Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Informers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Informers. Show all posts
Michael Phillips ✍ I bumped into my traitor one day in Belfast. 

It was unexpected, to say the least. I wouldn’t be overly confident the feeling was mutual, though. The only significant indicator that he wasn’t acting alone was his sudden appearance and equally strange exit. The surprise encounter naturally blindsided me. 1–0 to him.

His initial reaction to our encounter did, however, tell me he knows that I know. Apologies for being overly enigmatic at this point, so just bear with me. Despite knowing it was bound to happen sooner or later, I was left feeling unusually vulnerable and chastised myself for it later. I’ve simulated the experience many times in my head and therefore run through the whole gamut of emotions one would expect from a friend who had planned to put a bullet in your head.

And not just me. I’m not that special. He could have made it 2–0 earlier had it not been for their ineptitude.

The point being, I decided on the spot that it wouldn’t serve any purpose raging about it, cursing him or making a scene. Besides, he possesses powers of invincibility and would make a suitable character in Marvel’s anti-hero series The Boys. As well as being adept at deception, his range of superpowers includes resisting public humiliation, shrugging off defamation, surviving demotion and possessing no discernible moral compass. Basically, nothing sticks.

The rest of our short conversation revealed little of any tangible substance about our impromptu meeting, if there actually was one. He is quite skilled and manipulative, but his armour can be pierced. Every anti-hero has an Achille’s heel, naturally, and his kryptonite is talking.

It may seem counter-intuitive for a traitor, but he is a seasoned, competent speaker. On the other hand, he tends to shift from subject to subject in the same breath, in what is known as ‘cognitive load management’. He also frequently steers the conversation towards safer ground with familiar topics. It’s a technique referred to as ‘strategic redirection’ and helps bring the listener in closer.

Those near and dear to him might appreciate these peculiar traits as dynamic, a bit nuts, random, quirky. In reality, it’s being evasive and deceptive for those who understand the game.

As we said our goodbyes, he invited me for a coffee. Funnily enough, I was expecting this, since I’d been informed, he had employed this tactic before.

And that is exactly what I did next.

I felt a touch of apprehension, as I had no idea what I was walking into. Acts of betrayal have that effect on friends. I was quite intrigued by his behaviour at this point. I certainly wasn’t poking around for ‘evidence’ of his guilt, nor was I trying to provoke him into letting his mask slip. That’s Amateur Hour.

There’s a bigger picture, which I’ll return to later.

He’s in the driving seat here, and I was the lone passenger along for the ride, wondering where the hell we were going.

My visit to his office on this occasion was a surprise to him. We’re 1–1 now. He couldn’t mask it, but he was afforded a few minutes to compose himself while I waited for him to join me. His manner was more relaxed, but we still went through a similar dance routine to the first time around: shifting subjects, walks down memory lane. I got a personal tour of his office.

Unfortunately, the coffee bar was closed.

On a personal note, a couple of things grabbed my attention.

When he mentioned another person in a certain context, he used the term ‘one of us’, and I thought it was a fascinating reference. I was relishing the idea of quipping that he was, in fact, a very unique individual, but I let him carry on. I saw it as a ruse to retreat to his safe space.

Another incongruous matter was the way he dealt with a person in our presence. He plied them with exaggerated compliments, and it suddenly reminded me why so many people blindly appreciate the respect and adulation he confers upon them.

It’s so much harder to suspect a nice guy of treachery.

I wasn’t searching for the truth because I’m absolutely convinced that even if forced to observe the physical torture of a family member, my traitor wouldn’t blink twice. I’ve come to terms with what he is and can take an educated guess at his raison d’être.

Ultimately, he carries around a gargantuan, egocentric sense of himself that you will not see externally, since his survival utterly depends upon it.

In My Traitor, the novel, the protagonist Antoine is shocked by the revelations that his friend and mentor, Meehan, is a tout, but eventually learns to accept the contradiction. It really appears he captured the essence of those entangled in close proximity to traitors.

Whilst the book is based on reality, I found a glitch in Antoine’s psychology that undermines his supposed loss and profound disappointment in humanity. He was an outsider, got manipulated by a conman and, when confronted with the hard facts, continued to believe Meehan was a redeemable character.

Doubtless, Antoine demonstrates motivated reasoning, clinging to Meehan because of the significant fear that accepting the truth may reflect on his own deeper character flaws. It was a devastating mistake in any case, and one many of us could make if left to face similar circumstances.

My curiosity, rather, has evolved from those Republicans who are behaving like Antoine by accepting the contradiction of this agent and his co-sponsors. The difference, though, is that many of them know or suspect reality is being twisted around them, yet they continue to provide moral and physical support for these agents.

To add further insult, my traitor picked up the equivalent of Charlie’s Golden Ticket and could have tiptoed off to start a new life elsewhere. Instead, the leadership wholeheartedly welcomed him back into their arms, which are apparently as wide as the Mississippi.

No wonder he feels like ‘one of us’ and confidently struts around the Republican communities he once wrought murder and mayhem upon.

Much has been discussed, argued and speculated over informers continuing to clock into work in the North, but one question begs a proper answer, and it’s nothing to do with their dark arts.

They’re just doing what their British masters trained them for.

After 30 years of peace, leading Republicans demonstrate an irrational willingness to shed these critical tools of betrayal, regardless of the mountain of material currently stacking up against them.

Why?

The Dark was right.

And finally, if you’re reading this, you still owe me a coffee.

⏩Michael Phillips is a former republican prisoner.  Keep up with his work.

Coffee With My Traitor

Frankie McKillen ✍ Imagine two men sitting in separate prison cells. 

Both swore the same oath. Both accepted the same risks. Both know that cooperation could dramatically improve their circumstances. One talks. The other remains silent. Why? That question has fascinated me for years. Not because some people become informers. There is nothing particularly mysterious about that. Human beings have always sought to avoid suffering when they can. The real mystery to me at least, is why so many people refuse. Take examples from two very different organisations. 

In the American Mafia, Sammy Gravano Sammy Gravano became one of the most famous informers in Mafia history. Faced with life imprisonment, he chose cooperation. He later justified his decision by claiming that John Gotti had betrayed him and was prepared to sacrifice him to save himself. Yet in the same world there were men such as Sonny Franzese, who spent decades in prison and never became a government witness. Whatever else can be said about him, he repeatedly chose silence over self-interest. 

The same contrast can be found within Irish republicanism. 

Republicans such as Raymond Gilmour and Christopher Black informed. Thousands of others did not. Men such as Brendan Hughes served long years in prison without abandoning the principle that informing was unacceptable. The same pressures. The same dangers. The same possibility of freedom. Entirely different decisions. 

The Mafia provides another interesting contrast. Gregory Scarpa Jr. cooperated with the FBI while imprisoned alongside convicted terrorists, including Ramzi Yousef. Rather than informing on the Mafia, he passed intelligence about terrorist activities and alleged plots he learned about in prison. Scarpa has maintained that he drew a clear distinction between betraying his own organisation and providing information he believed could save innocent lives. 

Gregory Scarpa Sr spent decades secretly informing for the FBI while remaining one of the Colombo family's most feared captains. His case illustrates the other end of the spectrum from his son: where Gregory Scarpa Jr. drew a line at informing on the Mafia, Scarpa Sr. crossed it repeatedly. 

Most discussions focus on the people who talk. The reasons people inform are generally easy enough to identify - Fear. Greed. Revenge. Disillusionment. Exhaustion. The desire to return to family. The desire to avoid prison. The instinct for self-preservation. None of these require much explanation. Human beings are wired to survive. Given a choice between freedom and confinement, comfort and hardship, most people will naturally gravitate towards whatever benefits them. That is not a mystery.

Why do people refuse opportunities that appear entirely rational? History is filled with examples. Men facing life sentences. Men facing the prospect of dying in prison. Men offered reduced sentences. Men offered witness protection. Men offered money. Men offered freedom. Yet they refused. Why does honour or their political belief matter more to some people than freedom? Why would a person willingly accept years, perhaps decades, of imprisonment rather than break an oath? 

For some people, an oath eventually ceases to be something they have taken and becomes something they are. Breaking an oath is no longer merely changing a position. It becomes an attack on their own sense of self. To inform would not simply betray others; it would betray the person they believe themselves to be. 

For some the answer appears to be belief. They continue to believe in the cause, organisation or values they embraced when they first joined. For others it is loyalty. The oath remains binding regardless of changing circumstances. For others it is identity. They simply cannot imagine themselves becoming an informer. To do so would fundamentally alter how they see themselves. 

For others it may be something more difficult to define - A personal code. A sense of dignity. A refusal to betray comrades. A conviction that some lines, once crossed, can never be uncrossed. 

History provides countless examples of people who shared similar beliefs and values but arrived at opposite conclusions. Some remained silent. Others talked. Even informers themselves rarely explain their decisions purely in terms of self-interest. Many insist they were betrayed first. Sammy Gravano's explanation is a good example. His account was not that he suddenly became disloyal. Rather, he argued that loyalty had already been broken by others. Whether one believes him is beside the point.

The important thing is that few informers view themselves as villains. Most have explanations. Most have grievances. Most tell stories in which cooperation became justified, necessary or unavoidable. 

Yet many others have experienced the same grievances without informing. John Gotti believed he had been betrayed by bosses and still remained silent. Many republicans believed they had been betrayed by leaders and still remained silent. 

The same experience often produces entirely different responses. Which brings me back to my original puzzle. Two people can swear the same oath. Fight for the same cause. Belong to the same organisation. Endure the same prison. Face the same incentives. One talks. The other remains silent.

No political theory adequately explains it. No criminal code adequately explains it. No psychological theory completely explains it. 

The answer appears to lie somewhere deeper within the individual. Some people eventually decide that freedom is worth more than loyalty. Others decide that loyalty is worth more than freedom. Some place self-preservation first. Others place honour, belief or identity above self-preservation. What separates them remains unclear. 

The real mystery is not Sammy Gravano. History contains countless examples of people choosing their own interests. The real mystery is Sonny Franzese. The real mystery is Brendan Hughes. The real mystery is the thousands of unnamed prisoners, republicans, gangsters, soldiers, spies and revolutionaries who could have improved their own circumstances by cooperating but refused. 

Perhaps the answer lies in the words that Bobby Sands often quoted from John 15:13: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." 

Whether expressed through faith, loyalty, honour or conviction, perhaps that is what separates those who refuse from those who cannot. What gives some people the strength to place loyalty, honour or belief above even their own survival? After centuries of prisons, wars, revolutions and criminal conspiracies, I am still struggling to answer that question.

🕮 Frankie McKillen is a Belfast Rockabilly

The Real Mystery Is Not Why Some Men Talk

Frankie McKillen ✍ Governments confronting secretive organisations face a recurring dilemma.

Informers provide access that surveillance, arrests and technology often cannot. Yet the most valuable informers are rarely innocent. The closer they stand to power, the more likely they are to be implicated in violence. The question therefore becomes unavoidable:

How far will a state allow an informer to go in pursuit of a greater objective?

It is a question that appears repeatedly throughout the history of organised crime, intelligence operations and political conflict. It lies behind controversies surrounding Gregory Scarpa, Stakeknife and Brian Nelson. It lies behind allegations of collusion, claims of state protection and arguments over intelligence priorities. It lies behind some of the most bitter disputes arising from both the struggle against organised crime in the United States and the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Most comparisons between Cosa Nostra and Irish paramilitary organisations fail before they begin. The Mafia was not the IRA. The UVF was not Cosa Nostra. The political objectives, historical circumstances and social environments were entirely different. Yet the more interesting comparison is not between the organisations themselves but between the ways states responded to them.

Whether confronting Mafia families in New York or paramilitary organisations in Belfast, governments repeatedly encountered the same problem: how do you defeat a secretive, disciplined and violent organisation without becoming compromised by the methods required to penetrate it? Three comparisons help illuminate that question.

The relationship between Gregory Scarpa, Stakeknife and Brian Nelson reveals the problem of intelligence dependency. The comparison between Roy DeMeo's crew and the Shankill Butchers reveals how fear becomes an instrument of organisational power. The existence of parallel authority structures within organised crime and paramilitary-controlled communities reveals why governments became so determined to penetrate these organisations in the first place.

Together they reveal less about organised crime or the Troubles than about the behaviour of modern states.

Why States Fear Parallel Authority

Modern states claim a monopoly over legitimate force. Police arrest. Courts sentence. Governments govern. Armies fight. Everything else rests upon that foundation. The challenge posed by organised crime and paramilitary organisations was not simply that they committed crimes or acts of violence. The challenge was that they exercised authority.

Cosa Nostra settled disputes, enforced agreements, punished transgressors, collected revenue and regulated behaviour. It created consequences outside the formal legal system. For decades it exercised influence across entire sectors of economic and social life, becoming involved in labour unions, construction projects, ports, transport systems and local businesses. It frequently acted as a parallel authority in communities where state power was perceived as distant, ineffective or untrustworthy.

Republican and loyalist organisations frequently performed similar functions within their own communities. They imposed discipline, administered punishment attacks, mediated disputes, regulated criminality and exerted influence over local economies.

Many residents rejected their authority. Many feared it. Yet its existence was undeniable. Governments can tolerate dissent. Governments can tolerate criticism. What they struggle to tolerate are competing systems of power.

A burglar challenges the law. A disciplined organisation capable of commanding loyalty challenges the state itself.

Understanding this point is essential because it explains why intelligence became so important. These organisations were not viewed merely as collections of criminals or gunmen. They were viewed as alternative centres of authority.

The greater the perceived threat, the greater the pressure to penetrate them. And once penetration becomes essential, informers become indispensable.

Intelligence Dependency

No secret organisation can be defeated entirely from the outside. Eventually governments require access from within. This creates an uncomfortable reality. The best informers are often the worst people. Low-level sources provide fragments. High-level sources provide access. The closer an individual stands to power, the more useful he becomes. The closer he stands to power, however, the more likely he is to be implicated in violence.

This is where Gregory Scarpa, Stakeknife and Brian Nelson become useful comparisons. Most readers of the Troubles literature require little introduction to Stakeknife or Brian Nelson. Scarpa is less familiar.

A made member of the Colombo crime family, Gregory Scarpa spent approximately three decades providing intelligence to the FBI while simultaneously maintaining a prominent and violent position within organised crime. Nicknamed "The Grim Reaper," Scarpa was implicated in murders, extortion and other serious criminal activity while continuing to function as a highly productive source. His relationship with federal authorities later became one of the most controversial informer cases in American law-enforcement history because it raised persistent questions about what was known, what was tolerated and what may have been overlooked in order to preserve intelligence access.

Their organisations were different. Their motivations were different. Their political environments were different. Yet all occupied positions that provided extraordinary access to information. Each became valuable because of proximity to power. Each therefore confronted the state with the same dilemma.

How much should be tolerated in order to preserve intelligence access?

The controversy surrounding these figures stems from a common source. The issue is not whether they informed. The issue is whether governments became dependent upon them.

Once an intelligence asset is viewed as indispensable, ordinary standards can begin to erode. Arrests may be delayed. Investigations may be restricted. Decisions may be taken that prioritise intelligence collection over immediate intervention.

Supporters argue that such decisions save lives in the long term. Critics argue that they permit criminality in the present. Both sides claim necessity. The result is a moral grey area that has fuelled controversy for decades. The question remains the same.

At what point does protecting an informer become participating in the consequences of his protection?

When Intelligence Becomes Complicity

Every intelligence service confronts a version of this problem. If a source is sufficiently valuable, should he be protected? If protecting him allows criminality to continue, is the intelligence worth the price? If intervention exposes him, does the state sacrifice long-term security for short-term justice?

There are no easy answers. Compromise rarely arrives dramatically. It develops gradually. A prosecution is delayed. An arrest is postponed. An operation is monitored rather than disrupted.

Each decision appears defensible in isolation.

Collectively they can create circumstances in which intelligence gathering begins to resemble complicity. This is why debates surrounding Scarpa, Stakeknife and Nelson remain so contentious. The issue is not merely what these men did.

The issue is what governments were prepared to tolerate in pursuit of a greater objective.

Fear As Organisational Power

Violence kills. Fear governs. This distinction explains why Roy DeMeo's crew and the Shankill Butchers remain historically significant. Many organisations committed murder. Many individuals committed murder. What distinguished these groups was their relationship with reputation. Their names became symbols. Stories circulated. Legends developed. Fear multiplied their influence.

Most readers require little introduction to the Shankill Butchers. Roy DeMeo and his crew may be less familiar.

Operating within the Gambino crime family during the 1970s and early 1980s, the DeMeo Crew became notorious for what investigators later described as the "Gemini Method" of murder. Victims were typically lured to a location, shot, stabbed, dismembered and disposed of with chilling efficiency. The crew's reputation for extreme violence became legendary even within organised crime circles. Whether every story told about them was true became almost irrelevant. Their reputation acquired a life of its own.

The Shankill Butchers generated a similar atmosphere of fear. Their notoriety extended far beyond the number of murders attributed to them. Their name alone communicated a message.

In both cases violence functioned as communication. The objective extended beyond the immediate victim. Entire communities received the message. People adjusted their behaviour accordingly. The most effective violence is often violence that does not need to be repeated. Reputation becomes a force multiplier. Fear becomes an organisational asset.

There were, of course, important differences. The DeMeo Crew operated within a criminal environment. The Shankill Butchers operated within a sectarian conflict. The motives differed. The social context differed. Yet both demonstrate how violent organisations convert brutality into authority.

For governments attempting to penetrate such organisations, this created additional pressure. The more effective fear became as a mechanism of control, the more difficult it became to recruit sources. The more difficult it became to recruit sources, the more valuable existing informers became.

Again, the same question reappears. How much should be tolerated to preserve access?

Intelligence Wars

Many conflicts are remembered through bombings, murders, arrests and trials. Yet increasingly they become wars of information. The struggle against organised crime evolved into an intelligence contest. The struggle against republican and loyalist organisations followed a similar trajectory.Understanding networks became more important than confronting individuals. Mapping relationships became more important than counting weapons. Recruiting sources became more important than conducting raids. Information emerged as the decisive weapon.

This transformation explains why informers became so important and why controversies surrounding them continue to resonate decades later. The decisive battles increasingly occurred not in streets but in shadows.

The State And Its Necessary Devils

Scarpa, Stakeknife and Nelson illustrate intelligence dependency. The DeMeo Crew and the Shankill Butchers illustrate fear as organisational power. Parallel authority structures illustrate why governments regarded these organisations as threats demanding extraordinary attention. Together they reveal a broader truth.

The real comparison between Cosa Nostra and the Troubles is not about gangsters and gunmen. It is about power. It is about authority. And ultimately it is about the uncomfortable reality that states often deal with devils because they believe they cannot prevail without them. The central question remains unresolved.

How far should a democratic state allow an informer to go in pursuit of a greater objective?

Every intelligence service eventually confronts that question. Few answer it publicly. Fewer answer it honestly. Yet it remains one of the most enduring questions raised by organised crime, intelligence operations and the Troubles alike

🕮 Frankie McKillen is a Belfast Rockabilly

Necessary Devils 🪶 Informers, Organised Crime And The Limits Of State Power

Michael Phillips ✍ I picked up Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell some time ago, partly because I like the author and partly because the title caught my attention. 

What I didn’t expect was how directly some of its case studies could be applied to Republicanism — especially to the leadership’s repeated inability, or refusal, to identify touts even when the evidence was staring them in the face.

That does not excuse the fact that certain touts were allowed to operate with apparent impunity, no matter what information came to light.

Gladwell explores why human beings are so poor at detecting lies. In one study, Professor Timothy Levine found that people could identify liars only 54% of the time. Those are decent odds if you fancy your luck on a horse, but hardly the sort of odds on which you’d re-mortgage your house. Other experiments, involving job interviews and orchestra auditions, showed evaluators made better decisions when they did not actually see the candidates.

Gladwell then turns to more striking examples: the CIA’s supposed crème de la crème being made to look like amateurs by internal moles. Top-secret departments were infiltrated for years despite rumours, suspicions and even lie-detector tests. The most embarrassing part is that these spies were not masterful James Bond figures, skilled in deception and cunning. They left trails of breadcrumbs that Hansel and Gretel would have been proud of.

The reason, according to Levine, lies in what he calls Truth Default Theory: human beings are inclined to believe others, even when confronted with signs of dishonesty. There is an evolutionary logic to this. Society cannot function if we treat every stranger as a potential liar. Without some basic level of trust, society would collapse into suspicion and chaos — wonder if this sounds familiar today.

The surprising part is that even when we understand deception in theory, we often hesitate to suspect those close to us. A truth bias overrides the doubts we might otherwise have. Consequently, those who raise suspicions early, therefore, take enormous risks: public humiliation, loss of employment, isolation, and in some cases even death. We still see this today when whistleblowers leak damaging information that society should, in theory, be grateful to know.

But there is one factor Gladwell touches on without, in my view, giving it enough weight: likeability.

A few years ago, one of my neighbours was finally exposed as a paedo after what felt like an eternity of being widely known as a pervert. Yet most people liked him, more or less, provided they ignored the strange, off-the-wall remarks he made regardless of who was present. The American and British spies discussed in Gladwell’s book were often oddballs too. But they were generally liked — until, years later, the truth became impossible to ignore.

And this brings me to the real reason for these thoughts.

I have written several times about the person I consider to be the Brits’ current top Republican tout. I often wondered what a chance encounter with him would feel like, especially after having known him personally for so many years. Then it happened.

What struck me most was the likeability factor. We often imagine touts as rats, monsters, people without conscience. But one reason some of them survive for so long is precisely because they are nice guys! They can be friendly, approachable, easy in company. They can talk like old school friends at a reunion and slip naturally into their surroundings.

That was exactly how my encounter felt, despite everything I know about him and the damage he has inflicted on all of us. No wonder so many Republicans had doubts over the years.

Yet, to return to Gladwell, even the best spies and informers leave breadcrumbs. What they often share is an inability to provide respectable answers for the inconsistencies, contradictions and strange quirks throughout their careers.

At first, that failure is on us. After that, it belongs to those who still refuse to act on the evidence — and especially to those who stand in their corners defending them, when we know that they already know.

⏩Michael Phillips is a former republican prisoner.  Keep up with his work.

An Academic Theory Of Being A Good Tout

Michael Phillips ✍ How many touts does it take to change a lightbulb? 

Just one—but only if there’s a spotlight on them while they do it.

In recent years, a pattern has emerged as new stories slip past the censors: being outed once no longer seems enough to damage a reputation. If anything, some lean into it.

Once, touts, informers, rats—and even paedos (a stretch in the past, but no longer)—were the scourge of Republican areas. Families of those exposed could barely show their faces. Meanwhile, being a ‘dissident’—the hardliners of the period—was seen as naughty but necessary, tolerated for putting their cojones on the line for good ole Éire. Now, those roles appear to have been cleverly reversed.

How so? Prominent touts today are not only kept within the Republican fold but rewarded: comfy jobs, public roles, meetings with presidents, trips to Washington. Agent Jude and Agent Shirley Temple, for instance, have held prestigious positions despite their past being widely known. When former comrades questioned them, the ‘dissident’ label was swiftly deployed to silence critics. ‘Friends’ have a word in their ear.

We’re not yet at the point where touts are falling from the trees, and those at the top still manage the narrative with care. But there’s a growing restlessness—a sense that people won’t be fooled forever.

Because the truth is simple: touts don’t change. They are driven by self-preservation, ambition, and exploitation. Having survived the worst of the Troubles, many now feel emboldened—confident enough to let it all show.

More troubling still is the failure of those who know better. Time and again, warnings have been ignored. Agents Jude and Shirley Temple have never been held accountable; they continue to enjoy political protection. At the very least, they should be expelled, condemned, and publicly ostracized—not quietly shuffled around like paedo priests.

But—and it’s a big but—there remains a chance to correct these failures.

If such agents are fully exposed, it could begin to restore faith in what remains of true Republicanism—a truth many of us ex-POWs are too proud, or too embarrassed, to admit we were once misled about.

 ⏩Michael Phillips is a former republican prisoner.  Keep up with his work.

Touts Are The New Hardliners

Michael Phillips ✍ The Belfast Telegraph revealed on 8 April that an “MI5 source had details on IRA plans to attack England.” 

Cue Homer Simpson: “Doh!” It’s a short article, but worth unpacking—because there’s an important rebuttal to be made. To the casual Republican observer, it might seem those persistent MI5 snoops chalked up another success. The reality is far darker—and more disappointing.

Firstly, there were no plans. Strictly going by the court proceedings—since I was there—no plans, maps, targets, dates, or anything remotely suggestive were ever produced. The prosecution inferred plenty from the ASU activity, but that was about it. To be fair, the article did include a teeny caveat just to tidy up any exaggerated statements: “It said there was no clear indication of the intended targets.”

So yes, MI5 can claim another victory—but the starker truth is they remain victorious and must wonder how the charade continues. Let me add some perspective for my Republican comrades still wearing green-tinted glasses.

Again—going strictly by the court proceedings, for my own peace of mind—the two lads sent over had never met, nor communicated with anyone in England. It was, quite literally, a terrorist blind date—facetious as that may sound. Yet one of them, with no record or murky Fenian profile, was observed and photographed disembarking in Wales.

Which suggests MI5 knew well in advance—likely from the moment he started to pack his bags, despite having little time to prepare. The second lad, unknown to him, was also tracked via a separate route. At this point, incompetence seems unlikely; the odds of both making major errors from the outset are low. Later, the van sent from the north—allegedly for the ASU use—was tracked from departure. Meanwhile, the London crew had scant details of that operation until it reached them.

Now, without diminishing MI5’s brilliance in keeping the fading flame of imperialism alive, and despite their fingerprints being all over this, it’s abundantly obvious there was a Republican rat embedded in this tightly controlled department. Identifying suspects wouldn’t be rocket science—and just to clarify, it wasn’t the same devious character still collaborating with Belfast Republicans; he wasn’t promoted to that department until later.

In the end, the real story isn’t the Belfast Telegraph glorifying British spycraft, but the decades-long suppression of Republican touts by Republicans themselves. But more on that later.

⏩Michael Phillips is a former republican prisoner.  Keep up with his work.

MI5 Shocker!

Michael Phillips ✍ Seriously — do they get any downtime from their spymasters? It would seem not. Let me explain.

I was watching an interview with a world-renowned security expert. He and the interviewer discussed prompting an AI chatbot with: “Make the case… (that Epstein was an Israeli spy)” to test how well it could argue and present evidence. To his surprise, it laid out a solid case — which the expert himself said he could confirm, though he refused to say how.

Inspired, I substituted the second half with: “…that the British government still have a spy in the Republican movement in Belfast” — just to be a tad condescending.

Here are a few highlights from its response:

The infrastructure to run such agents was vast, expensive, and highly effective. Intelligence agencies do not simply dismantle successful networks because a peace process begins… From London's perspective, the strategic value of a well-placed source has arguably increased, not decreased. Understanding Republicans’ internal positions on issues like a border poll, their relationship with dissident republicans, and their long-term constitutional strategy is of enormous interest to the British state… The institutional culture, the handlers, the tradecraft — this does not evaporate with the Good Friday Agreement. Former intelligence officers have noted publicly that ‘running’ sources in Northern Ireland was never fully wound down, simply scaled back and restructured under a more normalised policing framework with the PSNI… Donaldson was only exposed in 2005 — seven years after the Good Friday Agreement — meaning British intelligence maintained a top-level political source well into the peace process. This alone establishes that the peace agreement did not end agent-running. If one such source was active seven years in, the question is not whether others existed, but how many remain undetected.

It concluded that this was based on publicly stated facts and reasonable inferences, blah blah blah.

Relying on new tech gadgets to show how the Brits are still scheming and plotting against us is hardly scientific — but it will only get better. Bear in mind too that AI itself is part of the tout machinery, and can be used right back at them.

I do have more practical evidence, however, for why touts can’t take holidays. It may also explain why some Republicans still scratch their heads over why the Brits forced their number-one tout back to work. Next time, we can prompt AI as to why he was so readily embraced by his colleagues — again. Alas, there’s no rest for the wicked. For that reason, this anecdote uses fictionalized names; it’s not only fresh but active.

Let’s call the two protagonists Andy and Ben — close, blood close. One day Andy questioned Ben about his past Republican activities. It was out of character, especially as he persisted before being brushed off. Ben was shocked but let it pass. Eventually, annoyed, he made enquiries about Andy. Nothing surfaced.

Except one evening, after Ben mentioned the anomaly to Rory — a prominent Republican — Andy happened to bump into Rory in a supermarket. Within seconds he was name-dropping and probing whether Rory knew Ben well, even letting slip an innocuous detail Rory knew to be false. The exchange lasted moments. Rory left stunned; he barely knew Andy. The timing alone set off alarm bells. Then there was the odd detail of Andy leaving the shop with nothing but a loaf.

There’s more, but for now it simply illustrates that our near and dear are still being flogged for every scintilla of information.

And as our newest tech gadget suggested: “The peace agreement did not end agent-running… the question is not whether others existed, but how many remain undetected.” I just hope their service to King and country — over our dead volunteers and incarcerated Republicans — was worth it. Perhaps, in time, some will even receive public recognition for their blood gains.

⏩Michael Phillips is a former republican prisoner.  Keep up with his work.

Do Touts Get Holidays?

Michael Phillips ✍ I bumped into someone who jogged an odd detail loose. 

Let’s call him a Truth Seeker—one of many, I dare to hope. He mentioned that, once upon a time, the agent in the Kenova report—the one who officially doesn’t exist but whom every dog on the street seems to know—lived in a quaint little community in County Down. Another voice chimed in that he’s lived in more houses than you or I have had Sunday roasts. That rang true. I don’t recall many Sunday roasts growing up; there were too many marauding mouths to feed in our house for a single roast to survive beyond the first sitting.

That detail triggered a memory: a meeting I once had with the agent-who-doesn’t-exist at a tourist spot beside a beautiful lake. He invited me up to feed the swans. It was a long way to go for swans. I went anyway, just for the craic, and never once questioned the location. The truth is, I was still in my Republican nappies, so the less said the better. I do remember briefly wondering whether it was reckless or brazenly bold—given the area was home to security forces and well-to-do Unionists. Ignorance is bliss, and I was clearly guilty of incuriosity. Looking back now, though, the idea that he had his own personal rat hole nearby makes perfect sense. He wasn’t reckless or bold at all. He was in his natural habitat.

That was then. Times, they are a-changin’. Perhaps I’m too curious now. Funnier still is that some people are paid to be curious—their careers are built on it—yet they’ve managed to ignore the most obvious and controversial issue staring them in the face, without so much as a twitch suggesting they might probe it.

Another Truth Seeker recently asked me about certain journalists, sending me rummaging through the recesses of my brain to see what I’d missed—again. Not long ago, articles were circulating online pointing out how certain northern journalists have ignored the agent-who-doesn’t-exist, despite documented links to him. Normally, it pays not to react to every online provocation. But this Truth Seeker might be onto something. For one, the journalists in question were close enough to the agent to adjust his hidden microphone. Two, their careers are long, respected, and well established. Three, their paths have crossed for decades.

So how is it possible they’ve never reported on one of the most explosive stories in the North? Their lack of professional curiosity deserves Olympic gold—especially given that some were tipped off years ago by a friendly source. They chase major crimes and political heavyweights, yet suddenly turn coy when confronted with a British agent who slipped through the Stakeknife saga. Voltaire warned: “Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.” True to form, these journalists cherry-picked their truths. When the agent-who-doesn’t-exist appeared, they heard no evil, saw no evil, and published no evil.

And now, ironically, they’re becoming the story.

⏩Michael Phillips is a former republican prisoner. Keep up with his work.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Write No Evil

Irish News ✏ Written by John Manley.

Danny Morrison on Freddie Scappaticci and how the north has transformed but unionism hasn’t changed

Danny Morrison has witnessed dramatic changes in his 72 years.

A teenager at the beginning of the conflict, he has lived to enjoy the fruits of the electoral seeds he and others sowed in the 1980s, with Sinn Féin now topping the polls in Westminster, Stormont and council elections.

But electoral success doesn’t automatically deliver political solutions.

“The objective is to improve people’s lives, to move resources from the rich towards the poor, but obviously they (the Sinn Féin-led Stormont executive) are constrained by being connected to Westminster and the British exchequer,” he says.

“But I have never viewed Stormont as a permanent institution. To me, this is an experiment and it’s an experiment that unionists continually undermine.”

He argues that rather than “quote unquote making Northern Ireland work, unionists do the exact opposite”.

He accuses unionist politicians of a failure to reciprocate gestures by republicans, such as Michelle O’Neill laying a wreath at the Belfast cenotaph or attending King Charles‘s coronation.

But despite intransigence, Morrison says he has seen northern society transform.

Continue @ Irish News.

Morrison On Informers & Unionism

Dr John Coulter ✍ The recent BBC documentary, The Secret Army, about life in the Provisional IRA in the early 1970s, has sparked the very real question - who really works for whom in the murky world of intelligence gathering?

That particular documentary raised issues in relation to the British intelligence community, especially MI5 and MI6, as well as the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and even the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, and their relationships with the Provos.

Once again, it lit the flames under allegations that former Derry IRA commander Martin McGuinness, later Sinn Fein’s Stormont deputy First Minister, was himself a British agent.

During my time as Northern Political Correspondent for the Dublin-based Irish Daily Star, sources within the dissident republican movement would constantly make such unsubstantiated allegations about McGuinness being a British asset. These were always formally and informally denied by Sinn Fein.

I always found McGuinness a polite conversationalist. I worked as a part-time press officer and research assistant at Stormont between 1998 and 2023. From time to time when McGuinness was education minister in the power-sharing Executive, he would sit with me in a packed basement restaurant at lunchtime in Parliament Buildings.

We shared a common interest in fishing - he in fly fishing, me in sea fishing. The conversation was never about the future of the 11 Plus, or even his time as Derry Provo commander.

Watching The Secret Army documentary, it was hard to fathom the McGuinness showing bullets to children and overseeing the priming of a bomb was the same McGuinness I had chatted amicably with in Stormont.

Could this man who went on to become one half of the successful devolution act known as the Chuckle Brothers really be an asset or agent for one of the intelligence organisations?

Then again, I recall another prominent Sinn Fein activist I had a very cordial relationship with at Stormont - Denis Donaldson (no relation of the former DUP leader!)

Denis Donaldson became a head of administration for Sinn Fein at Stormont and was investigated as part of the alleged republican spy ring in Parliament Buildings in 2002. In December 2005, he admitted his role in being a British spook and was murdered the following year whilst living at an isolated cottage in County Donegal.

Whilst we never had an in-depth conversation, Denis Donaldson would always have a polite greeting for me when we passed each other in Stormont corridors.

But allegations of intelligence assets and agents were not limited to republicanism. It can be safe to assume the intelligence community had also heavily infiltrated loyalist organisations as well, the late Brian Nelson being a prime example of an intelligence agent working within the UDA.

However, the question must always be posed - did the reach of the intelligence community extend beyond the various republican and loyalist paramilitaries into the political parties?

If the intelligence community can have a spook operating within Sinn Fein, could it also have assets placed within political Unionism and loyalism?

In terms of Unionism, I recall the unsubstantiated whispering campaign naming certain individuals that I was told to be careful what I talked to them about. No evidence was ever produced to me to in any way substantiate those allegations. It was entirely word of mouth.

During my time at Stormont, six names were given to me from Unionism in general alleging these people were passing information to the intelligence community about developments within specific political parties or the political process as a whole.

Two were identified as being MI5; two were identified as MI6; one was CIA, and one Mossad.

With no legally concrete evidence to support these allegations, I regarded them as merely defamatory comments and ill-judged gossiping; the sort of stuff more akin to the judgemental church pews than Parliament Buildings.

It was always along the lines of: “Watch what you say to “X”, they’re MI6!”

At one time, there was even a rumour that one person within the broad Unionist designation who worked at Stormont was also linked to the Russian intelligence community, the Federal Security Service or FSB, and would brief Moscow on developments in Parliament Buildings! In this rumour, no names were ever mentioned.

I tended to dismiss such unsubstantiated allegations as James Bond movie fantasy. But after watching The Secret Army documentary, could my dismissive cynicism of such rumours have been a wee bit too hasty?

This year, I clock up 46 years in journalism. When I look back on my career to date and some of the paramilitary and political interviews I’ve done both on and off the record, it makes me wonder if any of the folk I chatted with were part of the intelligence community and the information they provided me with had first been approved by their handlers within that intelligence community? Or maybe as I close in on state pension age, have I fallen into the pitfall of conspiracy theory?

Then again, when reading of the activities of the British agent Stakeknife, the actions of Brian Nelson, allegations of collusion, perhaps those who maintain that the intelligence community has agents inside paramilitaries, political parties and political groups should not be dismissed as delusional Walter Mitty characters.

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Should Stormont Form Spooks Anonymous?

Frankie Quinn  ✒ In light of the recent Kenova report, there is a crew of individuals and organisations who are keen to label every IRA activist as a tout or compromised in some way. 

As an ex-POW and a republican activist my whole life I can not allow this to continue without comment.

The war against the imperialist occupation of Ireland by British troops and their economic counterparts was justified and the correct thing to do. For many Volunteers of the IRA this was the honourable course to take. As under international law an occupied country has the right to try as best it can to achieve freedom and sovereignty. This includes the use of armed struggle.

The historical context for such action lays deep within the Irish psyche, when presented with discrimination, harassment and outright murder of one’s families, friends and comrades, when the law makers become the law breakers then there is no law. Hundreds of young and not so young men and women took up that challenge to serve their people and the cause of Irish independence. Reluctantly a generation of Irish people decided to become part of the Republican Movement. By far, most of these ordinary people were involved for the right reasons.

Of course, the longer the war went on the more the Movement was infiltrated by agents. The lowest of the low human beings. These few who secreted themselves into the heart of the Irish Republican Army were to become part of its demise. There is no doubt some of these agents were known and even promoted to higher ranks within the IRA. By whom and why?

At a very early stage the British intelligence services had established who they could manipulate at a high level within the IRA. There is no need to go into this to deeply at this stage - there are plenty of books referencing these individuals. 

The narrative that the whole organisation was rotten is not correct. The hundreds of young men and women who give their lives so we might have the 32-county socialist republic were certainly not rats or agents. They were the cream of their communities and deeply embedded within those said communities.

Today we have ex comrades trying to distance themselves from these brave comrades. Why?

These are political opportunists who will exploit any situation to farther their personal careers,

This is evidenced by their attendance at the King of England’s crowning, the passing out parade of those employed to uphold British rule in Ireland to name but a few incidences. They call themselves the Good Friday generation of republicans. Firstly, they are not republicans. Fact, one cannot call oneself a republican and then endorse a king. Never mind an Irish republican.

To quote a revolutionary of the highest regard Bernadette Mc Aliskey “the litmus test for any political party was to boycott genocide Joe Biden in the USA”. This they could not do. Disgraceful and totally wrong. While children ate grass, they ate steak with their imperialist masters. When they couldn’t stand up for the poor Palestinian people under such circumstances, how can anyone involved hold their head up? Or expect them to pursue a 32-county socialist republic?

So they try to delegitimise our fallen friends, families and comrades. The very people who got them there in the first place. The thousands of years spent in prisons all over the world by Irish republicans now has to be criminalised, so they can cosy up to their masters. Well, this will not be permitted to happen while there are genuine republicans alive who will maintain their memories with dignity and pride.

The British manipulated this situation to murder what they call their own citizens. They allowed RUC members, ordinary working-class soldiers and civilians to be murdered by their agents. Their agents under the control of the British security services. The report has pointed to countless murders they could have prevented. They choose not to by protecting agents. They are the culprits in this situation and the law makers again become the law breakers. As for the minority of members of the Republican Movement who became British agents they are to be condemned as what they are - informers and the lowest of the low in betrayals of their fellow republicans.

But the majority of people who joined and helped the Republican Movement during the war were and are the salt of the earth, they give everything for that cause in which they one hundred percent believed. These were ordinary people placed in an extortionary situation not of their making. I would pay homage to these brave people and many families destroyed and broken as a result of the war. We will not stand idlily by and allow people to condemn the courageous volunteers of the Irish Republican Army. We salute them and all those who played any part in the struggle for freedom independence and the 32-county socialist republic. That struggle continues in a different way today and for this past 20 years.

In conclusion, the presence of agents within the ranks of the IRA does not condemn the men and women of the IRA who were prepared to lay down their lives, not for a corrupted and infiltrated leadership but for the people of Ireland. For this we will forever be in your debt and we will never condemn you or your sacrifice and commitment to the cause of Irish freedom, and the establishment of the 32-county socialist republic.

East Tyrone Remembers.

⏩Frankie Quinn is the National Organiser for the 1916 Societies.

Challenging A False Narrative

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ I have never been able to get my head round those people who work for the occupying forces, any occupying forces in any country, and what makes them tick.

During the Second World War there were those in France who collaborated with the Nazis during their country’s occupation. Why would they do this? The same question I ask of those British citizens residing in the Channel Islands, the only part of Britain under German occupation, who collaborated with the Nazi and informed on their fellow islanders. Some of these creatures even gave away the names of Jewish people living on the islands knowing this information would lead to the victims of informing, certain deaths. The British Army and government when they were rampaging around the world stealing other people’s lands, calling it an ‘empire,’ used people as informers and even soldiers in their army, usually to do the dirty work of the British.

The British Government of all political shades, dating back to the Whigs and Torys long before a Labour party came on the parliamentary scene have used and abused natives to work for them. Promising the earth to these soulless aboriginal peoples who have worked for their colonial masters only to be dumped like a piece of rubbish when no longer needed. 

During the Mao Mao uprising in Kenya (1952-60) British forces used and abused native people to help crush the rebellion. When they had outlived their usefulness, they were left to their grizzly fate, normally death in a violent fashion. When many of them wished to leave Kenya and come to Britain they were often told, ‘go home’ if they were not required to do some shitty job the locals would not do.

During the ‘War of Independence’ in Ireland the British used informers, many of whom were loyalist by nature and took no persuading, while others were not loyalist by nature and wanted to earn a few shillings, by giving information for cash. What they did not expect was the British would, after using them, just dump them for the insurgent republican forces to collect, interrogate and usually kill. The British would then call the IRA murders while washing their hands on any involvement in the informer’s death. Twenty years later when the French Resistance carried out exactly the same punishments as those by the IRA the French were credited as ‘brave freedom fighter’s’. There is no doubt the French Resistance were ‘brave freedom fighters’ but so too were the IRA.

In more recent times the occupying British forces in the six counties have continued this tradition of using and abusing local people to gather information. They even allowed ‘murder’ to take place in order to protect an informer or agent. The Force Research Unit (FRU) were particularly guilty of these acts of hanging people out to dry which, nine times out of ten, resulted in the person being killed. Back in 2005 when the ‘Stormont Assembly’ was getting off the ground as part of the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ it was suddenly revealed that Denis Donaldson, MLA, had been working for the British for many years. The British threatened to reveal his identity which forced him to publicly admit his crimes against the republican cause. Why did the British suggest his cover had been blown? Did they blow it? Was the threat to ‘reveal his identity’ an attempt by the Crown to cover their own tracks? One thing is for sure, Donaldson knew too much not only about the Republican Movement but also the British Army and their agents. He was found dead in 2006 in County Donegal in the twenty-six-counties. The Real IRA, a post GFA splinter group, later claimed they were responsible for Donaldson's assassination but the British also had good reason for wanting him dead. Could the SAS have been responsible? Either way Donaldsons collusion with the British Crown cost him his life.

Coming a little more up to date and Afghanistan the British were at it again. Many Afghans who were anti-Taliban fought with or for the British. Now, there is no harm in being anti-Taliban, no harm at all, but would it not have been better for these people to join a local Afghan anti-Taliban group as opposed to the British occupiers, albeit junior occupiers after the USA? Some of these Afghans went on to train as ‘special forces’ trained by the British and also used by them, forming special forces units in the new Afghan Army. That army turned out to be not very good and when the US and British left they crumbled before the Taliban onslaught. So much for British training!

Many of these former Afghan Army soldiers were given sanctuary in neighbouring Pakistan. Remember these men had put their lives on the line against the Taliban choosing instead to fight for or alongside the British, not a good move at the best of times. In return these cannon fodder received what passed for training which turned out to be inadequate against the Taliban. Feeling safe in Pakistan these one-time stooges of the Crown felt safe until, recently, all this feeling of security collapsed. The Pakistani Government has decided, in their wisdom, that these men will be returned to Afghanistan and the now governing Taliban! Their former users, the British, appear to have washed their hands of these men who now face, if returned, certain death. British armed forces minister, James Heappey himself a former soldier who served in Afghanistan, has expressed his “sickness” at the thought of these “former comrades in arms” being returned to Afghanistan. He also indicated that not all “qualify” for British citizenship even if they have “been special forces” personnel serving with or alongside the British Army. These men have been used, abused, by the British to do their dirty work probably against their own countrymen, possibly torturing people for the British and USA, only now to be now told tough luck you’re on your own! They were used to fight a war the British and the Yanks eventually lost, both running like fuck from the maniacal Taliban, and now the Pakistani Government are going to hand them back to these same nutters calling themselves a government in Afghanistan!

No doubt the British Foreign Office will keep quiet about what is happening, hoping it will go away. So far only brief reports have been heard on the news and, no doubt, if these reports lead to protest, a D notice will be put out. A D notice is “advising” the press and media in general not to put out certain information which might be a threat to “national security.” Such notices are voluntary, but editors always comply. It perhaps does not take a great leap in the imagination to work out what may happen to any editor or news channel who does not heed this “advice”!

There is a simple moral to this tale and that is beware strange men bearing gifts because it usually means the only gift you will receive involves waste ground, a sawn-off shotgun and a burial. Be it in Ireland, 1919-21 and more recently, France, during World War Two, or more recent times in Afghanistan the results are always the same. It may be true that some governments are better at looking after their agents and informers than are others. Unfortunately for so many the British Government are not among their numbers. No informers, touts, agents call them what you wish can claim they did not know the outcome once their evil deeds are unearthed. Those who say they will protect their pet grasses often are the cause of these creatures being unearthed. Don’t do it, as it is bad for your health!!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Don’t Work For The British – Or Any Other Imperialist User!

Anthony McIntyre ☠ It has been an uncomfortable week for former members of the IRA’s Internal Security Unit, both those who worked for the British and those who didn’t. 

Such is the feeding frenzy that anything in the water looking remotely like one of the headhunters is regarded as food to be dissected and devoured, their own heads hunted.

Last week in the space of a few days, allegations emerged against two people reported in the media as having previously plied their counterintelligence trade in the ISU. One, Paddy Monaghan, is deceased. The allegations against him appeared in Sunday Life which claimed he had been outed. Yet the content of the article does not substantiate the outing. It was a string of suspicions expressed by people who either were, or claimed to be, former colleagues of Monaghan. Oddly, there was nobody from the British intelligence services cited in support of the supposed outing.

The other was said by the Irish News to have fled his home in West Belfast. This was later disputed by the man’s solicitor. The journalist Allison Morris also reported that he had been seen drinking with friends in West Belfast.

Unfortunately for the person alleged to have upped sticks, Danny Morrison weighed in to cast doubt on the claims made in the Irish News, accusing the paper of inventing the story. To the man at the centre of the allegations this was as helpful as the kiss of death, immediately giving rise to a surge of suspicion in the already active whisper world. Morrison had previously covered up for Scappaticci’s role in the British state’s Dirty War when he was first outed so, to many, it prompted the thought of here we go again, same old, same old.

The accused man, by now, must be sitting in his abode terrified in case Adam O’Toole of An Phoblacht wades in to back him. O’Toole’s cover-up for Scappaticci was described by the journalist Suzanne Breen as holding “pride of place in all the tripe trundled out … it’s unbelievable that anybody took the garbage it printed seriously.”

Morrison and his ilk, because they were “willing participants” in Britain’s dirty war, using their influence to deflect people away from what it actually was, have diminished the likelihood of a queue forming this time around to buy anything that even smells like cover-up. Their dissembling has fueled an equal and opposite reaction whereby people will be inclined to believe the opposite of whatever Danny Morrison tells them. 

Moreover, we might wonder why Morrison would challenge the Irish News story no matter how correct he might have been in his assertions that the 'well known West Belfast republican' had not fled his home.  He had to know that his contribution, given his role in the Scappaticci cover-up, rather than exonerate the individual in the eye of the storm, would have made him a person of interest to many observers. 

Ahead of the Kenova Report being published the rumour mill will be indulging in foreplay in anticipation of the climax many either expect or hope for. There will be no shortage of people willing to believe anything so long as it is whispered to them. For that very reason, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, the bar should be high. Sinn Fein lowered it considerably by its cover-up for Scappaticci, making it easy for critics to hurl accusations around, and difficult for the accused to defend against particularly if Danny Morrison is in their corner.

Those culpable of working for the British in their Dirty War have no right to see their role buried along with their victims. Whether through choice or coercion, their decision was heinous. Those not working for the British, no matter how much of the Sinn Fein Kool-Aid they have either doled out or consumed, have every right not to be wrongly accused.

If there is a substantive belief that certain people were agents of the British, then the allegation should only ever be openly levelled because it is rooted in an authentic perspective and grounded in evidence. It is not a charge to be contrived merely to smear an opponent.

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

World Of Whispers

Anthony McIntyre ✒ Twenty-two years ago today in West Belfast’s Ballymurphy estate, the Provisional IRA carried out a shoot to kill operation. 

Its target was Joe O’Connor, a senior figure in the city’s Real IRA. O’Connor was killed as he sat unarmed in a car talking to a relative. His companion was unharmed. The killing was discriminate. The IRA got who it came for. To this day it has not admitted its role.

A few days later myself and Tommy Gorman wrote in the Irish News that it was a state killing, albeit one carried out by the Provisional IRA. Our reason for characterizing it as such was that Martin McGuinness at the time was on the army council that authorised the killing while simultaneously serving in the Stormont state administration as the education minister for the North.

That is not to say he was personally responsible. But the structural links between the IRA leadership and the Stormont state administration coupled with the corporate responsibility that cannot be evaded by individuals at the top of corporations made our suggestion that it was a state killing an arguable case.

In recent days, that assertion, now two decades old, has even more to buttress it.

The family of the late Joe O’Connor has launched a legal action against the office of the Police Ombudsman on the grounds that it allegedly failed to investigate the role of a person the family believes to have been a British state agent. The Ombudsman’s office was first requested in 2012 to examine the circumstances surrounding the killing and last year was asked to focus specifically on the alleged role of a person referred to as Agent Christine. The Irish News reported that Agent Christine was alleged to have been “one of the main protagonists” in the daylight execution. 

It was also reported by the paper that the solicitor representing the family, Michael Brentnall, had claimed that his office was in receipt of information:

that an RUC Special Branch asset was involved in the murder of Joseph O’Connor. We believe this information came to light as a result of the break in at Castlereagh Special Branch Offices in 2002. We are informed that the individual held the codename Christine … we are now aware that this individual rose to further prominence within the republican movement after the murder and subsequently was involved in serious criminality.

The legal firm went on to detail more accusations against the person.

Immediately after Joe O’Connor was killed, the Provisional IRA, Sinn Fein and the RUC all moved to close down any speculation as to what body might have been responsible. Within hours the RUC raided the offices of Republican Sinn Fein in what was a diversionary tactic. The IRA denied any culpability and offered its condolences to the dead man’s family - a deception tactic. From the mutual entanglement of shared interests both institutions were parents of a strategic subterfuge.

IRA leadership figures visited my home in a vain bid to coerce my silence on the matter. After briefing journalists with spin, Sinn Fein placed mobs outside my own home and that of my co-writer of the Irish News piece, Tommy Gorman.

At the inquest into Joe O’Connor’s death the coroner criticised the RUC for not having made a single arrest after the killing. The force was obviously not interested in investigating those behind it. Even though we would not have cooperated, it never once approached me or Tommy Gorman for the purpose of ascertaining who we had spoken to that enabled us to identify with certainty the organisation responsible. Contrast that with how the PSNI hared off in pursuit of the Boston College tapes, ostensibly as part of an investigation into another killing which, previously, it had shown no interest in.

The behaviour of both the Provisional Movement and the RUC around the killing of Joe O’Connor suggest that this was collusion on tour. While collusion is not an illusion, it is a term that causes confusion. There are some who think it means the state forces colluding only with the loyalist agencies.

The identity of the person alleged to be Agent Christine is an open secret in Ballymurphy and wider afield. He is said now to cut an isolated figure, with many of his closest erstwhile companions having concluded that he is a “wrong one”. Agent or not, he was party to:

  • the Sinn Fein led mob picketing of our homes
  • the distribution of leaflets which led to the PSNI arriving at our door with a warning that it considered us to be under threat
  • dissuading members of the community turning out in traditional community solidarity in July 2003 during an unlawful police search of our home
  • smearing us at public meetings in West Belfast

In my experience this is consistent with the modus operandi employed by other agents in their bid to protect the Provisional leadership from probing or scrutiny. It is not, however, conclusive proof.

Is this individual Agent Christine? Although, I continue to mull it over, I cannot be definitive about it. If he was working for the British state, he was hardly alone in that role within the ranks of the Ballymurphy IRA, as the RUC killing of Pearse Jordan in November 1992 would strongly suggest.

Two killings in the same street, in the same week but thirteen years apart, of a grandfather and his grandson, both homicides seemingly involving agents of the British state. That was a seriously loud fuck you to the supposed rule of law, in essence amounting to a brazen assertion of the rule of law enforcement. 

Thirty-five years after the first and twenty two after the second, the family of both slain men is resolute in its determination not to be sent round the Mulberry Bush. Instead through its legal action it has opted to unearth the poisonous roots at the bottom of the bush which have nutrified its noxious special branch.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre

Agent Christine

With the Taliban now firming back in control of Afghanistan and Coalition leaders licking their political wounds, contentious commentator Dr John Coulter puts forward his own solution to defeating the Taliban.

Taliban tales that women’s rights and Afghan citizens who assisted the Coalition forces are safe from radical Islamic reprisals are about as daft as Sinn Fein spin that Unionists will have their culture fully recognised in a Shinner-run United Ireland. ‘It ain’t gonna happen!’

The people I really feel sorry for are the relatives of Coalition forces killed during the decade-long war in Afghanistan as well as the veterans of that campaign who were wounded and maimed both physically and emotionally.

And whilst the Coalition is organising Saigon-style evacuation flights out of Afghanistan, there will still be thousands of Afghan citizens and supporters of the Coalition left behind to face the Taliban’s eventual wrath.

Oh yes, the Taliban in the immediate future is portraying itself as a moderate Muslim movement which will fully respect the rights of those who do not strictly adhere to the Taliban’s warped interpretation of the Quran and especially Sharia law.

This tactic was only to prevent a full-scale invasion again of Afghanistan by the Coalition forces as the Taliban has not yet fully asserted its authority in every hamlet, village, town and city in the country.

In hard military terms, the Afghan government and army - much like the South Vietnamese government and army in the 1960s and 1970s - do not have the will or the capacity to combat Taliban terrorism.

The Americans, as part of the Coalition forces, tried to fight the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army for over a decade in Vietnam using conventional military tactics deployed in Korea and World War Two. In 1975, the Americans left Saigon with their military tails between their legs.

What did all those - mainly young - Americans die for in Vietnam? You need only visit the memorial wall to the dead from Vietnam to appreciate the suffering and sacrifice which the American forces endured.

Now to Afghanistan. What must the loved ones left behind of those killed and wounded among the Coalition forces be thinking as Coalition political leaders scramble to find excuses to leaving the country.

The Coalition should never have left Afghanistan without first 100 per cent guaranteeing that the Afghan army and government was capable and competent enough to keep the lid firmly on any Taliban activity.

The decision of the ‘Sleepy Joe’ Biden administration in Washington to totally pull out of Afghanistan at this point must rank as one of the most idiotic of any American Presidency in the history of the United States.

Moscow tried the strong arm approach in Afghanistan and the Russians eventually left with their tails between their legs. The Taliban are spinning its takeover of the country as ‘victory’ over the Coalition forces.

By this Christmas, the Taliban will have ensured that its militant version of the Islamic faith and laws will be enforced on the country.

A number of years ago, I got into a lot of hot water for a satirical piece I published on using nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry to defeat ISIS terrorists.

The point being, given the vast arsenals which the Coalition countries possess, conventionally armed Taliban terrorists sent the Coalition political leadership (not the Coalition personnel on the ground) packing.

The big worry for Western nations, indeed for any nation which has a democratic government, freedom of worship for faith communities and a free press, is whether the Taliban ‘victory’ in Afghanistan will spark fundamentalist Islamic groups to start similar terrorist revolutions in other states.

There’s no use indulging in the blame game over the Coalition’s ‘defeat’ in Afghanistan. We can all moan until the cows come home that the Coalition left the country well before the Afghan government and army was fully equipped to deal with a resurgent Taliban.

The key question still remains - how can we now defeat the Taliban? The answer is brutally simple; use the same tactics which the British forces used to defeat the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s and the Provos during the Troubles.

The British identified those within both the Mau Mau and republican movement ranks that they could ‘turn’ as informers, agents to manipulate a ceasefire.

In terms of Ireland, north and south, you need only read the many books which have been penned about the intelligence war - or dirty war - by ex-soldiers or agents to appreciate the value of ‘turning’ republican activists into effective agents of the state.

And for those who cannot be ‘turned’, the special forces can always ensure they are eliminated in a ‘convenient’ ambush. Take the Loughgall ambush in May 1987 when the SAS wiped out the once-feared East Tyrone Brigade of the Provisional IRA. An innocent civilian also died in that ambush.

Would the Adams-McGuinness peace agenda for Sinn Fein have become a reality if Jim Lynagh, one of the East Tyrone Brigade’s leaders, not died in that ambush? Lynagh - even though he was a Sinn Fein councillor at the time of his death - did not agree with the political wing’s peace strategy and was planning to form a breakaway dissident terror gang.

Would there have been a Good Friday Agreement if Lynagh had been still alive and an active terrorist in 1998, implementing his Maoist ‘liberated zones’ strategy of murder and mayhem?

On the loyalist side, Billy Wright, the founder of the breakaway Loyalist Volunteer Force, was ‘conveniently’ murdered inside the Maze prison by INLA inmates. Had Wright lived, would the Combined Loyalist Military Command ceasefire of 1994 survived?

The Coalition must now adopt the same tactics in Afghanistan against the Taliban as the British forces have perfected in Ireland.

In the past 40 years, Sinn Fein has evolved from being an apologist for the Provisional IRA to operating a power-sharing partitionist parliament with the DUP at Stormont.

Given the number of agents operating within the republican movement, the question still remains - how many people needlessly died to implement this strategy?

Focusing back on Afghanistan - how many Taliban leaders either need to be ‘turned’ or eliminated before the country can be classified as a moderate Islamic democracy? Will it take another 40 years as in Ireland’s case? How many people will needlessly die before this strategy can be implemented?

Time is not on the side of the Coalition political leadership. It does not have the luxury of waiting years until agents are firmly in place within influential sections of the Taliban leadership.

What will befall the Afghan people and the Western powers if the Taliban’s versions of Jim Lynagh tighten their grip on the movement and and the nation?

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

Taliban Tales And Shinner Spin ➖ What’s The Difference?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)