Ahern does McCabe Killers U-Turn

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

You mean I used the one loophole in the law to get the desired result? Hmm, what does that remind you of? A lwayer perhaps? Maybe one of those lawyers who twisted the law (never mind the other people twisting witnesses arms) to secure a manslaughter verdict instead of one of murder?

so you think you found a loophole and put forward a good legal arguement
they must be ****ting themselves up in the fourcourts

uneasy dreamer is right

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

again if your arguement is that these men where not sanctioned and therefore were not acting on behalf of the IRA does that mean that you believe the IRA is in no way responsible for garda mccabes killing or any other action that the army council did not sanction

I never said the IRA were responsible, do you read my posts at all?

that may have been your understanding but the people voted on what the agreement said not what any particular party to the agreement would like it to have said

The agreement had nothing to do with these gentlemen , thats what we are trying(in vain apparently) to get home to you.
It was clearly stated to the voters of the 26 counties on several media at the time of the vote that these men didn't qualify. They may have been claimed for the IRA after the fact, they may have been actual members of the IRA when the job was done but the fact of the matter is that the IRA denied involvement.
It all points unreservedly to the IRA only claiming the adare robbery 'cause these guys wouldn't get out otherwise.

I remember that and I voted for the GFA as did most people I know on that basis.

Now heres a question for you cdebru, can you point to any government minister or opposition FG or labour spokesperson at the time of the vote arguing that the McCabe killers would qualify for release, Do you even accept at all that the chief parties promoting the agreement in the 26 counties referendum specifically put it on record that the McCabe killers would be excluded?
You apparently don't and thats fine but really... one thing you should accept is that this is a democracy and your view is something you are entitled to but don't be crying fowl if a democratic majority disagree with you-thats life-get on with it

We've already had the disipline debate and those that are convinced that these guys are not qualifying prisoners don't buy the fact that the robbery could have been for the IRA if it hadnt P O' Neill's consent.
P O' neill denied them and that let the cat out of the bag.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I never said the IRA were responsible, do you read my posts at all?.

no i just make up answers that sometimes match

Earthman wrote:

The agreement had nothing to do with these gentlemen , thats what we are trying(in vain apparently) to get home to you.
It was clearly stated to the voters of the 26 counties on several media at the time of the vote that these men didn't qualify. They may have been claimed for the IRA after the fact, they may have been actual members of the IRA when the job was done but the fact of the matter is that the IRA denied involvement.
It all points unreservedly to the IRA only claiming the adare robbery 'cause these guys wouldn't get out otherwise.

I remember that and I voted for the GFA as did most people I know on that basis.

Now heres a question for you cdebru, can you point to any government minister or opposition FG or labour spokesperson at the time of the vote arguing that the McCabe killers would qualify for release, Do you even accept at all that the chief parties promoting the agreement in the 26 counties referendum specifically put it on record that the McCabe killers would be excluded?
You apparently don't and thats fine but really... one thing you should accept is that this is a democracy and your view is something you are entitled to but don't be crying fowl if a democratic majority disagree with you-thats life-get on with it

We've already had the disipline debate and those that are convinced that these guys are not qualifying prisoners don't buy the fact that the robbery could have been for the IRA if it hadnt P O' Neill's consent.
P O' neill denied them and that let the cat out of the bag.

again what the irish government said or anybody else is irrelevant only what is in the agreement is relevant
what was clearlyly stated to to irish public is irrelevant as it is not in the agreement
if you can point to the passage in the agreement that says the people responsible for the killing of garda mccabe are excluded i will agree you are correct but i have read the GFA many times and nowhere does it exclude these men
what the irish government said subsequent to them signing off on the deal is irrelevant
I accept that the overwhelming majority of people voted for the GFA i dont pretend to know the reasons why they voted or what they tought they were voting for only that they accepted the GFA
i voted for the GFA and expected that anybody convicted of a schelduled offence or similar offence in the 26 countieswhile the IRA would be covered irrespective of what the government said that is what agreement said i based my vote on what the agreement said not anybody else
as for democracy do you accept that the government elected by the people of the 26 counties to act on their behalf in these matters have decided it is in the best interest of the country to release these men in the context of a final settlement and the end of the PIRA
other people like fine gael are playing politics with this issue but i would put my house on this if fine gael were in power they would be doing the exact same and if the PDs were in opposition they would be taking the exact same line as fine gael are now its just politics




ok you dont believe the IRA were responsible
but can i ask you why would the IRA have claimed these people it would have been much easier to wash their hands of them if what you say is true
there are no votes in this for Sinn Fein it is very unpopular so what is the rationale of the IRA trying to secure their release if they were not acting on behalf of the IRA
honestly if I believed that was the case I would be happy to leave them there

Sand

if you can point to the passage in the agreement that says the people responsible for the killing of garda mccabe are excluded i will agree you are correct but i have read the GFA many times and nowhere does it exclude these men

Just a quick point afaik - the GFA agreement says you only have to have been a member of an organisation on ceasefire to qualify. So youd agree that regardless of the crime - bank robbery, beating, shooting,whatever - any member of the IRA or any other terrorist group on ceasefire should be released under its terms?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Just a quick point afaik - the GFA agreement says you only have to have been a member of an organisation on ceasefire to qualify. So youd agree that regardless of the crime - bank robbery, beating, shooting,whatever - any member of the IRA or any other terrorist group on ceasefire should be released under its terms?

actually it also says scheduled offences and similar offences in the 26 counties

that would be murder robbery blackmail firearm offences etc etc that could be tried in a diplock court

which is why pat kennys point about someone convicted of drink driving or paedophlia ws stupid to say the least

but other than that yes we agree on something at last sand

Sand

Would child abuse count?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Would child abuse count?

dont be so stupid

is that a scheduled offence is it politically motivated

did you not read my previous post

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Would child abuse count?

:rolleyes:

Ask the British Government

Sand

is that a scheduled offence is it politically motivated

You tell me

From that article:

"One of them pulled an iron bar from inside a jacket and hit him across the face." This was the opening blow of a "punishment" attack on a 15 year old child. The beating, which involved five masked men believed to be members of the Provisional IRA, took place in a home in the strongly nationalist New Lodge area of north Belfast on Sunday, 11 March 2001. The boy, who has special needs and admits to juvenile delinquency, was taken to the bedroom where he was struck with iron bars for twenty minutes. The blows were mainly to his head and upper body. His jaw was fractured during the attack. Traumatised, disfigured and barely able to speak, he was taken to hospital.

Earlier this year up to ten masked men, carrying guns and batons, burst into a home on a housing estate in Belfast. Their target was a 16-year old boy with a reported IQ of 45. Gerard had a troubled history, including severe depression since he had been raped as a child by a relative. When his mother tried to protect him from the intruders, she was also struck and called a "****ing bitch". The local administrators of justice then forced Gerard upstairs to the bathroom and, in the words of his mother: "I could hear him screaming from in there. After that they dragged him outside to the alleyway. I went into the bathroom and saw blood everywhere; after that I passed out".

Dr Lawrence Rocke, senior consultant surgeon in the accident and emergency department of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast says that the youngest victim of a "punishment" beating he has treated was just 14. But many others were only a year or two older. "It beggars belief how people can set out to cause pain and hurt of the terrible type we see in here so often."

So, would beating a 14 year old kid up with bats and iron bars count as child abuse, or heroic derring do by the IRA?

Just curious for your angle.


This is from Mike thread on McKenna
You said

nor could molesting children by anyone ever be considered as a politically motivated crime nor is it covered by the GFA as it is not a scheduled offence as specified by the GFA

This is important because now youre recognising theres more to it than just being an IRA man and committing a crime.

You claim its scheduled offences only, so thats fair enough. But not all bank robberies are scheduled offences. They have to be politically motivated to count: from here

Scheduled offences are the main types of offences associated with terrorism - murder, attempted murder, assault, hijacking, robbery and firearms offences.

If a scheduled offence is committed but not as an act of terrorism, the DPP may issue a certificate de-scheduling it and the trial will continue in the normal way.

Remember it is often claimed that the IRA are a disciplined organisation. They had not sanctioned this bank robbery and it took several days before they even accepted the bank robbery was carried out by IRA members. Its hard to argue that the McCabe killing is thus a scheduled offence ( or similar as the murder occured in the Republic rather than Britain ), as it was not sanctioned by a political group. No IRA sanction=No scheduled offence.

So youd agree that the bank robbery/murder wasnt a scheduled offence and thus they dont qualify under the GFA?

A Dub in Glasgo

That sound is the sound of the barrell being scraped and straws being clutched by Sand

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That sound is the sound of the barrell being scraped and straws being clutched by Sand

Au contraire, it struck me as a cogent and well-reasoned case. Got an answer?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

You tell me?

you need me to tell you wether sexually abusing your eldest daughter is politically motivated are you that sick

Sand wrote:

So, would beating a 14 year old kid up with bats and iron bars count as child abuse, or heroic derring do by the IRA?

Just curious for your angle.?

these are articles from an anti republican group so i would not accept anything in them as fact but if you are asking me in general is it ok to attack 14 year olds with baseball bats then obviously the answer is no

Sand wrote:

This is important because now youre recognising theres more to it than just being an IRA man and committing a crime.

You claim its scheduled offences only, so thats fair enough. But not all bank robberies are scheduled offences. They have to be politically motivated to count?

yes but they were tried and convicted in the special criminal court the equivalent of diplock courts up the north were only scheduled offences can be tried
they are members of the IRA they were acting on behalf of the IRA

Sand wrote:

Remember it is often claimed that the IRA are a disciplined organisation. They had not sanctioned this bank robbery and it took several days before they even accepted the bank robbery was carried out by IRA members. Its hard to argue that the McCabe killing is thus a scheduled offence ( or similar as the murder occured in the Republic rather than Britain ), as it was not sanctioned by a political group. No IRA sanction=No scheduled offence.

So youd agree that the bank robbery/murder wasnt a scheduled offence and thus they dont qualify under the GFA?

IRA sanction does not determine wether it was a scheduled offence
as this happened in the 26 counties scheduled offences are in the north
but it is the equivalent of a scheduled offence hence they were tried in the special criminal court


you can go around in circles about this IRa army council sanction is not needed to carry out a fund raising robbery according to the IRA
now if you think that the IRA army council are aware of every action that was under taken by IRA volunteers in advance then you are very poorly informed
it would limit for example their ability to carry out oppurtunist operations
that is not the nature of the organisation I suggest you read into the it YOu might learn something and stop going around in circles


the IRA claim them as members
they are convicted of the equivalent of a scheduled offence
the IRA claim they were acting on behalf of the IRA
what more do you need

and even if by some miracle you could convince me it is not important the IRish high court and supreme court have said they fit the criteria of qualifying prisioners and i believe they might know a bit more about it than you




May I also just add that i think this is particularly low to drag this young woman into this type of arguement I think her and her Family have suffered enough without being dragged up here as some kind of cheap shot at the Republican movement
i also think it just denigrates your whole high moral ground stance

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Got an answer?

I certainly do

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

if you are asking me in general is it ok to attack 14 year olds with baseball bats then obviously the answer is no

That's not what you were asked. You were asked whether it was politically motivated.

cdebru wrote:

and even if by some miracle you could convince me it is not important the IRish high court and supreme court have said they fit the criteria of qualifying prisioners and i believe they might know a bit more about it than you

Hm. Are these the same courts that, according to yourself in an earlier post "decided that these men were qualifying but there [sic] release was up to the executive"?

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

only what is in the agreement is relevant

Relevant to what?

• SF were told during the negotiations , that the Adare gang were ruled out
• The Irish people were told the Adare gang were not included during the referendum campaign by the vast majority of the countries public representatives
• SF signed up to the agreement in the knowledge that they were told the adare gang were to be excluded

You seem to ignore all that as being irrelevant?
You are starting to sound like that add by meteor saying they have national coverage (they don't)

i voted for the GFA and expected that anybody convicted of a schelduled offence or similar offence in the 26 countieswhile the IRA would be covered irrespective of what the government said that is what agreement said i based my vote on what the agreement said not anybody else

Thats all fine and dandy but the agreement doesnt apply to these guys so what you thought you were voting for has no bearing on their status.

other people like fine gael are playing politics with this issue but i would put my house on this if fine gael were in power they would be doing the exact same and if the PDs were in opposition they would be taking the exact same line as fine gael are now its just politics

I take it from that that you accept that they have a constituency to play to just like SF do, except FG's is much, much bigger in the 26 counties and in a democracy, the more people that support or oppose an idea the more it flies or doesn't.

ok you dont believe the IRA were responsible but can i ask you why would the IRA have claimed these people it would have been much easier to wash their hands of them if what you say is true
there are no votes in this for Sinn Fein it is very unpopular so what is the rationale of the IRA trying to secure their release if they were not acting on behalf of the IRA
honestly if I believed that was the case I would be happy to leave them there

But shur I've accepted many times that these guys are IRA members, thats the reason why the IRA want to cross mountains to have their comrades released regardless of what they were involved in or whether it was sanctioned. Thats brotherly love for you.
Of course theres no votes in it for SF, certainly no new ones anyway, they are just doing their friends bidding and making an ass of themselves in the process.
But so be it, we cant bring back the dead, only make things a bit better for the living so that makes your point poignant

as for democracy do you accept that the government elected by the people of the 26 counties to act on their behalf in these matters have decided it is in the best interest of the country to release these men in the context of a final settlement and the end of the PIRA

I understand that, but its a bargaining chipped new deal between SF , the IRA and the government, it's nothing whatso ever to do with the GFA.I'm sure I've said that many times.
What I'm disputing with you is that the GFA ever extended to these particular criminals. A new deal would of course if its agreed in the context of total verified disarmament and an end to criminal activity.
It's a new bitter pill basically not an old one.

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

That's not what you were asked. You were asked whether it was politically motivated.

yes punishment beatings were politically motivated and are a scheduled offence
they happened in the absense of a credible police force.
do i think that it was right no but that does not stop me from seeing why they happened

oscarBravo wrote:

Hm. Are these the same courts that, according to yourself in an earlier post "decided that these men were qualifying but there [sic] release was up to the executive"?

yes they are is there a problem with that those are the facts

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

yes punishment beatings were politically motivated and are a scheduled offence
they happened in the absense of a credible police force.

Now who's clutching at straws? In what way does beating the sh*t out of teenagers with learning disabilities tie in with republican or nationalist philosophies?

cdebru wrote:

do i think that it was right no but that does not stop me from seeing why they happened

cdebru wrote:

yes they are is there a problem with that those are the facts

Exactly. The fact is that the courts - the ones you quoted as authoritative in this issue - ruled that it's up to the government whether or not they are eligible for release.

Not the GFA. Not the IRA. Not Sinn Féin. Not you. Not me. The government.

Sand

you need me to tell you wether sexually abusing your eldest daughter is politically motivated are you that sick

So then youd argue that the IRA heroes - and indeed the Loyalist thugs ( cos "our" side are heroes, "their" side are "thugs" ) - involved in these punishment beatings arent covered under the GFA?

these are articles from an anti republican group

Its actually from the CAIN website which is regarded as a fairly well balanced recording of the Troubles - no wonder youd consider it anti-republican as the truth is not kind to terrorist atrocities and their supporters.

And youll find the study also examines and criticises Loyalist violence. It does note however that the IRA are more prone to attacking younger people than the Loyalists. But again, thats just anti- republican propaganda isnt it?

if you are asking me in general is it ok to attack 14 year olds with baseball bats then obviously the answer is no

So again you wouldnt support the release of terrorists involved in abusing children with savage inhuman beatings like the report mentions? Or do you not consider those beatings to be abusing children?

Or is child abuse such as the above okay when its politically motivated? Assault is a scheduled offence, punishment attacks are carried out under the IRAs standard so hence 5 brave armed masked men beating the absolute **** out of 2nd year student is grand under those distinctions?

Or are you going to argue the IRA doesnt carry out punishment attacks?

you can go around in circles about this IRa army council sanction is not needed to carry out a fund raising robbery according to the IRA

So in effect an IRA man sanctions himself to carry out armed robberies in the name of the IRA, using IRA weapons and equipment, running the risk of compromising an IRA cell or worse still other cells, without any input from IRA command?

I dont whats more hilarious, your version of the IRA S.O.P or the chance you might believe it yourself.

it would limit for example their ability to carry out oppurtunist operations

An opportunistic bank raid?

You reckon they were just strolling along the streets with their AK-47s and just by chance decided to make a quick withdrawal? That they just decided, **** it, lets waste the Gardai in the unmarked car as well?

Keep them one liners coming man.

what more do you need

To see that it was politically motivated. The IRA didnt claim them for days, let alone their operation - that doesnt indicate to me that it was sanctioned. Which means it wasnt a scheduled offence or similar.

Just a bank robbery and murder of Gardai by some scumbag terrorists lining their own pockets.

Cork

Sand wrote:

Just a bank robbery and murder of Gardai by some scumbag terrorists lining their own pockets.

I can't see why the Criminal Assets bureau cannot clamp down on proceeds of such criminality.

Such criminality has got to come to an end.

The IRA has got to agree to stop any criminal acts. Simple as that. Democratically elected governments are right to insist on this.

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

I think this has been explained often enough the army council did not sanction the robbery so wrongly issued a denial straight away
so you want to have it both ways the IRA is responsible for garda mccabes killing but the men were not acting on behalf of the IRA
which is it you cant have it both ways

I suggest you read my posts again, i never once said that the IRA were responsible for Det McCabes killing. That is the whole point I have been trying to tell you. Therefore if the IRA were not responsible for this act of violence then these men were not and are not covered by the good friday agreement

I have said multiple times that these men were responsible for his killing. Their affiliation with the IRA is coincidental.

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

dont be so stupid
...
are you that sick

A bit more adherence to the rules please.

jc

Alex27

Poor old GFA, leave it alone will you

3. Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. In addition, the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.

Most people want peace and if IRA or indeed UDF are not willing to negotiate people could and perhaps will make sure that the process will go on with or without them. I see there is a space for a new political parties in North who can operate without punishment beating,etc.

It took a long a time for Berlin wall to collapse but it collapsed after all. The rule based on fear don`t last.

The question I would ask who are the people standing to lost the most if peace, stability and law will be firmly established in NI?

There are people who see no alternative or afraid to open their eyes while the alternative is there. Are their ready to accept it? Some are some not. Should the ones who are not willing to leaving in peace and harmony be allowed to obstuct the live of majority? Majority who have done no harm to them apart self inflicted harm that been done by breaking the law.

Talking about 5 people in question its not like they got a mandate from Irish people to carry this activities and GFA is not such mandate. Their life in jail http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1213/mccabe.html. If Kevin Walsh, Jeremiah Sheehy, Michael O'Neill and Pearse McAuley support the peace process they could say that they will serve their sentence and that would show that IRA is serious about decomissioning and ending it`s illegall activities.

Mighty_Mouse

As co-signee's and negotiaters, they made it clear to the other negotiaters that the McCabe killers were not to be covered by the GFA.

If everyone agreed to this. Wouldnt it of been quite easy to add two lines of text to the agreement? They didnt. It's not in the bloody agreement.ie.. the signed document!!!!

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

If everyone agreed to this. Wouldnt it of been quite easy to add two lines of text to the agreement? They didnt. It's not in the bloody agreement.ie.. the signed document!!!!

But like the agreement didnt cover them because they weren't on an IRA job at the time according to the IRA's first statement.
This has all been trashed out on this thread and others.
Either the IRA are a completely undisiplined rag tag organisation ( which I seriously don't believe they are ) or they are extremely transparently trying to pull a fast one by their later "owning" of the Adare job.

If you want them out, well they'll get out but it will only be, by the looks of things at the behest of a new deal where they are used as a bargaining chip by the IRA and their "middlemen" Sinn Féin.
Now thats all fine and dandy if it closes the "deal" but the price for it in 2004 is Sinn Féin are being associated with pulling a fast one aswell for to get what most people perceive in the South as Garda Killing criminals out without serving their time.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

But like the agreement didnt cover them because they weren't on an IRA job at the time according to the IRA's first statement.
This has all been trashed out on this thread and others.
Either the IRA are a completely undisiplined rag tag organisation ( which I seriously don't believe they are ) or they are extremely transparently trying to pull a fast one by their later "owning" of the Adare job.

If you want them out, well they'll get out but it will only be, by the looks of things at the behest of a new deal where they are used as a bargaining chip by the IRA and their "middlemen" Sinn Féin.
Now thats all fine and dandy if it closes the "deal" but the price for it in 2004 is Sinn Féin are being associated with pulling a fast one aswell for to get what most people perceive in the South as Garda Killing criminals out without serving their time.

but like we have argued this out before and it is over now

"move on roy move on"

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

but like we have argued this out before and it is over now

"move on roy move on"

You should say that to mighty mouse not me tbh

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

You should say that to mighty mouse not me tbh

I appeal to anyone who will listen

Mighty_Mouse

Again, the obvious question........if it was AGREED, why did they not put it in the AGREEMENT?

Can somebody here explain?

As for whether they were IRA prisoners or not. I don't remember anybody saying they actually weren't "IRA scum" before the agreement.

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Again, the obvious question........if it was AGREED, why did they not put it in the AGREEMENT?

If you want to carry on that line, theres lots of things not in the agreement like speeding, drunk driving, etc The same line is taken on those they are not covered by the agreement, if Ahern was asked at the time he would have said so without putting it in the agreement.
He was asked about the Adare killers though and was explicit in his reply.

As for whether they were IRA prisoners or not. I don't remember anybody saying they actually weren't "IRA scum" before the agreement.

Re read the thread. No one is denying that they are IRA members, they could be members of a golf club too, both are irrelevant to their manslaughter conviction, a crime they committed whilst out on their own, something which P'o'neil confirmed by denying them but then backtracked later in a vain attempt to get them included.
It's all very black and white and thats the way most people see it.

They most probably will get out though at the insistance of SF but ironically they are depending on Ian Paisley for their release also as if theres no new deal theres no release for them.

Cork

Earthman wrote:

They most probably will get out though at the insistance of SF but ironically they are depending on Ian Paisley for their release also as if theres no new deal theres no release for them.

But it is pretty sad that the release of these people is made an issue that could hold up political progress on this island.

I feel that the DUP and SF deserve each other. Trimble and Hume won the Nobel Peace prize for compromise.

The peace process is now being held up for the want of a few photographs and a committment by the IRA not to be involved in criminal activity.