have been killed but ultimately, it is easy to see why the Loyalists did it. Not only to remove an asset to the PIRA, but to also scare other solicitors / barristers from representing PIRA members.

FreudianSlippers

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why was this moved from the law forum? Seems to me Paky wants a legal pov from solicitors etc on wether or not solicitors often find themselves under threat because they represent certain people or was Pat Finucan unique in that regard because perhaps he went 'above and beyond' what others would have done in his position? He wont get the answer in the politics forum, merely a troubles themed mess.

Eh, you might be right... when it was reported I thought it'd be better off in Politics, but now I see your point.

Delancey

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

On 17 January 1989 Douglas Hogg, then a British Home stated "I have to state as fact, but with great regret, that there are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the IRA." What a truly damming and shocking statement for any minister in a democracy to make. Christ, even the Nazi's were more subtle than that. Yet such commentary would be fitting at a Nuremberg rally.

Ironic that such comments would be made by the son of the then British Lord Chancellor - Douglas Hogg was the son of Lord Hailsham ( formerly Quentin Hogg QC ).

Of the 5 cases alleging state collusion submitted to the Canadian Judge , Peter Corry , where he recommended full public inquiries the Finucane murder is the only one where such an enquiry has yet to be established.

John Stalker who as Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police headed the ' shoot-to-kill ' enquiry gave an account in his book of meeting a solicitor in the Crumlin road courthouse and after their conversation ended being approached by a junior RUC officer who berated him for speaking publically to someone who was '' worse than an IRA man ''.
Stalker did not name the solicitor but it has since emerged it was Pat Finucane.

snafuk35

Lord Justice Maurice Gibson presided over the trials of a series of IRA members who were sentenced for terrorist offensives. He and his wife Cecily were assassinated by a car bomb. Gibson no doubt believed he was playing a part in a war against the IRA and his job was to send them to the slammer.

Pat Finucane was sympathetic to Sinn Féin/IRA at during the Troubles and he succeeded in clearing IRA members who went to onto to commit more terrorist offensives and killed members of the British security forces.

The British and IRA were fighting a dirty war at the time.

If the IRA could knock off an off duty part-time UDR or RUC member in front of his family because he was a member of the security forces and because they aimed to shatter enemy morale, the Brits thought they could do the same in response. If they could supply info to loyalist and rub out a troublesome lawyer, why wouldn't they?

The SAS and the specialist units of the RUC gave the IRA no quarter when they caught them red handed moving weapons from dumps or travelling in cars with guns or bombs and summarily executed them as a message to anyone who was considering a career as a freedom fighter.
Similarly the IRA would murder informers and murder undercover agents like Robert Nairac.

Pat Finucane who believed in a united Ireland and supported the republican cause had to have known he was going to be a target when he defended IRA suspects.

In the same way when Ross McWhirter, a British TV presenter offered £50,000 for information leading to the arrest of IRA bombers, he became a player in a dirty war and was shot dead. He had to have known he would be a target.

After the Paras shot dead civilians in Derry and the IRA blew up British pubs with car bombs, the gloves were off and the rule book was thrown away.
If you were giving comfort to the enemy, the opposing side rubbed you out.
If you were a teenage girl who was kissing a British soldier you were a target.
If you were Catholic living in a republican area or a Protestant living in a loyalist area you were a target because if republican paramilitaries or loyalist paramilitaries could not defend their areas from random murders they lost face. It was in the interests of the loyalist too keep Catholic terrified and in the interests of republicans to hit back anyway the could to destablise Northern Ireland society.
If you were a symbol of the British establishment like the Horse Guards in London or Lord Mountbatten fishing on his boat, you were bombed.
If you were an IRA man attacking an RUC station with assault rifles you were shot down and finished off with a headshot by the SAS.
If you didn't understand the high stakes then too bad.

Thank goodness the troubles are over now that's all I'll say.

Dirty wars are ongoing all over the world. It's a savage business and when one side hits out the other side must hit back anyway they can rules or no rules.

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I have no opinion one way or the other. What's your opinion?

we had a judge from the international court speak to us about her career as a barrister and then judge. she said that no matter how guilty or wrotten she thought her clients were, that under the law, they deserved representation, and this she reiterated, was a fundamental principle of law and one which us students should aspire to. so whether pat finucane was sympathetic or not, he was doing what any other lawyer would have done and died at the hands of the very institution to which he was bound to.

Son Of A Vidic

snafuk35 wrote: »

Lord Justice Maurice Gibson presided over the trials of a series of IRA members who were sentenced for terrorist offensives. He and his wife Cecily were assassinated by a car bomb. Gibson no doubt believed he was playing a part in a war against the IRA and his job was to send them to the slammer.

Pat Finucane was sympathetic to Sinn Féin/IRA at during the Troubles and he succeeded in clearing IRA members who went to onto to commit more terrorist offensives and killed members of the British security forces.

The British and IRA were fighting a dirty war at the time.

If the IRA could knock off an off duty part-time UDR or RUC member in front of his family because he was a member of the security forces and because they aimed to shatter enemy morale, the Brits thought they could do the same in response. If they could supply info to loyalist and rub out a troublesome lawyer, why wouldn't they?

The SAS and the specialist units of the RUC gave the IRA no quarter when they caught them red handed moving weapons from dumps or travelling in cars with guns or bombs and summarily executed them as a message to anyone who was considering a career as a freedom fighter.
Similarly the IRA would murder informers and murder undercover agents like Robert Nairac.

Pat Finucane who believed in a united Ireland and supported the republican cause had to have known he was going to be a target when he defended IRA suspects.

In the same way when Ross McWhirter, a British TV presenter offered £50,000 for information leading to the arrest of IRA bombers, he became a player in a dirty war and was shot dead. He had to have known he would be a target.

After the Paras shot dead civilians in Derry and the IRA blew up British pubs with car bombs, the gloves were off and the rule book was thrown away.
If you were giving comfort to the enemy, the opposing side rubbed you out.
If you were a teenage girl who was kissing a British soldier you were a target.
If you were Catholic living in a republican area or a Protestant living in a loyalist area you were a target because if republican paramilitaries or loyalist paramilitaries could not defend their areas from random murders they lost face. It was in the interests of the loyalist too keep Catholic terrified and in the interests of republicans to hit back anyway the could to destablise Northern Ireland society.
If you were a symbol of the British establishment like the Horse Guards in London or Lord Mountbatten fishing on his boat, you were bombed.
If you were an IRA man attacking an RUC station with assault rifles you were shot down and finished off with a headshot by the SAS.
If you didn't understand the high stakes then too bad.

Thank goodness the troubles are over now that's all I'll say.

Dirty wars are ongoing all over the world. It's a savage business and when one side hits out the other side must hit back anyway they can rules or no rules.

The main point you are missing from the above, is of course British hypocrisy. They claimed to be bastion of freedom and democracy, yet their actions during the Troubles were anything but. Is was the dirtiest of dirtiest wars, but what stands out were the illegal actions of a supposedly democratic nation. The IRA never claimed to be a Florence Nightingale organisation, the British government on the other hand were utter hypocrites.

RMD wrote: »

obviously he should never have been killed but ultimately, it is easy to see why the Loyalists did it.

The chilling thing about Pat Finucane's death was it was not just a Loyalist assassination. British intelligence were heavily involved, they knew what was coming and could have prevented his death. The infamous British agent Brian Nelson, being the chief stoker and organiser at the time. Loylistist groups but particularly the UFF/UDA, were on many occasions nothing more that an execution squad for their intelligence masters.


Anyway this is getting side tracked as Wolfe Tone rightly predicted. So where is the line for all you legal eagles?

indioblack

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The main point you are missing from the above, is of course British hypocrisy. They claimed to be bastion of freedom and democracy, yet their actions during the Troubles were anything but. Is was the dirtiest of dirtiest wars, but what stands out were the illegal actions of a supposedly democratic nation. The IRA never claimed to be a Florence Nightingale organisation, the British government on the other hand were utter hypocrites.





The chilling thing about Pat Finucane's death was it was not just a Loyalist assassination. British intelligence were heavily involved, they knew what was coming and could have prevented his death. The infamous British agent Brian Nelson, being the chief stoker and organiser at the time. Loylistist groups but particularly the UFF/UDA, were on many occasions nothing more that an execution squad for their intelligence masters.


Anyway this is getting side tracked as Wolfe Tone rightly predicted. So where is the line for all you legal eagles?

"The IRA never claimed to be a Florence Nightingale organisation."
Well that's alright, then.
I'm told this was a war - wars are sometimes fought according to accepted rules of behaviour - and sometimes this is because people would like to believe that the observance of rules in such times is a positive reflection of the society from which they come.
But if your opponents hold to no stated rules of engagement, where does that leave you?
I've had a close Irish relative chill me by stating that the death of an innocent person in this business was unfortunate - "but it was war".
States, societies, aren't neccessarily nice organisms.
If seriously under threat, the rule book may go out the window.
Perhaps this is an indictment of so called civilsed societies and states.
But if you're in the business of trying to undermine or fragment a state, don't be suprised if, occaisionally, they take the gloves off too.

Sunnyisland

snafuk35 wrote: »

Lord Justice Maurice Gibson presided over the trials of a series of IRA members who were sentenced for terrorist offensives. He and his wife Cecily were assassinated by a car bomb. Gibson no doubt believed he was playing a part in a war against the IRA and his job was to send them to the slammer.

Pat Finucane was sympathetic to Sinn Féin/IRA at during the Troubles and he succeeded in clearing IRA members who went to onto to commit more terrorist offensives and killed members of the British security forces.

The British and IRA were fighting a dirty war at the time.

If the IRA could knock off an off duty part-time UDR or RUC member in front of his family because he was a member of the security forces and because they aimed to shatter enemy morale, the Brits thought they could do the same in response. If they could supply info to loyalist and rub out a troublesome lawyer, why wouldn't they?

The SAS and the specialist units of the RUC gave the IRA no quarter when they caught them red handed moving weapons from dumps or travelling in cars with guns or bombs and summarily executed them as a message to anyone who was considering a career as a freedom fighter.
Similarly the IRA would murder informers and murder undercover agents like Robert Nairac.

Pat Finucane who believed in a united Ireland and supported the republican cause had to have known he was going to be a target when he defended IRA suspects.

In the same way when Ross McWhirter, a British TV presenter offered £50,000 for information leading to the arrest of IRA bombers, he became a player in a dirty war and was shot dead. He had to have known he would be a target.

After the Paras shot dead civilians in Derry and the IRA blew up British pubs with car bombs, the gloves were off and the rule book was thrown away.
If you were giving comfort to the enemy, the opposing side rubbed you out.
If you were a teenage girl who was kissing a British soldier you were a target.
If you were Catholic living in a republican area or a Protestant living in a loyalist area you were a target because if republican paramilitaries or loyalist paramilitaries could not defend their areas from random murders they lost face. It was in the interests of the loyalist too keep Catholic terrified and in the interests of republicans to hit back anyway the could to destablise Northern Ireland society.
If you were a symbol of the British establishment like the Horse Guards in London or Lord Mountbatten fishing on his boat, you were bombed.
If you were an IRA man attacking an RUC station with assault rifles you were shot down and finished off with a headshot by the SAS.
If you didn't understand the high stakes then too bad.

Thank goodness the troubles are over now that's all I'll say.

Dirty wars are ongoing all over the world. It's a savage business and when one side hits out the other side must hit back anyway they can rules or no rules.

Well said.

Sunnyisland

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The main point you are missing from the above, is of course British hypocrisy. They claimed to be bastion of freedom and democracy, yet their actions during the Troubles were anything but. Is was the dirtiest of dirtiest wars, but what stands out were the illegal actions of a supposedly democratic nation. The IRA never claimed to be a Florence Nightingale organisation, the British government on the other hand were utter hypocrites.





The chilling thing about Pat Finucane's death was it was not just a Loyalist assassination. British intelligence were heavily involved, they knew what was coming and could have prevented his death. The infamous British agent Brian Nelson, being the chief stoker and organiser at the time. Loylistist groups but particularly the UFF/UDA, were on many occasions nothing more that an execution squad for their intelligence masters.


Anyway this is getting side tracked as Wolfe Tone rightly predicted. So where is the line for all you legal eagles?

well said to.

Son Of A Vidic

indioblack wrote: »

But if you're in the business of trying to undermine or fragment a state, don't be suprised if, occaisionally, they take the gloves off too.

Undermine what state? A state where for decades the Catholic population was treated like dogs? Where the B-Specials made the Brown Shirts look like school boys. If John Hume and the Civil Rights movement had of been listened to at the beginning. We would not have had the conditions which led to the birth of the PIRA.

But I don't think anyone with a grasp of British history and their incompetent foreign policy, would be surprised by their gloves coming off. This is after all a nation which gave us The Concentration camp during the Second Boer war. Long before the Nazi's even got there.

Fratton Fred

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Undermine what state? A state where for decades the Catholic population was treated like dogs? Where the B-Specials made the Brown Shirts look like school boys. If John Hume and the Civil Rights movement had of been listened to at the beginning. We would not have had the conditions which led to the birth of the PIRA.

But I don't think anyone with a grasp of British history and their incompetent foreign policy, would be surprised by their gloves coming off. This is after all a nation which gave us The Concentration camp during the Second Boer war. Long before the Nazi's even got there.

You talk about British hypocrisy, but are we not supposed to forget the past and vote for an ex terrorist to be the next president?

indioblack

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Undermine what state? A state where for decades the Catholic population was treated like dogs? Where the B-Specials made the Brown Shirts look like school boys. If John Hume and the Civil Rights movement had of been listened to at the beginning. We would not have had the conditions which led to the birth of the PIRA.

But I don't think anyone with a grasp of British history and their incompetent foreign policy, would be surprised by their gloves coming off. This is after all a nation which gave us The Concentration camp during the Second Boer war. Long before the Nazi's even got there.

It would be little comfort to those who died in the camps in the South African War but there was an outcry regarding the Boer internees, pressure applied to the British government, Emily Hobhouse for example, and the report of the Fawcett Commission which led to a reduction of mortality rates.
The camp system of the Third Reich only came to an end with the advance of the Allied armies.

I've no argument with the aspirations of the Civil Rights movement.
And I suspect few morn the passing of the B-Specials.

snafuk35

The main point you are missing from the above, is of course British hypocrisy. They claimed to be bastion of freedom and democracy, yet their actions during the Troubles were anything but.

It was a war. Do you think the IRA should have been given an advantage or something? The Brits would have been idiots if they played fair. If loyalists were attacking the Republic of Ireland do you think we would have hesitated to the same thing? We would have dealt with loyalists the same way the Brits dealt with republicans.

Is was the dirtiest of dirtiest wars, but what stands out were the illegal actions of a supposedly democratic nation.

Rubbish. The Brits had to do what they had to do the same way the IRA did.

The IRA never claimed to be a Florence Nightingale organisation

Rubbish. Yes they did.

the British government on the other hand were utter hypocrites

All sides were utter hypocrites. Do you think amidst a war either sides is going to admit to their hypocrisy? Get real would ya?

The chilling thing about Pat Finucane's death was it was not just a Loyalist assassination. British intelligence were heavily involved, they knew what was coming and could have prevented his death.

And the Republic of Ireland with a nod and a wink from the Irish government gave safe sanctuary to the IRA. Where do you think on the run IRA members got a bed and board. In Uncle Pat and Aunty Mary's house that's where. The same people who daubed themselves with holy water and said the rosary in public.

The infamous British agent Brian Nelson, being the chief stoker and organiser at the time.

And no IRA commander was notorious?

Loylistist groups but particularly the UFF/UDA, were on many occasions nothing more that an execution squad for their intelligence masters.

What do you think the IRA were? Altarboys? It was kill or be killed back then.

Anyway this is getting side tracked as Wolfe Tone rightly predicted. So where is the line for all you legal eagles?

There is no line. That's for bearded academics to play with in philosophy and sociology and politics departments. Wars are fought by rough men while they sleep soundly in their beds.

trashcan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You talk about British hypocrisy, but are we not supposed to forget the past and vote for an ex terrorist to be the next president?

Don't think anyone is seriously expecting people to forget the past. Might be an idea to move on though, don't you think ? And no one is "supposed" to vote for an ex terrorist either. People are supposed to vote for whoever the hell they want, and if their conscience allows them to vote for MMcG then so be it. I sometimes wonder, would some people be more comfortable if McGuinness was still leading an active IRA ? Weren't people trying to get Sinn Fein into "normal" politics for years, and isn't it a good thing that they are finally there ?

And on British hypocrisy, they were the ones who always denied there was a war and maintained that the IRA were common criminals, so if they were engaging in the kind of dirty tricks claimed, included helping to have solicitors murdered, then it takes the high moral ground completely away from them. That's the point. (Murder is murder after all, as Maggie T might have said.)

snafuk35

And on British hypocrisy, they were the ones who always denied there was a war and maintained that the IRA were common criminals, so if they were engaging in the kind of dirty tricks claimed, included helping to have solicitors murdered, then it takes the high moral ground completely away from them. That's the point. (Murder is murder after all, as Maggie T might have said.)

That's rubbish. You think any government in the world is going to admit they are fighting fire with fire? At the moment are unapologetically knocking off Al-Qaeda leaders. The British government could have only dreamed of having the same carte blanche that Obama has today to knock off the baddies.
There's no point the IRA and their supporters complaining when the Brits did to them what they were doing to the Brits.
In public the Brits would play the weeping violins but they hit back a hard as they could. The SAS were given a green light and the politicians and lawyers would smooth over the cracks.
Pat Finucane did the same service for the IRA.
They would bomb, shoot and murder and call themselves soldiers and Finucane and others would make a show of defending the IRA as common criminals before the law. It was an effective tactic so the Brits just knocked off Finucane and knocked off IRA members without bothering to arrest them in the first place. No point in whinging about that since republican groups had no qualms about knocking off Justice Gibson or Airey Neave.

PeakOutput

snafuk35 wrote: »

That's rubbish. You think any government in the world is going to admit they are fighting fire with fire? At the moment are unapologetically knocking off Al-Qaeda leaders. The British government could have only dreamed of having the same carte blanche that Obama has today to knock off the baddies.
There's no point the IRA and their supporters complaining when the Brits did to them what they were doing to the Brits.
In public the Brits would play the weeping violins but they hit back a hard as they could. The SAS were given a green light and the politicians and lawyers would smooth over the cracks.
Pat Finucane did the same service for the IRA.
They would bomb, shoot and murder and call themselves soldiers and Finucane and others would make a show of defending the IRA as common criminals before the law. It was an effective tactic so the Brits just knocked off Finucane and knocked off IRA members without bothering to arrest them in the first place. No point in whinging about that since republican groups had no qualms about knocking off Justice Gibson or Airey Neave.

While I agree with most of what you said the only problem I have with that reasoning is that a state has laws and stands for something. If they truly believe in those laws and the principles behind the laws then they must follow those laws all of them not just when it suits them. I believe that is probably the point the other poster was trying to make when he was talking about british hypocrisy.

If one of the stated beliefs of a society is we will defend ourselves using any means necessary and no matter what the cost then that is fine, make that clear and carry on. If one of the stated beliefs of a society is the rule of law and order and following enforcement of that law no matter what then they should do that.

The law of the land is that everyone no matter what is innocent until proven guilty and they are all entitled to legal representation. as long as pat finucane was operating within the confines of the law himself, however unsavory that may be, he was doing nothing that deserved execution and he himself had a right to expect the full protection of the state he was in.

Fratton Fred

trashcan wrote: »

Don't think anyone is seriously expecting people to forget the past. Might be an idea to move on though, don't you think ? And no one is "supposed" to vote for an ex terrorist either. People are supposed to vote for whoever the hell they want, and if their conscience allows them to vote for MMcG then so be it. I sometimes wonder, would some people be more comfortable if McGuinness was still leading an active IRA ? Weren't people trying to get Sinn Fein into "normal" politics for years, and isn't it a good thing that they are finally there ?

And on British hypocrisy, they were the ones who always denied there was a war and maintained that the IRA were common criminals, so if they were engaging in the kind of dirty tricks claimed, included helping to have solicitors murdered, then it takes the high moral ground completely away from them. That's the point. (Murder is murder after all, as Maggie T might have said.)

The hypocrisy comes in when people expect the other side to play by different rules to them and then complains when they don't, whilst defending their tactics. As I said, I don't think either side in the troubles can claim the moral high ground.

The use of history is done so very conveniently (and often completely without context).

Fratton Fred

PeakOutput wrote: »

While I agree with most of what you said the only problem I have with that reasoning is that a state has laws and stands for something. If they truly believe in those laws and the principles behind the laws then they must follow those laws all of them not just when it suits them. I believe that is probably the point the other poster was trying to make when he was talking about british hypocrisy.

If one of the stated beliefs of a society is we will defend ourselves using any means necessary and no matter what the cost then that is fine, make that clear and carry on. If one of the stated beliefs of a society is the rule of law and order and following enforcement of that law no matter what then they should do that.

The law of the land is that everyone no matter what is innocent until proven guilty and they are all entitled to legal representation. as long as pat finucane was operating within the confines of the law himself, however unsavory that may be, he was doing nothing that deserved execution and he himself had a right to expect the full protection of the state he was in.

Very true. Very naïve, but very true.

There are sadly people all over these islands saying the same thing about their murdered loved ones as well.

Son Of A Vidic

snafuk35 wrote: »

It was a war. Do you think the IRA should have been given an advantage or something? The Brits would have been idiots if they played fair.

Give the IRA an advantage? Oh the British certainly were not idiots, you probably are not aware of the following fact. Apparently 90% of IRA operations targeting British forces in the North, had to aborted due to the close proximity of civilians in the area. The British Army themselves don’t dispute that fact and British use of civilian cover was a well practiced art.

snafuk35 wrote: »

If loyalists were attacking the Republic of Ireland do you think we would have hesitated to the same thing? We would have dealt with loyalists the same way the Brits dealt with republicans.

Oh ‘Loyalists’ did attack the Republic, their bombs came in quite handy for rushing through some panicked draconian measures in the Dáil.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The IRA never claimed to be a Florence Nightingale organisation

The reply is more amazing stuff.........

snafuk35 wrote: »

Rubbish. Yes they did.

Can you find where on the record it is stated that the IRA said “We are a Florence Nightingale organisation.” Because that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

snafuk35 wrote: »

All sides were utter hypocrites. Do you think amidst a war either sides is going to admit to their hypocrisy? Get real would ya?

Get real? That’s more a case of self-diagnosis on your part, judging by what I have read. Following the pattern of many Guerrilla wars that end with a peaceful resolution. The government side usually speaks out of both side of their mouths. Or to make it clearer for you, they espoused democracy while practising brutality. The IRA were never under any illusion about what the British were capable off.

snafuk35 wrote: »

And the Republic of Ireland with a nod and a wink from the Irish government gave safe sanctuary to the IRA.

So are you now saying that successive Irish Governments supported and accommodated the IRA? Because that really doesn’t even deserve a reply, it’s so laughable to say the very least.

snafuk35 wrote: »

And no IRA commander was notorious?

Of course, indeed many were feared by their enemies. But what has any ‘IRA Commander’ got to do with the Pat Finucane case? Have you even any idea what this thread was about?

snafuk35 wrote: »

What do you think the IRA were? Altarboys? It was kill or be killed back then.

Again you’re on about the IRA, where did I state or imply that anyone were altar boys? I mentioned that Loyalist groups were heavily infiltrated and influenced by British intelligence and were a useful tool for extra judicial killings. But then you probably haven’t any idea what I’m talking.

snafuk35 wrote: »

There is no line. That's for bearded academics to play with in philosophy and sociology and politics departments. Wars are fought by rough men while they sleep soundly in their beds.

Again a total failure to understand clear English, this is what I said.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Anyway this is getting side tracked as Wolfe Tone rightly predicted. So where is the line for all you legal eagles?

My quote is a clear attempt to get a legal perspective involved in the thread. So what are you on about now? Since you’re not long on this site, maybe you need a bit more time to understand what an original post and thread topic is. Reading posts properly is always a useful tool to master. Anyway OP, I apologies for contributing another post that does not address your initial question.

Wolfe Tone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Eh, you might be right... when it was reported I thought it'd be better off in Politics, but now I see your point.

Looks like I was right! :pac:

Son Of A Vidic

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You talk about British hypocrisy, but are we not supposed to forget the past and vote for an ex terrorist to be the next president?

We are indeed supposed to forget the past and I have said it many time on this site myself. However, the OP initially highlighted the Pat Finucane case. Therefore, if you look at my posts they are clearly relevant to conditions that existed on the ground in 1989.

The presidential candidate may be an ex-terrorist to many and a freedom fighter to many others. But such labelling has put this country where it is has been for long enough.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The hypocrisy comes in when people expect the other side to play by different rules to them and then complains when they don't, whilst defending their tactics.

Having lived through the Troubles myself. I really can say I can't ever remember the IRA complaining that the British were using 'Big meanies tactics'. But I do remember the British repeatedly denying that there even was a war, yet they ruled the most heavily militarised part of the planet.
They spoke of democracy and condemned the IRA. Whilst simultaneously conducting a savage, illicit war and breaching every Human Rights convention
in the process.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As I said, I don't think either side in the troubles can claim the moral high ground.

I agree, I think both sides of the conflict have acknowledged this fact and longed moved on.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The use of history is done so very conveniently (and often completely without context).

Indeed and if it is not written by the victors, then never by an objective hand.

JustinDee

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Apparently 90% of IRA operations targeting British forces in the North, had to aborted due to the close proximity of civilians in the area

What utter rubbish.

mongoman

JustinDee wrote: »

What utter rubbish.

That constitutes a reply? What a joke, You clearly need to do more research on the matter. Surely on AH type post should belong in AH.

Son Of A Vidic

mongoman wrote: »

That constitutes a reply? What a joke, You clearly need to do more research on the matter. Surely on AH type post should belong in AH.

Mongoman, pay no attention to it because I wouldn't lower myself.

Fratton Fred

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

We are indeed supposed to forget the past and I have said it many time on this site myself. However, the OP initially highlighted the Pat Finucane case. Therefore, if you look at my posts they are clearly relevant to conditions that existed on the ground in 1989.

The presidential candidate may be an ex-terrorist to many and a freedom fighter to many others. But such labelling has put this country where it is has been for long enough.



Having lived through the Troubles myself. I really can say I can't ever remember the IRA complaining that the British were using 'Big meanies tactics'. But I do remember the British repeatedly denying that there even was a war, yet they ruled the most heavily militarised part of the planet.
They spoke of democracy and condemned the IRA. Whilst simultaneously conducting a savage, illicit war and breaching every Human Rights convention
in the process.



I agree, I think both sides of the conflict have acknowledged this fact and longed moved on.




Indeed and if it is not written by the victors, then never by an objective hand.

Why mention the Boer war then, that was 1889 not 1989.

Maybe the IRA did not cry about the British Army's heavy handed tactics, but then they had other people to do that for them. This thread, after all, is about a man who spoke out about shoot to kill policies....

Son Of A Vidic

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why mention the Boer war then, that was 1889 not 1989.

Actually you are wrong, I did not mention the Boer War in my post. I did however make a clear reference to the Second Boer War which started in 1899. If people could only bother to read posts properly, it would save so much hassle around here.

So here is the context it was used in.

indioblack wrote: »

But if you're in the business of trying to undermine or fragment a state, don't be suprised if, occaisionally, they take the gloves off too.

My reply...

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

But I don't think anyone with a grasp of British history and their incompetent foreign policy, would be surprised by their gloves coming off. This is after all a nation which gave us The Concentration camp during the Second Boer war. Long before the Nazi's even got there.

So when indioblack mentioned gloves coming off. My post emphasised it was not the first time the British had taken their gloves off. The Second Boer War was used as a historical reference to illustrate this point. Maybe now you can see the context of its use and the irrelevance of your question.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread, after all, is about a man who spoke out about shoot to kill policies....

It is indeed and what have you contributed to the subject matter? Because you have made no attempt to address any of the OP's question. The OP asked us several question which I addressed in my first post in this thread. So why state the obvious, when you haven't even addressed the subject matter?

snafuk35

PeakOutput wrote: »

While I agree with most of what you said the only problem I have with that reasoning is that a state has laws and stands for something.

So what? The only rule of war is win or lose.

If they truly believe in those laws and the principles behind the laws then they must follow those laws all of them not just when it suits them.

:rolleyes: What do you think states have been doing since the beginning of time?

I believe that is probably the point the other poster was trying to make when he was talking about british hypocrisy.

No he was implying one rule for the IRA and another for the Brits.
Sorry but war aint fair.

If one of the stated beliefs of a society is we will defend ourselves using any means necessary and no matter what the cost then that is fine, make that clear and carry on.

No democratic leader is ever going to state that openly.

If one of the stated beliefs of a society is the rule of law and order and following enforcement of that law no matter what then they should do that.

If states can save the lives of thousands of their citizens by knocking off a few people nobody will miss they will do it.

The law of the land is that everyone no matter what is innocent until proven guilty and they are all entitled to legal representation.

:rolleyes: We only have rights because it is profitable to the powers to be. When it no longer is profitable then our rights will be taken away by the strong.

as long as pat finucane was operating within the confines of the law himself, however unsavory that may be, he was doing nothing that deserved execution and he himself had a right to expect the full protection of the state he was in.

:rolleyes: That is so naive I had to pinch myself before I reread it. Do you really think any government in the world wouldn't kill a lawyer who is getting its enemies off the hook so they can continue to attack its security forces?

trashcan

snafuk35 wrote: »

No he was implying one rule for the IRA and another for the Brits.
Sorry but war aint fair.

No I wasn't. I was pointing out that it was the British Government who claim they were acting on a different basis from the IRA. They were claiming they were merely upholding the rule of law. Sure, War isn't fair, but the point is the British Government never accepted that they were in a war. If that's not hypocrisy I don't know what is. Oh, and while I'm back here, you seem to have mistakenly viewed the points I made as some sort of support for the IRA. They weren't. Does the fact that I point out the British Govt failings automatically make me a Provo supporter ? If you are happy for the British Government to be judged by the same standards as the Provos then fair enough.
I actually agree with Fratton Fred when he says that both sides share some blame. The one thing I'm sure we can all agree on is that it's a good thing that the worst of it is over now.

Sunnyisland

Has this any significance to this very interesting thread

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1007/finucanep.html


The widow of murdered Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane is to have talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron about the family's demand for a full independent inquiry.
Downing Street is believed to be considering agreeing to some form of investigative tribunal.
However, Geraldine Finucane said they would settle for nothing less than a probe which was public, effective and independent.
She is also due to meet the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, at the talks in Downing Street next Tuesday.
Mr Paterson said this week that the British government would make an announcement "soon" about the Finucane case, which he described as "complex and difficult".
Mr Finucane was shot as he sat eating a Sunday meal at home, wounding his wife in the process. The couple's three children witnessed the 1989 attack.
There were allegations that some members of the security forces collaborated with loyalist paramilitaries to the extent that they could have stopped the killing.
Retired Canadian judge Peter Cory was appointed by the British and Irish governments to examine allegations of collusion surrounding the Finucane and other controversial killings.
He recommended a public inquiry into Mr Finucane's death, as well as inquiries into the murders of Portadown, Co Armagh, Catholic Robert Hamill; solicitor Rosemary Nelson and Loyalist Volunteer Force leader Billy Wright, shot dead by republicans at the high-security Maze Prison. The three other inquiries have already been held.
Loyalist Ken Barrett, 41, was sentenced at Belfast Crown Court to life for Mr Finucane's murder, after admitting his part in the killing.
Geraldine Finucane said the family was not prepared to settle for any form of inquiry.
"How the process operates is just as important as the establishment of one," Mrs Finucane said.
"An inquiry that is not public, effective, independent or fully prepared to allow my family to participate to the maximum extent is not an inquiry worth having."
The British government has been seeking a way of dealing with the past which acknowledges the hurt suffered while avoiding lengthy and expensive investigations like the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday.
Mrs Finucane said: "I believe that it is a mistake to ignore cases of serious concern just because they are in the past.
"I believe the only way our society can move forward into a peaceful future is by examining the controversies of our past and exposing them fully for all to see.
"I believe this creates foundations of confidence, upon which lasting peace can be built."

JustinDee

mongoman wrote: »

That constitutes a reply? What a joke, You clearly need to do more research on the matter. Surely on AH type post should belong in AH.

If you're going to come out with a campus-style 'fact', then back it up. Don't just whirl out convenient supposition with a line like that. The onus is on you to prove what you say, if you wish to be seen as credible.
I don't know how old you are but forgive me or anyone for being skeptical on such a ridiculous figure.

90% of 'operations' indeed. Based on what? "The Barstool Republican's Guide to De Troubles'?

Fratton Fred

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Actually you are wrong, I did not mention the Boer War in my post. I did however make a clear reference to the Second Boer War which started in 1899. If people could only bother to read posts properly, it would save so much hassle around here.

So here is the context it was used in.



My reply...



So when indioblack mentioned gloves coming off. My post emphasised it was not the first time the British had taken their gloves off. The Second Boer War was used as a historical reference to illustrate this point. Maybe now you can see the context of its use and the irrelevance of your question.




It is indeed and what have you contributed to the subject matter? Because you have made no attempt to address any of the OP's question. The OP asked us several question which I addressed in my first post in this thread. So why state the obvious, when you haven't even addressed the subject matter?

Aah, the second boer war was only 90 years prior to the troubles, so that makes it relevant then I suppose. Sorry, but it is the same tired old stuff, anything can be justified because of (insert appropriate piece of British history here).

The points I would make have been made by others. Pat Finucane, as with all lawyers and those in the legal system, should have been protected in order for them to do their job impartially. Unfortunately that wasn't the case and I say again, neither side can claim the moral high ground.

SF seem to think we should forgive and forget, after all, they saw fit to give a well paid job to someone who killed innocent people whilst attempting to kill a magistrate, so maybe we should all follow their lead.

maccored

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread, after all, is about a man who spoke out about shoot to kill policies....

Yes he did. If the british ADMITTED to their shoot to kill policies, rather than denying they were doing such things and pretending to be saints, then no-one would have been complaining. At least the IRA recognised it as a war.

Son Of A Vidic

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah, the second boer war was only 90 years prior to the troubles, so that makes it relevant then I suppose.

Still unable to read and understand the context of my posts I see. Despite my attempt to make it even clearer for you. Oh well, I really haven't the the time to start posting in Ladybird book format to be honest.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

SF seem to think we should forgive and forget

We can be only be grateful that all the protagonist involved in the conflict are not stuck in the past like yourself. Thankfully the British, Loyalists and Republicans all moved from their entrenched positions to reach a peaceful resolution of the conflict. All have acknowledged and accepted the part they played in the conflict. Maybe it is time for you to step out of the Eighties and enter the 21st century perhaps.

maccored

i find its the ones who are stuck in the past who have very little actual knowledge of what went on in the first place.

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

SF seem to think we should forgive and forget, after all, they saw fit to give a well paid job to someone who killed innocent people whilst attempting to kill a magistrate, so maybe we should all follow their lead.

Fred, I think you should know, the british were streets ahead when it came to giving well paid jobs to killers, Para Lee Glegg, springs to mind after his murder of two young people,
also General Mike Jackson, for his good work on bloody sunday.

snafuk35

TOMASJ wrote: »

Fred, I think you should know, the british were streets ahead when it came to giving well paid jobs to killers, Para Lee Glegg, springs to mind after his murder of two young people,
also General Mike Jackson, for his good work on bloody sunday.

Lee Clegg opened fire on a car he believed contained IRA members. The car had crashed through a RUC and British Army checkpoint in the middle of a war zone in the dead of night. The teenage idiots who died had to have known the risk they were taking by joyriding. What Clegg did was no different than what any soldier would do in any other part of the world. Tragic but this is what happens in war.

Michael Jackson was not a General on Bloody Sunday. He was low level commander at the time - I believe he was a Captain at the time charge of one of the companies of the Para battalion deployed. The majority of the actual shooting was committed by Lance Corporal F and three of his men in a four man 'brick'. A rifle squad is made up of two or three bricks, a platoon is three or four squads and three or four platoon is a company. Jackson would not have had direct command over F and his three men. Between them they accounted for most of the deaths and wounding that day and F himself killed at least four of the victims. The majority of the hundreds of troops who served that day in Derry did not shoot anyone. F and his three subordinates deliberately committed cold-blooded murder by disobeying orders to only fire when fired upon and by ignoring an order to ceasefire.

The crime Jackson and his superiors at time were guilty of was knowingly covering up the actions of their men. That was inexcusable but they were not guilt of the murders that day. At least four of the enlisted men were responsible.

Before you make comments on historical events why don't you go and read about the actual facts of what happened before you go off on a mad rant?

Einhard

I think there should be a full and transparent into Finucane's murder, and others like it. However, in the past few weeks, SF supporters have been repeating ad nauseum in relation to Martin McGuinness, that it's time to move on/forget the past/let bygones be bygones etc. It strikes as a tad hypocritical to demand an inquiry into the wrongdoings of one side, while declaring that we all forget about those of the other.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

I think there should be a full and transparent into Finucane's murder, and others like it. However, in the past few weeks, SF supporters have been repeating ad nauseum in relation to Martin McGuinness, that it's time to move on/forget the past/let bygones be bygones etc. It strikes as a tad hypocritical to demand an inquiry into the wrongdoings of one side, while declaring that we all forget about those of the other.

Thats right, just ignore how SF have long been calling for a truth and reconciliation forum in which there is no hierarchy of victims.

Sunnyisland

It seems a lot of people here would like to see investigations and enquires, as long as they are all directed at Republicans as in IRA.

Liam Byrne

realies wrote: »

It seems a lot of people here would like to see investigations and enquires, as long as they are all directed at Republicans as in IRA.

It seems a lot of people on here would like to see the atrocities of the past examined and questioned as long as none of those questions are not directed at Martin McGuinness.

Personally I'd be happy with both being treated equally, and since McGuinness is running for election in my country and I'd therefore want to know all about his past, that would involve a full investigation into both supposed "sides" (otherwise known as the one "side" - the side that chose violence).

But an investigation is useless unless those responsible are held accountable.

We've got the farcical sityeeashun at the moment where SF object to The Queen of England coming here because of a VERY tentative "responsibility" for the actions of the British Army and yet demand proof when we object to McGuinness based on the exact same issues.

The day the double-standards stop is the day we know that SF have copped on and started to change their objectionable mindset.

Alopex

The enquiries are a waste of time. They're never properly independently investigated.

The same thing will happen as with Rosemary Nelson, millions to be spent then some hint that there may or may not have been collusion, but no proof that there was.

Its obvious he was killed for political reasons by the state and they will have made sure there's no evidence left behind to prove that.

Look at Bloody Sunday, everyone knew they were simply innocent protesters shot by the army. The ones who say otherwise are in denial and the Saville report made no odds to them.

These enquiries are a completely pointless exercise.

Delancey

Alopex makes a very valid point above , these inquiries are proving very costly and at the end of the day are not really throwing much new light on these past events - look at the 2 inquiries completed so far :

Billy Wright - the report was highly critical of Prison Service management but said it could find no evidence of state collusion in his murder.

Rosemary Nelson - again the report was highly critical of the RUC and said it had failed Ms. Nelson but again said it could find no evidence of collusion.

Robert Hamill - this inquiry has been suspended after a former RUC reservist was charged with offences after evidence was uncovered by the enquiry. Regardless of the outcome of any criminal proceedings in this case I am not aware of any suggestions that this was a situation other than a ' local ' matter , by that I mean there was no ' high level ' involvement.

The problem is that no enquiry is going to uncover written evidence of collusion , no written notes will be kept saying '' spoke to A and told him to kill B '' , lots of allegations though little hard evidence to prove them.
It is known and accepted that collusion occured ( the Stephens Inquiry saw to that ) just how much can be gained from drilling into individual cases at huge cost is debatable.

I would agree that a truth and reconciliation type process would be a good thing but I doubt if it will happen.

I don't think anyone can fault the British Governmemnts lack of appetite for more Savill type enquiries , at £200 million + it made a lot of lawyers millionaires but didn't really tell us a lot that we didn't aready know.