Posted by admin on April 24, 2013
By Jim McIlmurray
On Tuesday, April 16th, 2013, Lurgan man Martin Corey will have spent three years in Maghaberry Prison without any charges ever being placed against him. During that time, police have never questioned or interviewed Martin regarding any incident, occurrence or event relating to his imprisonment.
So who is Martin Corey?
Martin Corey is a 62 year old man who served 19 years of his life in Long Kesh as a republican prisoner. He was released by the prison authorities in 1992 and began to rebuild his life. He is a popular figure from a well respected, hard-working family in the town.
It was a proud day for Martin when he was granted a loan to purchase his own mechanical digger. After a time, he gained the contract as the parish grave digger, covering several cemeteries in the greater Lurgan area. Many people, myself included, will recall his compassionate approach and professionalism during the time of families’ bereavement.
In all the time I have known Martin, I have only known his interests to be his family, his friends and his love of coarse fishing.
On Friday, April 16th, 2010, the police arrived at his O’Neill’s Terrace home and told him they had a warrant for his arrest. Martin was brought to Lurgan PSNI station and later that day transferred to Maghaberry Prison. It was stated he broke the terms of his Life Licence release.
When his solicitor requested to know what Martin was alleged to have done, he was told it a matter of National Security and the subject of closed file information.
For the past three years, his solicitor and barristers have challenged his unlawful detention on numerous occasions in the High Court. On Monday, the 9th of July, 2012, a High Court judge, Justice Seamus Tracy, who has a background in the European Human Rights Courts, ordered Martin’s immediate release, stating that his Human Rights had been breached under sections 4 and 5 of the European Human Rights act and that there were no charges for which he should answer. I waited for 4 hours outside Maghaberry with Martin’s family that day, only to be told at 4:15pm that the then current Secretary of State, Owen Patterson, had overruled the High Court judge and blocked Martin’s release. I was 25 yards away from Martin when I received that call. I watched him step out of the prison van at the reception centre and watched him walk back to the van to be returned to his cell. As he got into the van, he paused and stared at me and that will always be one of the hardest and cruelest moments I have ever witnessed in my life.
Martin has a legal entitlement to an annual Parole Board review every twelve calendar months to reevaluate the reasons for his continued detention. I have been accepted to speak on Martin’s behalf; however, every date set for a hearing for Martin last year was followed by a cancellation by the Parole Board, citing numerous excuses. Martin hasn’t received a parole review in 18 months, an action deemed illegal by the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg. We are currently awaiting a date to take this case to the High Court for a judicial review.
Martin has been subjected to a number of incidents during his time in Maghaberry Prison. These incidents include waiting over three weeks for an emergency dental appointment; of note, a veterinarian would have a legal obligation to report a pet owner for cruelty if he found an animal to be suffering for that period. Also, Martin’s request for compassionate leave to attend the funeral of his brother was denied by both the Prison Service and the Courts without any reasons given. He was only granted leave to attend 1 hour before the service started after a request was made to the Justice Minister on humanitarian grounds. I had to make three requests to the Prison Ombudsman to intervene in cases concerning material submitted by myself for Martin for use in his cell crafts. The prison staff either confiscated the printed image materials or refused to provide them to Martin. The Prison Ombudsman upheld all three decisions in Martin’s favour, ruling against the Northern Ireland Prison Service and determining that the material must be provided to Martin.
Martin’s case has been in the High Court in Belfast several times over the past three years, without any finding of criminal offence with which to charge him. Had Martin been charged with possession of an illegal firearm during his arrest three years previously, he would have been released six months ago. There is no other name for his illegal detention other than internment without trial.
As a close friend of Martin’s, I am in a better position than most to know if he was ever involved in any activity that could be deemed illegal or “a threat to National Security”, a phrase often utilized by faceless, nameless individuals in the courts. I can say without fear of contradiction that Martin is an innocent man. Everyone should make their voice be heard and call upon the Secretary of State to either bring charges against him or release him immediately.
I speak to Martin by telephone on a daily basis and visit him regularly in Maghaberry Prison, and can assure everyone that his spirits remain high despite his total lack of confidence in the judicial system in the North of Ireland. He thanks everyone for their continued messages of support .
We are currently awaiting a date to attend the Court of Appeal in London to challenge his illegal detention. If unsuccessful there, we will take his case to the European Courts of Justice. We will continue our presence at the Belfast High Court to request the Parole Board to give an explanation as to why Martin has been denied his legal right to an annual Parole Review.
Posted by Jim on
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to keep secret interviews with former IRA members from being turned over to the British authorities in the North of Ireland.
The court’s move leaves in place a lower court ruling ordering Boston College to give the Justice Department portions of interviews recorded with IRA veteran Dolours Price.
Dolours, who died in January, was interviewed with other former IRA members between 2001 and 2006 as part of the Belfast Project, a Boston College oral history study that was created to be a resource for journalists, scholars and historians.
But now the PSNI police wants to access the secret recordings, given on the basis of academic confidentiality, because they may contain evidence that can be used against both mainstream and ‘dissident’ republicans.
Researchers Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre, who had assured their subjects that their interviews would remain secret until after their deaths, have argued that the participants’ lives could be endangered if their identities are publicly revealed because they could potentially be branded as informers.
Attorney Eamonn Doran is representing Moloney and McIntyre, the director and lead researcher respectively of the Belfast Project, in their challenge of the decision by U.S. authorities to subpoena the records.
Monday’s Supreme Court refusal to hear Moloney and McIntyre’s appeal has potentially disastrous consequences, Dornan said.
“Numerous warnings have been given to the Department of Justice and the State Department by the AOH, the Brehon Law Society and the Irish American Unity Conference. Each is seriously concerned that the release of these materials, particularly at this time, may have a detrimental effect on the peace process,” Dornan said.
“We don’t know who’s pushing for these records to be released because we can’t see who issued the subpoena, or what the nature of the request is.
We suspect it must be the PSNI. The question is who in their right mind is driving this request for information, which would have a detrimental effect on a fragile enough peace?”
Last year a U.S. appeals court in Boston found that Moloney and McIntyre had no right to interfere with the police actions under the terms of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) between the U.S. and Britain. The appeals court insisted that criminal investigations must take precedence over academic study.
Brendan Moore, the National President of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, said, “It’s obviously an egregious application of the MLAT.
It’s undermining academic enquiry in this country. Clearly it’s also a fishing expedition on the part of the PSNI. They’re looking for people to be implicated.
“It’s also most unfortunate in terms of international relations. I think we are all under threat if treaties are going to be twisted in this way.”
But Moore calls Monday’s ruling a major setback, not a defeat. “There is a coalition between the AOH, the Brehon Law Society and the Irish American Unity Conference. We are all pledged to continue the fight. We do believe we have the support of Secretary of State John Kerry and influential members of Congress,” Moore said.
Dornan sees a practical solution to the crisis, if all parties have the wisdom to reach for it. “It’s still within the remit of the Department of Justice and the State Department to stop the transfer of these materials. The question is now in the political court,” he said.
In response, Moloney and McIntyre said they would fight the process politically, and thanked Irish American campaigners for their support.
“We began this fight almost exactly two years ago and all along the campaign has run on two tracks, one legal, the other political. The legal track has almost come to an end but the political campaign continues,” they said in a statement.
“All of those involved in this campaign can be assured that it is not over yet.”
Posted by admin on
BY BARRY McCAFFREY
THE British government has been ordered to hand over minutes of cabinet meetings at which the decision was made to refuse a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane.
Judge Ben Stephens today (Tuesday) ordered that minutes of cabinet meetings in July 2011 and correspondence between MI5 and the Northern Ireland Office must be disclosed to the court.
The order comes as part of a legal challenge by the solicitor’s widow Geraldine Finucane against Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to hold a public inquiry into the 1989 murder.
Mr Finucane was shot dead by UDA killers in front of his wife and three children as they sat down to dinner on February 12, 1989.
Mr Justice Stephens said that the gravity of the findings was self-evident but foreshadowed by evidence contained in confidential correspondence.
The judge referred to one letter, dated July 8, 2011 in which Mr Cameron’s intelligence advisor Ciaran Martin wrote:
“Even by Northern Ireland standards the facts are grisly. Moreover, in terms of allegations of British state ‘collusion’ with loyalist paramilitaries, this is the big one… whilst we know of no evidence of direction or advance knowledge of the murder by ministers, security chiefs or officials, exhaustive previous examinations have laid bare some uncomfortable truths.
“Paid state agents were directly involved in the killing, including the only man ever convicted of involvement in it.
“Lord (John) Steven’s conclusions paint a picture of a system of agent running by the RUC’s Special Branch and the Army’s Force Research Unit that was out of control.”
However appearing to confirm some element of senior government involvement in efforts to cover up security force collusion in the solicitor’s murder, the Prime Minister’s security advisor Mr Martin wrote:
“Some of the evidence available only internally could be read to suggest that within government at a high level this systematic problem with loyalist agents was known, but nothing was done about it.
“It’s also potentially the case that credible suspicions of agent involvement in Mr Finucane’s murder were made known at senior levels after it and that nothing was done; the agents remained in place. These two points essentially aren’t public.”
In a follow up letter, dated July 9, 2011, written about Mr Cameron, Mr Martin said: “…he, like virtually everyone else outside MoD shares the view that this was an awful case and as bad as it gets, and was far worse than any post 9/11 allegation.”
Mr Justice Stephens said that Mrs Finucane’s decision to take a legal challenge against the government decision not to allow a public inquiry into her husband’s murder was based on the allegation that the decision making process was not genuine and that the decision to refuse an inquiry was made under the influence of those opposed to any further investigation of the role of state agents in the murder.
In February the Detail exposed major concerns over the the De Silva review into Pat Finucane’s murder. read here and here and here
Ordering the disclosure of the papers to the court he said: “Accordingly, whilst emphasising that this is a preliminary stage there has been sufficient evidence to grant leave in relation to all of the applicant’s grounds of challenge.”
Mr Justice Stephens said that the government, whilst accepting that this was a case with a high level of factual enquiry, also argued that substantial materials were already before the court which explained in detail the background to the proceedings and impugned decision making process.
He said that while the government’s contention was that discovery in such circumstances was not necessary: “I consider that the fact that there are already substantial ‘materials’ including source documents before the court does not mean that ‘documents’ necessary in order to resolve the matter fairly and justly should not be disclosed.”
Mr Justice Stephens said that the government had argued that to identify individual ministers who had taken part in discussions to refuse a public inquiry was objectionable as it “undermines the doctrine of joint responsibility.”
However he said the fact that a document was confidential did not make it immune from disclosure.
“I consider that this is a highly fact sensitive case requiring the most careful and accurate evaluation of the facts.
“That it wll involve a painstaking analysis of a whole series of meetings tracing the whole decision making process from inception to conclusion identifying those who were involved in it and the roles that each played during the process.
“That enquiry is not restricted to the actual decision maker but also to those involved in the decision making process including civil servants who were advising the decision maker.
“That a document was not seen by a decision maker does not mean that it is immune from disclosure.”
The court will resume on Friday when a decision will be taken on when the government documents will be handed over to the court.
Posted by Jim on April 18, 2013
Irish lobby leaders visit Capitol Hill as new immigration bill is introduced onto U.S. Senate floor
By JAMES O’SHEA,IrishCentral Staff Writer
The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has welcomed Wednesday’s introduction of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, S.744 by the ‘Gang of 8’ in the US Senate and fully expect an estimated 50,000 Irish undocumented to benefit if it becomes law.
ILIR President Ciaran Staunton commented: ‘We have worked closely with Senators Schumer, McCain, Leahy, Graham and others for many years and are grateful for their ongoing commitment to CIR and the needs to the Irish American community.’
ILIR Board Member Celine Kennelly from San Francisco attended the introduction of the bill along with other Irish American leaders, Billy Lawless (Chicago Celts for Immigration Reform) and Fr. Brendan McBride (Irish Apostolate USA). On Capitol Hill they met with Senator Dick Durbin of the ‘Gang of 8’ and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
The introduction of S. 744 follows many months of bipartisan discussion and negotiation among the ‘Gang of 8’ and marks the beginning of further discussion and negotiation as the bill moves toward a process of approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be subject to amendment from both Republicans and Democrats on the committee.
The bill will then go to the full Senate for debate, amendment and a final vote. The House must also pass an immigration bill, which is currently being negotiated by another bipartisan group of Members of Congress.
ILIR Chairman Bart Murphy said: ‘It has been a long seven year battle to get to this point and we are hopeful for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform which will legalize the 50,000 undocumented Irish living the shadows and will provide a sustainable system of future migration between Ireland and the United States. We remain vigilant and realistic as there is still some distance to travel on this road.’
ILIR leaders pointed out that If the bill passes through the House and Senate as it is currently written and is signed into law by the President, it will take one year to write the regulations to implement the bill.
The application period for the new legalization program will begin one year after the bill is signed into law, and applicants will have one year to apply. The Department of Homeland Secretary Napolitano can extend the application period to a second year if necessary.
The current cut off date for applicants is they have had to be in U.S. on December 31, 2011.
During the year it will take to finalize the regulations after bill enactment and through the one or two year application period, individuals who are eligible for legalization will be protected from deportation.
No one can apply for legalization before the program application period begins ‐ one year after the bill is signed into law. ILIR stresses that individuals should not pay anyone to prepare or file their application unless and until the official application period begins.
ILIR is already warning undocumented to beware of bogus and unscrupulous websites and individuals offering early application opportunities.
ILIR says it will keep the community informed of the process as it moves and will announce the beginning of any application period.
“As the old saying goes, there can be many a slip between cup and lip and and things may change. Seven years ago we had high hopes for Kennedy/McCain. We have high hopes for this bill and we will be working hard to ensure its passage. As we travel along this road we will be looking for community support as we advocate for the passage of CIR.” said Chairman Bart Murphy.
Posted by Jim on April 16, 2013
By Gerry Adams (for Leargas)
Margaret Thatcher was a hugely divisive figure in British politics. Her right wing politics saw Thatcher align herself with some of the most repressive and undemocratic regimes in the late 20th century – including apartheid South Africa and Chile’s Pinochet. Her description of the ANC and Mandela as terrorists was evidence of her ultra conservative view of the world.
She championed the deregulation of the financial institutions, cuts in public services and was vehemently anti-trade union. She set out to crush the trade union movement. The confrontation with the miners and the brutality of the British police was played out on television screens night after night for months. The current crisis in the banking institutions and the economic recession owe much to these policies. And she went to war in the Malvinas.
But for the people of Ireland, and especially the north, the Thatcher years were among some of the worst of the conflict. For longer than any other British Prime Minister her policy decisions entrenched sectarian divisions, handed draconian military powers over to the securocrats, and subverted basic human rights.
Thatcher refused to recognise the right of citizens to vote for representatives of their choice. She famously changed the law after Bobby Sands was elected in Fermanagh South Tyrone. And when I and several other Sinn Fein leaders were elected to the Assembly in 1982 we were barred from entry to Britain.
Margaret Thatcher’s government defended structured political and religious discrimination and political vetting in the north, legislated
for political censorship and institutionalised to a greater extent
than ever before collusion between British state forces and unionist death squads.
It under her leadership that in 1982 that the Force Research Unit (FRU) was established as a unit within the British Army Intelligence Corps.
This British Army agency recruited agents who were then used to kill citizens. Among them was loyalist Brian Nelson. He was a former British soldier and member of the Ulster Defence Association who was recruited by FRU in 1983. He became the UDA’s Senior Intelligence Officer and his associates in FRU helped him to update his intelligence files, including photo-montages of potential victims.
In the summer of 1985 Nelson travelled to South Africa where he helped negotiate a deal for that ultimately saw the UDA, UVF and Ulster Resistance acquire 200 AK47 automatic rifles, 90 Browning pistols, 500 fragmentation grenades, ammunition and 12 RPG rocket launchers. The shipment arrived in the north in late 1987 or early 1988.
The Thatcher government was across all the details of this shipment. Its impact on the streets of the north is evident in the statistics of death. In the three years prior to receiving this weapons shipment the loyalist death squads killed 34 people. In the three years after the shipment they killed 224 and wounded countless scores more.
The extent of the role of FRU in the killing of citizens is formidable.
But it was the killing of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane in February
1989 that reveals the depth of the structured state collusion policy being pursued by the Thatcher government.
Pat was one of several lawyers targeted by unionist death squads at the behest of the RUC and British intelligence agencies. At every level of his killing British agents and agencies had a hand. The leader of the UDA group which carried out the killing was a Special Branch agent – Tommy Lyttle. The man who subsequently confessed to being the UDA gunman who killed Pat Finucane was Ken Barrett, also a Special Branch agent.
The UDA man who supplied the gun was William Stobie, a Special Branch agent – later killed in 2001 by the UDA when he threatened to lift the lid on the Finucane case. And, of course, the man who provided the intelligence for the killing was Brian Nelson, a British army agent.
This is part of the Thatcher legacy in Ireland.
She will be especially remembered by many for her shameful role during the epic hunger strikes of 1980 and 81.
The Thatcher government believed that the criminalisation of the republican prisoners would break the republican struggle. It was not interested in a resolution.
This much is evident in government papers released two years ago. For example a report of a meeting at Chequers on May 27th, after the deaths of Bobby Sands, Francie Hughes, Raymond McCreesh and Patsy O Hara, describes Thatcher commenting that ‘the Government must be ‘rock solid’
against any concessions to the hunger strikers or PIRA.’
The following day on a visit to Belfast Thatcher declared that the hunger strike ‘may well be their [the IRA’s] last card.’
The events of that awful summer of ’81 polarised Irish society, north and south. It was a watershed moment in Irish politics. The Thatcher government policy during the 1980’s was little more than a war policy.
All of the strategies issuing from that policy were aimed at defeating or isolating republicanism. This included the shallow and ineffectual
1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement which was about creating a political alliance involving the Dublin establishment, the SDLP, and the British to defeat Irish republicanism. Margaret Thatcher was a prime mover in all of this.
Shoot-to-kill actions by British forces also significantly increased.
This was most evident in the shooting dead of three unarmed IRA activists in Gibraltar in March 1988. It is my view that Thatcher authorised the killings at Gibraltar.
Later when the BBC and the IBA scheduled two programmes about Gibraltar Thatcher tried to stop them. She was “outraged” when the programmes went ahead. Later that year she introduced the Broadcasting Ban on Sinn Fein.
Two years later Thatcher authorised the then British Secretary of State Peter Brooke to reopen the back-channel with republicans. We were wary of this. However, for almost a decade Sinn Fein had been patently trying to build a peace process and unfolding events on the world stage, including the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, and the release of Mandela, were evidence that governments, and apparently intractable situations, could change. So we agreed to reactivate the back channel.
But for Thatcher it all ended in November 1990 when she was forced to resign by her party who perceived her to be no longer an electoral asset. She was evicted from Downing Street with all the ruthlessness, treachery and warped humanity of what passes for high politics.
Thatcher’s 12 years of dictating British policy in Ireland was a legacy of bitterness and entrenched division. Her Irish policy failed miserably.