Ó Brádaigh - Hunger Strikers Were Not Sacrificed for Political Gain

[SonnyLaymatina]

Pat McLarnon said: "Their job was to act as a buffer between the cynical manoeuvrings of the British and men weakened by weeks of hunger strike."

Wrong, their job was to act as advocates for the Hunger Strikers communicating to them all the cynical manoeverings of the British especially the Mountain Climber's offer. Instead Adams and Company behaved like lousy Criminal Defense Lawyers telling their clients the Prosecutors had made no plea offer when in fact the Prosecutors had, which means the British weren't the only cynical manoeverers here.

[picador]

Merle,

As you have taken the trouble to neg-rep me could you please explain how the OP (below) is a 'disgraceful misrepresentation' of what R' Ó B told the Irish News

In a recent interview with the Irish News out-going RSF President Ruairí Ó Brádaigh refutes the suggestion that the lives of six of the 1981 hunger strikers were sacrificed for electoral gain. Ó Brádaigh, who was both President of Sinn Féin and a member of the IRA Army council at the time decribes northern opposition to involvement in the June 1981 southern election that saw two prisoners, Kieran Doherrty and Paddy Agnew elected to the Dáil. It is Ó Brádaigh's view that British dirty tricks were responsible for the prolongation of the protest. Ó Brádaigh's intervention in the on-going debate about a supposed deal that might have saved the lives of the men is significant given his longstanding enmity with Gerry Adams, Danny Morrison et al.

[picador]

What was the composition of the A/C in 81? Would I be right in thinking that it was mainly GA and his allies? MMG, DM, JC, etc.

[Pat Mc Larnon]

Pat McLarnon said: "Their job was to act as a buffer between the cynical manoeuvrings of the British and men weakened by weeks of hunger strike."

Wrong, their job was to act as advocates for the Hunger Strikers communicating to them all the cynical manoeverings of the British especially the Mountain Climber's offer. Instead Adams and Company behaved like lousy Criminal Defense Lawyers telling their clients the Prosecutors had made no plea offer when in fact the Prosecutors had, which means the British weren't the only cynical manoeverers here.

The Mountain Climber was in no position to make an offer, he was simply a conduit for the British and as he stated nothing was on paper.

As Bernard Fox has stated offers were flying about all the time. That is the nature of the beast you are dealing with. As the ICJP and others have clarified the British would not put anything down on paper and they would not go in and tell the men themselves, despite being asked to do so 6 times. They always kept themselves in a position of deniability.

At the time the ICJP were forced to condemn the British for withdrawing concessions they had offered.

As men are staring into the face of death, becoming confused as their health deteriorated only a person of exceptional cruelty would visit the dealings of the Britsh to them on a supposed offer that as the ICJP observed was ever changing. Yes, nothing like giving people a bit of hope only to have it snatched away every so often.

[Katayusha]

Yes, nothing like giving people a bit of hope only to have it snatched away every so often.

The hunger strikers were lied to and kept in the dark so they wouldn't get false hope that might make them less willing to sacrifice themselves; that what you're saying here?

Cynical and monstrous, whichever way you want to spin with it.

[SonnyLaymatina]

The Mountain Climber was in no position to make an offer, he was simply a conduit for the British and as he stated nothing was on paper.

So what? Few Assistant D.A.'s are either when they make verbal offers of plea bargains to Defence Attorneys. By your logic Defense Attorneys shouldn't relay this information to their clients. Nonsense!

As Bernard Fox has stated offers were flying about all the time. That is the nature of the beast you are dealing with.

Same as in the practice of civil and criminal law.

As the ICJP and others have clarified the British would not put anything down on paper and they would not go in and tell the men themselves, despite being asked to do so 6 times. They always kept themselves in a position of deniability.

And even if so then all of that should have been communicated to the Hunger Strikers.

At the time the ICJP were forced to condemn the British for withdrawing concessions they had offered.

So what?

As men are staring into the face of death, becoming confused as their health deteriorated only a person of exceptional cruelty would visit the dealings of the Britsh to them on a supposed offer that as the ICJP observed was ever changing. Yes, nothing like giving people a bit of hope only to have it snatched away every so often.

You mean a bit of informed consent. Stop drinking PSF's juice.

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

err

to state the obvious the difference between an asistant d.a and an offer a secret counduit makes is deniability. if the hunger strike was called off on a deal and the brits denied ever making a deal then how are they held to account.

[Pat Mc Larnon]

So what? Few Assistant D.A.'s are either when they make verbal offers of plea bargains to Defence Attorneys. By your logic Defense Attorneys shouldn't relay this information to their clients. Nonsense!.

Your attempt at legal jargon and comparison holds no water

Same as in the practice of civil and criminal law.

.

See above

And even if so then all of that should have been communicated to the Hunger Strikers.

.


A call made at the time

So what?.

Evidence that the British were never serious and were intent in torturing and confusing the men.

You mean a bit of informed consent. Stop drinking PSF's juice.

Informed consent? A bit like when they left meals in their cells day after day, what do you call that giving them an option? I prefer cruelty and torture.

[Pat Mc Larnon]

err

to state the obvious the difference between an asistant d.a and an offer a secret counduit makes is deniability. if the hunger strike was called off on a deal and the brits denied ever making a deal then how are they held to account.

A bit too obvious for some.

[Katayusha]

Evidence that the British were never serious and were intent in torturing and confusing the men.

As opposed to telling the men, SF and the Army Council nothing about the offers and negotiations.

It's a pity Denis Faul never lived to be vindicated.