the murder of pat finucane

Noreen1

snafuk35 wrote: »

If the rules prevent combatants from adopting tactics that will win the war then the rules can go jump.

This is why terrorists and insurgents use terror. A core of a few hundred hardcore individuals with bomb making know how and weapons if they fought in uniform and took on a conventional army head to head would be wiped out.

Instead the IRA targeted civilians and civilian areas, attacked commercial property, kidnapped business people, attacked British soldiers and RUC officers, bombed English pubs, restaurants, the underground, buses, bombed politicians and murdered a member of the Royal Family. They shook the British state to the core.

If they had fought fair they would have been slaughtered.

Also the most effectively loyalist gang in the Troubles were the Shankill Butchers who adopted the tactic of selecting random targets and carving their throats open. They absolutely terrified the Catholic population of Belfast. Their methods were savage but tactically sound. Loyalists murder gangs would pick off random Catholics whenever the IRA launched a successful attack.

The terrorisation of the Catholics in the North played a major role in wearing them down the leadership of the IRA who could see no end in sight and proved the loyalists were never going to give in to a united Ireland.

The British sent the SAS to Northern Ireland to demonstrate to the IRA that they would be rubbed out without mercy law or no law. SAS shot IRA in the head to send a clear message.

Adams was shot and wounded in the early 1980s and that sent a clear message to him that it was either normal politics or a hole in the ground.

So, by that logic, anyone with a gun/knife/bomb, who is prepared to use it can effectively slaughter whoever thay disagree with politically - and you find this acceptable?

snafuk35

Noreen1 wrote: »

So, by that logic, anyone with a gun/knife/bomb, who is prepared to use it can effectively slaughter whoever thay disagree with politically - and you find this acceptable?

No but if it gets the results they want don't be surprised that they use it.

McGuinness and his men slaughtered hundreds of innocent people and it worked for him and apparently a significant portion of the electorate north and south of the border are happy with it or happy to overlook it whatever the case may be.

TOMASJ

snafuk35;74920309

If the two soldiers shot dead their attackers they had every right to.

so if the joyriders had have been armed and killed -Clegg - and his friends they would have had every right to do so,

If an IRA member was sitting at home with his baby on his knee or if he was masked with a gun on his way to kill someone, he was fair game for the simple fact he was an IRA member.

I suppose you think it would be "fair game to kill the baby as well,

Soldiers in every war wouldn't do what they do unless they get pleasure in injuring and killing their enemies.

There was me thinking wars were fought for survival or self-determination, and all along it was for "Pleasure".

It is well known that joyriders or other criminals were put to work to put the British Army off the scent when an operation was going down.

give us a few examples?

Do you think if you were a terrorist that if you could kill MPs and lawyers on the opposite side you wouldn't do it to advance your cause?

are you admitting now "that the british army are terrorists.

Noreen1

snafuk35 wrote: »

No but if it gets the results they want don't be surprised that they use it.

McGuinness and his men slaughtered hundreds of innocent people and it worked for him and apparently a significant portion of the electorate north and south of the border are happy with it or happy to overlook it whatever the case may be.

I'm not overlooking anything - neither murders committed by the IRA, loyalist factions/terrorists nor the British army.

I do, however, note, that where possible, IRA members were jailed for their crimes, whereas the truth of Bloody Sunday, for example, was denied for years, and even where guilt was finally admitted, no soldier was punished.

My personal belief is that murder should be punished.

Where that murder is committed by members of the defence forces, or by terrorists with whom they choose to collude - it should be pursued, and be seen to be pursued, with the same, if not more rigour, than that with which terrorists of whatever denomination were pursued.

Otherwise, the whole notion of a system of justice or rule of law is entirely farcical.

Do you agree?

snafuk35

so if the joyriders had have been armed and killed -Clegg - and his friends they would have had every right to do so,

Well yeah

I suppose you think it would be "fair game to kill the baby as well

Babies grow up to be enemies or to give birth to enemies. That's why children were not spared in past wars.

There was me thinking wars were fought for survival or self-determination, and all along it was for "Pleasure".

It's pleasurable that you survive and your enemies are dead. So yeah it is.

are you admitting now "that the british army are terrorists.

Were the Irish terrified of the Brits? Yup

TOMASJ

snafuk35 wrote: »

Babies grow up to be enemies or to give birth to enemies. That's why children were not spared in past wars.



It's pleasurable that you survive and your enemies are dead. So yeah it is.



Were the Irish terrified of the Brits? Yup

"snafuk35" Your not by any chance an "SAS" hero?

snafuk35

TOMASJ wrote: »

"snafuk35" Your not by any chance an "SAS" hero?

Eh..no. Why?

TOMASJ

snafuk35 wrote: »

Eh..no. Why?

Just seem to have the same attitude, "when it comes murder" especially of babies, to that of an "SAS hero"

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wider Road wrote: »

Why did David Cameron apologise yesterday?

Presumably because it looks pretty clear that there was collusion involved in the murder of Finucane, no?

And civilised people believe that the murder of civilians is wrong.

What do you think should happen now?

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

What do you think should happen now?

Move on and stop looking backwards? There was a war on, innocent people get hurt, there is pain on all sides, no side has a monopoly on suffering, and we'll get nowhere by looking into the past so we need to move on into a better future...

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wider Road wrote: »

What do you think should happen now?

Move on and stop looking backwards? There was a war on, innocent people get hurt, there is pain on all sides, no side has a monopoly on suffering, and we'll get nowhere by looking into the past so we need to move on into a better future...

Going on from this you have no problem with Martin McGuinness's past? Right?

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

Going on from this you have no problem with Martin McGuinness's past? Right?

If I were to be consistent, none at all. Unfortunately, I was using the SF argument here. I personally think there should be a full investigation and punishment of those in the British government who were involved in collusion. I also think there should be a full investigation and punishment of those responsible for terrorism in NI, which would include MMG.

I don't understand how SF tell us to move on WRT IRA atrocities, but demand investigations into murders where collusion may have been involved. We don't know who killed those children in Warrington, even though MMG will know. We don't know who killed Mary Travers. We don't know who killed Joanne Mathers. SF/IRA have all this information and won't tell us. By what right do they demand that the other side of the war gives up all its guilty?

Wolfe Tone

Monty, they wan a truth commission that everyone takes part in on an equal basis...

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wider Road wrote: »

Going on from this you have no problem with Martin McGuinness's past? Right?

If I were to be consistent, none at all. Unfortunately, I was using the SF argument here. I personally think there should be a full investigation and punishment of those in the British government who were involved in collusion. I also think there should be a full investigation and punishment of those responsible for terrorism in NI, which would include MMG.

I don't understand how SF tell us to move on WRT IRA atrocities, but demand investigations into murders where collusion may have been involved. We don't know who killed those children in Warrington, even though MMG will know. We don't know who killed Mary Travers. We don't know who killed Joanne Mathers. SF/IRA have all this information and won't tell us. By what right do they demand that the other side of the war gives up all its guilty?

Many thanks Monty, but I still don't know your opinion on what should happen now regarding the murder of Pat Finacune?
Forget Sinn Fein, what's YOUR opinion?

Monty Burnz

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Monty, they wan a truth commission that everyone takes part in on an equal basis...

That sounds like a reasonable idea - the problem, as I think I suggested before, is trying to get people to participate. The way it worked in SA was that the victims came and testified against the murderers and criminals, and the perpetrators could come and appeal for clemency for their crimes. I don't see that the murderers of (say) Jonathan Bell and Tim Parry will come forward, or the British officers involved in the Finucane murder - and the victims don't know who to point the finger at either.

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

Many thanks Monty, but I still don't know your opinion on what should happen now regarding the murder of Pat Finacune?
Forget Sinn Fein, what's YOUR opinion?

My opinion is that all parties must be treated equally.

votecounts

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 people who thanked this garbage are a disgrace. An innoncent solicitor is killed due to colllusision and you seem to think this is ok.

Wolfe Tone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That sounds like a reasonable idea - the problem, as I think I suggested before, is trying to get people to participate. The way it worked in SA was that the victims came and testified against the murderers and criminals, and the perpetrators could come and appeal for clemency for their crimes. I don't see that the murderers of (say) Jonathan Bell and Tim Parry will come forward, or the British officers involved in the Finucane murder - and the victims don't know who to point the finger at either.

Look at it this way, if things stay the way they are everything will be taken to the grave, with a truth commission a lot of truth will come out. Better than nothing isn't it?

The incentive would be an amnesty, ie they wont get 2 years in jail which is all they would serve under the GFA anyway.

Its a no brainer imo, and I don't know why ordinary people would oppose it, other than perhaps them being against it and suspicious because it is a SF idea.

If its a choice between no truth, and some truth, which is better? I would pick the latter every time because thats what the families want.

Wolfe Tone

votecounts wrote: »

The people who thanked this garbage are a disgrace. An innoncent solicitor is killed due to colllusision and you seem to think this is ok.

If the Brits came out and said as much things would be a lot better, but they still maintain they were whiter than white.

Monty Burnz

votecounts wrote: »

The people who thanked this garbage are a disgrace. An innoncent solicitor is killed due to colllusision and you seem to think this is ok.

But, from a war perspective, isn't he at least as guilty as a woman collecting census forms, the daughter of a judge, or a guy working in the canteen on an army base? Surely more guilty, as he's actively helping enemy 'soldiers'?

Monty Burnz

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If the Brits came out and said as much things would be a lot better, but they still maintain they were whiter than white.

The British Government is "deeply sorry" following the murder of Belfast solicitor Patrick Finucane, Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson has said.
Making a statement in the Commons, he told MPs that Mr Finucane's killing in front of his family on February 12 1989 was "a terrible crime", adding that there have been long-standing allegations of security force collusion in his murder.
Former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Stevens was asked to investigate the murder in 1999.
Mr Paterson said Prime Minister David Cameron invited the family to Downing Street on Tueday so he could apologise to them in person and on behalf of the Government for state collusion in the murder of Mr Finucane.
He said: "The Government accepts the clear conclusions of Lord Stevens and Judge Cory that there was collusion. Mr Speaker, I want to reiterate the Government's apology in the House. The Government is deeply sorry for what happened."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iIxjJoLg-SJwul46QOOrKdIHrmig?docId=N0032831318421839815A

PARKHEAD67

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

We all KNOW what happened.The man was set up to be murdered by the british government.And the illegal loyalist paramiliteries murdered an innocent solicitor.Who happened to be Catholic.RUC involvement?Those bastards have murdered more Catholics than can be imagined. But thats "legal murder".

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wider Road wrote: »

Many thanks Monty, but I still don't know your opinion on what should happen now regarding the murder of Pat Finacune?
Forget Sinn Fein, what's YOUR opinion?

My opinion is that all parties must be treated equally.

Regarding THIS case Monty, what do YOU think should happen?
Please be more specific.

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

Regarding THIS case Monty, what do YOU think should happen?
Please be more specific.

I think there should be an enquiry, and those responsible held to account. Specific enough? But this should only happen if the IRA murderers and other murderers in NI are also held to account, otherwise we have unequal treatment of parties to the 'war'.

PARKHEAD67

Wider Road wrote: »

Regarding THIS case Monty, what do YOU think should happen?
Please be more specific.

I think that all those responsible for setting this man up for death should be jailed(since hanging doesnt go on anymore).But it wont happen, coz the British are very slow to admit to all the wrongs they have done.

Wolfe Tone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iIxjJoLg-SJwul46QOOrKdIHrmig?docId=N0032831318421839815A

No, that it was a dirty war on both sides, the Brits have never done so.... Remember Camerons bloody sunday speech? Pretended that the Brit troops had done an overall good job and bloody sunday didn't reflect on the overall operation... Yeah.

They maintain that collusion and whatnot were not a state policy, but by disaffected members of the armed forces, they even make no mention of all the men their agent scap had killed... Thats right, Scap the head of the IRAs anti intelligence wing who had lots of informers executed, eyes taped and shot, was a British agent. He was just one.

The British strive to maintain that their actions during the troubles were above board,but they were anything but and they don't want it coming out. Thats why they will never agree to a truth commission.

It was a dirty war and both sides committed atrocities, yet it is only the IRA who are terrorists, not the British state which bares the ultimate responsibility for the troubles. Yet the IRA are the terrorists.

PARKHEAD67

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think there should be an enquiry, and those responsible held to account. Specific enough? But this should only happen if the IRA murderers and other murderers in NI are also held to account, otherwise we have unequal treatment of parties to the 'war'.

Monty-please. Please. You dont just try to plunder a country that has nothing to do with you, and expect the natives of said country to bend over and take it up the ass.That rule britannia mentality doesnt work in Ireland.Sorry to piss on your parade.

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Do you support the family and their campaign?

I don't know. It seems to me like it will cost a lot of money and little new will be learned. On the other hand, it would be nice to know exactly who was involved, and collusion in murder is clearly wrong.

I'd be a lot happier to support it if the IRA came out and delivered up the war criminals on their side of the conflict.

Why have you changed your opinion?

Monty Burnz

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

thats right, Scap the head of the IRAs anti intelligence wing who had lots of informers executed, eyes taped and shot, was a British agent. He was just one.

But surely killing informers was a good thing, by IRA logic? Isn't that why they murdered Jean McConville?

And I believe the eyes were taped shut by the IRA execution squads to prevent the victims' eyes shooting out of their heads.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The British strive to maintain that their actions during the troubles were above board,but they were anything but and they don't want it coming out. Thats why they will never agree to a truth commission.

It was a dirty war and both sides committed atrocities, yet it is only the IRA who are terrorists, not the British state which bares the ultimate responsibility for the troubles. Yet the IRA are the terrorists.

That's funny, because I read that text I quoted as an admission from the British that collusion was real and that collusion was responsible for the murder of Finucane. I guess we all interpret things differently depending on where we are coming from.

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

Why have you changed your opinion?

I haven't. I don't think the IRA will give up their murderers, so I find it hard to support the idea of an inquiry into the other side's actions.

What is your opinion on this? And on the murders by republicans of Joanne Mathers, Mary Travers, Jonathan Bell, Tim Parry and so on and so forth? Totally innocent people, even by IRA logic?

Aren't these war crimes? Wasn't the use of proxy bombs a war crime, worthy of Al Qaeda?

PARKHEAD67

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I haven't. I don't think the IRA will give up their murderers, so I find it hard to support the idea of an inquiry into the other side's actions.

What is your opinion on this? And on the murders by republicans of Joanne Mathers, Mary Travers, Jonathan Bell, Tim Parry and so on and so forth? Totally innocent people, even by IRA logic?

Aren't these war crimes? Wasn't the use of proxy bombs a war crime, worthy of Al Qaeda?

The British surely have nothing to hide? Surely. The peacekeepers(:D) of the north at the time.Collusion between the brits and the illegal loyalist paramilitary murderers is surely a made up Nationalist fairy tale?? Am I right? Or was Pat Finucane(and many others) set up to be murdered?

Monty Burnz

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

The British surely have nothing to hide? Surely. The peacekeepers(:D) of the north at the time.Collusion between the brits and the illegal loyalist paramilitary murderers is surely a made up Nationalist fairy tale?? Am I right? Or was Pat Finucane(and many others) set up to be murdered?

I'm not sure what your post is in relation to, but it doesn't address any of the points I make in the post that you quoted.

You may have missed a post I made earlier where the British government officially acknowledged that collusion happened...

PARKHEAD67

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure what your post is in relation to, but it doesn't address any of the points I make in the post that you quoted.

You may have missed a post I made earlier where the British government officially acknowledged that collusion happened...

Now that theyve "acknowledged" their disgraceful past, why dont they withdraw from a country that they dont "own"?

Monty Burnz

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Now that theyve "acknowledged" their disgraceful past, why dont they withdraw from a country that they dont "own"?

Listen, you aren't addressing the points I made, which is your right. But please don't expect me to address your questions in that case.

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wider Road wrote: »

Why have you changed your opinion?

I haven't. I don't think the IRA will give up their murderers, so I find it hard to support the idea of an inquiry into the other side's actions.

What is your opinion on this? And on the murders by republicans of Joanne Mathers, Mary Travers, Jonathan Bell, Tim Parry and so on and so forth? Totally innocent people, even by IRA logic?

Aren't these war crimes? Wasn't the use of proxy bombs a war crime, worthy of Al Qaeda?

Monty,
You were asked in an earlier post if you supported the Finucane family & their campaign? Your answer was "I don't know, it seems to me like it will cost a lot of money".
When asked what should happen now (regarding a later post on the Finucane Report), you answered, " There should be an inquiry".
Any comment?

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

Monty,
You were asked in an earlier post if you supported the Finucane family & their campaign? Your answer was "I don't know, it seems to me like it will cost a lot of money".
When asked what should happen now (regarding a later post on the Finucane Report), you answered, " There should be an inquiry".
Any comment?

I already answered that. It should happen, same as the IRA turning over war criminals should happen. But it shouldn't happen without that, as that would not be fair to victims of IRA war crimes.

Care to comment on any of my points? Because I'm done with answering questions but getting no answers to mine. I will be forced to conclude that you are a hypocrite or have no plausible answers.

PARKHEAD67

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That sounds like a reasonable idea - the problem, as I think I suggested before, is trying to get people to participate. The way it worked in SA was that the victims came and testified against the murderers and criminals, and the perpetrators could come and appeal for clemency for their crimes. I don't see that the murderers of (say) Jonathan Bell and Tim Parry will come forward, or the British officers involved in the Finucane murder - and the victims don't know who to point the finger at either.

We all know what happened re Finucane. Government involvement in a murder.Of an innocent man. We all know that eff all will be done about it. The PM of rule britannia said as much.Its the way it happens I suppose.:eek:The problem with the Brits is they thought that they were superior to everyone-giving them the right to plunder lands that they frankly had no right to plunder.Look at what happened with the Argies in the Falklands war:D.Deflect and deny.Its the British way.Especially regarding the north.

Monty Burnz

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

We all know what happened re Finucane. Government involvement in a murder.Of an innocent man. We all know that eff all will be done about it. The PM of rule britannia said as much.Its the way it happens I suppose.:eek:The problem with the Brits is they thought that they were superior to everyone-giving them the right to plunder lands that they frankly had no right to plunder.Look at what happened with the Argies in the Falklands war:D.Deflect and deny.Its the British way.Especially regarding the north.

No comment on this, so? There seems to be a bit of deflecting going on in your posts too...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I haven't. I don't think the IRA will give up their murderers, so I find it hard to support the idea of an inquiry into the other side's actions.

What is your opinion on this? And on the murders by republicans of Joanne Mathers, Mary Travers, Jonathan Bell, Tim Parry and so on and so forth? Totally innocent people, even by IRA logic?

Aren't these war crimes? Wasn't the use of proxy bombs a war crime, worthy of Al Qaeda?

PARKHEAD67

Ireland was fine monty until britain invaded.Thats what the history books prove.There would never have been an IRA but for Britain.Think of it.

Wider Road

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wider Road wrote: »

Monty,
You were asked in an earlier post if you supported the Finucane family & their campaign? Your answer was "I don't know, it seems to me like it will cost a lot of money".
When asked what should happen now (regarding a later post on the Finucane Report), you answered, " There should be an inquiry".
Any comment?

I already answered that. It should happen, same as the IRA turning over war criminals should happen. But it shouldn't happen without that, as that would not be fair to victims of IRA war crimes.

Care to comment on any of my points? Because I'm done with answering questions but getting no answers to mine. I will be forced to conclude that you are a hypocrite or have no plausible answers.

Monty,
This thread is called The Murder Of Pat Finucane. If you want to extend it further, please do, but on a new thread please.
Regarding Pat's murder,You were asked what should happen now and your reply was, " there should be an inquiry".
When asked earlier "do you support their family (Finucane) & their campaign", you answered "I don't know. It seems to me like it will cost a lot of money".
Over to you Monty.

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

Monty,
This thread is called The Murder Of Pat Finucane. If you want to extend it further, please do, but on a new thread please.
Regarding Pat's murder,You were asked what should happen now and your reply was, " there should be an inquiry".
When asked earlier "do you support their family (Finucane) & their campaign", you answered "I don't know. It seems to me like it will cost a lot of money".
Over to you Monty.

Try reading post 181 and 187 again. I don't think I can write it any more simply for you, so keep at it until you get it.

In the meantime, you keep furiously dodging the other side of the equation - whether IRA war crimes and war criminals should be exposed and punished. It seems pretty clear that you can't come up with an answer, hence the deflection and evasion tactics...

snafuk35

TOMASJ wrote: »

Just seem to have the same attitude, "when it comes murder" especially of babies, to that of an "SAS hero"

I don't know any SAS men so I wouldn't know. They tend to be secretive people and they don't hang out on internet forums I'm pretty sure.

snafuk35

votecounts wrote: »

The people who thanked this garbage are a disgrace. An innoncent solicitor is killed due to colllusision and you seem to think this is ok.

Innocent? You are having a laugh aren't you? The guy and his family are SF through and through, he defended IRA terrorists because he was a republican sympathiser and got them off so they could go back to war. He was part of the republican machine at time of war. So if he didn't know he was a target well too bad. It was a dirty war. Time you grew up.

KeithAFC

Why is the government in the Republic backing the finucane family over this? I thought David Cameron said that no inquiry was going to happen?

Monty Burnz

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why is the government in the Republic backing the finucane family over this? I thought David Cameron said that no inquiry was going to happen?

I believe there was a legal undertaking by the British government to hold an enquiry and Cameron is welching on that undertaking.

glic71rods46t0

snafuk35 wrote: »

Innocent? You are having a laugh aren't you? The guy and his family are SF through and through, he defended IRA terrorists because he was a republican sympathiser and got them off so they could go back to war. He was part of the republican machine at time of war. So if he didn't know he was a target well too bad. It was a dirty war. Time you grew up.

Option 1: There was no war. HM security forces were merely policing part of the country and colluded in the murder of a solicitor who provided legal representation to criminals.
Option 2: There was a war. Pat Finucance was an enemy combatant engaged in usurping the law and order of the UK by using the law to deprive the UK state from imprisoning his fellow enemy combatants. The war was settled by an international treaty acknowledging the legitimacy of the actions of the enemy combatants.

Delancey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I believe there was a legal undertaking by the British government to hold an enquiry and Cameron is welching on that undertaking.

Not sure it was a ' legal ' undertaking but nonetheless Tony Blair did promise to hold an enquiry .
The refusal to hold an enquiry flies in the face of promises made after Judge Peter Corry's report - he examined 6 instances of suspected collusion and in 5 of those he recommended full enquiries where witnesses could be compelled to give evidence ( the case he decided an enquiry was not justified was the murder of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife ).
Both Irish and British governments promised to hold enquiries applicable to them and we have the Smithwick tribunal ongoing and have had enquiries into Billy Wright , Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill.

Unfortunately the huge cost and duration of the Savill enquiry as well as the others mentioned above has made it very easy for opponents of these enquiries to argue that the results do not justify the cost.

Lest we forget btw that the Irish Government has told Smithwick it wants his enquiry to cease by the end of November with cost being cited as the reason.

walrusgumble

r1kbdj4ey3tf2c wrote: »

Option 1: There was no war. HM security forces were merely policing part of the country and colluded in the murder of a solicitor who provided legal representation to criminals.
Option 2: There was a war. Pat Finucance was an enemy combatant engaged in usurping the law and order of the UK by using the law to deprive the UK state from imprisoning his fellow enemy combatants. The war was settled by an international treaty acknowledging the legitimacy of the actions of the enemy combatants.

You seem to know more about the "powers" of a lawyer better than others. Considering it was the Crown Courts, and later the European Courts of Human Rights that ruled in his client's favour, and in the former, often against his clients, and considering that he represented Loyalists as well (but not loads) Option 2 won't get very far. There is no evidence that Pat Finucance, despite his family background, was involved in the IRA. It has reasonably being accepted as such, even by the British.

Usurping the law and order? Jesus, even the British would have phrased that a lot better."by using the law to deprive the UK state from imprisoning his fellow enemy combatants. " Eh no, the ECtHR were often called upon to twart some of the creative legislative ideas of the House of Commons. "The Law" as it was in Northern Ireland was vastly different to that on the mainland. Also, even if in war, infringed war rules.

Monty Burnz

walrusgumble wrote: »

Also, even if in war, infringed war rules.

But then so did many (most of?) the IRA's attacks. War crimes?

gurramok

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But then so did many (most of?) the IRA's attacks. War crimes?

You just don't get it. The IRA were classed as terrorists and until recently by yourself as 'war' criminals when their enemy said there was no war. The British are a sovereign state and are suppose to have the high respectability over the likes of the IRA, you know upholding the law.

Its obvious the British do not want any Truth & Reconciliation Commission as it will expose their dirty hand in directing Loyalist killings, we cannot ruin the "British good reputation in NI" as well as their army overseas. This is at the heart of the cover up of Finucane's murder as well as countless others like Bloody Sunday.