Come Out and Support Dan Dennehy
Posted by Jim on June 17, 2016
Greater Ardoyne Residents’ Collective
Posted by Jim on June 16, 2016
Greater Ardoyne Residents’ Collective with Thomas Harte and 46 others.
On Wednesday 8th June, Ballymurphy activist Seán Cahill was made aware that a female Sinn Féin member had told people that he had carried out electrical work fo…r that they should not employ him as he was a “dissident”. This was the latest example of Sinn Féin members in Belfast attempting to impact on the ability of Republicans to provide for their families, with people actively being discouraged from employing them or availing of their skills, business and/or services.
Seán put a facebook post on his personal account, detailing this experience and naming the Sinn Féin member responsible. On Wednesday night he was visited at his home by two Sinn Féin members, including a brother in law of Sinn Féin Policing Board member Gerry Kelly. This man told Seán, in front of his wife, daughters and grandchildren, that he would “get one in the head.” Other threats were issued.
Seán, for the purposes of community awareness, informed friends of this threat via facebook. A female SF member returned to his home and made more threats. Sean’s distressed wife subsequently accessed his account and deleted any statuses connected to the incidents.
As a Republican, Seán refused to contact the PSNI regarding this incident, but on Thursday 9th June, he travelled to Holy Cross Monastery and asked to speak to Fr Gary Donegan. He did so as Fr Donegan has publicly stated that he will work with anyone allegedly under threat, will publicly support them and condemn those “in the shadows” that issue such threats. Fr Donegan was not available and Seán left his name and number at the reception.
Seán stressed to the Monastery staff member that he had received two intimidatory visits to his home in 24 hours, a death threat to his face (not from “the shadows”) issued by someone purporting to be a Republican. He added that it was issued in front of his distressed family and that he was apprehensive about returning home and putting his family in danger. He stated that he wanted Fr Gary Donegan to assist in ascertaining the validity or legitimacy of this threat, given his public claims in the media that he can assist members of the public in this regard, regardless of where any alleged threat emanates from.
It is now six days later and Seán Cahill has still had no contact from Fr Gary Donegan. Sinn Féin, despite being aware of the incident, have made no effort to contact the Cahill family. Seán remains unclear as to the nature of the threat against him as he works and spends time with his family. This raises serious questions, including:
– Do Sinn Féin support and endorse the threat against Sean Cahill, as they see him as a political opponent? If not, will SF take any disciplinary action against those responsible?
– Will Sinn Féin issue any public statement supporting Sean Cahill and his family?
– Why has Fr Donegan not got in contact with Sean Cahill when his contact details were left at Holy Cross Monastery along with information of a direct threat to his life. A threat that was issued personally and in front of witnesses?
– Does Fr Donegan only work to support those supposedly under threat from “dissidents” but ignore those under threat from Sinn Féin members?
– How does Fr Donegan ascertain the legitimacy of any alleged threats?
– Does Fr Gary Donegan have any knowledge of an armed group aligned to Sinn Féin?
– Did he ask Sinn Féin or the PSNI who Sean Cahill was, then decide he wasn’t worthy of support?
– Will Fr Donegan now belatedly contact Sean Cahill, offer support and publicly call on Sinn Féin to cease their covert campaign of intimidation against activists and their families in communities across Ireland?
The death threat against Seán Cahill should be lifted immediately, and his family should be free to live in peace. The demonisation, intimidation and harassment of activists by Sinn Féin, assisted by the PSNI, is unjust, immoral, anti-republican and demonstrates just how much they have become assimilated into corrupt State institutions.
Loughinisland inquiry sets a high standard
Posted by Jim on June 15, 2016
Brian Feeney. Irish News (Belfast). Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Let’s hope the Police Ombudsman’s report on the Loughinisland killings becomes a model for future investigations by his office.
Dr Michael Maguire’s welcome report is unique for a number of reasons. First, he was not content with simply looking at the events of the night of the murders in the Heights Bar on June 18, 1994 and the RUC’s failure to investigate properly what happened.
The Ombudsman set his investigation against a backdrop of endemic collusion going back to the late 1980s beginning with how Loyalists acquired the weapon used in the killings, a VZ58 assault rifle, a Czech version of the AK-47 with terrific firepower of 800 rounds a minute.
Much of the account he provides about the loyalist importation of weaponry in 1988 is already well known but Dr Maguire’s report gives unprecedented detail. He also gives details of a number of the 70 murders and attempted murders in Belfast and County Down with similar assault rifles after March 1988 and their links to east Belfast UVF individuals.
RUC Special Branch and the secret British military intelligence unit FRU[Force Research Unit] knew which members of the UVF, UDA and Ulster Resistance were involved in importing the weapons, and how they managed it, because most were their agents. None of them was ever arrested or investigated. The same lack of investigation applied to the UVF gang involved in the killings at the Heights Bar. So nothing new there.
Brigadier Gordon Kerr, the man who ran the FRU, knew all about the acquisition of weapons from South Africa by his agent Brian Nelson. Many nationalists find it incredible that the weapons nevertheless made their way without being intercepted, not only to The North but to the farm of convicted former RUC reservist James Mitchell who on his own admission held the biggest UVF arms dump in mid-Ulster.
Many wonder if elements in British intelligence decided it was necessary to upgrade the firepower of their loyalist agents to compete with the newly acquired arsenal Colonel Gadaffi had supplied to the IRA in 1985-6. Why was Nelson sent on his shopping expedition in 1987 but not before? Did he dream it up himself or did someone in intelligence suggest it to him?
Although the Ombudsman’s report casts its net wider than previously, it raises many more questions by doing so. The fundamental question is this. To what extent were Loyalist terrorists directed by British military intelligence and RUC Special Branch?
The response of some Unionists to the revelations in Dr Maguire’s report has been to dissemble, swap definitions of collusion, avoid the issue. They point to the fact that informers saved lives. Many did. That’s not in dispute. That’s not the issue. The issue is not whether, but to what extent British intelligence and RUC Special Branch either allowed loyalists to act as proxy killers or in some instances actually directed them towards certain individuals? To what extent did senior members of the security forces, particularly British intelligence, encourage agents provocateurs?
We know that the UDA, a criminal conspiracy from the outset, was maintained as a legal organisation until almost the end of the Troubles despite being responsible for hundreds of killings. If they were carrying out operations the security forces couldn’t do legally, the reason for not banning them is obvious. And don’t say it was the UFF, a fictional organisation devised to help the NIO [Northern Ireland Office] explain why they didn’t ban the UDA. Does anyone know where the UFF wing was in Long Kesh or Maghaberry?
At bottom evidence suggests the British state decided early on to use any means they could to destroy the IRA. If that meant making loyalist murder gangs into state agents so be it. If they continued to kill innocent Catholics that was unfortunate.
The alternative explanation for collusion, failure to investigate loyalist killings or intercept loyalist arms trafficking, is that important elements in British intelligence and RUC Special Branch were out of control. Which do you think?
Collusion was on a grand scale
Posted by Jim on June 14, 2016
Allison Morris. Irish News (Belfast). Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Loughinisland families have welcomed the findings of a police ombudsman’s report into the atrocity
IN the aftermath of the damning Loughinisland Police Ombudsman report, further questions must be asked about a massive arms shipment linked to dozens of loyalist murders.
Since last Thursday, when Dr Michael Maguire delivered his findings into the killing of six people by the UVF while watching a football match, there has been much debate about the definition of collusion.
Dr Maguire applied the definition favoured by Judge Peter Smithwick who found that there was Garda collusion with the IRA in the murders of two senior policemen in 1989.
Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan were shot dead in an IRA ambush in south Armagh as they crossed the border after a meeting in Dundalk Garda station,
Judge Smithwick said while there was no ‘smoking gun’, information received may have prevented the attack and there was inadequate investigations into the murders and “inappropriate” relationships between officers and IRA members.
Dr Maguire’s findings were much more damning than a failure to properly investigate and what he called a “hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil” attitude among some members of Special Branch in their control of loyalist informers.
He found that security services had prior knowledge of the South African arms shipment but did not prevent the weapons being smuggled and then failed to intercept some of the shipment, despite intelligence on its whereabouts.
In my view this is collusion in its most basic form and there is no room for ambivalence towards Dr Maguire’s findings, if the report is viewed – as it was intended – in its entirety.
All of those families who lost loved ones through the use of these guns should now have recourse against the state.
A senior loyalist informer, Tommy ‘Tucker’ Lyttle, was one of those who organised the arms deal, as did British army agent Brian Nelson.
The weapons that fell into the hands of the shadowy Ulster Resistance group have never been recovered, while some made their way to other paramilitary organisations and many remain in what one senior loyalist described to me last week as “cold storage”.
It has been said that informers helped save many lives over the course of the conflict, but as seen in the case of UVF man Mark Haddock and IRA agent Stakeknife, they were also permitted to kill on occasions.
Who decided who lived and who died in such cases?
While the RUC may not have known the exact details of the Loughinisland attack – few people would have, given it was in retaliation for the murder of two UVF men just days before – they did have the names of the suspects within hours and didn’t arrest them until a month later.
By any definition there was collusion on a grand scale in this case.
Lawyer murdered ‘by army-run death squad’
Posted by Jim on
Irish News (Belfast). Tuesday, June 14, 2016
MURDERED Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane was the victim of an army-run death squad normally associated with Latin American dictatorships, the Court of Appeal heard yesterday.
Counsel for the solicitor’s widow claimed his assassination was due to covert, state-sponsored terrorism and represents a “horror story” for the British government.
The allegations were made as Geraldine Finucane began her bid to overturn a ruling that Prime Minister David Cameron acted lawfully in refusing to hold a public inquiry into the killing.
But the challenge was dramatically adjourned after it emerged that one of the three appeal judges had been involved in a separate civil action she issued more than 20 years ago.
Mr Finucane was gunned down by loyalist at his home in north Belfast in February 1989.
His family have campaigned for a full examination of alleged security force collusion with the killers. Mrs Finucane took the prime minister to court after he ruled out a public inquiry in 2011. Instead, Mr Cameron commissioned QC Sir Desmond de Silva to review all documents relating to the case and produce a narrative of what happened.
That report confirmed agents of the state were involved in the murder and it should have been prevented. But it concluded there had been no overarching state conspiracy.
The Finucane family rejected the findings and accused the government of unlawfully reneging on previous commitments.
Pledges to set up a tribunal, based on the recommendation of retired Canadian judge Peter Cory, were made by a former Labour government in 2004 and reaffirmed in the following years, it was contended.
Last year a High Court judge ruled that Mr Cameron acted lawfully in refusing to hold a public inquiry.
He found that Mrs Finucane had received a clear and unambiguous promise of an inquiry, but backed the Government’s case that other public interest issues, including political developments in Northern Ireland and the potential financial pressures of a costly inquiry, were enough to frustrate her expectation.
Despite throwing out Mrs Finucane’s legal bid the judge also said the State has not fully met its human rights obligation to investigate.
Opening an appeal against that verdict, Barry Macdonald QC claimed the case was about an abuse of power.
He said the 500 page de Silva report, which highlighted the connection of law enforcement elements to the murder conspiracy, contained only five pages on the role of the Government.
Of Ken Barrett, the loyalist gunman convicted of the killing, Mr Macdonald said: “The only person held accountable was one of the UDA puppets used to pull the trigger.”
He quoted correspondence from one of Mr Cameron’s closest advisers which described the killing as far worse than anything alleged in Iraq or Afghanistan while another described the Finuncane case as “something of a horror story for the security forces”.
Questioning why the authorities appeared to regard the murder as the most difficult from the Troubles, the barrister continued: “The answer is because in this liberal democracy where the rule of law is supposed to be paramount, the army is running death squads of a kind normally associated with Latin American dictatorships of the era.”
Investigations into the assassination carried out by former Scotland Yard chief Sir John Stevens was obstructed at the highest levels of the army and RUC, it was claimed.
He claimed that commissioning the de Silva review instead of a full public inquiry insulated government ministers from any further scrutiny.
However, the planned three-day hearing had to be adjourned after counsel for the Governmen applied for Lord Justice Weir to recuse himself after it emerged that while a barrister in the early 1990s he had endorsed a writ issued by Mrs Finucane in a civil action over her husband’s killing.