IT only takes 8 years to say sorry...

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

get fed up as much as you like

if you can find anywhere in my post that i support terrorists i would love to see it

if you can also find anywhere in that post where i have demanded they be released i would love to see it

but i will give it to you in this post I think they should be released as part of the GFA and that they are qualifying prisioners
that does not mean that I think the killing of garda mccabe was acceptable or justified surely you can comprehend the difference

and just to head you of at the pass i think it was a crime

Dear jesus, black is white here.


Okay you know it was a crime, you know it was wrong, you know it occured during a cease fire. What possible reason, aside fro rule of technical law, which was a discression of the irish govt, why do you think they deserve it? What specific reason, why do they deserve it?

It was a crime, commited by terrorists "under cease fire", which resulted in the murder of man doing his job. Why do they deserve, screw legal technicals, why morally do these mean deserve to be free?

Cause see you'll argue legal technicalities, and I find it absurd the polticalor legaly you feel they need to be released. You dont get released from a punishment shooting or a unmarked grave.

Its kind of sickening watching you argue about legal quibbles over the Mc Cabe release when there are 14 dead children in the Ardoyne over the last few years suffering from PTS after their puinishment beatings/shootings by republcians (screw the INLA/IRA divide the INLA squads operate at the IRA's indulgence)

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

there is nothing wrong with anyone having a problem with legislation passed by leinster house or any other parliament

people have problems with all kinds of laws passed by parliament infact our constitution requires that the president refer legislation to the supreme court if there is a doubt on its constitutionality

And you will note that no one has challenged the legislation or urged the President to challenge the GFA legislation.

if you look back you will see the IRA admitted to carrying out the adare robbery and killing of garda mccabe before the GFA and the prisioner release was negotiated

yeah you are correct, but are you suggesting, the IRA would not have had prisoner release in mind for whatever agreement that would come out of the peace process as it was more commonly known then?
Because I don't honestly think so.I'm skeptical aswell that a well disiplined organisation such that it is would deny and then after a time accept responsibility in the way that it did.
It's possible of course that they did actually struggle as to what to say or do about the killing of a Garda initially and then decided to confirm it for whatever reason.
But to be frank with you, the less,I know about the IRA the better,I just find the whole saga including this episode disturbing.

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

infact our constitution requires that the president refer legislation to the supreme court if there is a doubt on its constitutionality

Our constitution requires nothing of the sort.

Go read it. It's article 26, section 1, subsection 1. The president can refer any legislation (with three exceptions) prior to signing it after consulting with the council of state (regardless of their opinion, all he/she needs to do is consult with them) if he/she feels like it to check for constitutionality. Nothing more. There's no requirement.

Please don't denigrate the knowledge of others while making an asshat of it yourself in the same post. Looks funny.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

It was a crime,

Yes, but so was every other action for which a jailed IRA member has been granted early release, so that doesn't make it any different.

commited by terrorists

Again, no difference.

"under cease fire",

Why is this in quotes? Either they were, or were not under cease-fire. The use of quotes seems to imply that there is some doubt, or that it was a sort-of-a-cease-fire. Isn't this the major bone of contention?

maybe I've my timeline wrong, but I see:

- the IRA abandoned the '94 ceasefire
- McCabe was killed
- the IRA later returned to a ceasefire.

McCabe was not the only person killed by the IRA in this interim gap either, if memory serves.

Why do they deserve, screw legal technicals, why morally do these mean deserve to be free?

They don't morally deserve to be free. None of the people for whom early release was negotiated morally deserve to be free. But we've agreed that they will be given early release. The question is why is the McCabe case different to the others.

We negotiated a settlement which said that people who met criteria A, B and C were eligible. From my reading of the GFA, the only possible area of doubt is whether or not the killing of garda McCabe classifies as a scheduled offence or not. This has been done to death before...so I'm not getting back into whether or not it is. I'm simply pointing out that from what I can see of the wording of the GFA, there is no other issue. If they qualify, then - according to the exact wording of the GFA:

Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed timeframe and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners.

I should point out that there are other avenues we could use (the eligibility only covers prisoners affiliated to groups on continued and full cease-fire), but this isn't an argument against the McCabe killers' release, but rather about whether or not any IRA prisoners should be eligible.

Cause see you'll argue legal technicalities

Well when you're discussing the implementation of teh law, thats about all you should argue. Implementing the law in a biased manner to appease some sense of moral righteousness demeans the law every bit as much as (iof not moreson than) implementing it even-handedly in a manner which yields distasteful results.

You dont get released from a punishment shooting or a unmarked grave.

Again, you seem to be arguing that the GFA gave too much, and we shouldn't bother sticking to our side of the agreements, rather than explaining why the mcCabe killers should not be teated the same as the other killers and terrorists for whom we agreed a settlement.

Its kind of sickening watching you argue about legal quibbles over the Mc Cabe release when there are 14 dead children in the Ardoyne over the last few years suffering from PTS after their puinishment beatings/shootings by republcians (screw the INLA/IRA divide the INLA squads operate at the IRA's indulgence)

Are you not doing the exact same - arguing about the legal quibbles over the McCabe release?

The only other possibility I can see is that you're decrying the entire agreement, and basically saying that we should never have negotiated this settlement in the first place, and that the other side are now to blame for asking us to stick to what we signed up to.

jc

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Dear jesus, black is white here.


Okay you know it was a crime, you know it was wrong, you know it occured during a cease fire. What possible reason, aside fro rule of technical law, which was a discression of the irish govt, why do you think they deserve it? What specific reason, why do they deserve it?

It was a crime, commited by terrorists "under cease fire", which resulted in the murder of man doing his job. Why do they deserve, screw legal technicals, why morally do these mean deserve to be free?

Cause see you'll argue legal technicalities, and I find it absurd the polticalor legaly you feel they need to be released. You dont get released from a punishment shooting or a unmarked grave.

Its kind of sickening watching you argue about legal quibbles over the Mc Cabe release when there are 14 dead children in the Ardoyne over the last few years suffering from PTS after their puinishment beatings/shootings by republcians (screw the INLA/IRA divide the INLA squads operate at the IRA's indulgence)

actually black would appear to be white in your case

check your facts the IRA was not on ceasefire at the time of the mccabe killing

they deserve it because they are qualifying prisoners under the GFA end of story you do not have to like or agree with what they did but that was the agreement


the people beaten by the IRA or INLA or anyone else have nothing to do with this case amazing that you dive into the diversionary tactic that you so often accuse republicans of

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

Our constitution requires nothing of the sort.

Go read it. It's article 26, section 1, subsection 1. The president can refer any legislation (with three exceptions) prior to signing it after consulting with the council of state (regardless of their opinion, all he/she needs to do is consult with them) if he/she feels like it to check for constitutionality. Nothing more. There's no requirement.

Please don't denigrate the knowledge of others while making an asshat of it yourself in the same post. Looks funny.

you are being at the very least pedantic if there was a doubt raised as to the constitutionality of a bill by the council of state there would not be much point in signing it into law
as any citizen could challenge its constitutionality later

it would be a dereliction of duty for the president not to refer a bill that the constitutionality had been questioned by the council of state so as such ther is a requirement

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

And you will note that no one has challenged the legislation or urged the President to challenge the GFA legislation.

yeah you are correct, but are you suggesting, the IRA would not have had prisoner release in mind for whatever agreement that would come out of the peace process as it was more commonly known then?
Because I don't honestly think so.I'm skeptical aswell that a well disiplined organisation such that it is would deny and then after a time accept responsibility in the way that it did.
It's possible of course that they did actually struggle as to what to say or do about the killing of a Garda initially and then decided to confirm it for whatever reason.
But to be frank with you, the less,I know about the IRA the better,I just find the whole saga including this episode disturbing.

my point is it is not undemocratic to challenge any legislation

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

they deserve it because they are qualifying prisoners under the GFA end of story you do not have to like or agree with what they did but that was the agreement

I think your use of the verb deserve there is applying a tad more to the agreement than the agreement envisaged.
Only one side to the agreement would feel that prisoners deserved release.
It's most definitely not the " end of story" either.This would be because of the two items militating against this desert as you refer to it.
In the case of Adare they would be (1) the initial denial and (2) the fact that in the referendum campaign the government made it clear to the public that the mccabe killers were not on the release list associated with what they the public were voting for.

Mighty_Mouse

The Guilford 4 & Birmingham 6 were a mis carriage of justice.

At least you won't be coming out with "everyone in prison deserves to be there" -type statements in the future.

IMO a mis-carriage of justice covers all improper use of the law. The GFA covers all prisoners before 98.

Finally, if it was agreed that the Castlerea prisoners would be an exception to every other terrorist on the Island. Why didnt all parties put it in the agreement?

But again apart from this singular exception to convicted terrorists including Michael Stone, johnny adair etc

If this government is not required to implement the agreement in its full manner then why can't the brits argue that it doesnt cover their obligations to de-militarise etc

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

IMO a mis-carriage of justice covers all improper use of the law. The GFA covers all prisoners before 98.

yeah you have a valid opinion.
But I doubt you have a valid comparison.
Birmigham six = innocent people jailed for a crime they didnt commit

"castlerea 5" =jailed for a crime they did commit

I've used inverted comma's there to underscore the lack of a comparison.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I think your use of the verb deserve there is applying a tad more to the agreement than the agreement envisaged.
Only one side to the agreement would feel that prisoners deserved release.
It's most definitely not the " end of story" either.This would be because of the two items militating against this desert as you refer to it.
In the case of Adare they would be (1) the initial denial and (2) the fact that in the referendum campaign the government made it clear to the public that the mccabe killers were not on the release list associated with what they the public were voting for.

1 i did not bring the word deserve into the debate i answered a quetion why do they deserve to be released from mycroft
they deserve it as much as any other prisoner who was released that in no way means you have to support what they did or even be happy they are being released

2the initial denial is of no relevance to the court case they are members of the IRA they are and they were acting on behalf of the IRA they are judged to be qualifying

3 what the government said or did not say leading upto the referendum is of no relevance to the court case only what is in the agreement and the enacted legislation
one party to the agreement can not change what is in the agreement after the negotiations have ended without the agreement of all the parties

the GFA or subsequent legislation makes no mention of an exemption for the killers of garda mmccabe

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

the fact that in the referendum campaign the government made it clear to the public that the mccabe killers were not on the release list associated with what they the public were voting for.

In fairness, Earthman, what the government say to the public has absolutely nothing to do with what the agreement does and doesn't cover.

Justice Keane, when ruling in 2002 on Henry Doherty's case commented that teh GFA was "a document couched, in this and other sections, in language which one would not normally associate with a document intended to impose precise and specific obligations on the parties"

Justice Keane was, in my opinion, pointing out that despite what anyone may claim to the contrary, the GFA was - at least in part - deliberately chosen to be vague. It left leeway and wriggle-room, and in my opinion did so deliberately.

If our government was so insistent to the public at the time that something was off the table, why did they sign an agreement which not only failed to explicitly state this, but went even further and explicitly failed to be in any way precise about the area in which all of these "understandings" occurred.

Our government has, if memory serves, not only insisted that certain things were absolutely not going to happen, but that all parties knew and accepted that this was the government's stance, and that such acceptance was an integral part of the agreement.

Regardless of what our government has said was integral, only what was written down and signed carries any weight.....and the GFA goes out of its way to avoid precision in this regard.

Had the other parties come out and publically agreed that they all accepted that A, B and C, while not specified in the document, were understood to be part of the overall agreement....sure, I'd accept then that there was some onus on them. But I don't recall ever hearing such acceptance directly from said parties. Can anyone?

jc

jc

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

1 i did not bring the word deserve into the debate i answered a quetion why do they deserve to be released from mycroft
they deserve it as much as any other prisoner who was released that in no way means you have to support what they did or even be happy they are being released

You are using the verb now in its context to express your opinion no?
How could they deserve it as much as any other prisoner when, the "diserving" part is really only an opinion on one side of the fence.
The legal fact of the matter would be that any prisoner that was released was a qualified prisoner whose entitlement to release was determined at the discretion of the minister.

2the initial denial is of no relevance to the court case they are members of the IRA they are and they were acting on behalf of the IRA they are judged to be qualifying

It's relevant because it may form a part of making up the ministers mind as to whether he uses his discretion or not.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

You are using the verb now in its context to express your opinion no?
How could they deserve it as much as any other prisoner when, the "diserving" part is really only an opinion on one side of the fence.
The legal fact of the matter would be that any prisoner that was released was a qualified prisoner whose entitlement to release was determined at the discretion of the minister.

It's relevant because it may form a part of making up the ministers mind as to whether he uses his discretion or not.

iam using it to express an opinion that they deserved to be released as much as micheal stone does that mean i think what micheal stone did was ok NO or the people at greysteel or anyone else
that is the agreement that we signed up to you dont have to like it you dont have to be happy about it but that is what the people of Ireland voted for


according to the supreme court
the minister has dsicretion but can not use it in

"in a manner which cannot be characterised as arbitrary, capricious or irrational".

so that is what they are basing their appeal on

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/05/16/story713318916.asp

bonkey

I think you mean he must use it "in a manner which cannot be characterised as arbitrary, capricious or irrational"....

Two negatives, and all that.

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

If our government was so insistent to the public at the time that something was off the table, why did they sign an agreement which not only failed to explicitly state this, but went even further and explicitly failed to be in any way precise about the area in which all of these "understandings" occurred.
jc

yup it fudged a lot of things, but look what the fudge achieved-relative calm.
I dont believe there was any mis understanding though in what was presented to the people at the time I voted on the GFA.
There was to be no release for the McCabe killers.
The legislation gave the discretion and here we see a classic example of it being implimented

Had the other parties come out and publically agreed that they all accepted that A, B and C, while not specified in the document, were understood to be part of the overall agreement....sure, I'd accept then that there was some onus on them. But I don't recall ever hearing such acceptance directly from said parties. Can anyone?

You mean have any parties involved in the negotiations corroborated the governments story that the McCabe killers wouldnt be a part of the GFA releases?
Iirc, the SDLP has been very opposed to their release and they were a party to the negotiations.They'd hardly be opposing their release if they werent aware of Aherns insistance that he told SF during the negotiations that they werent to be included.
Heres a direct quote from mark Durkan in the Derry Journal

"Ann McCabe is right to say that this is nothing more than a PR exercise. The fact is that the Taoiseach has said that the release of the killers is off the table.It should never have been on the table.

So it boils down to who do we believe here, and in this instance,I believe Ahern and in all honesty,I do remember the kafuffle as it was one of the few kafuffles during the GFA referendum campaign ie the issue of the McCabe killers.
Nothing could have been clearer in my mind, that when I was going into that poll booth,I was voting for a peace settlement but I was not voting for the release of the McCabe killers as part of it.
Now surely, the governments argument and that of the opposition Dáil parties of the time carries a lot of weight as to what we the voters were deciding on in that referendum.
I've never seen it any other way.I've seen various parties take opposing sides allright but generally, they've done so because they either want what the referenda gives or they don't.
In this case they were all singing on the same hymn sheet.

Now argue-ing a different side of the coin, ie that they should have been part of it anyway is an entirely different matter, perhaps they should, but thats immaterial to what was presented in front of the electorate, ie that they werent.
Again the legislation is the tool to ensure that the government could keep its word on that.
It will be interesting to see how they will get on with their legal case in europe, but in my view, one would have a hard time argueing against a decision(ie that it was arbitrary, capricious or irrational") that was put before the people as the situation with regard to the men before the people gave permission for the clause in our constitution and the legislation.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

So it boils down to who do we believe here, and in this instance,I believe Ahern and in all honesty,I do remember the kafuffle as it was one of the few kafuffles during the GFA referendum campaign ie the issue of the McCabe killers.

Oh I believe Ahern too....up to a point. I'm just somewhat skeptical that a man with a long-standing reputation as being a fixer couldn't see the potential problem he was creating down the road - the very problem that we're now discussing.

Now argue-ing a different side of the coin, ie that they should have been part of it anyway is an entirely different matter,

I'm not sure its an entirely different matter. More correctly, I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly the line of reasoning used in the legal case you mention - that there was no distinguishing reason in what was legislated for McCabe to be excluded, and therefore, the reasons for his exclusion become exactly those reasons which are invalid.

Again the legislation is the tool to ensure that the government could keep its word on that.

And yet, the legislation drafted had a big potential hole in it due to what can only be deliberately imprecise wording.

argueing against a decision(ie that it was arbitrary, capricious or irrational") that was put before the people as the situation with regard to the men before the people gave permission for the clause in our constitution and the legislation.

What you stand up and tell the people, and what the people believe they are voting for is not the same as what is actually being voted on. I agree, that the court may indeed be swayed by the argument that the intent was made clear by the public statements of Ahern et al, but the counter-argument that Ahern left the wording deliberately vague despite his public statements could also prove persuasive.

I mean....just how rigidly do these same elected officials stand by the electoral promises that they are all too firm and clear about when the votes are needed?

What the public voted for was acceptance of the GFA. That means acceptance of what was in the GFA, regardless of what those selling it were saying.

Personally, I'm all in favour of seeing the guys kept behind bars, and I hope that the result of any legal or political challenges goes that way...but I'm not convinced that a legal interpretation of the situation would necessarily go that way, and I'm suspicious that many people at the table knew this when they were signing the agreement.

jc

I'm not convinced that a legal interpretation of the situation would necessarily go that way, and I'm suspicious that many people at the table knew this when they were signing the agreement.

Actually I would guess that those guys were not mentioned in the GFA as excluded for the obvious reason that doing so could never have neen agreed.
So you have G Adams walking away, knowing what Ahern said and saying himself to his own SF audience that it's ok we'll push for their release later,they have to release them...
And Ahern walking away saying we'll tell the people before the vote that they're excluded and we'll draft the legislation so as we have the power to exclude them.
Don't the NI office have that power aswell but they didn't use it as such in that everybody judged as qualified was released, but the discretion there was used to release in all cases?
The other distinction being that the only people argue-ing in the North that people shouldnt be released, were the people opposed to the agreement in the first place.
Unlike in the 26 counties none of the yes side iirc argued that anybody was excluded at the time of the referendum.

I mean....just how rigidly do these same elected officials stand by the electoral promises that they are all too firm and clear about when the votes are needed?

Not very... given that they(using this as a case in point) were willing to do a u-turn and use their discretionary power to release them as part of a new deal recently.
If I was on the legal team for the McCabe killers,I'd be introducing that.

However,I believe, that the ability to have the discretion in the first place and the fact that the government indicated one particular example of what that discretion was for to the electorate at referendum time carries a lot of weight here.
If it didn't I'd be of the opinion, that our own courts would have ordered their release by now rather than just comment on their fudged situation.

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

I think you mean he must use it "in a manner which cannot be characterised as arbitrary, capricious or irrational"....

Two negatives, and all that.

jc

yup thats what i meant

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

It will be interesting to see how they will get on with their legal case in europe, but in my view, one would have a hard time argueing against a decision(ie that it was arbitrary, capricious or irrational") that was put before the people as the situation with regard to the men before the people gave permission for the clause in our constitution and the legislation.

the fact that they were singled out for mention before the referendum does not mean that the decision to exclude them was not arbitary capricious or irrational give that people convicted of much more serious offences than manslaughter have been released and people who were convicted after them were released

also people who were actually convicted of murder of a garda which these people were not ( rightly or wrongly does not come into it) have been released

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

the fact that they were singled out for mention before the referendum does not mean that the decision to exclude them was not arbitary capricious or irrational

It doesnt mean the opposite either.
Why didnt the court order their release by the way?

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

It doesnt mean the opposite either.
Why didnt the court order their release by the way?

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/05/16/story713318916.asp

Sand

the fact that they were singled out for mention before the referendum does not mean that the decision to exclude them was not arbitary capricious or irrational give that people convicted of much more serious offences than manslaughter have been released and people who were convicted after them were released

The mechanism whereby they might *theoretically* released was brought about by the GFA and its approval by the people - who are certainly arbitrary, capricious and irrational in their judgements. They were singled out prior to this approval being recorded. They dont have a *right* to be released early, other criminals were *granted* early release as part of a deal which these scumbags were singled out as being not covered under.

Build a bridge, and get over it.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

The mechanism whereby they might *theoretically* released was brought about by the GFA and its approval by the people - who are certainly arbitrary, capricious and irrational in their judgements. They were singled out prior to this approval being recorded. They dont have a *right* to be released early, other criminals were *granted* early release as part of a deal which these scumbags were singled out as being not covered under.

Build a bridge, and get over it.

i dont have to build a bridge and get over anything i have nothing to get over

the GFA does not single anyone out I suggest you read it again

at this stage the fate of these people will be decided in a court here or in europe and what i think you think or what bertie or mcdowell say is irrelevant

billy the squid

well if they are as sorry as they say they are then they should get their two buddies that got away (now living in the south of france and in sout america ) to come forward, and face tria.

oh wait, thats not going to happen,

mycroft

bonkey wrote:

Yes, but so was every other action for which a jailed IRA member has been granted early release, so that doesn't make it any different.


Again, no difference.

Boneky I'm arguing with you because I'm fed up with the level of debate in the "republican movement"

Yeah but again theres a difference when were put to the polls we were told the Mc Cabe killers where not covered by the GFG. I loath defending FF's record on honesty, but thanks to republican dishonesty I have to.

Why is this in quotes? Either they were, or were not under cease-fire. The use of quotes seems to imply that there is some doubt, or that it was a sort-of-a-cease-fire. Isn't this the major bone of contention?

To my mind theres a world of difference between Billy Mc Kee n co defending a church in the short strand in the 60s and the intential murder of a garda in 99. The IRA want their cake and eat it, and they need to recognise that demanding for justice for the dublin and monaghan bombing while demanding justice for four lads who murdered a garda in 99 and "their early release" is hyprocritical. Look the peace and reconcilation forum it does not stop at the release of republicand it means someone who responsonible for the deaths of innocents. We're demanding the brits have one. The "jaysus lads I knew there was a body around here' does lil for the people suffering IRA "justice"

maybe I've my timeline wrong, but I see:

- the IRA abandoned the '94 ceasefire
- McCabe was killed
- the IRA later returned to a ceasefire.

And may I remind you that the Mc Cabe murders were specificallu excluded during the debate

McCabe was not the only person killed by the IRA in this interim gap either, if memory serves.

Yet the Mc Carthy family arent the only family victimized, both families have in their campaign demanded justice for other families. It's unfortunate, in both cases the famlies have captured the media light and intention. I mean call me cyncial the familes may have wished to be gutted and beaten or, shot mutlipile times.

Call me nuts thats just part of the campaign to demosize the IRA. It's not like what the the IRA did it's what we can avoid.

They don't morally deserve to be free. None of the people for whom early release was negotiated morally deserve to be free. But we've agreed that they will be given early release. The question is why is the McCabe case different to the others.

We negotiated a settlement which said that people who met criteria A, B and C were eligible. From my reading of the GFA, the only possible area of doubt is whether or not the killing of garda McCabe classifies as a scheduled offence or not. This has been done to death before...so I'm not getting back into whether or not it is. I'm simply pointing out that from what I can see of the wording of the GFA, there is no other issue. If they qualify, then - according to the exact wording of the GFA:

[/font]

I should point out that there are other avenues we could use (the eligibility only covers prisoners affiliated to groups on continued and full cease-fire), but this isn't an argument against the McCabe killers' release, but rather about whether or not any IRA prisoners should be eligible.


Well when you're discussing the implementation of teh law, thats about all you should argue. Implementing the law in a biased manner to appease some sense of moral righteousness demeans the law every bit as much as (iof not moreson than) implementing it even-handedly in a manner which yields distasteful results.


Again, you seem to be arguing that the GFA gave too much, and we shouldn't bother sticking to our side of the agreements, rather than explaining why the mcCabe killers should not be teated the same as the other killers and terrorists for whom we agreed a settlement.


Are you not doing the exact same - arguing about the legal quibbles over the McCabe release?

The only other possibility I can see is that you're decrying the entire agreement, and basically saying that we should never have negotiated this settlement in the first place, and that the other side are now to blame for asking us to stick to what we signed up to.

jc

No but I'm fed up. I know, personally that is it difficult, but theres a body of posters who are goung *lA lA lA La etc, to all condemation of the republican movement"

And bonkey I'm anooyed I've made this point over and over again, about implied support for SF and now you've got it.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/05/16/story713318916.asp

You've still not explained your belief in why they deserved to be released early.

Not legally, morally...... Why is this important to you?

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

Yeah but again theres a difference when were put to the polls we were told the Mc Cabe killers where not covered by the GFG.

Look at some of the fiction the public was told comng up to the last referendum.

Look at the fiction the public is often sold as "promises" around election time.

What is said to sell a reerendum has no legal bearing whatsoever.

You can defend the honesty of whoever you like, but I'm not convinced it even matters if they believed then and now that what they were saying was true.

The IRA want their cake and eat it, and they need to recognise that demanding for justice for the dublin and monaghan bombing while demanding justice for four lads who murdered a garda in 99 and "their early release" is hyprocritical.

I agree completely. However, thats not the direction I'm looking at it from.

The courts of this land, and of Europe, will not make a decision which flies in the face of the established law because doing otherwise would facilitate hypocracy. Hypocracy is not a crime....and if it was, then our government should be in just as much trouble for insisting something was an issue which was in no way on the table....and then signing an agreement which very much failed to ensure said issue was not included.

The McCabe killers were truly off the table - they were neither specifically included, nor specifically excluded.

And may I remind you that the Mc Cabe murders were specificallu excluded during the debate

And then, when it came to sign the agreement which formalised what was discussed, they was nothing to exclude them.

I see it a bit like, say, our governemnt getting into (mythical) Kyoto2 talks, and insisting to us - the Irish people - that there was simply no way that we would sign on to an accord which effected our right to burn national fossil fuels (i.e. only our imported fuels would be effected), and then signing a treaty which failed to distinguish between national and imported fuels.

It doesn't matter what was, and was not on the table, what was and was not promised, and what was and was not believed. What matters was what was signed at the end of it all. If we sign something saying "no more than X tons of fossil fuels", then it wouldn't matter whether our government insisted to us or not that national resources were not part of the discussion...they were part of the agreement.

Similarly with the McCabe killers. No matter how much the government insisted they were not on the table, the signed deal failed to exclude them. It left what appears to be a requirement that they be included, barring the existence of non-capricious reasons that permit their exclusion. Given how Bertie has gravitated (there's no way....we may have no choice....no, no, there's no way....there might be the need....), and how the only other reasoning was more or less "they're not included cause we said at the start they aren't", there is a case to make that under the terms of what was signed there are no grounds for their exclusion.

One of the central tenets of the last referendum was that our government effectively screwed up with the GFA and the impact of its change to the "citizenship clauses". They didn't intend to. There was no mention during any of the discussions that the intention was to include these foreigners. None of that mattered. What mattered was what was written, and how it should be interpreted under the law.

They got it wrong. They admitted they got it wrong. I'm currently thoroughly unconvinced that the whole release issue isn't another case where zeal to get a deal in place before it all started falling apart overrode prudence, and we're now paying the price. Or Bertie knew it was a "fix" at the time...and we're now paying the price.

Indeed, the more public sentiment is whipped up against Sinn Fein, the more I'm convinced that our government know what the price is, and are doing their level best to ensure that when this price is paid, Sinn Fein will be blamed for demanding it, rather then the government for putting us in a situation where we had to pay it.

Are you not doing the exact same - arguing about the legal quibbles over the McCabe release?

Not quite. I find that a lot of anti-Republican sentiment has absolutely no issues with insisting that the rules aren't actually the rules, but more like guidelines. When we agree to something, what we should be held to is what we wanted or intended, not what we signed. The 'RA, Sinn Fein, and the rest of them....they have to stick to what they signed. Unless we decide we want something else, of course.

Underneath all of the negotiations, the agreements, and all the rest of it, there is one fundamental foundation stone which seems to be forgotten in all of this. Trust. Ultimately, we have to build trust. And currently, what I see is that our way of handling things implies that the only people who have to prove trustworthiness are the Republicans, and that until they've done that, we can justify not abding by what we've signed and/or changing our minds whenever its convenient. Because they're still to blame for everything, so that makes it alright.

It just smacks a bit too much of "at least we're better then the other side", and frankly...I'd be embarrassed to hear a comparison with the IRA as something positive. Its far too much like saying "we're not as bad as we could be" instead of "we're good enough".

jc

Cork

Not long ago - we had democraticly elected TDs having their photograph taken with the killers of a Garda.

THE FAMILY of Jerry McCabe has described as "shattering" and "incredibly upsetting" a picture of four Sinn Fein TDs smiling as they pose beside the four IRA men who killed the detective garda as he protected a cash delivery in Limerick in 1996.

The four TDs are pictured standing alongside the four smiling garda killers and four other Provos inside Castlerea Prison on August 16 last. The photograph has been reproduced in the Sinn Fein newspaper, An Phoblacht.

In the picture, Caoimhin O Caolain, Sean Crowe, Aengus O Snodaigh and convicted gun-runner Martin Ferris stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Martin Walsh, the man who actually shot dead Detective Garda McCabe, and notorious IRA gunman Pearse McAuley.

What message did that send to Ann McCabe and to the security forces that are there to protect us.

I believe capital murder should be re-introduced as a deterant aganist shooting members of the security forces by the IRA or other criminal organisations.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

You've still not explained your belief in why they deserved to be released early.

Not legally, morally...... Why is this important to you?

it is not particularly important to me i dont lie awake at night worrying about it

legally because that is the agreement that we the people of ireland signed up for

morally for the exact same reason

I dont think any one side to an agreement should just implement the parts of the agreement that they find palatable and refuse to implement the sections they have have a problem with otherwise the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.

once one side is allowed to pick and choose the the aspects it wants to implement the agreement ceases to exist