IT only takes 8 years to say sorry...

cdebru

Cork wrote:

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.

there is no evidence that executing people acts as a detterent

there has not been a rise in the numbers of Gardai murderede since the end of the death penalty

how would you correct miscarriages of justice

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.

I suggest that you get a more accurate source for your quotes than slugger O'tooles
to the best of my knowledge no one by the name of martin walsh was convicted of the killing of garda mccabe so I doubt he had his picture taken with the SF tds

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

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

The people of Ireland didnt sign up for an agreement that was for the release of the McCabe killers.The voters were told clearly that they werent covered and Ahern says that he told SF this at the negotiations.
They may say otherwise, but then I guess you could ask Mark Durkan one of the SDLP's senior negotiators at the table back then.

You might argue that a court said the discretion mustnt be used in an arbitrary,capricous or irrational.

Theres nothing irrational about doing what you say you are going to do, there is about not doing it.
The discretion wasnt done on a whim either, it was clearly explained to the people prior to the vote what the Irish government intended for the McCabe killers so it wasnt capricious or arbitrary.
That looks to me why the court didnt order their release.

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

I agree and theres lots of people on both sides in the north doing exactly that since day one, the non release of the McCabe killers in the view of the government as explained before after and during the agreement is not one of them though.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

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

No but you do seem willing to spend hours writing about their release.

And please please please please WILL YOU STOP about the GFA. During the referedum campaign FF insisted and specifically stated the Mc Cabe killers would not be covered by the GFA. Once again.

Fianna Fail, when questioned, stated the Mc Cabe killers would not be covered by the GFA are therefore would not be eligilbe for release.

I am loath to defend FF's record of honesty and keeping their promises while in office and your disingenious attempt to play this as a legal requirement of the GFA agreement, when clearly stated when the legalisation was put to the people, they clearly stated the release was not covered by the GFA.

So again, you've posted dozens of posts calling for the Mc Cabe killers release, it was not covered by the GFA, the government made this clear when the referendum was occuring, so again what moral reason do you have to wish to see the Mc Cabe killers released

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

there is no evidence that executing people acts as a detterent

how would you correct miscarriages of justice

The irony of these statements should not be lost on anyone given the source

I suggest that you get a more accurate source for your quotes than slugger O'tooles
to the best of my knowledge no one by the name of martin walsh was convicted of the killing of garda mccabe so I doubt he had his picture taken with the SF tds

I notice that you didn't deny that they had their picture taken with the murderers of Garda McCabe.

Villain

MyCroft can you please post a link to the section of the GFA where it states that the McCabe killers would not be covered by the GFA.

I have no moral reason for them to be released and I would like to see them serve their sentences, but I have studied this issue and dicussed it in great length, and I believe whether I or anyone else likes it these men are legally entitled to early release.

Can you tell me the difference between these killers and those who were released up north even do they had been convicted after the GFA, and don't start spouting on again about what FF said, FFS if we believed everything FF said there wouldn't be any waiting lists and we'd have 2000 extra gardai on the streets and on and on!!

Mighty_Mouse

I notice that you didn't deny that they had their picture taken with the murderers of Garda McCabe.

They are republicans ffs. Get over it. The fact of the matter is that many republicans supported the activities of the IRA in the past. However the vast majority of republicans now see the political struggle as the one most likely to succeed. The fact that they had a picture taken doesnt mean anything. Sure aren't SF campaigning for the release of the castlerea prisoners for the last 5 years!! Whats so shocking about a fecking picture.

During the referedum campaign FF insisted and specifically stated the Mc Cabe killers would not be covered by the GFA

Where "during" the campaign. Show me a link where FF made this statement before the GFA. Even if they did it doesnt matter because they signed the GFA. The agreement is there for all to read .

Those prisoners before 98. Simple. The fact that the government are not legally obliged to means nothing. If it does then the GFA means nothing and whats the point in ever having an agreement?

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

Morally!!! Get over yourself. Morals dont mean **** here. If they did, we would never have peace. How can you morally join a police force that murdered your children, how can you morally agree to release loyalists that sliced, tortured and murdered catholics in the north. The words your looking for are "greater good" and "sacrifice" etc

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

MyCroft can you please post a link to the section of the GFA where it states that the McCabe killers would not be covered by the GFA.

Pay attention. the section of the GFA where the minister is entitled to discression over whom is released. Earthman has provided the link before.

I have no moral reason for them to be released and I would like to see them serve their sentences, but I have studied this issue and dicussed it in great length, and I believe whether I or anyone else likes it these men are legally entitled to early release.

Ah so you're just ignoring the above, convient like.

Can you tell me the difference between these killers and those who were released up north even do they had been convicted after the GFA, and don't start spouting on again about what FF said, FFS if we believed everything FF said there wouldn't be any waiting lists and we'd have 2000 extra gardai on the streets and on and on!!

Like I said, I'm loath to defend FFs record in office, but this is a promise the made, and a promise they've kept.

Morally!!! Get over yourself. Morals dont mean **** here. If they did, we would never have peace. How can you morally join a police force that murdered your children, how can you morally agree to release loyalists that sliced, tortured and murdered catholics in the north. The words your looking for are "greater good" and "sacrifice" etc

Sorry but we've turned a blind eye too long. We've focused on the greater good, we've turned away when IRA continue to rob and beat and shoot, to fund and keep control.

We've set up reconcilation centers, put together a ombudsman, created a police board, set up investiagtions. We've put alot on the table. And we've ignored alot.

Sooner or later you have to think of the victims of the violence, and say when is enough, where to draw the line in the sand and say, there is justice for those who suffered at the hands of the IRA, and there is justice for those who suffered at the hands of the british forces, and there is justice is for those who suffered at the hand of unionist terrorists.

You're treating this like a one way street.

I believe earthman has provided the link requested, earlier in the thread, a quick google, bombards me with recent articles re Mc Cabe. If earthman's link does not satisfy you, I'll keep looking.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

Like I said, I'm loath to defend FFs record in office, but this is a promise the made, and a promise they've kept.

So this is the non-capricious reason that meets the requirements?

"But we promised..."

They may have made and kept a promise, but that doesn't immediately mean that they are going so in accordance with the agreement they signed.

jc

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Can you tell me the difference between these killers and those who were released up north even do they had been convicted after the GFA,

I actually already did, the government stated very clearly in the referendum campaign who exactly would not be released, and those were the McCabe killers.
No such statement was made in the separate referendum campaign in the North, by either the government there or the yes parties as far as I'm aware.

and don't start spouting on again about what FF said,

Well I've no love for FF specefically, but I will pay heed to what a government will tell me regarding a referendum,they called.

I know Mark Durkan says they shouldnt be released, and he was one of the chief negotiaters of the GFA, indeed he was John Humes assistant when the Hume Adams talks got going and all through the peace process.

billy the squid

irish1 wrote:

Can you tell me the difference between these killers and those who were released up north even do they had been convicted after the GFA, and don't start spouting on again about what FF said, FFS if we believed everything FF said there wouldn't be any waiting lists and we'd have 2000 extra gardai on the streets and on and on!!

maybe if they were to get the two that got away to come forward, their apology and their interest in seeing a resoloution to this issue might be seen as more genuine, until at least that happens then they should stay locked up.

Villain

I'm not saying FF didn't say it, but I just wouldn't bank on them keeping their promise, I mean has everyone forgotten than these WERE to be released as part of the peace deal before xmas. FF will do whatever suits them, at the moment that is keep them in jail, before xmas it was release them, next xmas ....??????

I hope they serve their full sentence but I wouldn't be relying on FF.

mycroft

bonkey wrote:

So this is the non-capricious reason that meets the requirements?

"But we promised..."

They may have made and kept a promise, but that doesn't immediately mean that they are going so in accordance with the agreement they signed.

jc

As pointed out there were let out clauses of the agreement, the ability for example, to re-arrest people, on the collaspe of the cease fire.

And seeing they stated that the killers were not in covered by the GFA, I think it's very clear.

What I'm wondering is why some people who are talking here who seem to think the Mc Cabe killers deserve release of course they think this is wrong and through clenched teeth the bang on how the are entitled to it, but they themselves don't support terrorism

Villain

mycroft wrote:

What I'm wondering is why some people who are talking here who seem to think the Mc Cabe killers deserve release of course they think this is wrong and through clenched teeth the bang on how the are entitled to it, but they themselves don't support terrorism

Was that meant to be directed at me?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I'm not saying FF didn't say it, but I just wouldn't bank on them keeping their promise, I mean has everyone forgotten than these WERE to be released as part of the peace deal before xmas. FF will do whatever suits them, at the moment that is keep them in jail, before xmas it was release them, next xmas ....??????

I'm not sure what spin that is Irish1 but my recollection of the preXmas situation is that the IRA wanted them released as part of a new deal...
There was going to be no more progress without it.

That was pragmatism,bitter tasting pragmatism but pragmatism none the less made possible by the legislations discretion.
If ahern said no,and the IRA were genuine, he would have been wrong not to capitalise on the opportunity they gave him.
Governments are there to take decisions and sometimes those decisions are different to what they may have decided prior-that of course in no way changes the situation vis a vis what the Irish electorate were told regarding who they were voting for to release and who they were voting for not to release.
The only thing you are essentially right about is that the government do have the power to change their mind- but you are being rather selective in your recall of why they were changing it in this instance.
Of course as you know, with the robbery and all and the truly disgracefull carry on with the search for justice for Robert McCartneys killers, that all went out the window.

Mighty_Mouse

We've set up reconcilation centers, put together a ombudsman, created a police board, set up investiagtions. We've put alot on the table. And we've ignored alot.

What kind of bland meaningless statement is that! Whats is important is tangible new beginnings, real changes in policing, ordinary people trusting the government not to torture them or at least to police effectively to stop it.

Morally nobody convicted in the north deserves to be released but what do you do to really have a new begining? Would you prefer continued terrorist campaigns?

Pay attention. the section of the GFA where the minister is entitled to discression over whom is released.

Pay very close attention. Both governments can argue legalities and why they shouldnt implement the GFA. If they do, whats the point in it?

Im sure the brits could make the very same argument.

mycroft

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Morally nobody convicted in the north deserves to be released but what do you do to really have a new begining? Would you prefer continued terrorist campaigns?

You know what, you're absolutely right, I'll go tell the judge in the bloody sunday inquiry to not waste the paper finishing the report, while you ring the finucane family and tell them to shut up. On your way back tell the justice for the Omagh bomb victims campaign to sod off. And y'know what, it'd be a waste of time trying to get justice for the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings so sod the campaign to get a tribunial going.

Pay very close attention. Both governments can argue legalities and why they shouldnt implement the GFA. If they do, whats the point in it?

Im sure the brits could make the very same argument.

specious reasoning government works by a mandate. The mandate of the Irish govt was to impliment the GFA, while petitioning us to accept it, they offered the assurance that the Mc Cabe killers were not covered by the GFA argeement.

They clearly stated that the Mc Cabe killers would not be covered. I don't see your point.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

The people of Ireland didnt sign up for an agreement that was for the release of the McCabe killers.The voters were told clearly that they werent covered and Ahern says that he told SF this at the negotiations.
They may say otherwise, but then I guess you could ask Mark Durkan one of the SDLP's senior negotiators at the table back then.

You might argue that a court said the discretion mustnt be used in an arbitrary,capricous or irrational.

Theres nothing irrational about doing what you say you are going to do, there is about not doing it.
The discretion wasnt done on a whim either, it was clearly explained to the people prior to the vote what the Irish government intended for the McCabe killers so it wasnt capricious or arbitrary.
That looks to me why the court didnt order their release.


I agree and theres lots of people on both sides in the north doing exactly that since day one, the non release of the McCabe killers in the view of the government as explained before after and during the agreement is not one of them though.

I'am afraid they did sign up to just such an agreement unless you can find the clause in the GFA that specifically excludes the killers of garda mccabe


just because the government picked out these people before hand does not make mean the decision to pick them was not irrational arbitrary or capricous

no the courts decided it was not arbitary because they had been chosen because they were convicted after the GFA however it appears that they were wrong on this count as other prisoners convicted later were released


picking out prisoners simply because releasing them is unpalatable is no good enough the release of all prisoners was unpalatable to different sections of the community

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

No but you do seem willing to spend hours writing about their release.

And please please please please WILL YOU STOP about the GFA. During the referedum campaign FF insisted and specifically stated the Mc Cabe killers would not be covered by the GFA. Once again.

Fianna Fail, when questioned, stated the Mc Cabe killers would not be covered by the GFA are therefore would not be eligilbe for release.

I am loath to defend FF's record of honesty and keeping their promises while in office and your disingenious attempt to play this as a legal requirement of the GFA agreement, when clearly stated when the legalisation was put to the people, they clearly stated the release was not covered by the GFA.

So again, you've posted dozens of posts calling for the Mc Cabe killers release, it was not covered by the GFA, the government made this clear when the referendum was occuring, so again what moral reason do you have to wish to see the Mc Cabe killers released

i can write about anything i choose


please please will you get this into your head it does not matter what FF said before during and after the referendum all that matters is what is in the agreement

and no where in the agreement signed by all paties approved by the people in the referendum does it say anything about the killers of garda mccabe

just as the people who voted for the 1983 abortion referendum believed they were banning abortion from ireland it did not make it so even though that is what they were told

what people were told and what they actually vote for are not the same thing


so hopefully for the last time because the agreement says it
if some loyalist prisoner was still locked up that was covered by the agreement i would argue the same it does not mean that I support what the men did

Slutmonkey57b

cdebru wrote:

picking out prisoners simply because releasing them is unpalatable is no good enough the release of all prisoners was unpalatable to different sections of the community

I quite agree with this statement. Plenty of cop-killers up north have been released. The fact that it's unpalatable to us does not mean that they are more or less evil than the other perpetrators.

Equally, for the killers to hold up the peace process looking to get out, then "charitably" withdrawing this demand does not mean that they are entitled either.

The decision to push forward the peace process by releasing prisoners, instituting reforms, and setting up enquiries rested solely with the citizens who voted in the referendum, and it is the citizens, not the terrorists, who should get the plaudits and thanks for their forgiving attitude.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I'm not sure what spin that is Irish1 but my recollection of the preXmas situation is that the IRA wanted them released as part of a new deal...
There was going to be no more progress without it.

That was pragmatism,bitter tasting pragmatism but pragmatism none the less made possible by the legislations discretion.
If ahern said no,and the IRA were genuine, he would have been wrong not to capitalise on the opportunity they gave him.
Governments are there to take decisions and sometimes those decisions are different to what they may have decided prior-that of course in no way changes the situation vis a vis what the Irish electorate were told regarding who they were voting for to release and who they were voting for not to release.
The only thing you are essentially right about is that the government do have the power to change their mind- but you are being rather selective in your recall of why they were changing it in this instance.
Of course as you know, with the robbery and all and the truly disgracefull carry on with the search for justice for Robert McCartneys killers, that all went out the window.

afair

the government said they would release them but not under the terms of the GFA
as to release them under the GFA would be a recognition that they were entitled to be released under the GFA and would effectively mean that the government were keeping the men as hostages to secure a deal on decommissioning

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

afair

the government said they would release them but not under the terms of the GFA
as to release them under the GFA would be a recognition that they were entitled to be released under the GFA and would effectively mean that the government were keeping the men as hostages to secure a deal on decommissioning

I doubt that you have a quote of Ahern or a government representative saying that so I'll take that as your subjective opinion again then.

As you know I also gave my opinion here

And guess what we don't agree

Nothing new there

{moderator hat on}
On a more serious note, I detect animosity between cdebru,mycroft especially and some lesser players in this thread.
Could ye all relax a bit and stick to talking about the thread subject rather than going on a I win you lose,you lose,I win road.
Animosity has an awfull habit of breaking out into a scrap and we dont want that on this forum , we want civil discussion. {moderator hat off}

Villain

Earthman just to show you where I'm getting some of my reasoning from heres an extract from this weeks Village magazine written by Vincent Browne:

The criminal justice act 1998 gives the Minister for Justice wide discretion on which prisoners to release under the act, the minister was required to exercise powers given to him under the act in “good faith” and “in a manner which cannot be characterized as arbitrary, capricious or irrational”

It was contended on behalf of the prisoners that they had been treated in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Other prisoners, convicted of crimes far more serious the manslaughter offence for which these prisoners were convicted, had been released.

The supreme court held , however, that there was no invidious discrimination in the minister agreeing to release prisoners convicted of offences of offences before the GFA was signed in April 1998, while refusing to release prisoners convicted after that date.

The Court obviously believed that nobody convicted following the signing of the GFA had been released. However this belief was mistaken. Several prisoners convicted after the GFA was signed have been released under the agreement.

John Carolan of Mullagh, Co. Cavan was convicted in the special criminal court on 3rd August 2000 (more than 2 years after the GFA was signed) of procession of firearms, ammunition and mortar parts on 10 March 1998 (this, incidentally was almost 2 years after the killing of McCabe). He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and released seven weeks later under the terms of the GFA.

Padraig Steenson was convicted by the special criminal court on 14th April 2000 of having unlawful control of semtex explosives, incendiary devices, bomb parts and firearms on 7th of November 1997. He was sentenced on 22nd May 2000 to seven years imprisonment and released within 2 months under the terms of the GFA.

The basis, therefore, on which the court concluded there had been no invidious discrimination in the refusal to release these of two of the McCabe killers was False. On the reasoning of the supreme court I the O’Neill and Quinn case it would seem the two current applications should be released. It would then be legally impossible to justify the continued imprisonment of the other two killers of Jerry McCabe.

He the goes on to list the many people convicted after the GFA and released early in the north, including the killer of a British soldier

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

i can write about anything i choose

But the implication is you write about this because it matters to you

please please will you get this into your head it does not matter what FF said before during and after the referendum all that matters is what is in the agreement

Yes and in the agreement theres a clause which releases are open to ministerial disgression. In the referendum campaign, it was stated, clearly, that the Mc Cabe killers would not be released as part of that clause.

and no where in the agreement signed by all paties approved by the people in the referendum does it say anything about the killers of garda mccabe

See above

just as the people who voted for the 1983 abortion referendum believed they were banning abortion from ireland it did not make it so even though that is what they were told

You're flairly clueless about referendums, there must be five referendum ( i think before a part of the constitution cannot be changed.

what people were told and what they actually vote for are not the same thing


so hopefully for the last time because the agreement says it
if some loyalist prisoner was still locked up that was covered by the agreement i would argue the same it does not mean that I support what the men did

Yeah I can totally see you on the front line of "Free the Adair One" campaign.

People were told one thing, and voted for the same thing. I may not like the Nice referendum or immirgration bill but they were brought it. Saying people voted for the GFA and the release of the Mc Cabe killers would fly in the face of every opinion poll run on the subject matter.

Are you suggesting the majority of people in the south want the Mc Cabe killers freed?

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I doubt that you have a quote of Ahern or a government representative saying that so I'll take that as your subjective opinion again then.

As you know I also gave my opinion here

And guess what we don't agree

Nothing new there

}

nothing sublective about it

the proposed release of the men under the deal in december was stated by the Irish government as not being under the terms of the prisoner release scheme of the GFA

the reason for this is obvious if the governement accepted that the men were entitled to release under the GFA then they would have to release them irrespective of wether the IRA decommisssioned or not as the terms of the release under the GFA do not give preconditions other than being a qualifying prisoner

also to give them release under the GFA now would mean that they were always entitled to it as they can not become entitled to it because of the actions or inactions of a group or groups other than that laid down in the GFA

and as such would mean they were effectively hostages untill the IRA did what the Irish government wanted them to do

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

But the implication is you write about this because it matters to you?

I don't know what you are trying to get at here i post on many different subjects what is your point

mycroft wrote:

Yes and in the agreement theres a clause which releases are open to ministerial disgression. In the referendum campaign, it was stated, clearly, that the Mc Cabe killers would not be released as part of that clause.

no there is no such clause in the GFA read it

mycroft wrote:

You're flairly clueless about referendums, there must be five referendum ( i think before a part of the constitution cannot be changed. ?

where did you get that from (five referendums) since you obviously consider your self to be an expert on referendum perhaps you could point out the reference http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.pdf
and what does it have to do with what i posted people voted in 1983 for a ban on abortion that is what they were told
following the x case the supreme court ruled that is not what they got

mycroft wrote:

Yeah I can totally see you on the front line of "Free the Adair One" campaign.?

are you suggesting iam lying

mycroft wrote:

People were told one thing, and voted for the same thing. I may not like the Nice referendum or immirgration bill but they were brought it. Saying people voted for the GFA and the release of the Mc Cabe killers would fly in the face of every opinion poll run on the subject matter.?

opinion polls are of no consequence the people had a choice they made it
it is up to the people to read the GFA and determine what is in it or not in it
not take FFs word or anyone elses word
are you suggesting opinion polls should take precedence over a referendum

mycroft wrote:

Are you suggesting the majority of people in the south want the Mc Cabe killers freed?

I am saying for a fact that over 90% of the people of the 26 counties voted for an agreement part of which allowed for the release of qualifying prisoners
they may not want the killers of garda mccabe freed but that is what they voted for as part of an overall agreement
to put it back to you do you believe a majority of people in the north wanted
micheal stone or sean kelly released

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

the reason for this is obvious if the governement accepted that the men were entitled to release under the GFA then they would have to release them irrespective of wether the IRA decommisssioned or not as the terms of the release under the GFA do not give preconditions other than being a qualifying prisoner

Obvious to who?
You for one obviously and republicans aswell.
Theres the subjectivity as practically all the the rest of the politicians down south have a different view-not only that, one of them tells us that he made it clear at the negotiations that the McCabe killers would not be included.
He also made it clear to the voters.
One of the chief negotiaters from the SDLP concurs that they shouldnt be released.

Remember we had the discussion on qualification before.
I believe it went something like this,I may be qualified to drive a train when I turn up for the train drivers job interview, but I'm not entitled to it unless the company give me the job, it's at their discretion.
Ahern and the government stated that the Mccabe killers would not be getting early release before during and after the GFA referendum.

Both governments retained this discretion in the enacting of the GFA,however, the Irish government were explicit right down the line as to what they were going to do with their discretion.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Obvious to who?
You for one obviously and republicans aswell.
Theres the subjectivity as practically all the the rest of the politicians down south have a different view-not only that, one of them tells us that he made it clear at the negotiations that the McCabe killers would not be included.
He also made it clear to the voters.
One of the chief negotiaters from the SDLP concurs that they shouldnt be released.

Remember we had the discussion on qualification before.
I believe it went something like this,I may be qualified to drive a train when I turn up for the train drivers job interview, but I'm not entitled to it unless the company give me the job, it's at their discretion.
Ahern and the government stated that the Mccabe killers would not be getting early release before during and after the GFA referendum.

Both governments retained this discretion in the enacting of the GFA,however, the Irish government were explicit right down the line as to what they were going to do with their discretion.

I think we are at cross purposes here

i am refering to the deal that was almost done in december just gone and that if the killers of garda mccabe had been released by the government then the government have said they would not have been released under the terms of the GFA but under different powers

I think you should read my posts and not just disagree with them out of hand

The only thing you are essentially right about is that the government do have the power to change their mind- but you are being rather selective in your recall of why they were changing it in this instance.

this was in your post i was merely pointing out that the governments position is that they never changed their mind but that they were willing to release the men under a seperate arrangement

if the government had changed their mind and decided the men did qualify for early release under the GFA then they would have to release them irrespective of what the IRA did as long as it maintained its ceasefire

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

I think you should read my posts and not just disagree with them out of hand

I think you should read mine...
I said you were drawing a subjective conclusion of your own ie a subjective opinion by stating what you stated unless you could find me a quote from Ahern or a goverment representative saying we dont want to have to admit that they were entitled to GFA release all along, so we are going another route.

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

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

Er, no. I'm not being pedantic, I'm being precise and correcting your misuse of the word "required". Which was as you now know, total tosh. Yeah, the president might well be derelict in his/her duty if the council of state recommended a referral to the SC. There's still no requirement though (and oddly enough, that's pretty much what having discretion means) - a challenge to any law can be isued by any citizen willing to devote the time and money to take a case to the SC. And obviously in a democracy that's a good thing. Pedantic? I wouldn't have to be either pedantic or precise if I had confidence in your knowledge on the particular provision. No offence but you clearly don't have as much as you profess to have (though others are worse), and that's always a potential problem where something is presented as fact.

There's also the problem with article 34.3.3, under which a Bill referred in this way and found not to be repugnant to the constitution can never be questioned for constitutionality by any court whatever after under any circumstances - due to this provision many constitutional lawyers would maintain that the referral of a bill by the president should be done extremely sparingly. Presumably you've hitherto been unaware of this but it's worth a quick look also. Any edition of JM Kelly's The Irish Constution (or even any good college constitutional/public law text) will give some good background information and analysis.

Anyway, it's a side-issue. The main topic is a more important kettle of fish.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I think you should read mine...
I said you were drawing a subjective conclusion of your own ie a subjective opinion by stating what you stated unless you could find me a quote from Ahern or a goverment representative saying we dont want to have to admit that they were entitled to GFA release all along, so we are going another route.

would a quote saying they were not releasing them under the GFA do