Gerry Adams "had Jean McConville disappeared"

[pintsofguinness]

Wel, if he isnt prepared to tell the truth about himself, then he shouldn't be demanding that others tell the truth about their activities.
Leave that to those in his party who have confessed to their past.

I know he argues for a truth commission - which I assume would mean immunity for anyone coming forward.
When did he call for people to turn over evidence against themselves?

Did he never demand that the British admit colluding with loyalists in murder?

Has he ever named individuals and asked them to admit publicly what they were involved in?

[Minder]

Where is Nally Stand when you need things cleared up ?

[ardmhachaabu]

Where is Nally Stand when you need things cleared up ?

[Gaffer]

Wel, if he isnt prepared to tell the truth about himself, then he shouldn't be demanding that others tell the truth about their activities.
Leave that to those in his party who have confessed to their past.

I know he argues for a truth commission - which I assume would mean immunity for anyone coming forward.
When did he call for people to turn over evidence against themselves?

Did he never demand that the British admit colluding with loyalists in murder?

Has he ever named individuals and asked them to admit publicly what they were involved in?

Doesn t have to name individuals to be a hypocrite,

He would ............

1. Demand British admit collusion
2. If this was done he would then demand that people are brought before the courts and prosecuted.

Or maybe you think he wouldn t do that?

[pintsofguinness]

there's a difference in calling for people to be prosecuted and in calling on people to admit things publicly.  As far as I know he hasn't called on anyone to admit to anything publicly and therefore turn over evidence against themselves which is what people expect him to do so I'm not sure how he's a hypocrite in that regard. 

I'm not even sure he would call on anyone to be prosecuted now I thought he was more in favour of everything being opened up in form of a truth commission?

[Ulick]

Not strange at all. I can't think of anyone in the north who was charged with membership without an accompanying charge except in cases of an admission or supergrass testimony.

[lynchbhoy]

that oul craic again - 'gerry adams is ex IRA man' rubbish ! 

also quite amusing to see that Brendan hughes left 'details' to ONLY be revealed AFTER he had died...
first time that Brendan wouldnt speak up for himself...anyone that knew the man would see plain through that bull**t

I'd agree that hughes didnt like the way sf were headin, and if alive today I'd say hughes would be aligned with the RSF or cira/rira (if he could find any that werent jumped up smugglers/linked to security forces).

adams was never 'up' in near the command of the IRA to be giving orders etc...he was(and still is) looked upon by such people with suspicion.

[Doogie Browser]

I see the Irish News has went to town on this today, first 7 pages or so devoted to the book. 

[lynchbhoy]

meant to say - theres a book involved so expect some 'headline grabbing stories'

[glens abu]

I see the Irish News has went to town on this today, first 7 pages or so devoted to the book.

election only 5 weeks away,so the Irish News will milk this for all its worth

[haranguerer]

Wasn't Gerry McGeough only arrested when he ran for election? With that in mind it certainly would seem to be politically motivated, with the effect of his arrest and a trial, even though there wont be any worthwhile outcome for the prosecution, being such that he has no chance of having any political success.

My own thoughts are that Brendan Hughes has no reason to lie - I'm inclined to believe his story. He obviously became disillusioned with the leadership, but any bits I've seen dont seem to be personally vindictive attempts to destroy GA's character, rather just honest frustration at the denial of a past Brendan Hughes felt Adams should have been proud of.

Thats the crux of the matter too. People like Hughes (and rightly so) are proud of their republican tradition, and wear it proudly and openly. Adams is much more politically astute, and recognises that it doesnt matter what you do/have done, its what you are perceived to do/have done. For him to admit membrship etc opens an entire can of worms. The questions wont stop there, next will be questions about how much he knew about individual murders, from their families, etc , etc. No matter what he does hes going to get asked questions, might as well keep them at the were you or werent you stage, than at any one further down the line.

Everyones a liar at the end of the day, and Adams lies about his IRA involvement are necessary for the smooth continuation of the peace process, so I'm happy enough with them.

[Main Street]

Some of you Nordies can't keep yer mouths shut 

Usually when people talk about themselves they are not truthful.
There is a familiar pattern with Hughes when talking about incidents, how he was on the ball and others got it wrong.
Re Loughall "I remember arguing against operations [like this] going ahead," he said
Then his self admitted chronic deep suspicions
'Hughes began to suspect that operations like Loughall might have been sabotage'
'There was, he believed, no IRA member in Belfast that he could trust any more, so widespread was corruption within the organisation'.

[i']Later on when he tackled Adams about it (corruption), he was told he was paranoid'[/i] 

I can't disagree with that 

[haranguerer]

He clarified - I dont have the direct quote, but re loughgall he definitely said that it was only a lot later that he began to wonder if it had been sabotage, getting a lot of hard core out of the way in preparation for the peace process: it was clearly musings rather than direct accusations however, he said himself he didnt know, and was perhaps being unfair on them.

[Main Street]

He was a deeply suspicious person, not just about Loughall.

Here is what was written in the ST about Loughall

In an ambush at Loughall in May 1987, eight members of the IRA were shot dead by the SAS. Hughes believed the operation proceeded without proper intelligence, organisation or training. "I remember arguing against operations [like this] going ahead," he said. "I sat in a house in Donegal along with Martin McGuinness and the rest of the GHQ staff where they were planning this major upsurge in the campaign; we were going to go in and take over [British] army billets and so forth, major operations involving major weapons.

"[Colonel] Gaddafi had come on board. Shipments of weapons came in [from Libya], all the money was there. What was lacking was the training, but there was this sort of bullish attitude from people like McGuinness to push ahead with these operations. I argued against them. But this push seemed to be coming from the top; [from] army council people like Joe Cahill."

Later, when he saw how the peace process unfolded, Hughes began to suspect that operations like Loughall might have been sabotage — set-ups by peacemakers in the republican movement to remove militant hardliners who might be obstacles to the compromises that lay ahead. "I suspect now because of the situation that we're in, that there might have been intent as well, to bring about a disaster," he said.

"It's because I'm so suspicious of the people in positions of power now that [it] leads me to think that there's a possibility there was collusion there. I don't know — it may be fair, it may be unfair."

[Jim_Murphy_74]

He was a deeply suspicious person, not just about Loughall.

Here is what was written in the ST about Loughall

In an ambush at Loughall in May 1987, eight members of the IRA were shot dead by the SAS. Hughes believed the operation proceeded without proper intelligence, organisation or training. "I remember arguing against operations [like this] going ahead," he said. "I sat in a house in Donegal along with Martin McGuinness and the rest of the GHQ staff where they were planning this major upsurge in the campaign; we were going to go in and take over [British] army billets and so forth, major operations involving major weapons.

"[Colonel] Gaddafi had come on board. Shipments of weapons came in [from Libya], all the money was there. What was lacking was the training, but there was this sort of bullish attitude from people like McGuinness to push ahead with these operations. I argued against them. But this push seemed to be coming from the top; [from] army council people like Joe Cahill."

Later, when he saw how the peace process unfolded, Hughes began to suspect that operations like Loughall might have been sabotage — set-ups by peacemakers in the republican movement to remove militant hardliners who might be obstacles to the compromises that lay ahead. "I suspect now because of the situation that we're in, that there might have been intent as well, to bring about a disaster," he said.

"It's because I'm so suspicious of the people in positions of power now that [it] leads me to think that there's a possibility there was collusion there. I don't know — it may be fair, it may be unfair."

I know it's a quote and all but that whole theory is very Ed Moloney-ish.  His "groundbreaking" book on Adams was based around this theory if I recall. 

It's funny but I doub that those showing such outrage about these "revelations" on Adams actually ever belief anything contrary anway.............

/Jim