Response To Boston College Decision

The Pensive Quill carries the following response from Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre to the decision by a US court to deny a motion to quash a subpoena compelling the handover of material from the College's oral history archive. The court also ruled against a motion to intervene by both Moloney and McIntyre.

We are naturally disappointed but we confidently expect BC to take up Judge Young’s implied invitation to lodge an appeal. One way or another this fight will go on. There are very important issues at stake – legal & political – that could adversely affect vital and essential US interests, both domestic & international. Not least among the latter is the Good Friday Agreement in which President Clinton, Senator Mitchell and virtually the entire American body politic invested so much energy, time, effort and not least their personal & national prestige to bring a seemingly intractable and bloody conflict to an end.

As anyone familiar with the background to this case can attest, the enforcement of these subpoenas has the real potential to create an immensely destabilising political crisis in Northern Ireland. It comes at a time when the British government is refusing to properly investigate allegations of murder connived at by its own security and intelligence services. The double standards involved in all this will send a clear and unmistakable message to everyone in Northern Ireland, a message that reverberates down through the sad, tragic and bloody history of Ireland’s relationship with Britain.

It would be an event of extraordinary irony that a decision of a court in a country which expended so much political capital to secure peace in Ireland could threaten all that was achieved over so many long and difficult years. Given Boston College’s long record of nurturing a resolution to the conflict as well as the solemn assurances to protect confidentiality given to those involved in this oral history project, we therefore look forward to an early announcement of the college’s intention to appeal.”

 -   Ed Moloney, Belfast Project director and Anthony McIntyre, lead researcher for the Belfast Project

99 comments:

  1. Anthony as you rightly say if the brits would expend the same energy into looking at the activities of their agents both in and out of uniform here during their dirty little war,than hounding yourselves and Boston college over what is the personal history of a few people,an important record that like the book just published by our ex women pows needs to be told if we are ever to learn anything from our recent past,no matter what the legal outcome I hope Boston college honours its pledge not to release those tapes,if the worst comes to the worst they should be destroyed if unable to be returned to their owners,good luck to both you and Ed and fingers crossed Boston college will do the right thing i.e. tell them to fuck of..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Incredible that the brits even need to delve into these sources. Sure they were effectively 'running' paramilitaries on both sides at the highest level for decades. What is there they don't already know?
    Don't think any destabilising is likely, the touts are all in 'government' and the dissidents are a pure joke.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The whole judgment revolves around the US & Uk treay to 'legally assist' each other on valid requests. The Federal District Court is authorised (not required) to provide judicial assistance to the Uk, providing the request is not contrary to US legal principles. The Court is satisfied that the UK supaena has been made in good faith, seeks relevant nonfrivilous information about serious offences, and there are no other readily available sources for the information.


    Boston College did establish (Re Cusmano v Microsoft) that academic preveliged have pre-publication protection akin to journalistic prevelige. However, the Court rejected BC assertion that provision of the preveliged confidential material would significantly 'chill' academic research in this case when weighed against. It is a matter for BC to decide if it wishes to challenge that or not.

    However, what BC cannot excape is that the Court has attributed BC with responsibility to act in the interests of both Moloney and McIntyre (and presumably anyone else subject to unfair treatment or worse). In this regard, I would imagine that BC, while giving regard the nature of Diplock Courts of the past should also take note of current cases that might be of concern, Marion Price Case is one of note, the Brian Arthers case where the PPS can remove a jury simply to bolster a weak case, the current case against the Justice Minister (& PPS) which highlights serious impropriety involved in securing false conviction/s ( see 'One law for one, no law for others' published elsewhere on this site).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ps I meant to conclude that it is up to BC to show that you and Maloney (and possibly others ) could suffer detrimental consequences, either judicially or exjudicially, contrary to US legal principles.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Court did accept BC voluntary offer to disclose the contents of the tapes 'in camera'. Where i refer to 'others' I mean anyone specifically named during any 'in camera' disclosure. In that regard and in the interests of expedicious administration BC should probably inform anyone named to allow them to make their case because BC cannot represent them if it does not give them chance to make a case.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very sad. The end of any sort of academic research and a quare kick in the stomach for all those involved. The Brits have nothing at all to gain only more intelligence than they've already gleaned & a bigger stick to threaten.

    Putting the tin hat on further similar research is essentially another form of censorship: keep schtum boys & girls, itll come back to haunt you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Larry,

    it is a clear sign of malign intent on the part of the Brit system. It also sketches out very well the nature of the outcome to the conflict; it lets people know who won and who lost. Even if it is conceded that it was the best deal that could be got it remains a very poor deal.

    Tiarna,

    the judgement is a serious setback. I cannot for the world of me understand how it can be portrayed as a decent outcome. For this reason I seriously think BC has a moral obligation to appeal it, which is what the judge has offered it to do. How can it do otherwise? It either seeks to honour in full the commitments it gave or it abandons them. It is ethically obligated to protect to the very end the people it gave undertakings to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Those damm treatys-lol-

    A lot of people would be interested
    in that list of names who told storys about the war-told storys about comrades or more to the point
    x comrades now-

    Set the truth free-

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aye well said Mickeyboy,Big bearded one here,as I sit here typing my little piece about truth,I am humming to myself that favourite of mine "always look on the brightside" which brought myself and the other lads great comfort in the pokey,and as an innocent man, someone who has never been involved with terrorist organisations,I totally agree with you re setting the truth free, as Martyboy said to me the other day in that greasey spoon The Gresham "Aye boy if they only knew the truth"!!I mean Bangers a brussel did you ever hear the like of it?I mean can you imagine Scap wearing such a ridiculous hat,as for those Boston tapes well I hear they dont say how by my single determined effort through hugging trees and extensive diy skills in country gaffe building combined with writing such deep soul searching books about my days on the hills,that I brought peace to this part of the world, Aye Mickeyboy jealousy is surely a terrible thing and I,ll tell god to forgive them next time I,m talking to him..so endth todays rant go in pieces with big Bobs help...

    ReplyDelete
  10. AM

    I do not know who you mean that considered the judgment a decent outcome? The judgment of 48 pages basically clarifies that in round one;

    ~The UK have made a valid application.

    For round two;

    ~does the application clash with US legal principles?

    I do not know US law so do not know if BC have reasonable grounds to challenge the reasonability of the application itself (it looks doubtful that they can)


    However, that should be an issue neither here nor there for you or Maloney. Your focus should be to show that the right to fair trial in NI is not guaranteed contrary to US legal principles. You are both dependant upon a less than enthusiastic BC to properly represent you however BC does owe you a duty of care and that would extend to all of its researchers working in potentially dangerous or sensitive undertakings.

    Some areas that would immediately conflict with US legal principles might be;

    1) No immediate right of access to a lawyer
    2) No right to silence (pre-charge)
    3) 28 day interrogation
    4) No right of silence (post-charge)
    5) An unchallengable adverse inference can be made by the PPS that a suspect might pose a risk to a jury. (Brian Arthers did not recover from that inference)
    6) There is no mechanism for accountability of the PPS.
    7) Precedence has been set in NI where exceptions can be made and some defendants can be denied a right to a fair trial.
    8) The precedence has since survived judicial overview establishing it in case law.
    9) The Justice Minister is personally involved in trying to coverup false/wrongful convictions, as is evident in his objections to the Court in the Christy Wlsh case, I quote,

    "If Walsh's application succeeds it may gain a higher profile and raise questions over other convictions."
    10) In total, the State itself encourages, or tolerates, injustice and corruption within its legal system.

    Tiarna

    ReplyDelete
  11. Michael Henry,

    The wars long over & those people who chose to 'tell stories' as you put it, did so in good faith so that there'd be a full account of the war for the history books. Had they not then future generations will only hear one side - & that's never good.

    Your comment regarding ex comrades implies that there is sinister agendas at work. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tiarna,

    the BC response would suggest it sees it as a decent outcome. I think the article by Niall O'Dowd in his Periscope column shows that it is anything but a decent outcome, rather a serious setback.

    http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/periscope/why-is-president-obama-trying-to-damage-the-irish-peace-process-feds-working-with-british-agents-win-access-to-boston-college-ira-tapes-135819863.html

    You raise very relevant points which will be taken on board. Thanks for the comment

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tiarna when does who make the law ,break the law ,then there is no law, justice and truth dont dwell in this sandless circus...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Am

    I had not seen O'Dowds piece. He is wrong in concluding that the Judge ordered a handover of the tapes --the Court only accepted BC's offer to show them 'in camera' --the court could not have refused that voluntary offer.

    The Judgment is not so bad, even if you might prefer that the Court reject the subpeana straight off. Most people not aware of NI politics or history would probably see the UK subpeana as reasonable.

    The Court is obliged to give regard to the treaty and it has done so. The UK's next obstacle will be the American Constitution and long cherished civil legal principles. Into the bargain the Court has clarified that BC is guardian to the rights and protection of its researchers -like it or not but BC will have to fight the case more streniously than it has done to date --that is in your favour. It is up to you and Maloney to ensure that BC do not overlook or ignore any dangers or risks to anyone involved --including anyone named in the tapes.

    Tiarna

    ReplyDelete
  15. Marty in attempt to answer your cryptic question I would hazzard that when those least expected become more 'Finchley, than Thatcher'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Michael,

    "Set the truth free."

    Why don't you demand the same from Gerry and Martin?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Belfast Bookworm-

    The war is long over but the story-telling about it is still going on-
    look at today when marian half price touted who her o.c was-

    Alfie-

    Gerry and Martin did not tout on any o.c to a sunday paper-

    ReplyDelete
  18. Your right Mickeyboy they touted to a much higher authority and for a bigger purse .....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well Gerry isn't in any position to tout on anything anyhow, what with him never being in anything in the first place.

    And as for Martin. No, he didn't tout - that we know of. But then he doesn't Need to does he? No, he can cut all that oul nonsense out & stand shoulder to shoulder with the British chief constable & order his minions to do that.

    Really Michael Henry, I do wonder sometimes if you're a real person or not. I've oft times fancied that you're a made up character of Anthonys who chucks in a bit of nonsense now & again - just for a bit of Craic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Belfast Bookworm,

    'Really Michael Henry, I do wonder sometimes if you're a real person or not. I've oft times fancied that you're a made up character of Anthonys who chucks in a bit of nonsense now & again - just for a bit of Craic.'

    If only!

    ReplyDelete
  21. So he's not an alter ego that you've conjured up just to make the shinners look silly?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Belfast Bookworm,

    they manage to do that all on their own without any input from me

    ReplyDelete
  23. Aye, I suppose so...

    Though I am quite sure that even the party faithful cringe when yer man goes off on one.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bookworm Mickeyboy is grist to the mill in the argument for euthanasia.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Belfast Bookworm,

    and they can stomach just about anything. There are some people who will believe anything so long as it is whispered to them

    ReplyDelete
  26. Marty,

    at the same time he has always jumped to the defence of the Quill

    ReplyDelete
  27. Not quite true Anthony. They'll believe it if the bearded one writes it too.

    There's ones who still believe the 'always look on the bright side' story, heck there's even people who still believe the lord & masters account of the hunger strike. Nothing so queer as folk, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Some would rather he took a long walk on a short pier lol only kind of kidding Mickeyboy ...you should go for Kearneys job ,now he really is a dipstick ...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thats it- im going to stop if im going to be thought of as Anthony Mcintyre-lol- how would i be able to look the old cumman in the eyes-

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tiarna,

    In rejecting BC’s motion to quash the judgement is a bad one. You could argue the case that you do had he asked for in camera or an oral hearing prior to rejecting the motion to quash.

    Our case has been that there is a political context – hence the intervention attempt by myself and Ed – which was not dealt with and still has not been dealt with properly. I agree when you say BC will need to fight the case more strenuously. For that an appeal is needed, which the judge has allowed for. We sought intervention because we felt and still feel that the BC presentation does not fully address the concerns we have which you have pointed out. We have sought at all times to ensure that BC do not overlook or ignore the dangers and risks referred to by you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Marty,

    there is no journalistic or academic freedom if journalists and academics are not prepared to risk all to defend it. Myself and Ed are porepared to go the full distance to honour our commitments. Everybody else involved in giving those commitments is ethically obliged to make a similar stand. Anything else is fraudulent.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Belfast Bookworm,

    it is scandallous. The PSNI are out to close down or control all activity of this type.

    'Putting the tin hat on further similar research is essentially another form of censorship: keep schtum boys & girls, itll come back to haunt you.'

    Couldn't agree more

    ReplyDelete
  33. AM

    Yes of course the earlier the court rejects the subpeana the better for you and Ed Maloney, but all is not lost, if anything has been.

    This might read a little disjointed; in a very recent Habeas Corpus (RAHMATULLAH v UK SoS, 14th Dec 2011) concerned a prisoner in US custody. The UK argued that Mr Rahmatullah was no longer in its control and that it was improper of the Court to interfere with its relationship with the US authorities. The Court rejected the SoS view. Judgment here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1540.html
    This case involved an agreed Memorandum of Understanding between the two states.

    Although no one is in custody as such in your own case my point is that the UK was in part still responsible for Mr Rahmatullah welfare and circumstances --in your case, is the flip of that, and the US could be responsible for you, or anyone else whose life, welfare, or liberty could be unjustly deprived or threatened.

    To apply it to your case then where BC are failing in any duty of care --the US Court holds jurisdiction to give regard to the consequences to anyone affected by a hand over of the tapes --yadda, yadda, yadda the Court must be shown that the NI Legal system/executive courts are contrary to US legal principles.

    Tiarna

    ReplyDelete
  34. Michaelhenry,

    surely it must strike you as at best odd that the PSNI is in such a position to behave in such a blatant act of political policing. When SF told us they were supporting the police it was because political policing would no longer feature.

    ReplyDelete
  35. AM-

    Odd and the psni are like fish and chips-they go well together-

    Sinn Fein oppose political policing and bad policing-

    That treaty between the brits and the yanks- was it law before 1998-

    ReplyDelete
  36. Michaelhenry,

    but SF support and endorse a bad police force which engages in political policing. At a senior level in the party reference is being made to a dark side of the PSNI. That has eclipsed the bright side. It has become so dark in fact that it even causes problems for SF. How was such a bad deal negotiated? Or was it even negotiated at all? Was it simply put up to SF and the party, eager for office, folded?

    ReplyDelete
  37. ‘Was it simply put up to SF and the party, eager for office, folded?’ They got a sniff of power and they went for it. Bit like clegg doing a deal with the tories. Principles, schminciples.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Michaelhenry,

    when interviewed by the Independent (London) the paper reported that Gerry provided it with the names of Real IRA members: 'He proceeds to claim that several figures in the Real IRA – again, he names them, but for legal reasons I can't – are in the pay of the British.'

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/gerry-adams-unrepentant-irishman-1783739.html

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anthony very true a cara ,but the difference between the bearded one and his cronies and the latest crop of militant republicans is that they have went from secret submissive touts to full blown arrogant and open touts ,just like the sticks before them.the grin on the bearded ones coupon makes me wonder has he been sucking that dodgy fuel down at spud Murphys

    ReplyDelete
  40. AM-

    Are you trying to equate what Gerry
    said about another group in peace time to what Marian said about her own o.c during the war- not many are going to buy that one-

    ReplyDelete
  41. Michaelhenry,

    I think many people do equate it and for that reason feel it is hypocrisy. Some feel Gerry is much worse in that he has named people currently involved while Marian only stated what everybody knows about a war now well over. I just happen to think that neither of them 'touted' to newspapers. In my mind touting is providing information to the British state with the express purpose of having people arrested or killed. In the cases of both Adams and Price, this was not the case

    ReplyDelete
  42. Michael,

    But Marian named Gerry as her OC just recently, not during the PIRA's war. Gerry named people who could potentially be arrested if his allegations were to be published because those individuals are still fighting an armed campaign against Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anthony,

    I just read in the Irish Times that Boston College are not going to appeal Judge Young's decision and are going to hand over the records to him tomorrow. This is treacherous and a tragedy for everyone associated with the oral history project. I must admit that I didn't really follow this story very carefully at first because I thought the US judicial system would not entertain such an attack on academic freedom. How wrong I was. I don't understand why a person can confess all manner of horrendous crimes to a priest and be protected even if he refuses to abandon criminality, but an academic oral history archive concerning a conflict that ended over a decade ago is attacked.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sophie, exactly. Michael Henry, you are contradicting your own point.

    ReplyDelete
  45. AM-- Alfie

    Well we can make our same points over and over untill the end of the year-even till the end of time-
    i would like to call it a draw but i hate telling lies-

    I am glad that duffys barrister does not know me-it is the joke thats going around at the moment-

    ReplyDelete
  46. I kind of agree with Mickeyboy here I cant get my head around what that was all about or see how its going to help Colin

    ReplyDelete
  47. Michael,

    The point of any discussion is to learn something new. I try to engage with your arguments, I really do. I would like to think I am open to changing my mind: I was a bit of a right-wing revisionist as a younger man, but serious scrutiny of the arguments of the free-marketeers and the Sindo brigade led me to believe that they are just as deluded as Kim Jong Il and Gerry Adams. Debate ought not to be about scoring points; it ought to be about arriving at sound beliefs. Can you honestly say you engaged with my argument and Anthony's on this thread?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Marty,

    In that respect, I agree with you and Marty. What is Duffy playing at? How could he allow his solictor to pursue such a strategy? As much as I disagree with his alleged actions, I believe he should be loyal to his comrades.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Marty,

    The defense in the Massareene trial are only repeating what the prosecution already raised.

    Regarding the BC decision i cant't help but think that certain elements are actually delighted with the decision as it gives a chance to stick the boot into yourself Anthony and Ed Maloney. They vain shock that people could be charged using evidence obtained from the interviews knowing full well that they will never see the inside of a court house.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Maybe Colly Duffy & Brian shivers know something the rest of us don't?

    From what I know of Colly he's always loyal to his comrades.

    ReplyDelete
  51. MartyDownUnder,

    For the defence lawyers to even use this allegation gives it credence. It is a strategy that Duffy should not have allowed them to pursue.

    Good to see you back on the Quill, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  52. MartyDownUnder-

    Your the first i have heard say that the prosecution team had already said that Dominic jnr McGlinchey was the getaway driver for the massareene job-the media sure kept that one quiet- anyway in the real world duffys barrister was not shy about putting a name to the judge-cant see that going down well in some circles-

    ReplyDelete
  53. Alfie,

    obviously had we felt BC were approaching this in the right way myself nor Ed would have sought to intervene in the case. Some of the records are to be handed over today for Judge Young's deliberation. Once he decides, then if the decision is to make the material available to the British then it must be appealed. Or is BC to claim that it too was an outcome it wanted?

    'This is treacherous and a tragedy for everyone associated with
    the oral history project.'

    I think the sentiment you expressed there is pretty widespread among observers. BC has an ethical obligation to defend to the last its researchers and the interviewees. It made it clear that there were no circumstances in which the 'contractual' agreement could be violated. How it described the order to sumbit materials to Judge Young as the outcome it wanted defies belief.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Alfie

    If the two men on trial did not do it, then it stands to reason that someone else did. A barrister knows better and the the Judge should not have allowed anyone not charged with the offence to be publically identified and accused of it.

    What I have read is that ONE: two brothers were named and one of them was alleged to be the driver. TWO: They are both inherently guilty because their father was.

    I think the killing of the two soldiers was wrong and do not agree with whoever did do it. But executive courts and trial by rumour is just as wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  55. MichaelHenry,

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/massereene-accused-i-am-dying-from-cystic-fibrosis-16093228.html

    'Prosecution barrister Terence Mooney QC told Shivers: “You were involved in this attack along with your friend Dominic McGlinchey.' this was Monday I belief?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Marty DU

    Theier lawyers should make their submission to the letters page staright away and make clear that both brothers will take the 'news stand' and tesify in their own defence.

    PS: Save a tree and make use of courtrooms not newspapers for putting people on trial.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Tiarna the Sun newspaper re the Birmingham bombs ,headlines HANG THE BASTARDS...Diplock courts ,,young lad from Andersonstown caught in possesion of a weapon ,12 YEARS... part time udr full time uvf member from east Belfast caught with a large quantity of ammo, dozens of weapons,,suspended sentence,,methinks a cara neither the press or the courts are impartial to be honest I think they are just an extension of the corrupt system we live under.neither are worth respecting and both should sent to the nearest dump.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anthony,
    Mark,

    totally. BC is not representing us in a manner that could remotely approach adequate.

    There is absolutely nothing about the Barnes affair that surprised me. But he has the heavy lifting to do in oder to explain why he wants the British to be given material that could be turned into evidence to be used against republicans for Provisional IRA activity.

    And people think they can hide on the net!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Marty down under headlines in tonights Belfast tele;
    HALF OF IRA,s LEADERS WERE AGENTS;
    my question what about the f##kin other half?......

    ReplyDelete
  60. Marty,

    penetration was extensive.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anthony, penetration now thats a mild word compared to fucked stupid,or would rape be a better description of that massive betrayal by bastards who who have been called comrade,sickening totally disgusting and a curse on every one of those bastards ...no apology by the way for the language

    ReplyDelete
  62. marty,

    I wonder how many of the Committee were turned once the Brits had them for shafting the hunger strikers? Now we can see a very good reason why the Brits never revealed what the committee had done. It was their hold over them, the means by which some of them were turned

    ReplyDelete
  63. Marty,

    Hardly suprising given where they ended up. Also should act as a warning to anyone who would seek to emulate the provo campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  64. How sad to talk of those SPARTANS to use ALec,s description of men CĂș Chulainn would have been proud to stand beside, and those wasters of the so called committee all on the same page and their excuse for their treachery I was only obeying orders...

    ReplyDelete
  65. Tiarna,

    I didn't put the report in the paper, just used the link to confirm that it was the prosecution that introduced the McGlinchey's into the show trial and not the defense. I understand the concerns but belief that their is more to this line that the defense used than would appear.

    The 'trial' itself is farcial and is designed to secure a conviction even though the evidence would be thrown out in any other setting.

    The brits need a boogey man and Colin Duffy is someone they have long had it in for.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anthony I don't believe the committee were turned After shafting the strikers. I think their turning came before it was even halfway through & they turned with the promise of power.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Belfast Bookworm,

    perhaps. My own view is that omnce they had saw Joe off they were vulnerable and the Brits made their move, most likely turning at least one of them

    ReplyDelete
  68. I can see how that could have happened actually. When I've thought of how people could have been turned in the past I always think they were compromised in some way or another; having an affair, being found out to be gay - any one of a number of things.

    My own naivety shocks me sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Belfast Bookworm,

    for now it is a theory but one that I find very plausible. The reason Richard was maligned so viciously was because there is something serious to be hidden. Could it have just been the concealment of a strategic mistake on the hunger strike? I don't buy that. It had to be something deeper, something someone desperately did not want to see the light of day and was therefore desperate to ensure that the discussion sparked by Richard O'Rawe would not act as a catalyst for deeper digging and more exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I've assumed that the 'something serious to be hidden' was the fact that it wasnt just a mistake, but a strategy on the committees part & Richard disclosing what he knew was a bit too close for comfort for them? Is this what you mean or is it possible that there is something deeper, ie that someone or some people were potentially turned?

    ReplyDelete
  71. No offence, Anthony, but I think you're overcomplicating things with the someone-was-turned theory. I got the impression from 'Afterlives' that O'Rawe believed it was the electoral successes for which the hunger strikes were a catalyst that persuaded the committee to prolong the protest. Of course, some in the leadership could well have gone over to the other side, but to me it seems more plausible that there was simply a confluence of interests between the Adamsites and the British.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Belfast Bookworm,

    at the start when Richard wrote his book, theycould have got away with saying they made a mistake and were trying for something better. They didn't. They went to put Richard down which makes me think there was some other reason for not owning up. I suggest they felt they could not afford to have the basis on which they were turned exposed as that increased the likelihood of their being turned also becoming exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Alfie,

    perhaps. I don't rule out what you say about the purpose of seeing off the hunger strikers being to further their electoral ambitions. But once the Brits had the knowledge that they did ess off the hunger strikers they were in a position to apply pressure to turn them. One reason perhaps as to why the Brits never publicly announced that the Committee sabotaged an end to the strike. Watching the behaviour of some of them since has led me to think along these lines. They gave up everything the movement ever fought for and they turned the IRA inside out so that it now looks nothing like the political and ideological ensemble it was during the strike

    ReplyDelete
  74. Aye, i always felt they could have handled Richards book much better, what with being the masters of spin they are. I have previously thought they had hoped it would just burn itself out & Richards story would disappear. Now I see how it's likely that they absolutely panicked & not knowing how to put their own PR spin on it, simply reverted to what they do best; whispering campaigns & character assassinations.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Belfast Bookworm,

    but they were left flapping when Richard returned every serve harder and then delivered aces of his own. They floundered, lied, backtracked - and now the Duddy document at Galway has left them high and dry.

    ReplyDelete
  76. The unfortunate thing is though that most people don't care. It seems that in the main , its only the families of the men who died & those people directly affected by the conflict & who gained nothing from it care about what happened. Too many people have too much to lose by caring - jobs, houses, holiday homes.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anthony,

    "One reason perhaps as to why the Brits never publicly announced that the Committee sabotaged an end to the strike. Watching the behaviour of some of them since has led me to think along these lines."

    Hmm. I hadn't really considered that. And there would not have been much of a reason for the British government to believe that the Adamsites were on the road to peace at that stage. Thus why should the British have protected the committee when they could have embarrassed it? You could be on to something here. I wonder though: how many members of the committe would have to have been turned and how would the traitors have persuaded the others to sacrifice the hunger strikers at the risk of being exposed by the British?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Adams was 'on side' with the brits by the time the panarama programe was aired in the 1970s hailing him as a genious. No other reason for the brits to laud him so much otherwise. He was transformed into a modern Parnell...one man show/dictator with a media aura making him untouchable.
    What happened during the 1981 Hunger-strikes and later with Liam Adams in the early 1980s and the fact none of it leaked out tells its own story for me. How many others would be given the 'benefit' with a wee portfolio like that?

    What did Collie Duffy's solicitor do? I missed that.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Alfie,

    the Committee like every other institution has its internal inequities and some people having more power than others. Did they all know at the same time that they were sacrificing the hunger strikers? Did some of them convince others that there was something better to be gained. Were they telling the same lies to some committee members that they had been telling to the hunger strikers? These are all things to think about. And we must consider them. I don't have the answers but one thing is certain we are getting close to the truth all the time in this sordid exercise

    ReplyDelete
  80. Marty down under I,m inclined to agree with you a cara over this farce called a trial, I still cant get my head around whats going on here and to be truthfull apart for Colin Duffy I now fear for the young Mc Glinchey,s...Alfie my Marie always said if you tell someone long enough and often enough that they are truley great then they will believe it themselves, I,m taken with that agent of influence line that we discussed a while back here on TPQ, whether some or all were agents during the hunger strikes,I think it will eventually emerge, Richard has exposed their treachory,Duddy has confirmed it,now it remains for those on the AC at that time who may still have some pride left to let us know their side of this tragic tale or is it as the Telegraph says they were all Brit agents,

    ReplyDelete
  81. Larry,

    this is Mark McGregor's take on it

    http://heartsofoakandsteel.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/thank-god-duffys-lawyer-doesnt-know-me/

    ReplyDelete
  82. Larry,

    a BBC report on it

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16270693

    ReplyDelete
  83. Mackers
    better link here.

    http://t.co/CHj7KHKa
    dont know what to make of that. what a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Think it confirms my instinct [without judgement on Collie personally] that anything styling itself Irish Republican just now shouldn't be poked with a shitty stick. Have a feeling the dead hungerstrikers of 1981 may concur with that regarding the IRA of 1981 as well. The hunger-strikers who didn't die and who took jobs with 'Gerry and the peacemakers' should all be impaled on a shitty stick.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Larry,

    seems you are accusing them of being shitty sticks!! Even the Sticks were never that bad

    ReplyDelete
  86. Marty DU

    The Prosecution might have done it first but the defence barrister is not saying that the prosecution know of another suspect and therefore that casts doubt on involvment of his own client. He is very explicit, and wants the Court to understand that he is personally aware that, "Police hold reliable information..."

    The real mystery is that identifying the real, or an alleged, driver of the car does nothing to advance his clients case; his client is not accused of driving the car but insteads that he played some sort of supportive role before or after the killings.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mackers
    the sticks must be tut-tut-ing at where it all ended up.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Tiarna beginging to get a handle on this now (I think) if the tactic that the defence barrister is using is that either through informants or agents they actually know who carried out the Massereene shooting and that all this dodgy dna evidence based prosecution is really a blind, possibily to hide an agent, would that be your take on it or am I flying solo (as usual)?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Marty now you have me thinking.

    I am actually at a loss why the Barrister seemingly went off on a tangent and used the Court to 'out' the driver by naming two men and saying that he has knowledge that the PSNI have "reliable evidence" that one of them was the actual driver. Then imply that because their father was Dominic McGlinchy both are as inherently guilty as the other.


    What is even more baffling is that he does not appear to do it as a defence for his own client, ie, my client is innocent because someone else performed his alleged role. Two men, not his clients and who are not on trial have been accused of one of them being the driver. His client who is on trial is not accused of being the driver?? None of that makes sense??

    ReplyDelete
  90. headwreckin stuff as always. wasn't called a dirty war for nothin. all you can be certain of is it's the total opposite of what you think you see.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Tiarna .a mistrial perhaps and here we go again.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Marty,

    I think one angle that the question of penetration should be approached from is the agent of influence angle. How did so many ideas anathema to republicanism come to hold sway? Penetration was extensive but what was its many forms? And an agent of influence can easily have a much longer shelf life than the person informing on military operations. They just suggest ideas or push through ideas that their handlers tell them to. Look at the history of Denis

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yes Anthony I agree I can remember the great hunger "famine" anniversary and Dennis was at the Killwee club T/brook giving a lecture and the way some of the members were in awe of the poison dwarf was amazing, on hindsight the power of agents of influence is probably much more dangerous than the "common " tout and a hell of a lot harder to detect and deal with. you got to hand it to the brits they stitched the whole shebang both republican and loyalist good and proper..

    ReplyDelete
  94. Marty,

    at the heart of the peace process was one governing imperative for all sides: the outcome would be an internal solution. That was a central Brit goal. How did they get republicans to accept it? If you look at Andy Pollak's recent piece you get a sense of how even the cross border bodies have all but been abandoned by SF

    ReplyDelete
  95. I remember a tv reporter asking Gerry Kelly what was the outcome he was hoping for as he entered Stormont for the surrender talks leading up to the gfa..his reply of a united Ireland must rank as one of the most outlandish statements ever to come from a qsf ,er,given the final outcome i.e, the copper fastening of partition, how could qsf come to accept such an outcome unless all or the majority of that negotiating team were compromised in some or other manner.I think the brits wouldnt have set these "talks" up unless they were sure of the outcome, their agents like Scap and Donaldson played their parts well and newer agents were in place to make sure qsf towed the brit line, I,m sure now that we have seen almost the end of armed conflict the influnence and work of these agents will increase taking qsf even further from a united Ireland if thats possible.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Within a year of the end of the hnger strike they were floating the idea of an unarmed struggle. Coincidence? Hard to swallow. There was never any doubt as to where they were going in the talks. Those of us who predicted it were told we were fools; only a fool could believe there would be decommissioning, full support for the British police, the consent principle etc.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Yip Anthony everything was changing around that time the chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre imo forced the brits to finish Kitsons experiment that was the dirty little war here ..

    ReplyDelete
  98. Marty,

    it is not that the Brits won that makes me suspicious, but that they won so comprehensively.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Well Anthony when there is really only one player in the game then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

    ReplyDelete