Republican prisoners

Stabshauptmann

Republican Sinn Fein held a protest outside Portlaoise Prison this weekend over plans to stop the segregation of republican prisoners.
http://rsf-kildare.blogspot.com/2010/01/portlaoise-prison-protest-saturday-23rd.html

This just got me thinking:
A)Whos still left in Portloaise Prison. Even Dessie O Hare has been released (arguably the most crazed and dangerous paramilitary of the troubles)

B)Do / did republicans have "political status" in the Irish and British prison systems?

Victor

Most are RIRA/CIRA members.

seanybiker

shouldnt have been segregated in the first place.

Stabshauptmann

Victor wrote: »

Most are RIRA/CIRA members.

I figured they were dissidents, I was wondering how many approx and whether there were any notable inmates.

Im still trying to find out whether or not republican prisoners have (or had) political / special category status.
I had thought that the 5 demands of the 1981 hunger strike were eventually given, but cant find anything to support that on the net. Was I wrong?

At any rate thats NI. What is / was the case in RoI?

nesf

Anything better than 23 hours of solitary a day is too good for them.

Stabshauptmann

nesf wrote: »

Anything better than 23 hours of solitary a day is too good for them.

Would you grow up:rolleyes:

If you dont know who these prisoners are, making a statent like that makes you look like a twat. Do you know their names, and what they are individually imprisoned for?

FlutterinBantam

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Would you grow up:rolleyes:

If you dont know who these prisoners are, making a statent like that makes you look like a twat. Do you know their names, and what they are individually imprisoned for?

No I don't, and you know something? I don't care either.

I pay the agencies of the State through my taxes to take care of these things,and I trust their judgment.

What ordinary individual ,unless he/she is a fellow traveller, knows or cares who the prisoners in Portlaoise are?

Making statements like that make you seem naive in the extreme sir

nesf

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Would you grow up:rolleyes:

If you dont know who these prisoners are, making a statent like that makes you look like a twat. Do you know their names, and what they are individually imprisoned for?

Oh please, any convicted member of the RIRA or CIRA deserves very nasty sentences for willingly associating themselves with murderers, the same as any other criminal associate.

junder

political status in northern ireland was effectivley lost when the GFA was signed and the prisoners were released

Liam Byrne

Well that's a joke!

People put in prison for giving the law of the land two fingers expect to have a say in where they're imprisoned, and how ?

Oh wait....I forgot, this is Ireland.

gandalf

These people should be in with the general prison population with no special threatment given. They are just another bunch of petty criminals at this stage.

FTA69

Dessie O'Hare was actually in Castelrea before he was released.

Portlaoise contains a number of Republican prisoners, people from the CIRA, RIRA, a number of prisoners who split off from the Real IRA and are associated with Michael McKevitt, a couple of Provos and a swollen group of INLA prisoners, many of whom are there as a result of Declan Duffy's antics in Dublin.

Generally these prisoners have de facto segregation and political status within a number of landings in Portlaoise; both because of their nature as political prisoners and the practical implications of such a policy, i.e it is highly doubtful political prisoners will be prepared to share landings with criminals.

They'd be better off maintaining the status quo within the prison to be honest.

Sleepy

[pedant] They're not 'prisoners'. They're 'convicts'.[/pedant]

Don't dishonour the memory of real soldiers with poor use of grammar.

FTA69

Sleepy wrote: »

[pedant] They're not 'prisoners'. They're 'convicts'.[/pedant]

Don't dishonour the memory of real soldiers with poor use of grammar.

Balls. A prisoner is someone who's held in a prison.

Grammar my arse.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

it is highly doubtful political prisoners will be prepared to share landings with criminals.

Firstly, there's little difference. I don't know of any true political prisoner in Ireland (i.e. someone who's in prison solely because of their beliefs); most are in prison because they robbed or killed, or did something illegal.

And if they wanted to have a say in terms of who they share with, then they shouldn't have committed those crimes.

Having criminals dictate their conditions is sickening.

FTA69

What you're alluding to is a prisoner of conscience.

As far as I'm concerned a political prisoner is someone who is in jail as a result of political actions. By your logic Nelson Mandela wasn't a political prisoner at all, rather a criminal who was in jail simply because he committed an illegal act. Likewise with Terence MacSwiney and others.

Whether you agree with those particular actions is immaterial, it doesn't change the fact they are in jail as a result of their participation in political organisations and as such could be considered political prisoners.

Sleepy

By your definiton of that term any prisoner in Ireland could claim to be a political prisoner by claiming a belief in anarchism.

FTA69

Sleepy wrote: »

By your definiton of that term any prisoner in Ireland could claim to be a political prisoner by claiming a belief in anarchism.

No, you're talking sh*t again. Anarchism is an ideology basically concerned with libertarian-communism, and I doubt junkies, rapists and handbag snatchers could say they identify with that particular philosophy.

gent9662

FTA69 wrote: »

What you're alluding to is a prisoner of conscience.

As far as I'm concerned a political prisoner is someone who is in jail as a result of political actions. By your logic Nelson Mandela wasn't a political prisoner at all, rather a criminal who was in jail simply because he committed an illegal act. Likewise with Terence MacSwiney and others.

Whether you agree with those particular actions is immaterial, it doesn't change the fact they are in jail as a result of their participation in political organisations and as such could be considered political prisoners.

So I take it you would agree that Al Qaeda should be classed as political and be given status as such?

Sleepy

Junkie could claim the libertarian "political belief" that he's entitled to injest anything he chooses.

Rapist could claim the Fundamentalist Islamic political belief that a woman "indecently dressed" in public is putting a man under temptation he can't be expected to resist.

Handbag snatcher could claim the political belief that he didn't recognise the right to private property.

I'm being facetious here but I honestly see no difference to those arguments than I do to a murderer claiming they killed out of their political belief in a united ireland.

Poccington

FTA69 wrote: »

Generally these prisoners have de facto segregation and political status within a number of landings in Portlaoise; both because of their nature as political prisoners and the practical implications of such a policy, i.e it is highly doubtful political prisoners will be prepared to share landings with criminals.

I agree with FTA.

The Republican prisoners in Portlaoise won't share landings with the "normal" prisoners.

FTA69

So I take it you would agree that Al Qaeda should be classed as political and be given status as such?

I'd say they are political prisoners, that term doesn't necessarily sanitise or justify any particular action in my opinion though. For instance I'd also argue that Loyalists who were in jail during the conflict here were political prisoners, despite me disagreeing vehemently with them and their actions.

I'm being facetious here but I honestly see no difference to those arguments than I do to a murderer claiming they killed out of their political belief in a united ireland.

Listen, you're talking rubbish lad. First of all you start going on about how it's wrong to call someone in prison a "prisoner" and now you're going on about how petty criminals are actually practising Anarchism or Sharia Law or whatever. It's a nonsense argument.

By virtue of the fact that these people are involved in political organisations pursuing political conflict then they can be termed political prisoners. Whether they get segregated or not, or the treatment they get etc is a different argument.

As I said above, they're segregated out of practicality as much as anything else.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Whether you agree with those particular actions is immaterial, it doesn't change the fact they are in jail as a result of their participation in political organisations and as such could be considered political prisoners.

But it's not "immaterial" by any stretch of the imagination.

Killing someone is a crime.

If you're in jail for killing someone, then you're in jail for killing someone; if you're in jail for robbing a bank or money transit, then you're in jail for robbing the bank or money transit.......you are not in jail because you "believed in something" in particular or "participated in a political organisation".

I mean, if I believed that the only way to stop FF wrecking this country further was to kill Brian Cowen and a few more, that would be a "political belief"; but it wouldn't mean that I wasn't committing a crime if I followed through and did it.

And I would - rightly - do time for the crime; not for "believing they were wrecking the country".

If I were to be jailed for simply believing it, I would have been jailed about 7 years ago, in which case I would have been a "political prisoner".

FTA69

Poccington wrote: »

I agree with FTA.

The Republican prisoners in Portlaoise won't share landings with the "normal" prisoners.

After the 1981 Hunger Strike the Brits tried to desegregate the H Blocks. In wings where Republicans were the majoirty (most wings were) Loyalists were told to remove themselves, most of them time they wrecked their cells and were transferred to a different block. In wings where they were more evenly matched Republicans seized control of the workshops and wings by invading areas en-masse and battering the Loyalists until they were moved. By 1982 Long Kesh was effectively segregated.

If you start moving criminals onto a Real IRA landing it won't be long until they are removed.

OS119

dclane wrote: »

So I take it you would agree that Al Qaeda should be classed as political and be given status as such?

AQ members/fellow travellers carry out actions because of, and to further, political causes - in exactly the same way as CIRA/RIRA/INLA et al members do - personally i don't see the issue with recognising that they are 'political prisoners' in the same way we recognise that some prisoners commit crime because they are have mental health problems, or are sex-offenders, or are sadistic nutcases, or just anti-social filth. recognising that a prisoner commits crime for a particular reason doesn't automatically mean that you give them any greater privilage than any other prisoner deemed to commit crime for any other reason.

i don't think that any prisoner should get any better - or worse - incarceration than any other prisoner, and i certainly don't think that in principle that prisoners should get to choose which other prisoners they do or do not serve their time with, however i do understand that objective reality means that the likelyhood of escape attempts by 'organised' prisoners means they have to be kept in the most secure prisons - hence the 'terrorist wings' almost become self-selecting given the relatively small number of prison facilities able to secure those inmates.

Liam Byrne

Poccington wrote: »

I agree with FTA.

The Republican prisoners in Portlaoise won't share landings with the "normal" prisoners.

What gives them the right to dictate ?

Criminals should take what they get; they had a choice not to be criminals.

FTA69 wrote: »

If you start moving criminals onto a Real IRA landing it won't be long until they are removed.

Did you leave out the word "more" ?

gent9662

FTA69 wrote: »

After the 1981 Hunger Strike the Brits tried to desegregate the H Blocks. In wings where Republicans were the majoirty (most wings were) Loyalists were told to remove themselves, most of them time they wrecked their cells and were transferred to a different block. In wings where they were more evenly matched Republicans seized control of the workshops and wings by invading areas en-masse and battering the Loyalists until they were moved. By 1982 Long Kesh was effectively segregated.

If you start moving criminals onto a Real IRA landing it won't be long until they are removed.

I my opinion the vast majority of the republican movement have voted and opted for peaceful means in order to obtain a united Ireland. Given this democratic mandate, I am of the opinion that any group opposed to this should not be given any political status in the republic especially. The Real and Continuity IRA targeted both Catholics and Protestants when they planted the Omagh bomb.

If you look at other countries such as the USA, do right wing extremists have political status? Timothy McVeigh was given the death penalty. I would argue that the real and continuity IRA are committing treason and as such should not be given any extra political status. It would be more suitable for these members to be put in solitary confinement until such time as they are willing to enter the general population of prison society.

OS119

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What gives them the right to dictate ?

Criminals should take what they get; they had a choice not to be criminals.

nothing nice gives them the right to dictate, they shouldn't have the right to dictate - ideally they should be dispersed throughout the prison system acording to their security risk and be identical to the rapists, muggers and heroin dealers - however, in a society where everyone knows everyone else, where prison officers are unarmed, and, not far to the north, 'dissident' groups have in the last month put a bomb under the car of an armed PSNI officer and nearly killed him, and then driven up to one of the most heavily-armed/militarised police stations outside of Afghanistan and sprayed it with rifle fire before making a clean getaway, the niceties of how far the prison authorities push the concept of the Rule of Law get a bit blurred...

FTA69

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What gives them the right to dictate ?

Criminals should take what they get; they had a choice not to be criminals.

You're ignoring the point at hand, segregation remains in place in Portlaoise because there's no other way in dealing with Republican prisoners. They will refuse to share their landings with criminals, and they're well able to engineer a situation where criminals will be expelled from those landings.

Because of this you'll have a case where criminals will refuse to enter a Republican landing and such. Because of this segregation suits the prison authorities as much as it does Republican prisoners.

What is it to you who shares a landing with who anyway? They're still in bloody jail at the end of the day.

Poccington

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What gives them the right to dictate ?

Criminals should take what they get; they had a choice not to be criminals.

It's quite simple.

If they suddenly decided to move "normal" prisoners onto the Republican landing, it's not going to end well. The Republican prisoners will become a lot more difficult to deal with or else the "normal" prisoners will simply be forced off the landing. As it is, the Republican prisoners keep to themselves in there and don't cause any major hassle for the PO's.

Having spoken to Prison Officers that work in there, it's much better that way. At the end of the day, they're still in prison aren't they?

junder

you would proberly find that it would be the republican prisoners who would be at risk from the ODC's rather then the other way round, which is more likely the reason that republican prisoners are sepprated.

Poccington

junder wrote: »

you would proberly find that it would be the republican prisoners who would be at risk from the ODC's rather then the other way round, which is more likely the reason that republican prisoners are sepprated.

Definitely not.

FTA69

you would proberly find that it would be the republican prisoners who would be at risk from the ODC's rather then the other way round, which is more likely the reason that republican prisoners are sepprated.

Yeah. I'm sure the likes of Micky McKevitt is sh*tting himself.

No criminal in his right mind would contemplate attacking a prisoner affiliated to the likes of the Real IRA because he'd be banged the minute he came out of jail. Republican prisoners insist on being segregated because it's a key element in their declaration to be distinct from criminal prisoners, not because they're afraid.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

They will refuse to share their landings with criminals, and they're well able to engineer a situation where criminals will be expelled from those landings.

As I said (and this applies to ALL criminals) they should not be able to refuse anything; having committed serious crimes, they shouldn't have a say in where they're housed.

FTA69 wrote: »

No criminal in his right mind would contemplate attacking a prisoner affiliated to the likes of the Real IRA because he'd be banged the minute he came out of jail.

Says a lot for them, really.....I mean, I thought they were locked up because of their political beliefs, and not because they are violent thugs.

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the language of criminals and violent thugs, can you explain what "banged" means ? Does it mean kneecapped ? Or murdered ? Or - in prison parlance - "banged" ?

FTA69 wrote: »

Republican prisoners insist on being segregated because it's a key element in their declaration to be distinct from criminal prisoners, not because they're afraid.

They can make that distinction all they like, but the rest of us don't. And they - like all criminals - don't follow society's democratically-decided rules, and we definitely shouldn't have to follow their made-up arbitrary ones.

FTA69

As I said (and this applies to ALL criminals) they should not be able to refuse anything; having committed serious crimes, they shouldn't have a say in where they're housed.

Again you're missing the point. Prison authorities actually facilitate segregation because it's easier for all concerned. It isn't as if Republicans are holding the gaff to hostage against everyone's will. Republicans aren't going to share their landings with criminals, simple as. You seem to be in favour of somehow forcing prison authorities into creating havoc within a maximum security prison because you don't like the idea of Republican prisoners sharing a landing. Generally Republican prisoners don't get any special treatment within the prison system, the likes of civilian clothes, education instead of work, visits, letters, remission etc were conceeded to all prisoners years ago.

Segregation in itself isn't even a unique privilage for Republicans, it's even done in St Pats.

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the language of criminals and violent thugs, can you explain what "banged" means ? Does it mean kneecapped ? Or murdered ? Or - in prison parlance - "banged" ?

I imagine those respective organisations would be of the position that any criminal who attacks their prisoners will meet a sticky end. The prisoner issue is often a sensitive one within these groups.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

I imagine those respective organisations would be of the position that any criminal who attacks their prisoners will meet a sticky end. The prisoner issue is often a sensitive one within these groups.

So they are a bunch of violent thugs, then. And their actions and views on violence have nothing to do with politics, just on generally getting their own way and annihilating anyone who disagrees with them or gets in their way.

Thanks for the clarification.

dvpower

FTA69 wrote: »

Prison authorities actually facilitate segregation because it's easier for all concerned. It isn't as if Republicans are holding the gaff to hostage against everyone's will. Republicans aren't going to share their landings with criminals, simple as.

The blog post that the OP linked to suggests that segregation is no longer going to be facilitated. What, apart from a protest outside the prison, can the prisoners do?

Surely it is up to the prison authorities and the Deptartment of Justice to decide how prisoners are to be housed. They may not see themselves as criminals, but the state, who is imprisoning them, do.

IRISH REPUBLICAN PRISONERS ARE NOT CRIMINALS

and Irish Republicans will not stand by while the Free State administration attempts to treat them as such.

Portlaoise Prison protest: the Free State regime are attempting to place Irish Republican POW's on the same prison landing where criminals are presently incarcerated in Portlaoise Prison..

OS119

dvpower wrote: »

The blog post that the OP linked to suggests that segregation is no longer going to be facilitated. What, apart from a protest outside the prison, can the prisoners do?

possibly the most idiotic question ever asked on the internet.

'how can armed Republican groups influence the running and policies of the state prison services?'

i counted the deaths of 28 NI Prison Officers in 19 years - including two Govenors and one assistant Govenor - and the wife of one them.

were i a prison officer whose name was known to RIRA/CIRA/INLA, i'm not sure i'd be awfully keen on taking an overly hardline on segregation issues for a measly €40k a year - the odds don't look that attractive...

FTA69

What, apart from a protest outside the prison, can the prisoners do?

Riot. Attack criminal prisoners put on their landing. The latter would result in a case of criminals refusing to go on the upper landings. As I said, it would create pandemonium within the jail, even if they do remove it (like the Brits did after the Hunger Strikes) chances are it will go back to de facto segregation anyway due to the prison authorities finding it easier. De facto segregation already exists in most other prisons anyway, out of conveniance alone.

Liam,

So they are a bunch of violent thugs,

I personally wouldn't view them as thugs, and I can see why they wouldn't put up with criminals attacking their incarcerated members.

dvpower

FTA69 wrote: »

Riot. Attack criminal prisoners put on their landing. The latter would result in a case of criminals refusing to go on the upper landings. As I said, it would create pandemonium within the jail, even if they do remove it (like the Brits did after the Hunger Strikes) chances are it will go back to de facto segregation anyway due to the prison authorities finding it easier. De facto segregation already exists in most other prisons anyway, out of conveniance alone.

Liam,



I personally wouldn't view them as thugs, and I can see why they wouldn't put up with criminals attacking their incarcerated members.

They're not a bunch of thugs, but they would riot and attack other prisoners?

What would one need to do before you would call him a thug?

dvpower

OS119 wrote: »

possibly the most idiotic question ever asked on the internet.

That would have to be really idiotic. I'll take that as a bit of hyperbole on your part

OS119 wrote: »

were i a prison officer whose name was known to RIRA/CIRA/INLA, i'm not sure i'd be awfully keen on taking an overly hardline on segregation issues for a measly €40k a year - the odds don't look that attractive...

Sounds to me like the segregation is there because the prisoners have the upper hand, not the state. Its a sad state of affairs, I'm sure you'd agree, where the lawful authorities in the country cower in the face of their prisoners.

FTA69

That would have to be really idiotic. I'll take that as a bit of hyperbole on your part

He's right though. You're labouring under the delusion that an organised body of paramilitary prisoners with a command structure couldn't create havoc within a prison. They can. And if you try and put criminals onto their landings, they will. They mightn't be as large or homogenous or capable as the Provisional IRA structure pre-1998, but they do have the ability to make a lot of unnecessary trouble within Portlaoise.

Sounds to me like the segregation is there because the prisoners have the upper hand, not the state.

The fact they're in jail would indicate to me it's the state that has the upper hand in that particular arrangement.

To reiterate my above point, who do people give a sh*t over who's on a landing with who?

Why is it so important to ye that people from a particular group aren't housed together anyway?

dvpower

FTA69 wrote: »

He's right though. You're labouring under the delusion that an organised body of paramilitary prisoners with a command structure couldn't create havoc within a prison.

Don't know where you get that idea from. I asked a question about what they could do? I fully expected the answer would involve violence or the threat of violence; it is their stock in trade.

FTA69 wrote: »

To reiterate my above point, who do people give a sh*t over who's on a landing with who?

Why is it so important to ye that people from a particular group aren't housed together anyway?

I'm not too bothered where they are housed; I'd leave that up to the prison authorities to sort out.
But it seems that the prison authorities (or their superiors) want to end segregation (I'd be interested in knowing why), hence this tread.

But, as I said, its a sad situation for the state to be in if it can't impose its will on prisoners.

OS119

dvpower wrote: »

Sounds to me like the segregation is there because the prisoners have the upper hand, not the state. Its a sad state of affairs, I'm sure you'd agree, where the lawful authorities in the country cower in the face of their prisoners.

prison officers, assuming their names are known to prisoners and they and their families aren't going to live in some 'Green Zone' type fortress, have always been one of the weakest links in the security of the CJ system. either protect them from the possibility of intimidation or live with the fact that that getting sent a picture of your daughter walking to school is going to influence you more than public and political opinion.

the other practical reason that terrorist prisoners are held together is that they represent both the most dangerous, and most likely to attempt to escape inmates - ergo they go to maximum security units, of which there are few, and given that only a madman would attempt to put members of differing groups in the same area (they eventually kill each other), you end up - by defualt as much as policy - with segregated political wings.

we accept that sex-offenders can't exist within the mainstream prison system - they'd be beaten to death by the ODC's - we may not like it for the reasons you alluded to, but we accept it. i see no real difference for the politicals, as long as the 'deal' goes no further than segregation.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Riot. Attack criminal prisoners put on their landing.

FTA69 wrote: »

I personally wouldn't view them as thugs, and I can see why they wouldn't put up with criminals attacking their incarcerated members.

I'm confused. Which criminals are attacking which, again ?

Your first statement said that the so-called "republican" criminals would be pre-emptively attacking the others in order to "engineer" a riot, and then you're trying to imply that any attack by the "republicans" would be some sort of retaliation ?

Which is it ?

* With due apologies to all true republicans who don't support criminal activity, violence and murder

Victor

Sleepy wrote: »

[pedant] They're not 'prisoners'. They're 'convicts'.[/pedant]

Whatever about the people being discussed, not everyone in prison is a convict, some are on remand awaiting trial.

Stabshauptmann

FTA69 wrote: »

Dessie O'Hare was actually in Castelrea before he was released.

Portlaoise contains a number of Republican prisoners, people from the CIRA, RIRA, a number of prisoners who split off from the Real IRA and are associated with Michael McKevitt, a couple of Provos and a swollen group of INLA prisoners, many of whom are there as a result of Declan Duffy's antics in Dublin.

I understand that dissidents are still there because they didnt sign up to the GFA. But why are there any provos left?

junder

Poccington wrote: »

Definitely not.

The crimanals are no longer scared of the paramiltrays, intergrate the prisons and you will some the so called top republicans shanked in the showers. Just because you join the paramiltarys does not make you hard

junder

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah. I'm sure the likes of Micky McKevitt is sh*tting himself.

No criminal in his right mind would contemplate attacking a prisoner affiliated to the likes of the Real IRA because he'd be banged the minute he came out of jail. Republican prisoners insist on being segregated because it's a key element in their declaration to be distinct from criminal prisoners, not because they're afraid.

i would not be suprized if some of those dublin gangs are better armed then mickys lot

OS119

junder wrote: »

i would not be suprized if some of those dublin gangs are better armed then mickys lot

sorry mate, you're talking out of your arse.

armed republicanism - any and all the groups - are not going to accept republican prisoners even from other, rival groups being firstly placed, and then assulted by 'ODC's' within the prison system. its their big, red line, the 'holy grail' of how to offend them. they will react violently both to those who do attack their prisoners, and to the state which manufactures the situation in which that occurs.

if you are aware of a criminal gang - outwith Republicanism, that has access to and the capability to use effectively - such weapons as RPG18's and RPG22's, mortars and bombs of upto 1100lb, as well as the normal individual weapons of choice - perhaps you should contact AGS, 'coz they certainly aren't.

FTA69

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I understand that dissidents are still there because they didnt sign up to the GFA. But why are there any provos left?

They were members of the Provisional IRA who were charged with offenses committed after the signing of the GFA.