Put up or shut up

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

Mr McDowell has said this evening that he believed Leading members of the IRA were household names who appeared on television.

So Minister it's time you put up or shut up, you are the Minister for Justice so lets have these people arrested for been members of the IRA.

He said he believes it. I believe in a divine power and I offer no proof, respect my belief.

Gerry Adams this evening challenged Bertie Ahern to have him or arrested for conspiring to the theft of the Northern Bank robbery or withdraw his accusation that the leaders of SF knew about the bank robbery.

That’s why I despise Adams, how he can use a crisis like this as a bit of electioneering. Bertie has too much respect for the peace process to arrest Adams (pity that respect isn’t shared). Arresting SF persons will only benefit the party come elections

So come on Bertie and Michael lets see if your willing to put your evidence to the test of our justice system, otherwise withdraw your accusations.

Under Irish Law the testimony of a Garda super intendant is enough to guarantee a conviction for membership of an illegal organisation. If Bertie wanted them in jail, or if that would serve any good then it could quite easily be done.
On the specific charge of sanctioning the robbery, if Adams did, that’s not exactly a crime the DPP can prosecute. It’s another jurisdiction for a start and secondly, so what. Adams hasn’t been accused of directing the bank robbery.
As it stands Bertie hasn’t even committed a tort (privileges of office) so Adams can’t even take a civil case against him, though I doubt he'd want to.

Hairy Homer

Wicknight wrote:

The intelligence services know exactly what goes on. They aren't stupid.

No. But they think we all are. And in the case of anybody gullible enough to believe that the phrase 'intelligence reports' is a synonym for 'facts', they're probably right.

Four words: weapons of mass destruction.


I am no fan of the IRA and no supporter of Sinn Fein. And I do think that it's high time the leadership of the 'republican movement' (their exact synonym for the Unionist title Sinn Fein/IRA) were made to come clean about the makeup of all parts of its movement and who does what role. I have seen some people call for a 'Justice and Truth Commission' along the lines of the South African model to address this, and I think it's a good idea.

But it's a very dangerous precedent for the politicians of a democracy to make allegations like this without proper judicially verified evidence.

Worst case scenario: what if it wasn't the IRA who did the bank job? What if it were a group of republican dissidents? What if it were, perish the thought, a dirty tricks operation by some or other branch of the British 'intelligence services'?

I'm not saying it was. I don't have any evidence. But if our leaders can be shown to have baldly lied and expect to get away with it, that doesn't bode well for anybody's civil rights.

I'm not thinking of the poor old provies civil rights. I'm thinking ultimately of my own.


There's a great passage in the play 'A man for all seasons' based on the life of Thomas More which puts the point much better than I can:

Roper So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

So if the Minister For Justice has information that could lead to an arrest he shouldn't give it to the Gardai so THEY can decide whether or not to arrest???

Because the Gardaí gave it to him, its not pass the friggin parcel.

Thats basically what your saying, If I have evidence that showed who were the leaders of an ILLEGAL organisation I would feel obliged to go to the Gardai, I accept it is up to them to decide whether or not to act on that info.

The charge isnt directing terrorism, a very serious and hard to prove charge, but an allegation that they negotiated in bad faith, ie knew something was going to happen. Adams and McGuninnes may or may not have been there when the IRA army council voted to "resume operational readiness" after the collapse of talks in Hillsburragh but it is unimaginable that they would not have seen the activities in their own constituencies or that the IRA would have left them uninformed.

But if McDowell and Berite have the evidence they claim to have they should present it to the Gardai, and let them decide whether or not to act on it.

AFAIK negotiating in bad faith isn a criminal offence.

Villain

I believe he could still be arrested for conspiring to theft, and if he was on the IRA army council he could also be charged with directing terrorism.

So people here believe that Bertie should not present the evidence he has to the gardai, interesting!

So he should continue to throw accusations around but not give the Gardai information that could lead to an arrest.

LOL you really should think about what your saying, imagine there was a huge robbery in dublin last night by a criminal gang (like the €250,000 robbed from an post last month) and Bertie stated that he knew people who had prior knowledge of this, but wouldn't give this information to the gardai because the gang would go out and kill people etc!!!

Law and order and Due process should be applied in all situations.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

I believe he could still be arrested for conspiring to theft, and if he was on the IRA army council he could also be charged with directing terrorism.

But thats not what Bertie said, he said they had prior knowledge, he didnt say this was because they were on the army council, hence they knew but not neccessarily had any hand in it thus cannot be charged with directing terrorism or conspiracy to theft

So people here believe that Bertie should not present the evidence he has to the gardai, interesting!

"There are four lights"
Open your eyes and actually read what has been written. The Gardaí have the evidence, they gave it to bertie and its up to them what they do with it. Its also low, dispicable, cowardly and selfish the wat Adams is going on electioneering from all this.

So he should continue to throw accusations around but not give the Gardai information that could lead to an arrest.

What purpose would an arrest serve?

LOL you really should think about what your saying, imagine there was a huge robbery in dublin last night by a criminal gang (like the €250,000 robbed from an post last month) and Bertie stated that he knew people who had prior knowledge of this, but wouldn't give this information to the gardai because the gang would go out and kill people etc!!!

You are lauging at the idea of people dying? You're sick.

Law and order and Due process should be apllied in all situations.

Yes, of course, but there is no charge being made against Adams, so whats the point in going to court, SF just wants some PR victories.

Bertie said Adams and crew had prior knowledge, thus they negotiated in bad faith. Its a huge leap to say bertie accused adams of organising the robery. And while it is widly felt that Adams is on the army council, bertie didnt say that.

You are just looking for crimes adams didnt commit

Necromancer

Necromancer wrote:

I’m not going to go down that road again with what happened to Jean McConville, you, oscar bravo and I discussed it as far as we could but I think it is ridiculous that you now offer the EXACT same logic as you rejected now that it supports your views.

Agreed.
I have to say if one is going to be making points here, the least one should expect is to be making them consistantly across posts and threads.
IE-not saying one thing in one thread and something different in another that conflicts with the point you made in the previous thread.

The problem here is if I stood up and said in public that one of my local T.D's was involved with a criminal gang(all my T.D's are either from the top 3 parties and then Mildred Fox) if I said it in the print media, if a national newspaper said it... I would expect law suits to be happening quickly.
Why is this is not happening in the case of SF? and why are virtually all T.D's many of them poll toppers and senators representing the vast majority of the people of this country all singing off the same hymn sheet? ie that SF are inextricably linked with criminal gangs?

It's a bit early to be saying theres an election coming up-realisticlly thats more than 2 yrs away-its way too early to be slinging mud for that as theres too much time for a counter case to be put in front of the public.
The counter case would or should involve a suit against slander by the way.

irish1 wrote:

LOL you really should think about what your saying, imagine there was a huge robbery in dublin last night by a criminal gang (like the €250,000 robbed from an post last month) and Bertie stated that he knew people who had prior knowledge of this, but wouldn't give this information to the gardai because the gang would go out and kill people etc!!!

Would that gang be involved in politics though? Doesnt the Taoiseach of this country have the right to inform his people of any information regarding that? Certainly people should be told and would the case you mention be people with an arsenal of semtex ready to mass murder innocent fellow human beings in these islands?
Would they be negotiating the removal of said bombs and their criminal activity while at the same time planning the biggest ever heist on this island?

Bertie wouldnt have to shop them as action would already be taken in their regard because they wouldn't be threatening mass mahem nor would they be capable of it.
I'm sure there are plenty of non IRA robbers in prison at the moment....

The fact that you LoL at this, the fact that you laugh out loud at this serious matter doesnt bode too well ...

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

You are lauging at the idea of people dying? You're sick.

No I was luagHing at peoples views, and you knew well thats what I was laughing at, don't be so childish.

As for the rest of your post, well Bertie said Adams knew about the robbery so therfore I believe legally he could be arrested. The gardai have some evidence, Bertie said he also had evidence from the PSNI.

If Gerry Adams is on the IRA army council and the IRA carried out the robbery he should be arrested and I honestly believe that, let him have his day in court and punish him if he's found guilty.

McDowell says he knows whos on the Army Council, Mary Harney said Martin Ferris is on it, but the Taoiseach said in the Dail recently that he didn't know who was on it!!. They seem to be a little confused.

Lets use the Justice System and sort the truth from the bulls**t.

Villain

Just because someone doesn't take a libel case, doesn't mean it's true, proof is needed for it to be true.

Stabshauptmann

Childish, its what you wrote.

irish1 wrote:

LOL you really should think about what your saying, imagine there was a huge robbery in dublin last night by a criminal gang (like the €250,000 robbed from an post last month) and Bertie stated that he knew people who had prior knowledge of this, but wouldn't give this information to the gardai because the gang would go out and kill people etc!!!

Law and order and Due process should be applied in all situations.

You say VERY CLEARLY that the idea that a gang would blackmail the Taoiseach with the threat of violence and death makes you laugh!

Or is it that such a situation is so incredulous to you that the possibility makes you laugh? In that case you are just ignorant of the world in which you live, that situation is a common occurance.

Stabshauptmann

So, are you sick or ignorant?

pablo321

I agree...

Arrest them, produce some evidence, not just theories and shadowy "inteligence". Otherwise "Shut up" (said to the politicians, not us guys who should discuss it forever)...

I think Bertie is well out of line and let his personnel opinions get int the way of whats best for a lasting peace.

The problem with the north peace process is there is too much talking to the press from all sides.

They should have a gag order on everyone participating. I think they'd get a lot more done.

Pablo

Stabshauptmann

pablo321 wrote:

I think Bertie is well out of line and let his personnel opinions get int the way of whats best for a lasting peace.

That is one of the most ignorant statements Ive heard this week (I only keep count on a weekly basis )
Have you even the slightest understanding of the personal, political and proffesional sacrifices and compomises Bertie has made to keep the process going. When SF accused Bertie in the Dail of electioneer with Norther Bank robery, he illustrated crystal clearly how it is SF who is using this as a PR exercise.

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

So, are you sick or ignorant?

I am neither, i was laughing at the logic of people, that justice should be ignored because of fear!

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

I am neither, i was laughing at the logic of people, that justice should be ignored because of fear!

Oh, ok.
So you agree that such threats exist and condemn such threads as undemocratic, counter productive and immoral. Good.

That people would acquiesce to threats in your opinion is laughable. Then why might I ask did the IRA wage a 30 year war of violence if not to force the British to acquiesce?

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

Oh, ok.
So you agree that such threats exist and condemn such threads as undemocratic, counter productive and immoral. Good.

I certainly do.

Necromancer wrote:

That people would acquiesce to threats in your opinion is laughable. Then why might I ask did the IRA wage a 30 year war of violence if not to force the British to acquiesce?

You'd really have to ask the IRA that, I'm just a SF voter, not even a member

pablo321

pablo321 wrote:

I think Bertie is well out of line and let his personnel opinions get int the way of whats best for a lasting peace.

You think most the other T.D's across parties in the Dáil representing most of the people of this country are out of line aswell? After all they all sponsored the same motion in the Dáil the other day...

They would disagree with you that sweeping under the carpet the fact that certain people had to their knowledge been privy to the planning of a 26 million pound robbery is in the interests of peace.

So theres a massive volcano of opinion besides that of Ahern involved here and thats why the Republican leadership should sue and get damages like any other innocent party...
That would clear up the matter once and for all.
But then as the person on V Browne said last night , he thinks they are not doing that because for a slander trial to be sucessfull " the allegations have to be untrue..."

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Just because someone doesn't take a libel case, doesn't mean it's true, proof is needed for it to be true.

That's not strictly the case. All that is needed for it to be true is that it be, um, true. For example: "I have dark hair." I haven't provided any proof for that statement. Does that mean it's not true?

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

I certainly do.



You'd really have to ask the IRA that, I'm just a SF voter, not even a member

No, your not out of it that easily, there is a flaw in your lolgic either hammer out that flaw or abondon the logic:

Was the IRAs campaign in your opinion so ludicrous in its design and aim as to make you laugh? I.E the notion that armed struggle would acomplish anything is totally idiotic.

You say your vote SF, that is to say you argree with their aims, views and tactics. SF is an integral part of the republican movement, while dedicated to stricly democratic means, respects and acknowledges the achievements of the IRA and does not catagorically believe that one should give up the right to armed struggle.

So, you can see how that party line is in contrast to the logic you used?

Please give an answer to each of the questions in bold. Thank you.

oscarBravo

Victor wrote:

I wonder how Gerry **knows** the IRA wasn't involved.

Gerry just knows stuff. Sure, didn't he know that the IRA weren't involved in the Adare robbery?

Stabshauptmann

Just thought Id point out a few things about Defamation.

The following things must be shown for an action in defamation to be supported;
a statement was made about you expressly or by implication in such a way as to be understood by others as referring to you.
it was published to a third party
the statement must be likely to lower you in the eyes of right thinking persons

Ok so those are all met.

Defences offered for defamation:
Justification
Fair Comment
Absolute Privilege
Qualified Privilege
Consent

lets just skip down to the second one:

Fair Comment defence Must show:
The statement was one of opinion
It is based on facts available to the public (if the facts are not available to the public then they must be set out in the statement). The facts must be substantially true.
The comment must be fair i.e. honestly held and without malice.
The comment must be on a matter of public interest

Since bertie wasnt in the Dail at the exact time he said it we skip absolute privilage and go to qualified privilage:

When a statement is “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty whether legal or moral or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned.”

Bertie has an air tight defence. The allegation that Adams is on the army council, true or false, has been in the public domain for years.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

You think most the other T.D's across parties in the Dáil representing most of the people of this country are out of line aswell? After all they all sponsored the same motion in the Dáil the other day...

They would disagree with you that sweeping under the carpet the fact that certain people had to their knowledge been privy to the planning of a 26 million pound robbery is in the interests of peace.

So theres a massive volcano of opinion besides that of Ahern involved here and thats why the Republican leadership should sue and get damages like any other innocent party...
That would clear up the matter once and for all.
But then as the person on V Browne said last night , he thinks they are not doing that because for a slander trial to be sucessfull " the allegations have to be untrue..."

There was a "massive volcano of opinion" that said the IRA was behind the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 at the time too.
Also, there was a bank robbery that was done by British agents that was blamed on the IRA at the time too. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/01/03/story734246667.asp
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/01/22/brits-stage-robbery-to-discredit-ira/

There was also a "massive volcano of opinion" that said Saddam Hussien possessed WMD and even could unleash them in 48 hours i believe.

I believe that Adams would win a libel case because it would be fairly easy of him to prove malice in the allegations against him, also the RoI will be unable to prove that he sanctioned the bank robbery. To employ yours, or V Browne's own logic: the proof that SF are innocent of these allegations is because the authorities haven't arrested them for conspiracy.

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

Was the IRAs campaign in your opinion so ludicrous in its design and aim as to make you laugh? I.E the notion that armed struggle would acomplish anything is totally idiotic.

I wouldn't laugh at it because whether we like it or not they did acheive certain things but that doesnt mean the murder of innocent people was justified, I would however say that a return to the armed struggle would be WRONG and stupid. I believe the peace process can bring about a lasting peace and in time a United Ireland, BTW McDowell said lately that he supported the aim to Unite Ireland

Necromancer wrote:

So, you can see how that party line is in contrast to the logic you used?

I said I vote for SF that doesn't mean I argree with everything they say, I mean I'm sure a lot of people who vote for FF or FG don't agree with them on everything. Hope those answers are to your satisfaction, if you want me to clarify anything just ask

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

I believe that Adams would win a libel case because it would be fairly easy of him to prove malice in the allegations against him

Which begs the question: why hasn't he brought such a case?

jman0

oscarBravo wrote:

Which begs the question: why hasn't he brought such a case?

I don't know oscarBravo, but that hardly qualifies as guilt.
Maybe he doesn't believe the hassle of a court case gains him anything.
Maybe he doesn't have confidence in the RoI Justice System, do you?
After all Adams is walking free and boldly challenging RoI authorities to arrest him when he is allegedly implicated in a conspircy to commit heinous bank robbery...

jman0

jman0 wrote:

There was a "massive volcano of opinion" that said the IRA was behind the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 at the time too.

Was there?
Wheres your evidence of that? Were most of the members of the Dáil and Taoiseach saying that?

There was also a "massive volcano of opinion" that said Saddam Hussien possessed WMD and even could unleash them in 48 hours i believe.

And the relevance to this is? oh yeah Saddam didn't sue either... is that it?
Fact of the matter is, the Taoiseach is out there amongst others and national newspapers saying awfull bad things about the Republican leadership and they ain't sue-ing...
Don't be surprised if that doesn't look fishy to most people.

Maybe he doesn't believe the hassle of a court case gains him anything.

LoL
Now theres a comment that deserves laughing out loud at.
You are saying that maybe he thinks putting closure on this(the Republican leadership have been slandered in his view haven't they?) is too much hassle versus the hassle they are in now.

As I say LoL.

Paddyo

Hi

Did anyone hear Gerry Adams being interviewed on RTE1s 5-7 live last night.

HE was asked why he doesn't sue for defamation -

Gerry: Based on legal advice I will not sue

Interviewer: What is the legal advice

Gerry: For me to win I would have to show that the comments made would have changed the opinion of my peers.

Interviewer: Does this mean that the people of West Belfast already believe what the Taoiseach and others have said.

Gerry: It is my legal advice and I am taking that advice. The courts would have to believe it.....

This is not verbatim - but gives the gist of the interview

I think its the only time I have heard an interviewer get one up so easily on Gerry.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Was there?
Wheres your evidence of that? Were most of the members of the Dáil and Taoiseach saying that?.

Yes, particularly Conor Cruise O. Brien

Earthman wrote:

And the relevance to this is?

The relevance is that the intelligence (particularly the 48 claim) was from British sources, proves how reliable they are eh?

Earthman wrote:

LoL
Now theres a comment that deserves laughing out loud at.
You are saying that maybe he thinks putting closure on this(the Republican leadership have been slandered in his view haven't they?) is too much hassle versus the hassle they are in now..

I'll put that down to naviety on your part.
A libel case would be a general distraction from this affair. The media would love it and an unsuccessful outcome won't be beneficial to SF. A successful outcome doesn't bring closure. How does it bring closure i must ask? People like yourselves and the Unionists would just excuse it as meaning the government didn't have the hard evidence to make the charges stick.
Besides, the prejudical opinion of the (biased) media, would berate gerry adams for the self-interest (selfishness) inherit in such a case.

But if you want my opinion, in the grander scale of things, the Nationalist/Repbulican outrage at this is going to secure the opposite of what these **** seek: instead of defeating SF electorally in the North, the people will lash out at whatever they can, and since FF doesn't have the balls to stand for election in the North, the SDLP is the next whipping boy....
I'm looking forward to it.

jman0

Paddyo wrote:

Hi

Did anyone hear Gerry Adams being interviewed on RTE1s 5-7 live last night.

HE was asked why he doesn't sue for defamation -

Gerry: Based on legal advice I will not sue

Interviewer: What is the legal advice

Gerry: For me to win I would have to show that the comments made would have changed the opinion of my peers.

Interviewer: Does this mean that the people of West Belfast already believe what the Taoiseach and others have said.

Gerry: It is my legal advice and I am taking that advice. The courts would have to believe it.....

This is not verbatim - but gives the gist of the interview

I think its the only time I have heard an interviewer get one up so easily on Gerry.

What it means, is that Gerry's peers already don't believe the Taoiseach.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Yes, particularly Conor Cruise O. Brien

One? how many more versus lets see ... almost all the current members of the Dáil bar SF... BIG difference.

The relevance is that the intelligence (particularly the 48 claim) was from British sources, proves how reliable they are eh?

I didnt know the Gardí and the PSNI provided evidence for WMD in Iraq-wow

I'll put that down to naviety on your part.
A libel case would be a general distraction from this affair. The media would love it and an unsuccessful outcome won't be beneficial to SF.

Really you havent shown one iota of naivety on my part, but you showed it yourself yesterday when you were trying to say that the peple in the 26 counties didnt vote for the Good Friday Agreement.
You were clearly wrong.

But if you want my opinion, in the grander scale of things, the Nationalist/Repbulican outrage at this is going to secure the opposite of what these **** seek: instead of defeating SF electorally in the North, the people will lash out at whatever they can, and since FF doesn't have the balls to stand for election in the North, the SDLP is the next whipping boy....
I'm looking forward to it.

I see so according to you the most of the Dáil are **** eh?
You do realise that if you say that in the paper or on TV you could be sued

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I see so according to you the most of the Dáil are **** eh?
You do realise that if you say that in the paper or on TV you could be sued

Not bloodly likely, apparently it's up the them to prove they don't masturbate.