Bank Robbery...

eakin

"Sinn Fein knew that the IRA was planning the £26.5m Northern Bank raid and other robberies while holding key political talks, Bertie Ahern has said. "


end to all terriost and criminal activity...!! ya must be joking .

Hobbes

source?

It's on all the radio news bulletins this afternoon that I've heard.
Ahern was in the Dáil discussing his meeting with Blair.
From RTÉ

He added that they also believed the IRA was responsible for other operations in 2004 including the major robbery at a warehouse in south Belfast.

Mr Ahern accepted a suggestion from Mr Kenny that that meant that Sinn Féin had been negotiating in bad faith during that period.

Cork

eakin wrote:

"Sinn Fein knew that the IRA was planning the £26.5m Northern Bank raid and other robberies while holding key political talks, Bertie Ahern has said. "

I would agree with Bertie on this one. I doubt that senior figures of sf were unaware of the raid in advance.

liamo

There was an interesting interview on NewsTalk this morning with Ed Moloney, author of "A Secret History of the IRA".

Although I didn't get to hear it all, he said that he had no doubt that an operation of this size and complexity would have had to have been authorised by the IRA's Army Council.

It's widely believed that the Army Council consists of a number of very senior Sinn Fein members. Libel laws and a sense of self-preservation prevent me from actually naming them but it's not difficult to find the information if you go looking.

It's all a political dance with IRA/SF seeing how much they can get away with and the politicians talking publicly about lines being drawn and bars being raised but knowing that they're going to have to play along. Take your partners for the next dance ....

DadaKopf

Three words: burden of proof.

It's really not a good idea to let Irish/Northern Irish politics be contaminated by the doctrine of preemption like in the US. I believe it's up to Bertie to present convincing evidence that Sinn Féin knew about the robbery. However, to some, it seems like the presumption of innocence is a little too hard to handle, or maybe us down here don't want to be seen to defend the political wing of a paramilitary/crime syndicate anymore.

It's quite simple: the presumption of innocence does not mean you're defending the IRA.

In one way, I think it's good that we're uncomfortable with defending the IRA in any way. On the other, we're contravening the core principle of the Irish and British legal systems. I personally feel very uncomfortable that Irish people have condemned Sinn Féin without any body of evidence.

There's also the fact that the media has shown a callous disregard for the complexities of the IRA's, or other nationalist paramilitaries' internal organisation in the presentation of the situation. The IRA is an internally fractious organisation with rival groups with an imperfect chain of command. It's perfectly conceivable that a rogue element within the provisional IRA conducted the robbery without informing central command/Sinn Féin. There's also the possibility that someone else did it. Of course Sinn Féin may know who carried out the robbery after the fact, just like everyone knew who did Omagh.

But it seems to me that this is the plan: forget the evidence but make the Unionists feel comfortable that Ireland is no longer a haven for paramilitarism. An important dimension of the peace process's realpolitik.

liamo

I think that the right to the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our society.

However, with rights also come responsibilities. The responsibility to observe the laws of this state being one of them. If you don't, you get charged in a court and punished according to those same laws.

The IRA cannot be charged in a court of law. The IRA will not turn up in court to answer charges of murder or theft or assault. The IRA will not get sentenced or fined. The IRA is an illegal organisation. The IRA doesn't have the right to the presumption of innocence because the IRA doesn't have any rights at all!

Individuals, however, have rights. A member of the IRA has the right to the presumption of innocence. However, no individual was accused of carrying out the robbery. If (and, hopefully, when) one or more individuals are arrested and charged with this crime, they will be afforded the presumption of innocence and will be treated in a much more humane fashion than their victims.

That's why it's OK for the Irish and UK heads of government to say that they believe that the IRA was responsible for the bank robbery.

cdebru

liamo wrote:

I think that the right to the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our society.

However, with rights also come responsibilities. The responsibility to observe the laws of this state being one of them. If you don't, you get charged in a court and punished according to those same laws.

The IRA cannot be charged in a court of law. The IRA will not turn up in court to answer charges of murder or theft or assault. The IRA will not get sentenced or fined. The IRA is an illegal organisation. The IRA doesn't have the right to the presumption of innocence because the IRA doesn't have any rights at all!

Individuals, however, have rights. A member of the IRA has the right to the presumption of innocence. However, no individual was accused of carrying out the robbery. If (and, hopefully, when) one or more individuals are arrested and charged with this crime, they will be afforded the presumption of innocence and will be treated in a much more humane fashion than their victims.

That's why it's OK for the Irish and UK heads of government to say that they believe that the IRA was responsible for the bank robbery.

so the individuals identified by ahern as having prior knowledge have the rights to a presumption of innocence
namely mcguiness adams kelly
basically ahern has accused these individuals of complicity in kidnapping and robbery
without offering any proof
what has happened to their rights to a presumption of innocence
while it may be ok for the governments to say they believe the IRA was responsible ( wether that is right or wrong time will tell i guess)
I do not believe that it is ok to accuse the sinn fein leadership of crimes without offering any evidence to back up these claims

Cork

liamo wrote:

It's widely believed that the Army Council consists of a number of very senior Sinn Fein members. Libel laws and a sense of self-preservation prevent me from actually naming them but it's not difficult to find the information if you go looking.
..

Bertie should name such people under Dail priviledge.

cdebru

Cork wrote:

Bertie should name such people under Dail priviledge.

without any evidence as he has done in the bank robbery

the simple fact is that no one knows who the members of the army coucil are

people have suspicions about individuals but no one knows for certain

Cork

cdebru wrote:

without any evidence as he has done in the bank robbery

the simple fact is that no one knows who the members of the army coucil are

people have suspicions about individuals but no one knows for certain

The IRA themselves look for little evidence when they carry out punishment beatings. I know that we should not stoop to an illegal organisations low and criminal standards.

But it is pretty well acknowledged that the IRA were involved in this raid & I think security forces know the people with influence on the IRA.

The Provisional IRA has withdrawn from the scheme to decommission its weapons.

www.rte.ie

Big surprise from this particuler gang.

cdebru

Cork wrote:

The IRA themselves look for little evidence when they carry out punishment beatings. I know that we should not stoop to an illegal organisations low and criminal standards.

But it is pretty well acknowledged that the IRA were involved in this raid & I think security forces know the people with influence on the IRA.


www.rte.ie

Big surprise from this particuler gang.

so you think it is ok to make allegations against people without having to provide any sort of evidence because the IRAs punishment beatings.

it is pretty well acknowledged but denied by the IRA

you think the security forces know the people thats enough for you no proof needed. the security forces are infallable are they
suppose they named you how would you set about proving your innoncence
the security forces dont know if they did they could have defeated the IRA years ago it is a secret organisation



no suprise as the IRA always withdraws from the decommissioning body once talks break down standard procedure at this stage

liamo

cdebru wrote:

so the individuals identified by ahern as having prior knowledge have the rights to a presumption of innocence
namely mcguiness adams kelly
basically ahern has accused these individuals of complicity in kidnapping and robbery
without offering any proof
what has happened to their rights to a presumption of innocence
while it may be ok for the governments to say they believe the IRA was responsible ( wether that is right or wrong time will tell i guess)
I do not believe that it is ok to accuse the sinn fein leadership of crimes without offering any evidence to back up these claims

It might appear that your point is a hole in my argument. However, presumption of innocence is a right afforded in a court of law to individuals charged with a crime. If any of the above mentioned people are accused in a court of law then they are then, indeed, entitled to a presumption of innocence. I don't see Gerry Adams et al being charged any time soon in connection with the robbery. Ergo, presumption of innocence doesn't have any place in this debate.

Presumption of innocence doesn't exist outside of the criminal system. The means of redress in the civil world is a case of slander or libel. Gerry Adams in a civil court. Methinks not!

m1ke

People need to stop applying normal procedure when dealing with the IRA - presumption of innocence simply can't work when dealing with a paramilitary terrorist organisation out to undermine the existence of the state. That's the reason why we have the special criminal court to try IRA terrorists, otherwise they'd totally subvert the system through intimidating judges, witnesses etc... You can't simply treat them the same as everybody else in the legal system, they operate both inside and outside it, to undermine it.

It's been the army councils and SF's policy to cry innocence everytime they murder and steal(e.g Jerry McCabe's murder). Don't be roped in by the boy who cried wolf.

cdebru

liamo wrote:

It might appear that your point is a hole in my argument. However, presumption of innocence is a right afforded in a court of law to individuals charged with a crime. If any of the above mentioned people are accused in a court of law then they are then, indeed, entitled to a presumption of innocence. I don't see Gerry Adams et al being charged any time soon in connection with the robbery. Ergo, presumption of innocence doesn't have any place in this debate.

Presumption of innocence doesn't exist outside of the criminal system. The means of redress in the civil world is a case of slander or libel. Gerry Adams in a civil court. Methinks not!

presumption of innocence is not merely a term that applies in a court of law it is the right of every citizen
the Taoiseach has made a serious allegation of criminality against 3 specific individuals without offering any proof to back up these claims it is one thing to suggest that the IRA was responsible no one knows who the IRA is
but to suggest that these 3 men were involved in a robbery because that is what the taoiseachs allegation would mean without offering any proof is wrong

so your saying that because it is unlikely that adams would win a civil libel case it is ok to make allegations against him and not have to prove them


can i make an observation the reason why this robbery has made such headlines is because of the amount of money that was stolen
however it seems very unlikely that whoever robbed the bank expected to get
that amount of money otherwise they would have brought a larger truck at not have had to make 2 runs

jbkenn

cdebru wrote:

but to suggest that these 3 men were involved in a robbery because that is what the taoiseachs allegation would mean without offering any proof is wrong

The Taoiseach stated that the leadership of Sinn Fein had prior knowledge of the robbery, he did not state that the three were involved in the robbery

jbkenn

liamo

cdebru wrote:

presumption of innocence is not merely a term that applies in a court of law it is the right of every citizen
the Taoiseach has made a serious allegation of criminality against 3 specific individuals without offering any proof to back up these claims it is one thing to suggest that the IRA was responsible no one knows who the IRA is
but to suggest that these 3 men were involved in a robbery because that is what the taoiseachs allegation would mean without offering any proof is wrong

so your saying that because it is unlikely that adams would win a civil libel case it is ok to make allegations against him and not have to prove them


can i make an observation the reason why this robbery has made such headlines is because of the amount of money that was stolen
however it seems very unlikely that whoever robbed the bank expected to get
that amount of money otherwise they would have brought a larger truck at not have had to make 2 runs

The concept of presumption of innocence exists only within a court of law. And, yes, within that context it is the right of every citizen. Indeed, it is everybody's right, regardless of their citizenship. Outside of a court of law, you're not entitled to a presumption of innocence, it's up to you to prove that I've slandered or libelled you. Well, IANAL and it may be up to me to prove that there is substance to my allegations, but it's up to you to sue me for slander or libel. Presumption of innocence doesn't come into it.

Yes, the Taoiseach has made serious allegations of criminality. But this is not a court of law. These individuals are on not on trial and the Taoiseach doesn't have to present proof.

To say that "no-one knows who the IRA is" is just plain silly. Maybe not everyone knows. Maybe it's not published in the daily newspapers. But the Gardai know. The security services know. The people who matter know.

To you, maybe it's wrong that these allegations were made. To me, it just plain "makes sense". But that's ok. We're allowed to have different opinions on things.

You're right about the size of the robbery being the main reason why it made such headlines. They may not have known quite how much they would make but they knew there was going to be shed-loads of dosh - they'd been planning it for years! Anyway, that has no relevance at all. A robbery is a robbery. The nature of the robbery is pure IRA - terrorise people at gunpoint.

A Dub in Glasgo

Which is one of the reasons many discussion websites have strict rules for the parameter of discussions. You will not be sued but this website could be (I am not talking about this case but in general). A forum I previously frequented was sued in the UK courts for some members making wild allegations about someone. It was settled out of court and very strict rules were put in place by the website owners to ensure it did not happen again.

cdebru

jbkenn wrote:

The Taoiseach stated that the leadership of Sinn Fein had prior knowledge of the robbery, he did not state that the three were involved in the robbery

jbkenn

prior knowledge is involvement

folk_smith

F- that. Here's the press release from the IRA followed by a statement from Sinn Fein -

>>>>>> Flash: IRA offer withdrawn

---

The following is the full text of a statement issued tonight by
the Provisional IRA

---

In August 1994, the leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann announced
a complete cessation of all military operations. We did so to
enhance the democratic peace process and underline our
definitive commitment to its success.

That cessation ended in February 1996 because the British
Government acted in bad faith when the then British Prime
Minister John Major and Unionist leaders squandered that
unprecedented opportunity to resolve the conflict.

However, we remained ready to engage positively and in July 1997
we reinstated the cessation on the same basis as before.
Subsequently, we honoured the terms of our cessation with
discipline and honesty, despite numerous attempts to
misrepresent those terms by others.

Since then - over a period of almost eight years - our
leadership took a succession of significant and ambitious
initiatives designed to develop or save the peace process. Those
included:

** Engaging with the Independent International Commission on
Decommissioning;

** Agreeing that independent inspectors could inspect the contents
of a number of IRA dumps, allowing regular re-inspections to
ensure that the weapons remained secure and the reporting of
what they had done both publicly and to the IICD;

** Setting out a clear context for dealing definitively with the
issue of arms;

** Acknowledging past mistakes, hurt and pain the IRA has caused
to others and extending our sincere apologies and condolences
for the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us;

** Agreeing a scheme with the IICD to put arms completely and
verifiably beyond use;

** Implementing this scheme to save the peace process by putting
three separate tranches of weapons beyond use on:

*** - 23 October 2001

*** - 11 April 2002

**** - 21 October 2003; and

** Seeking to directly and publicly address unionist concerns.


In 2004 our leadership was prepared to speedily resolve the
issue of arms, by Christmas if possible, and to invite two
independent witnesses, from the Protestant and Catholic
churches, to testify to this. In the context of a comprehensive
agreement we were also prepared to move into a new mode and to
instruct our Volunteers that there could be no involvement
whatsoever in activities which might endanger that agreement.

These significant and substantive initiatives were our
contributions to the peace process. Others, however, did not
share that agenda. Instead, they demanded the humiliation of the
IRA.

Our initiatives have been attacked, devalued and dismissed by
pro-unionist and anti-republican elements, including the British
Government. The Irish Government have lent themselves to this.
Commitments have been broken or withdrawn. The progress and
change promised on political, social, economic and cultural
matters, as well as on demilitarisation, prisoners, equality and
policing and justice, has not materialised to the extent
required, or promised.

British forces, including the PSNI, remain actively engaged in
both covert and overt operations, including raids on
republicans' homes.

We are also acutely aware of the dangerous instability within
militant unionism, much of it fostered by British military
intelligence agencies. The British/loyalist apparatus for
collusion remains intact.

The political institutions have been suspended for years now and
there is an ongoing political impasse.

At this time it appears that the two governments are intent on
changing the basis of the peace process. They claim that 'the
obstacle now to a lasting and durable settlement... is the
continuing paramilitary and criminal activity of the IRA'.

We reject this. It also belies the fact that a possible
agreement last December was squandered by both governments
pandering to rejectionist unionism instead of upholding their
own commitments and honouring their own obligations.

We do not intend to remain quiescent within this unacceptable
and unstable situation. It has tried our patience to the limit.
Consequently, on reassessment of our position and in response to
the governments and others withdrawing their commitments;

** We are taking all our proposals off the table.

** It is our intention to closely monitor ongoing developments and
to protect to the best of our ability the rights of republicans
and our support base.

The IRA has demonstrated our commitment to the peace process
again and again. We want it to succeed. We have played a key
role in achieving the progress achieved so far. We are prepared,
as part of a genuine and collective effort, to do so again, if
and when the conditions are created for this.

But peace cannot be built on ultimatums, false and malicious
accusations or bad faith. Progress will not be sustained by the
reinstatment of Thatcherite criminalisation strategies, which
our ten comrades died defeating on hunger strike in 1981. We
will not betray the courage of the hunger strikers either by
tolerating criminality within our own ranks or false allegations
of criminality against our organisation by petty politicians
motivated by selfish interests, instead of the national need for
a successful conclusion to the peace process.

Finally, we thank all those who have supported us through
decades of struggle. We freely acknowledge our responsibility to
enhance genuine efforts to build peace and justice. We reiterate
our commitment to achieving Irish independence and our other
republican objectives. We are determined that these objectives
will be secured.

P O'Neill
Irish Republican Publicity Bureau
Dublin

---

In an initial response to Wednesday night's IRA statement, Sinn
Fein President Gerry Adams said:

"The IRA statement is obviously a direct consequence of the
retrograde stance of the two governments. It is evidence of a
deepening crisis and I regret that very much.

"The two governments have opted for confrontation. They are
engaging in the sterile politics of the blame game without any
regard for the consequences. This negative approach has
effectively scuttled the enormous work done in persuading the
IRA to undertake the unprecedented initiatives which they
publicly outlined in December.

"All of this good work has now been undermined."




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

jbkenn

cdebru wrote:

prior knowledge is involvement

I agree, and all civic minded, law abiding citizens, have a duty to report such matters to the relevant authorities.

jbkenn

m1ke

I think it is safe to assume from the latest IRA statement that their cover is infact blown, by the bank robbery, they've been shown to have never actually been serious about decommissioning or peace.

folk_smith

civic-minded and law-abiding is a question of perspective ... guess it boils down to which side of the River you call home ...

A Dub in Glasgo

I think it is safe to assume from the latest IRA statement that their cover is infact blown, by the bank robbery, they've been shown to have never actually been serious about decommissioning or peace.

Explain how you can assume that?

folk_smith

m1ke wrote:

I think it is safe to assume from the latest IRA statement that their cover is infact blown, by the bank robbery, they've been shown to have never actually been serious about decommissioning or peace.

that's a reckless assumption, brother ...

jbkenn

folk_smith wrote:

civic-minded and law-abiding is a question of perspective ... guess it boils down to which side of the River you call home ...

Limerick Ireland

jbkenn

cdebru

anyway I think this the most interesting part of the statement

"Progress will not be sustained by the
reinstatment of Thatcherite criminalisation strategies, which
our ten comrades died defeating on hunger strike in 1981. We
will not betray the courage of the hunger strikers either by
tolerating criminality within our own ranks or false allegations
of criminality against our organisation by petty politicians
motivated by selfish interests, instead of the national need for
a successful conclusion to the peace process."


seems to me what the IRA are saying is if any of their members were involved in the northern bank robbery they will not tolerate that as it would be a betrayal of the hunger strikers.

jbkenn

cdebru wrote:

anyway I think this the most interesting part of the statement

"Progress will not be sustained by the
reinstatment of Thatcherite criminalisation strategies, which
our ten comrades died defeating on hunger strike in 1981. We
will not betray the courage of the hunger strikers either by
tolerating criminality within our own ranks or false allegations
of criminality against our organisation by petty politicians
motivated by selfish interests, instead of the national need for
a successful conclusion to the peace process."


seems to me what the IRA are saying is if any of their members were involved in the northern bank robbery they will not tolerate that as it would be a betrayal of the hunger strikers.

Do you actually believe that guff?, I like the way they have to drag the hunger strikers into it, to give it some warped air of legitimacy.
They will say, do, and act in any fashion that suits their interests

jbkenn

cdebru

jbkenn wrote:

Do you actually believe that guff?, I like the way they have to drag the hunger strikers into it, to give it some warped air of legitimacy.
They will say, do, and act in any fashion that suits their interests

jbkenn

if you have already decided that you are never going to believe anything that the IRA said then there is not much point in discussing the statement with you

I happpen to think that part of the statement is very interesting
i think it opens the possibility that individual IRA members may have been involved and that the leadership of the IRA would not be willing to tolerate that situation

Villain

Mod's can we have one Thread on the IRA statement and one on the Bank robbery, too many threads with the same topic here.

Sand

Progress will not be sustained by the
reinstatment of Thatcherite criminalisation strategies, which
our ten comrades died defeating on hunger strike in 1981. We
will not betray the courage of the hunger strikers either by
tolerating criminality within our own ranks or false allegations
of criminality against our organisation by petty politicians
motivated by selfish interests, instead of the national need for
a successful conclusion to the peace process."

I happpen to think that part of the statement is very interesting
i think it opens the possibility that individual IRA members may have been involved and that the leadership of the IRA would not be willing to tolerate that situation

Bollocks. The IRA doesnt see murder as a crime. How can they view bank robbery as a crime when they have committed many bank robberies? Now if they had said

"Progress will not be sustained by the
reinstatment of Thatcherite *wrongimalisation* strategies, which
our ten comrades died defeating on hunger strike in 1981. We
will not betray the courage of the hunger strikers either by
tolerating *wrongimality* within our own ranks or false allegations
of *wrongimality* against our organisation by petty politicians
motivated by selfish interests, instead of the national need for
a successful conclusion to the peace process."

Then Id be a lot more convinced the IRA sees the NIB robbery as a crime - woops sorry, a wrong - and is determined to punish crinimals - woops, wrongimals - in its ranks.

Otherwise its so much bull**** that only their fanboys lap up. Afterall its Mr Adams stated position that it is simply not possible for the IRA to commit a crime, only wrongs.