[article] Adventures of a Sinn Fein "Campiagn Team"

mycroft

Imperfect tool in an imperfect world but some people force us to implement it? That line of justification sounds very familiar to some of the less savoury policies implemented the world over. Internment, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees and the like.

Yeah, but as I said, Colm Murphy is now a free man, so once again trying to imply the SCC on the same level as some third world junta is a gross exagerration. Once again I remind you, the people doing the torture, murdering, unmarked graves are the IRA. That is a fact and the people who don't think this was a crime are in Sinn Fein.

monument wrote:

mycroft, can I take that you only think a greater wrong excuses lesser wrongs only in the case of the IRA and anyone who might share their goals, regardless of whether such people agree with their means?

In other words, a greater wrong excuses lesser wrongs when you feel like it.

Uh huh, see we could get into a debate about the definition of evil, and the merits of of lesser and worse evils.

We could go on about whether the two nukes used aganist japan and was their use justifed because it may have shorten the war.

Hell we could even drag up that hory old chestnut of a time traveller wandering around Vienna circe 1922 and you met a impoverished artist, do you kill him.

But lets not okay. Why because my moral compass is not the debate of this thread, and your tactic is one of desperation. You're trying to obfuscate the topic of discussion into the realm of philosophy because you know you can't defend the pratical and real. IRA defenders have tried everything to shift the debate away from the thread title because they can no longer defend the argument on its own merits and <i> on the ground and in the real world</i> they've lost the ability to continue the argument.

FTA69

FTA may even have claimed to have been the victim of one of these beatings himself

I have never been the victim of Garda assault and nor have I ever claimed to be.

I doubt many have had *personal* experience of IRA ( and other terrorist groups) atrocities, much as we wouldnt have *personal* experience of say the activities of Serbian paramilitaries in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Ok, but nevertheless because I've never had *personal* experience of the war in this country I have no right to hold an opinion which is what many here are insinuating. A bit of a double standard to say the least.

But many had to stomach for years the sight of Gerry Adams appearing on TV refusing to condemn the latest in a long line of IRA murders of civillians.

All sides have had to see that, including myself eg Edward Heath's statements in support of the paras at the Saville enquiry. Nobody has a monopoly on suffering.

Those victims have an impact on you that stays with you - even when their voices are drowned out by a political process that is designed to exscuse the killers, focus on their needs, and legitimise the murder of 3000 people.

I have heard Paul Maxwell's father on the radio recounting his suffering, just as I have heard Emma Groves recount the incident when a British soldier blew her eyes out of her head with a rubber bullet fired through her sitting room window. As I said above, your comments work both ways.

How must Anne McCabe feel when she learns that one of the provos arrested smuggling money in Dublin had checked himself into a convention as "Jerry McCabe, Garda Catering Officer", a deliberate slur on the memory of another victim of the provos legacy of mindless violence and criminality in Ireland.

That was indeed a slur at the expense of a man who did not deserve to die and I condemn it utterly. However, it was the unrepresentative act of an individual.

These are the people you support, the people youre aligning yourself with.

There are rotten apples within every barrell Sand, a few individuals in the 26-County army were involved in a scandal involving underage Eritrean prostitutes. Do I condemn that entire force on that basis? No. Do I accuse you of supporting people such as this? Again no.

Does it not bother you that there is a Serbian FTA in "Free Serbian Bosnia" whose probably utterly convinced that the Serb paramilitaries were honourable patriots who might have made a few mistakes, but were in a desperate situation trying to save the Serbs from the Bosnian death squads?

The IRA is not comparable to Balkan death squads and as such your analogy is void.

To draw a parallel, the great fear of the survivors of the holocaust is that their suffering will be airbrushed out of history or reduced to dry facts as the survivors age and die and the impact of personal accounts are lost on later generations. Sadly in Ireland, where our primary education and culture is a real prep school for provo rhetoric, this proccess of forgetting the victims of terrorist atrocities is already under way.

Again your assertions work both ways, how often do we hear people with your sentiments condemn the killings of people such as Peter McBride or Francis Rowntree? We are often accused of creating a hierarchy of victims, but in many people's minds the hierarchy seems to be IRA victims while victims of the crown forces are simply "airbrushed" as you put it.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

I have heard Paul Maxwell's father on the radio recounting his suffering, just as I have heard Emma Groves recount the incident when a British soldier blew her eyes out of her head with a rubber bullet fired through her sitting room window. As I said above, your comments work both ways.

Have you ever heard of conflict resolution. It's about those who have done wrong, stopping the wrong and the victims forgiving / accepting (but not forgetting).

The problem is that you defend the IRA's current actions, by pointing to other's past actions.

That doesn't work.

monument

Sand wrote:

Id ask you to come up with a better solution to trying members of criminal and terrorist organisations that intefere with trials through threats against witnessess and jury members. I would love to hear it. I will happily embrace any workable solution that doesnt involve the SCC.

I don't have to 'come up' with something better, this is not new ground...

The main justification for the 1972 introduction of the Special Court, at the peak of the troubles in Northern Ireland, was that juries in cases connected with paramilitary activities were likely to be the subject of intimidation. At no time did the state explore models of jury protection as are practised in many other jurisdictions, such as the use of video links or anonymous juries.

http://www.iccl.ie/criminalj/scc/scc_backgroundpaper.html#back

Sand wrote:

But you dont have one - I absolutely guarantee you dont have a solution that trumps the difficult decision reached by an elected government with immense legal and law enforcement advice to draw upon.

Just in case you might miss the above, here it is again...

At no time did the state explore models of jury protection as are practised in many other jurisdictions, such as the use of video links or anonymous juries...

What did you guarantee again?

Sand wrote:

Effectively without the SCC securing convictions against gangsters, drug barons and terrorists would be close to impossible due to intimidation - look how frightened people are in the McCartney murder.

...Its continuance through the 1990s at a time of much reduced paramilitary activity and particularly since the second IRA ceasefire and the Belfast Agreement of 1998, is harder to justify when the threat of intimidation is much less. The Government's response to this criticism is that organised crime today can pose a threat to juries equivalent to that posed by paramilitaries. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties and other NGOs would reject this argument and point to the fact that Art.28.3 of the Constitution does not justify any such interpretation.

Sand wrote:

We should never *not* question the need for the SCC, but we should also beware of the sinister motives of subversives and their apologists who attempt to destroy the elected governments most potent weapon against terrorists and drug gangs.

Like the ICCL?

I’m sorry but in this case the "sinister motives" and “subversives” apply those who created the Special Kangaroo Court and those who allow the Kangaroo Court to continue, and the “apologists” are those say it is the only way.

BuffyBot

Have you ever heard of conflict resolution. It's about those who have done wrong, stopping the wrong and the victims forgiving / accepting (but not forgetting).

I've said it before, and I'll undoubtedly say it again - unfortunately there are some people that concept just escapes...

Victor

Amnesty International etc. recognise the necessity of such courts in exceptional circumstances.

monument

By saying such, are you somehow trying to undermine the ICCL, and what they have said on the SCC? If so, why don’t you try countering their arguments?



mycroft, with all due respect, is the real reason you won’t answer my question because your answer might make you out to be a hypocrite? Is it because it would make your moral stance on one thing invalid because you have a different moral stance on something (considerably not as ‘bad’, but) similar? So again...

Does a greater wrong excuse lesser wrongs? OR will I take it the greater wrong excuses anything you want it to?

Sand

What did you guarantee again?

That you come up with a better workable solution than the SCC.

What you came up with was a scenario where either every single member of the jury, along with the witnessess would have to be under 24/7 Garda protection for the rest of their lives and most likely would have to utilise new identities. None of this would encourage anyone to either give evidence or do jury service in such trials.

And youve not come up with anything that doesnt involve revealing Garda intelligence assets, who are probably still active and working to protect law abiding citizens from terrorist and criminal gangs, to the jury. This would place the lives of the informants under unecessary risk and again, would mean they would be unwilling to participate.

Like the ICCL?

The ICCL have their own views and opinions. Theyre correct in what they say, that the SCC is not an ideal solution to the problem of jury protection/informant protection. However, in this case the ICCL are not here making their case, they are being used as a shield by apologists for SF/IRA who truly hate this court that their "night shift" cannot easily subvert. SF/IRA and their ilk arent interested in human rights, the rule of law or justice - they are simply interested in attempting to destroy the democratic institutions of this state and the legal institutions that protect them.

bonkey

monument wrote:

mycroft, with all due respect, is the real reason you won’t answer my question because

With all due respect, his reason for answering or not asnwering any question on any thread here is his own business, and certainly has nothing to do with the topic.

I know its a really radical idea, but if people stopped making this personal, there is a chance that the personal abuse would decline. I don't know...maybe I'm foolish in thinking that the increase in personal attacks is related to the increase in personally-focussed posts like this one.

jc

mycroft

monument wrote:

mycroft, with all due respect, is the real reason you won’t answer my question because your answer might make you out to be a hypocrite? Is it because it would make your moral stance on one thing invalid because you have a different moral stance on something (considerably not as ‘bad’, but) similar? So again...

Does a greater wrong excuse lesser wrongs? OR will I take it the greater wrong excuses anything you want it to?

So I'm carrying a dying child in my car. Unfortunately, I can't find parking at the hospital, do I break the law and double park?

I see a known paedophile take a child into his home. I have no phone, and I'm in an isolated area. Do I break the law and force him to stop?

Both are cases of a lesser wrong excusing a greater wrong.

You see you want me to argue in a vacuum.

I want you to discuss the actual specifics and merits of this situation we find ourselves in. Now Sand has put it to you, can you think of an alternative to the SCC considering the situation we find ourselves in?

With all due respect, his reason for answering or not asnwering any question on any thread here is his own business, and certainly has nothing to do with the topic.

Thank you bonkey, I think certain elements of one side in this debate have realised that they can't actually argue the merits of the point and have decided to attack posters on a philosophical rather the politcal level.

At no time did the state explore models of jury protection as are practised in many other jurisdictions, such as the use of video links or anonymous juries.

We're too small a nation. A friend of mine acted as a juror on possibly the most high profile murder trial this country has ever seen, and their anonomity entirely depended on the co-operation of the press.

The cost, logistics, and potential threat to jurors would make the system unworkable.

But tell me, how would you ensure juror anonimity Monument?

Its continuance through the 1990s at a time of much reduced paramilitary activity and particularly since the second IRA ceasefire and the Belfast Agreement of 1998, is harder to justify when the threat of intimidation is much less. The Government's response to this criticism is that organised crime

The fact that the in the current situation the Mc Carthy family have started to refer to the toilet in the pub as "the tardis" due to the number of potential witnesses who claim they were in there while he was being murdered, tells us alot about intimidation of ordinary people by paramilitaries, and informs us that as long as paramilitaries continue to pervert the course of justice, the SCC is an unfortunate necessisity.

Sand

I have never been the victim of Garda assault.

I suspected as much, and I suspect any unsupported reports of Garda assaults on SF members also didnt occur.

Ok, but nevertheless because I've never had *personal* experience of the war in this country I have no right to hold an opinion which is what many here are insinuating. A bit of a double standard to say the least.

To a point it is. Like I said, many people remember news of countless killings and murders - 3,000 Robert McCartneys, with families who were brave and honest enough to demand no retaliations for the deaths of their loved ones. You dont, which isnt your fault. You probably came into the provo school of politics during a peace proccess that was designed to focus on the terrorists, and ignore and exclude the victims and their families.

As such you can be forgiven for viewing SF/IRA as being an acceptable party, that it is acceptable to vote for a terrorist organisation that remains armed and willing to use violence to achieve its ends, and that a successful democracy can be run with such elements corrupting it. The media in Ireland and the UK has been toothless over the past 10 years, and has only just woken up to the fact that it actually isnt acceptable for terrorists to sit in government.

If people criticise your age in relation to your perspective on terrorism and the political machinations of the Army Council, its because theyre old enough to remember the murder wrought by SF/IRA, whilst youve only experienced the unchallenged bull**** of SF/IRA which the governments and other parties have actually collaborated, for fear of the peace process breaking down, in spreading.

All sides have had to see that, including myself eg Edward Heath's statements in support of the paras at the Saville enquiry. Nobody has a monopoly on suffering.

SF/IRA does. It calls incessantly for inquiries into anything that might involve British collusion, imagined or otherwise. Bloody Sunday has another inquiry. Tony Blair only recently offered an apology to the Maguire family.

Meanwhile SF/IRA still refuses to recognise the abduction, torture and murder of a mother of ten as a crime. It makes demands of Jerry McCabes widow, while at the same time sluring her husband through sick jokes. Theyre disgusting.

That was indeed a slur at the expense of a man who did not deserve to die and I condemn it utterly. However, it was the unrepresentative act of an individual.

No its typical of the contempt SF/IRA display towards the victims of their atrocities. Look at the whinging and footdragging over standing down the IRA, decommissioning their weapons and decriminalising - that was the sticking point at December , SF/IRA wouldnt sign up to a decriminalisation pledge.

In comparison to that, the families of SF/IRAs victims have had to see the killers of their loved ones freed to be with their families and friends. Has SF/IRA been humbled by the immense demands this must place on the victims, do you think macho rhetoric bull**** about the need to retain arms comes even close?

There are rotten apples within every barrell Sand, a few individuals in the 26-County army were involved in a scandal involving underage Eritrean prostitutes. Do I condemn that entire force on that basis? No.

The Irish Army investigates and charges members who commit crimes. SF/IRA only does so as a political exercise, because if they were to expel every criminal they wouldnt have anyone left. The comparison is insulting.

The IRA is not comparable to Balkan death squads and as such your analogy is void.

Course they arent, the IRA are "honourable patriots who might have made a few mistakes, but were in a desperate situation trying to save the Serbs(Catholics) from the Bosnian(Loyalist) death squads", arent they?

monument

Sand wrote:

That you come up with a better workable solution than the SCC.

What you came up with was a scenario where either every single member of the jury, along with the witnessess would have to be under 24/7 Garda protection for the rest of their lives and most likely would have to utilise new identities. None of this would encourage anyone to either give evidence or do jury service in such trials.

You don’t seam to be reading what I’ve posted, so again…

“video links or anonymous juries”

Sand wrote:

And youve not come up with anything that doesnt involve revealing Garda intelligence assets

Usually you build evidence to use as proof, but the word of a Garda is more important in the Special Kangaroo Court. Once one starts to convict people on undisclosed intelligence, one has already crossed the line from a court of law to a Kangaroo Court. Spelling it out – the

mycroft wrote:

So I'm carrying a dying child in my car. Unfortunately, I can't find parking at the hospital, do I break the law and double park?

I see a known paedophile take a child into his home. I have no phone, and I'm in an isolated area. Do I break the law and force him to stop?

Both are cases of a lesser wrong excusing a greater wrong.

You see you want me to argue in a vacuum.

I want to lock people up. Do I try them in a proper court of law? No, I know they are guilty, so I’ll just put a show on in a Kangaroo Court.

mycroft wrote:

Thank you bonkey, I think certain elements of one side in this debate have realised that they can't actually argue the merits of the point and have decided to attack posters on a philosophical rather the politcal level.

Apparently, it is not just one side that is “can't actually argue the merits of the point”…

Sand wrote:

However, in this case the ICCL are not here making their case, they are being used as a shield by apologists for SF/IRA who truly hate this court that their "night shift" cannot easily subvert. SF/IRA and their ilk arent interested in human rights, the rule of law or justice - they are simply interested in attempting to destroy the democratic institutions of this state and the legal institutions that protect them.

BTW I don’t support the sick way the IRA have carried out their war, so I cant see how I could be an IRA apologists.

mycroft wrote:

We're too small a nation.

So, now justice is only for large nations.

mycroft wrote:

A friend of mine acted as a juror on possibly the most high profile murder trial this country has ever seen, and their anonomity entirely depended on the co-operation of the press.

The cost, logistics, and potential threat to jurors would make the system unworkable.

But tell me, how would you ensure juror anonimity Monument?

In arguing that the ‘cost, logistics, and potential threat to jurors would make the system unworkable’ you have already dismissed the idea, so I cant see any point in wasting my time.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

I suspected as much, and I suspect any unsupported reports of Garda assaults on SF members also didnt occur.

Not wanting to barge in but I have witnessed Garda assaults on 2 SF members in Store Street Garda Station in the late 1980s. A couple of punches and slaps from the Guards, nothing major though. No hospital treatment was necessary.

mycroft

monument wrote:

You don’t seam to be reading what I’ve posted, so again…

“video links or anonymous juries”

And I'll say again, how could you ensure the juries anonymous nature.

Usually you build evidence to use as proof, but the word of a Garda is more important in the Special Kangaroo Court. Once one starts to convict people on undisclosed intelligence, one has already crossed the line from a court of law to a Kangaroo Court. Spelling it out – the

Really and what evidence is used in IRA courts?

I want to lock people up. Do I try them in a proper court of law? No, I know they are guilty, so I’ll just put a show on in a Kangaroo Court.

And again, the SCC court was forced into existance because of IRA attempts to pervert the course of justice.

And its' a kangaroo court with a court of appeal, as Mr Murphy found out a few weeks ago.

Apparently, it is not just one side that is “can't actually argue the merits of the point”…

No; you've suggested anonymous juries in reaction to what alternatives
you could come up with to the unfortunate existance of the SCC, and then tried to actually wriggle out of proving the war

BTW I don’t support the sick way the IRA have carried out their war, so I cant see how I could be an IRA apologists.

No you've argued that the only court that can have any chance of convicting terrorists should be disbanded and failed to come up with an alternative.




So, now justice is only for large nations.

In arguing that the ‘cost, logistics, and potential threat to jurors would make the system unworkable’ you have already dismissed the idea, so I cant see any point in wasting my time.

Thats weak. That is in fact pathetic.

The whole reason we debate here to discuss, if you could come up with a credible argument you would have. Saying "your mind is made up, I don't see the point, QED I win" is just pathetic.

So tell you what come up with a credible argument I'll hear you out.

How would anonymous juries work? How could you secure and safeguard their anonymity.

Cause otherwise you're just bitching about justice, and not offering an worakable alternative.

Also giving up just after being presented with ancedotal evidence is really just very very weak.....

Victor

monument wrote:

Usually you build evidence to use as proof, but the word of a Garda is more important in the Special Kangaroo Court. Once one starts to convict people on undisclosed intelligence, one has already crossed the line from a court of law to a Kangaroo Court.

But this wasn't the situation here, the judges examined the Garda files to see why the garda had come to the conclusion that they were IRA members. It wasn't a matter of matter garda deciding of his own accord that they were IRA members.

You're not honestly suggesting that the garda intelligence be shared in open court, are you?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

- 3,000 Robert McCartneys, with families who were brave and honest enough to demand no retaliations for the deaths of their loved ones.

that is absolute nonsense the deaths that occurred during the troubles are nothing like robert mccartneys killing

there was absolutely no political motivation no matter how depraved involved in the killing of robert mccartney

cdebru

Victor wrote:

But this wasn't the situation here, the judges examined the Garda files to see why the garda had come to the conclusion that they were IRA members. It wasn't a matter of matter garda deciding of his own accord that they were IRA members.

You're not honestly suggesting that the garda intelligence be shared in open court, are you?

how can someone defend themselves if they are unable to see the evidence that is being laid against them

the gardai could put a spin on a meeting or an item unless you know what spin is being put on your actions it is impossible to counter that spin

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

how can someone defend themselves if they are unable to see the evidence that is being laid against them

the gardai could put a spin on a meeting or an item unless you know what spin is being put on your actions it is impossible to counter that spin

And may i remind you that Colm Murphy was apble to have his cconviction over turned based on his appeal.

That not something jean mc conville got.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Really and what evidence is used in IRA courts?

so the measure of our justice system is that it merely has to be better than the one operated by the provisional IRA
not a very high bar your setting

mycroft wrote:

And again, the SCC court was forced into existance because of IRA attempts to pervert the course of justice.

and its remit has been extended year after year to include people like concerned parents, ordinary criminals,drug dealers etc
the point about allowing something like the SCC is that it is brought in on the basis of fighting terrorism but its use once in is expanded gradually beyond its original intent
recently it has been extended to 2 courts and extra judges have been appointed despite the fact that realistically the threat to this state has actually subsided compared to when the SCC was introduced yet it is busier than it ever was when the war was raging

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

And may i remind you that Colm Murphy was apble to have his cconviction over turned based on his appeal.

That not something jean mc conville got.

again your suggesting that the measure of wether our justice system is proper and fair is that it is better than the justice meeted out by the provos

and just to save you the bother of continually throwing the murder of jean mcconville into the mix

1 it was a crime
2 it was murder
3 i don't believe she was an informer


and lastly colm murphy should never have been convicted once the court became aware that the 2 interviewing gardai had altered the records of his interview and had perjured themselves in court it should have been thrown out then

true

Originally Posted by Sand


"- 3,000 Robert McCartneys, with families who were brave and honest enough to demand no retaliations for the deaths of their loved ones. "

cdebru wrote:

that is absolute nonsense the deaths that occurred during the troubles are nothing like robert mccartneys killing

there was absolutely no political motivation no matter how depraved involved in the killing of robert mccartney

Cdebru, is a Catholic life taken by Republicans in Short Strand more valuable than a life taken by a the Le Mon bomb, the Bloody Friday bombs, the Omagh bomb, the Guildford bomb, the Warrington bomb, etc etc ?

Is Gda McCabes life worth more or less than the above, or more or less than RUC officers ?

The answer is no.

Slutmonkey57b

cdebru wrote:

so the measure of our justice system is that it merely has to be better than the one operated by the provisional IRA
not a very high bar your setting

NO. The measure we're (or if you like I) setting is that an organisation that runs a REAL Kangaroo court should not be allowed to criticise, in any way, the operation of the SCC, or demand for it to be shut down. The SCC can cease to exist as soon as the cause of its existance, the IRA, is shut down - as it should already be.


And on the issue of Video links, tell me how many courts in the world used video link technology in 1970? Ther's plenty now, but the technology's a lot cheaper.

Slutmonkey57b

Who exactly are the "concerned parents"? I'm concerned about the education system - is the SCC after me?

No. What you mean is "concerned parents" as a euphemism for violent vigilante gangs. (quiety containing members of SF or the IRA who advise them on their activities.)

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Who exactly are the "concerned parents"? I'm concerned about the education system - is the SCC after me?

No. What you mean is "concerned parents" as a euphemism for violent vigilante gangs. (quiety containing members of SF or the IRA who advise them on their activities.)

No, the term concerned parents was coined by the CPAD movement in the areas of Dublin that had been ravaged by the drug problem in the mid to late '80s. The Gardai and politicians did not give a damn that the areas were being taken over by the drug gangs and they done nothing (or very little) to tackle it. The Guards appeared in force to face down the residents (where did they find the resources to do that) of the areas who were not prepared to let their area be taken over by drug gangs. The resident spokesmen and leaders were charged in the SCC and the state used convicted drug dealers to testify on the states behalf.

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

and its remit has been extended year after year to include people like concerned parents, ordinary criminals,drug dealers etc
the point about allowing something like the SCC is that it is brought in on the basis of fighting terrorism but its use once in is expanded gradually beyond its original intent

I see so , you dont mind its use against jury interfering terrorists but draw the line against other crimes?
Bear in mind convicted criminals have access to some of the best lawyers in the land and can mount a public awareness campaign if they feel theres been an injustice.I doubt there would have been any justice in the veronica Guerin case without it by the way.

Will we start the free John Gilligan and Brian Meehan campaign now? I can see the church gate collections already :rolleyes:
Also as we are talking about terrorists here perhaps, theres no need to bring up its use in other areas at all then.

Remember aswell that governments that police the use of the SCC are democratically elected and one of the central issues that they always face when meeting the public is law and order and crime.
It's doubtfull if a politician would gain votes on an agenda of loosening the tools the state have to tackle crime.

I fully expect to see more and more vocal republican outrage at the SCC and the CAB, now that the softly softly for the sake of the peace process approach to them has been abandoned(and rightly so-a peace process is good but it doesnt give anyone the right to continue un hindered criminal activities).
That outrage will be seen by the ordinary decent law abiding vast majority of the country though for the puke that it is.
Of that I have no doubt.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

so the measure of our justice system is that it merely has to be better than the one operated by the provisional IRA
not a very high bar your setting

No but I doubt the SCC and the injustice of it all would have you in a tissy at the moment were it not for this case.

And I find it a bit rich that terrorist apologists come here and complain about the justice meated out by the SCC is far less damaging than the justice of an IRA court

and its remit has been extended year after year to include people like concerned parents, ordinary criminals,drug dealers etc
the point about allowing something like the SCC is that it is brought in on the basis of fighting terrorism but its use once in is expanded gradually beyond its original intent
recently it has been extended to 2 courts and extra judges have been appointed despite the fact that realistically the threat to this state has actually subsided compared to when the SCC was introduced yet it is busier than it ever was when the war was raging

See the first part you have a point, and I'll agree with you the expansion of the court to deal with non terrorist offences is wrong. And that should be opposed.

As for the 2nd half, seeing as the IRA/R-IRA/INLA/C-IRA are still recruiting, active, armed, and commiting robberies, money laundering, and puinishment beatings, and attempting to pervert the cause of justice, don't you think it's a bit rash to say we have no need for the court now?

IRA stops criminality and terrorism and disbanded, we in the camp of disbanding the special criminal court get a very good argument for the dismanteling of the court.

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

I see so , you dont mind its use against jury interfering terrorists but draw the line against other crimes?
Bear in mind convicted criminals have access to some of the best lawyers in the land and can mount a public awareness campaign if they feel theres been an injustice.I doubt there would have been any justice in the veronica Guerin case without it by the way.

Will we start the free John Gilligan and Brian Meehan campaign now? I can see the church gate collections already :rolleyes:
Also as we are talking about terrorists here perhaps, theres no need to bring up its use in other areas at all then.

Remember aswell that governments that police the use of the SCC are democratically elected and one of the central issues that they always face when meeting the public is law and order and crime.
It's doubtfull if a politician would gain votes on an agenda of loosening the tools the state have to tackle crime.

I fully expect to see more and more vocal republican outrage at the SCC and the CAB, now that the softly softly for the sake of the peace process approach to them has been abandoned(and rightly so-a peace process is good but it doesnt give anyone the right to continue un hindered criminal activities).
That outrage will be seen by the ordinary decent law abiding vast majority of the country though for the puke that it is.
Of that I have no doubt.

I don't think anyone should have to face a non jury court unless they choose to
my point is that it is brought in on the pretext of dealing with subversives
and gradually it has been widened this is dangerous in a demoracy and undermines the fairness of the justice system
other jurisdictions deal with criminals far more dangerous than john gilligan without having to subvert their justice system to secure a conviction

I have no desire to free john gilligan but i do have a desire to ensure that everyone recieves a fair trial in front of a jury

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

I don't think anyone should have to face a non jury court unless they choose to

I can see it all so clearly now. A justice-lite system for those who don't want to face the full might of the law .....

yeah.

my point is that it is brought in on the pretext of dealing with subversives
and gradually it has been widened this is dangerous in a demoracy and undermines the fairness of the justice system
other jurisdictions deal with criminals far more dangerous than john gilligan without having to subvert their justice system to secure a conviction

let me get this straight. SCC gets formed to combat subversives since witnesses wont come forward for fear of reprisals. Government attempt to expand SCC. Subversives & their apologist supporters call for abolition of SCC.

Hmmm. Let me think about this one. Y'see, whilst there is a very good argument to reign in any expansion of the SCC, the reason for its foundation is still in existence and quite quite active. So why should it be abolished?

I have no desire to free john gilligan but i do have a desire to ensure that everyone recieves a fair trial in front of a jury

Heh ..... the irony.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

I can see it all so clearly now. A justice-lite system for those who don't want to face the full might of the law .....

yeah.



let me get this straight. SCC gets formed to combat subversives since witnesses wont come forward for fear of reprisals. Government attempt to expand SCC. Subversives & their apologist supporters call for abolition of SCC.

Hmmm. Let me think about this one. Y'see, whilst there is a very good argument to reign in any expansion of the SCC, the reason for its foundation is still in existence and quite quite active. So why should it be abolished?



Heh ..... the irony.

why would a jury be a justice lite



the only irony is your willingness to jump in and talk about something you know little about
the SCC has nothing to do with the protection of witnesses
it is a jury less court
the jury are not witnesses
the government has expanded the SCC not attempted
I don't know what subversives view is on the SCC nor their apologists

the PIRA maybe still in existence but does it not strike you as strange that after 10 years of the peace process when whatever about the various problems the north is relatively peaceful the court needs to be expanded now
not when the IRA was in full flight during the 70s and 80s the reason is that more and more non subversives are being brought before this court

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote:

I can see it all so clearly now. A justice-lite system for those who don't want to face the full might of the law .....

I think youy are confused. A juryless justice system is the justice-lite system not the otherway around.

let me get this straight. SCC gets formed to combat subversives since witnesses wont come forward for fear of reprisals. Government attempt to expand SCC. Subversives & their apologist supporters call for abolition of SCC.

The SCC is all about doing away with the jury system of justice not the witness system. Any democrat would wish the end of the juryless system!!

Hmmm. Let me think about this one. Y'see, whilst there is a very good argument to reign in any expansion of the SCC, the reason for its foundation is still in existence and quite quite active. So why should it be abolished?

Really? Over the last 10 years, what percentage of the cases handled by the juryless system are tied to the original reason for its foundation?