'Castlerea Five' or 'Killers of Gda McCabe'

Re: C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

I find the use of the term "The Castlerea Five" offensive and call on B Ahern to cease using the term immediately.
Click to expand...
.....
I note that in the Dail yesterday Bertie Ahern has reverted to referring to these guys as "the people responsible for the killing of Det Garda Jerry McCabe".
Click to expand...


AJP

Do think B Ahern TD FF is a regular of AAM and has taken notice?

If he is, which contributer do you reckon he is?
 
Re: C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

Hi Natchessmen,

Posting Rule 16 Please respect the privacy of others
ajapale
 
Re: C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

OK, lets have a go at explaining why the 4 should be released. (Hope "4" is neutral enough terminology not to raise any hackles.)

Firstly, it is necessary to say that the killing of Gda McCabe and the serious injury done to his colleague Gda O'Sullivan was entirely wrong, unjustified and outside all acceptable limits of behaviour. Nobody is saying its ok to do those things.

However, the killing happened in a context. That context was the "Troubles" during which a lot of people did a lot of very evil acts. Lets just list some:
IRA: bombing of civilians/torture and killing of informers/killing of soldiers, police, prison officers, politicians, civilian security employees/robbery, racketeeting
UDA/UVF/UFF: sectarian assassination/torture of civilians
British Army/RUC: killing of civilians/torture and ill-treatment of detainees/shoot to kill aka deliberate use of lethal force/collusion with UDA,UVF,UFF
Unpleasant stuff. However, a peace process emerged, and it was agreed to by all the above parties plus many others including the Irish government. Remember, the purpose of the peace process was to bring all the bad stuff to an end. Not to assess responsibility, to hold to account, to punish, to visit retribution, to make amends but to bring it to an end. Realistically, the peace process could never have got off the ground without drawing a line under past atrocities. This means that an amnesty for participants was essential. I totally accept that this is difficult for the victims and particularly for those who lost loved ones. The painful truth is that their right to hold the perpetrators to account was subsumed to the greater good of achieving a peaceful solution. This truth is rarely articulated so bluntly but we voted overwhelmingly for it, north and south in the Good Friday referendum. Every political party and every significant strand of opinion in the country endorsed this position. While I can accept that this was done without thinking through the details and in a certain spirit of euphoria, the inescapable fact is that the agreement provided for a lot of people who were responsible for serious atrocities to be released. To argue against the release of the 4 would require that their offence was of a different order to the other murders, maimings and injuries inflicted on other victims by other offenders who did avail of the early release program. Realistically, it was no different. Not better, not worse than many other "qualifying" offences under the Good Friday Agreement. It doesn't in any sense morally excuse the offence, it just means it's covered by an overarching agreement to bring the violence to an end. Yes, its unfair to the family, but that's the price we decreed they should pay. Right or wrong.

IMHO, the critical mistake was made by the politicians who gave cheap assurances to the McCabe family, assurances that they knew were contrary to the Good friday agreement and wouldn't and couldn't stand the test of time.
 
Re: C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

Let them rot until their time is up and do not let them out before that.
 
Observer missing the plot

Observer sets out the facts well but she misses the plot. The GFA is not a moral imperative. It was a shabby surrender by civilised society to the forces of barbarism for the sake of peace in our time. It's only justification and the only justification for any of the shameful compromises made in our name is the practical one that we (or rather our Northern brethren) got a bit of peace.

The decision to release the C4 should be made on the same grounds, not whether we are morally or legally bound to do so, simply will it get us sufficient incremental peace in return. IMHO it would not. The residual violence is of the grubby subterranean greedy gangster variety and they don't give a damn about the C4.

That is why Michael McD's wriggle that "The C4 will never be released as he could not release them unless there was a total end to paramilitarism" is not a contradiction. There will never be such a total end and so the C4 will never be released. I trust McD on these matters and clearly he was playing a fast one with SF using their own well practised ruse of using words that seem to promise something but in fact they can interpret as making no such commitment whatsoever.
 
Re: C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

Let them rot until their time is up and do not let them out before that.
Click to expand...

Admirable sentiments, but you're not addressing the central question. Why do it to those 4 and not to the hundreds of other "qualifying prisoners" who also committed equally appalling atrocities? Not to mention those who will never serve a day in prison for their deeds.
What was so quantifiably different about their offences?
 
Re: C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

Hi YD
The GFA is not a moral imperative. It was a shabby surrender by civilised society to the forces of barbarism for the sake of peace in our time.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It was the best deal, and probably the only deal, that was achievable or on offer at the time. Go back to the early nineties - 25 years of increasing repression had failed to quell the violence. There were three basic options (or variants thereof) the authorites could have taken.
A) step up the military/security response in an effort to impose an all out defeat on the IRA
B) tolerate an ongoing "acceptable" level of violence
C) negotiate a ceasefire and a peace agreement.
Now look around the world. There aren't many examples of strategy A working. Strategy B was in effect for most of the eighties - not very inspiring. So that leaves C. Which, in fairness, has delivered a reasonable result. Can that be so wrong? To describe it as a surrender to the forces of barbarism is a bit ott, when the acts of barbarism have mostly ceased. And, yes, i know that punishment beatings still are carried out, but would you really prefer to be back in the days of old-style IRA atrocities like Abercorn, Le Mon, Birmingham Teebane etc?

the only justification for any of the shameful compromises made in our name is the practical one that we (or rather our Northern brethren) got a bit of peace.
Click to expand...
The compromises weren't just made "in our name". They were actually made by us, the people of Ireland, when we voted overwhelmingly for the GFA.

Which, in my eyes anyway, gives the GFA a hell of a lot of moral authority. And which is still very relevant because the peace process still has a long way to go. While the worst of the violence has stopped, there remains a long road to be travelled to create a normal peaceful civic society in Northern Ireland. Decommissioniong, demilitarisation, normalising of policing, ending of low level sectarian violence, establishment of workable political institutions, respect for differing political traditions, all remain to be achieved. The GFA is a template for tackling this agenda. But only if it honoured. And only if all sides can build up mutual trust. To suggest that
The decision to release the C4 should be made on the same grounds, not whether we are morally or legally bound to do so, simply will it get us sufficient incremental peace in return.
Click to expand...
is to undermine the whole basis for the success of the GFA to date and would certainly inhibit any further progress towards a normal society.
You may be right about McDowell and his choice of words, but such a deceptive approach will not build up the trust necessary to mavo things forward.
In any event, I suspect the Government must be praying for a successful court challenge to the mens imprisonment. Then we'll see a chorus of hand-wringing and hear a litany of "if only it was in our power....." while secretly, they heave huge sighs of relief.

Finally, last time I looked, I'm not a she! But I wonder why you thought so???
 
Re: C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

John Quinn (conspiracy to rob) has been released on completion of his sentence.
Click to expand...
from the pro-prisioner site mentioned above.

I wish him well and hope that he succesfully reintegrates back into society.

ajapale

at least Bertie cant refer to the Castlerea Five any more.
 
We don't have to

Observer, I do agree with 95% of your analysis but I fall short of believing we have any obligation re the release of the C4. Your arguments are based on legal analysis of the GFA and consistency. The real argument is can we get away with keeping the C4 inside without endangering the many gains that have been made irrespective if that is welching on a shabby deal.

IMHO we have got away with it and we can continue to do so, there is no possible gain in any further appeasement. We have got as much as can be delivered and they did mightily well out of it as well.

If I thought releasing the C4 would mean we would live happily ever after then the pragmatist in me would say go ahead.

BTW did not mean to question your tetesterone levels, it's just that I find it safer to use "she", avoids being dumped upon by the PCs.
 
Re: We don't have to

These men comitted their crime without IRA permission. they were acting on personal greed, therefore this is outside of the GFA. The IRA disowned these men at first, but now they want them out and are using them as a bargaining chip.

SF/IRA are still involved in crime and it bothers me that people will not see it until it is too late. A leopard never changes its spots.
 
Re.Observer

Excellent post, well put. You have summed the whole thing up perfectly.
 
Gardai

I have heard rumours that if these individuals are released the Gardai will consider strike action, since it makes their position untenable, they feel that it states murdering someone (let alone a Garda) for a politically motivated reason entitles them to special treatment, as law enforcers in this country they should not or never fear cop killers being released.
 
Grizzly really has a nerve

Hear the latest from Grizzly? Responding to McD's attack on the IRA for continuing gangsterism, Grizzly admitted that a few of his comrades had "fallen by the wayside".:eek He then taunted McD to either "put up or shut up". Elaborating, he said McD should either put these chappies in jail or stop giving out about them.

Isn't this wonderful. Not only are we blackmailed into releasing a bunch of thugs but we are asked to follow our actions with words and stop criticising their renewed criminality.
 
Re: Grizzly really has a nerve

Far be it from me to support the Shinners, but Grizzly has a point. If Mullah McDowell has the hard evidence, why doesn't he hand it over to the DPP and put these guys behind bars. Of course, if the evidence isn't of sufficient quality for the DPP, is it really of sufficient quality for Morning Ireland?
 
Re: Grizzly really has a nerve

Thanks purple, I wish more people would see through these common criminals.

Once they get a foothold in communities here, be ready for punishment beatings, intimidation, protection rackets etc. Judging by what I have read in the papers lately, they are already using their "brand of justice" and mark my words, it will spread if they are given a mandate by the people on June 11.

Its time for Michael McDowell to act now, if he has the information, lets prosecute these criminals.
 
Praise be

Purple, were you praising the poster just before you, as peterconn seems to believe, or were you praising Observer, as the title of your post suggests?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register