No Extradition for political offences

anymore

I dont vote SF and wont be voting for MGM, but I want to ask the main political parties and any of the Presidential candidates who are critical of MGM's role in the 30 IRA war, why the Irish Republic did not extradite republicans who were being sought by the UK and why they allowed the defence that the crimes these men and women allegedly committed were ' political offences'.
That defence effectively ' decriminalised' the crimes they may have committed and also placed these people into the category of ' political prisoners' rather than that of ordinary criminals. It also effectively facilitated the use of the republic as a sanctuary from the UK justice system.

problemchimp

Maybe they felt the use of diplock courts and trial without jury could result in an unfair trial for Irish citizens. Also the use of "supergrasses" was not the safest way to obtain a credible conviction. And maybe the trials of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 and several others raised to many questions about the motives of the British justice system when it came to convicting Irish citizens.

anymore

problemchimp wrote: »

Maybe they felt the use of diplock courts and trial without jury could result in an unfair trial for Irish citizens. Also the use of "supergrasses" was not the safest way to obtain a credible conviction. And maybe the trials of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 and several others raised to many questions about the motives of the British justice system when it came to convicting Irish citizens.

Yes I am sure all those were relevant, but for much of the IRA war, the Republic clamied entitlement to the six northern counties and the no extradition for political offences re-inforced this claim. FF, FG and Labour could have changed the rules if they so wished but choo0se not to. This should really be reflected in the debate and i am puzzled as to why SF are not doing this . Have they jsut not thought of it ????

walrusgumble

anymore wrote: »

I dont vote SF and wont be voting for MGM, but I want to ask the main political parties and any of the Presidential candidates who are critical of MGM's role in the 30 IRA war, why the Irish Republic did not extradite republicans who were being sought by the UK and why they allowed the defence that the crimes these men and women allegedly committed were ' political offences'.
That defence effectively ' decriminalised' the crimes they may have committed and also placed these people into the category of ' political prisoners' rather than that of ordinary criminals. It also effectively facilitated the use of the republic as a sanctuary from the UK justice system.

For a start, it was evident that they would not get a fair trial and would be tortured while in Detention. (see the ECtHR case of Ireland v UK 1970). Secondly public attitude towards them, by a sizeable minority in the South were prepared to tolerate them then. Changed by the late 1970's - 1980's, with a few dips and rise of "popularity".

The Extradition Act 1965ish was a product of men from the old IRA (Aiken, DeV , Lemass, Traynor etc), go and figure.

The defense ceased somewhat by the Mid 1990's

anymore

walrusgumble wrote: »

For a start, it was evident that they would not get a fair trial and would be tortured while in Detention. (see the ECtHR case of Ireland v UK 1970). Secondly public attitude towards them, by a sizeable minority in the South were prepared to tolerate them then. Changed by the late 1970's - 1980's, with a few dips and rise of "popularity".

The Extradition Act 1965ish was a product of men from the old IRA (Aiken, DeV , Lemass, Traynor etc), go and figure.

The defense ceased somewhat by the Mid 1990's

Yes but the reality this legal defence represented the real policy of governments presided over by FF,FG and Labour. So regrdless of its origins, it represented irish policy and it could and should have been changed if we really did oppose the IRA war. So the criticism being ditected towards MGM in this campaign is somewhat hypocritical. MGM could rightly say that the Republic used its legal system to strategically support the IRA war.

problemchimp

anymore wrote: »

Yes but the reality this legal defence represented the real policy of governments presided over by FF,FG and Labour. So regrdless of its origins, it represented irish policy and it could and should have been changed if we really did oppose the IRA war. So the criticism being ditected towards MGM in this campaign is somewhat hypocritical. MGM could rightly say that the Republic used its legal system to strategically support the IRA war.

I can see your point that the Irish governments strategically supported the war in a round about way, but to say that they should have changed their stance on extradition is a bit mad to say the least. They could not allow their citizens to be tortured for false confessions, put on trial in diplock courts or interned for no reason. Hindsight is not how we should look at these things, it was a shiit time for Catholics/nationalists and the Irish government sought to protect its citizens.

drunkmonkey

anymore wrote: »

it represented irish policy and it could and should have been changed if we really did oppose the IRA war. So the criticism being ditected towards MGM in this campaign is somewhat hypocritical. MGM could rightly say that the Republic used its legal system to strategically support the IRA war.

The Government supported the IRA with, refuge, finance and weapons. The Irish state backed the IRA along with MGM(this is all common knowledge), I doubt anyone that's catholic and Irish believes he is a terrorist. He was fighting for Irish civil rights so should be viewed as a freedom fighter / civil rights activist / peacekeeper that he is.
He should come first or second but not 3rd.

anymore

problemchimp wrote: »

I can see your point that the Irish governments strategically supported the war in a round about way, but to say that they should have changed their stance on extradition is a bit mad to say the least. They could not allow their citizens to be tortured for false confessions, put on trial in diplock courts or interned for no reason. Hindsight is not how we should look at these things, it was a shiit time for Catholics/nationalists and the Irish government sought to protect its citizens.

I know what you sare saying and at the time I probably would have argued it was justified.
I suppose what I am trying to underline is that the Presidential debate in so far as it touches on MGM and his role in the IRA doeant really reflect the complxities of the situation. It is presentes in a balck and white way. Vincent Browne, if he had a mind to, could do more justice to what I am trying to say. But I suppose there isnt that much interest in looking at the complexities now.

problemchimp

You do a better job than Vincent Brown, don't be so hard on yourself. I believe there are too many candidates in this race so it is difficult for the media to focus on the deeper issues. Some of the candidates entered this race just to raise their profile knowing they haven't a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but democracy has to rule. Maybe the outgoing president should nominate the new president and save us the money and the bullshiit we have to listen to.



Why are two primates (drunkmonkey and problemchimp) so interested in this subject I wonder, is it because we are the superior beings?

anymore

Thanks for your responses. I imagined with so many posts on MGM that this might attract more especiallyy from the SF contingent, but I guess not. I can understand why FF,Fg and labour have ignored it though - a bit too close to the bone.
Probably not good for the 'Conflict Resolution Business' if it was suggested that the conflict might have been a damn sight shorter if the politicians of the Republic had tackled the matter more energetically.

Wolfe Tone

They extradited Dessie Ellis, who was near death at the time.

fryup

problemchimp wrote: »

I can see your point that the Irish governments strategically supported the war in a round about way, but to say that they should have changed their stance on extradition is a bit mad to say the least. They could not allow their citizens to be tortured for false confessions, put on trial in diplock courts or interned for no reason. Hindsight is not how we should look at these things, it was a shiit time for Catholics/nationalists and the Irish government sought to protect its citizens.

and it was also a sh*t time for victims of IRA violence and if person is guilty then he should be extradited unless you secretly support/sympathise with them.. which most irish goverments did esp FF

Liam Byrne

I'm curious......would Sinn Fein & IRA have viewed it as "extradition" given their constant rhetoric about it being "one country" ?

Maybe we should have used their blinkers against them ?

mike65

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The Government supported the IRA with, refuge, finance and weapons. The Irish state backed the IRA along with MGM(this is all common knowledge), I doubt anyone that's catholic and Irish believes he is a terrorist. He was fighting for Irish civil rights so should be viewed as a freedom fighter / civil rights activist / peacekeeper that he is.
He should come first or second but not 3rd.

I missed this bit.

Sunnyisland

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

They extradited Dessie Ellis, who was near death at the time.

And who survived and is now a TD for Dublin north west.

K-9

anymore wrote: »

I dont vote SF and wont be voting for MGM, but I want to ask the main political parties and any of the Presidential candidates who are critical of MGM's role in the 30 IRA war, why the Irish Republic did not extradite republicans who were being sought by the UK and why they allowed the defence that the crimes these men and women allegedly committed were ' political offences'.
That defence effectively ' decriminalised' the crimes they may have committed and also placed these people into the category of ' political prisoners' rather than that of ordinary criminals. It also effectively facilitated the use of the republic as a sanctuary from the UK justice system.

That was all changed in the 80's, bit of a whole kerfuffle about it from the Shinners at the time.

K-9

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The Government supported the IRA with, refuge, finance and weapons. The Irish state backed the IRA along with MGM(this is all common knowledge), I doubt anyone that's catholic and Irish believes he is a terrorist. He was fighting for Irish civil rights so should be viewed as a freedom fighter / civil rights activist / peacekeeper that he is.
He should come first or second but not 3rd.

Jaysus, FG and Labour supported the IRA in the mid 70's and 80's? You should tell the Shinners this, it will be a revelation to them, new revisionism for them to learn of by heart.

Wolfe Tone

realies wrote: »

And who survived and is now a TD for Dublin north west.

He is a very nice man too.