NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4379600.stm)

"Dozens" of paramilitary fugitives could be allowed home under 'on-the-run' proposals, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain has said.

Mr Hain was responding to questions at the NI Affairs Committee from the DUP's Gregory Campbell.

He said he would be taking advice from the police as to who would be included in the scheme.

He said that the legislation is likely to be brought before parliament early next month.

"They (police) have a number of suspects for crimes - I readily concede crimes that in some cases were horrific crimes, but it goes into dozens at any rate," Mr Hain said.

He said further suspects, who may still be in the province, could be "unearthed" by new police inquiries into "historic crimes".

Mr Campbell said there was outrage and anger in Northern Ireland that murderers had never served a day in jail for their offences.

Mr Hain said sometimes undesirable things had to be done in the interests of conflict resolution.

He said he understood the real concerns of the people of Northern Ireland on this issue.

The legislation will deal with people suspected of terrorism who have not been brought to court and those who have fled prison.

Sinn Fein has repeatedly pressed for them to be able to return to Northern Ireland.

Asked when the legislation would be brought forward by the chair of the committee Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr Hain said he was not certain of the date but it would be before Christmas and probably early next month.


What kind of bullshit is this?

Would this be tolerated anywhere else in the UK, or the world?

Is Blair about to turn round and say that those responsible for the failed London bombings can be released and allowed to return home?

Of course not.

So why is it acceptable in Northern Ireland?

Its a way of trying to reduce attacks, etc. Some of these people get so deep, they cant quit. This is allowing them to get out of these lifes. It should only be a one time thing, for at least years, and anyone who does anything criminal would immediatly be tried for their crimes, and previous ones.

Could be that they also traded something in exchange for this return home package. Won't know for sure until more information comes out.

Its a way of trying to reduce attacks, etc. Some of these people get so deep, they cant quit. This is allowing them to get out of these lifes. It should only be a one time thing, for at least years, and anyone who does anything criminal would immediatly be tried for their crimes, and previous ones.
Attacks have stopped. The troubles in Northern Ireland are effectively over. Have been for a long while.

These people have bombed, shot, killed and maimed. Why should they be pardoned?

I would also wonder if this will apply equally to people forced out of Northern Ireland by death threats? Will they be allowed to return without the risk of being killed?

The war is over, the IRA put its weapons down. The only ones who didn't get the message yet are the radical Protestants and that Priest whose head is much too small for his huge shoulders.

When the war is over, the soldiers can go home. I don't quite see how you would call paramilitaries fighting British forces "Terrorists". Wouldn't "Militia" be a better word?
Depends of course on what exactly these crimes are - it doesn't say in the article.

The war is over, the IRA put its weapons down. The only ones who didn't get the message yet are the radical Protestants and that Priest whose head is much too small for his huge shoulders.

When the war is over, the soldiers can go home. I don't quite see how you would call paramilitaries fighting British forces "Terrorists". Wouldn't "Militia" be a better word?
Depends of course on what exactly these crimes are - it doesn't say in the article.
In the case of the various Northern Irish paramilitaries, not a single one of them can be described as anything but terrorists, on either side. Shootings, bombings, intimidation etc. are the only tactics they know. They all specialise in terror to advance their goals.

Anybody who tries to classify the various present incarnations of the IRA, the UVF, the UDA etc. as anything but terrorists is simply wrong.

So why is it acceptable in Northern Ireland?Oh, cos they're not real terrorists if they operated here, don't you know. They were freedom fighters / defenders! The semantics make all the difference. It doesn't matter how many people they killed and injured!

:rolleyes:

I am SO fed up with this crap. I don't give a flying fuck what 'side' they 'fought' for; the fact is, they murdered hundreds, badly hurt thousands more, and paramilitaries from both sections of the divide continue to mete out their own forms of vigilante punishment just because they feel like it and survive from common crime and drug rackets.

They're criminals. Simple. But, then again, crime really does seem to pay in this country nowadays.

Oh, cos they're not real terrorists if they operated here, don't you know. They were freedom fighters / defenders! The semantics make all the difference. It doesn't matter how many people they killed and injured!

:rolleyes:

I am SO fed up with this crap. I don't give a flying fuck what 'side' they 'fought' for; the fact is, they murdered hundreds, badly hurt thousands more, and paramilitaries from both sections of the divide continue to mete out their own forms of vigilante punishment just because they feel like it and survive from common crime and drug rackets.

They're criminals. Simple. But, then again, crime really does seem to pay in this country nowadays.
Especially Jim Gray. He went out for a loaf and ended up with five rounds.

Crimes are commited during and sometimes maintaining peace means giving soldiers a second chance. Under normal circumstances many of those being considered would have gone through their lives with minimal, if any, dispute with the law.

Crimes are commited during and sometimes maintaining peace means giving soldiers a second chance. Under normal circumstances many of those being considered would have gone through their lives with minimal, if any, dispute with the law.
Except for, you know, the occasional bombing, shooting and killing just to keep them occupied when they're bored.

Shootings, bombings, intimidation etc. are the only tactics they know. They all specialise in terror to advance their goals.
But it doesn't say what the crimes are these particular people are accused of committing.
Before simply judging them, I'd prefer to hear their cases. If they preyed on civilians, they need to be held accountable for it - if they fought British troops or paramilitaries, then the peace deal should mean that they can go home.

But it doesn't say what the crimes are these particular people are accused of committing.
Before simply judging them, I'd prefer to hear their cases. If they preyed on civilians, they need to be held accountable for it - if they fought British troops or paramilitaries, then the peace deal should mean that they can go home.
If they listed every single one it would take you hours to read.

There are very few cases of paramilitary groups having an out and out fight with the British Army or the RUC.

I thought punishment was for prevention/rehabilitation, not revenge? If these people aren't bombing/etc anymore, then why punish them? I don't believe the prevention would be more than the punishment.

Except for, you know, the occasional bombing, shooting and killing just to keep them occupied when they're bored.
I think my point was that under different circumstances they wouldn't be involved in this sought of thing. The fact you completely ignored my point is a concerningly bizare debate technique.

That said, I'm not Irish. So I'm going to leave it that.

why would you want these men back? arent you better off having them be out of the country and subject to arrest if they ever come back again?

why would you want these men back? arent you better off having them be out of the country and subject to arrest if they ever come back again?
We'll have none of that here. NS has strict rules about bringing logic into a debate. You can gauge eyes, makes personal attacks, quote Google or out and out lie... BUT YOU CANNOT USE LOGIC.

I thought punishment was for prevention/rehabilitation, not revenge? If these people aren't bombing/etc anymore, then why punish them?
Because they have bombed and killed.

If al Quaeda suddenly announced that they were to disband, would you want the US government to stop trying to find bin Laden on the basis that it was in the past and he is unlikely to do organise something like 9/11 again?

Of course not. These people have commited crimes, they have tortured, murdered and maimed people, knowing and accepting the punishment if they were to be caught.

If the legal system was to be restructured around the basis that a murderer says he isn't going to murder anymore, what would be the sense in that?

I'm sorry, but your post is ridiculous.

Because they have bombed and killed.

If al Quaeda suddenly announced that they were to disband, would you want the US government to stop trying to find bin Laden on the basis that it was in the past and he is unlikely to do organise something like 9/11 again?

Of course not. These people have commited crimes, they have tortured, murdered and maimed people, knowing and accepting the punishment if they were to be caught.

If the legal system was to be restructured around the basis that a murderer says he isn't going to murder anymore, what would be the sense in that?

I'm sorry, but your post is ridiculous.
Our distance from the situation gives us compassion. Whilst at the same time understanding your anger. No it is not fair. But it might be the right thing to do.

Because they have bombed and killed.

If al Quaeda suddenly announced that they were to disband, would you want the US government to stop trying to find bin Laden on the basis that it was in the past and he is unlikely to do organise something like 9/11 again?

Of course not. These people have commited crimes, they have tortured, murdered and maimed people, knowing and accepting the punishment if they were to be caught.

If the legal system was to be restructured around the basis that a murderer says he isn't going to murder anymore, what would be the sense in that?

I'm sorry, but your post is ridiculous.

If Osama bin laden somehow magically stopped commiting any crimes, planning anything, etc(became a pacifist atheist or who knows what), and had a very high chance of never commiting any such crimes again, I would want to stop looking for him. It would be a waste of time and money for revenge.

If someone is very unlikely to keep commiting crimes, and the benefit for punishing them is less than the benefit for not doing so, there should be an amnesty of sorts for them, after a while. This should only be in special cases, but I feel this is one.

You say my post is ridiculous, yet you want these people punished just so you can have some pitiful type of revenge upon them. What the hell is the benefit of punishing people who will probably never commit these crimes again, when they could spend their days contributing to the nation?

Our distance from the situation gives us compassion. Whilst at the same time understanding your anger. No it is not fair. But it might be the right thing to do.
Compassion? I have compassion for their victims.

How were the terrorists of the other side treated?
Whatever way it was, the people should be treated equally, whether Protestant or Catholic.

How were the terrorists of the other side treated?
Whatever way it was, the people should be treated equally, whether Protestant or Catholic.
The article doesn't mention either 'side', so which are you referring to?

We'll have none of that here. NS has strict rules about bringing logic into a debate. You can gauge eyes, makes personal attacks, quote Google or out and out lie... BUT YOU CANNOT USE LOGIC.
oops my bad

uhhhh

BLAIR SUCKS!

The article doesn't mention either 'side', so which are you referring to?
Well, since it said Sinn Fein wanted them to be let off, I assumed they were IRA-type people. I think that'd make sense because they could go to Ireland or some other place (North Africa perhaps?) where they have connections.

I assumed the Protestant, British or whatever you call them were either let off, or sit in jail now.

If Osama bin laden somehow magically stopped commiting any crimes, planning anything, etc(became a pacifist atheist or who knows what), and had a very high chance of never commiting any such crimes again, I would want to stop looking for him. It would be a waste of time and money for revenge.

If someone is very unlikely to keep commiting crimes, and the benefit for punishing them is less than the benefit for not doing so, there should be an amnesty of sorts for them, after a while. This should only be in special cases, but I feel this is one.

You say my post is ridiculous, yet you want these people punished just so you can have some pitiful type of revenge upon them. What the hell is the benefit of punishing people who will probably never commit these crimes again, when they could spend their days contributing to the nation?

It's called the law, and this is retroactively applying law to individual cases.

If this was applied across the country, then you or I could dander into a shop, hold them up, take the money in the till, promise never to do it again, and be let off.

We've already had people let out after a couple of years after killing many people under the Good Friday Agreement.

For example, Sean Kelly planted a bomb in a fish and chip shop packed with innocent people on a Saturday afternoon which killed 10 people, and he served 4 years in prison for it before being released.

Well, since it said Sinn Fein wanted them to be let off, I assumed they were IRA-type people. I think that'd make sense because they could go to Ireland or some other place (North Africa perhaps?) where they have connections.

I assumed the Protestant, British or whatever you call them were either let off, or sit in jail now.
You assumed wrong in both cases.

You assumed wrong in both cases.
Then tell me the truth!
Hell, I'm not a specialist in this - do I have to pull every bit of information outta your nose?

It's called the law, and this is retroactively applying law to individual cases.

If this was applied across the country, then you or I could dander into a shop, hold them up, take the money in the till, promise never to do it again, and be let off.

We've already had people let out after a couple of years after killing many people under the Good Friday Agreement.

For example, Sean Kelly planted a bomb in a fish and chip shop packed with innocent people on a saturday afternoon which killed 10 people and served 4 years in prison for it before being released.

You still havn't answered my question: Assuming these people won't commit these crimes anymore, what is the benefit of punishing them? Do you really think it outweighs the benefit of letting them be productive members of society?

As for your second thing, no. Most criminals don't stop commiting crimes. Just because they say they wont, doesn't mean they will. Statistically, they will, so crime is a valid way of preventing it, by both physically and mentally making it a bad thing to do.

I am working on the assumption that the violence has stopped, and no more bombings/shootings are going to come from these people. If you want to argue that, then go ahead. But assuming this is true, I see no reason why an amnesty shouldn't be granted. Honestly, being so obsessed with revenge is a very bad thing.

Compassion? I have compassion for their victims.
As do I. But being a little more objective on this I can have compassion for both sides. As I've said before I truly do understand your anger, but it doesn't sway my veiw.

Then tell me the truth!
Hell, I'm not a specialist in this - do I have to pull every bit of information outta your nose?
OK, this will apply equally to loyalist and republican terrorist fugitives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4207256.stm
This too primarily seems to concern IRA exiles.

You still havn't answered my question: Assuming these people won't commit these crimes anymore, what is the benefit of punishing them? Do you really think it outweighs the benefit of letting them be productive members of society?
They will never be productive members of society.

As for your second thing, no. Most criminals don't stop commiting crimes. Just because they say they wont, doesn't mean they will. Statistically, they will, so crime is a valid way of preventing it, by both physically and mentally making it a bad thing to do.
So why let them off so they can do it again?

The criminal justice system is based around the idea that if you commit a crime you get an appropriate punishment for it, not that you run off to another country, wait 10 years before coming back and being pardoned. Any system based like that is a sham.

I am working on the assumption that the violence has stopped, and no more bombings/shootings are going to come from these people. If you want to argue that, then go ahead. But assuming this is true, I see no reason why an amnesty shouldn't be granted. Honestly, being so obsessed with revenge is a very bad thing.

It's not about revenge, it's about seeing justice for the people who they killed and their families. My uncle was killed in a bomb in the Troubles. I never got to meet him. I don't know who planted the bomb, I don't particularly care, but at least the person might have been punished in some way for it.

The violence hasn't stopped. The Troubles have more or less stopped, but that doesn't mean that the paramilitary groups aren't still intimidating people, racqueteering, robbing, and having the odd pop at the security forces.

As do I. But being a little more objective on this I can have compassion for both sides. As I've said before I truly do understand your anger, but it doesn't sway my veiw.
OK.

Somebody walks into your local shop, plants a bomb and danders off.

The bomb explodes, killing several people, including possibly a member of your family, but by this time the bomber is long gone.

Later, the government announces that the bomber is free to return home with no possibility of a punishment.

Fair?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4207256.stm
This too primarily seems to concern IRA exiles.
That's because the majority of them are IRA members, but this will apply equally across the board.

OK.

Somebody walks into your local shop, plants a bomb and danders off.

The bomb explodes, killing several people, including possibly a member of your family, but by this time the bomber is long gone.

Later, the government announces that the bomber is free to return home with no possibility of a punishment.

Fair?
No. However let's try this scenario again in war time. Fair, no? Right, Yes.

No. However let's try this scenario again in war time. Fair, no? Right, Yes.
War time?

You seem to be under some kind of illusion that these are brave soldiers who were fighting for freedom.

They aren't.

They are terrorists, pure and simple.

How about this. Phoning in a warning that there is a bomb at one end of a street in a busy shopping district on a Saturday afternoon, so the police move everybody to the other end of the street. The bomb is actually at the end the police moved people to, and 31 people get killed by it.

If they took the form of an army, like the original IRA, and kept their targets to purely military, like the original IRA, I would have no argument against their pardon. But they didn't.

You still havn't answered my question: Assuming these people won't commit these crimes anymore, what is the benefit of punishing them? Do you really think it outweighs the benefit of letting them be productive members of society?

justice

murder must be punished. it doesnt matter if they promise to be good.

They will never be productive members of society.

What makes you say this? If there is little chance of them commiting crimes again, what makes you so sure they wont become productive members of society?

[QUOTE=Nadkor]So why let them off so they can do it again?

The criminal justice system is based around the idea that if you commit a crime you get an appropriate punishment for it, not that you run off to another country, wait 10 years before coming back and being pardoned. Any system based like that is a sham.

Not really. Amnesties happen all the time in countries. You keep saying they will do these crimes again, yet you say the attacks have stopped, etc. Pick one!

It's not about revenge, it's about seeing justice for the people who they killed and their families. My uncle was killed in a bomb in the Troubles. I never got to meet him. I don't know who planted the bomb, I don't particularly care, but at least the person might have been punished in some way for it.

The violence hasn't stopped. The Troubles have more or less stopped, but that doesn't mean that the paramilitary groups aren't still intimidating people, racqueteering, robbing, and having the odd pop at the security forces.

And what is the difference between justice and revenge here? You want to punish them for things they did. Punishing these people is simply unproductive.

If you want to say these people are likely to keep commiting crimes, then I will concede to that point. My argument was based on the idea that these people were going be stopping, because the troubles were over. I don't believe there should be amnesties, if these people are likely to keep commiting these crimes.

War time?

You seem to be under some kind of illusion that these are brave soldiers who were fighting for freedom.

They aren't.

They are terrorists, pure and simple.

How about this. Phoning in a warning that there is a bomb at one end of a street, so the police move everybody to the other end of the street. The bomb is actually. at the end the police moved people to, and 31 people get killed by it.

If they took the form of an army, like the original IRA, and kept their targets to purely military, like the original IRA, I would have no argument against their pardon. But they didn't.
The line between terrorist and soldier is extremely blurred in this modern age. Nelson Mandela, Nobel Prize Winner, civil rights activist and former President of South Africa was pardoned for his terrorist acts.

Terrorism in war is wrong. But it happens when in peace it wouldn't and is commited in war by people in peace who wouldn't.

Again, I say it's not fair, but it is right.

What makes you say this? If there is little chance of them commiting crimes again, what makes you so sure they wont become productive members of society?



Not really. Amnesties happen all the time in countries. You keep saying they will do these crimes again, yet you say the attacks have stopped, etc. Pick one!



And what is the difference between justice and revenge here? You want to punish them for things they did. Punishing these people is simply unproductive.

If you want to say these people are likely to keep commiting crimes, then I will concede to that point. My argument was based on the idea that these people were going be stopping, because the troubles were over. I don't believe there should be amnesties, if these people are likely to keep commiting these crimes.
I will say this;

If they had attacked security forces and that sort of thing then I would be all for an amnesty, but they didn't. They attacked innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Like the people who were out commemorating the war dead (both unionist and nationalist) at the Remembrance Sunday commemorations in Enniskillen in 1987. The IRA exploded a bomb then and killed 11 people.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Ennisk.jpg

If they had acted as an army, rather than simply terrorists, then that would be a different situation.

The line between terrorist and soldier is extremely blurred in this modern age. Nelson Mandela, Nobel Prize Winner, civil rights activist and former President of South Africa was pardoned for his terrorist acts.

Terrorism in war is wrong. But it happens when in peace it wouldn't and is commited in war by people in peace who wouldn't.

Again, I say it's not fair, but it is right.
I simply don't agree with you.

Attacking security forces is an entirely different matter to the cold blooded, calculated, murder of innocent civilians from both sides. In many bombings innocent people from both sides were murdered. The bombers didn't care who they killed.

justice

murder must be punished. it doesnt matter if they promise to be good.
Exactly.

I wish a time travel machine existed so as all the people standing up for these terrorists could come and live here in the '70s.

In fact, sod that. Just come here now. The type of people receiving this amnesty are the type of people who are selling drugs to children and knocking the living shit out of an innocent individual just because (s)he came out of the "wrong" area / church / pub / football stadium etc.

There was never any offical war declared in Northern Ireland, by the way, so the assertion that their barbaric acts were committed during war time is erroneous. Furthermore, neither the British nor the Irish governments ever condoned or got involved with the Troubles. The British army were drafted in, of course, but they were not the ones planting bombs for random reasons.

But I suppose the fact that they shot a few people in defence of themselves and others is horrendous, even though the fact that the IRA / INLA / UVF / UFF etc did exactly the same (and worse) for no substantive reason is apparently fine.

I am a Nationalist, by the way. So don't bother accusing me of defending the British army and just hating the IRA because of my allegiances. The army sucked, but they sucked no where near as much as the paramilitaries they were drafted in to protect us from - scummy fuckers from both sides of the divide.

While I hate the idea of letting these murderers go it may be the best way to save lives long term. However, I admit that I'm not old enough to remember the bombings.

I think they should be returned to Ireland as 'hostages' once all violence has stopped. If any IRA linked group returns to violence then we arrest all of them again and they serve the rest of their terms. It wouldn't be unlawful imprisonment as they were effectively on parole anyway.