Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

Mr.Micro

Truly shocking that people sworn to uphold the law would be involved in premeditated murders. It's truly shameful IMO.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25199800

TOMASJ

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Truly shocking that people sworn to uphold the law would be involved in premeditated murders. It's truly shameful IMO.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25199800

It sure is, and has been happening for near 30 years in the North

Fr Tod Umptious

TOMASJ wrote: »

It sure is, and has been happening for near 30 years in the North

Second post of the thread
Surely a record for whataboutery ?

Karl Stein

David Ford, said the suggestion of garda collusion was "no different from the suggestions in the past of one or two RUC officers behaving inappropriately".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25199800

'One or two RUC officers behaving inappropriately'.

This knob couldn't help but try to draw some moral parallels between the viper's nest RUC and the Gardai.

TOMASJ

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Second post of the thread
Surely a record for whataboutery ?

Would you prefer to ignore same thing happening in different parts of the country,

but to a much greater scale in the north

grainnewhale

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Truly shocking that people sworn to uphold the law would be involved in premeditated murders. It's truly shameful IMO.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25199800

Why would anybody be surprised, surely if 10% of the population were republicans. How could people be surprised that a certain percentage of the Gardaí were.
Surely there are Gardaí giving information to criminals now, which should be of much more concern.

Mr.Micro

grainnewhale wrote: »

Why would anybody be surprised, surely if 10% of the population were republicans. How could people be surprised that a certain percentage of the Gardaí were.
Surely there are Gardaí giving information to criminals now, which should be of much more concern.

I am sure that part of the oath the Gardai take is to uphold the law, whether they be Republican sympathisers or not. I am surprised that it has taken this long to come to a conclusion. Of the Gardai that we're mentioned we still do not officially, know who the mole or moles were. It therefore seems like a pointless exercise with regards to justice and accountability.

feargale

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Of the Gardai that we're mentioned we still do not officially, know who the mole or moles were. It therefore seems like a pointless exercise with regards to justice and accountability.

Not, apparently, to the son of one of the murdered officers who spoke on tv tonight. Of course it would be better if culprits could be named, but he and many others would feel that half a loaf is better than no bread.

Fr Tod Umptious

TOMASJ wrote: »

Would you prefer to ignore same thing happening in different parts of the country,

but to a much greater scale in the north

I assume you are referring to collusion between the RUC and Loyalists ?

Well if you are then I think it has nothing to do with this thread

The thread is about Garda collusion with Republican terrorists

And any reference to RUC and loyalists collusion is nothing more than whataboutery, which I pointed out in my post.

joe swanson

grainnewhale wrote: »

Why would anybody be surprised, surely if 10% of the population were republicans. How could people be surprised that a certain percentage of the Gardaí were.
Surely there are Gardaí giving information to criminals now, which should be of much more concern.

You really should give the information you appear to have regarding collusion to the appropriate authority

TOMASJ

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I assume you are referring to collusion between the RUC and Loyalists ?

Well if you are then I think it has nothing to do with this thread

The thread is about Garda collusion with Republican terrorists

And any reference to RUC and loyalists collusion is nothing more than whataboutery, which I pointed out in my post.

I was responding to opening post where he/she said

( Truly shocking that people sworn to uphold the law would be involved in premeditated murders.)

Do you not see the similarities, that the so called forces of law and order are no better than the so called terrorists.

Banjo String

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I assume you are referring to collusion between the RUC and Loyalists ?

Well if you are then I think it has nothing to do with this thread

The thread is about Garda collusion with Republican terrorists

And any reference to RUC and loyalists collusion is nothing more than whataboutery, which I pointed out in my post.

Interesting that you find no similarities in 2 police forces on the same tiny island, alleged collusion with paramilitary groups from either side of the same conflict.

Also

collusion between the RUC and Loyalists ?

and

And any reference to RUC and loyalists collusion

but.

Garda collusion with Republican terrorists

Riiiiiight.

grainnewhale

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I assume you are referring to collusion between the RUC and Loyalists ?

Well if you are then I think it has nothing to do with this thread

The thread is about Garda collusion with Republican terrorists

And any reference to RUC and loyalists collusion is nothing more than whataboutery, which I pointed out in my post.

Considering there was RUC collusion with loyalists and Gardaí sharing information and colluding in cover ups with the RUC. Then its fair to say the Gardaí were colluding with loyalists.

grainnewhale

joe swanson wrote: »

You really should give the information you appear to have regarding collusion to the appropriate authority

What information. What appropriate authority.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

grainnewhale wrote: »

Surely there are Gardaí giving information to criminals now, which should be of much more concern.

joe swanson wrote: »

You really should give the information you appear to have regarding collusion to the appropriate authority

grainnewhale wrote: »

What information. What appropriate authority.

Your evidence on Gardaí passing information to criminals, the appropriate authority would be the Garda Ombudsman.

donaghs

Terrible obviously for some Gardai to to be colluding with the IRA, but considering the penetration of both the IRA and the Garda by British secret services, I'd say the British secret services had a fairly good idea of what occurred very soon after.

e.g. some example are Garda Pat Crinnion in 1974. Suspicion has always hung over the Garda Commissioner Edmund "Ned" Garvey around that time too. British Army intel guy Fred Holroyd claimed another Garda was an "asset" too.

golfball37

The Gardaí were certainly Assets after the Dublin/Monaghan atrocity,the way they gave up the investigation and strong armed victims families in the aftermath. A rogue force making a decision based on Politics is far worse than a few rogue members acting alone.

But lo and behold guess which one the Irish media will focus on?:rolleyes:

Can'tseeme

From what I've been reading this morning the report does seem quite vague, lacking in detail and evidence. Certainly their families deserve answers but this case seems to have been difficult to nail down. But it's of no surprise that there would be some sort of collusion between Gardai and the IRA specially in around the border areas.

Breen looked after Complaints and Discipline in the RUC. He was Divisional Commander of H Division: that is, he was in charge of operations in South Armagh and South Down. He was the RUC presence at the press conference following the shooting dead of eight IRA men at Loughgall in a 1987 ambush by the SAS. That would probably have made them high profile targets as revenge for Loughgall.

All in all another chapter in our dirty little war here.

Sheldons Brain

Breen looked after Complaints and Discipline in the RUC. He was Divisional Commander of H Division: that is, he was in charge of operations in South Armagh and South Down. He was the RUC presence at the press conference following the shooting dead of eight IRA men at Loughgall in a 1987 ambush by the SAS. That would probably have made them high profile targets as revenge for Loughgall.

Which makes their conduct rather "laissez-faire" as Gerry Adams said, as they ensured that any information leak, collusion or otherwise, placed themselves at great risk. It is notable how some elements in the media are today implying that there is something odd in Adams saying this, when the dogs on the street knew this.

Lemming

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Which makes their conduct rather "laissez-faire" as Gerry Adams said, as they ensured that any information leak, collusion or otherwise, placed themselves at great risk. It is notable how some elements in the media are today implying that there is something odd in Adams saying this, when the dogs on the street knew this.

"She was asking to be raped by wearing that skirt your honour" ... that's all that what Adams has said has amounted to. He would have been better to have kept his mouth shut than to blame the victims for having someone else murder them. Yes, they may have made a mistake in setting patterns, but it wasn't they that choose to point the gun & pull the trigger that killed them.

That members of the Gardai conspired with terrorist scum to commit acts of murder does not surprise me, any more than members of the RUC may have conspired with terrorist scum to commit acts of murder.

But what I find absolutely galling, is that a) senior echelons of the Gardai either did nothing, or worse, tried to supress information, when it was brought to their attention, and b) the Gardai were less than forthcoming in their cooperation with the tribunal. That, to me, carries a lot more weight when accusations of collusion abound, than any details of what a rank & file member of the Gardai did or did not do.

Mr.Micro

Lemming wrote: »

That members of the Gardai conspired with terrorist scum to commit acts of murder does not surprise me, any more than members of the RUC may have conspired with terrorist scum to commit acts of murder.

But what I find absolutely galling, is that a) senior echelons of the Gardai either did nothing, or worse, tried to supress information, when it was brought to their attention, and b) the Gardai were less than forthcoming in their cooperation with the tribunal. That, to me, carries a lot more weight when accusations of collusion abound, than any details of what a rank & file member of the Gardai did or did not do.

It appears that the Gardai bury their heads in the sand when it comes to any investigations into their behaviour. Too much of a closed shop attitude. We now have the Garda Ombudsman, a step forward, but still it's Garda investigating Garda. So conflicts of interests. A long way to go IMO, to make the Gardai more transparent let alone accountable.

Can'tseeme

Lemming wrote: »

But what I find absolutely galling, is that a) senior echelons of the Gardai either did nothing, or worse, tried to supress information, when it was brought to their attention, and b) the Gardai were less than forthcoming in their cooperation with the tribunal. That, to me, carries a lot more weight when accusations of collusion abound, than any details of what a rank & file member of the Gardai did or did not do.

Collusion, cover up and supressing information is not surprising given that policing institutions are powerful organisations. Just look at your own South Yorkshire Police and the cover up and collusion over the Hillsborough disaster.

New accountability measures and strong policing boards is the way forward to keep the behaviour of these powerful institutions in check Lemming. That's what had to be done in the north of Ireland due to the corrupted behaviour of the RUC.

FTA69

There was always the odd Guard who helped the IRA for one reason or another, whether out of coercion or sympathy or a million and one other reasons. Personally I'm unsure as to how that's a major surprise for anyone, especially considering many cops would come from rural, nationalist backgrounds themselves. The major question is whether there was collusion with the IRA was actual state policy at this time and it's clear to all and sundry that there wasn't.

The reason I'm sceptical about the publicity around this case is because some people are using it to try and portray a false equivalency between this and British collusion with Loyalists; "errah sure we will at it lads, move on." The key difference is that collusion in the north was a widespread activity and also conducted and administrated by bodies that answered directly to the British establishment. Needless to say, the British government isn't too keen on admitting that it sponsored death squads to murder their own citizens.

Like all victims of the conflict, we can have a degree of sympathy for the men and their families. But we should have no tolerance for the likes of David Ford who seeks to use this case for political capital and to suggest collusion with Loyalists was a minor occurrence.

ardmacha

"She was asking to be raped by wearing that skirt your honour" ... that's all that what Adams has said has amounted to. He would have been better to have kept his mouth shut than to blame the victims for having someone else murder them

It is not at all akin to rape, which is clearly wrong. Whether you approve of British forces occupying part of Ireland is a political viewpoint, but their actions in forcing themselves on their colonies does have something in common with rape.

Yes, they may have made a mistake in setting patterns, but it wasn't they that choose to point the gun & pull the trigger that killed them.

They chose to join an armed organisation that another armed organisation wanted to shoot at. This being the case a certain circumspection was appropriate. As there was no such circumspection then no high level Garda collusion was needed.

Lemming

FTA69 wrote: »

There was always the odd Guard who helped the IRA for one reason or another, whether out of coercion or sympathy or a million and one other reasons. Personally I'm unsure as to how that's a major surprise for anyone, especially considering many cops would come from rural, nationalist backgrounds themselves. The major question is whether there was collusion with the IRA was actual state policy at this time and it's clear to all and sundry that there wasn't.

The reason I'm sceptical about the publicity around this case is because some people are using it to try and portray a false equivalency between this and British collusion with Loyalists; "errah sure we will at it lads, move on." The key difference is that collusion in the north was a widespread activity and also conducted and administrated by bodies that answered directly to the British establishment. Needless to say, the British government isn't too keen on admitting that it sponsored death squads to murder their own citizens.

Like all victims of the conflict, we can have a degree of sympathy for the men and their families. But we should have no tolerance for the likes of David Ford who seeks to use this case for political capital and to suggest collusion with Loyalists was a minor occurrence.

This thread is not about RUC or British state collusion and to try and portray this as some sort of zero-sum game is absolute dishonesty. It's either acceptable that members of the Gardai had a close hand in two men being murdered whilst they represented the police of a neighboring foreign state on matters relevant to both jurisdictions, or it is not acceptable.

As for state policy, you'll find nothing on paper nor do I think anyone would suggest it was even unofficial policy. But with the highest echelons of the Gardai choosing to look the other way - either out of naively wishing the matter to go away, incompetence, or at worst tacit approval - sends a very negative impression on how the state choose to deal with such issues.

Further, what sort of message do you think it serves to fostering cooperation between the PSNI and the Gardai today?

ardmacha

Further, what sort of message do you think it serves to fostering cooperation between the PSNI and the Gardai today?

I would say that this episode has as much relevance to today as the gun battle with the B Specials in Clones in 1922.

FTA69

Lemming wrote: »

This thread is not about RUC or British state collusion

I know it's not, but this issue for years has been referenced as an insinuation that British collusion with Loyalists (which was state policy) was somehow a natural process as "the guards were at it as well." Already we are seeing some politicians trying to peddle this line and using this case to do so. This broader debate wasn't instigated on this thread like, so crying whataboutery is a bit silly.

and to try and portray this as some sort of zero-sum game is absolute dishonesty

I didn't do that at all.

It's either acceptable that members of the Gardai had a close hand in two men being murdered whilst they represented the police of a neighboring foreign state on matters relevant to both jurisdictions, or it is not acceptable.

Who said it was acceptable? I simply said it was a case of the IRA being tipped off by a guard, and wondered how this was such a massive surprise that the IRA may have had contacts within certain cops?

Further, what sort of message do you think it serves to fostering cooperation between the PSNI and the Gardai today?

Couldn't care less to be honest, I've no time for any of them.

Lemming

ardmacha wrote: »

I would say that this episode has as much relevance to today as the gun battle with the B Specials in Clones in 1922.

I would say it's very much still relevant since the same culture would still appear to exist within the Gardai given how reluctant they were to cooperate with the tribunal in the first place. The whole subject and the Gardai's reaction to it says - to any visiting member of a foreign police force - that the Gardai are not above refusing or being unwilling to act on intelligence of credible threats to those visiting officers lives.

Karl Stein

Lemming wrote: »

"She was asking to be raped by wearing that skirt your honour" ... that's all that what Adams has said has amounted to.

Wrong.

These were RUC officers who joined a police force with a history of beating and killing Catholics and colluding with loyalist murder gangs - they'd have been fully aware that they were targets of the PIRA in a time of conflict.

You do have to wonder why they weren't given an escort to the border by armed Gardai or why they didn't travel in an unmarked armoured car on circuitous routes.

FTA69

Lemming wrote: »

"She was asking to be raped by wearing that skirt your honour" ...

Ha, I missed this above. So are you actually comparing rape victims with senior armed police officers who were fairly prominent protagonists in a political conflict?

ardmacha

that the Gardai are not above refusing or being unwilling to act on intelligence of credible threats to those visiting officers lives.

The officers themselves did not act very effectively on credible threats to their own lives!

Lemming

FTA69 wrote: »

Ha, I missed this above. So are you actually comparing rape victims with senior armed police officers who were fairly prominent protagonists in a political conflict?

Christ on a f*cking stick; no. You know exactly what I was referring to by that euphemism. You are playing dishonest games now FTA69, and I should not need to spell out what the above euphemism relates to. But just to be clear; ye olde predictable "blame the victim" routine.

FTA69

I've never liked that analogy to be honest. Also I wouldn't compare two armed cops who were participants in a conflict to innocent victims. They weren't civilians and they knew fully the risks of their position.

oscarBravo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We now have the Garda Ombudsman, a step forward, but still it's Garda investigating Garda.

The GSOC isn't part of AGS; "Garda investigating Garda" is completely inaccurate.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

There was always the odd Guard who helped the IRA for one reason or another, whether out of coercion or sympathy or a million and one other reasons. Personally I'm unsure as to how that's a major surprise for anyone, especially considering many cops would come from rural, nationalist backgrounds themselves. The major question is whether there was collusion with the IRA was actual state policy at this time and it's clear to all and sundry that there wasn't.

The reason I'm sceptical about the publicity around this case is because some people are using it to try and portray a false equivalency between this and British collusion with Loyalists; "errah sure we will at it lads, move on." The key difference is that collusion in the north was a widespread activity and also conducted and administrated by bodies that answered directly to the British establishment. Needless to say, the British government isn't too keen on admitting that it sponsored death squads to murder their own citizens.

I'm surprised people are surprised, for the very reason you say.

The IRA had no problem killing anyone who got in their way, so who can blame a.guard in a monaghan village not wanting to get involved. It wasn't their fight after all.

The fact that the eventual Garda commissioner appears to have taken this view is disturbing. It begs the question though, who else was turning a blind eye and when does doing nothing become virtual collusion.

Like all victims of the conflict, we can have a degree of sympathy for the men and their families. But we should have no tolerance for the likes of David Ford who seeks to use this case for political capital and to suggest collusion with Loyalists was a minor occurrence.

Yeah, making political capital out of collusion, what sort.of toe rag.would.do that?

FTA69

Yeah, making political capital out of collusion, what sort.of toe rag.would.do that?

Pointing out that collusion took place and that the British are lying through their teeth about the issue isn't making "political capital". It's simply the right thing to do.

David Ford pretending it never happened and using the Buchanan case in order to bolster that fallacy most certainly is making political conflict. And is also the morally wrong thing to do.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Pointing out that collusion took place and that the British are lying through their teeth about the issue isn't making "political capital". It's simply the right thing to do.

David Ford pretending it never happened and using the Buchanan case in order to bolster that fallacy most certainly is making political conflict. And is also the morally wrong thing to do.

The right thing to do would be to highlight both the murders and lives saved by the likes of Brian Nelson, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Mr.Micro

oscarBravo wrote: »

The GSOC isn't part of AGS; "Garda investigating Garda" is completely inaccurate.

It's not completely inaccurate. As far as I can see the GSOC can do it alone or allow the Gardai to do an investigation. It's not actually clear to me what type of people at the GSOC are investigators. Are they ex Garda, and now civilians? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/investigation.htm#SupervisedGardaInv

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The right thing to do would be to highlight both the murders and lives saved by the likes of Brian Nelson, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Oh give me a break. Nelson's role wasn't to "save lives" but to streamline the UDA's ability to kill people in the interests of the British state.

oscarBravo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It's not actually clear to me what type of people at the GSOC are investigators. Are they ex Garda, and now civilians? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

You're the one who claimed that the GSOC is "Garda investigating Garda".

BFDCH.

not sure of it's been posted. if you have ten minutes or so have a read of this

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:John_Weir_Affidavit

it's a confession by an RUC member about the activities of loyalists in the border counties-if you don't have ten minutes, do a quick 'control f' with breen in the search box to see his involvement.

Mr.Micro

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're the one who claimed that the GSOC is "Garda investigating Garda".

My point being that the Gardai appear to do the investigations, not the GSOC in many cases, so my point stands as far as I can see.


http://pascaldolan.com/index_files/Page354.htm

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Oh give me a break. Nelson's role wasn't to "save lives" but to streamline the UDA's ability to kill people in the interests of the British state.

Ok, if you say so.

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

not sure of it's been posted. if you have ten minutes or so have a read of this

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:John_Weir_Affidavit

it's a confession by an RUC member about the activities of loyalists in the border counties-if you don't have ten minutes, do a quick 'control f' with breen in the search box to see his involvement.

So he deserved to die and the Guards were doing us all a favour?

Is that what you're saying?

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So he deserved to die and the Guards were doing us all a favour?

Is that what you're saying?

Those are your words, if that's the conclusion you came to fair enough, although I don't think the guards were doing you a favor though, given your posts.

IMO, killing him and his ilk earlier would have saved a lot of innocent Irish lives, and like the drive by shootings by the british army, their collusion with loyalists only served to escalate the conflict further.
I don't know about Buchanan.

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

Those are your words, if that's the conclusion you came to fair enough, although I don't think the guards were doing you a favor though, given your posts.

IMO, killing him and his ilk earlier would have saved a lot of innocent Irish lives, and like the drive by shootings by the british army, their collusion with loyalists only served to escalate the conflict further.
I don't know about Buchanan.

So basically you are just engaging in whataboutery and deflection.

The IRA killed.these men for one reason and one reason only.

Because they could.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So he deserved to die and the Guards were doing us all a favour?

The guy was an RUC officer and was colluding with loyalists according to Weir.

Let's turn this on its head. If the Garda who was colluding with the IRA was executed by the UVF would you consider it 'fair game' and 'living and dying by the sword'?

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So basically you are just engaging in whataboutery and deflection.

The IRA killed.these men for one reason and one reason only.

Because they could.

What's your point caller? are you saying the IRA got lucky in who they killed; they just happened to deserve it and that they would've killed any member of the establishment that was at war with a section of the community?
do you think they should've continued to support the murder of innocent Irish people and then went on living on the pension provided by the UK tax payer?

Scofflaw

Posts on both sides here are veering dangerously close to "celebrating violence", which is unacceptable, as per the Forum Charter.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So basically you are just engaging in whataboutery and deflection.

The IRA killed.these men for one reason and one reason only.

Because they could.

Hardly. They were high ranking members of a force in which they were engaged in a protracted violent struggle.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Hardly. They were high ranking members of a force in which they were engaged in a protracted violent struggle.

They were policemen, not soldiers. Nobody had any right to murder them because they enforced the law.