Shoot to Kill 1982

Started by Donagh, June 29, 2007, 01:09:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gaoth Dobhair Abu

Just wondering are people taking an interest or is shoot to kill just going to be taken as an accepted practice!?!? 
Tbc....

GweylTah

When can we expect the seance to see whether those who died approve of Sinn Fein becoming British Government ministers?  (Clue: The Sands family don't.)

Gaoth Dobhair Abu

Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 13, 2007, 11:16:32 PM
Do you ever stop  ???


Seriously what do you expect from an idiot, but rubbish.
Tbc....

Main Street


QuoteDo you ever stop
If you want it to, the answer is simple, don't reply.

GweylTah

Quote from: Main Street on July 14, 2007, 01:17:37 AM

QuoteDo you ever stop
If you want it to, the answer is simple, don't reply.


Sorry if some of your demons being confronted makes you uncomfortable. Examine your attitudes then.

Gaoth Dobhair Abu

Heard this evening that there are still court cases going through the system on the MANY shoot to kill cases, can anyone shed more light?
Tbc....

GweylTah

Here's a great site where you'll get impartial updates.

http://www.shoottokill25.org/

;)

lynchbhoy

Quote from: GweylTah on July 19, 2007, 09:24:01 AM
Here's a great site where you'll get impartial updates.

http://www.shoottokill25.org/

;)

you have heard of the word 'impartial'
:o
..........

Fiodoir Ard Mhacha

Seems all of this hasn't gone away, you know. Perhaps this site still has relevance despite its objectors.

BBC news site today:

An inquiry may be reopened into claims security forces began a "shoot to kill" policy during the Troubles.

A controversial report by top policeman John Stalker on an alleged RUC "shoot to kill" policy was never published.

The police ombudsman has Mr Stalker's files relating to the killing of three unarmed IRA men in 1982.

The government has asked Nuala O'Loan to examine the files in response to concerns raised by the Council of Europe.

Gervaise McKerr, Sean Burns and Eugene Toman were shot dead at a checkpoint by police near Lurgan.

In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights paid £10,000 in compensation to 10 families, including Mr McKerr's.
"Something wrong with your eyes?....
Yes, they're sensitive to questions!"

lynchbhoy

I think we may see some ' gestures'  and awards made, judgements benefiting the victims
but overall justice will never be exacted on those of the establishment who abused and misused positions of trust and power,and then hid behind 'the law' shielding them from their (war) crimes.

But this is a great site, and hopefully will allow people to remember what went on and what we need to avoid at all costs in the future.
..........

GweylTah

So, does all this mean that today republicans are regarding what went on as a war or not? They need to be careful what they wish for.

Fiodoir Ard Mhacha

Quoterelating to the killing of three unarmed IRA men in 1982

I guess the crucial word in all of this, direct from the BBC report, is 'unarmed'. Perhaps all is fair in war, that is, of course, except when your military opponent is without any means of defence, against the police, the law of the land and indeed the 'establishment'.

Still, it will be interesting to see what Mrs O'Loan and her successor make of these circumstances - and whether Stalker's report will finally be made public.
"Something wrong with your eyes?....
Yes, they're sensitive to questions!"

MW

Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 01:25:38 PM
Quoterelating to the killing of three unarmed IRA men in 1982

I guess the crucial word in all of this, direct from the BBC report, is 'unarmed'. Perhaps all is fair in war, that is, of course, except when your military opponent is without any means of defence, against the police, the law of the land and indeed the 'establishment'.


Republicans proclaim this to have been a 'war'. The claim the hundres upon hundreds of killings of unarmed people they carried out were 'legitimate' acts of this 'war'. Why then do they squeal like stuck pigs about the extremely rare occasions when they received what they were dishing out?

As for "military opponents" and no "means of defence" - the terrorists of the IRA and INLA specialised in breaking into the homes of police officers, soliders and prison officers, or stalking them on the streets when they were off duty (not to mention building contractors, elected representatives of the unionist community, businessmen, senior civil servants, diplomats...) and gunning them down or planting bombs under their cars. The security forces weren't able to simply shoot them on sight as in a 'war' - and indeed weren't simply even allowed to shoot them when they were armed. No, they had to go through legal prcesses of arrest, prosecution and trial.

Compare and contrast with Israel's policy of assassinating terrorist leaders, which has been operated on numerous occasions.

Fiodoir Ard Mhacha

With respect, MW, what is the point of the law, then, if members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.


Totally agree with you, if that's what you infer, that there's a direct comparison with the Israelis. But then, they're backed by the Americans. Now, I wonder who was giving latent support to the activities of the RUC in 1982.  :-\
"Something wrong with your eyes?....
Yes, they're sensitive to questions!"

SammyG

Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 01:48:01 PM
With respect, MW, what is the point of the law, then, if members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
When did that happen? There were a few incidents (one is too many) but to try and suggest that anybody went about just shooting anything that moved, is bollix.