Should McCabe killers be release as part of IRA disbandment deal?

arcadegame2004

I'm wondering what people feel on this issue, especially given the views of the colleague of Jerry McCabe who was also shot on that day in 1996 that he would accept the assassins release if it helped the Peace-Process.

I can understand how many Unionists would feel that we are being hypocritical in demanding the release of IRA members who killed RUC members but not releaseing IRA members who killed members of the Gardai.

arcadegame2004

I had wanted to add a poll to this thread on this issue but mistakenly didnt so I'll put in the thread again but with the poll next time.

spongebob

Poll yawn!

M

mike65

This is a mess. They should not be given early release and nor should the government promise such (if they actually did). The IRA gang in question are not subject to the GFA and should serve out thier "manslaughter" sentences in full.

From IOL

The Department of Justice has refused to confirm or deny reports that the IRA killers of Garda Jerry McCabe were to be released from prison under the aborted peace deal that was supposed to restart the peace process last October.

The deal, which involved a choreographed series of announcements by the various parties to the peace process, collapsed when the UUP refused to accept the decommissioning body's statement on IRA disarmament.

Reports today claimed that, had the deal gone ahead, the four IRA men convicted in connection with the killing of Garda McCabe would have been freed early.

From BBC

Killers' release 'conditional'

Bertie Ahern told a press conference on Monday that the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe would only be freed if there was a guarantee that Provisional paramilitarism was to finish.

He had earlier denied that a deal was made regarding the release of four men convicted over the killing of Detective Jerry McCabe.

Mike.

arcadegame2004

The basis upon which it is argued that the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe do not fall under the remit of the GFA is that the killing was carried out after the GFA. However, paramilitaries who killed after the GFA was ratified were released in the UK, under the GFA. I feel that the failure to release these men if the IRA disbands,while understandible from an emotional point of view, is effectively saying that a Garda life is worth more than an RUC life.

AngelofFire

Absolutely not. Building a lasting peace in the north should not involve the release of those who are apposed to the peace.let them serve out their prescribed sentence.

useeme

An Irish solution to an Irish problem..........

the_syco

Let me say this;

The killings in the north + england is a northern ireland problem, thus the IRA from therein were released, but the IRA who killed in Ireland are not released.

When your in Ireland, we make the rules :cool:

arcadegame2004

Well syco, we have released the killers of Garda Tom Hand, so that seems to conflict with what you're saying.

Tommy Vercetti

The GFA does not state anywhere that the PIRA must disband.

All paramilitary prisoners should be released under the terms of the GFA.

It's in black and white whether we like it or not.

Villain

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
The GFA does not state anywhere that the PIRA must disband.

All paramilitary prisoners should be released under the terms of the GFA.

It's in black and white whether we like it or not.

Very valid Point, I think a lot of people have lost sight of the agreement, however Tommy I do believe total decommisioning would at least be needed before the full early release program would be carried out.

The problem with this story is that Bertie gave the Widow of Jerry McCabe written assurance that the prisioners would not be released early.

Nuttzz

except they are not paramilitaries (as the organisation was on "cease fire") just common criminals, let them rot

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Nuttzz
except they are not paramilitaries (as the organisation was on "cease fire") just common criminals, let them rot

they weren't on ceasefire at the time

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by irish1
I do believe total decommisioning would at least be needed before the full early release program would be carried out.

The GFA doesn't require that, and more to the point, the PIRA are the only group (subversive or otherwise) that has carried out a credible act of decommissioning to date.

Villain

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
The GFA doesn't require that, and more to the point, the PIRA are the only group (subversive or otherwise) that has carried out a credible act of decommissioning to date.

Well decommisioning is present in the GFA, and I dont think more prisioners will be released before more weapons are put beyond use.

Mighty_Mouse

I can understand how many Unionists would feel that we are being hypocritical in demanding the release of IRA members who killed RUC members but not releasing IRA members who killed members of the Gardai.

We are being hypocrites. The failure of both governments to lead the way in implementing the agreement has been a problem. Also, something drastic needs to be done to show unionists that the NO camp will not change the agreement (especially given the forthcoming referendum which alters the agreement.)

Well decommissioning is present in the GFA, and I don’t think more prisoners will be released before more weapons are put beyond use.

Personally I think decommissioning has gone far enough. It’s a pointless exercise. It’s basically a mechanism to show unionists how serious the IRA is about peace. But it was never welcomed by the unionist camp in the way it should have been. Therefore it’s completely pointless.

I do believe total decommissioning would at least be needed before the full early release program would be carried out.

The problem is : how do you measure DECOMMISSIONING. The unionist camp has not accepted the mechanisms that were established in the agreement and I can't see the IRA giving a list of arsenal

When your in Ireland, we make the rules

like it or not Ireland is a partner in the peace process therefore it has to lead by example.

Building a lasting peace in the north should not involve the release of those who are apposed to the peace

IT doesn't involve those who are opposed to peace!

QUOTE]The basis upon which it is argued that the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe do not fall under the remit of the GFA is that the killing was carried out after the GFA.[/QUOTE]

This is also wrong:
The Adare robbery occurred on the 7th of June 1996. The Good Friday Agreement was agreed in April 1998

The GFA states:

Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners).[

Also Gerry Kelly has stated:

"There have been a number of inaccurate and misleading claims and media reports, namely that it was made clear to Sinn Féin during the Good Friday negotiations that the prisoners who were to go on trial for the killing of Garda Jerry McCabe would not benefit from the early release programme. This is not the case.

This is a mess.

yes definitely. Its a horrible mess

They should not be given early release and nor should the government promise

They have to be really under the terms of the GFA
Also FYI the IRA were not on cease-fire at the time:
The first IRA ceasefire ended in February 1996 and the second was called in July 1997. The Adare robbery occurred on the 7th of June 1996. The Good Friday Agreement was agreed in April 1998

I accept that it’s a horribly emotional case but I personally can't see a way around releasing them.

Wrestlemania

I have'nt read through the entire thread but any murderer should serve his or her time regardless of if they are in the IRA,UVF etc.

If that was a normal joe soap he would serve his time.

So no they should not be released until they have served there sentence.

For gods sake a man died while doing his duty and he should'nt have.

Villain

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
I have'nt read through the entire thread but any murderer should serve his or her time regardless of if they are in the IRA,UVF etc.

If that was a normal joe soap he would serve his time.

So no they should not be released until they have served there sentence.

For gods sake a man died while doing his duty and he should'nt have.

I accept your points, but the early release programme was part of the Good Friday Aggrement that was accepted north and south of the border, by been democratically carried in a referendum.

You can't accept the agreement and then start disagreeing with parts of it being implemented.

oscarBravo

I'm genuinely surprised at the level of support there seems to be for releasing these men.

The way I see it, it's quite simple: they are bank robbers. In the course of committing a robbery, they shot a policeman. Are we seriously to accept that just because they are also members of the IRA, that these bank robbers should get early release?

Surely the idea of prisoner releases as part of the peace process is a tactic acceptance of the concept of "political prisoners" (which is a whole 'nother debate) - in what sense are bank robbers political prisoners?

Wrestlemania

Not matter what agreement was made they commited murder.

I am against the good friday agreement as it has some many downfalls.

Are the bombers of omagh if all ever caught going to be released early if the Dissedents come in line as well.

A Human died do you time simple as that.

Villain

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Not matter what agreement was made they commited murder.

I am against the good friday agreement as it has some many downfalls.

Are the bombers of omagh if all ever caught going to be released early if the Dissedents come in line as well.

A Human died do you time simple as that.

They are doing time, and from I have heard they will only be released if there is a total end to IRA activities.

Which will take some time.

You may not like the GFA, but it was passed by majority so theres not much you can do.

Cork

The IRA were surposed to be on cease fire when this murder occured. Both the SF and IRA seemed to deny any link to IRA activity at first.

How did the raiding of a bank or killing a Garda advance the cause of a United Ireland?

IRA/SF seem to want to extract even more concessions from democratically elected governments.

Would IRA members found guilty of other criminality (eg. rackeering and punishment beatings) expect similar treatment?

Villain

Originally posted by Cork

The IRA were surposed to be on cease fire when this murder occured. Both the SF and IRA seemed to deny any link to IRA activity at first.

Nope:

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Also FYI the IRA were not on cease-fire at the time:
The first IRA ceasefire ended in February 1996 and the second was called in July 1997. The Adare robbery occurred on the 7th of June 1996. The Good Friday Agreement was agreed in April 1998.

Oh and Cork Disagrees with Bertie again, becomming a habit!!

Cork

How did the raiding of a bank or killing a Garda advance the cause of a United Ireland?

Would IRA members found guilty of other criminality (eg. rackeering and punishment beatings) expect similar treatment?

Releasing these people to get the IRA to stop criminality is wrong. How was killing a Garda a political act?

Who was SF/IRA actually at war with? Was it with the Brithish and Irish states?

If I was Taoiseach - I would not be dangling carrots at SF/IRA - to get a

total end to IRA activities

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1
They are doing time, and from I have heard they will only be released if there is a total end to IRA activities.

This doesn't answer my point.

You may not like the GFA, but it was passed by majority so theres not much you can do.

I don't have a problem with the GFA - I voted in favour - I just don't see what it has to do with bank robbers convicted of manslaughter.

Mighty_Mouse

Cork to save you ever having to ask these questions again and because I know you dont really like to actually read a thread before launching into your usual bullet point questions..........I'm gonna answer you.

The IRA were surposed to be on cease fire when this murder occured.

No the weren't, look above to my previous post

Both the SF and IRA seemed to deny any link to IRA activity at first.

While the IRA at first disclaimed knowledge of the operation this position was reversed a week afterwards following an initial inquiry. All five men were accepted and treated as IRA prisoners while in Portlaoise prison and they were moved to Castlerea as part of the IRA unit. They continue to be seen as IRA prisoners by the Dublin government and the prison authorities.

How did the raiding of a bank or killing a Garda advance the cause of a United Ireland?

It was IRA activity. If you can't understand why the IRA would rob a bank ..........!

IRA/SF seem to want to extract even more concessions from democratically elected governments

I dont really know what this means. Are SF not democratically elected? Is it wrong to ask for the implementation of a democratically supported agreement?

Would IRA members found guilty of other criminality (eg. rackeering and punishment beatings) expect similar treatment?

No. But if there is a current case you would like to refer to................maby I can give my opinion.

If I was Taoiseach - I would not be dangling carrots at SF/IRA - to get

What would you do Cork? Are you giving us more of this again:

Cork quote:

---

Striking deals with these people is completely wrong.

---

Cork quote:

---

Compromise will be needed

---

Non Cork posts:

Not matter what agreement was made they commited murder.

Yes. And hence the need for an agreement to stop the murder.

I am against the good friday agreement as it has some many downfalls.

Which ones? Would you prefer a pre-agreement situation? Do you have an alternative to devising an agreement between the two communities to establish a working democracy?

A Human died do you time simple as that.

But its not obviously.

Are we seriously to accept that just because they are also members of the IRA, that these bank robbers should get early release?

Yes I refer to the GFA

Surely the idea of prisoner releases as part of the peace process is a tactic acceptance of the concept of "political prisoners" (which is a whole 'nother debate) - in what sense are bank robbers political prisoners?

I dont really understand your sentence but these men who robbed the bank were members of the IRA which means they are political prisoners.

I have'nt read through the entire thread but any murderer should serve his or her time regardless of if they are in the IRA,UVF etc.

So you don't want the agreement to end the Troubles in NI?

For gods sake a man died while doing his duty and he should'nt have.

Lots of people died during the Troubles who's killers are walking the streets today. This incidence is a horrible one but I personally don't see an alternative.

I don't have a problem with the GFA - I voted in favour - I just don't see what it has to do with bank robbers convicted of manslaughter.

Well you obviously DO have a problem with the agreement. If you voted for it..........you agreed that these men should be released.

Villain

Originally posted by oscarBravo
This doesn't answer my point. I don't have a problem with the GFA - I voted in favour - I just don't see what it has to do with bank robbers convicted of manslaughter.

I accept your point, but they were active members of the IRA and I believe were carrying out the robbery for the IRA. This entitles them to early release under the GFA.

I'm not saying I agree with but it's part of the agreement, and theres no point in asking me why, because I didn't create the agreement.

Originally posted by CORK

How did the raiding of a bank or killing a Garda advance the cause of a United Ireland?

Would IRA members found guilty of other criminality (eg. rackeering and punishment beatings) expect similar treatment?

Releasing these people to get the IRA to stop criminality is wrong. How was killing a Garda a political act?

Who was SF/IRA actually at war with? Was it with the Brithish and Irish states?

If I was Taoiseach - I would not be dangling carrots at SF/IRA - to get a
"total end to IRA activities"

Well Cork, thankfully your not Taoiseach, the IRA are on a ceasefire so any people that are convicted "rackeering and punishment beatings" obviously do not come under the terms of the GFA.

The Taoiseach is not "dangling carrots", he knows that if peace is to come in the North the GFA has to be fully implemented.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Yes I refer to the GFA

I don't remember the GFA being explained as a "get out of jail free card" for all IRA members, regardless of their crime.

I dont really understand your sentence but these men who robbed the bank were members of the IRA which means they are political prisoners.

If an IRA member is locked up for kiddy fiddling, does that make him a political prisoner who is entitled to early release under the GFA?

Well you obviously DO have a problem with the agreement. If you voted for it..........you agreed that these men should be released.

Nope. At the time, it was made clear that bank robbing cop-killers were not covered by the agreement, regardless of what terrorist organisation they happened to belong to. If that was not the case, why all the talk now about U-turns?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1

Originally posted by oscarBravo
How did the raiding of a bank or killing a Garda advance the cause of a United Ireland? [etc.]

I didn't post that.

Villain

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I didn't post that. [/B]

Apologies, it was Cork.

I have edited the post.

Mighty_Mouse

If an IRA member is locked up for kiddy fiddling, does that make him a political prisoner who is entitled to early release under the GFA?

Obviously not (because its not IRA related). Its a silly argument really because were not talking about any type of crime that might be perceived as being non-IRA activity. Were talking about prisoners who are perceived as being prisoners of war here. -

I don't remember the GFA being explained as a "get out of jail free card" for all IRA members,

Maby you didn't read it correctly the first time?
Again: the GFA:
"--> Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners under national and international law.

--> Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. In addition, the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.

-->The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.
"

Nope. At the time, it was made clear that bank robbing cop-killers were not covered by the agreement, ?

I refer above

regardless of what terrorist organisation they happened to belong to. If that was not the case, why all the talk now about U-turns

Well the "talk" has arisen due to government commitments to implementing the GFA. It was unavoidable really because the terms were so clearly defined.

Did the government promise Garda McCabes wife that the IRA prisoners would serve their time AFTER the signing of the GFA? I personally dont know. If they did then:
- they were not commited to the implementation of the Agreement or,
- they were playing politics until the time was ripe.
Remember it was the governments intention to have as little public discussion on this topic as possible. This should of happened when Trimble ****ed things up. This discussion has come about due to a leak and at a very unfortunate time for the government. But that said, the situation is not nice, but all the same unavoidable.

Also bear in mind that the British government has made similar "never releasing IRA......" statements. But they to have been forced to recognise the reality of the NI peace process.

egan007

what ever became of Not dealing with terrorists?

LoneGunM@n

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
While the IRA at first disclaimed knowledge of the operation this position was reversed a week afterwards following an initial inquiry.

During an interview on Newstalk yesterday/last week, a member of the Garda Representative Association stated that the IRA came out and denied any knowledge/responsibility for the slaying of Garda McCabe, but then changed their statement that if IRA members were involved, they were acting without official sanction/authority from the council!

If this is the case, the murder of Garda McCabe was not a political act!

Either way, murder is murder & I do not believe that murderers should be released early from their sentences!

LoneGunM@n

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Did the government promise Garda McCabes wife that the IRA prisoners would serve their time AFTER the signing of the GFA?

Supposedly the wife of Garda McCabe has a letter from the then Minister for Justice confirming that the murderers of her husband would not be released under the terms of the GFA!

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Obviously not (because its not IRA related). Its a silly argument really because were not talking about any type of crime that might be perceived as being non-IRA activity. Were talking about prisoners who are perceived as being prisoners of war here.

What makes a bank robber a POW any more than a kiddy-fiddler? Are you saying that bank robbery is a political act?

Maby you didn't read it correctly the first time?
Again: the GFA:
"--> Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners under national and international law.

What are the scheduled offences? I can't see a reference to these in the text of the Agreement. Do they include bank robbery?

--> Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. In addition, the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.

-->The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.

Nowhere there does it state that all IRA members should be allowed to waltz out of jail no matter what their crime. I'd like to see a definition of a "qualifying" prisoner.

[edit] Just re-read: a qualifying prisoner is one convicted of a "scheduled offence" - that's just one mystery remaining.[/edit]

Well the "talk" has arisen due to government commitments to implementing the GFA. It was unavoidable really because the terms were so clearly defined.

I don't see a clear definition of "scheduled offences."

Did the government promise Garda McCabes wife that the IRA prisoners would serve their time AFTER the signing of the GFA? I personally dont know. If they did then:
- they were not commited to the implementation of the Agreement or,
- they were playing politics until the time was ripe.

All this is still predicated on the assumption that IRA membership alone is enough to qualify for GFA terms. You've already indicated that this isn't the case, so what is the qualification?

Remember it was the governments intention to have as little public discussion on this topic as possible. This should of happened when Trimble ****ed things up. This discussion has come about due to a leak and at a very unfortunate time for the government. But that said, the situation is not nice, but all the same unavoidable.

I don't accept that premise.

BuffyBot

Are you saying that bank robbery is a political act?

See this is what I don't understand. I can vaguely see the point in releasing the people convicted of terrorist related crimes even if I do not believe it is right.

However, this was hardly that. They shot a member of the Gardai in cold blood while commiting a robbery.

During an interview on Newstalk yesterday/last week, a member of the Garda Representative Association stated that the IRA came out and denied any knowledge/responsibility for the slaying of Garda McCabe, but then changed their statement that if IRA members were involved, they were acting without official sanction/authority from the council!

Now if that is true (and it does vaguely ring a bell from the time of the shooting) then it seems there is even less of a case for their release.

Mighty_Mouse

What makes a bank robber a POW any more than a kiddy-fiddler?

Ok. Let me get this straight. Do you think that paedophilia is the equilivent of manslaughter in terms of how a POW should be defined?Forgive me, I'm struggling a little to understand the whole paedophilia argument here.
I'll enclose a link to clear up the "Scheduled Offence" understanding problems

It's obviously an argument around the terms of whether the IRA men in Castlerea should be considered POW's? I've two points to make here:
1. I fail to understand how robbing a bank fails to qualify these prisoners?
2. It doesn't matter because all five men were accepted and treated as IRA prisoners while in Portlaoise prison and they were moved to Castlerea as part of the IRA unit. They continue to be seen as IRA prisoners by the Dublin government and the prison authorities. Are you arguing that:
- they are IRA men but shouldn't be treated as such
- they're not IRA men?
It's pointless really because it's long been accepted that they are in fact IRA men who were undertaking IRA activities when Garda McCabe was shot and killed.

Are you saying that bank robbery is a political act?

Well I personally thought it was fairly obvious that IRA men robbing a bank are part of IRA activity and therefore part of the political struggle. Are you saying that this wasn't IRA activity?

What are the scheduled offences? I can't see a reference to these in the text of the Agreement. Do they include bank robbery? ..."scheduled offence" - that's just one mystery remaining............I don't see a clear definition of "scheduled offences."

Hopefully this link will clear up any confusion:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/j1996022.htm

Mighty_Mouse

Supposedly the wife of Garda McCabe has a letter from the then Minister for Justice confirming that the murderers of her husband would not be released under the terms of the GFA!

Well he shouldn't of because the government negotiating team in Belfast said different. I think it was Donoghue at the time (but prob wrong)?

However, this was hardly that. They shot a member of the Gardai in cold blood while commiting a robbery

I'm sorry your wrong here Buffy. They are covered by the GFA.
http://www.nio.gov.uk/issues/agreelinks/agreement.htm --> scroll down to Section8

I personaly dislike this situation but I just don't see away around it.

BuffyBot

I'm sorry your wrong here Buffy. They are covered by the GFA.

Am I? I didn't know the GFA stood for how I feel. Amazing document really!

This, to me, was common bank robbery (which apparently wasn't even sanctioned). As I said, I can vaguely seet he logic in other releases, these people in my opinion deserve no special treatment any more than any other set of armed robbers do.

Villain

From breakingnews.ie:

The Government will not consider releasing the four prisoners who killed a Detective Garda until there is an end to all paramilitary activity, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said today.

He said there was no question of the Government making a deal, as has been alleged, to release the killers as part of an attempt to restart the peace process, without consulting Det Garda Jerry McCabe’s family.

“If I gave the impression that this was part of the settlement, to release the gang, it would only be at the end of paramilitarism, at the ending of conflict,” he told the Dáil.

“The Government can consider the early release of these prisoners only with the achievement of all other acts of completion as were assured.

“This means assurance of the complete ending of paramilitarism by the IRA and decommissioning.

“If we ever want to get the end of the IRA then we’re going to have to be brave and take some pain and we’re going to have to get some gain.”

He said the issue of the release of the men from Castlerea Prison was not part of the Good Friday Agreement.

“Our goal last Spring was to clear the way on all outstanding issues, including the Republican movement, finally and definitively making a historic move away from violence.

“We did not achieve the outcome we were working to achieve at that time and because of this the question of the release of these prisoners … could not be pursued,” he said.

In February 1999, the Special Criminal Court handed down sentences ranging from 11 to 14 years to the four-man gang who shot Det Garda McCabe during an attempted post office robbery in the Limerick village of Adair in June 1996.

On the day of the sentencing, Mr Ahern pledged the four men would not get early release under the Good Friday Agreement.

bonkey

I like the way Bertie mentioned "end to paramilitarism" several times, and then slips in the "and decomissioning" once.

Uh-huh.

That would be "when we have the stuff we negotiated, and the stuff we didn't negotiate but now decide we want as a pre-requisite for holding to our side of the bargain", yes?

Personally, I don't think the McCab killers should be released as they were not killed through paramilitary action, but rather through common criminal activity. Just because it was the same people behind the activities doesn't make enough of a difference in my book.

But this line of Berties just gets my goat. The last thing the peace process needs is all of the other major involved groups ganging up to demand something (decomissioning) as a prerequisite in contradiction to the Agreement they all signed on to.

jc

Sand

I'm not saying I agree with but it's part of the agreement, and theres no point in asking me why, because I didn't create the agreement.

I was listening to the sister of McCabes widow giving a radio interview today (Id imagine his wife was too distressed by the concept of the murderers families welcoming home their loved ones whilst she never would ) and she was insistent that the family was promised that legally the killers did not come under the terms of the GFA and what I picked up was that they had that guarantee in writing. Im not a lawyer, but if theyre confident enough on legal grounds to give a written guarantee and only entertain ( however disagreeably ) the release of the killers as a bargaining chip rather than as a requirement of the GFa then maybe its not so safe to say theyre covered absolutely.

What needs to be understood here is that the release of prisoners under the GFA is not a right. Much as the militants on either side would like to legitimise their terrorism by painting the release of prisoners as being similar to the release of POWs at the end of a war, it is in actual fact an extra-judicial act - politics overriding the legal system. It was politically expedient to release the murderers, but it was not just nor was it right - I disagree with it in moral terms, but at the same time it was the only practical solution on the table to try and end the madness.

There is no such context when considering McCabes killers - they were bankrobbers, engaged in common criminality - SF/IRA claimed initially they didnt even know who they were and only later argued they were covered by the GFA. The situation in the north when the GFA was signed and approved is not the situation that faces us here and now in the Republic. Realistically the IRA are not going to go back to murdering people wearing Rangers jerseys over McCabes killers. As such, there is no justification for politics overriding the judicial process here. McCabes killers were found guilty, were sentenced and should serve their sentence in full. If the IRA dont like that- tough tbh, they should be in the cell next door anyway.

From Fianna Fails point of view you have to ask just how bloody stupid are they? I mean every time I think they cant get any worse , they do. They gave a guarantee to the Gardai and to the McCabe family and they even briefly entertain the thought of going back on it? For what? To get those miserable shower of gits in the North back on the bandwagon for another few months of bickering before the wheels fall off again? Theyd sacrifice and shred of credibility they have left, alienate and hopelessly demoralise the Gardai and risk the immense anger of Irish citizens for a side issue that Irish people in general honestly do not care that much about anymore compared to, the economy say, or crime or health etc etc?

How on gods earth can FF be the only party worth voting for when theyre so incredibly stupid? What has Ireland done wrong to deserve politicians like this? Can we not try and persuade the Queen we didnt really mean what we said and try get back on the gravy train?

oscarBravo

I'm still unconvinced about the case for including these men. It seems that the proposition is that (a) they are members of the IRA and (b) they killed someone, and therefore they should be allowed to walk. What if one of them lost his temper and shot his missus? Does the GFA cover that?

As to the bank robbery being a political act, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act of 1998, which was enacted as part of the GFA, in section 13 defines terrorism as "the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear." Now, unless the bank raid was exclusively for the purpose of terrorising the good people of Adare in order to further the cause of a 32-county republic, I can't see how it's relevant at all.

Cork

Originally posted by Sand


There is no such context when considering McCabes killers - they were bankrobbers, engaged in common criminality - SF/IRA claimed initially they didnt even know who they were and only later argued they were covered by the GFA. The situation in the north when the GFA was signed and approved is not the situation that faces us here and now in the Republic. Realistically the IRA are not going to go back to murdering people wearing Rangers jerseys over McCabes killers. As such, there is no justification for politics overriding the judicial process here. McCabes killers were found guilty, were sentenced and should serve their sentence in full. If the IRA dont like that- tough tbh, they should be in the cell next door anyway.

In this country the courts are independent. Those convicted of involvement in this murder were convicted under our legal system. Not in a back ally by a bunch of thugs wielding baseball bats. The release of these people does not come under the GFA. When that the people of this country voted for the GFA, It was clear to the electorate that the release of these people did not come under the terms of the agreement.

The hurt that this saga must have raked up for the McCabe family must be hard. I think that they deserve honesty from government.

Bank robbery far from being a political act is a criminal act.

I think that releasing these people will both damage both our political and legal systems - all for a vague promise that we will see a total end to IRA activities.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Sand

How on gods earth can FF be the only party worth voting for when theyre so incredibly stupid? What has Ireland done wrong to deserve politicians like this? Can we not try and persuade the Queen we didnt really mean what we said and try get back on the gravy train?

I don't recall Bertie's predecessor doing anything at all in the way of advancing the peace process.

Mighty_Mouse

Personally, I don't think the McCab killers should be released as they were not killed through paramilitary action, but rather through common criminal activity.

Is this point not mute due to the fact that:
- The government has never argued that they are not IRA prisoners. They continue to be seen as IRA prisoners by the Dublin government and the prison authorities
- The fact that all five men were treated as IRA prisoners in both Portlaoise and Castlerea as part of the IRA unit.

What if one of them lost his temper and shot his missus? Does the GFA cover that?

All of these fine examples don't apply because the GFA only refers to SCHEDULED OFFENCES before the GFA. It doesnt say terrorists offences as defined by someone here previously.

I bet SF would like if this had never happened at all. But the fact of the matter is that these men are republican prisoners who fall under the terms of the agreement. The IRA have accepted that they were IRA men carrying out IRA activity. (crazy cases of paedophilia dont apply because we dont have any examples if such cases) It's all very well saying that politics should not take precedence to justice, but thats precisely whats needed to develop a peace process.

BuffyBot

Is this point not mute due to the fact that:
- The government has never argued that they are not IRA prisoners. They continue to be seen as IRA prisoners by the Dublin government and the prison authorities
- The fact that all five men were treated as IRA prisoners in both Portlaoise and Castlerea as part of the IRA unit.

So they were allowed to hang around with their mates in prison? Why should make people change there mind and say "ah sure, let them go!"

Alex atwood was on Morning Ireland today and suggested that the people of the 26 counties were aware when they voted for the GFA thatMcCabes killers were not included.

The Garda representative association also repeated that at the time of the killing, the IRA unit did not have the sanction of the ruling council for the robbery.
The Gardaí use this legitimately in my view to describe them as common criminals.

The IRA later changed their story clearly in an attempt to include the McCabe killers in the trems of the GFA.
Not good enough say the Gardaí and they have a fair point.

bonkey

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
All of these fine examples don't apply because the GFA only refers to SCHEDULED OFFENCES before the GFA. It doesnt say terrorists offences as defined by someone here previously.

So if he shot his wife before the GFA...the example would apply, yes?

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
All of these fine examples don't apply because the GFA only refers to SCHEDULED OFFENCES before the GFA. It doesnt say terrorists offences as defined by someone here previously.

That was me. The definition was taken from an Act of Parliament passed as part of the implementation of the GFA.

As to your posted link defining "scheduled offences" - I see it has a note stating that "Any offence specified in this Part of this Schedule which is stated to be subject to this note is not a scheduled offence in any particular case in which the Attorney General for Northern Ireland certifies that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence." In other words, it's a scheduled offence unless the AG says it's not. That's not as black-and-white a definition as you've been making it out to be.

Originally posted by Earthman
Alex atwood was on Morning Ireland today and suggested that the people of the 26 counties were aware when they voted for the GFA thatMcCabes killers were not included.

That was my clear understanding when I was voting for it.

Mighty_Mouse

So if he shot his wife before the GFA...the example would apply, yes?

Its irrelevant because no such case exists

In other words, it's a scheduled offence unless the AG says it's not. That's not as black-and-white a definition as you've been making it out to be.

The definition of a 'qualifying prisoners' is very clear - someone convicted of 'scheduled offences' in the North and 'similar offences' elsewhere. The Adare case falls into this category. http://www.coiste.ie/castlerea.htm

The case against release been made here is that these men were not undertaking IRA activity at the time of murdering Garda McCabe. Whether this is or is not correct, the fact of the matter is that the government have treated and tried these men as such from day one. So therefore given the current situation. These men fall under the remit of the GFA and simply have to be released.