the murder of pat finucane

Sunnyisland

Hi Delancey and what about your opinions on the original OPs question ? Just wondering here.

Einhard

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

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

Come off it Wolfe. SF call for "truth", yet the world and its mother knows that Martin McGuinness didn't leave the IRA in 1974 as he claims.

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.

I'd argue that people want a bit of consistency. So, if we're really to move one, let bygones be bygones etc, then it should apply to crimes and atrocities on every side. One can't have a situation, which many SF acolytes seem to want, whereby investigations are demanded into allegations of British criminality, while those who query McG's role in the IRA are told to stop living in the past. All a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Delancey

realies wrote: »

Hi Delancey and what about your opinions on the original OPs question ? Just wondering here.

My view is that everyone is entitled to the best defence possible and their legal team should do all they ( legally ) can to help - regardless of whether the accused is charged with murder , shop lifting , child abuse , etc.
All Police should respect the position that puts lawyers in and while they may view them in a 'guarded ' way they should nonetheless recognise them as professionals doing a job.

My own view is that Pat Finucane's murder involved collusion but I have doubts that an enquiry ( if ever held ) will prove this.

blahfckingblah

Einhard wrote: »

Come off it Wolfe. SF call for "truth", yet the world and its mother knows that Martin McGuinness didn't leave the IRA in 1974 as he claims.

can you please tell me "how" you know he didn't leave the IRA in 1974? where you yourself in the IRA along side him since then? Funny how every thread nowadays turns into a "but Martin McGuinness said/done...." thread, without a shread of evidence to back it up. I could start claiming that Gay Michell was a member of the UVF until the mid ninetys and have the same credibility to the claim.

snafuk35

blahfckingblah wrote: »

can you please tell me "how" you know he didn't leave the IRA in 1974? where you yourself in the IRA along side him since then? Funny how every thread nowadays turns into a "but Martin McGuinness said/done...." thread, without a shread of evidence to back it up. I could start claiming that Gay Michell was a member of the UVF until the mid ninetys and have the same credibility to the claim.

How do you know McGuinness was ever in the IRA or indeed if he was ever a member of Sinn Fein? He says he was a member of SF but how can you be so sure? He says he was a member of the IRA before 1974 but how do you really know that?

blahfckingblah

http://www.sinnfein.ie/assembly-members

You see he was convicted in 1973 in a court of law for IRA activity, aswell as that in court he proclaimed his membership.

dienbienphu

snafuk35 wrote: »

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?

assisting in the coverup of a murder makes you just as guilty as the murderer

Alopex

blahfckingblah wrote: »

http://www.sinnfein.ie/assembly-members

You see he was convicted in 1973 in a court of law for IRA activity, aswell as that in court he proclaimed his membership.

The logical conclusion of your points on the "how do you know" issue, is that you will only accept personal admission from MMG or a conviction as evidence.

Given the nature of the PIRA, and the discussions between them and the British government, you know that is an impossibility. The rest of us look at liklihoods based on various sources.

By your logic, no one should be allowed claim Lenny Murphy was the leader of the Shankill Butchers.

blahfckingblah

Alopex wrote: »

The logical conclusion of your points on the "how do you know" issue, is that you will only accept personal admission from MMG or a conviction as evidence.

Given the nature of the PIRA, and the discussions between them and the British government, you know that is an impossibility. The rest of us look at liklihoods based on various sources.

By your logic, no one should be allowed claim Lenny Murphy was the leader of the Shankill Butchers.

hmm you make a valid point there, although I know very very little of the shankill butchers (reading about what happened makes me sick).

Einhard

blahfckingblah wrote: »

can you please tell me "how" you know he didn't leave the IRA in 1974? where you yourself in the IRA along side him since then? Funny how every thread nowadays turns into a "but Martin McGuinness said/done...." thread, without a shread of evidence to back it up.

There is plenty of evidence that points to the fact that MMG was a member of the IRA well past 1974. The former Commissioner of the Gardai stated this was the case, several ministers for justice, former members of the IRA and other Republicans, a number of intelligence agencies, and a series of well respected investigative reporters.

Against this, we have MMG's own word. I know you'll state that all the above sources are comprimised to various extents, but then so is MMG- he's obviously not unbiased- and he also happens to be a murderer/to have sanctioned murder.

On the balance of the available evidence, I think MMG was a member of the IRA well after 1974. What's more, I think that most of the dyed in the wool SF supporters here believe so too, but won't say it because it's been deemed as politically negative.

BTW: It strikes me as odd that SF pursue a position of legitimising the IRA, while at the same time seeking to distance its leadership from that very organisation. If the IRA was not a shameful orgnisation, why do Adams and McGuinness et al seem so obviously ashamed to be associated with it?

I base my opinion on an open and unbiased reading of the evidence that comes my way.

I could start claiming that Gay Michell was a member of the UVF until the mid ninetys and have the same credibility to the claim.

Don't be absurd.

walrusgumble

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

Pat Finnuance also represented Loyalists.

They look at the fact that his brothers were in the IRA and add one plus one and got five. Has even the British admitted that he had involvement?

walrusgumble

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?

I don't think people of this country need to be spoken to like that when your country on 2 further occassions voted for a bone fide war criminal as Prime Minister, thus undoing all the great work he did in the North. As for McGuinness, he won't win the Presidency, so you can go back to sleep. Your also forgetting why the IRA got some much publicity and support in the first place. They were a dead duck before the successive British Governments acted in the war they did.

walrusgumble

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.

Have Sinn Fein said they don't want a truth and reconcillation proceedings. Only thing I am aware of, this that they want an Independent (ie not British and not Irish) group to do it.

You are also convenietely forgetting, that the Finucane family themselves, with or without Sinn Fein assistance, has been pushing for this for decades.

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

Your evidence of this is where? An independent investigator is all that is being sought, because both the British and Irish groups clearly don't want to be independent and impartial. They have clearly made their minds up already.

Liam Byrne

walrusgumble wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

Your evidence of this is where? An independent investigator is all that is being sought, because both the British and Irish groups clearly don't want to be independent and impartial. They have clearly made their minds up already.

Evidence of what ?

walrusgumble

Einhard wrote: »

Come off it Wolfe. SF call for "truth", yet the world and its mother knows that Martin McGuinness didn't leave the IRA in 1974 as he claims.



I'd argue that people want a bit of consistency. So, if we're really to move one, let bygones be bygones etc, then it should apply to crimes and atrocities on every side. One can't have a situation, which many SF acolytes seem to want, whereby investigations are demanded into allegations of British criminality, while those who query McG's role in the IRA are told to stop living in the past. All a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Be honest. The public anger in the South, how angry were people when the IRA did their evil deeds compared with the attacks of the Loyalist. Don't recall too many damning attacks on the Loyalists by the likes of Fintan O'Toole, Kevin Myers, Conor Cruise O'Brien (well, a bit exceptional) or the papers editors (except maybe TP Coogan)?

All sides are rather hypocritical if you ask me.

Liam Byrne

walrusgumble wrote: »

Einhard wrote: »

Come off it Wolfe. SF call for "truth", yet the world and its mother knows that Martin McGuinness didn't leave the IRA in 1974 as he claims.



I'd argue that people want a bit of consistency. So, if we're really to move one, let bygones be bygones etc, then it should apply to crimes and atrocities on every side. One can't have a situation, which many SF acolytes seem to want, whereby investigations are demanded into allegations of British criminality, while those who query McG's role in the IRA are told to stop living in the past. All a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Be honest. The public anger in the South, how angry were people when the IRA did their evil deeds compared with the attacks of the Loyalist. Don't recall too many damning attacks on the Loyalists by the likes of Fintan O'Toole, Kevin Myers, Conor Cruise O'Brien (well, a bit exceptional) or the papers editors (except maybe TP Coogan)?

All sides are rather hypocritical if you ask me.

Of course there's additional public anger when the IRA claimed to be doing it in our name!

If someone murdered a neighbour of yours, you'd be disgusted, right ?

If they then dragged you into the story by pretending they did it for you (even though you never asked and never agreed) are you telling me that you wouldn't be extra pissed off and defensive and distance yourself from the murder ?

Seriously ?

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Evidence of what ?

Sorry, wrong person that I was responding to:o

Einhard

walrusgumble wrote: »

Have Sinn Fein said they don't want a truth and reconcillation proceedings. Only thing I am aware of, this that they want an Independent (ie not British and not Irish) group to do it.

If SF really cared about the truth, they might try telling it themselves. Who knows, the other parties might start following their lead. Only the naive and the partisan find MMG's claims to have left the IRA in 1974 credible.

You are also convenietely forgetting, that the Finucane family themselves, with or without Sinn Fein assistance, has been pushing for this for decades.

I'm all for enquiries. As long as everything is inquired into. As long as one side doesn't declare themselves off limits. As long as people can "inquire" into MMG's past, without being told to move on by SF partisans.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Be honest. The public anger in the South, how angry were people when the IRA did their evil deeds compared with the attacks of the Loyalist. Don't recall too many damning attacks on the Loyalists by the likes of Fintan O'Toole, Kevin Myers, Conor Cruise O'Brien (well, a bit exceptional) or the papers editors (except maybe TP Coogan)?

Yeah, there was no anger over the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

I despise anyone that targetted innocents during the Troubles- Republican, Loyalist, British. The difference though, is that there's no one from the latter groups knocking on my door seeking my vote, or attempting to become head of a state which they previously refused to recognise.

All sides are rather hypocritical if you ask me.

I agree. But the hypocrisy of the Loyalists and the Brits isn't flung in my face every day.

TOMASJ

snafuk35 wrote: »

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?

Funny I remember posters here quarrelling over weather or not there was a War in the North,

Lee Gleg was convicted of Murder in a court in the North and was jailed for murder, him and his buddies knew well who they were firing on,


My point (which you missed or ignored) was he was awarded a well paid job by his friends in the brit establishment, after he was released from jail for the murder of the two kids,

As was the then captain-- later General Jackson after his stint in Derry on bloody sunday

Fratton Fred

walrusgumble wrote: »

I don't think people of this country need to be spoken to like that when your country on 2 further occassions voted for a bone fide war criminal as Prime Minister, thus undoing all the great work he did in the North. As for McGuinness, he won't win the Presidency, so you can go back to sleep. Your also forgetting why the IRA got some much publicity and support in the first place. They were a dead duck before the successive British Governments acted in the war they did.

you have taken my post completely out of context, I posted that in relation to someone (for some unknown reason) bringing up concentration camps in the Boer War.

But hey, nice rant.

Wolfe Tone

It costs 200 million to get the obvious truth and n apology from the Brits it seems.

Einhard

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It costs 200 million to get the obvious truth and n apology from the Brits it seems.

No, it costs 200 million to ensure everyone is entitled due process and their rights under law. They couldn't just coerce people to testify.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

No, it costs 200 million to ensure everyone is entitled due process and their rights under law. They couldn't just coerce people to testify.

Did it reveal anything we didnt know? They could have just said sorry and said the people were innocent and saved 200 million!

We all knew the truth, Bloody Sunday really was that open and shut when it came down to it. Rather handy though that the huge cost is a good excuse not to do any other inquiries.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Did it reveal anything we didnt know? They could have just said sorry and said the people were innocent and saved 200 million!

We all knew the truth, Bloody Sunday really was that open and shut when it came down to it. Rather handy though that the huge cost is a good excuse not to do any other inquiries.

People are entitled to a defence.

McGuinness is entitled to say he left the IRA in 1974, we all know he didn't, but if he feels it's worth keeping up the visage, that's his personal perogative.

snafuk35

TOMASJ wrote: »

Funny I remember posters here quarrelling over weather or not there was a War in the North,

There was a war in the north.

Lee Gleg was convicted of Murder in a court in the North and was jailed for murder, him and his buddies knew well who they were firing on,

No they didn't. A car trying to ram through an army checkpoint would be perceived as a threat in any war zone and the occupants would be taken out.

My point (which you missed or ignored) was he was awarded a well paid job by his friends in the brit establishment, after he was released from jail for the murder of the two kids,

He became a combat medic after he re-entered the army. His job is to provide medical attention to men who have just been shot or wounded by explosion while under enemy fire. Hardly a cushy job. Soldiers in the British Army are paid less than road sweepers.

As was the then captain-- later General Jackson after his stint in Derry on bloody sunday

The point is he was a captain in command of his company. He would have been giving orders to his lieutenants in charge of the three or four platoons in his company. No others were given to shoot rioters. The troops were told to only open fire when fired upon. Corporal F and his three companions clearly disobeyed orders and continued firing after a ceasefire order was relayed over the radio net.

TOMASJ

snafuk35
There was a war in the north.

A lot of your "Thankers" on these posts wont agree with you on that,

No they didn't. A car trying to ram through an army checkpoint would be perceived as a threat in any war zone and the occupants would be taken out.

I think you should take the time to read the account given by the RUC members that were on the scene that night,

also the heroes involved went back to barracks drew a mock-up poster of the car and the two kids and celebrated the killing.

He became a combat medic after he re-entered the army. His job is to provide medical attention to men who have just been shot or wounded by explosion while under enemy fire. Hardly a cushy job. Soldiers in the British Army are paid less than road sweepers.

He was a Murderer given a job by the military, after being found guilty murder, and is now treated by the brit establishment as wronged hero

better than life jail do you not think,

The point is he was a captain in command of his company. He would have been giving orders to his lieutenants in charge of the three or four platoons in his company. No others were given to shoot rioters. The troops were told to only open fire when fired upon. Corporal F and his three companions clearly disobeyed orders and continued firing after a ceasefire order was relayed over the radio net

Was he not the guy that was interviewed by RTE a day or so later and said the brits "only shot gunmen & bombers" if he was in charge of the killers on the day he was as guilty as the faceless cowards who pulled the trigger.

snafuk35

I think you should take the time to read the account given by the RUC members that were on the scene that night

The car sped through the checkpoint and Clegg fired shots into the front of the car and into the back of the car as it fled. He thought at the time the occupant might have been terrorists so he took them out. They weren't unfortunately and that can't be fixed now. These things happen in war.

also the heroes involved went back to barracks drew a mock-up poster of the car and the two kids and celebrated the killing.

Soldiers all over the world celebrate when they kill. Nothing unusual about that.

He was a Murderer given a job by the military, after being found guilty murder, and is now treated by the brit establishment as wronged hero

He appealed the sentence, was cleared of murder and released.

better than life jail do you not think,

Was he not the guy that was interviewed by RTE a day or so later and said the brits "only shot gunmen & bombers" if he was in charge of the killers on the day he was as guilty as the faceless cowards who pulled the trigger.

The incident had not been investigated at the point. The 'guy' was a Lt-Colonel and he had been told by his subordinates that their troops had come under fire from guns and bombs. A commanding officer can only go on what his men tell him they saw. In this case four men in particular led by Lance Corporal F lied about shots and nail bombs.

The Brits at the time assumed the entire city of Derry were schooled by the IRA to incriminate the British Army for propaganda purposes so they naturally enough dismissed any testimony that claimed British troops committed murder.

In war time you can't give a propaganda victory to the enemy so that's why the Brits said that all the dead were bombers and gunmen.

swordofislam

Bobby_Sands wrote:

"Everyone, republican or otherwise, has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small; no one is too old or too young to do something."

In my opinion Finucane was playing his part in the struggle.
Was that legitimate? In my opinion it was.
Was he a combatant? Clearly not.
Was he an innocent? Clearly not.

Am I shocked that the British government was involved in his murder? I am not.

This is shocking only for people who believe that Britain was an honest broker in Northern Ireland.

maccored

snafuk35 wrote: »

The car sped through the checkpoint and Clegg fired shots into the front of the car and into the back of the car as it fled.

You should ask PC Gibson about that - or the Panorama programme on the army's "Shoot to kill" policy.

PC R.W. Gibson stepped out into the road and flicked on his torch. As the car sped towards his position he became aware of gun fire all around him and he dived to the ground. He watched as the car sped down the middle of the road, sparks coming from the tailgate.
Privates Lee Clegg and Barry Aindow, and Lt Andrew Oliver had opened up on the car as it shot towards and passed them. Other soldiers further up the road, including Private Simon Cooper, fired at the car. In all 36 shots were fired, 19 hitting the car. Martin Peake was shot in the head and died instantly; Karen Reilly was shot 3 times in the back and died later.
Clearly realising they had acted hastily, the squaddies quickly moved to cover their tracks. PC Gibson was astonished to hear one shout to Aindow "Get down - you're it". Aindow lay on the floor and the other soldiers stamped on his leg. They were later to falsely claim that the car had struck Aindow.

snafuk35

maccored wrote: »

You should ask PC Gibson about that - or the Panorama programme on the army's "Shoot to kill" policy.

That would happen in all war zones when ordinary soldiers are told to stop and search vehicles.
In Iraq American soldiers were ordered to stop and search vehicles and to open fire if they failed to stop. Suicide bombers had driven through checkpoints and blown up GIs so naturally enough American soldiers took no chances if they had even a sliver of a reason to believe the occupants of cars could insurgents.
So they often opened fire on vehicles that failed to slow - the majority that they killed were just ordinary Iraqis many of whom did not see the checkpoints in time.
The problem was compounded by the fact suicide bombers often abducted families - men, women and children - loaded their vehicles with explosive and sent to them right into American checkpoints.
So even though there were clear rules of engagement you have scared soldiers who don't want to be blown up not taking any chances and better safe than sorry taking out occupants of cars.
That's more or less what happened when Clegg and his men shot dead Peake and Reilly.
British soldiers had only seconds to react to a potential lethal threat.
That's garanteed to result in civilian casualties.

maccored

I do agree with you - as long as its accepted there was a war going on. Unfortunately the british never admitted this and spent the time castigating republicans as criminals and terrorists. at the time of the whole clegg affair, there was a lot of lying and cover up coming from the british government. nothing new there right enough.

I think a lot of people wouldnt have issues with many of the events that happened once the UK government came out, washed it hands clean and admitted there was a war.

snafuk35

Unfortunately the british never admitted this and spent the time castigating republicans as criminals and terrorists.

No government fighting non-state enemies are ever going to call them anything else.

at the time of the whole clegg affair, there was a lot of lying and cover up coming from the british government. nothing new there right enough.

The IRA were lying when they claimed Clegg was a murderer. He was only doing what any soldier anywhere else in the world would. The Brits smoothed it over because no government in the world who are at war are not going to stand up for their own guys.

I think a lot of people wouldnt have issues with many of the events that happened once the UK government came out, washed it hands clean and admitted there was a war.

That's rubbish. They still wanted a united Ireland and they would have demonized the British government some other way.

maccored

well if clegg wasnt a murderer, then neither was anyone in the ira. thats your logic there, not mine.

maccored

snafuk35 wrote: »

That's rubbish. They still wanted a united Ireland and they would have demonized the British government some other way.

No - i dont think thats rubbish at all.

snafuk35

maccored wrote: »

well if clegg wasnt a murderer, then neither was anyone in the ira. thats your logic there, not mine.

If an Irish Army checkpoint was surprised by a car they believed was occupied by loyalist terrorists, Irish soldiers would have shot them dead the same way Lee Clegg killed Peake and Reilly. It's not murder to shoot a vehicle and occupants you think are a threat in a war zone. Grow up.

Wolfe Tone

snafuk35 wrote: »

If an Irish Army checkpoint was surprised by a car they believed was occupied by loyalist terrorists, Irish soldiers would have shot them dead the same way Lee Clegg killed Peake and Reilly. It's not murder to shoot a vehicle and occupants you think are a threat in a war zone. Grow up.

I thought there was no war?

maccored

snafuk35 wrote: »

If an Irish Army checkpoint was surprised by a car they believed was occupied by loyalist terrorists, Irish soldiers would have shot them dead the same way Lee Clegg killed Peake and Reilly. It's not murder to shoot a vehicle and occupants you think are a threat in a war zone. Grow up.

as long as you're admitting it was a war and the IRA were legitimate combatants which makes them as guilt free as the brits. war is war after all. Clegg was obviously a pretty inexperienced soldier all the same. frightened and triggerhappy. you think the BA would have higher standards than that.

Delancey

I note with dissappointment the decision of David Cameron announced today that there will not be a public enquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane.
It was interesting to note however that Cameron acknowledged in a statement that there was state collusion in the killing.

Cameron is suggesting a review of the case files by an independent QC - which really seems to be a repeat of the Judge Corry examination of the case.

snafuk35

maccored wrote: »

as long as you're admitting it was a war and the IRA were legitimate combatants which makes them as guilt free as the brits. war is war after all. Clegg was obviously a pretty inexperienced soldier all the same. frightened and triggerhappy. you think the BA would have higher standards than that.

Any soldier would have done what he did, inexperienced or not. He did his job well taking out two occupants of the car. By refusing to stop they sealed their own fate. It's different than joyriders crashing through a police checkpoint because Northern Ireland was a war zone and different rules applied. This check point was set up to stop IRA members transporting weapons or on their way to kill members of the security forces. The IRA encouraged joyriders who diverted British resources so Clegg discouraged young people from joyriding in future as well as discouraging them from joining the IRA too. All in all he did a top notch job.

In the same way taking out Finucane was tactically sound. It discouraged lawyers with republican sympathies from being too good at their jobs and got more republicans convicted who otherwise would not have been.

Justice Gibson was a legitimate target because he was banging up IRA members so what was good for the goose is good for the gander.

TOMASJ

The car sped through the checkpoint and Clegg fired shots into the front of the car and into the back of the car as it fled. He thought at the time the occupant might have been terrorists so he took them out. They weren't unfortunately and that can't be fixed now. These things happen in war

I remember two armed british soldiers driving at speed into a cortage at an IRA funeral, "they were shot" I suppose that was fair game, using you rationale

Soldiers all over the world celebrate when they kill. Nothing unusual about that.

This check point was set up to stop IRA members transporting weapons or on their way to kill members of the security forces. The IRA encouraged joyriders who diverted British

Is that the case,
the IRA knee-capped a lot of joy riders, do you think the IRA celebrated every time they knee-capped a joyrider? even though "as you claim" the joyriders worked for the IRA

In the same way taking out Finucane was tactically sound. It discouraged lawyers with republican sympathies from being too good at their jobs and got more republicans convicted who otherwise would not have been.

would you apply that logic to the killing of "say" - Airey Neave or Ian Gow

and do you think it would be "tactically sound" if the IRA in your words "took out" the solicitors "who got Glegg off"

andyjo

Delancey wrote: »

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.

+1. And talking of Pat Finucane, did I read somewhere recently that his brothers were in the PIRA, and the reason he was killed was because he was suspected of being in that organisation too, ....and that is why ( in the mind of those who killed him ) he was killed, in order to save other lives / victims of the PIRA, rather than because he represented PIRA people legally ( so they could bomb + shoot again ) ?

Not much point in having more £200 million saville typ[e enquiries when (ex) leaders of the PIRA will not even truthfully say when they left / if they knew the PIRA unit who murdered the Irish army soldier in the early eighties in Leitrim.

TOMASJ

andyjo wrote: »

+1.

And talking of Pat Finucane, did I read somewhere recently that his brothers were in the PIRA, and the reason he was killed was because he was suspected of being in that organisation too, ....and that is why ( in the mind of those who killed him ) he was killed, in order to save other lives / victims of the PIRA, rather than because he represented PIRA people legally ( so they could bomb + shoot again ) ?

He was murdered by the brits for the simple reason that he was the only solicitor back then that had the guts, to stand up to them in the diplock courts,

where little or no evidence could convict an Irish person ,

and no evidence in the world could convict a brit solider, as was the case with all killings they were involved in, regardless of age or sex of the victim.

maccored

snafuk35 wrote: »

The IRA encouraged joyriders who diverted British resources .

they did no such thing - in fact the IRA tried to stop anti social behavious like joyriding. Anyway - glad to see you agree with my point ... even though you managed to avoid addressing it. As you say "what was good for the goose was good for the gander" - and that includes the british army.

In the same way taking out Finucane was tactically sound

No - that was simply the murder of a civilian by government forces. He wasnt part of the IRA.

maccored

andyjo wrote: »

+1. And talking of Pat Finucane, did I read somewhere recently that his brothers were in the PIRA, and the reason he was killed was because he was suspected of being in that organisation too, ....and that is why ( in the mind of those who killed him ) he was killed, in order to save other lives / victims of the PIRA, rather than because he represented PIRA people legally ( so they could bomb + shoot again ) ?

Not much point in having more £200 million saville typ[e enquiries when (ex) leaders of the PIRA will not even truthfully say when they left / if they knew the PIRA unit who murdered the Irish army soldier in the early eighties in Leitrim.

Even if his relations were in the ira, does that give the government a right to kill him? I think not. Nevermind have him killed and then claim to have nothing to do with it.

KeithAFC

The right decision by David Cameron. I think the public are sick and tired of these enquiries and the millions that go towards them.

Noreen1

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.

I agree on all points until the last paragraph.
Surely it is in the interests of humanity to at least try to ensure that there are rules, and that they should be adhered to?

KeithAFC

maccored wrote: »

Even if his relations were in the ira, does that give the government a right to kill him? I think not. Nevermind have him killed and then claim to have nothing to do with it.

Loyalists killed him?

maccored

yes keith, but who was their paymaster? war is war and I understand that, but the chicken**** way the british government goes about things is pretty annoying.

Can'tseeme

KeithAFC wrote: »

Loyalists killed him?

A statement on behalf of Mr Cameron said: "The prime minister expressed his profound sympathy for the family and said it was clear from (the) Stevens and Corey (inquiries) that state collusion had taken place in Mr Finucane's murder and he accepted these conclusions.
"On behalf of the government he apologised to the family.