Ship of Fools: Northern Ireland: Gerry Adams Arrested

Thread: Northern Ireland: Gerry Adams Arrested Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027338

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein leader) just got arrested for a murder in the Troubles in the 70's. I don't know much about all the details or the history, but those who do: Could this cause a flare up of tensions in Northern Ireland or are we closer to the point where crimes of the Troubles can be prosecuted without people getting all upset about which side is being prosecuted? The main source of controversy among those who still take sides seems to be that plenty of other people with (allegedly) blood on their hands are not being prosecuted. Thoughts?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

1. The timing is unfortunate - close to Assembly election time.

2. If 'retired' (alleged) terrorists can be prosecuted, what about soldiers eg: Bloody Sunday?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think if Adams is prosecuted and found guilty, there would be a shit-storm, as it would appear to many people to go against the peace agreement. Legally, it wouldn't, but would that count in nationalist and Republican eyes? It could undo it all, I suppose, and people would demand that soldiers and loyalists are also prosecuted. Can of worms comes to mind.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

There's an interesting implication here regarding academic freedom and historical documentation. From the Boston Globe:

quote:
For [Boston College's] Belfast Project, researchers Ed Moloney, a journalist, and Anthony McIntyre, a former IRA volunteer, recorded interviews with members of militia groups that clashed during the Irish Troubles, a conflict between those who would unite Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland and those who wanted it to remain within the United Kingdom.

<snip>

Participants in the history project had agreed to interviews with the understanding that their statements would be confidential until their deaths.

But in 2011, federal prosecutors issued subpoenas for interviews with [IRA volunteer Brendan] Hughes, who had died in 2008, and [Provisional IRA member Dolours] Price, who was then alive but died in 2013.

Boston College turned over materials concerning Hughes. It initially fought the release of the Price recordings but ultimately turned them over to British authorities.

A second subpoena was later issued for “any and all” interviews that contained information about McConville’s death. A federal appeals court ruled in 2013 that 11 interviews had to be released.

On the one hand, the state never guaranteed anyone confidentiality. That was done by private researchers at Boston College. On the other hand, if statements given in confidence can later be used in prosecutions that could make credible eye witnesses to historical events reluctant to leave a record. So in addition to other considerations, there's the balance to be struck between justice and history.

[ 02. May 2014, 17:01: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Also if the peace deal collapsed, which it might do, the researchers themselves might be in grave danger, as the ultra-Republicans could well see them as British agents.

The British and Irish govts right now are on their knees praying that this case collapses. They can't face the prospect of McGuinness resigning, which he might well do. Then you have direct rule again, and who knows what.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

So I'm the only person who thought "Gotcha!" when I heard the news?

Frankly, if he's guilty they should throw the book at him. They won't, of course, he'll get the maximum of two years that was agreed as part of the Peace Process. A deal was done, and given that it has probably saved countless innocent lives from Mr Adams' semtex-happy chums we must learn to live with it. But call me a depraved Hobbesian if you will, but I rather take the line that prosecuting murderers is more important than
the Amour Propre of Bostonian academics or the Shinner indignation industry.

A woman was dragged from her home and murdered whilst her children were abused and insulted by a bunch of goons. That has to count for something.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
So I'm the only person who thought "Gotcha!" when I heard the news?

While one shouldn't count one's chickens before they've hatched, I did smile to myself when I heard the news.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I listened to Michael McConville's testimony on the radio.

Bearing in mind that the IRA were people who would kidnap an 11 year-old boy, tie him to a chair, beat him up and conduct a mock execution... if Adams was involved in any way, he deserves all he gets.

Not to excuse anyone else's dark deeds, either. The truth will out.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

How much do young Northern Islanders still get riled up about these things? Do those that do get angry just want to see the people on the other side who did bad things go to prison? Is whatever other controversy that still simmers mostly limited to Orange parade routes? I'm really ignorant about all this.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

2. If 'retired' (alleged) terrorists can be prosecuted, what about soldiers eg: Bloody Sunday?

Er, soldiers have been prosecuted.

Those from Bloody Sunday certainly haven't been told they won't be in due course if there's a case for individuals to answer - which was half the stink about the recent "don't worry we're not interested in you" letters to various provos.

No one should be untouchable. If this is the time to bring down the big man because there's evidence then so be it. There's either an amnesty for everyone, or an amnesty for no one.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How much do young Northern Islanders still get riled up about these things? Do those that do get angry just want to see the people on the other side who did bad things go to prison? Is whatever other controversy that still simmers mostly limited to Orange parade routes? I'm really ignorant about all this.

Not just NI, there's a generation of scarred people south of the border, and on the other side of the Irish Sea. Obviously it wasn't as bad as life on the Shankhill/Ardoyne/Garvachy Road, but there's plenty of people in England who grew up in the shadow of random explosions, bomb scares, backing away from unattended luggage, etc throughout the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

Nothing about the ship I've seen in the many years I've been reading it suggests we can't we can't do this, but I have to say I'm going to watch this thread through my fingers.

It's very close to home for more than a few people, inside and outside NI.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
On the other hand, if statements given in confidence can later be used in prosecutions that could make credible eye witnesses to historical events reluctant to leave a record. So in addition to other considerations, there's the balance to be struck between justice and history.

The problem with this kind of argument is that it supposes that history is actually being served by such "confidential" interviews in the first place.

Maybe those who are being interviewed in such programmes are being honest, open, fair and frank in what they tell the researchers. But many of those with the greatest reason to prefer the anonymity of confidentiality also have the opportunity thereby to tell their own preferred version of history without the proper scrutiny of their accounts being fully public.

This problem is compounded by the extreme partiality of many American Catholic academic institutions whose own records of fundrasing and platforming for the IRA leadership in the 70s onward put them in a dubious position to be conducting non-partisan historical programmes of research. Why assume that a forensic investigative process leading to a criminal trial will necessarily produce less of reliable historical worth than such a research programme?

Which is why I think it would be wrongheaded and morally dubious to suggest that history might just trump justice in this or similar cases: "Fiat justitia et pereat historia." [Let justice be done though history perish.]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think the political issue that is probably worrying a lot of British and Irish politicians tonight, is whether Adams' conviction and imprisonment would unhinge the peace deal. I don't know, but I suspect that in the first place, McGuinness would feel compelled to resign as deputy First Minister, thus probably unraveling power-sharing. That would lead to direct rule again, the resurgence of ultras in the Republican movement, who would go around saying, we would told you that the Brits would shit on us, and so on.

I bet a lot of politicians are just hoping it all goes away.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

He's 'innocent'. As Ian Paisley Snr. said of the PIRA, they might be murderers, but they're not liars.

That doesn't mean he doesn't know who did it. Has he denied that?

The truth will out. Jean McConville's family will talk, I suspect that will clear Adams. Which all looks hyper-Machiavellian.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, they obviously have some ex-IRA people saying that Adams ordered the killing. Whether that's enough evidence, I wouldn't know.

I am sure that already the ultra-Republicans are touring their pubs and clubs, saying, see, we told you not to trust the peace deal with the stinking Brits. Will people listen to them? Not yet.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Even by the Guardian's standards, this article is very silly. If there is credible evidence that Adams has committed an offence, there should be a public trial in the ordinary course to determine if he is im fact guilty.

[URL fixed -Gwai]

[ 03. May 2014, 02:44: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This problem is compounded by the extreme partiality of many American Catholic academic institutions whose own records of fundrasing and platforming for the IRA leadership in the 70s onward put them in a dubious position to be conducting non-partisan historical programmes of research.

"Many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for the IRA in the 70s?

Do you have a citation for this?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Even by the Guardian's standards, this article is very silly. If there is credible evidence that Adams has committed an offence, there should be a public trial in the ordinary course to determine if he is im fact guilty.

[URL fixed -Gwai]

I think it's an accurate article. Sometimes, you have to choose between peace and justice.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's an accurate article. Sometimes, you have to choose between peace and justice.

Nobody has to like that choice though. The idea of those murdering bastards getting away with their atrocities makes me want to vomit. It's enough to make me wish there was a Hell, just so that I could imagine them getting what they so richly deserve at some point.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's an accurate article. Sometimes, you have to choose between peace and justice.
Nobody has to like that choice though. The idea of those murdering bastards getting away with their atrocities makes me want to vomit. It's enough to make me wish there was a Hell, just so that I could imagine them getting what they so richly deserve at some point.

No, it's a distasteful choice, but a common enough one, after civil wars or insurgencies. Often the only way to get people to lay down arms, is some kind of immunity and amnesty.

But the politics of it seem clear enough. Adams and McGuinness were able to pull the majority of the Republican movement into the Good Friday agreement.

If you jail Adams, and McGuinness resigns, then the Republican movement is decapitated. I guess some people would rejoice at that, but there would be a vacuum, into which all the ultras might pour. Who would take that risk?

But I think many people in Ireland believe that there is not the evidence to bring a prosecution. Dolours Price was saying years ago, that she drove the car that picked up Mrs McConville, yet nothing happened.

[ 03. May 2014, 08:20: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC Not & Ship's Biohazard:
That doesn't mean he doesn't know who did it.

This is quite a complex issue. Both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, as IRA commanders in Belfast and Londonderry respectively, have dirty hands. McGuiness has been accused of firing the first shots on Bloody Sunday, and of personally, as Chief of the IRA army council, sanctioning the Warrington bomb in which two children died. Adams rose from being a sniper in West Belfast to the top job. So we can be sure that, if he didn't personally murder Jean McConville, he certainly knows who did. But I think, given the testimony, probably inadmissible, of the late hunger striker Brendan Hughes, and the current allegation by McConvilles daughter Helen McKendry, he has a case to answer, or he wouldn't have just spent his third night in a police cell.

Given the vile nature of the crime, the "execution" of a widowed mother of ten, shot in the head, anyone with any decency would want to see justice done. But this is far from being a simple criminal matter. The saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" might be considered. As may the fact that many former terrorists in the world subsequently become statesmen. That could even be said of Nelson Mandela. Certainly of Menachem Begin. The fact is that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness entered politics and delivered on the peace process, which has led to a much better, though not pefect, situation in Northern Ireland than at any other time since the partition in 1922. After many years of fighting for a united Ireland, they have accepted that it can only come about through a democratic process.

We also need to consider the potential for a shit storm, a term that's been used a few times recently on the Ship. Martin McGuiness has warned of the "negative and destructive" agenda in which "British state forces" get immunity. Well I seriously disagree with that. There's a world of difference between soldiers doing their duty and the cold blooded murder of a 37 year old woman who dared to speak out against the brutality of Adams' control of the Belfast streets in that era. I described it as a complex issue because I shudder at the thought of Northers Irenad sliding back towards the horrors of the Troubles, and we have much to thank Gerry Adams for, with his part in bringing them to an end. But I have no sympathy for the evils of Irish Republican terrorism. They were never a disenfrachised people in the 20th century, and should have persued their political objectives in the ballot box not in the brutality of murder.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Even by the Guardian's standards, this article is very silly. If there is credible evidence that Adams has committed an offence, there should be a public trial in the ordinary course to determine if he is im fact guilty.

[URL fixed -Gwai]

I disagree completely.

Personally, I've never liked Adams and if he did do this, the idea of him being convicted for it does have the main advantage of being just.

However that is not the most important consideration here.

You may not like Freedland's conclusions but it is a well reasoned piece about the other factors involved.

I wonder if the Peace Process is secure enough to survive Adams conviction and imprisonment - it might be, it might not. How you balance that against the family's right to know the truth and see the prosecution of the perpetrators of this awful crime is a very difficult question but please God let us not return to low-level civil war in Ireland!

AFZ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's the trouble - it's a gamble. Who is willing to gamble away the peace process? Obviously, the 'Gotcha' brigade are.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Who is willing to gamble away the peace process? Obviously, the 'Gotcha' brigade are.

Only a mad person would be happy to let the NI 'Troubles' be resumed in all their former glory.

So I'm guessing that this little dilemma NI has presented itself with , IE. *send adams down and the whole place goes up*, will probably lead to the amnesty, already talked about, whereby all 'Troubles' related crimes prior to a certain date will be made null and void .

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Or the case will be dropped. I'm not sure where they are going to get the evidence, since Dolours Price was telling all and sundry that she was the driver of the car that took Mrs McConville over the border, where she was shot. Yet nothing was done, although Price named Adams as the man who ordered the killing.

It's possible that an ex-IRA member is willing to testify against Adams. I suppose it's possible that Adams would serve his two years, and everything would carry on as normal.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I think it's one thing for convicted murderers to be released from prison as part of a peace deal but quite another thing not to even prosecute a suspected murderer as part of a peace deal.

While the former has occurred as part of the Good Friday process, has the latter?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I only ever read final paragraphs in newspaper articles and then read up if intrigued. The final one was enough. It's right. There can be NO justice beyond truth. Truth, fully, freely, openly expressed, reconciles. That IS justice. And no it's not enough because the dead don't come back yet. Because the decades of gnawing loss, of falling down one's interior elevator shaft barely attenuate going forward.

Only in the Resurrection are ALL things restituted.

I say, legalistically, he is innocent of this crime until PROVEN guilty. Even though, in the spirit of the law, he CERTAINLY has blood on his hands. He is blood guilty, complicit in murder, just as Nelson Mandela was.

Just as I am.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think it's one thing for convicted murderers to be released from prison as part of a peace deal but quite another thing not to even prosecute a suspected murderer as part of a peace deal.

While the former has occurred as part of the Good Friday process, has the latter?

I don't think the police had any choice, if they became aware of evidence pertaining to this case. Not prosecuting would inflame the loyalists, for one thing.

I'm just amazed that some people seem to be rejoicing at the prospect of Adams in jail, when that could imperil the peace deal.

But I think they will drop the case, through lack of evidence, unless they have a nailed on witness, who will name Adams. But plenty of people have done that in Ireland in the past.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Quetzacotal:

quote:

The British and Irish govts right now are on their knees praying that this case collapses. They can't face the prospect of McGuinness resigning, which he might well do. Then you have direct rule again, and who knows what.

The British government may be praying for one thing, but for the Irish government it's like Christmas come early. There won't be direct rule. They will replace McGuinness if he resigns, and Mary Lou MacDonald will take up the baton of leadership and she's more scary than both of them.

I suspect that the released interviews are a ruse. No IRA member is going to give evidence to anyone that might lead to a conviction for a crime that they haven't already paid for. These are conniving and seriously cunning people who are far from stupid. The only way they would release information regarding McGuinness and Adams is if they had some sort of vendetta; i.e. they felt that both had 'sold out' and therefore deserved to be betrayed. I suspect Adams is sitting stumm and carefully plotting his next political manoeuvre while they keep throwing the same questions at him.

Jean McConville's daughter, Helen has already indicated that she will take a civil case against Adams if he is not convicted. Presumably that would mean presenting evidence that he is/was part of the IRA high command chain. Getting that alone would be a nail in the coffin of his career. I only hope she remains alive long enough to see it. Michael on the other hand, has indicated many times before that he knows at least some of the killers by name, if not all of them; but he is too frightened to speak.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

I'd assumed the term 'Irish Government' referred to the Dublin rather than NI. I don't think the tapes are a ruse. The anger and dissatisfaction in some Republican quarters regarding the 'sell out' of the peace process is well known, and goes deep linking Irish politics with Marxist beliefs in some instances.

[ 03. May 2014, 10:38: Message edited by: Yonatan ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

If just one person would submit to Christ.

We haven't suffered enough yet.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I'd assumed the term 'Irish Government' referred to the Dublin rather than NI. I don't think the tapes are a ruse. The anger and dissatisfaction in some Republican quarters regarding the 'sell out' of the peace process is well known, and goes deep linking Irish politics with Marxist beliefs in some instances.

No, I don't think they're a ruse. But it's likely that they contain hearsay stuff - I heard that the big man told X to kill Y. That kind of stuff will not get past any judge, I don't think.

If they have a witness who was physically present when orders were given, then Adams will be done. But is that likely?

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I'd assumed the term 'Irish Government' referred to the Dublin rather than NI. I don't think the tapes are a ruse. The anger and dissatisfaction in some Republican quarters regarding the 'sell out' of the peace process is well known, and goes deep linking Irish politics with Marxist beliefs in some instances.
No, I don't think they're a ruse. But it's likely that they contain hearsay stuff - I heard that the big man told X to kill Y. That kind of stuff will not get past any judge, I don't think.

Ifpeople have a witness who was physically present when orders were given, then Adams will be done. But is that likely?

The two IRA members who made the statements on tape had strong links to Adams. Hughes stayed with Adams after his release from prison following his hunger strike.

The problem is that both parties are hostile witnesses considering Adams to be a sell out. There is also the problem that they are both dead and can't be cross examined.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Yonatan:

quote:

I'd assumed the term 'Irish Government' referred to the Dublin rather than NI.

So did I.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... Presumably that would mean presenting evidence that he is/was part of the IRA high command chain. Getting that alone would be a nail in the coffin of his career. ...

Hardly. Everyone's always assumed that, but it doesn't seem to have ever done his electoral chances any harm.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Not in NI, no. But in the South he has been asked this repeatedly and consistently denied it. If he were to admit it or for it to be proven, then he would be made out to be an untrustworthy liar, which would seriously damage SF's move into Southern politics.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

Wouldn't people in the Republic have the same suspicions as those in GB and NI? If seems strange that his repeated denials would be taken at face value there and not elsewhere.

Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on :

A truth and reconciliation (ho-ho!) commission is the long term answer to all of these issues, but hell will freeze over before the British Government agrees to something like that.

As for Adams, this man is a obnoxious crypto-fascist, if the police find enough evidence to prosecute him, tough luck.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I'd assumed the term 'Irish Government' referred to the Dublin rather than NI. I don't think the tapes are a ruse. The anger and dissatisfaction in some Republican quarters regarding the 'sell out' of the peace process is well known, and goes deep linking Irish politics with Marxist beliefs in some instances.
No, I don't think they're a ruse. But it's likely that they contain hearsay stuff - I heard that the big man told X to kill Y. That kind of stuff will not get past any judge, I don't think.

Ifpeople have a witness who was physically present when orders were given, then Adams will be done. But is that likely?
The two IRA members who made the statements on tape had strong links to Adams. Hughes stayed with Adams after his release from prison following his hunger strike.

The problem is that both parties are hostile witnesses considering Adams to be a sell out. There is also the problem that they are both dead and can't be cross examined.

Yes, no judge will convict based on dead men's tales. So they must have a live one, or maybe an immunity deal with someone. I think he'll walk.

On Adams' popularity, there are already conspiracy theories that his arrest is designed to puncture that. Sinn Fein paranoia, I suppose.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

On both sides, it's long been a case that their boys are bloodthirsty terrorists and murderers, whereas our boys, they might occasionally go a bit too far, but h**l, they're still our boys.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
Wouldn't people in the Republic have the same suspicions as those in GB and NI? If seems strange that his repeated denials would be taken at face value there and not elsewhere.

Well, yes. Sinn Féin supporters have been particularly brittle over this, but they are far from being the majority in the Republic. Sometimes being a small c-conservative country can be a good thing.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
A truth and reconciliation (ho-ho!) commission is the long term answer to all of these issues, but hell will freeze over before the British Government agrees to something like that.

As for Adams, this man is a obnoxious crypto-fascist, if the police find enough evidence to prosecute him, tough luck.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is badly needed with respect to the Northern Ireland Troubles, but given the murkiness of same, it isn't really in the interests of any of the combatants even though it is in the wider interest of the peoples of these islands IMHO.

No-one, with the exception of the SDLP or Alliance Parties, and including the British and Irish authorities will come away from that process with their reputations untarnished. A dirty, filthy and mucky war perpetuated for the worst of reasons.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The trouble with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be that everyone would want the all the others to take part without having to admit anything themselves. 'It's good and necessary for everyone except me'.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein leader) just got arrested for a murder in the Troubles in the 70's. I don't know much about all the details or the history, but those who do: Could this cause a flare up of tensions in Northern Ireland or are we closer to the point where crimes of the Troubles can be prosecuted without people getting all upset about which side is being prosecuted? The main source of controversy among those who still take sides seems to be that plenty of other people with (allegedly) blood on their hands are not being prosecuted. Thoughts?

A part of most peace processes are that somethings are better left in the past for the sake of peace, though of course it's entitely readonable for the relatives if the murder victim to want to know the truth. Still, I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Yonatan:

quote:

Wouldn't people in the Republic have the same suspicions as those in GB and NI?

You have to remember that there is a whole voting generation that didn't grow up with the troubles and are incredibly ignorant of it too. Some of them even believe the propaganda that Gerry Adams was and is Northern Ireland's peacemaker and if you mention John Hume, they say, 'John who?'.

The biased testimony of dead men will be thrown out of court in a flash and I truly don't believe they told students in Boston what everyone else wanted to know just because they said it would be treated confidentially and was for a college project. I suspect it's something else that's driving this.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The biased testimony of dead men will be thrown out of court in a flash and I truly don't believe they told students in Boston what everyone else wanted to know just because they said it would be treated confidentially and was for a college project.

The Belfast Project has nothing to do with college students. It was apparently started in 2000 by an Irish journalist, an historian (and former Provo volunteer), and Boston College librarian. Here's a magazine article describing its origins and unraveling.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

Here is a discussion on the Northern Ireland politics and current affairs site Slugger O'Toole.

Slugger O'Toole on Jean McConville

May I draw your attention to the comments by "Jagdip" that point up the mentality of hardcore Republicans on the whole issue. Thank God where I live in Ireland I can vote to prevent that way of thinking gaining power here. Basically, the individual is always subordinate to the "community" is the best and most charitable way I can summarize it.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Hardly makes a difference. Like an Irish journalist knows how to spell confidentiality, let alone knows what it means.

The whole concept of a 'she said, he said' document being used to arrest someone is daft. I hope to God they have hard and fast evidence. Partly because I'd love to see him hang.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Hardly makes a difference. Like an Irish journalist knows how to spell confidentiality, let alone knows what it means.

The whole concept of a 'she said, he said' document being used to arrest someone is daft. I hope to God they have hard and fast evidence. Partly because I'd love to see him hang.

I can't see this as anything other than the Police asking Jarry 1. Were you in the 'Ra, answer no, and 2. Any comment on this transcript? answer no. In the meantime Martin McGuiness and the Shinnerbots can jump up and down about "political policing" or some other nonsense and the Shinners can add this to a heap of imaginary grievances.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
May I draw your attention to the comments by "Jagdip" that point up the mentality of hardcore Republicans on the whole issue.

A bit of a tangent, but I was amused by this comment by 'Jagdip':

quote:
Incongruous to think of the ermine-laced “and what do you do?” [by the Queen] alongside the throttling of some pheasant’s neck?

For land-owning aristocrats, I'd say those two activities aren't incongruous at all...

[ 03. May 2014, 20:48: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is badly needed with respect to the Northern Ireland Troubles, but given the murkiness of same, it isn't really in the interests of any of the combatants even though it is in the wider interest of the peoples of these islands IMHO.

It's either that, or just wait for everyone involved to die, which seems to be the face-saving exercise in play right now.

The current situation with Gerry Adams, for example, is that everyone "knows" that he was a terrorist, everybody knows that he will deny everything, and everyone more or less ignores all of this in favour of keeping the peace.

It's not the worst possible strategy, but I agree that a truth and reconciliation type affair (full disclosure with amnesties) would be better for everyone (except those who think they can get away with pretending that they have clean hands.)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

O God, Ronald, something inside me suggests you are right. Forgive me, but I hope you are so wrong (no offence). It's not only Gerry Adams on my shit list who I'd love to see shortlisted for a long stay in Maghaberry, but he's certainly in the top five (and it's not all republicans either). If we cleaned them all up, they could live in their imaginary paranoid separateness in Maghaberry quite well I imagine. Channel Five could even make it into a reality show.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Anglican't:

quote:

For land-owning aristocrats, I'd say those two activities aren't incongruous at all...

I did wonder if he meant to have an 'h' there.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
O God, Ronald, something inside me suggests you are right. Forgive me, but I hope you are so wrong (no offence). It's not only Gerry Adams on my shit list who I'd love to see shortlisted for a long stay in Maghaberry, but he's certainly in the top five (and it's not all republicans either). If we cleaned them all up, they could live in their imaginary paranoid separateness in Maghaberry quite well I imagine. Channel Five could even make it into a reality show.

Indeed. However I think all the "we are the People" gubbins indulged in by Republicans and Loyalists seems to have a life of its own, and in spite of the general desire for a quiet life of co-operation and mutual understanding we will always have the cynical stirring up the wilfully ignorant.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

As an aside here's a summary of the opinion polls for the Sunday Business Post of the Dublin constituencies for the European Parliament elections:

Dublin: Fine Gael 18% Sinn Fein 15% Fianna Fáil 13% Labour 13% Green 12% Independent (ex Lab) 10%, others 19% (3 seats)

Now given the vagaries of the PR Single Transferable Vote used in Irish elections that can translate into one each for FG (main govt party), one SF and one ex Labour. Maybe. But it is interesting that the Shinners are getting the same percentages as the Kippers in GB, and a similar DE profile. To their target voters, it doesn't really matter if authoritarians are of the right or the left.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

If those complicit in murders such as the one of Jean McConville are elected to the European Parliament; in what way should the rest of the world take seriously the issue of human rights or accountability for atrocities and other crimes?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I think IRA (and other) terrorists have already been elected to the European Parliament, so I doubt that's a biggie.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Channel Five could even make it into a reality show.

"Help I'm a Terrorist blow me out of here"?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'm a terrorist, lock me up here.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The Semtex Factor?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"Many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for the IRA in the 70s?

Do you have a citation for this?

No, to be honest, but I'm thinking of NORAID fundraisers and having Adams and others over as invited speakers in the 70s and 80s. See for NORAID The Columbia Guide to Irish American History (on google books).

My wife, a Canadian, remembers being invited to some booklaunch/funder event for Adams/Noraid at a Catholic college in the late 80s/early 90s. She was also at college in Boston as a post-grad and the atmosphere was still distinctly pro-Republican "freedom-fighter".

This falls rather short of full substantiation of my claim, I confess, but...

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This falls rather short of full substantiation of my claim, I confess, but...

I'll say. Perhaps you might consider being a little less free with the accusations of funding terrorists, then.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Actually Dave, he's not far wrong. Noraid was deemed in the States in the early 90's not to be a charity but absolutely certainly a fund raising arm for the IRA. Noraid was was investigated many times in Ireland and it proved notoriously difficult to track cash that was coming across from the US but it was concluded many times that this money was being used to buy guns and bullets.

Noraid always presented itself as a legitimate charity in the US and many times deliberately targeted Catholic institutions throughout the US with ridiculous stories of horrifically oppressed Catholic children who had no food and couldn't avail of education. It was total bullshit, but it helped people put their hand into their pockets. The other aspect that they promoted was their 'support of 'political prisoners'. What this was in reality was the legal costs being covered and a few inconvenient truths being dispatched and disposed of with the help of ever so handy Noraid money. The 'political prisoners' tended to be the same delightful types who proved themselves useful to society by bombing supermarkets, shopping centres, police stations and planting car bombs - they just happened to get caught doing it; but (through the warped lens of Noraid) they were doing it all 'for the sake of the cause', and it was was a war after all.

Meanwhile in the US, all them good Catholic Irish who had never set foot on Irish soil and had as much understanding of the truth of the situation as a gnat would, put their podgy hands into their wallets and purses. They did it up and down the country for years and many an institution gleefully obliged them.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

During the 80s and 90s, I seem to remember quite a lot of anger towards the Noraid funding of the IRA on mainland Britain from what was a supposed allie. When the twin towers were hit, I remember a lack of sympathy from some quarters and remarks to the effect of "Well, now they know how it feels". An indefensible, callous and ridiculously simplistic response, but it gives some idea of people's feelings.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Actually Dave, he's not far wrong.

If you've got examples of "many American Catholic academic institutions" raising money for the IRA, feel free to cite them.

And this:

quote:
Meanwhile in the US, all them good Catholic Irish who had never set foot on Irish soil and had as much understanding of the truth of the situation as a gnat would, put their podgy hands into their wallets and purses.

Can, I think, be mounted alongside your previous odious contribution:

quote:
Like an Irish journalist knows how to spell confidentiality, let alone knows what it means.

In other news, it seems Gerry Adams has been released.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Well, this morning's headlines are that Adams has been released. Just as he should be if there is no credible evidence on which he could be found guilty.

After my earlier post, some said in effect that there was a distinction between justice and peace. I don't accept that there is such a distinction. I don't accept that distinction. Let's start from the proposition that a ruler's duty is to protect his domain. External protection from invaders is easy to understand.

Internally, a ruler protects by the maintenance of a clear and impartial system of justice. No-one should be above the law. If there are disputes between individuals, then civil courts adjudicate. If the dispute is between the community as a whole and an individual, the criminal courts step in to enable the community to present its evidence against the accused. (All in basic terms of course, but you can understand where I'm going).

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well, this morning's headlines are that Adams has been released. Just as he should be if there is no credible evidence on which he could be found guilty.

Adams has been released without charge and a file has been passed to the Public Prosecution Service. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is Gerry Adams' former solicitor, so I suspect this matter isn't going anywhere.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well, this morning's headlines are that Adams has been released. Just as he should be if there is no credible evidence on which he could be found guilty.

Adams has been released without charge and a file has been passed to the Public Prosecution Service. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is Gerry Adams' former solicitor, so I suspect this matter isn't going anywhere.

It hasn't gone anywhere for 42 years. Why it should do so now is a mystery.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"Many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for the IRA in the 70s?

Do you have a citation for this?
No, to be honest, but I'm thinking of NORAID fundraisers and having Adams and others over as invited speakers in the 70s and 80s. See for NORAID The Columbia Guide to Irish American History (on google books).

My wife, a Canadian, remembers being invited to some booklaunch/funder event for Adams/Noraid at a Catholic college in the late 80s/early 90s. She was also at college in Boston as a post-grad and the atmosphere was still distinctly pro-Republican "freedom-fighter".

This falls rather short of full substantiation of my claim, I confess, but...

May I ask, which part of Canada is your wife from?

I attended Catholic churches, schools, and did all my 400 level philosophy classes at a Catholic college in Alberta, and I recall no significant support for NORAID or the IRA. The only people who I ever heard talking up Irish republicanism were maybe two or three Irish expats, and even they were probably just blowing hot air.

Now, this being Edmonton, there WAS significant support for Ukraine against the USSR, endorsed offically and semi-officially, all over the place. No fundraisers for terrorists, but it would have been interesting to see what the reaction would have been if there HAD been some guerilla group waging war against the Russians, sending guest-speakers on the Canadian lecture circuit.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well, this morning's headlines are that Adams has been released. Just as he should be if there is no credible evidence on which he could be found guilty.

Adams has been released without charge and a file has been passed to the Public Prosecution Service. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is Gerry Adams' former solicitor, so I suspect this matter isn't going anywhere.
It hasn't gone anywhere for 42 years. Why it should do so now is a mystery.

Well this is what puzzles me. Surely they must have known this was going to happen. So why did they decide to pursue it? "For political reasons" as claimed by McGuiness makes no sense to me. What's the political advantage? Nothing! In fact it's politically highly disadvantageous for the PSNI in particular. The British government, surely, would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.

I suppose you could postulate Loyalists within the police force just trying to make life uncomfortable for Adams. But surely they must have known the case would probably run into the ground. Wouldn't that be a bit of an own goal in the end? (Although Loyalists are quite good at cutting off their nose to spite their face so perhaps I am talking myself into this hypothesis).

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Turquoise wrote:

quote:
I suppose you could postulate Loyalists within the police force just trying to make life uncomfortable for Adams. But surely they must have known the case would probably run into the ground. Wouldn't that be a bit of an own goal in the end? (Although Loyalists are quite good at cutting off their nose to spite their face so perhaps I am talking myself into this hypothesis).

Might it not sometimes be the case that police pursue something simply because people have brought evidence forward, and that evidence is such that would generally warrant investigation?

Or is it the case that policing in Northern Ireland is just so politicized, that any move involving some major figure can be assumed as having partisan intent?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Don't you think it might be a response to the advisory letters sent out to about 200 people telling them they were not being sought by the police, that buggered up that trial the other month ?

They have maybe been told to go as far as the evidence will take them in relation to anyone who has not got such a letter ?

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

A bit of cheap demagogery from wannabe next leader of Sinn Fein, Mary Lou McDonald, turned up on my Facebook feed this morning from a young cousin who drank the Kool-Aid in college:

"Our party leader Gerry Adams TD has been released without charge. Rest assured, his arrest was never about his past, but rather, about Sinn Fein's future."

The leadership can switch generations but the same old politics will remain.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well, this morning's headlines are that Adams has been released. Just as he should be if there is no credible evidence on which he could be found guilty.

After my earlier post, some said in effect that there was a distinction between justice and peace. I don't accept that there is such a distinction. I don't accept that distinction. Let's start from the proposition that a ruler's duty is to protect his domain. External protection from invaders is easy to understand.

Internally, a ruler protects by the maintenance of a clear and impartial system of justice. No-one should be above the law. If there are disputes between individuals, then civil courts adjudicate. If the dispute is between the community as a whole and an individual, the criminal courts step in to enable the community to present its evidence against the accused. (All in basic terms of course, but you can understand where I'm going).

I'm wondering then how you analyze immunity and amnesty, which both interrupt the judicial process. I think in non-political cases, you can say that this aids justice - for example, if a petty drug-dealer is given immunity, in return for evidence against a big one.

But political amnesties definitely stop justice working, but for some political end, often described as social harmony. A very clear example in recent years, has been the amnesty in Spain for those who killed people during and after the Civil War (Ley de Amnistia 1977).

Presumably, the authorities thought that endless trials for civil war killings would stir up further social tensions. At the same time, there have been objections to the law, for example, on the grounds that mass killings cannot be subject to an amnesty, and there were a lot of deaths in Spain. The UN, for example, has objected to the amnesty law.

I suppose the Good Friday agreement involved various kinds of immunity, reduced sentences, and so on, again, in the cause of a greater peace. No doubt, again, some people disagree with this, for example, victims and victims' relatives.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
After my earlier post, some said in effect that there was a distinction between justice and peace. I don't accept that there is such a distinction. I don't accept that distinction.

Nor are guilt and innocence two automatic categories into which everyone falls. There's huge differences between guilt, innocence and whether one can bring charges that will stick.

Not charging Gerry Adams won't change the minds of anyone who already things that he's a Fenian murderer who'd got away with it yet again, a great Irish patriot, or a man who sold out 1998. Everybody, wherever they are on that range of opinions, thinks and suspects exactly the same this morning as they did yesterday, or last week.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Quetzalcoatl, in the example you give, what would otherwise be an appropriate sentence should be discounted to take allowance of the assistance: it gives recognition, the giving of assistance is good evidence of remorse, and also evidence of a lesser need for personal deterrence. The important aspect from my perspective is that it is all done openly. A judge hears submissions and gives a public decision exposing the reasons for the sentence given. It may be appropriate in some cases to withhold passing sentence, or suppressing the decision, until others have been dealt with, but such a step would result in only a temporary delay.

I understand the reasons given for amnesty in Spain and also the course adopted in South Africa. In a general sense, I would prefer what has been done in South Africa, as that process allows for at least some public examination.

Enoch, I'm not aware of any outcome in a trial here, in NZ, England, Canada, India or the US which allows for a verdict of other than guilty or not guilty. The Scots have their not proven verdict but there does not seem to have been a rush in the common law world to adopt that as a possible outcome. I assume that in other jurisdictions there are provisions similar to those here setting out when a prosecution should/should not be launched. In my original post, I referred to the need for the existence of credible evidence before Adams be charged. Perhaps there is none and that explains the course taken.

And as for the comments about the present DPP in NI being Adams former lawyer: what would happen elsewhere is that a similar officer in another jurisdiction would take over the case. The Rayney prosecution in Western Australia, for example, was conducted by the NSW DPP.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Sioni and TurquoiseTastic

This seems the most likely reason for someone to think they should get busy.

"New evidence has come to light". The real issue is whether, in policing terms, they had a duty to follow it up, or whether some senior police officer or two wanted an excuse to awaken the sleeping dog on the ostensible grounds of the 'obligation of duty'.

The pot continues to simmer in Northern Iteland, as friends who live there tell me, and it won't take a lot for 'the troubles' to return.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Gee D

But it's precisely 'public examination' which is often avoided in amnesties. Again, in Spain, there was a feeling that it would be counter-productive to be endlessly trawling over old cases of killings, torture, and so on, in and after the Civil War. So the cases are never given an airing.

I can see the other side, of course; there is considerable resentment by victims' families. But not all of them, I have seen people in Spain say, yes, my grandfather was killed in the Red/White Terror, but we have to let the past be the past.

I suppose N. Ireland has taken a half-way house, not full amnesty, but reduced sentences, and the rather odd 'letters' to some people. Whether this will continue to work, who knows.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The other factor I forgot to mention is of course, time. People get old and die, and then the old cases become less raw.

Again, in Spain, it is now over 70 years since the end of the civil war, so I suppose old wounds are fading. Then again, sometimes these things come back into consciousness.

I suppose you can see this with Sinn Fein, they are moving away from the images of old men with grizzled beards, haggard from prison food, and are favouring pretty women living in nice suburbs, as they say, Mary Lou McMiddleClass.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Dave W:

quote:

If you've got examples of "many American Catholic academic institutions" raising money for the IRA, feel free to cite them.

Noraid collected in specifically targeted areas and had their hey-day in the 70's and 80's. Many people in many areas of the States had no notion what Noraid was, or had even heard of them, but in certain areas their presence was felt and known. During this period many catholic institutions were listed as both patrons and donors. For example, a few members of the Kennedy clan briefly appeared as patrons, Boston College hosted fund-raising events and were also donors and St Patrick's Cathedral New York regularly gave donations and hosted events. By the 90's things changed (they were going to change even more dramatically when 9/11 came). I think there was a test case or something regarding charitable registration. I'm sure if you google it, it will come up and provide you with a full list of donors if you're really that interested. But in any case during the 90's the modus operandi changed. They ended up collecting in Boston and Bronx pubs, at the Saint Patrick's Day Parade in Boston and New York and using students on campus as a foil for collection in colleges to avoid prosecution. There was always a chance that students could be suspended or chucked out, but Noraid could claim they knew nothing about it. It was during this time that things became confused too. Various new charities in Ireland were set up and claimed (when under pressure) that they benefited from Noraid money, but of course they weren't actually Noraid themselves. These were registered charities in Ireland (so not subject to US law regarding disclosure) and in Ireland, registration actually meant very little. There was no requirement for accountability and no external audit (hence the recent broo-ha-ha over charities here and how the money has been spent). After 9/11 Noraid seemed a lot less attractive to many, and it has been estimated that what was once millions of dollars has been reduced to thousands of dollars. This had an effect too on many of the institutions that formerly funded Noraid. Who in the post 9/11 States wants to be publicly associated with such a thing? Some of it has been wiped clean, but there is enough still there to get a fair picture.

As always, Google is your friend if you're really interested.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not charging Gerry Adams won't change the minds of anyone who already things that he's a Fenian murderer who'd got away with it yet again, a great Irish patriot, or a man who sold out 1998. Everybody, wherever they are on that range of opinions, thinks and suspects exactly the same this morning as they did yesterday, or last week.

Indeed so , and together with....

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The pot continues to simmer in Northern Ireland, as friends who live there tell me, and it won't take a lot for 'the troubles' to return.

I agree it is all very fine for those of us who live a good distance from the powder keg to be highly principled about justice re. NI's past , we are unlikely to suffer the consequences . Yet the reason adams sticks in the craw for many of us is that for years he was demonised by the press as being the acceptable face of terrorism.

I've been to Ireland but not Northern Ireland . A member of my family did go there for a tour a couple years back and told me the tension is palpable . Caged streets in the old sectarian trouble spots is still the visible evidence that things are a long way from ideal.

ISTM that politics is the road to NI's future whereas violence only ever drags it back to the past . As much as politics might stink it's better than a hole in the head. That isn't to say disconnected people such as myself don't feel immense sorrow for those who lost loved ones in the Troubles.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Quetzalcoatl, another problem with age is the reliability and credibility of the evidence. Courts have been grappling with this sort of question for some time, most recently in the area of child sexual abuse. I understand that juries are now given a direction along the lines (and here I think I'm simplifying a fair bit) that with age, the prosecution evidence must be looked at very closely against the frailty of memory, and further that time may have made it more difficult for the accused to gather evidence in answer. A witness might say that the accused was driving a green Holden in 1978. The accused will say that he did not buy a green one until 1980, and that in '78 he was driving a white one; he will also call evidence to say that the official records were lost in the great flood of 1995 and nothing can be produced. That must be pointed out to a jury as a real disadvantage to the accused and the danger of relying upon the witness's evidence in those circumstances. The prosecution authorities will take that sort of thing into account in making a decision to prosecute.

But that does not deal with the other matters you raise. I would argue that real resolution will be better achieved by airing all these matters in the comparative calm and quiet of court proceedings than in giving blanket amnesties. I agree that the proceedings will cause initial disruption, but go on from there to look at the longer term benefits involved in the laying of charges in appropriate circumstances.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Dave W:

quote:
If you've got examples of "many American Catholic academic institutions" raising money for the IRA, feel free to cite them.

Boston College hosted fund-raising events and were also donors and St Patrick's Cathedral New York regularly gave donations and hosted events.

This is a (still citation-free) step back from the original claim, but I'd appreciate any evidence that Boston College and St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York (the seat of the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York!) raised money for terrorists.

quote:
As always, Google is your friend if you're really interested.

But apparently it's not yours, since you have again failed to provide any sources. The allegations of terrorist funding are yours, not mine; if it's a trivial effort, surely it's not too much to ask that you back up your own claims?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Even the dogs on the street here knew what Noraid was up to during the 70's and 80's. If you want to bury your head in the sand that's entirely your own choice. I'm not going to do all the hard work for you.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Even the dogs on the street here knew what Noraid was up to during the 70's and 80's. If you want to bury your head in the sand that's entirely your own choice. I'm not going to do all the hard work for you.

Indeed. There was a banner behind Adams at his press conference with "Putting Ireland First" on it. The Ireland of weasel words around the IRA terror campaign, of which the murder of Jean McConville was only one small part, would not be an Ireland that I owe any allegiance to.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

So, in sum, "even the dogs on the street here" (wherever that is) know that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for terrorists, and you won't do the "hard work" of backing up your own allegations?

OK, I'm happy to leave it at that.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The Wikipedia article on NORAID has citations, from there comes:

quote:
1981 case in US Federal Court

In May 1981, the U.S. Department of Justice won a court case forcing Noraid to register the Provisional Irish Republican Army as its "foreign principal", under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938. In his decision, US District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. wrote: "The uncontroverted evidence is that [Noraid] is an agent of the IRA, providing money and services for other than relief purposes." Noraid lawyers appealed the decision but lost.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

And a New York Times story from 1982

quote:
From the start of the trial, the defendants had conceded that they had bought arms from a convicted arms smuggler working as an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Citing patriotic motives, they also acknowledged they had intended to send the arms to the I.R.A. Mr. Harrison said he had been sending arms to the I.R.A. for 20 years.

One of the defendants was Michael Flannery, 80, a director of the Irish Northern Aid Committee

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Dave W:

quote:

So, in sum, "even the dogs on the street here" (wherever that is) know that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for terrorists, and you won't do the "hard work" of backing up your own allegations?

You're totally right, I'm so sorry. It was really the Presbyterians that provided the lump of the cash and hosted all those fund-raising dinners. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
A bit of cheap demagogery from wannabe next leader of Sinn Fein, Mary Lou McDonald, turned up on my Facebook feed this morning from a young cousin who drank the Kool-Aid in college:

"Our party leader Gerry Adams TD has been released without charge. Rest assured, his arrest was never about his past, but rather, about Sinn Fein's future."

The leadership can switch generations but the same old politics will remain.

Theirs a part of me that thinks MaryLou isn't lieing about this. The bit I haven't figured out is whether the PSNI were trying to play politics or if SF were.
The PSNI must have know this would go nowhere, Gerry knew the same so why did he wait? Until he could play the 'all a plot to discredit sf' card?
I wonder with the extension, were the PSNI let down by someone who promised evidence and got cold feet, I mean it can't be that they thought 2 more days would break someone who has been denying this for 24 years.
The government down here in the south must think the gods are smiling on them with this story burying a minister being found to have broken the law and a dodgy contract for fuel to one of their major doners.
Politics is a funny old game.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Quetzalcoatl, another problem with age is the reliability and credibility of the evidence. Courts have been grappling with this sort of question for some time, most recently in the area of child sexual abuse. I understand that juries are now given a direction along the lines (and here I think I'm simplifying a fair bit) that with age, the prosecution evidence must be looked at very closely against the frailty of memory, and further that time may have made it more difficult for the accused to gather evidence in answer. A witness might say that the accused was driving a green Holden in 1978. The accused will say that he did not buy a green one until 1980, and that in '78 he was driving a white one; he will also call evidence to say that the official records were lost in the great flood of 1995 and nothing can be produced. That must be pointed out to a jury as a real disadvantage to the accused and the danger of relying upon the witness's evidence in those circumstances. The prosecution authorities will take that sort of thing into account in making a decision to prosecute.

But that does not deal with the other matters you raise. I would argue that real resolution will be better achieved by airing all these matters in the comparative calm and quiet of court proceedings than in giving blanket amnesties. I agree that the proceedings will cause initial disruption, but go on from there to look at the longer term benefits involved in the laying of charges in appropriate circumstances.

Well, maybe, but you are really saying that the Good Friday agreement should be abandoned. I say that because one of the reasons it has worked is that 'all these matters' have not been taken to court, and there has been a degree of immunity and amnesty.

I would say that amnesties often follow war, and civil wars, and major conflicts; otherwise, you never find peace.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Immunity and amnesty is fine so long as it wasn't your mother that disappeared and you believe you now the person or persons responsible.

It does rather bring up the question of just how much politicians have the right to decide on our behalf, without or with contemporary consultation.

I suspect that there are people who, having lost someone they love dear to the troubles - and now discovering the real nature of the amnesty - would want the negotiators concerned to be imprisoned, let alone the perpetrators. Nobody asked the victims what kind of amnesty there should be, did they?

The British Government lost a real opportunity and gave too much away in the Good Friday accord.. The IRA was desperate to settle - as funding via Noraid (mainly sources in the USA) had dwindled to nothing post 9/11 with Americans finally realised what terrorism looked like because they now saw it in their own backyards.

It's yet another thing that Blair will, one day, have to answer for.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Exclamation Mark wrote:

quote:
The British Government lost a real opportunity and gave too much away in the Good Friday accord.. The IRA was desperate to settle - as funding via Noraid (mainly sources in the USA) had dwindled to nothing post 9/11 with Americans finally realised what terrorism looked like because they now saw it in their own backyards.

The Good Friday Agreement was in 1998.

link

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The British Government lost a real opportunity and gave too much away in the Good Friday accord.. The IRA was desperate to settle - as funding via Noraid (mainly sources in the USA) had dwindled to nothing post 9/11 with Americans finally realised what terrorism looked like because they now saw it in their own backyards.

It's yet another thing that Blair will, one day, have to answer for.

You mean that funding was dwindling already by 1998? I'm happy to blame Blair for most things, but criticising him for not foreseeing 9/11 in '98 seems a bit strong.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Quetzacotl:

quote:

Well, maybe, but you are really saying that the Good Friday agreement should be abandoned. I say that because one of the reasons it has worked is that 'all these matters' have not been taken to court, and there has been a degree of immunity and amnesty.

I'm not sure the Good Friday Agreement included any arrangements for a total and absolute amnesty on every past 'trouble'.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So, in sum, "even the dogs on the street here" (wherever that is) know that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for terrorists, and you won't do the "hard work" of backing up your own allegations?

I haven't done much legwork on this, and given I first made the claim, maybe I should have.

But a very quick google of "Boston College" and "Irish Northern Aid" brought up this transparent puff-piece for NORAID (and the Republican cause in general) in the BC student paper from March 1983. That's for starters - if I have time I'll look for more.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The Good Friday agreement - I can't see anything about unsolved crimes in there with a quick skim - decommissioning weapons, releasing prisoners, review of policing, rebuilding of the community ... nothing about unsolved crimes

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

It might resolve things if it was declared that actions carried out under the auspices of a paramilitary group from 1930 to 1998 would be investigated and prosecuted by the international court of Justice at the Hague. So a truly independent prosecutor and judiciary would have to be convinced there was sufficient evidence to proceed. Just take it out of the hands of domestic authorities, to neutralise claims of the authorities playing politics with these issues. (Subject to any exemptions already agreed under the Good Friday agreement.)

That might involve the Irish and UK governments contributing jointly to a trust to fund such investgations by the Hague court, would be cheap by national standards, £10 million or sp.

[ 05. May 2014, 18:40: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Actually, that would be a good system for terrorism in general.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Quetzacotl:

quote:

Well, maybe, but you are really saying that the Good Friday agreement should be abandoned. I say that because one of the reasons it has worked is that 'all these matters' have not been taken to court, and there has been a degree of immunity and amnesty.
I'm not sure the Good Friday Agreement included any arrangements for a total and absolute amnesty on every past 'trouble'.

So are you suggesting that that's what I've said?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Immunity and amnesty is fine so long as it wasn't your mother that disappeared and you believe you now the person or persons responsible.

It does rather bring up the question of just how much politicians have the right to decide on our behalf, without or with contemporary consultation.

I suspect that there are people who, having lost someone they love dear to the troubles - and now discovering the real nature of the amnesty - would want the negotiators concerned to be imprisoned, let alone the perpetrators. Nobody asked the victims what kind of amnesty there should be, did they?

The British Government lost a real opportunity and gave too much away in the Good Friday accord.. The IRA was desperate to settle - as funding via Noraid (mainly sources in the USA) had dwindled to nothing post 9/11 with Americans finally realised what terrorism looked like because they now saw it in their own backyards.

It's yet another thing that Blair will, one day, have to answer for.

So what do you think should have happened instead of the GFA?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

No. But it seemed assumed in the general conversation on it (in your own and others posts), so I thought I'd add to the conversation. I presume that's why we're all here.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, if there was a total amnesty, Adams would not have been arrested, would he?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

No. I know that.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Good man yourself Chesterbelloc.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Anglican't;

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The British Government lost a real opportunity and gave too much away in the Good Friday accord.. The IRA was desperate to settle - as funding via Noraid (mainly sources in the USA) had dwindled to nothing post 9/11 with Americans finally realised what terrorism looked like because they now saw it in their own backyards.

It's yet another thing that Blair will, one day, have to answer for.

Anglican't response;
You mean that funding was dwindling already by 1998? I'm happy to blame Blair for most things, but criticising him for not foreseeing 9/11 in '98 seems a bit strong.

Although Exclamation Mark clearly muddled the timing, I think it is true that 9/11 had an effect on the viability of the Good Friday Agreement; that is, at about the kind of time after the agreement that previous settlements had gone pear-shaped, 9/11 and the 'War on Terror' did put something of a cap on Irish terrorism as well.

Another factor operating I think even before 1998 was that already the nature of global terrorism had changed partly because of the changes in Russia and its European satellites, and partly because Arab terrorism had gone Islamist and was no longer part of the left-wing network which had supported Irish terror - no more Soviet financed arms coming in via Libya, for example.

A few months ago I saw a PSNI officer facing a parliamentary enquiry and saying that in effect, the GFA hadn't actually RESOLVED anything - all the old problems were still simmering away just below the surface, and increasingly above the surface in issues like 'flags' and 'parades' (and what I currently see on BBC teletext NI news seems to indicate increasing bombings and shootings from both sides). Blair was arguably lucky that the external circumstances gave the GFA an extended life it may not really have deserved.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

There used to be thousand pound bombs going off, thats the payload of a scud misslie, Warrington springs to mind. And what is the estimate, 3000 dead in the troubles ? I think you need a really impressive account of what could have been done instead of the Good Friday Agreement, before concluding it was a duff decision to sign it.

I think it is frankly a miracle that it was signed at all given the politicians in Ireland and Northern Ireland at the time.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Doublethink; I'm not saying the GFA was totally duff; just that it didn't resolve enough, and that being so, it has thankfully lasted longer than might have been expected because of external circumstances. A deeper resolution is probably beyond politicians and needs changes at grass roots level. Hopefully the longer-than-expected life of the GFA has helped with that.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

London was bombed by the IRA and Provisional IRA from 1973 until 1996, with a brief resurgence in 2000-1 - that's 23 years of bombings, just in London, forget about all the other bombings on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. We had longer being bombed than we've had ceasefire.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Dave W:

quote:

So, in sum, "even the dogs on the street here" (wherever that is) know that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for terrorists, and you won't do the "hard work" of backing up your own allegations?

You're totally right, I'm so sorry. It was really the Presbyterians that provided the lump of the cash and hosted all those fund-raising dinners.

Shall I put it in bold for you? Would that help? The claim was that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for terrorists.

Chesterbelloc - I do appreciate the effort; it at least helps me get an idea of what you had in mind. But an article in a student newspaper falls almost comically short of your original allegation.

The idea that institutions like Boston College or Notre Dame had actually themselves raised money for the IRA would have been treated as a shocking revelation. (Though I'm neither Irish nor Catholic, I was pretty surprised to see you post it, which is why I asked for a citation.) I'm pretty sure such a thing would have left plenty of readily Google-able traces.

If, in even a cursory search, the most relevant hits you find are things like articles in student newspapers, I think it's highly likely that there really is no evidence that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for the IRA.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I was not even thinking of a revision of the Good Friday agreement, because AFAIK, it does not contain a general amnesty.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Although Exclamation Mark clearly muddled the timing, I think it is true that 9/11 had an effect on the viability of the Good Friday Agreement; that is, at about the kind of time after the agreement that previous settlements had gone pear-shaped, 9/11 and the 'War on Terror' did put something of a cap on Irish terrorism as well.

Another factor operating I think even before 1998 was that already the nature of global terrorism had changed partly because of the changes in Russia and its European satellites, and partly because Arab terrorism had gone Islamist and was no longer part of the left-wing network which had supported Irish terror - no more Soviet financed arms coming in via Libya, for example.

A few months ago I saw a PSNI officer facing a parliamentary enquiry and saying that in effect, the GFA hadn't actually RESOLVED anything - all the old problems were still simmering away just below the surface, and increasingly above the surface in issues like 'flags' and 'parades' (and what I currently see on BBC teletext NI news seems to indicate increasing bombings and shootings from both sides). Blair was arguably lucky that the external circumstances gave the GFA an extended life it may not really have deserved.

I was teasing a little.

Presumably another factor in the GFA was age? It's very easy to go round shooting up army barracks when you're 22. When you hit your late 40s and you're married with children, the whole thing must become less appealing.

[ 06. May 2014, 07:37: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Anglican't wrote:

quote:
Presumably another factor in the GFA was age? It's very easy to go round shooting up army barracks when you're 22. When you hit your late 40s and you're married with children, the whole thing must become less appealing.

In Canada, a veteran of the Quebec separatist bombing campaigns in the 1960s sprung back into action in 2000, blowing up an English-language sign at a coffee shop. He was in his mid-50s when he made his heroic return to the front-lines.

As you can imagine, his case garnered more head-shaming bemusement than genuine outrage.

CBC

[ 06. May 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Dave W:

quote:

Shall I put it in bold for you? Would that help? The claim was that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for terrorists.

Chesterbelloc - I do appreciate the effort; it at least helps me get an idea of what you had in mind. But an article in a student newspaper falls almost comically short of your original allegation.

Your argument has an uncanny resonance with the ones the Unionists gave at the time of decommissioning.

quote:

The idea that institutions like Boston College or Notre Dame had actually themselves raised money for the IRA would have been treated as a shocking revelation. (Though I'm neither Irish nor Catholic, I was pretty surprised to see you post it, which is why I asked for a citation.) I'm pretty sure such a thing would have left plenty of readily Google-able traces.

I know. Normally terrorists are really good that way and leave handy google traces everywhere.

Posted by Gee D:

quote:

I was not even thinking of a revision of the Good Friday agreement, because AFAIK, it does not contain a general amnesty.

I think you're right, it is what came after that created a difficulty in trying to sort out a quagmire. For its time and considering who actually agreed it, the GFA was a truly remarkable document and I knew people involved in it first hand who right up to the very last minute thought it was never going to happen. As an agreed document I don't think it has outlasted it's use, nor has it lasted longer than is useful. It's still a seriously important document for Ireland, both North and South. Part of the issue was that it wasn't 'sold' particularly well to hard line loyalists. Hard line Republicans split over it, which indicates that the Republican leadership of the time did some serious hard graft in convincing some of them this was the way to go. Meanwhile the Loyalists actually lacked good leadership. They were so used to reactionary politics that they hadn't a notion how to affirm anything positive in a community. The result was that the leadership had to sell something fairly difficult. The document proclaimed equality and fair treatment for all people in Northern Ireland, which to be honest, the loyalists didn't really care for. It also removed many sources of traditional political flame wars that incensed loyalist communities, and once they were removed they suddenly found themselves with nothing to riot about or get angry over. Today, the working out of the GFA continues; in some cases with great success while in other areas it slumps forward while small sections of community try to hold everyone else to ransom through illegal protest, rioting, disruption and intimidation. But I do think they are in the minority - at least, I hope they are.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

One of the problems I was having finding citations is the date. The Internet doesn't have many traces pre-1998 because it wasn't that established then

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Fletcher Christian wrote sarcastically:

quote:
Normally terrorists are really good that way and leave handy google traces everywhere.

I believe NORAID functioned pretty openly, didn't they? Wikipedia gives this as their current website, and that link lists their mailing address. Plus, other articles I looked at included interviews with their leaders, who quite openly gave their names.

If they had been getting official support from Catholic colleges, I think it would probably be on record somewhere. But it might not be the kind of information that would have been widely transferred to the internet, simply because nobody would think to bother.

In my Catholic school district in the 1980s, so-called pro-life speakers were routinely brought in to inveigh against abortion. But you would likely find scant evidence of that on the internet, because "So and so came to St. John Doe High School in Edmonton to talk about abortion" would not be considered historically significant information.

[ 06. May 2014, 09:13: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Curiousity Killed wrote...

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the problems I was having finding citations is the date. The Internet doesn't have many traces pre-1998 because it wasn't that established then

My own amateur guess would be that, in areas with heavy Irish Catholic population, there would be relatively significant support for the IRA, and that some of this would manifest itself in the local campus milieu. Like, some local republican supporters would call up the History department and say "Hey, will you sponsor us to come talk about the evils of the British occupation?", and the History department would say "Sure, why not?"

Like I said earlier, my Catholic school district in Alberta gave pretty-much official support to Ukrainian nationalism. Our school had a Ukrainian bilingual program, and on the one occassion when I ventured into the classroom, there were anti-Russian cartoons displayed on the walls. And I think the history lectures were replete with the same sort of thing.

But I doubt that was a common feature of Catholic schools and colleges in areas with no large Ukrainian population. By the same token, I would question whether hispanic or Polish oriented schools in the USA were hosting Erin Go Bragh sing-alongs with the local NORAID chapter.

[ 06. May 2014, 09:27: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

What Stetson just said.

Sometimes the best we have to go on pre-net is "everyone knew such things were going on at the time" and hope some evidence becomes available to us from the comfort of our keyboards. Frankly, I don't think the blatant propaganda piece in the Boston College student paper is particularly negligible - it's clearly relevant, but it's only out there at all because someone went to the bother of digitising print content from 1983. And, yes, it is just one piece of evidence which directly proves very little.

What is freely asserted is of course easily contested - I'm asserting, Dave W is contesting. That's fine by me.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Stetson:

quote:

I believe NORAID functioned pretty openly, didn't they?

Yes and no. They presented themselves as a genuine charity for the most part though. There are various problems; partly being what has been suggested - this is also pre-internet days essentially. But despite that, there is strangely still enough info on Noraid online to know what they were at. All those who were officially involved in investigating Noraid during the 70's and 80's concluded that the 'charity' was taking in millions rather than thousands, although there are a few that would dispute that. But if you accept that millions were involved, you don't get that from pub collections. Noraid had many, many special dinners with invited guests and various fund-raising events. Where the money went is pretty much untraceable, but I'd be inclined to trust the officials that it went to nefarious projects. Certainly here in Ireland nobody ever doubted where Noraid money went. After 9/11 nobody in the US wanted to be seen to be officially supporting such a thing. I have no doubt that many who had supported Noraid started to ask themselves some very hard questions and were probably quite keen to remove any identifiable links to such a group. That isn't to say that those who supported Noraid financially or otherwise were entirely complicit in terrorism. They were effectively duped. But that's how terrorism works; it creates its own world of entanglements and things that sound right and 'facts' that surely must be true.

There are some good books and well researched papers written on Noraid, but its a very murky world, as you would expect and information isn't exactly easy to come by. As I said before, the dogs on the street here knew what Noraid was up to, where the money came from and were certain of where it went. Did they have Google citations? No. To ask for such a thing shows extreme crass innocence and it's why terrorism is so effective. They operate in a dark, dirty world with people who are seriously clever and insidiously cunning. For those who want to bury their heads in the sand, that's their bag that only helps to continue the cycle of enabling ruthless and calculating murderers.

Gerry Adams has walked free because he's a clever man with a lot of very clever people behind him. For those of us without the blessing of innocence or of not having first-hand experience of the troubles, we have to live with the ethically dubious prospect of an uneasy peace with killers. That isn't to say Gerry Adams is the only one with a filthy past and it is certainly not the case that it is only Republicans that stick in the throat of those who now know peace at any cost is better than that black world with its veil of constant threat. The GFA was a ray of great hope, and one that many people still cling to. I don't think it was an accident of history in terms of when it occurred; forgiveness is often a bitter pill when it comes down to brass tacks. Many people know they are shaking the hand of the devil, even in Northern Ireland politics today, Has it worked? Sort of. Many hold out the hope that when the old devils die off, they won't be replaced with new ones. It's one hell of a long shot, but it's the only hope Northern Ireland has right now, so may as well give it a go.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Dave W:

quote:
Shall I put it in bold for you? Would that help? The claim was that "many American Catholic academic institutions" raised money for terrorists.

Chesterbelloc - I do appreciate the effort; it at least helps me get an idea of what you had in mind. But an article in a student newspaper falls almost comically short of your original allegation.

Your argument has an uncanny resonance with the ones the Unionists gave at the time of decommissioning.

Still unable to provide any evidence of what I asked about, I see. (To refresh your memory, the key phrase is the one in quotes.)

quote:

quote:

The idea that institutions like Boston College or Notre Dame had actually themselves raised money for the IRA would have been treated as a shocking revelation. (Though I'm neither Irish nor Catholic, I was pretty surprised to see you post it, which is why I asked for a citation.) I'm pretty sure such a thing would have left plenty of readily Google-able traces.

I know. Normally terrorists are really good that way and leave handy google traces everywhere.

Really? Perhaps you'll care to pass that along to the guy who said this

quote:
"I'm sure if you google it, it will come up and provide you with a full list of donors if you're really that interested."

just yesterday. (Funny, that - first it was easy, then it became "hard work", but now apparently it's impossible.)

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sometimes the best we have to go on pre-net is "everyone knew such things were going on at the time" and hope some evidence becomes available to us from the comfort of our keyboards.

But how do you think you would know that thing you specifically said? I'm not arguing that no Irish Americans gave money to NORAID - there's plenty of evidence they did - but it seems to me that fact has rather too easily slipped to talk that "many American Catholic academic institutions" have "records of fundraising and platforming for the IRA leadership". How do you know? I mean, if you claim they have records, shouldn't they have, you know, records?

quote:
Frankly, I don't think the blatant propaganda piece in the Boston College student paper is particularly negligible - it's clearly relevant

An article in a student newspaper is evidence that American Catholic academic institutions can't be trusted to "[conduct] non-partisan historical programmes of research"?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

This thread is starting to get a little bit like this

Dave I know you seem to be having trouble with sarcasm and irony, but on a serious note, just think about what your asking for even two seconds. You're asking for Google evidence of what is now commonly held to be a terrorist fund-raising arm. You're asking for specific citations of Google evidence for those who in the past were deeply misled and who today are probably deeply ashamed they ever participated in, platformed or financially supported the thing. You're asking for Google evidence...I mean, Google evidence! Really? Terrorists....google....google for fuck sake.

I know I probably should have put a smilie or something beside that comment in an otherwise sensible post (and yes, maybe a part of me just couldn't resist reeling you in), but my bad; I had no idea I was dealing with someone so feckin gullible.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Dave W, it may well be that people didn't rattle the tins under other peoples' noses with the words "Bombs for Belfast", but bearing in mind the assumptions of the time, if the money they collected didn't fund terrorism/the armed struggle (choose preferred phrase), those who gave it would have been entitled to complain that it had been extracted from them under false pretences.

[ 06. May 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

I'm afraid Dave's not going to like the source of this next bit - the same Boston College student mag that I cited last time - but I'm finding digitised print sources from Catholic colleges for the relevant period somewhat hard to find, and this is the best one to pop up so far.

This one's from November 1984 and is a write-up of a guest lecture (emphasis mine):

quote:
English journalist Liz Curtis addressed the problems of press coverage in Northern Ireland from an English point of view in a lecture Tuesday at Boston College. The lecture was part of her statewide publicity tour promoting her new book on this topic. Curtis began by explaining that the prime source of news from Northern Ireland in the American press was the British news services, and that these services have consistently distorted the information with a pro-Britain slant ... pro-British, anti-lrish Republican Army (IRA) "horror stories" are designed to prevent Irish Americans from taking an "active part" in ridding the Emerald Isle of its troubles ... The event was sponsored in part by the Boston College Irish Studies department ... A major sponsor of her lecture series is the Irish-American Unity Conference, a mixture of over 600 Irish-American organizations (AOH) joined for the "political reunification of Ireland, and the right of its people to self-determination." Members of the organization include the AOH in America and Irish Northern Aid.

If nothing else, this does prove that BC itself was officially platforming speakers during the Troubles who were being sponsored to say pro-Republican, anti-British stuff by, amongst others, NORAID. Does that take us a bit closer?

Incidentally, NORAID were placing advertisements for fundraising in this same paper as late as 1995 ("Staff/Faculty/Administration: help advance the Gerry Adams Peace Initiative - join Irish Northern Aid.")

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

What Noraid was up to is well documented. The Wikipedia article on Noraid has a link to this 1985 Christian Science Monitor article about money raised by Noraid in the US ostensibly for charitable purposes being diverted toward arms purchases: an article from 1985 on the internet.

Clear back in 1981, a US court of appeals determined that the Irish Northern Aid Committee's foreign principal was the IRA: a 1981 legal document on the internet.

In 1983, Ireland's public radio broadcaster ran a piece on the politicization of St. Patrick's Day parades in the US, citing the influence of Noraid, "the fundraising wing of the IRA": A 1983 radio broadcast archived on the internet.

We can see in this NY Times piece from 1984 that it was no secret that Noraid was raising money for the IRA: a 30-year-old article on the internet.

So what Noraid was doing in the US was well known in the 1980s and is documented on the internet. But what I can't find on the internet is any evidence, even shaky evidence - no rumor, no blog post, no hazy reminiscence - that American Catholic universities supported Noraid.

As for Liz Curtis, from what I can find about the book she was promoting at Boston College, it is well-researched and considered "path-breaking"
by later critics. She doesn't in the least appear to be a pro-IRA shill.

[ 06. May 2014, 19:02: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As for Liz Curtis, from what I can find about the book she was promoting at Boston College, it is well-researched and considered "path-breaking"
by later critics. She doesn't in the least appear to be a pro-IRA shill.

I found much the same, Ruth.

But I'm more struck by the fact that BC invited, co-sponsored and its student mag reviewed (in a pretty anti-British, pro-Republican manner) her lecture/book tour - and her tour was being sponsored by Noraid. I doubt they'd have done that for a pro-Unionist speaker, but I invite correction on that. Wittingly or not, her work seems to have been utilised by the funders of terror to raise interets in their cause - and wittingly or not, BC played its part in that.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I happen to be walking with my family in County Kerry, Ireland this week. As is our, and more especially my, habit when walking we stop in pubs when it suits or is raining, and we talk extensively with others, and also B&B proprietors, cab drivers etc. This is no survey, but in this rather Gaelic area, the general comment from the 20 and 30 year olds is that it is not on the radar. The older ones mention Bill Clinton and the peace process. No thinks or cares much about Adams. "Past his time" we hear.

The radio (I listen to radio at night everywhere) barely mentions it. This is both Dublin and Trâ Li. Only seen TV news twice within the past 5 days. Passing mention, nothing more. Makes me ask if this troubles the English more than the Irish?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
. Makes me ask if this troubles the English more than the Irish?

Well, for a start Kerry's not NI is it? Try it in one of the choicer districts over the border and see where that gets you.

OTOH, there was always a view in the Republic that when it came down to it the UK was welcome to the 6 Counties - at least for as long as it was as dicey as it was for a long time. The last thing the Republic needed was the level of angst and destabilisation that would have followed from incorporation of NI at its most festive - in terms of the injection not only of presumably continuity dissident loyalists but, perhaps more importantly Marxist natuonalists with ammunition and a success to shout about.

Having said that, and this isn't for a second to deny that "bad things" happened south of the border too, the English, whilst in general probably spending 30 years wishing the whole thing would go away, were after NI probably the most affected by the Troubles. Certainly there are families in Birmingham, Guidlford, Eastbourne, London, Warrington, etc ad nauseam who've never crossed the Irish Sea in their life but have a particular reason to feel involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

Not for nothing is it a relatively regular observation (with tongue only slightly in cheek) these days in England that, were Scotland to vote for independence later this year, please can they take their kith and kin over the water with them and leave England and Wales out of it...

I think what you might find overall is that it troubles the Northern Irish, then the English, then the Irish south of the border in that order - but it would be wrong to suggest that the English are more bothered about it than anyone on the island of Ireland, because what some people have said to you in Kerry is not exactly representative of thinking in Belfast or Londonderry/Derry.

It is slowly getting better though, and we have to hope that it will continue to do so.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Dave I know you seem to be having trouble with sarcasm and irony, ...

Have we sunk this far now? "That thing I said ... uhh ... it was sarcasm! Yeah, that's the ticket! And irony!" The context was:

quote:
During this period many catholic institutions were listed as both patrons and donors. For example, a few members of the Kennedy clan briefly appeared as patrons, Boston College hosted fund-raising events and were also donors and St Patrick's Cathedral New York regularly gave donations and hosted events. By the 90's things changed (they were going to change even more dramatically when 9/11 came). I think there was a test case or something regarding charitable registration. I'm sure if you google it, it will come up and provide you with a full list of donors if you're really that interested.

Yep, that's you describing the sort of seekrit terrorist stuff that nobody could possibly learn about using the internet. (And yet somehow you (you!) know all about it!)

I don't think I'm the one who should feel embarrassed about this exchange.

Chesterbelloc - Again, thanks for your help.

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But I'm more struck by the fact that BC invited, co-sponsored and its student mag reviewed (in a pretty anti-British, pro-Republican manner) her lecture/book tour - and her tour was being sponsored by Noraid. I doubt they'd have done that for a pro-Unionist speaker, but I invite correction on that. Wittingly or not, her work seems to have been utilised by the funders of terror to raise interets in their cause - and wittingly or not, BC played its part in that.

Must any criticism of British policy be considered tantamount to supporting terrorism? Surely the idea of the British government using censorship and propaganda isn't that outrageous.

So in sum: BC hosts a lecture by an English woman (who you apparently agree was not a shill for the IRA) critical of British press coverage in Northern Ireland. You don't like the tone of the review in a student paper (editorially and financially independent from the University since 1971), and among the more than 600 groups of the organization sponsoring her book tour is Noraid.

No, I don't see this as even remotely approaching "many American Catholic academic institutions" fundraising for the terrorists.

(And think about the unlikelihood of it all - "Academic institution raises funds for cause other than itself!" The dean would have a stroke.)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Hang on - I gave the reference to the court case on charitable registration here, and RuthW also linked to similar material here - so some of that has been proven. There is an 1985 Christian Monitor article talking about the fundraising activities which talks of the opacity of the fundraising activities on page 2:

quote:
``There is no way we can check on their money-laundering operation, because you never know how much they collect,'' says Donald J. McGorty, head of the division at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in New York that handles international terrorism.

He adds: ``There's no way we can tell if they collected $100,000 or $5 million. Now, whether all that money is sent to Ireland, who's to say? But in any scenario you can think of about the money, there is a probability against all other scenarios that it has been used.''

Chesterbelloc made the assertion about American Catholic colleges - and has tried to find material to back it up, but when we're talking about the 1980s, well before the Internet, there's a good chance that material was edited before it got put on line and there's a good chance that material was destroyed to cover up links.

You can't say that it didn't happen, because it's entirely possible, but you can say case unproven.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Dave, you seem to have missed this:

quote:

....he's not far wrong.....

and this:

quote:

This had an effect too on many of the institutions that formerly funded Noraid. Who in the post 9/11 States wants to be publicly associated with such a thing? Some of it has been wiped clean, but there is enough still there to get a fair picture.

and this:

quote:

I'm so sorry. It was really the Presbyterians that provided the lump of the cash and hosted all those fund-raising dinners

...and that's a fairly key point, because think about it for just a moment. I know I put it very flippantly, but the reality of the situation is that they have a fairly specific target audience that would tend to be 'Irish' (in various ways) and Catholic.

And there was also this:

quote:

After 9/11 nobody in the US wanted to be seen to be officially supporting such a thing. I have no doubt that many who had supported Noraid started to ask themselves some very hard questions and were probably quite keen to remove any identifiable links to such a group.

and this:

quote:

Did they have Google citations? No. To ask for such a thing shows extreme crass innocence and it's why terrorism is so effective. They operate in a dark, dirty world with people who are seriously clever and insidiously cunning. For those who want to bury their heads in the sand, that's their bag that only helps to continue the cycle of enabling ruthless and calculating murderers.

and this:

quote:

You're asking for Google evidence of what is now commonly held to be a terrorist fund-raising arm. You're asking for specific citations of Google evidence for those who in the past were deeply misled and who today are probably deeply ashamed they ever participated in, platformed or financially supported the thing.

It's a little like asking for Google citation on the 'many Irish churches that aided and abetted terrorists in Ireland'. You might find plenty written on it, but little by way of actual evidence let alone Google evidence. Of course there were churches that did this both in relation to republican and loyalist terrorists and of course the newspapers occasionally ran with a sensational story, but with little by way of fact; but that wasn't surprising in a society where just about everyone was afraid to talk. Did it happen at all? Yes, it did, and everyone knew it did but you just didn't talk about those things. Does this mean that every last protestant and catholic shack in the land were up to the same shenanigans? Absolutely not. Most kept their heads down hoping they would survive and see it out the other end and many, many others were shining lights of hope and were incredibly courageous. But it all existed in a cloak and dagger world. I know it might be hard to understand if you have only ever lived in a nice democratic and relatively stable world, but there are places in the world that are just not like that. Lots of issues surrounding Northern Ireland will probably forever be deemed as mere hearsay yet strongly believed to be true by those who lived through it and witnessed it first hand, but that is part and parcel of how terrorism works - it's a dirty, dirty tar pit of bluff, confusion, cover up, fear and most of all, silence.

Right at the start I said 'he's not far wrong'. Do I personally have evidence? No, but that's the reason that right at the very start I chose those words rather than, 'Dave, he's actually 100% right'. Do I believe that he could have been 100% right? Yep, I think there's a fairly high chance of that. Do I believe that Gerry Adams was at least at one time part of the high command chain in the IRA? You bet your ass I do. Are there Google citations as evidence of this? I'm sure there's a bit of chatter all right, but it would strike me as odd that Google of all things would cite firm evidence of something that for years....literally for years, many people were looking for in order to throw the book at someone who was part of an illegal organisation and a list of dead that cried beyond the grave for justice. Are you starting to get a picture of just what it is you're asking for?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Fletcher Christian, I assure you I haven't missed a single wiggle in your graceless shimmy from "I'm sure you could find the information with Google" to "why should I do the hard work" to "no one could possible expect me to support my claims with readily verifiable evidence." But if you don't have any evidence on the point at issue, I see no particular reason to credit the opinion of someone who is happy to post such gems as these:

quote:
Like an Irish journalist knows how to spell confidentiality, let alone knows what it means

quote:
Meanwhile in the US, all them good Catholic Irish who had never set foot on Irish soil and had as much understanding of the truth of the situation as a gnat would, put their podgy hands into their wallets and purses.

Curiousity killed ...

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Chesterbelloc made the assertion about American Catholic colleges - and has tried to find material to back it up, but when we're talking about the 1980s, well before the Internet, there's a good chance that material was edited before it got put on line and there's a good chance that material was destroyed to cover up links.

You can't say that it didn't happen, because it's entirely possible, but you can say case unproven.

And I could have killed a man in Reno just to watch him die. It's possible! You can't prove that it didn't happen!

This approach is a wonderful way of allowing all kinds of broad-brush slurs to be leveraged against entire classes of people. We know some of them gave money to Noraid, so it's OK to make up any kind of outrageous claim about any of them? To the point where we can blithely claim that Jesuit colleges (BC) and the seat of the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York (as FC claimed) raised money for terrorists, and not expect to provide any evidence beyond unsympathetic articles in a student newspaper and accounts of a book tour critical of British press coverage of Northern Ireland?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Dave W, fletcher christian

There is a point where vigorous disagreement over issues and arguments begins to cross over into personal and personality conflict. I'd say you two are pretty close to that point, so please cool it - or take any personal conflict to Hell.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

In the absense of internet documentation(which I agree could be hard to come by), I wonder if the proponents of the "many American Catholic institutions" theory of NORAID support could provide at least anecdotal evidence, preferably from their own memories.

Back to my own experience, if someone asked me "How do you know there was support for the pro-life viewpoint in Canadian Catholic schools?", I could reply that in religion class we read textbooks that portrayed abortion in a bad light, that pro-lifers were often invited in as guest speakers, that at another school in my hometown they showed films meant to instill negative sentiment about abortion, and I read in the newspaper about students at Catholic schools in another province getting time off classes to go to an anti-abortion demo. And so on and so forth.

So, can anyone provide specific memories, either first-hand or from media accounts, of "Amercian Catholic academic institutions" giving official or semi-official support to NORAID or the IRA?

And, I'd prefer to hear about institutions not closely affiliated with Irish communities, since the original allegation was clearly talking about Catholic institutions in general, and in any case I don't think anyone is disputing that there was relatively significant support for NORAID among Irish-Americans.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
fletcher christian wrote:

Lots of issues surrounding Northern Ireland will probably forever be deemed as mere hearsay yet strongly believed to be true by those who lived through it and witnessed it first hand, but that is part and parcel of how terrorism works - it's a dirty, dirty tar pit of bluff, confusion, cover up, fear and most of all, silence.

Fair point, but I would add that these are often features of wars, civil wars, and major conflicts; I mean, that there is obfuscation, rumour, lies, dissembling, and lots of other words like that.

For a recent example, see the American attacks on Fallujah in 2003 and 2004. There are many disputed accounts of what happened, e.g. American troops fired on civilians, used white phosphorous bombs, the hospital was closed, anyway, this list goes on and on. Isn't this the nature of war, especially if it goes on a long time? It becomes brutal and inhumane and full of lies. File next to Bliar.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
In the absense of internet documentation(which I agree could be hard to come by), I wonder if the proponents of the "many American Catholic institutions" theory of NORAID support could provide at least anecdotal evidence, preferably from their own memories.

But I couldn't even find anecdotes - no rumors, no blog posts, nothing. There's reminiscing about Noraid collecting money at bars in South Boston, but nothing about them raising money with the aid of Catholic universities.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

The NY Times reports that BC is now offering to return the interview materials to any interviewees who want them "to accommodate the requests of interviewees who fear for safety in light of the recent actions taken by the P.S.N.I."

Presumably to spare BC further headaches and legal expenses as well.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
In the absense of internet documentation(which I agree could be hard to come by), I wonder if the proponents of the "many American Catholic institutions" theory of NORAID support could provide at least anecdotal evidence, preferably from their own memories.
But I couldn't even find anecdotes - no rumors, no blog posts, nothing. There's reminiscing about Noraid collecting money at bars in South Boston, but nothing about them raising money with the aid of Catholic universities.

Well, I did a google on "Jesuits NORAID", and got this right-wing forum. One guy says he went to a Jesuit high-school in New England, and all the Irish kids bragged about supporting NORAID. But, again, those are Irish-Amercians, and he doesn;t say anything about official school sponsorship.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I'm not sure how Free Republic's comments section works, but if you click the "To 20" icons under each reply, it seems to take you to some sort of "ub-reply" section. But I think they're all to the same place(not 100% sure).

Still haven't seen anything about univeristy support.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
"ub-reply"

That should read "sub-reply".

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I do vaguely remember references to some of the corrupt ways that funds were raised in novels of the time - but when I tried to chase that one down it was probably in some 1980s Jackie Collins saga that was looking at Mafia and IRA funding (the Lucky books if anyone else read them) and there is no-way, no-how that I'm re-reading them to check if those particular pot boilers were that source and/or exactly what was said.

The other author who has made mention of some of that murkiness is Linda Fairstein in her Alexandra Cooper books.

But I've no real dog in this fight and I'm not staking anything on vague memories of backgrounds in novels I've read.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I do vaguely remember references to some of the corrupt ways that funds were raised in novels of the time - but when I tried to chase that one down it was probably in some 1980s Jackie Collins saga that was looking at Mafia and IRA funding (the Lucky books if anyone else read them) and there is no-way, no-how that I'm re-reading them to check if those particular pot boilers were that source and/or exactly what was said.

The other author who has made mention of some of that murkiness is Linda Fairstein in her Alexandra Cooper books.

But I've no real dog in this fight and I'm not staking anything on vague memories of backgrounds in novels I've read.

I clearly recall watchning part of a 60 Minutes segment about some wealrhty Irish-American guy who was either funding or raising money for the IRA. But I don't recall that he had any direct c0nnection to universities.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

But still I am confused about why the arrest was made. For what it's worth my gut feeling is [DELETED]. But it looks like there is not enough solid evidence to convict. So it ends up being a propaganda win for him. Meanwhile the family's hopes have been falsely raised and they get their faces rubbed in it again. What's the benefit?

[Edited to delete potential legal risk – Eliab]

[ 08. May 2014, 20:02: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

The police have proved they are working on the case is my guess.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

If the police didn't follow new leads, they would be accused of being soft on the IRA. Whether or not there were genuine new leads, I don't know, since stories about Adams being an IRA commander, and having ordered various misdeeds, are legion, but in this case, they were on tape, and therefore, perhaps 'harder'. On the other hand, Dolours Price was well known for her previous accusations against Adams. Presumably, the police did not want to use her as a witness.

But there may be other things going on behind the scenes, which I suppose we will not hear about - although there is plenty of speculation, as always.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But still I am confused about why the arrest was made. For what it's worth my gut feeling is [DELETED]. But it looks like there is not enough solid evidence to convict. So it ends up being a propaganda win for him. Meanwhile the family's hopes have been falsely raised and they get their faces rubbed in it again. What's the benefit?

[Edited to delete potential legal risk – Eliab]

Although there is very little doubt that Adams is a shit who could make the world a happier place by falling under a bus and breaking his spine, this is not the place to speculate that he is guilty of a specific murder which he denies and which is subject to an active investigation.

The political implications of the arrest, the merits of revenge and reconciliation, the requirements of justice on the hypothesis that there is evidence for a prosecution, are all fair topics for discussion. Any insinuation of actual guilt is not.

Eliab
Purgatory Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0