87 Comments

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 25, 2012, 04:25 AM EDT

  Seano - Yeah, right...so you're withdrawing that 'He's not faced trial' post, eh??????

• seanomelb | Sep 24, 2012, 07:49 PM EDT

  Dano you claimed Noye beat the rap indicating the Spanish judicial system was somehow remiss all I did was state the reasons why Noye "beat the Rap' as you put it. His imprisonment is entirely a different issue.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 24, 2012, 08:45 AM EDT

  Seamus – the ‘Gardiner Report’ DID NOT state that it had found no evidence of Jury intimidation…It clearly stated that ‘in the interests of security and of the protection of witnesses… we will NOT PUBLISH the evidence we received’…this has been MISREPORTED as ‘No evidence was found’…The report RECOMMENDED that ‘Trials of scheduled offences should be conducted by courts without juries’ so one can only conclude that this must have been supported by the ‘unpublished’ evidence…as you have made that report a major plank of your argument…you may wish to reconsider?

• seamus60 | Sep 23, 2012, 07:01 PM EDT

  Dano. You just have a serious problem accepting facts on the ground as they happened.Where in the world have so many people signed confessions of their own velision, knowing the outcome. Simple fact is, most people regardless of their background would not have sat comfortable presenting verdicts on confessions alone. The criminal underworld Noye belongs to have been caught out on many occassions jury tampering yet he was afforded a Jury. The Gardiner report found NO cases of Jury tampering from Nationalists. Whether I agree or dissagree with you on the matter of Republican justice. Would agreeing make the states abuse of many international laws as they did OK. Punish inocent people for the activities of others. The Nazis done that when ever the french resistance served out their justice. Though I can only imagine there would have been some less severe punishments should the french resistance and others had prisons.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 23, 2012, 04:05 AM EDT

  Seano - You said 'he has not faced trial therefore innocent until proven guilty'...in fact he is serving LIFE for a 1996 murder...so much for your 'facts'!!!

• seanomelb | Sep 22, 2012, 08:11 PM EDT

  My last post stated the facts in the Noye's case and addressed your anti Irish stance.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 22, 2012, 04:51 PM EDT

  Seamus – you make some very good points…Who could believe that ‘republican’ freedom fighters would ever try to ‘influence’ the members of a jury…be they neighbours, co-religionists, fellow-workers?…No Sir!! Anyway, the ‘republican’ version of justice, that’s the no trial, no appeal, summary execution and burial at night on some beach version, was obviously a much fairer way to go…no need for any Barristers, lazy or otherwise...

• seamus60 | Sep 22, 2012, 01:43 PM EDT

  We almost got distracted from the diplock issue by means of the word game. Any way there is a clear timeline for anyone who wish`s to look at it. We had Internment (the one that 30,000 people protested against on Bloody Sunday) The same internment that was making the brits look bad on the international scene. What could replace it ? How about diplock courts where the judge would require nothing more than a signed confession to convict ( regardless of how the same confession was retracted). Would a jury blend with this moraly in the knowledge of all the torture and ill treatment of prisoners taking place around them. Probaly not. Enter the intimidation theory that the Gardiner report said did not exist but let diplock stand unopposed. The judges who Redbranch says had to tred carefully then set about wholesale imprisonment of Nationalists on mere confessions. As the beatings fazed out to a lesser level forensics took over.Relatively new to them the sometimes lazy and or overwhelmed defence barristers simply advised defendants to plead guilty for the 15 years or not guilty to the 30 years. Not as difficult to make a choice when you know from all those who have gone before and gambled with the british loaded dice.

• seamus60 | Sep 22, 2012, 08:07 AM EDT

  Dano. you can`t resist playing the words game. He proved enough that the jury took his word as to the threat he felt under when disturbing 2 masked men in a heavily treed area of his garden in the dark of night. The problem is, what you keep saying is the law is not always deployed as it reads in word. Marian price is testiment to that.Not to mention all that have been legally abused before her.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 22, 2012, 06:54 AM EDT

  Seano - I may be 'thick as a brick' as you so eloquently put it...so given your last post...what does that make you, cobber???

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 22, 2012, 02:53 AM EDT

  Seamus – You ask what would a legally trained judge have made of Noyes defence? Impossible to say without hearing the evidence, and how credible the witnesses were…

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 22, 2012, 02:40 AM EDT

  Noye didn’t ‘prove’ anything in relation to his stabbing a cop to death…it doesn’t work like that…the prosecution have to make the case for conviction…the defendant doesn’t have to 'prove' his case under common law...murder is a common law offence in both Ireland and England...

• seamus60 | Sep 22, 2012, 12:13 AM EDT

  seano. Think you`re mixing up Noyes proven lawfull killing and the one he is now aledged of.

• seanomelb | Sep 21, 2012, 07:26 PM EDT

  Dano cares not about jury trials and can only take place when it suits him. Kenneth Noye just did not "beat the rap" as Dano stated he has not faced trial therefore innocent until proven guilty. But Dano is selective on his judicial opinion as to whom is granted a trial by jury and whom he believes is innocent or guilty. Noye was released by the Spanish under the principal of reciprocity and a weak case put forward by the British.Is rights as innocent until proven guilty are questioned by Dano.

• seamus60 | Sep 21, 2012, 05:31 PM EDT

  Redbranch. To be honest I don`t know.

• RedBranch | Sep 21, 2012, 04:05 PM EDT

  Seamus, can you confirm that Frank Lagan or his deputy offered condolences to the families on the evening Jan. 30 1972?

• seamus60 | Sep 21, 2012, 03:23 PM EDT

  Dano. You answered a differant question from the one I asked. Do you think the verdict would have been the same had Noye not have had the comfort of a jury and a bias judge instead.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 21, 2012, 11:04 AM EDT

  Seamus...the jury were persuaded that he acted in self-defence...that's a defence in common law...

• seamus60 | Sep 21, 2012, 06:26 AM EDT

  Dano, Why wouldn`t Noye have beaten the rap ?

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 21, 2012, 05:12 AM EDT

  They say 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'...but in Seano's case I guess we can make an exception...just look at the case where one Kenny Noye beat the rap after killing a cop...

• seanomelb | Sep 21, 2012, 02:36 AM EDT

  Dano giving his para mates a leave pass with his selective vision of justice The paras fired on innocent civilians, you're a thick as a brick Dano.

• seamus60 | Sep 20, 2012, 07:00 PM EDT

  Any more takers on the challenge of supplying all the cases of intimidation that some believe brought about the need for diplock courts ( otherwise known as a more respectable face for Internment of those in society who made noise when they were supposed to remain quiet).

• seamus60 | Sep 20, 2012, 06:07 PM EDT

  Stupid me. He hasn`t got that power anymore after taking early retirement and a nice pension. Oh the perks of being a super.

• seamus60 | Sep 20, 2012, 05:15 PM EDT

  How about it Redbranch. The poor Mc Brearty family would have ended up in prison for the murder of Ritchie Barnes and poor Frank short would still be in prison long after he got out had that detectives wife not felt so scorned and spilled the beans on all the coruption from the bottom right up to the super. Who by all accounts has the power to put people away of his belief.

• seamus60 | Sep 20, 2012, 05:08 PM EDT

  Dano. A bit late for the fancy footwork. You have exposed yourself as having the welfare of para`s suspected of murdering inocent Nationalists over Irishmen who can expect no where near the same calibre of justice. AS for the headline being. As for nothing being assumed in a trial. We can only assume the honesty of the super who will have these three men put away on a membership charge.

• RedBranch | Sep 20, 2012, 04:44 PM EDT

  Trial by jury is the mark of a civilized society. It is not perfect, but aspires to the qualities represented by the figure of justice atop of the Bailey and adopted in courts across the western world. Jury tampering is not only wrong I would argue its moral debasement as well. As the PIRA recognized no elected government on this island and since it apparently practised non-jury trials itself; I don't believe it would have any qualms over interfering with the existing legal system and hence the response of Diplock. Judges in these had to tred very carefully indeed.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 20, 2012, 03:17 PM EDT

  Seamus – I’m really not trying to be smart over this…the issue here is the different ‘burdens of proof’ required in civil and criminal law…The enquiry found that the victims had been unlawfully killed…which means there was no justifiable reason for them to be killed. Now the suspects in the case are certain members of the Paras who were present on that day…to obtain a conviction, the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that certain members of that platoon had intended to kill, and had fired rounds that in fact did kill; Nothing can be assumed in a trial, all relevant facts must be proven. If the defence convinced the court that the men believed they were under attack, (and so acting in self defence) even if that belief was mistaken, then they would have to be acquitted…That’s what the common law states…this is where you can have the anomaly of a finding of unlawful killing, and an acquittal… On the issue of names…the names of any defendants would certainly be given, it’s only witnesses who ever have names withheld…as to the headline, I don’t see that as a big deal…IC articles are frequently badly titled and written…

• seamus60 | Sep 20, 2012, 12:28 PM EDT

  Dano, Yet again you atempt to change reality with the word game. Ok we`ll have it your way, lets charge those individual para`s (who i have mentioned collectively to date)with unlawfull killing, But that won`t diminish the pain for the victims families ( including Mc Cabes) who all believe their loved ones were murdered. We in Derry could live with manslaughter verdicts against individual soldiers if it ever came to it. More importantly is the truth as to who ordered the UNLAWFULL killings of so many Nationalists who after all were only seeking basic civil rights. Lets not forget either the same regiment were let loose in Ballymurphy with the same result. Why did Frank Lagan (head of the RUC in Derry at the time) send word to John Hume ,not to attend the march. Back to the issue at hand, I would be in total favour of all information being divulged in court. even including the soldiers names. As for you finally admitting the injustice of the articles headline. Such a pity it had to be dragged from you screaming and kicking like the truth on so many other subjects on this site.

• seamus60 | Sep 20, 2012, 11:22 AM EDT

  Redbranch. If my uncle had breasts he`d be my auntie has as much to do with this issue as your input. What orders I would have followed or not have nothing to do with it considering i`m not one of the three charged. Jury tampering is a world wide activity in normal circumstances never mind in political ones. Show me the justification for diplock courts. More so ones where all the evidence remains secret. What do you think about the Mc Brearty or Short families treatment in Donegal ?. As for Gerry Mc Cabe, you should be asking that question to the courts yourself. I didn`t sentence Mc Cauley and the others, I certainly didn`t release them either.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 20, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

  Seamus - So how do you square 'Innocent until proven guilty' with your comments on the Paras? A decision that people are unlawfully killed (made under civil law provisions) is completely separate from a criminal trial for murder...as Redbranch quotes re Det Garda McCabe...and you really can't be serious in wanting guilt for murder decided on the word of a 'Super'? Such a verdict would be immediately be appealed...as for the headline that bothers you...yes they should have said 'alleged', unless these men have confirmed their membership of said organisation...maybe they have?

• RedBranch | Sep 20, 2012, 10:16 AM EDT

  OK Seamus to follow up: would you, if ordered, or indeed if not, intimidate witnesses / jury members, from 1969 to present? Furthermore can you explain why the people who in 1996 shot Dct.Garda Gerry McCabe and his partner in cold blood, in the Irish Republic, using over 30 bullets were convicted only of manslaughter and who are currently enjoying freedom and have been so for a number of years?

• seamus60 | Sep 20, 2012, 06:29 AM EDT

  So there we have it Dano. You as an advocate to the principle of "Inocent till proven Guilty" appear quite blatently may I add, throw the same principle out the window when it relates to certain individuals. Even though you say every one has the same right as to how guilt is proven. So much so to the point that you can not even bring yourself to agree to an unfair headline to this article. The arguement as to the special powers that can quite easily convict these three Irish men with years of possable imprisonment is that of Jury intimidation. I have asked for proof of past incidents that would give credance. None came. None has ever come either in the North to justify the introduction of diplock courts. I have clearly stated on many occasions I as a Republican do not agree with millitary action at this time. That however does not mean that i will desist from calling a spade a spade, unlike SF who with the aid of others are in the treasonable process of reinventing by means of distortion the 1916 Proclamation yet again to suit their own agenda. I have applied the principle of guilt to the para`s as their fair lawfull entitlement and ask no favours on their behalf one way or the other, I have to afford the same application to all accused in order to get at the truth. some thing thats been kept as well buried as Columba Mc Veigh.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 20, 2012, 02:42 AM EDT

  Seano - so what about the actions of your heroes, have yet to hear you on those injustices?

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 20, 2012, 02:40 AM EDT

  seamus60 - If I was a prosecutor that's the line I'd take...but as defence counsel I would have to take a different tack...

• seanomelb | Sep 20, 2012, 02:03 AM EDT

  they are only miscarriages of justice when it suits your post ,anyway I 'm glad to here you are on the side of the those murdered on bloody sunday and those who lost their lives by Britain's hoot to kill policy as all are injustices.

• seamus60 | Sep 19, 2012, 08:13 PM EDT

  Dano, Can we dare a guess rather than assumption that with the number of inocents shot on the day, those with the knowledge that they were firing so many live rounds had no aparent worry as to repercussions that would normally be expected.

• seamus60 | Sep 19, 2012, 05:56 PM EDT

  Dano, Then you will join me in stating that if the word of a police super is good enough to convict the named men in this very article it should be good enough to convict the para`s and who ever else was involved with facilitating the murders on Bloody Sunday. I have spefically mentioned BS only as a comparison and without prejudice to any other event during the troubles.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 19, 2012, 03:55 PM EDT

  Seamus... the Paras rights in any trial are no more and no less than anyone else’s…and their thoughts on the day cannot be assumed…they need to be established in order to prove one of the ingredients of the crime…and a great many crimes from that time have gone unpunished...which means many men, and women, walk the streets unpunished...including loyalists, republicans and members of the ‘security forces’...focussing exclusively on the victims from one side of the community does little to promote reconciliation…

• seamus60 | Sep 19, 2012, 01:19 PM EDT

  Dano. Ironic that you a believer of "inocent until proven guilty" have failed dismally to contribute in highlighting the outright disgusting headline to this very article.Preferring instead to give credance to the para`s rights before that of Irish men. As for collective guilt, that has still not been diecected by the relevant authorities (well they wish us to believe so) in regards to Bloody Sunday. I seriously doubt any one, if even the soldiers themselves are likely to hear any more of the subject with the result, a collective crime going unpunished. It appears the courts are only interested in the charge of conspiring with others, when those charged are less fluential.On the issue of what the individual para`s were thinking on the day. With the lack of what we are allowed to know we can only asume it was "kill this Paddy with no come back to worry about".

• Searlit | Sep 19, 2012, 11:20 AM EDT

  When a significant part of your country is stolen from you then occupied by foreign troops who allow discrimination and harrassment of the native Irish - you are justified in your anger and defensiveness. The hypocrisy lies with those that try to defend the continued occupation, and who try to shift guilt onto patriots. Of course, there are some bad apples that have taken advantage of the cause, however you can't blame a people for protecting their own land.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 19, 2012, 11:01 AM EDT

  Sorry Seano, but I’m not responsible for the miscarriages of justice you quote, and I certainly don’t defend them…just as you’re not responsible for the summary ‘justice’ handed out by your heroes…the difference is, you consistently defend those crimes…that’s the true hypocrisy!!

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 19, 2012, 05:52 AM EDT

  Seamus60 - Collective punishment is no longer part of the judicial process...the ingredients of the offence of murder are simple, but all must be proven against the individual charged...in particular the ‘mens rea’…nobody but the men concerned know what they were thinking when they pulled the trigger…that’s the reason we have trials…

• seanomelb | Sep 18, 2012, 07:27 PM EDT

  How hypocritical Dano is !!the commanding officer of the paras and some of his minions were decorated by Lizzie for the action. The army refuses to co-operate and stymied any investigation. They could not bring justice to the Hillsborough dead because of a corrupt British police force and add to that the Birmingham six and the Guildford four so what chance justice for bloody sunday,Nelson and so on. It's easy to see through your Union Jack eyes Lynch.

• seamus60 | Sep 18, 2012, 04:34 PM EDT

  Dan. Of course I want the term to apply to even paratroopers. Who have as a collective already been deemed guilty, unless some one is going to now suggest the Bloody Sunday victims shot themselves its important that trials be held in order to lay blame where it truely rests.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 18, 2012, 11:29 AM EDT

  Seamus60 - Hang on..do you want 'Innocent until proven guilty' or not? The relatives deserve 'their day in court', and that would mean a trial where the offences against individual ex-soldiers would need proving beyond a reasonable doubt...proving for example that Soldier A fired the round that killed Victim B...If that can be done, justice will be well served...

• seamus60 | Sep 18, 2012, 09:08 AM EDT

  Dan. Why would it not, should we not all have the same rights in the eyes of the law. We all know who murdered people on Bloody Sunday and still wait their day in court.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 18, 2012, 07:11 AM EDT

  Seani - battered and bruised? Seems to sum up the failed philosophy of your heroes in dealing with opponents?

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 18, 2012, 05:01 AM EDT

  On 'Innocent until proven guilty'...does this apply equally to all suspects...if so, still waiting for evidence on the culprits behind the 1970's bombings?

• seanomelb | Sep 17, 2012, 07:47 PM EDT

  Dano has left the room battered and bruised.

• seamus60 | Sep 17, 2012, 02:23 PM EDT

  Any of you great democrats who lay total faith in a discredited system care to point out the cases of intimidation to date. You obviously agree with the article writers distortion to the golden rule in any civilised society of "Inocent until proven guilty". Is it that when a super in the guards says he believes you to be a member of this that or the other, "you are" Therefore a trial is not required, Why waste the money ? As for you who have attended court as a barrister and claim how fair it is. Tell that to the Mc Brearty family in Raphoe or the Short family in Inishowen. No bother to the special branch planting drugs and explosives on the behalf of your kind supers when it suits.

• leahkinsella | Sep 17, 2012, 01:19 PM EDT

  No, I never heard of Ciaradexy, but I'm possibly Warrenpoint in drag, though the last time I looked in the mirror, I was a retired 55 year old Lawyer.

• warrenpoint00 | Sep 17, 2012, 11:46 AM EDT

  Good to see that most posters on here agree that british military were responsible for the bombs in Dublin in 1972 and the Dublin /Monaghan bombings in 1973.The amendments and repeals by the Irish state were not designed for british military actions I guess, they were allowed to roam Ireland and murder innocent Irish people at their will.

• pilib04 | Sep 17, 2012, 09:21 AM EDT

  Talk about playing to the media. Round up those who may have colluded in and shot a volley at a cemetery, but those who participated in the killing are allowed to remain unmolested. Wouldn't want the government to mess with free enterprise (Drug Cartel).

• IrelandNorth | Sep 17, 2012, 07:32 AM EDT

  Contemporary reportage by security correspondents in the quality Irish broadsheet press, (briefed by G2 - Irish military intelligence and Garda Special Branch), suggested that the Dublin and Monaghan car bombings,(the single most large scale atrocity of the Troubles before Omagh), had been beyond the logistical capacity of the Portadown UVF - without British security force collaboration! That it occurred the day before Dáil Éireann voted in draconian legislation is hardly coincidental. It's difficult to prove undercover cloak-n-dagger British security force collusion with loyalist paramilitarism. One would need a journalistic equivalent of the Special Criminal Court (SCC). Whilst the SCC in Green Street, Dublin can hardly be referred to as a kangaroo court, it's specialness refers to it's three judge/juryless/expert witness nature, and trial of offences essentially political in nature - such as prosecuting constitutional prerogatives like reunification(?) The English Common Law tradition inherited by Ireland's colonial experience confers a right to trial by a jury of 12 good [wo]men and true. Hence, the SCC is repugnant to Common Law. (NB Having done a clinical visit to Mountjoy Gaol some years ago, it's certainly no hotel. Or if it is, it's a minus-5 star one!) PS All posters should keep their comments in the first person singular, unless they are political represenatatives. Only the queen of England is entitled to use the first impersonal singular - "One"! PPS If dissenting republicans are involved in non special criminal behaviour, why is there no reference to equivalent loyalist paramilitism? (PPPS And is leahkinsella ciaradexy in drag?)

• seanomelb | Sep 16, 2012, 07:14 PM EDT

  Not that I often defend WoundedKnee,Lynch as usual he is splitting hairs and deliberately mis-interpreting old woundedknee. I have posted below THE 1972 AMENDMENT which woundedknee was referring to and idiot Dano keeps digging himself into a deeper hole LOL.

• Gordan Duggan | Sep 16, 2012, 07:12 PM EDT

  The "Real IRA" and other Republican groups are a shower of bullies who have no ability to launch any sort of coherent campaign to secure their ultimate stated aim of a united Ireland. Ryan was a psychopathic moron who could barely spell the word 'Ireland'. His gang are a bunch of idiots who are cocky egomaniacs who rather indulge in criminality,armed robbery, ciagrette smuggling, intimidation ,fuel smuggling/laundering and racketeering (the same as the IRA). The paramilitary group don't care what the real people of Ireland want.If there were American or Australian, the would attract the attention of the FBI or CIA (and I bet they have) and would be destroyed like the Mafia. The Gardai and Special Branch are always watching them and the drug dealers. Sooner or later, they will get them and their asstets under the Criminal Assets Bureau (which many other countries have adopted). Ryan's initial fundraising efforts focused on taking control of the seurity business in pubs around the North Dublin area where landlords were told Real IRA would handle their security at extortionate rates or bear the consequences. He and his gang would sort Ireland out down the barrel of a gun. His ego was so big he thought he was untouchable. The Real IRA and other groups have got the shock of their lives that he was murdered. They did not see that coming. As GregShox states, our children will be the ones to suffer if we don't stop these groups who defy the Irish Constitution now. They defiled our national flag and should not be allowed to do that again.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 16, 2012, 07:04 PM EDT

  Knee trembler - Cui Bono isn't the same as evidence...and I'm not about to take any lessons from you regarding behaviour towards other posters...your foul and insulting attitude to those who disagree with you is a matter of record...

• WoundedKnee | Sep 16, 2012, 04:53 PM EDT

  It's very hard to get thru to you, O'Looney. You showed your ignorance of recent Irish history by incorrectly claiming that the Special "courts" were introduced following the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974. As I have told you--and I think someone else has corrected you also-this is false. The "courts" were introduced in 1972. The bomb went off in Dublin, killing a couple people, just as the Irish Parliament was discussing the measure to introduce the kangaroo courts. Cui bono? According to historians --you might want to read a few-- the Dail was expected to defeat the government and reject the "courts" but when word of the bombings came thru, the Dail members were stampeded (not a difficult thing to do with the Irish) into voting to bring in the "courts". Now it's not a huge deal for you to confuse one Dublin bombing with another, after some 40 years. But I do suggest you knock off the arrogant tone you try to adopt with some other posters--the combination of arrogance and ignorance is not pleasant to those who read your posts.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 16, 2012, 03:24 PM EDT

  Mr Knee - You're arguing against YOUR OWN POST. You posted 'The Special Courts... were introduced following a bombing in Dublin back in the 1970s. A bombing carried out by the British'. Still waiting to hear your evidence for that allegation?

• WoundedKnee | Sep 16, 2012, 12:53 PM EDT

  O'Looney: Maybe you need to read up a little on recent Irish history. The Dublin Monaghan bombings had NOTHING to do with the special "courts" (sic) in the 26 Counties. Those "courts" were already in existence at the time of those bombings. Of course we might well ask why the Dublin govt of that era wound up the police investigation of the Dublin Monaghan bombings with a few weeks, but dealing with two topics in Irish history at the same time would probably put unbearable stress on your fairly flimsy understanding.

• leahkinsella | Sep 15, 2012, 10:02 PM EDT

  Ah so wounded ego may also be George Dillon. I wondered why Dillon was so quiet lately.

• seanomelb | Sep 15, 2012, 09:42 PM EDT

  WoundedKnee is correct when he said that the word of a Garda was sufficient evidence to incarcerate a person and it was enacted in 1972. OFFENSES AGAINST THE STATE(AMENDMENT) ACT 1972 States that!"The opinion of a Garda superintendent that the accused was a member of an illegal organisation could be treated as fact. (OASA 1939-1998)The 1972 amendment was introduced after the Dublin bombing which was perpetrated by British intelligence probably using their terrorist orange friends. It was first used to incarcerate people without trial in the Curragh regardless of whether they were pro or anti German sympathisers.

• O'Hanlon | Sep 15, 2012, 08:12 PM EDT

  The Brits complicit support for Adolf Hitler and th facists in the Spanish Civil War was a slightly more fundamental and critical blow to the war against fascism than these overblown exaggerations about the IRA and the Nazis which seem to amount to one drunken lout having a chinwag with a Nazi whereupon they concocted a grand scheme the implications of which or the substance of which has been long forgotten. Britain allowed the Germans to use Gibraltrar, suppressed French aid to the Republican cause (which gave the Russians undue influence). Anthony Eden expressed his longing for a fascist victory and the Royal Navy sent tracking information of ships to the facists. The Brits also permitted Franco to set up a signals base in Gibraltar, a British colony, the Germans were allowed to overfly Gibraltar during the airlift of the Army of Africa to Seville. So all this nonsense about Ireland supporting the Nazis is the same tired, tepid and hypocritical stuff. Ireland had no capacity whatsoever to enter the war officially. To do so would have given the Nazis a tactical advantage either way so independence was tactically the best option all around for the Allied Forces. Many Irishmen sacraficed their lives too, fighting for the Allies with Britain and America. The soldier's cause was genuine, the politicians substantially less so. And please, don't come with your condescending tone. I'm Irish, not Irish-American though I don't see why people are so snooty about Irish-Americans. How many of our brothers and sisters have gone to find a new life there in this crisis? Are they to law abandon all affection for their home country overnight too? What a load of indulgent, faux-Brit tosh. George Orwell was Indian given the same bogus standards, Linford Christie Jamaican. No-one does hypocrisy like the stickies.

• GregShox | Sep 15, 2012, 07:38 PM EDT

  WoundedKnee is distorting the facts about when the special courts were introduced. They were set up at the beginning of WWII to contain the IRA, who were happy to collaborate with Hitler if it meant getting support against Britain.

• jacersagain | Sep 15, 2012, 07:15 PM EDT

  (… more) You see, the Irish police force, An Garda Síochána (trans: The Guardians of Peace), has an elite corps, members of which are trained in the USA and UK, that knows very well what most gangland criminals are up to most of the time because they have them under constant scrutiny, watching from unmarked cars and using undercover guises and disguises in various public houses and places, who use modern listening devices and phone- and computer-hacking without them knowing. So, you have specialist anti-crime policemen who have all the knowledge they need to get a conviction without the need for public witnesses or public-member juries. A police Superintendant’s testimony, based on police undercover discoveries, is all that is needed in the Special Criminal Court to convict well-known gangsters, some posing as Irish Republicans, without the judgement of an intimidated jury. That I agree with. Sorry about that Georgie-boy, since these criminals act subversively, I don’t have a problem with Gardaí acting subversively to gather the evidence to put them in jail, or as some of these gangsters laughingly call it, "Hotel Mountjoy". God Almighty, would someone make these criminals go and break rocks all day long??

• jacersagain | Sep 15, 2012, 07:10 PM EDT

  Thanks everybody for the laughs reading the exchange of posts below. GregShox – FYI, WoundedKnee, by his own admission, is an Irish-American who lives in the USA but who has spent a lot of time in Ireland, a place he loves so much that he has bothered to learn to speak and write in Irish and is a fervent Catholic. He also posts here on ICentral as George Dillon, indicating that he might be somewhat schizophrenic and therefore on pills, which he obviously forgets to take occasionally. I like the guy; he’s amusing and I’d have no qualms having a pint and chat with him. He’s always honest, if sometimes distastefully or mistakenly so. He’s right about the Special Criminal Court: it was set up to deal with cases involving Republican/Loyalist terrorists and their gun gangland, diesel- and money-laundering, and money-extortion activities as well as their murdering. But he is wrong on the reasons for its setting-up. (More…)

• leahkinsella | Sep 15, 2012, 05:52 PM EDT

  WoundedWhat'syourname: The word "diapers" gives you away. You live in America. They're called "nappies" in Ireland.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 15, 2012, 05:02 PM EDT

  WKnee - Did you or did you not post 'They were introduced following a bombing in Dublin back in the 1970s. A bombing carried out by the British'?

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 15, 2012, 05:01 PM EDT

  WKnee - did you or did you not post at 2.28 - 'They were introduced following a bombing in Dublin back in the 1970s. A bombing carried out by the British'?

• GregShox | Sep 15, 2012, 04:50 PM EDT

  Hi WoundedKnee -- Still waiting to find out if you live in Ireland.

• WoundedKnee | Sep 15, 2012, 04:36 PM EDT

  O Looney, you rarely make any sense, but this time you've lost me completely. What allegation did I make about the Dublin-Monaghan bombs? Are you confusing me with someone else? Or did you just forget to take your pills?

• aloistmartin | Sep 15, 2012, 04:34 PM EDT

  "Gentlemen, Prepare to defend yourselves." ~ CSM Plummley ( Sam Elliot ) From the Film: WE Were Soldiers.

• DanOLoingsigh | Sep 15, 2012, 04:29 PM EDT

  WKnee writes about the low standard of "evidence" used in Special Criminal Court - so what evidence does he have to substantiate his allegation on those behind the Dublin - Monaghan bombs? that's hard evidence, not innuendo or anything else...anything Concise, Relevant, Accurate, and Probative will do...CRAP in other words...

• leahkinsella | Sep 15, 2012, 04:12 PM EDT

  woundedego: Still ranting. Greg, I think he is a disappointed Provo whose day never came and never will. That is the end of the news.

• GregShox | Sep 15, 2012, 04:03 PM EDT

  WoundedKnee -- As a matter of curiosity, do you live in Ireland?

• WoundedKnee | Sep 15, 2012, 03:59 PM EDT

  Gregshox: "we still face the problem of jury intimidation." How come the North got rid of these pseudo courts, and now has trial by jury? Why don't you copy them? As to LeahBolton's --"be careful" .... don't try your stupid intimidation on me, you idiot. What a stupid phrase you use -- "these people". Since there hasn't been trial by jury since the 1970s, how could "these people" have intimidated anyone? Were they in diapers when they intimidated someone? You're an utter fool.

• leahkinsella | Sep 15, 2012, 03:36 PM EDT

  Woundedego: why are you calling me by a strange name "bolton". I do not know this person. We are not "the South" do not talk such drivel. I have attended the Special Court as a lawyer and it is very well run and the Judges are fair and impartial.there is no jury because juries have been intimidated in the past by these people. GregShox is right, the Irish people deplore these people and if you,re one of them be careful you do end up there.

• GregShox | Sep 15, 2012, 03:26 PM EDT

  WoundedKnee -- I agree that the origins of the Special Criminal Court were highly dubious, but we still face the problem of jury intimidation. Do you have a suggestion on how we should deal with that problem?

• WoundedKnee | Sep 15, 2012, 02:28 PM EDT

  leahkinsella aka bolton: What you say is a stupid lie. The Special Courts have no juries and the standard of "evidence" they use is the lowest possible. They were introduced following a bombing in Dublin back in the 1970s. A bombing carried out by the British! If a policeman says I did it, then I'm guilty, that's the way this farce operates. There's no way to challenge the cop who gives evidence against you, because he can claim his information is "sensitive" and that he is unable to give any details. This charade has been condemned by organizations like Amnesty International. In the North, the equivalent "Diplock" Courts have been shut down, yet the South still sticks to their low standards. Not surprised,frankly, standards in the South are pretty low in everything. You're a pretty good example of these low standards, Sergeant LeahBolton.

• Searlit | Sep 15, 2012, 01:34 PM EDT

  First they come for the criminals, then they take the (name whatever minority you like here,) then they come for you. Sound familiar? I don't think anyone should have absolute authority because it can be corrupted absolutely, remember?

• GregShox | Sep 15, 2012, 01:19 PM EDT

  I despair of this site. So many of the commenters seem to long for the days when Ireland was in the grip of constant political violence. They ignore the fact that the Irish people voted democratically for the situation we have today. People like these uniformed thugs who attended the drug dealer's funeral have no legitimacy in our country and we will never bow down to their intimidation. I think some Irish-Americans would have no life without the ancient bitterness to cling to, even though the consequences fall on my children, not theirs.

• leahkinsella | Sep 15, 2012, 12:22 PM EDT

  WoundedEgo: The Dublin Court you mention is indeed a real court and the men were arrested under the Offences Against the State Act which is designed to protect the Irish State from terrorists. O'Hanlon and others stop calling the Irish media pro British, they in fact reflect the opinions of the real people of Ireland. If you can't hack it then hard cheese.

• seamus60 | Sep 15, 2012, 11:51 AM EDT

  So you believe 2 wrongs make a right ? Fallsnat.

• seamus60 | Sep 15, 2012, 11:36 AM EDT

  These men can forget about justice if Irish Central have anything to do with it. According to the headline they are already guilty. Something we expected from the british press throughout the last 40 years. Disgracefull.

• O'Hanlon | Sep 15, 2012, 11:15 AM EDT

  Justice from the barrel of a gun. Has kind of a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? But then the British Empire was a product of afternoon tea and cupcakes and the grandiose majesty of the King/Queen. Not a shot was ever fired in anger. And today theoir foreign interventions on the middle-East have absolutely nothing to do with killing civilians in the name of oil and the pretty green note with Queenie's head on it. Oman, hmmm, why were SAS soldiers fighting there? Why did the Brits train Saddamn's officers at Sandhurst and why did the Brits arm the Chilean/Argentine fascist juntas whilst simultaneously reusing to join the embargo on South Africa during the horrific apartheid era. Maybe the Real IRA have simply lernt a thing or two from the British establishment the pro-Brit media appears to revere so much.

• FallsRNat | Sep 15, 2012, 10:24 AM EDT

  the RIRA court has a masked man deciding your fate down the barrel of a gun.

• WoundedKnee | Sep 15, 2012, 10:03 AM EDT

  While I have no time for anyone who advocates a return to militant action in Ireland, folks should realize that this Dublin "court" is not a real court. You can be convicted of an offense without any proof, all it takes is the word of a policeman. It's Ireland's version of Guantanamo.