Brendan Cole interviews Anthony McIntyre
VOICE OF RUSSIA
3 March 2014
He told VoR he takes this line not because he has any sympathy with the paratroopers but because he believes it's the only way to go.
He says, "I am also fearful that any attempts to prosecute British soldiers for Bloody Sunday will result in no British soldiers being convicted of murder - the best would be manslaughter - and then the British government would proclaim throughout the world 'British not guilty of murder on Bloody Sunday'.
"I think the world assumes that the British were guilty of a terrible atrocity, a war cime on Bloody Sunday."
McIntyre believes there would be a lack of political and judicial will to secure the convictions, and says that's what is needed is justice not just for the families of those who died on Bloody Sunday but for the families of all those who lost their lives.
There are two ways of seeing justice, he argues.
"We can regard it as justice of retribution or justice of revelation. I think we have to emphasise it as justice of revelation. That would mean going along the lines advocated by the Northern Ireland attorney general John Larkin, who advocated the opening up of papers and documentation so that we can get this revelation that has been so drastically lacking in the past."
There has been outrage over the dropping of the case against suspected Hyde Park bomber John Downey. We asked Anthony McIntyre if he was saying all prosecutions on both sides to do with the Troubles should end.
"Yes, very bluntly. Quite often people refer to both sides, they can mean Unionists and Nationalists, but the British were the key player.
"If we want to prevent the toxicity of the past polluting the present, we have to draw a line under the past. There simply is no other way."
McIntyre says that we can't distinguish among the victims: "It has to be justice for all."
Politicians are demanding recrimination, he says - "they want the truth about the other side for the sake of poking the other side in the eye. They're using the past for political advantage in the present."
Download
[Question about Peter Hain's view on an end to prosecutions]
ANTHONY MCINTYRE: Well, I mean I have to agree with him not because I have any sympathy with the Paratroopers but because I feel it is the only way to go. There was corporate responsibility that weaved its way throughout the Northern conflict. The corporate power should face mechanisms of accountability rather than individuals on the ground despite their actions. But I am also fearful that any attempt to prosecute British soldiers for Bloody Sunday will result in no British soldiers being convicted of murder. At the best it would be manslaughter and then the British Government would proclaim throughout the world British not guilty of murder on Bloody Sunday. Which I think would be a serious setback. I think at the moment the world assumes that the British were guilty of a terrible atrocity, a war crime on Bloody Sunday.
Q: So your argument really is a pragmatic one, in that practically speaking it would be virtually impossible to get the required convictions and sentences that would satisfy those who are clamouring for them to be convicted and sentenced?
AM: I think that’s one element of it but I think there would be a lack of political and judicial will to secure those convictions. But I am also of the view that what is definitely needed is justice for the families of the people killed on Bloody Sunday, but justice for the families of everybody who lost their lives. So I feel that we have two ways of looking at justice. We can look at ... look at it as justice as retribution or justice as revelation. And I think that we have to emphasise the justice as revelation. And that way that would mean going along the lines advocated by Northern Ireland Attorney General John Larkin who advocated an opening up of papers and documentation so that we could actually get this revelation that has been so drastically lacking in the past. People have to have the justice of knowing what happened to their loved ones rather than the injustice of being denied that knowledge.
Q: Now this of course comes only days after outrage has been mounting over the decision to drop the case against the suspected Hyde Park bomber, John Downey. Are you saying that all prosecutions to do with the so called Troubles should end or there should be an end to those prosecutions...
AM: Yes. very ..
Q: ... both sides?
AM: Very bluntly ... both sides, and without ambiguity. And when I say both sides I mean the British state. Because quite often when people refer to both sides they talk about unionists and nationalists. The British state were a key player in the conflict here. And I am of a view that there should be no prosecutions. If we want to prevent the toxicity of the past polluting the present we need to draw a line under the past. There simply is no other way.
Q: Do you think your comments will get much support from within parts of the Republican Movement who up until this point would certainly not agree with that?
AM: Well the problem ... they probably will not get much support but I think that's because there is a level of ambiguity and the victims’ issue being played here for, as a political football. There is simply no way that we can begin to discriminate between Derry people who have been killed in this conflict. We cannot for example say that the people killed in Bloody Sunday deserve a justice that Joanne Mathers who was killed during the 1981 hunger strike, a young census collector, is denied. It has to be justice for all. And I'm not calling for prosecutions in the case of Joanne Mathers or prosecutions in the case of Patsy Gillespie. So I can't see why I would begin to select victims who were killed by forces other than the IRA and demand that they be prosecuted. There seems to be a serious moral inconsistency for me, if I were to do that.
Q: So there can be no real peace and reconciliation if there is recrimination?
AM: It is not about reconciliation. The victims certainly are within their rights to make the demands that they are making, and particularly the victims of Bloody Sunday and other atrocities like that. But the politicians are demanding recrimination. They want the truth about the other side for the sake of poking the other side in the eye and they are using the past for political advantage in the present.
![Share](https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?s=100&p[title]=TRANSCRIPT: Bloody Sunday: Politicians "using past for political advantage in present" &p[summary]=Bloody Sunday: Politicians "using past for political advantage in present" Brendan Cole interviews Anthony McIntyre VOICE OF RU...&p[url]=https://www.thepensivequill.com/2014/03/transcript-bloody-sunday-politicians.html&p[images][0]=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGUyMisssEoFvxWpmdDZCFJG5ED6U2kqJvMdFVKBc6DajyUKTKf9KpeYuXbH5HJ63pDcWG6SRvp_7pg33iTHYLI9egO77EYC1Ye9kgGCUK859xaVx30_UViZnGkLPdmbS8nazdCbS1V_v7/s1600/9board_with_names.jpg){kind=link}
Who gives a fcuk what the world thinks-the Brits have to face the courts and the innocents will get their justice -who did the Brits think they were that they could kill our people and get off with it- not on your nelly-
ReplyDeleteThat's a bold statement AM. I think the main difference with the Brits in Derry and the provies in general is the Brit state at one time hunted volunteers for their actions. The Brits on the other hand have never had the threat of any reprisals in a legal capacity for their crimes.
ReplyDeleteYour arguments might be pragmatic but symbolically it's just another concession to the Brit machine, and I for one am sick giving Brits concessions. Up the provos! Brits out!
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeletethe Brits have to face their own courts - great. We can rest assured they will be convicted of murder. No chance.
The Paras should be in the Hague but that is not going to happen. More fundamentally, your party leader in May 2000 suggested to the Brits that in the public interest they abandon all prosecutions for anything prior to 1998. No prosecutions all round is the logic of this.
David,
symbolically it is not a concession to the Brit machine. I have thought since Saville that prosecutions would only allow the Brits to claw back ground by securing verdicts other than murder. Why have that recorded in law?
And how do we call for prosecutions in only some cases where civilians were killed but not others? We would be promoting the hierarchy of victims we have long railed against.
But there is nothing new on my part here in respect of prosecutions. It is the view I have long held. I think getting as much of the truth officially out there is much better than verdicts of manslaughter.
If the Brits should face charges for criminal atrocities, then going on your logic MH Sinn Fein should demand that the IRA hand back the Get out of Jail letters given to OTR’s or are we to assume that Sinn Fein see the slaughter by British troops on innocent people different to the slaughter of innocent people by the Provisional Movement. Ask the victims relatives ?????
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point raised by a Hunger Strike Hero who holds both British and Irish passports who recently when answering a question about why he choose to go bankrupt in Britain a place he hated so much, he replied when your hungry you would eat anything Tom Mc Feely is a true republican in the Sinn Fein mould were dirty behind the scene deals are the norm
AM-
ReplyDelete" We can rest assured they will be convicted of murder "-
That's up to the jury but they should and will face the Courts -
Boyne Rover
" Sinn Fein should demand that the IRA hand back the get out of jail cards "-
The IRA no longer exists-they are a part of our history and it's best to let sleeping dogs be-the Brit army still exists and will face the courts for their crimes-it can't be any more simple-
If people refuse to try and move on and bin the past, it will eventually be repeated.
ReplyDeleteMichaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteif they ever face trial which I have a feeling they won't (a feeling strengthened in the wake of the John Downey outcome), they will almost certainly opt not to have the case heard in front of a jury. And the establishment judge is going to find them guilty to suit us? It just does not seem likely.
We have already seen how these judges go - the Seamus Kearney trial and appeal made a very strong statement of what they intend to do.
And given that the SF president suggested to the Brits that in the public interest there should be no prosecutions for pre GFA actions, the Brits have the perfect fallback position.
Larry,
ReplyDeletealthough there is something in that, moving on can't be said in the sense of 'move on, nothing to see here'. There is plenty to see and we should get the chance to see it. I think prosecutions are a very controlled means of filtering what we see.
There would be much less interest in the past for recrimination purposes if the people who were involved in it would move on and let new blood infuse the present.
Citizens have always been most at risk of predation from their own government, as such I think holding the state to account should be exempt from ‘hierarchy of victims’ considerations, because a failure to scrutinise properly leads to tyranny for all.
ReplyDeleteAnthony no disrespect but that was a rather sweeping statement to say the least and one which will benefit the British government and the provisional sinn £ein leadership the most and they both damn well know it. Such an agreement will place us all much closer to becoming conforming British citizens with the wind taken out of our sails and make the argument of Irish Republicanism much weaker.
ReplyDeleteI believe any such wall to wall amnesty should only be considered in tandem with a British intention of withdrawal. The victims of Bloody Sunday may never secure murder convictions but that doesn't mean we should let the colonialists completely off the hook for everything else. Remember, the Brits have been branding Irish republicans as terrorists for hundreds of years with exiles, imprisonment and death penalty's and to let them completely off the hook now is akin to saying we were the bad guys all along and that the Brits were right about us. The rest of the world needs to know the facts of what really went on here which included Whitehall sanctioned terrorism.
DaithiD,
ReplyDeleteI think the state should be subject to heightened scrutiny for the reasons you outlined. But the judiciary is part of that state. Does your suggestion of exempting the state mean that there should be a hierarchy of victims and that people killed by non state agencies should have lesser rights than those killed by the state? Are the following two positions irreconcilible? The state should be monitored and scrutinised more closely than non state actors. All citizens have equal rights to have those that killed them prosecuted?
Max,
ReplyDeletethat murder convictions will not be secured is the serious danger here. The world is quite sure about the murderous culpability of the British on Bloody Sunday. Why risk having it recorded in law as something less than murder? It is not as if the courts they might be tried in will be out to sink the state?
Amnesty for all is not to pardon all or excuse all.
I notice that you don't disagree with amnesty but rather the timing of it. But there is a case to be made that were the Brits to give a declaration of intent to withdraw then the demand should be made not for an amnesty but for the Brits to be tried in Dublin.
One thing that puzzles me is that a whole range of people normally suspicious of the Brits and their administration seem to think that something might emerge from prosecutions. Not in British courts: that seems pretty much certain.
I would feel pretty despondent if these people claw back lost ground and end up with manslaughter convictions.
Max,
ReplyDeletethat murder convictions will not be secured is the serious danger here. The world is quite sure about the murderous culpability of the British on Bloody Sunday. Why risk having it recorded in law as something less than murder? It is not as if the courts they might be tried in will be out to sink the state?
Amnesty for all is not to pardon all or excuse all.
I notice that you don't disagree with amnesty but rather the timing of it. But there is a case to be made that were the Brits to give a declaration of intent to withdraw then the demand should be made not for an amnesty but for the Brits to be tried in Dublin.
One thing that puzzles me is that a whole range of people normally suspicious of the Brits and their administration seem to think that something might emerge from prosecutions. Not in British courts: that seems pretty much certain.
I would feel pretty despondent if these people claw back lost ground and end up with manslaughter convictions.
The IRA no longer exists-they are a part of our history and it's best to let sleeping dogs be
ReplyDeleteWho told you these lies MH could it be a man sent from God called Gerry I was never in the Ra Adams
You definitely travel the path less travelled Anthony, my heads in knots on this one now. I would say we all have a right not to live under a tyrannical government, as such it doesn't elevate one section of victims over another to call that government up on it, its just that the other equally guilty perpetrators are not directly answerable to me.
ReplyDeleteso long as we keep after the paras (probably 70 yrs age now), the people behind it all will be happy out. the truth about bloody sunday is probably more terrible than we imagine. me i think tribunals and all that give qc's & barristers $$$$$ wet dreams. a million innocent iraqis, 50,000 libyans slaughtered. you cant get justice from genocidal maniacs in their own courts. the world and its mother knows what brits are like.
ReplyDeleteDaithiD,
ReplyDeletethat's maybe because I am one of life's misfits rather than one of its virtuous.
When I listen to you, Max or David, it forces me to think about what I have said. If it moves me to tweak or abandon my earlier position, fine. I can only hope to have called it right but we can never be dogmatic in these matters and it is always open to challenge.
Bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes were for me two rich veins of hatred for the British state. These events are no more palatable or forgivable today. So when I talk about no prosecutions it is not for benign reasons towards the war criminals.
Both the state and society should be directly answerable to us all. And if we value the republican concept of inclusive citizenship then it has to mean that all our citizens have the right not to be killed. I just feel that I have no right to demand (as much as I detest them) the prosecution of those who killed non combatants on Bloody Sunday yet insist that those that killed Joanne Mathers in April 1981 should not be prosecuted.
AM,
ReplyDeleteYou make reasonable arguments as usual, you've changed my mind a few times on here and made me wrestle with my own long held ethos but am not so sure about this one.
The problem with blanket amnesty is their has never been parity in relation to legal punishment, they tried to paint republicans as blood hungry lunatics all the while they were the imperialist aggressors. Derry might be the one chance to show the world they are murderers in uniform.
Sure it will be impossible to get a verdict in their own courts but at least it will be highlighted. The whole Downey affair was probably orchestrated for this end to say how can you take Brit soldiers to court when provies walk free.
I don't know maybe am wrong it just seems every turn their winning.
David,
ReplyDeletego where your instinct and reason takes you. I might have called it wrong. But I recall writing when Saville came out that I doubted prosecutions would serve any real purpose. I don't buy into the rubbish that they are old men in their 70s and we should be compassionate towards them. That is the last thing I would be towards that lot.
I guess one big question is how best to get justice for the victims. One of the Wray family made a very revealing comment. He said he would be more than happy for the judge to send the guilty off on licence. He wasn't looking vengeance but vindication. I feel the risk to vindication is posed by prosecutions: every mitigating circumstance under the sun will be entered in the court. There will be plea bargaining: all plead guilty to manslaughter, save court time, get suspended sentences and so on and so forth. To me it would be a disaster. If they were to be tried in The Hague or Dublin I could see more merit in the argument.
I think it would have been better had the relatives demanded of the Dublin government that they seek extradition to Dublin of the Paras to face war crime trials for the mass murder of Irish citizens. That would be less fraught with risk than demanding that the British try them.
Thanks Anthony, on the topics about calling for an end to the armed campaign, one thing that characterised your writings on them was society’s rights against such actions by those who consider those actions a right. I was thinking along those terms with this. ’All victims deserve justice or none do’ prevents an obscene victim hierarchy, but the rights of society as whole must weigh in on this too. Those soldiers were ostensibly acting on behalf of the state, against its citizens. It cannot be allowed to rest without sanction. I don’t see the same parallel or danger with that poor woman.
ReplyDeleteDaithiD,
ReplyDeletethe State by even trying them would be moving to distance their actions from the State and to show that they were not representing the state but misrepresenting it.
Allowing it to rest without sanction would be to draw a line through the past rather than under it. I would be opposed to that passive approach. But the question I tried to raise is one of the type of sanction that is to be deployed - that of revelation or retribution. I am of a view that we can potentially extract more through revelation than retribution.
The state should be no more free to kill its citizens or other citizens than any other group should be. And because it has the power to cover up it needs to be more subject to scrutiny. But I see no reason why that should be extended to mean that those killed by non state actors are children of a lesser god.
States are not alone in abusing rights.
AM, on your OP - Well said!
ReplyDeleteIf we are serious about healing our land, then acknowledging we both had responsibility of the conflict and backing off from further reprisal is the only way to go. I've argued that within my own community since 1994.
I especially like your later comment:
'Amnesty for all is not to pardon all or excuse all.'
Yes, that truth should take much of the pain out of amnesty for the victims.
anthony, dublin, you must be joking. also do you think it was a pre planned massacre. i do, and i dont believe we shud be compassionate to the paras, but more understanding if u know what i mean. eton types in brit intel who never see inside of courtroom.
ReplyDeleteWolfesbane,
ReplyDeleteI understand your argument and it has merit. However the Brit government acknowledges no responsibility. It still tries to paint itself as the referee between two warring sides. They won't even admit they were in a war, they can't have it both ways. They stand there with the sheer audacity to lecture to the globe about civil rights etc, they introduced almost every war crime.
I see your point about trying to get some closure. The thing for me is they can't even admit they invaded Ireland to hear them tell the story you'd think the six counties broke off from Liverpool and drifted over to the rest of Ireland. Just look at the language they use concerning Iraq liberators! they shouted aye right.
Our own communities will need to learn to live side by side and to do so we will need to learn to forgive or at least tolerate each other but this is different they are the cause behind all this suffering, there caught in camera shooting civilians. 42 years later they still can't admit they did anything wrong, No. they can't keep getting away with this.
Anthony
ReplyDeleteI think if we were to agree to an all-out amnesty without a declaration of withdrawal on the horizon it would be the definitive catalyst in the death of Irish republicanism.
No one wants or expects jail sentences for those murderers but everyone should be held accountable for their actions especially those responsible for upholding their own laws. The Brits know it’s going to be difficult for them to avoid murder prosecutions and that verdicts of manslaughter for all the deaths just wouldn’t stick and would be seen as another Widgery whitewash that could result in violence.
The Brits may have given amnesties to the provos so that they would stop bombing the financial district of London but if republicans where to agree to amnesties for Brits what do they get out of it?
In the history of Irish republicanism the Brits have never let up in their quest to extinguish it and I believe it would be an act of euthanasia for republicans to agree to such an amnesty without something significantly beneficial to Irish republicanism coming out of it.
Cameron’s ‘unjustified & unjustifiable’ comment is an indication that the British acknowledge the killings were deliberate and none accidental, no one in their right mind would say such a thing if they believed otherwise. The ‘unjustifiable’ blows courtroom manslaughter defense theories out of the water.
ReplyDeleteAM,
ReplyDeleteVery logical argument and I for one totally agree. We're up against the British State (it's their judicial system - now lets catch ourselves on here with any expectations of justice from the outcome of any British judicial investigations!) and it isn't suddenly about to admit to the world that it initiated, directed and committed murder here...it has spent a lot of money and time successfully portraying itself as the middle-man trying to keep the peace and it isn't about to do a u-turn on that and thus 'revelation' will never happen.
The issue I have is not with that the British need to be publicly made to own-up it's the fact that constitutional politicians from both sides of the border have never ever stood up and publicly stated what the people and the evidence suggests that Britain directed murder here...if they were to do that then that would send a clear message to Britain and the world that the Irish people don't believe a word of their cover ups and would certainly taint the British stance of being caught in the middle! That is as much justice as I think we'll ever achieve or hope to achieve.
As for our own behaviour...what can I say....we were wrong at times too and we need to acknowledge that without ambiguity or excuses.
Max,
ReplyDeleteI don't read Cameron's comments as having the significance you do for court. Manslaughter is unjustified and unjustifiable. That is why it is outlawed and legally considered as an offence. Unlike murder there is more that can be said for manslaughter in terms of mitigation. In my view the Brits, if it reaches court, will claim mitigating and extenuating circumstances.
Worse even, Cameron's comments, Savile and the public discourse will be used to argue for no prosecutions on the grounds that there is no chance of a fair trial, that the outcome has been prejudiced in advance.
I doubt many people think there is going to be a trial that will result in murder convictions. It is a possibility but in my view a very slight one. Brian Feeney in his closing paragraph in the Irish News today summed it up. Amnesty is needed to get at the much wider truth being withheld. Prosecutions help prohibit the emergence of this truth.
While I am not as sure as Feeney is that we are heading in the direction of amnesty I am convinced we will never see one member of the British security forces convicted of murder in any British court. And without amnesty the only people we will see convicted of murder are non state actors such as the republican Seamus Kearney who is now in jail on evidence that is derisory.
Anyone entering this place should pass a sign saying Abandon hope all who enter here,if there was justice the brits would apologise for over 800 years of genocide, torture ,theft, discrimination, and mal administration, but it aint gonna happen, the dirty deal concocted between the brits and the dupes in quisling $inn £eind granting a de facto amnesty to the chosen few as long as they remained under the control of the quisling hierarchy,is a classic example of the deviousness of perfidious albion,does anyone seriously think that that brits who we must remember are the victors of that grubby little war would seriously allow "terrorists" to walk free when their boys would face the full rigour of the law ?for fuck sake get real the chances of any ex brit ,cop going down for offences committed by the state is minimal to say the least,and again remember the amount of offences committed by the state ie., the brits include mass murder in Belfast,Derry, Dublin ,Monaghan ,collusion, torture, etc,therefor like it or not a line drawn in the sand will be the final solution to our murky past,it hurts me to say it but that bastard Hain has got it right,an open and transparant amnesty across the board is a far more honest way to go than grubby ,dirty deals for the chosen few,and with the shackles of state and party control removed we may just get closer to the truth about the past here ..
ReplyDeleteAnthony your amnesty theory has merit as everyone knows the Brits will make it extremely difficult for anyone to paint them in bad light, it took 40 years for the Brits to even admit to the fact that they did something wrong in Ireland and this is proof in your theory.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think and what I write on this blog are my personal opinions on everything I say, I’ve never been a member of any political party or any political organisation so I have no creditable past that would give my opinions any weight behind them. During the period that some would call the ’Troubles’ I did and I’m very proud of the fact that I gave my full support to militant republicanism in what I still consider to be a just & righteous cause. As for the present militant republican campaign I don’t agree with it and I can’t justify to myself giving it the same support that I once gave the old campaign and I do not class myself as a ‘Dissident’ by any stretch of the imagination just someone who has a traditional republican opinion.
Getting back on track over amnesties, irrespective of how hard the Brits intend to make justice run its course I do believe that right now the Brits are in a position between a rock and a hard place and that for nationalist/republicans to simply give them a safe passage from where they are would be a coup for them.
It’s clear to me why the Brits will be pushing for such an amnesty as I’ve out lined above and the provisional sinn £ein leadership will also want it so that their pasts will be legally buried with no damaging repercussions in the future. Remember, the Brits & PSF are in harmony with one another so getting them all off the hook stabilises British rule.
I don’t believe any attempts at a Truth & Reconciliation process would genuinely benefit anyone bar those two and would be a farce and a whitewash to disillusioned nationalist/republicans and an insult to victims.
The real truth will never be voluntarily revealed because it’s too ugly and will destabilise Northern Ireland and both of the above know it.
Btw, I liked your idea of Dublin issuing extradition warrants for the Brits but you and I know the spineless weasels in Dublin don’t have it in them to protect its citizens, nice thought though.
Max,
ReplyDeleteI wil get back to your points (and the other comments) later. I have to take the son to Dublin for the soccer international and will not be at the computer.
Just one thing, you are as entitled to your view as anyone else. Past involvement makes an opinion no more credible and it should not be allowed through on that basis. Whether you agree or disagree with what is said here, is inconsequential to discussion or you being here. You are as welcome as anybody else. Your opinion should be accepted or rejected on its merit.
This blog is not the best place for those who have difficulty with their opinion being challenged. Opinions don't get a free ride here, neither my own or anybody else's.
And I guess I am not alone in listening to what you have to say.
It is a bit like chess here. I have won every game of chess I ever played against myself. It is a bit different when I play somebody else; the old victories are much fewer.
An argument from Mick Fealty outlining what the British are likely to do to sabotage any strategy of prosecutions.
ReplyDeleteWhy did no one in Sinn Fein tell the Ballymurphy families the Para’s could borrow Adams’ ‘public interest’ defence?
Maybe the British government should take a leaf out of Sinn Fein’s book and claim that the Para’s who shot the people in Derry are staunch loyalists to the Peace Process and like Padraic Wilson should not be arrested for it might damage the Peace Process
ReplyDeletePeter Robinson called for the letters to be rescinded, and in my opinion he is quite entitled
As many of the OTR’s would be voting against the DUP the DUP is only asking for the same rules that applied to Gerry McGeough when firstly Gerry Kelly assured him that he would be receiving a letter assuring him he would not be arrested for crimes committed pre 1998 and then swiftly rescinded the same letter when McGeough stood against Sinn Fein, should these rules not be the same for the other OTR’s
Writing in The Blanket. Samuel Fannin summed it..
ReplyDeleteWhat government in the world establishes an investigation which condemns themselves?
I remember Pat Finucane’s wife Geraldine and her meeting with Cameron in Downing st while on her quest for justice and an inquiry into British collusion with loyalists in Pat‘s murder, Cameron raised his right hand and in a circular motion said ‘”there are people a round here who will not let that happen“, he never said who those people where but it was clear he was referring to the faceless MI5/MI6 spooks in Whitehall. If Cameron is only a familiar face to us all and a front for the British establishment and is having his own strings pulled by background spooks what chance will there ever be for a genuine T&R process. Or would such a process only involve nationalists/republicans-protestants/loyalists exploring killing each other while the Brits act as mediators revealing nothing about their roles in handling touts like Freddie Scappaticci & Brian Nelson both of which were mass murders working for British intelligence.
ReplyDeletePersonally I say to hell with a wall to wall amnesty and a T&R process and while a portion of Ireland remains part of the UK the Brits need to be held accountable for their criminality.
David Higgins said:
ReplyDelete'Wolfesbane,
I understand your argument and it has merit. However the Brit government acknowledges no responsibility. It still tries to paint itself as the referee between two warring sides.'
Yes, they lie about their unlawful activities. Not that the Troubles were of their choosing (unless one sees a conspiracy to get a training ground for their Int. and armed services - seems very unlikely to me, with all the other sites that were then available). No, they were saddled with us and did their usual incompetent, then dirty, best to get it stopped. but they need to stop lying about their part in getting it stopped.
'They won't even admit they were in a war, they can't have it both ways.'
Yes, sheer hypocrisy. But then they are politicians.
'They stand there with the sheer audacity to lecture to the globe about civil rights etc, they introduced almost every war crime.'
Agreed. Just like the rest of the governments of this world. Truth and justice are the public platforms for power and corruption.
'I see your point about trying to get some closure. The thing for me is they can't even admit they invaded Ireland to hear them tell the story you'd think the six counties broke off from Liverpool and drifted over to the rest of Ireland. '
Don't know about that - seems to me they long ago acknowledged their historic abuses in Ireland. What they do in holding to the principle of consent of NI folk is merely to recognize the modern reality. Unscrambling eggs is not a possibility of any government.
'Our own communities will need to learn to live side by side and to do so we will need to learn to forgive or at least tolerate each other but this is different they are the cause behind all this suffering, there caught in camera shooting civilians. 42 years later they still can't admit they did anything wrong, No.'
Cameron did admit it.
'they can't keep getting away with this.'
OK, but that would apply to to the terrorists on both sides as well - and the Belfast Agreement began the process of amnesty for them.
What the Brits need to do is accept their unlawful killings were just as much murder as the killings by the Republicans and Loyalists - and apply an equal amnesty.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteDon't want to split hairs but Cameron didn't admit anything he said it was unjustifiable, not that it was a crime, a massive difference. We have differences on the Brits interpretation of history but I wont get into it just now.
The thing is a cara, Republicans and loyalists already have been prosecuted, Brit soldiers still portray the whole peacekeepers shite. This would be a chance to bring some clarity in my opinion .
The other thing is how would blanket amnesty work? How do you tell the victims families, all victims families that they have no right to justice. In theory yourself and AMs arguments would be the way forward for peace and reconciliation, however while both republican and loyalist have suffered greatly and desperately and want peace to work at all cause, understandably. These paid and so called professional soldiers committed war crimes in front of the world, they has to be at least the pretence of justice.
And I am of a view that there should be no prosecutions...
ReplyDeleteThat's basically your line of thought today Anthony.. Yet in 2001 you finished a piece on The Blanket saying.......
All war crimes should be challenged and exposed. Milosevic, Seromba, Pinochet, Obrenovic, Karadzic, Mladic, Bemeriki et al should stand in The Hague and, if convicted, spend the rest of their days in prison. It is just unfortunate that Ted Heath, the British Prime Minister at the time of Bloody Sunday, shall not end his days there also.
Why in 2001 where you for prosecutions and today you aren't..?
Good question Frankie.
ReplyDeleteGiven our tendency to write history from the perspective of the present it is always difficult to know with certainty what we felt so many years ago, instinctively hugging the continuities rather than bridging the discontinuities.
But on this one, I would still write the same conclusion today and still be opposed to prosecutions.
I very much feel it is unfortunate that Heath didn't go to the Hague. And I think it is a matter of deep regret and anger that no state personnel will be convicted of murder. Yet, I don't argue for prosecutions because I don't see them as the way to go. I know that when the Saville Report came out back in 2010 I expressed
deep misgivings about prosecutions.
All war crimes should be challenged and exposed.
That line from the piece cited reflects my view. I think on this site war crimes have been challenged (if not exposed as such).
A more glaring inconsistency is that while I do find it unfortunate that the Bloody Sunday killers will not be convicted I don't feel the same way about those who perpetrated the Kingsmill massacre.
That is a gross moral inconsistency that I am unable to resolve. It is best not extended to the application of double standards by demanding that one set of war criminals alone should face prosecution.
On the issue of the past I think you might get some flavour of where we were going with our thinking a decade ago if you read the 2004 Blanket interview with Hugh Orde.
AM- "A more glaring inconsistency is that while I do find it unfortunate that the Bloody Sunday killers will not be convicted I don't feel the same way about those who perpetrated the Kingsmill massacre. "
ReplyDeleteIt is not an inconsistency if you give a little attention to the facts behind your intuition. If everybody was convicted on an equal basis for all war crimes and then treated equally during sentencing and confinement you may think a little differently.
If people were pursued for crimes on both sides for example Bloody Sunday and Kingsmills in a British court then the British soldiers would be less likely to be tried, less likely to be convicted and more likely to have lighter sentences. They are then likely to be treated more favorably in a British penal system. We can look at the glaring disparity in sentencing lengths for both Republicans and Loyalists during the Troubles for precedent.
If, however, all sides were treated equally then there would be less of an argument for holding your view I quoted above. Everyone would have to be tried in an International Court because British justice wouldn't act with impartiality. However the main thrust of the view you hold isn't at the end, even if all sides were treated with parity a gross moral inconsistency. Why? Because bias apart when all sides are in prison where will they be but close to home in a British prison and treatment there will be less than partial.
Perhaps your view is purely down to bias and instinct but I would suggest your natural inclination is due to glaring truths we have learned in the past about the impossibility of equal treatment and parity between state actors tried by the same state and anti-state actors tried by the state.
If you consider Loyalists since practically all their crimes were indiscriminate and sectarian the proportion of their members who would be tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity would be higher than practically any other group.
If they get annoyed by the flag at Belfast City Hall coming down how do you think they'll react if faced with that?
The British will avoid all of the above and your fear of manslaughter convictions for the Bloody Sunday convictions may transpire with the manslaughter label left for posterity. (In much the same way as the European Court of Human Rights described the five techniques during internment as "inhuman and degrading treatment but not to the degree to constitute torture".) Just as the internees' treatment isn't officially "torture", although we know it was, chances are the soldiers actions will not be classed as "murder".
David Higgins said@
ReplyDelete'Wolfsbane,
Don't want to split hairs but Cameron didn't admit anything he said it was unjustifiable, not that it was a crime, a massive difference. We have differences on the Brits interpretation of history but I wont get into it just now.'
OK - But I still see it as accepting it as a crime. Seems to me the victims families took it that way too.
'The thing is a cara, Republicans and loyalists already have been prosecuted, Brit soldiers still portray the whole peacekeepers shite. This would be a chance to bring some clarity in my opinion .'
Indeed - Amnesty would put all on the same footing.
'The other thing is how would blanket amnesty work? How do you tell the victims families, all victims families that they have no right to justice.'
The same as we did on letting the paramilitaries out in 1998. Very grieving for many victims, but necessary for the peace-process to work.
'In theory yourself and AMs arguments would be the way forward for peace and reconciliation, however while both republican and loyalist have suffered greatly and desperately and want peace to work at all cause, understandably. These paid and so called professional soldiers committed war crimes in front of the world, they has to be at least the pretence of justice.'
Same applies to each victim - are we going to insist on all the un-convicted paramilitary killers coming forward too?
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeletewhether un-convicted paramilitaries come forward or not is up to them and their interpretations of their acts, but I will never tell anybody they don't have the right to campaign for justice regardless of whether I agree with their interpretation or not.
The thing is with bloody Sunday they were caught committing war crime and never prosecuted. Regarding the release of prisoners, I understand how that upset people but they were convicted and an agreement was made for peace. The soldiers on bloody Sunday have never faced criminal charges and indeed don't see themselves as criminals. IT's wrong. Tell me how can there be amnesty if in the eyes of the world they are yet to be criminalised.
The soldiers on bloody Sunday must go to court, they can't be allowed to evade responsibility for their part in this.
David Higgins said:
ReplyDelete'Wolfsbane,
whether un-convicted paramilitaries come forward or not is up to them and their interpretations of their acts, but I will never tell anybody they don't have the right to campaign for justice regardless of whether I agree with their interpretation or not.
The thing is with bloody Sunday they were caught committing war crime and never prosecuted. Regarding the release of prisoners, I understand how that upset people but they were convicted and an agreement was made for peace. The soldiers on bloody Sunday have never faced criminal charges and indeed don't see themselves as criminals. IT's wrong. Tell me how can there be amnesty if in the eyes of the world they are yet to be criminalised.
The soldiers on bloody Sunday must go to court, they can't be allowed to evade responsibility for their part in this.'
I've no problem with ALL who committed crimes being prosecuted, and justice for all the victims.
So let's open up all the files and compel all the State agents to tell who did what. They will be telling about not only State terrorism, but about their former colleagues. The terrorist crimes ignored by the State in order to protect their agents. Lots of IRA and Loyalist killers and their commanders brought to court along with the Paras of Bloody Sunday.
You think that will improve things? I doubt it.
wolfesbane,
ReplyDeleteCan they open all files after they made all their behind closed door deals? It would mean high ranking British intelligence would be in the dock. Can you see that happening? Lets deal with this practically they committed war crimes in front of the world and they were never prosecuted. The whole thing for me epitomises the injustice of this island. The thing for me a cara is in relation to the carnage they caused soldiers face vey little, if any justice.
I think that those responsible for the crimes in Derry are criminals and should be treated as such. I understand your argument and its probably the more progressive train of thought but its not for me. Those responsible need to labelled for what they are.
Wolfsbane thanks for your response its good to hear your point of view. On this we're not going to agree so this is it for me on this issue. To answer your question no it wouldn't improve anything but maybe we're getting a bit too Machiavellian the end can't always justify the means.
David, thanks for the interesting exchange. God bless.
ReplyDelete