IT only takes 8 years to say sorry...

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

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

That you generally have an undelying theme to your posts.

no there is no such clause in the GFA read it

FFS Earthman posted a link.

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

It's ancedotal, I'll research it tomorrow. Legislation changes, because people and a country changes. Constitutional referendums happen all the time. You cannot pass legislation that means the next generation cannot change.

are you suggesting iam lying

I'm suggesting that on the bulk of it your entire body of posts shows a pro republican leaning and you've rarly strayed from that path. If you can show me a thread you've started or a couple of posts where you've demonstrated a serious and commited interest in justice and support for unionist communties/unionist causes I'd love it see it.

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

Brillant first you say people were told one thing, but voted for what they voted for despite the government pledges which was the exact thing the govt wanted them to vote for. Now it's they voted for it inspite of govt. lies.

You'd have us believe that you have a form of mental telepathy over why and how the bulk of the people voted for the GFA agreement.

Fact the murder of Mc Cabe and the release of the killers under the GFA, was such an issue it made headlines before the referendum.

It was an issue, the govt made their position re the killers and the argeement clear. And we voted. End of discussion.

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[/QUOTE]

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

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

no.
Simply because if , its the position that they are not entitled to release under the GFA, then it would just be a statement of fact.

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

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.

iam fully aware of it and that the constitution says may

it is pedantic as the point is it is not undemocratic to challenge legislation or have a problem with it

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

That you generally have an undelying theme to your posts.

what does that mean

mycroft wrote:

FFS Earthman posted a link.

you post it there is no clause in the GFA as you described

mycroft wrote:

It's ancedotal, I'll research it tomorrow. Legislation changes, because people and a country changes. Constitutional referendums happen all the time. You cannot pass legislation that means the next generation cannot change.

i suggest you do that

mycroft wrote:

I'm suggesting that on the bulk of it your entire body of posts shows a pro republican leaning and you've rarly strayed from that path. If you can show me a thread you've started or a couple of posts where you've demonstrated a serious and commited interest in justice and support for unionist communties/unionist causes I'd love it see it.

I am a republican big shock my posts tend to be pro republican
I want the GFA implemented all of it not just the bits i like

mycroft wrote:

Brillant first you say people were told one thing, but voted for what they voted for despite the government pledges which was the exact thing the govt wanted them to vote for. Now it's they voted for it inspite of govt. lies.

You'd have us believe that you have a form of mental telepathy over why and how the bulk of the people voted for the GFA agreement.

Fact the murder of Mc Cabe and the release of the killers under the GFA, was such an issue it made headlines before the referendum.

It was an issue, the govt made their position re the killers and the argeement clear. And we voted. End of discussion.

why they voted is irrelevant only how they voted

what the government made clear is irrelevant only what is in the agreement

if the government had said the GFA would end pancake tuesdays it would not make it so because it is not in the agreement

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

no.
Simply because if , its the position that they are not entitled to release under the GFA, then it would just be a statement of fact.

I am not arguing with you earthman

what i am saying is the government has never changed its opinion that the men are not entitled to release under the GFA

the proposal to release them in december was not under the GFA

because if the government decided to release them under the GFA in december it would have to release them irrespective of wether a deal was agreed

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

because if the government decided to release them under the GFA in december it would have to release them irrespective of wether a deal was agreed

I appreciate what you are saying alright.

I'm just contending that their position on their entitlement to release under the GFA has been constant.
You're contending that theres down there some where a thought in their heads that they are entitled to it and that when the position was put to them that a release would move things along to a final standing down of the IRA etc they were doing it as something new outside of the GFA because they didnt want to concede that there was a GFA entitlement there all along.

Thats where I'm getting the "subjective" because short of a government statement to that effect, what you are saying can only be an opinion.

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

iam fully aware of it and that the constitution says may

Good. "May" as opposed to "is required to". Side-issue closed.

mycroft

mycroft wrote:

FFS Earthman posted a link.

mycroft, It was a link to what we voted on in the 26 counties, ie the referendum act and the legislation to give effect to the GFA down here that I posted and not a tract from the GFA.
It was in a discussion with jman0 where I was showing him that what we voted on here was much different to what voters in the North went to the polls on.

It was a few weeks ago,I'm not going to look for that post now, but anyone that wants to find it in a hurry can have a search through jman0's posts by clicking on his profile in his post on the first page of this thread(I think) and wading through them.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I appreciate what you are saying alright.

I'm just contending that their position on their entitlement to release under the GFA has been constant.
You're contending that theres down there some where a thought in their heads that they are entitled to it and that when the position was put to them that a release would move things along to a final standing down of the IRA etc they were doing it as something new outside of the GFA because they didnt want to concede that there was a GFA entitlement there all along.

Thats where I'm getting the "subjective" because short of a government statement to that effect, what you are saying can only be an opinion.

ok i think we are getting somewhere


i see your position is that the government proposed to release the men outside of the GFA because it is their solemn believe that the men are not entitled to release under the terms of the GFA so they have to find another way to release them is that right

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

i see your position is that the government proposed to release the men outside of the GFA because it is their solemn believe that the men are not entitled to release under the terms of the GFA so they have to find another way to release them is that right

Well It wouldn't be a case of having to find a way to release them,it would be a case of quid pro quo ie the IRA were trading finality for their release,if there was a chance of finality then the government would see to their early release as per the price asked for the finality.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well It wouldn't be a case of having to find a way to release them,it would be a case of quid pro quo ie the IRA were trading finality for their release,if there was a chance of finality then the government would see to their early release as per the price asked for the finality.

i think we got got up in an arguement where none existed

i was merely pointing out that the government had not changed their mind about the men and the GFA prisoner release because if they did then they would have to release them
and they can not change their minds regarding qualification for the GFA prisoner release program because either they do or they don't

Slutmonkey57b

Back to a point cdebru and I were discussing earlier:

Vincent Browne via cdebru wrote:

The Court obviously believed that nobody convicted following the signing of the GFA had been released. However this belief was mistaken

Unless Vinnie is quoting from the Supreme Court's statement on the matter, then this "conclusion" is something that Vinnie is assuming off the top of his head - which is not a legally watertight space. I don't think it's obvious at all that the court's decision was mistaken simply because Vinnie assumes he knows what each individual member of the court was assuming inside their own head.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

i think we got got up in an arguement where none existed

i was merely pointing out that the government had not changed their mind about the men and the GFA prisoner release because if they did then they would have to release them
and they can not change their minds regarding qualification for the GFA prisoner release program because either they do or they don't

LoL

What what
You mean you kept me here in front of this pc missing an episode of Desperate housewives and my tea and hot cross buns over an argument that never really existed

Ah I enjoyed it and Sky plus took care of the housewives ...

See civil discussion is possible on this board-shock horror

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Back to a point cdebru and I were discussing earlier:



Unless Vinnie is quoting from the Supreme Court's statement on the matter, then this "conclusion" is something that Vinnie is assuming off the top of his head - which is not a legally watertight space. I don't think it's obvious at all that the court's decision was mistaken simply because Vinnie assumes he knows what each individual member of the court was assuming inside their own head.

i believe he was quoting from the supreme court judgement

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

LoL

What what
You mean you kept me here in front of this pc missing an episode of Desperate housewives and my tea and hot cross buns over an argument that never really existed

Ah I enjoyed it and Sky plus took care of the housewives ...

See civil discussion is possible on this board-shock horror

fraid so

mycroft

Earthman wrote:

LoL

What what
You mean you kept me here in front of this pc missing an episode of Desperate housewives and my tea and hot cross buns over an argument that never really existed

Oh sweet jesus what is with it with desperate housewives and intelligent human beings!!!!!

Off topic rant but still....

No one knows one single housewife that fit......[

Slutmonkey57b

Then you've got the point of single housewives in a nutshell.

Teri Hatcher IS a single houswife btw. Mmmm.

[/offtopic]

billy the squid

I see the republican supporters have chosen to ignore the fact that two of the suspects involved in the attempted heist/manslaughter are still on the run. If this apology was jenuine then sinn fein or the "castlerea 4" would have brought this up also.

what I would like to know are these two fugitives sorry too?

my personal belief is it should be the castlerea 6 and not the castlerea 4 we should be talking about here.

Mighty_Mouse

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.

Bloody Sunday, Finucane, Monaghan, Dublin bombings = victims of state terror. Very different affair

Omagh - real IRA - not part of peace negotiations

Slutmonkey57b

I think the point being made is in response to

Mighty Mouse wrote:

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?

and what was meant was that all the work on "tangible new beginnings" has been done as part of the GFA. The citizens of Ireland have made the first steps, and done the work to appease the terrorists on both sides of the fence. Tribunals have been set up, reforms have been made, cross-border institutions set up. The question is what "tangible new beginnings" have the terrorists offered us? Very little if the evidence of the past few years is anything to go by.

A truth and reconciliation commission a la South Africa can only work if the perpetrators of the crimes are actually willing to participate in the process, and make some attempt to atone for their actions. Since the terrorists of the north show little signs of helping find the disappeared, admit to crimes they haven't been charged with, or change their outlook on the world, this is obviously not going to be the case here and frankly I don't think the citizens would expect it to.

Since I've yet to see tangible evidence provided that "state terror" is still a major problem, I'll ask you this to clarify:

1) What changes have been made to "community policing" ie punishment beating practices in the north since the GFA?
a: None whatsoever.
2) What useful assistance have the terrorist organisations provided to the families of the "disappeared" who have been looking for something as basic as remains to fill an empty grave for the past 30 odd years, never mind "justice" for the killers?
a: Practically none whatosever.
3) What participation have terrorist members had in official investigations of things like Bloody Sunday?
a: Practically none whatsoever.

This is the reason why people fail to "appreciate" gestures like cop-killers saying "eeh sorry" after 8 years while their mates fail to turn themselves in and turn up at SF gatherings. We fail to "appreciate" what the terrorists do for us, because simply, we shouldn't have to give them credit for anything. We shouldn't have to thank them for not bombing or shooting us. The fact that the IRA whinges about attempts to "humilate" them by asking for a photo of a decommissioning site, while thumbing their nose and humilitating all the people who have given them what they want at every turn is equally reprehensible.

Lemming

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Bloody Sunday, Finucane, Monaghan, Dublin bombings = victims of state terror. Very different affair

And why would they be a "very different affair" then? Different in so far as one is called "Pot" and other "Kettle" per chance?

mycroft

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Bloody Sunday, Finucane, Monaghan, Dublin bombings = victims of state terror. Very different affair

Omagh - real IRA - not part of peace negotiations

Ah but the end result is still the same. shattered lives and dead bodies.

You just think the people who caused one set of corpses need to be released but the people who caused another need to be jailed.

Thats what we call a double standard.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Ah but the end result is still the same. shattered lives and dead bodies.

You just think the people who caused one set of corpses need to be released but the people who caused another need to be jailed.

Thats what we call a double standard.

It would be nice if one set of killings was not deemed to be legal. The vast majority of the state killing innocents have not even come to any trial or discliplinary action so people are calling for that justice in the 1st place before the issue of release comes into it.

there is a difference

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

I see the republican supporters have chosen to ignore the fact that two of the suspects involved in the attempted heist/manslaughter are still on the run. If this apology was jenuine then sinn fein or the "castlerea 4" would have brought this up also.

what I would like to know are these two fugitives sorry too?

my personal belief is it should be the castlerea 6 and not the castlerea 4 we should be talking about here.

actually there were 5 people convicted in relation to adare one has finished his sentence and been released

my guess would be if anyone is on the run they are unlikely to contact castlereagh to formulate a statement

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Ah but the end result is still the same. shattered lives and dead bodies.

You just think the people who caused one set of corpses need to be released but the people who caused another need to be jailed.

Thats what we call a double standard.

I dont think anyone is calling for jail sentences just truth and justice the families and victims just want to know who did it why and who helped them
if those who are responsible can be brought to justice and qualify for early release under the GFA then that is part of the GFA and everyone will just have to accept it as part of the agreement

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It would be nice if one set of killings was not deemed to be legal. The vast majority of the state killing innocents have not even come to any trial or discliplinary action so people are calling for that justice in the 1st place before the issue of release comes into it.

I understand what you are saying there ADIG but the old addage Two wrongs don't make a right must come into play there somewhere aswell,notwithstanding the understandable reasons why the IRA picked up so much support in republican areas during the troubles.

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

actually there were 5 people convicted in relation to adare one has finished his sentence and been released

my guess would be if anyone is on the run they are unlikely to contact castlereagh to formulate a statement

i am aware of that but in the here and now there are four serving time in the castlerea prison hence the term "castlerea 4"

there are two other men one on the run in europe, and another, who was last reported to be managing a bar in Nicuragua, both suspects in the McCabe killing/adare robbery, that is why i stated that there should be six in castlerea now not four.

i've no problem with the fifth person being released once he has served out the time he was sentenced to.

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

i am aware of that but in the here and now there are four serving time in the castlerea prison hence the term "castlerea 4"

there are two other men one on the run in europe, and another, who was last reported to be managing a bar in Nicuragua, both suspects in the McCabe killing/adare robbery, that is why i stated that there should be six in castlerea now not four.

i've no problem with the fifth person being released once he has served out the time he was sentenced to.

since the people you refer to have not been convicted of anything it would be unlikely that they would say sorry to a crime for which they have not been convicted

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

since the people you refer to have not been convicted of anything it would be unlikely that they would say sorry to a crime for which they have not been convicted

If they are wanted by the Gardaí do you think they should say sorry for not coming back to Ireland?

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

If they are wanted by the Gardaí do you think they should say sorry for not coming back to Ireland?

not that it would achieve anything but yes why not