Irish history. Can someone verify this?

Hobbes

I'm in a private politics board on the US (it's like boards.ie one only with more vitrol :rolleyes: )

Anyway one of the posters claimed that the Irish also hush up stuff and cites that from the 1940s to the 1960s over 200 British citizens were inprisoned without trial by the Irish government.

I'm not aware of this? Does anyone know what he's talking about? The only thing I could think of is the POW's detained during WWII but that wouldn't account for the 1960's?

bonkey

Dont suppose he gave any context?

Personally, I think he's making it up, but I'd be interested in hearing more.

jc

Biffa Bacon

IRA members were interned during World War 2, but I don't know how long that continued after the end of the war. If some of them were from the North that would make them British citizens.

TwoShedsJackson

I somehow doubt the British Government would have let 200 of their citizens be detained without trial here over those decades - get some sources from whoever claims this, they're talking $hite.

Minime

A fary tale!:o

gandalf

As Biffa said the nearest event to what this guys says is the interment of IRA members during WW2.

Ask this chap to post up his proof, like pictures of people in cages like we can about his country and then we'll believe him.

Gandalf.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Even if we detained 200 British citezens during those years...(i have never heard bout this, and i read a lot of irish & brit history)....I doesnt justify americas treatment of prisoners...

At the versailles, did germany say that "oh we declared war on france cause it was the strategic thing to do, but Britian did the same thing to Russia in crimea, why did they get away with it"

america should cop on, and have some respect, or it will gain more enemies,

btw: you can kill a man but try and take his religion and you stir a world of hurt...USA beware

Zero

nah hobbes thats bullsh1t. that never happened

Von

Hobbes, allied air crews were returned to the UK while Germans were interned for the duration of the war. IRA men were interned up to the 60's and this forced them to abandon armed struggle in favour of marxist politics, until the crackdown on the civil rights movement.

The notion that Ireland could intern 200 brits is f**king ridiculous unless the american dude is all mixed up and thinks Irish people are british, therefore if we intern our own crowd, we're interning brits or something.

bonkey

Originally posted by Von
Hobbes, allied air crews were returned to the UK while Germans were interned for the duration of the war. IRA men were interned up to the 60's and this forced them to abandon armed struggle in favour of marxist politics, until the crackdown on the civil rights movement.

The notion that Ireland could intern 200 brits is f**king ridiculous unless the american dude is all mixed up and thinks Irish people are british, therefore if we intern our own crowd, we're interning brits or something.

Except that many of the IRA held until the 60s would have been British, due to the fact that they were from Northern Ireland and not the Republic. However, given that the UK had similar crackdown laws on terrorists at the time (IIRC), there wouldnt have been major problems internationally, as long as both sides remained in agreement over those who were interred.

Even in such cases, I think the comparison is flawed. Most people do not have a problem with the detention of the militants/terrorists in the US at present, but rather the conditions that they are allegedly being held in, and the fact that they may be tried in a closed court with no recourse to appeal.

I would be worried about the "detaining without trial" if the US uses this approach for any "terrorist related suspect", regardless of how they obtained the people. Hold the POWs from Afghanistan - fine, but not people like those that the Ethiopians handed over.

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Except that many of the IRA held until the 60s would have been British, due to the fact that they were from Northern Ireland and not the Republic.

They would almost certainly have been Irish citizens regardless. It's unlikely that an IRA member would choose a British passport over an Irish passport.
Anyway, this story == bollocks. What sources does he cite to back this up?

Hobbes

Actually he hasn't cited any. The politics forum due to the massive amount of flaming and attacks has a 2 post per thread limit a day (so I can't reply without getting a day ban) and he didn't reply to my private message.

*shrug*

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh

They would almost certainly have been Irish citizens regardless. It's unlikely that an IRA member would choose a British passport over an Irish passport.

So, by that logic, anyone living in the North of Ireland, who chose not to hold a British passport is not a British citizen? I think you'll find that the law disagrees with you.

If they had dual citizenship, then they are still at least as British as they are Irish. Which means that it is still correct to refer to them as British, despite what sensibilities of theirs you may be offending.

Whether or not they choose to hold one passport or the other (or neither) does not change their citizenship.

jc