Irish Echo March 14TH, 2012
Slowly, but inexorably, the penny is dropping, both here in the United States as well as back in Ireland. The Boston College subpoenas seeking access to oral history interviews with former IRA activists on behalf of the police in Northern Ireland are about the dumbest things that have ever happened in the long relationship between the United States, Britain and Ireland.
The difficulty is not how to describe why they are so dumb, but in counting the ways in which they are so dumb.
First of all, this is not the way in which to heal a conflict like that in the North of Ireland.
Over 3,000 people died and tens of thousands were scarred, physically and mentally, by a war that was undoubtedly one of the longest and most violent, if not the most violent in Irish history.
But the war has now ended, peace reigns and there is a desperate need for dealing with the past in a way that solidifies that peace and ensures an untroubled future.
The British have chosen a way that does the opposite. The Boston College subpoenas symbolize an approach to this issue based on revenge and the view that alleged combatants in that war should be dragged before the courts, convicted and jailed.
To do this, they created a special police unit, the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), put it under the control of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and authorized it to dig up evidence to support criminal prosecutions.
The emphasis in this approach is on retribution and punishment. Yet anyone who has had dealings with victims of the violence in Northern Ireland knows full well that most just want to know what happened to their loved ones. Who killed their father, brother, son, mother, sister, wife? Why did they do it, and did their loved one suffer?
http://bostoncollegesubpoena.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/bc-subpoenas-are-legally-dumb-and-dumber/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Adams and his cronies get his comeuppance,I agree with Ed that pursuing him through the BC tapes is farcical,if this was only an evidence gathering operation then it would make some sense, but as has been stated many times before the evidence that they require is already in the hands of the security depts,and I think would have a better chance standing up in a court if it is supported by the source, where there is not a cat in hells chance of any of the contributors to the BC tapes doing so,where I kind of disagree with Ed is his description of Adams as a bad boy doing some good by ending armed conflict, rather I see him and McGuinness and their cronies who conducted the struggle in an underhand manner they betrayed the men on hungerstrike, they lied to the volunteers,they continue to lie and like those who now are their paymasters they have no interest in truth or justice,
ReplyDeleteYes, some of ED's stuff comes uncomfortably close to congratulating Adams for a job well done. In his robust efforts to present the strongest possible case for stopping the subpoenas going forward, Ed should be careful not to come across as someone who is prepared to use every and any available argument to his advantage at the expense of his own critique.
ReplyDeleteMarty
ReplyDeleteI went back and reread Ed’s piece after reading your comment and concluded that he is echoing what he had said as far back as 2002 when he published A Secret History of the IRA. Then he said Adams should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Afterall, Henry Kissinger was awarded it.
‘where I kind of disagree with Ed is his description of Adams as a bad boy doing some good by ending armed conflict, rather I see him and McGuinness and their cronies who conducted the struggle in an underhand manner they betrayed the men on hungerstrike, they lied to the volunteers, they continue to lie and like those who now are their paymasters they have no interest in truth or justice’
I think the difference her is one of style rather than substance. Ed has done more than most to bring these things you rightly flag up to the public mind. His view would not have changed. Like myself, he welcomed the end of the war. However, to depict the end of that war as something other than a defeat for the movement, is errant.
While Adams may well be somebody that we have lost all respect for, just as we lost it for Goulding, McGiolla, McGurran et al, you are absolutely right to suggest that his comeuppance whatever it may be must not come from the research that we have done. I told a TV interviewer the other day that we would be prepared to go to jail rather than see dams or anyone else go to jail as a consequence of this research. While I would not dress up for the occasion, it is still something I would be very committed to doing and seeing through.
I suspect however that a top man’s agreement, similar to the one reached with the loyalists, has been struck with the British which allows for no prosecutions for those who were so instrumental in delivering a Brit solution. Yet as we have seen in the case of Pat Finucane, what happened on Blair’s watch has no guarantee that it will be honoured by Cameron.
Alec,
I think the same applies. The inflection sometimes leads to the content being misread. The war being ended was in my view a good thing. The outright strangulation of republicanism was not. I do not see where the critique of the Adams perspective has been attenuated.
Yet, observations of the type you make are worth taking note of. Perception is very important.