Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady

After yesterday's shennanigans, yet again, in the Dáil, has the time come when FF, FG, Labour and all other parties and independents, should be looking to ways to bring closure to what happened during the recent conflict/war that involved everybody(even those who ignored it) on this island and many beyond it, instead of single issues like the one currently in the news.

It seems to me that again and again and again there are those who only want to remember selective things that happened. Is Adams right when he says:

“If the Taoiseach and Micheál Martin are interested in healing the legacy of the past for all families, including the Stacks, the Finucane’s, the families of the Dublin Monaghan bombs and hundreds more, then they could begin by putting in place an International based independent truth recovery process,”

Chips Lovell

Given the IRA's seeming determination to play games with the Stack family and prolong their grief, I wouldn't be in any way confident that Brian Stack's murderers will be brought to justice, truth commission or no truth commission.

FrancieBrady

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Given the IRA's seeming determination to play games with the Stack family and prolong their grief, I wouldn't be in any way confident that Brian Stack's murderers will be brought to justice, truth commission or no truth commission.

Not really interested in thrashing out the specifics of the case per se. Therein lies strife.

Is it time to set some system up that addresses all remaining issues.
Call everybody's bluff, so to speak.

This approach, the selective one, the political point scoring one, has abjectly failed in producing the results that people claimed they are being raised for, a concern for victims and their families.

Chips Lovell

I think Adams is resorting to whataboutery to deflect from the issue, but I don't really see what relevance it has. It's like saying one murder in the Kinahan-Hutch feud shouldn't be prosecuted until all the murders are solved.

FrancieBrady

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think Adams is resorting to whataboutery to deflect from the issue, but I don't really see what relevance it has. It's like saying one murder in the Kinahan-Hutch feud shouldn't be prosecuted until all the murders are solved.

If the Gardai were selectively prosecuting murders would you have a problem?
Because it seems to me that is what some want to see happening here.

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

I am not seeing why there is resistance to setting up a process that sees all legacy issues dealt with. Because what is currently happening is getting nowhere.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Gardai were selectively prosecuting murders would you have a problem?
Because it seems to me that is what some want to see happening here.

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

I am not seeing why there is resistance to setting up a process that sees all legacy issues dealt with. Because what is currently happening is getting nowhere.

Because SF and the IRA cannot be trusted to participate fully, frankly and honestly. In fact everything in their make up suggests that while they'll expect everyone else to engage in frank disclosure they will weasel out of their obligations......

......in this particular instance Adams seems to think the fact that the killers were 'disciplined' is somehow a positive.....it's just another example of the mask slipping where they think that somehow the IRA and their nutting squad were a legitimate law and order force.......

.......if a gangland figure came out with the equivalent of "nothing to see here because we've disciplined one of our associates" would it be acceptable?

It shouldn't be acceptable just because the person who said, said it in the Dail.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Because SF and the IRA cannot be trusted to participate fully, frankly and honestly. In fact everything in their make up suggests that while they'll expect everyone else to engage in frank disclosure they will weasel out of their obligations......

The facts don't support that at all. Who in SF has run from questioning by the police or Gardai?

Again and again we have people like Regina Doherty and Michael Martin making sensational claims about SF involvement in criminality and it all comes to nothing.
The weight of evidence would suggest that there is nothing there.

The IRA have said they would participate in a T&R type process. They participated in the recovery of the disappeared to the satisfaction of the ICLVR, what gives you the impression they wouldn't follow through in a T&R process? And why not call their bluff, what does anyone have to lose by so doing? This selective way is getting nowhere, plenty of proof of that, no?

The point is, selective outrage about what happened and selective blame (which is what is happening in political stunts like the latest one) will not help victims one bit.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The facts don't support that at all. Who in SF has run from questioning by the police or Gardai?

Again and again we have people like Regina Doherty and Michael Martin making sensational claims about SF involvement in criminality and it all comes to nothing.
The weight of evidence would suggest that there is nothing there.

The IRA have said they would participate in a T&R type process. They participated in the recovery of the disappeared to the satisfaction of the ICLVR, what gives you the impression they wouldn't follow through in a T&R process? And why not call their bluff, what does anyone have to lose by so doing? This selective way is getting nowhere, plenty of proof of that, no?

The point is, selective outrage about what happened and selective blame (which is what is happening in political stunts like the latest one) will not help victims one bit.

on this issued - it seems Adams is the one doing the running.

I'm sure that SF and the IRA have said they would participate in a T&R process (even though they weren't always in favour of one).......the point is no one trusts them to be truthful.......you see every time one of their reps opens their mouth how hung up on semantics they are so I reckon - and it's just my opinion - they'd have completely different definition of truths to be applied differentially to the different groups who might participate.

AlanG

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

There was no war between the IRA and the Irish State. SF love to put the killing of Security Officials in the South down to a war but then they should admit they were at war with the Republic.

Should every solider in a war be allowed kill who they want in their homeland because they are involved in a war in a different place.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

on this issued - it seems Adams is the one doing the running.

I'm sure that SF and the IRA have said they would participate in a T&R process (even though they weren't always in favour of one).......the point is no one trusts them to be truthful.......you see every time one of their reps opens their mouth how hung up on semantics they are so I reckon - and it's just my opinion - they'd have completely different definition of truths to be applied differentially to the different groups who might participate.

Even if people find out who carried out acts that saw their family members killed or injured? Quantifying the results would be very very easy. It's an 'either or' question. There are no fuzzy lines acceptable imo.

As I said, you will find out very quickly if SF and the IRA are sincere, and how sincere all other parties to a T&R process are too.

None of these now tiresome politically selective stunts (I have stopped even reading about them to be honest) in the Dáil have produced one positive result for victims, because the issue is clear. Nobody in the IRA is going to enter into a one-sided retribution programme, nor is anybody on the British side, Unionist side or the Irish government side.

I think it is time to call FF FG's and other's bluff on this tbh. Do you want the truth and the whole truth or not.

FrancieBrady

AlanG wrote: »

There was no war between the IRA and the Irish State. SF love to put the killing of Security Officials in the South down to a war but then they should admit they were at war with the Republic.

Should every solider in a war be allowed kill who they want in their homeland because they are involved in a war in a different place.

The security forces in the south, at the behest of the Irish government involved themselves in the war/conflict, acting on the side of the British, securing the border, arresting and intimidating people involved in the conflict/war.(the heavy gang, censorship etc.)

There was spillover as a result of that, that is the reality of what happened, ignore it if you want, it isn't going to solve anything.

LordSutch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

AlanG wrote: »

There was no war between the IRA and the Irish State. SF love to put the killing of Security Officials in the South down to a war but then they should admit they were at war with the Republic.

Should every solider in a war be allowed kill who they want in their homeland because they are involved in a war in a different place.

The security forces in the south, at the behest of the Irish government involved themselves in the war/conflict, acting on the side of the British, securing the border, arresting and intimidating people involved in the conflict/war.(the heavy gang, censorship etc.)

There was spillover as a result of that, that is the reality of what happened, ignore it if you want, it isn't going to solve anything.

The security forces & Governments on both sides of the border were fighting the Provo's, that goes without saying. The Provo's were everybody's enemy at the time of the Troubles, and this needs to be said.

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

The security forces & Governments on both sides of the border were fighting the Provo's, that goes without saying. The Provo's were everybody's enemy at the time of the Troubles, and this needs to be said.

I am not sure why this pious lie is allowed to be told on a politics forum.

They simply and factually were not the 'enemies of everybody' at any time.
The IRA were supported by many people and by their political wing, all through the troubles.
That political wing is now the largest political party on this island and has many former unrepentant members of the IRA as representatives of the people among it's ranks.

It is a blatant lie to say they were enemies of ALL the people. So can you stop please?

LordSutch

They were our enemies (The Irish people) of that there can be no doubt. Bank robberies, extortion, kidnapping, murders, torture, disappearances, knee cappings . . .

Their list of crimes against us is endless.

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

They were our enemies (The Irish people) of that there can be no doubt. Bank robberies, extortion, kidnapping, murders, torture, disappearances, knee cappings . . .

The list is endless.

They weren't.
I could do you a list of the activities of others in the conflict/war if you want?

I wouldn't be pious and silly enough to claim that the British were the 'enemies of the Irish people' or Loyalists were' because both had plenty of support among Irish people north and south.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Gardai were selectively prosecuting murders would you have a problem?
Because it seems to me that is what some want to see happening here.

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

I am not seeing why there is resistance to setting up a process that sees all legacy issues dealt with. Because what is currently happening is getting nowhere.

The truth commission is a complete red herring in respect of the Stack murder (and the Jerry McCabe case).

What Sinn Fein/IRA are looking for in a truth commission is a process that ensures that its members can never be prosecuted for crimes such as murder of gardai and prison officers, rape of young women, sexual abuse, punishment beatings, drug dealing, disappearances, kangaroo courts, money laundering, tax evasion, armed robbery, theft and fraud that had absolutely nothing to do with the "Troubles"

Sure, the rest of us might be happy with a truth commission that dealt with some of the things that happened, but we don't want to see SF/IRA members (and after yesterday in the Dail, we can once again see them as the same organisation) escape justice for the crimes I have mentioned. We also know that SF/IRA would milk such a process for publicity and gloss over their misdeeds.

Thanks but no thanks for that idea.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

The truth commission is a complete red herring in respect of the Stack murder (and the Jerry McCabe case).

What Sinn Fein/IRA are looking for in a truth commission is a process that ensures that its members can never be prosecuted for crimes such as murder of gardai and prison officers, rape of young women, sexual abuse, punishment beatings, drug dealing, disappearances, kangaroo courts, money laundering, tax evasion, armed robbery, theft and fraud that had absolutely nothing to do with the "Troubles"

Sure, the rest of us might be happy with a truth commission that dealt with some of the things that happened, but we don't want to see SF/IRA members (and after yesterday in the Dail, we can once again see them as the same organisation) escape justice for the crimes I have mentioned. We also know that SF/IRA would milk such a process for publicity and gloss over their misdeeds.

Thanks but no thanks for that idea.

There has been and most likely will never be prosecution's.
If your concern is victims and families then you are basically playing circus with them if you support yesterdays and today's shennanagins. Or the now forgotten Cahill case, an alleged rapist is still walking free because of the same political grandstanding nonsense.

JPCN1

LordSutch wrote: »

The security forces & Governments on both sides of the border were fighting the Provo's, that goes without saying. The Provo's were everybody's enemy at the time of the Troubles, and this needs to be said.

And they still are. Ask the McCartney or Quinn families.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Even if people find out who carried out acts that saw their family members killed or injured? Quantifying the results would be very very easy. It's an 'either or' question. There are no fuzzy lines acceptable imo.

As I said, you will find out very quickly if SF and the IRA are sincere, and how sincere all other parties to a T&R process are too.

None of these now tiresome politically selective stunts (I have stopped even reading about them to be honest) in the Dáil have produced one positive result for victims, because the issue is clear. Nobody in the IRA is going to enter into a one-sided retribution programme, nor is anybody on the British side, Unionist side or the Irish government side.

I think it is time to call FF FG's and other's bluff on this tbh. Do you want the truth and the whole truth or not.

The simple fact is SF have a serious credibility problem.

Only a few, and mostly those indoctrinated into SF, think that SF will actually abide by the standards they would expect other actors in the conflict to honour.

They are the arch opportunists of Irish politics and because of that no one expects they will be out to do anything except serve their own warped agenda.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

The simple fact is SF have a serious credibility problem.

Only a few, and mostly those indoctrinated into SF, think that SF will actually abide by the standards they would expect other actors in the conflict to honour.

They are the arch opportunists of Irish politics and because of that no one expects they will be out to do anything except serve their own warped agenda.

Time and again the same people have made allegations and a cohort believed them even though there hasn't been anything to substantiate.
The 'burden of proof' is met for this cohort simply because the allegations are loud and repeated.
Yet SF have the credibility issues? ..

A T&R commission would of course very quickly establish the bona fides of all involved. But of course there is now cheap political capital to be made if victims get closure. Ask any of the Dublin Monaghan victims families about that!

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Time and again the same people have made allegations and a cohort believed them even though there hasn't been anything to substantiate.
The 'burden of proof' is met for this cohort simply because the allegations are loud and repeated.
Yet SF have the credibility issues? ..

A T&R commission would of course very quickly establish the bona fides of all involved. But of course there is now cheap political capital to be made if victims get closure. Ask any of the Dublin Monaghan victims families about that!

Gerry Adams lied to a court or a TV programme about his knowledge of his brother's sexual abuse of Gerry's niece. He has had a credibility problem since that day.

Now please don't bring up why he wasn't charged with perjury, simple, he claimed he lied to the TV programme, which isn't a crime.

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This approach, the selective one, the political point scoring one, has abjectly failed in producing the results that people claimed they are being raised for, a concern for victims and their families.

They dont raise these issues out of concern for the victims and their families. Maybe a truth and reconciliation commission might be helpful for them or it might not be. But they are not the point of politicians raising this.

The point is that if a sitting TD had knowledge of or indirectly supported the killing of a gentleman who dedicated his life to service of the state, then it is something that the people who get to vote in these things ought to know.

So there are sound political reasons to get to the bottom of this.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Gerry Adams lied to a court or a TV programme about his knowledge of his brother's sexual abuse of Gerry's niece. He has had a credibility problem since that day.

Now please don't bring up why he wasn't charged with perjury, simple, he claimed he lied to the TV programme, which isn't a crime.

So, what you are saying in effect here, is closure and answers for a whole community of victims, hinges on whether Adams told the full truth to a TV programme?
That no matter what he says or does subsequent to this 'issue' (which nobody seems to think important enough to keep a recording of, as I have never seen this lie) you and the rest of the cohort have decided he is telling the truth about nothing? Despite the fact that no charges have ever been brought against following extensive examination of several allegations?

Step back and have a look at that and tell us again about 'credibility'.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They dont raise these issues out of concern for the victims and their families. Maybe a truth and reconciliation commission might be helpful for them or it might not be. But they are not the point of politicians raising this.

The point is that if a sitting TD had knowledge of or indirectly supported the killing of a gentleman who dedicated his life to service of the state, then it is something that the people who get to vote in these things ought to know.

So there are sound political reasons to get to the bottom of this.

At what point do you say to those making allegations, 'put up or shut up' though?
Are you saying that it is legitimate or even fair to hold up progress for all victims for what has been little more than tawdry political mud slinging.

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again and again we have people like Regina Doherty and Michael Martin making sensational claims about SF involvement in criminality and it all comes to nothing.
The weight of evidence would suggest that there is nothing there.

They participated in the recovery of the disappeared to the satisfaction of the ICLVR

How do, if you'll pardon the pun, reconcile these two propositions? If there was a weight of evidence suggesting no wrong doing on the part of Sinn Fein, how were they helpful in locating the bodies?

The point is, selective outrage about what happened and selective blame (which is what is happening in political stunts like the latest one) will not help victims one bit.

Again, the point is not to help the victims. The Irish State doesnt bother with unionist politicians who may have been involved in murder because those politicians are not running for election in this state. Hence, people need to know who SF really are. That so many people vote for them knowing all this is what is quite frightening.

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

At what point do you say to those making allegations, 'put up or shut up' though?
Are you saying that it is legitimate or even fair to hold up progress for all victims for what has been little more than tawdry political mud slinging.

They did put up. Austin Stack is on record denying that he gave the names to Gerry. So Gerry lied about how he got the names.

As to holding up progress, how does this hold up progress? Presumably any moves towards a truth and reconciliation process in the north are no more nor less advanced today than they were 3 days ago when the story broke. Maybe its holding it up because SF are saying that if we are going to be asking difficult questions without some convenient loyalists around to bash to take the focus off them that they arent going to participate?

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How do, if you'll pardon the pun, reconcile these two propositions? If there was a weight of evidence suggesting no wrong doing on the part of Sinn Fein, how were they helpful in locating the bodies?

SF had nothing to do with the disappeared. The IRA assisted as best they could in finding remains, as they said they would.

Again, the point is not to help the victims. The Irish State doesnt bother with unionist politicians who may have been involved in murder because those politicians are not running for election in this state. Hence, people need to know who SF really are. That so many people vote for them knowing all this is what is quite frightening.

That is just a cop out and an excuse. There was a conflict/war on this island involving everyone, including Ends and his party and Michael and his. The way they selectively forget this and then turn up for the reflected glory of how the state came about is hypocritical and frankly sickening.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They did put up. Austin Stack is on record denying that he gave the names to Gerry. So Gerry lied about how he got the names.

As to holding up progress, how does this hold up progress? Presumably any moves towards a truth and reconciliation process in the north are no more nor less advanced today than they were 3 days ago when the story broke. Maybe its holding it up because SF are saying that if we are going to be asking difficult questions without some convenient loyalists around to bash to take the focus off them that they arent going to participate?

Yeh, and Maria Cahill said xxxx and somebody else said he was chief of the IRA but funnily enough not a single shred of evidence capable of standing the test or scrutiny of a court.

Put all the allegations together and the lack of any concrete undenialable evidence and pretend it is a case against some unknown in Texas or somewhere you have no emotional stake. Would you even hesitate to ask questions about that anomaly? Even Al Capone was got with something concrete and provable.

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF had nothing to do with the disappeared. The IRA assisted as best they could in finding remains, as they said they would.

You just said earlier that SF assisted with the disappeared.

That is just a cop out and an excuse. There was a conflict/war on this island involving everyone, including Ends and his party and Michael and his. The way they selectively forget this and then turn up for the reflected glory of how the state came about is hypocritical and frankly sickening.

How is the murder of an Irish prison officer in the 80s connected to the war of independence? Could i rob a bank tomorrow and say i did it because the British once ruled Ireland?

johnnyskeleton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, and Maria Cahill said xxxx and somebody else said he was chief of the IRA but funnily enough not a single shred of evidence capable of standing the test or scrutiny of a court.

Put all the allegations together and the lack of any concrete undenialable evidence and pretend it is a case against some unknown in Texas or somewhere you have no emotional stake. Would you even hesitate to ask questions about that anomaly? Even Al Capone was got with something concrete and provable.

Its not a criminal trial. Allegations avout Bertie Ahearn were never proven to the criminal standard. Doesnt mean that we all have to ignore them.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You just said earlier that SF assisted with the disappeared.

you sure about that? See Post 7.

How is the murder of an Irish prison officer in the 80s connected to the war of independence? Could i rob a bank tomorrow and say i did it because the British once ruled Ireland?

No, you couldn't. The connection is 'selectivity'. Enda and Michael and fine moral upstanding politicians select what they want to be outraged about.