Micheál Choilm Mac Giolla Easbuig thinks Garda Commissioner has huge questions to answer over an extreme abuse of power. 

On Wednesday evening, RTE broadcast the excellent but very disturbing documentary No Stone Unturned. The programme examined circumstances surrounding the 1994 massacre of 6 men in a pub in Loughinisland Co Down.

Only the wilfully blind and naïve could fail to draw the very clear message that there was a sinister relationship at a senior level between agents of the British state and loyalist paramilitaries, during the years of the Northern conflict. While the documentary focused on the killings in the Heights Bar, Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney also went to some length to place the event in a wider context.

The killers were part of an extensive conspiracy that reached high into the British state apparatus. Not only were senior police officers guilty of what can only be described as criminal neglect in failing or indeed refusing to apprehend the gunmen but British intelligence facilitated the arming of loyalist death squads. In one instance, a ship loaded with sophisticated weaponry was allowed to evade detection. While on another occasion, when on opportunity was presented to locate a major arms dump in Glenanne, the RUC inexplicably afforded those holding the weapons time to clear the cache.

It is this aspect of the story, the virtual arming of loyalist paramilitaries by the state, that places a large question over a suggestion offered by way of explanation for inactivity by the state apparatus. Several commentators have opined that RUC and MI5 were overprotective of informers and were reluctant to expose valuable sources of information that could potentially save a greater number of lives.

This theory collapses when examined in light of their turning a blind eye to the importation of a massive shipment of lethal and sophisticated arms. The only logical explanation for allowing this to happen was that the British state was outsourcing one aspect of its counterinsurgency terror strategy through the use of loyalist paramilitaries.

Loyalist paramilitaries, based around a farm in Glenanne, County Armagh and from where a sectarian murder campaign was unleashed across the rural 6-Counties.

Another question.

In 2010, then PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris wrote a letter to the legal representatives of UVF victims telling them that they would not get an investigation into the wider questions raised by the activities of the Glenanne gang. Reviewing the Harris decision in Belfast’s High Court, Mr Justice Treacey gave a devastating assessment, accusing Drew Harris of an “extreme” abuse of power in closing down this exercise in analysing collusion.

Mr Harris is now Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. It’s time that the Dublin Government do the right thing by the victims of the Glenanne gang and sack Drew Harris.


Micheál Choilm Mac Giolla Easbuig is an independent councillor on Donegal County Council.

Drew Harris - Extreme Abuse Of Power

Micheál Choilm Mac Giolla Easbuig thinks Garda Commissioner has huge questions to answer over an extreme abuse of power. 

On Wednesday evening, RTE broadcast the excellent but very disturbing documentary No Stone Unturned. The programme examined circumstances surrounding the 1994 massacre of 6 men in a pub in Loughinisland Co Down.

Only the wilfully blind and naïve could fail to draw the very clear message that there was a sinister relationship at a senior level between agents of the British state and loyalist paramilitaries, during the years of the Northern conflict. While the documentary focused on the killings in the Heights Bar, Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney also went to some length to place the event in a wider context.

The killers were part of an extensive conspiracy that reached high into the British state apparatus. Not only were senior police officers guilty of what can only be described as criminal neglect in failing or indeed refusing to apprehend the gunmen but British intelligence facilitated the arming of loyalist death squads. In one instance, a ship loaded with sophisticated weaponry was allowed to evade detection. While on another occasion, when on opportunity was presented to locate a major arms dump in Glenanne, the RUC inexplicably afforded those holding the weapons time to clear the cache.

It is this aspect of the story, the virtual arming of loyalist paramilitaries by the state, that places a large question over a suggestion offered by way of explanation for inactivity by the state apparatus. Several commentators have opined that RUC and MI5 were overprotective of informers and were reluctant to expose valuable sources of information that could potentially save a greater number of lives.

This theory collapses when examined in light of their turning a blind eye to the importation of a massive shipment of lethal and sophisticated arms. The only logical explanation for allowing this to happen was that the British state was outsourcing one aspect of its counterinsurgency terror strategy through the use of loyalist paramilitaries.

Loyalist paramilitaries, based around a farm in Glenanne, County Armagh and from where a sectarian murder campaign was unleashed across the rural 6-Counties.

Another question.

In 2010, then PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris wrote a letter to the legal representatives of UVF victims telling them that they would not get an investigation into the wider questions raised by the activities of the Glenanne gang. Reviewing the Harris decision in Belfast’s High Court, Mr Justice Treacey gave a devastating assessment, accusing Drew Harris of an “extreme” abuse of power in closing down this exercise in analysing collusion.

Mr Harris is now Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. It’s time that the Dublin Government do the right thing by the victims of the Glenanne gang and sack Drew Harris.


Micheál Choilm Mac Giolla Easbuig is an independent councillor on Donegal County Council.

8 comments:

  1. Micheál

    It will never happen. Harris' appointment was a calculated political decision -an indicator that progress has been made, not just that the south was prepared to employ a man with a very shady background, but inversely, a former hardline sectarian cop like Harris is prepared to cross over into Ireland's forbidden fenian valleys so to speak.

    I found the program to be a taunting revealation of 'look at what we can get away with'. And I don't mean the gunmen but those who have ensured that the killers would be protected; as are they.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When the state failed to treat terrorism as war, breehjng the criminal law became inevitable. To employ terrorists to suppress terrorists is a natural art of that, whether it is Stakeknife or Loyalists like him, it's all part of the game.

    No player, including the government of ROI, has clean hands. Arming terrorists and/or colluding with or running them is essential once war is ruled out.

    Why are Republicans whining? They murdered many more than any other side did. Torture, betrayal, murder of non-combatants - at least as bad as the British.

    I assume it is only a cynical propaganda move. But could they really believe their own propaganda?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wolfbane you are arguing that terrorism is a legitimate government pursuit as an alternative to declaring war "it's all part of the game". The thing is the men killed were innocent civilians so why do you dismiss their families pursuit of justice as "whinging republicans"?

    You clearly support and endorse state collusion or summary execution of innocent punters watching a football match. Not surprising that you make these sort of comments anonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wolfie, I'm a Loyalist and Loughlisland sickened me as it did any right thinking human. Those punters in that bar were innocent and fully deserved a proper criminal investigation into their cold blooded murder. Your attempt at whataboutery is asinine. You can't ask for justice for Bloody Friday and not expect the same for atrocities like this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not justifying terrorism from either paramilitaries or the state. I'm pointing out that both are guilty - the one for deciding to murder their neighbours and the other for resorting to terror rather than treat terrorism as war, not mere criminality.

    I'm pointing also to the hypocrisy of Republicans, not the innocent victims and their families, for condemning the state for doing what they themselves did.

    Both played the game, the Dirty War. How much better it would have been had the resort to terror not been made, and even when it was made to respond to it under the rules of war! Most of the innocents would gave been left out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wolfbane

    Your logic is crap that a formally declared war would have reduced the number of civilians killed. That argument is not supported by the numbers of civilians killed in just about any formally declared war from WW1, WW2, to the Syrian War to name but a few examples.

    And the same can be said of the Brits hypocracy condemning the IRA for doing what they themselves did. It should also be kept in mind that the Brits had the manpower and resources that ought to have completely alleviated their resort to acts of terrorism. It was the Brits and Unionists strategy of oppression and targeting of the nationalist community that spured on the IRA -attacks on civil rights marchers, Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacres in conjunction with Internment were fundamental to the escalation of the whole war

    The IRA engaged the Brits in a predominently insurgent war wherein their targeting strategy was often clearly evident with regard to security force or economic targets. They also carried out acts of terrorism to which you seem singulalrly focused upon. The Brits were engaged in acts of terrorism from the get go where their whole targeting strategy was aimed at nationalists in general and the whole nationalist community specifically.

    As for the 'Dirty War' label I think that is coined from the Brits term of sport in reference to collusion, targeting civilians and using false propoganda. MI5, RUC Special Branch, FRU and other clandestine operatives saw the conflict as a game to perfect their warcraft wherein it was fun to devise 'dirty trick' operations. They displayed a cute frame of mind and love for the game.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Christy said:

    Your logic is crap that a formally declared war would have reduced the number of civilians killed. That argument is not supported by the numbers of civilians killed in just about any formally declared war from WW1, WW2, to the Syrian War to name but a few examples.'


    That is assuming two or more major armies in conflict, some or all of them embedded among the population.  But terrorism involves a lot fewer on one side, with the state able to arrest or target them as opportunities arise.  The population, even if sympathetic to the terrorists, will not impede the arrests or battles beyond raising an alarm when the security forces arrive.  Any that would face arrest and prosecution before special/military courts.


    'And the same can be said of the Brits hypocracy condemning the IRA for doing what they themselves did. It should also be kept in mind that the Brits had the manpower and resources that ought to have completely alleviated their resort to acts of terrorism. It was the Brits and Unionists strategy of oppression and targeting of the nationalist community that spured on the IRA -attacks on civil rights marchers, Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacres in conjunction with Internment were fundamental to the escalation of the whole war'


    I generally agree with you there.  Not having the courage to adopt a war stance toward the terror, they still had the opportunity to use their own terror only against the terrorists. I can only imagine evil reasons for them targeting civilians.  Perhaps a mixture of arrogance toward the masses and/or keenness to practice for foreign adventures?  Utterly inexcusable.  And as you say, mightily counter-productive.  

    'The IRA engaged the Brits in a predominently insurgent war wherein their targeting strategy was often clearly evident with regard to security force or economic targets. They also carried out acts of terrorism to which you seem singulalrly focused upon. The Brits were engaged in acts of terrorism from the get go where their whole targeting strategy was aimed at nationalists in general and the whole nationalist community specifically.'


    Not the way we Unionists saw it!  You murdered our RUC and UDR family members and neighbours in their own homes, and killed their wives or children when they were in the way.  The economic targets often involved civilian deaths and maiming.  Mostly of Unionist people.  Your border campaign against former RUC and UDR members was a cynical ethnic cleansing operation, a pacification and replacement program of Unionist farmers. 


    'As for the 'Dirty War' label I think that is coined from the Brits term of sport in reference to collusion, targeting civilians and using false propoganda. MI5, RUC Special Branch, FRU and other clandestine operatives saw the conflict as a game to perfect their warcraft wherein it was fun to devise 'dirty trick' operations. They displayed a cute frame of mind and love for the game.'


    Perhaps, but it was just as dirty on the Republican side.  Betrayal, torture, murder of kidnapped RUC and UDR, Army, not to mention Nationalists suspected of informing. The bombing campaign especially was indifferent to innocent casualties.  Careless - maybe even deliberate - warnings that misled those clearing the area.


    The only honourable response by former combatants who used terror is repentance.  Admit they were wrong to resort to terror and resolve never to do so again.  Even if you think you can justify a non-terrorist war in the UK to force the Unionist people to accept a UI, the last campaign and the present dissident campaign indicates that is impossible.  The state forces are superior in numbers and resources.  Only peaceful tactics can hope to achieve a UI.



    ReplyDelete