EU judgement on IRA deaths

Jelvon

Quite frankly I find the idea that the British government should have to pay out 10,000 pounds to each of the families of the 10 dead IRA men offensive and disturbing. While the EU hasn’t given judgement on the actual deaths at Loughgall rather on the proceedings regarding their cases it still exasperates me that the human rights of killers, caught in the act of carrying out murder, be protected while they try and violate the human rights of others. How can a government protect us from criminals if it cannot stop them without fear of legal proceedings?

Shinji

I don't know the full facts behind this, I have to admit; but isn't the compensation to the families as a result of irregularities in the proceedings, rather than actual compensations for the deaths?

I do agree though, it sends entirely the wrong message, and quite possibly sets a very unfortunate precedent.

[This message has been edited by Shinji (edited 05-05-2001).]

bugler

I can see how this is hard to swallow for many, and not knowing the exact circumstances(does anyone?) on the loughgall incident i won't pass comment on it.
However the cases of the others merit further thought.

Three unarmed members of the IRA, were shot dead by officers of the RUC's special support unit in 1982. The RUC officers said they fired at their car after it crashed through a checkpoint. However, forensic tests suggested they had been shot after the car stopped. The police fired 109 rounds.

Pearse Jordan was shot in the back by an RUC officer on the Falls Road in 1992 - the last recorded killing in the Troubles by a member of the security forces. He was travelling in a stolen car which was rammed by an RUC car. According to witnesses, police opened fire without warning as Jordan got out of the car in a state of shock. Witnesses were not sought by the police but offered to provide evidence after one approached the committee on the administration of justice.

Ans yes Shinji,the awards are due to the court finding that the UK governemnt "failed to conduct the proper investigation into the deaths, thus violating Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

The court didn't find the deaths lawful,nor unlawful,they declined to pass judgement on that,saying it was a matter more suited to a UK court.

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 05-05-2001).]

amp

Just because the IRA used despicably ruthless methods to kill innocent as well as so-called targets doesn't mean that the UK government should be allowed do the same. If so then the right to a fair trial goes out the window.

If you look Loughgall in the context of a military battle then killing them all (and one innocent bystander) was probably not the best way to proceed. Why didn't the RUC arrest them on the way to Loughgall?

Plus, even in an actual war, soldiers have rights (Geneva convention). If SAS had made an attempt to capture rather than kill the IRA unit, would they then have been justified in killing those captured men?

The state has no right to go round killing people no matter how guilty they know or perceive they know those people to be.

And if they cover up the investigation of those deaths afterwards then they need to be punished.

---

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage

bugler

The failure of Northern security forces to to prevent a terrorist action rather than to rack up kills or get some success(in a military sense)out of it is fairly common stuff in the Norths history.

Lying in wait at arms dumps discovered then engaging those who come along to it rather than sealing it off springs to mind.(In one case an innocent teenager was shot at an IRA arms dump,he was after stumbling on it and the surveying Army forces shot him,I'll try and find the background...)

Also,booby-trapping IRA bombs so they detonate when the bombers come back to prime it...theres many methods and cases.Its all to do with the British governments disastrous belief that they could defeat the IRA by force alone,and kill off their numbers, and though the years of many such incidents escape me, Maggie Thatcher *groan* probably was the leader for many.Only a few years ago an unarmed dissident republican was shot dead in London,you may have seen it on Panorama,O'Neill was his name I think. Basically he and other active members had been under surveillance for some time and a massive wealth of evidence was compiled against them.The police had even taken the firing pins out of the AK-47's they had been holding in a lock-up garage,and knew the full plans of the bombing operation.However,instead of arresting them on the street/in the open/in daylight/ one by one, one of the Mets units, SO19 I think, stormed their hotel room,firing gas in and basically botching it up,shooting and killing O'Neill as he tried to surrender.

The ultimate question is basically about attitude,is it wrong to shoot someone who has just murdered/attempted to murder others?What if they are attempting to give up or if you could probaby take them alive? I know what I think,it would seem however that the British Army hold a different view.This decision was always going to open wounds,understandably so, but perhaps the fact that the British government didn't conduct appropriate investigations is the key factor here. No smoke without fire?

bugler

And Jelv you have answered your own questions.The awards are as a result of no proper inquests or investigations being held, not because the men were killed.So there is no reason for you to be offended or disturbed really.

WhiteWashMan

i know, its all terrible the way those poor IRA boys were killed.
well, isnt it a shame the SAS werent there to kill the fukkers at omagh...

bugler

Well thats a surprising post.

/me groans.

Coyote

Two wrongs do not make a right
and thats it
if you go round killing people instead of arresting people then there not better then the IRA or any other group.

Coyote

Jelvon

Yes as stated in my first post, the EU court found the government guilty under article 2 however what it all amounts to is free propaganda for the IRA and compensation for murders. A man from our town (Clones) was one of the men shot at Loughgall. While my memory of what I have heard is sketchy here is a rough account of the accident at Loughgall: 8 IRA men had placed semtex in the front bucket of a JCB and were driving it into the RUC barracks at Loughgall, the SAS knew about this, they position themselves behind the JCB and let the JCB enter the barracks, the ra men caught sight of the SAS and opened fire , the SAS returned fire and the 8 ra boys went down. I have to admit the SAS were a wee bit heavily handed but if they were shot at first what was wrong with returning fire? The IRA wants to be treated as POWs in prison but when it comes to fire fights they want to be treated as normal criminals?

Excelsior

I'm riled up!
Yeah lets try vainly to emulate the sh.it stirring that we see done to better effect by the likes of Zero and Bubbles.
Or will we end up just ruining another good thread with pointless insincere questions?

The government has a responsibility to uphold their laws. They didn't here. I understand that IRA/Sinn Fein are quite litiguous at this stage and that it could make a mockery of our attempts at reconcialition, but in this case I don't think there is that big a problem.

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bugler:
Well thats a surprising post.

/me groans.</font>

why do you say that?
im mearly pointing out the otherside of the coin....
i would say the same about loyalists as well by the way, its not a religion thing.
its a terrorist thing.
everything is black and white with you isnt it bugler?

bugler

Nope far from it.

I was referring to your self-confessed penchant for making 'controversial' posts, nothing to do with your religion.


[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 06-05-2001).]

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bugler:
Nope far from it.

I was referring to your self-confessed penchant for making 'controversial' posts, nothing to do with your religion.


[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 06-05-2001).]</font>

youre right, but that doesnt mean you cant come back with an argument. if i posted because thats what i thought, would that make a difference?
sometimes i wonder if you have anything interesting to say, apart from scottish football is good....which it isnt...

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Excelsior:
I'm riled up!
Yeah lets try vainly to emulate the sh.it stirring that we see done to better effect by the likes of Zero and Bubbles.
Or will we end up just ruining another good thread with pointless insincere questions?

The government has a responsibility to uphold their laws. They didn't here. I understand that IRA/Sinn Fein are quite litiguous at this stage and that it could make a mockery of our attempts at reconcialition, but in this case I don't think there is that big a problem.

</font>

sorry, and as for your ****e, god im not even bothered with you. zero and bubbles post to stir crap, i mearly post to get discussion going...

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bugler:
Well thats a surprising post.

/me groans.</font>

Wonder all you like.If I have to explain to you whats wrong with killing people caught in the act of committing a crime(however serious) then your unlikely to be won over.

Sometimes I wonder exactly what the criteria for being a moderator on these boards are.

Magwitch

The judgement was for right or wrong, was correct.

We live in a democracy that is supposed to respect human rights. If someone kills or rapes we do not do the same to them (Iran might but we are not Iran). The judgements findings meant the the State killed people as part of an action which should only take place in war. The British government has never admitted a "war" existed, because that would legitimise the IRA as an Army not a terrorist group.

There has never been a state of war in Northern Ireland that could be recognised. Governments cannot go around having police or army kill individuals, no matter what they have done. Due process was not followed. If it is not followed the state is no better then the terrorists it claims to be fighting. Due process explains to the judiciary (the publics legal protectors) what happened. Failing to investigate circumvented the legal process and in effect allowed the police to continue without having to explain to anyone (in south america they are called death squads).

The regular army/police may have been correct in the initial action they took, but that does not mean democracy is suspended in certain areas of a state.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

bugler

WWman,would you call any of your posts on this thread arguing a point?!

Considering the only other "exchange" we have had was on the sports board on the Celtic topic(which by the way i thought was very courteous and not at all flamey, but it would seem you didn't see it that way) I'm mystified as to your assertion that I have a problem with you.

Unless you want to count my disagreement with your endorsement of criminals being tortured on TV for viewers to watch? I think you will find that it is I who has argued your 'points'.

Where I'm from (Shannon ), attempting to stir controversy,or to use a more down to earth word-sh*t, is not considered arguing a point.

My question on the criteria was based on the fact that I wouldn't expect a moderator to be chosen for his willingness to sh*t-stir or encourage emotive/flaming threads, no matter how said moderator might dress it up as an attempt to 'provoke discussion'.Especially not on an entirely serious thread,which may already be emotive for some.

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bugler:

Sometimes I wonder exactly what the criteria for being a moderator on these boards are.</font>

why dont you ask on the admin board. im sure they will be delighted to tell you. you may mention my name as well if you like
im not too sure why, but you really do seem to have a problem with me arguing your points..
is it something in perticular?

WhiteWashMan

im sure i was chosen because i am a good moderator. this does not mean i cant discuss, argue, tell jokes, have fun, ****-stir, be pedantic, be obnoxious, be patronising, or generally just give my own opinion on another board....
like i said, if you have a problem, take it up with devore or cloud.....

amp

User bugler you have generated an invalid thought process. Please proceed to the Admin board for "brain right-thinking modification"

Attempts to fight the power are futile.

Have a nice day.

---

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage