Shoot to Kill 1982

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

As I said above, I would rather wait on the outcome of the Bloody Sunday tribunal and read the report's findings first.

But say, for example, that the Bloody Sunday tribunal recognised the presence of a 'shoot to kill' policy against Catholics in Derry in 1972, would some still insist on even more examples of these incidents before they would be willing to acknowledge this happened - and had some element of state sanction?

[MW]

/quote]
ok this once
the bogside 'extermination' of 1969

The what? Who was exterminated?

and various incidents leading up to their disbanding

I know of plenty of incidents, none of the type we're supposed to be discussing.

culminating I suppose with bloody sunday

Bloody Sunday involved police officers allegedly 'taking out' terrorists?

read a few books blokey - you might learn something.

As it happens I studied the Northern Ireland Troubles as one of my degree papers.

[his holiness nb]

As it happens I studied the Northern Ireland Troubles as one of my degree papers.

Jaysus I hope whoever corrected it was a Loyalist!! 

[Oraisteach]

"Plausible Deniability" was Ronald Reagan's mantra, but at least his historical amnesia can at least be partially explained by Alzheimer's.  Yours, I fear, MW, is motivated by defense of the indefensible. Having asked for examples of Shoot-to-Kill victims, are you going to pivot and say that it okay for the police to kill unarmed "terrorists" in the case of Seamus Grew or Roddy Carroll even though they had ample opportunity to arrest them, or instead are you going to say that it was okay for a band of RUC men to rove Armagh taking the law into their own hands because, you know, it didn't really happen all that often?  This is not the kind of society I want to live in, but if you prefer he tactics of a military junta, then count me out of any world to which you belong   If you want names, look at the Shoot-to-Kill link that Donagh has provided, and then like Justice Gibson, fabricate your own rationale for anarchy: "I regard each of the accused  [RUC] as absolutely blameless . . . [and I commend them for bringing the deceased] to the final court of justice."

You also mock lynchboy when he provides other examples of the forces of law and order resorting to lawlessness.  True, they do not always pertain specifically to the Shoot-to-Kill policy of 1982 that John Stalker was charged to investigate (and, shock horror, was unexplainably removed from), but they are pertinent and symptomatic of a societal mindset.

Let's take the "B" Specials, for example, the armed militia of unionism, and let's recall the event that probably marked the beginning of the Troubles for me growing up in Armagh, the murder of John Gallagher by the Tynan Branch on the Cathedral Road on August 14, 1969.  17 men in unmarked cars shot the intoxicated Gallagher in the back following a Civil Rights rally.  All of the "B" men who were present testified to the Scarman Tribunal, and, once again, shock horror, each denied they had fired a shot.  So let me give you the options: a) they lied through their teeth like the RUC relating to the later Shoot-to-Kill incident or b) perched on the right spire of the cathedral was a marksman from the yet non-existent PIRA who saw his chance to stir things up.  Scarman said the "subsequent behaviour of the Tynan party 'is certainly consistent with a sense of guilt.'" Their commander did not report the shooting because "he wanted first to discuss it with others in the platoon and produce a statement that would exonerate them."  A cover-up. (References from Lost Lives)

This, for me, marked the beginning of my mistrust of anyone in a uniform presenting an "official" account of an incident.  Call me cynical, but I tend to think cover-up.  My revulsion is intensified further by the fact that the priest who administered last rites to John Gallagher is a family friend and arrived at our house immediately afterwards, relating what had happened.

So no doubt, MW, you will concoct some justification for the actions of the RUC or you will dismiss them as inconsequential or non-existent.  Either way, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, feels like shit, then you know what . . . . it stinks.

[MW]

As I said above, I would rather wait on the outcome of the Bloody Sunday tribunal and read the report's findings first.

But say, for example, that the Bloody Sunday tribunal recognised the presence of a 'shoot to kill' policy against Catholics in Derry in 1972, would some still insist on even more examples of these incidents before they would be willing to acknowledge this happened - and had some element of state sanction?

In the conversation above you and I were discussing how and whether the police had to arrest and charge terror suspects rather than simply going around shooting them. The deaths in 1982 were not quite isolated incidents but extremely rare.

Bloody Sunday was a different event entirely. In the early 1970s there were significant numbers killed by the Army who used on a number of occasions lethal means during rioting (hence the introduction of the 'Yellow Card' rules), and soldiers also killed a number of people in unjustified circumstances. After the mid 1970s this phase of the Troubles came to an end, both as massive civil disturances became rarer and the Army's tactics became more restrained and sophisicated - also, importantly, the policy of 'primacy of the police' was introduced.

After the deaths in 1982 the decision was taken that this sort of situation would be taken out of the hands of the police. Effectively I would think the decision was taken that the SAS would do the shooting, and only if they could catch the terrorists red-handed.

[MW]

"Plausible Deniability" was Ronald Reagan's mantra, but at least his historical amnesia can at least be partially explained by Alzheimer's.  Yours, I fear, MW, is motivated by defense of the indefensible. Having asked for examples of Shoot-to-Kill victims, are you going to pivot and say that it okay for the police to kill unarmed "terrorists" in the case of Seamus Grew or Roddy Carroll even though they had ample opportunity to arrest them, or instead are you going to say that it was okay for a band of RUC men to rove Armagh taking the law into their own hands because, you know, it didn't really happen all that often?  This is not the kind of society I want to live in, but if you prefer he tactics of a military junta, then count me out of any world to which you belong   If you want names, look at the Shoot-to-Kill link that Donagh has provided, and then like Justice Gibson, fabricate your own rationale for anarchy: "I regard each of the accused  [RUC] as absolutely blameless . . . [and I commend them for bringing the deceased] to the final court of justice."

You also mock lynchboy when he provides other examples of the forces of law and order resorting to lawlessness.  True, they do not always pertain specifically to the Shoot-to-Kill policy of 1982 that John Stalker was charged to investigate (and, shock horror, was unexplainably removed from), but they are pertinent and symptomatic of a societal mindset.

Let's take the "B" Specials, for example, the armed militia of unionism, and let's recall the event that probably marked the beginning of the Troubles for me growing up in Armagh, the murder of John Gallagher by the Tynan Branch on the Cathedral Road on August 14, 1969.  17 men in unmarked cars shot the intoxicated Gallagher in the back following a Civil Rights rally.  All of the "B" men who were present testified to the Scarman Tribunal, and, once again, shock horror, each denied they had fired a shot.  So let me give you the options: a) they lied through their teeth like the RUC relating to the later Shoot-to-Kill incident or b) perched on the right spire of the cathedral was a marksman from the yet non-existent PIRA who saw his chance to stir things up.  Scarman said the "subsequent behaviour of the Tynan party 'is certainly consistent with a sense of guilt.'" Their commander did not report the shooting because "he wanted first to discuss it with others in the platoon and produce a statement that would exonerate them."  A cover-up. (References from Lost Lives)

This, for me, marked the beginning of my mistrust of anyone in a uniform presenting an "official" account of an incident.  Call me cynical, but I tend to think cover-up.  My revulsion is intensified further by the fact that the priest who administered last rites to John Gallagher is a family friend and arrived at our house immediately afterwards, relating what had happened.

So no doubt, MW, you will concoct some justification for the actions of the RUC or you will dismiss them as inconsequential or non-existent.  Either way, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, feels like shit, then you know what . . . . it stinks.

Your diatribe is oddly removed from what I've actually said. Almost like you've been waiting for a chance to unleash it.

With FAM I was discussing what I saw as republicans' hypocrisy (such as the brazen screaming hypocrites obvious on the website Donagh linked to) in complaining about the 1982 deaths - given that the police had a set of rules they were to operate to, while republican terrorists (and loyalist terrorists) merrily went round killing anyone they decided was a 'legitimate target'.

I don't think the police should take the law into their own hands and don't want a society where the police are tasked with 'taking out' terrorists. More should be expected of them,. On the other hand, it's easy for me to say that you can counter terrorist groups waging a mass murder campaign entirely within the law. And let me be clear I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists who ended up getting the treatment they had advocated and carried out. Equally I have every sympathy with innocents like John Gallagher and deeply wish that horrific events like that had never taken place.

[Rossfan]

. Equally I have every sympathy with innocents like John Gallagher and deeply wish that horrific events like that had never taken place.

I can't help noticing - no condemnation of the B Specials by MW  just regret about "events like that"
TUT TUT

[Oraisteach]

MW, I still can't fully grasp your position.  I'm gratified when you write, "I don't think the police should take the law into their own hands and don't want a society where the police are tasked with 'taking out' terrorists. More should be expected of them," but then you say, "I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists who ended up getting the treatment they had advocated and carried out."

Based on your second remark, are you then saying that it was all right for the RUC to do what they did in 1982, and basically summarily execute these people?  This comment, qualifying your earlier unequivocal view puzzles me.

I loathe murder, but find it especially repugnant when the civil authorities do it.  As you wrote, "More should be expected of them."

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

In the conversation above you and I were discussing how and whether the police had to arrest and charge terror suspects rather than simply going around shooting them. The deaths in 1982 were not quite isolated incidents but extremely rare.

Bloody Sunday was a different event entirely. In the early 1970s there were significant numbers killed by the Army who used on a number of occasions lethal means during rioting (hence the introduction of the 'Yellow Card' rules), and soldiers also killed a number of people in unjustified circumstances. After the mid 1970s this phase of the Troubles came to an end, both as massive civil disturances became rarer and the Army's tactics became more restrained and sophisicated - also, importantly, the policy of 'primacy of the police' was introduced.

After the deaths in 1982 the decision was taken that this sort of situation would be taken out of the hands of the police. Effectively I would think the decision was taken that the SAS would do the shooting, and only if they could catch the terrorists red-handed.

Well, we haven't long to wait now for the report from Saville. I was sure, however, that Bloody Sunday was a civil rights march, not a rent-a-mob excuse for another 'Londonderry' (sic) riot. But, like I said, the report should be hitting the shelves in the next six or seven months.

PS The 1970s must have been really rough times. But then it all stopped and the security forces must have just started shooting unarmed suspects as opposed to unarmed civilians. 

[Jim_Murphy_74]

MW, I still can't fully grasp your position.  I'm gratified when you write, "I don't think the police should take the law into their own hands and don't want a society where the police are tasked with 'taking out' terrorists. More should be expected of them," but then you say, "I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists who ended up getting the treatment they had advocated and carried out."

There is nothing equivocal or contradictory with those statement.  Personally I would agree with both.  Higher standards should be expected of the security forces.  However that doesn't mean you have to feel sorry for those who got the treatment.

Perfectly rational reasoning from MW.

/Jim.

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

Jim

What about innocent civilians, suspected of being part of an 'active unit' who are executed by the state.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Jim

What about innocent civilians, suspected of being part of an 'active unit' who are executed by the state.

FAM,

Totally wrong and that is my rationale for concurring with the first statement:  the security forces should stay within in the law and "shoot to kill" is wrong is all circumstances.   

When the people killed were terrorists, the police action was still wrong but I just don't have sympathy for the victioms.  Two entirely different things. 

/Jim.

[Fiodoir Ard Mhacha]

I think everyone is entitled to a fair trial (even one under British justice) rather than being shot dead purely on the suspicion of being armed or a member of an active unit. That might be OK in a central American republic but not in the 'mother of all democracies'.

I'd also think it would be reasonable to express sympathy for anyone who was murdered during the Troubles.

[SammyG]

I think everyone is entitled to a fair trial (even one under British justice) rather than being shot dead purely on the suspicion of being armed or a member of an active unit. That might be OK in a central American republic but not in the 'mother of all democracies'.

Correct and I don't think anybody would disagree with you.

I'd also think it would be reasonable to express sympathy for anyone who was murdered during the Troubles.

Depends on your definition of murder. I thought the Provos saw themselves as soldiers in a war. If one soldier shoots another soldier, during a war, is that murder?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

I'd also think it would be reasonable to express sympathy for anyone who was murdered during the Troubles.

To me that is a personal thing.  I don't feel sympathy for some that were murdered.  Just being honest.

/Jim.