Ó Brádaigh - Hunger Strikers Were Not Sacrificed for Political Gain

[SonnyLaymatina]

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.

Errr...quite often Assistant DA's will also deny they made an earlier verbal offer if the Head DA over rules them or the Assistant DA will claim what ever suggested offer they made was implicitely conditional on getting the Head DA's authorization. That said, I know of no Defense Attorney who would not immediately communicate any Government offer (genuine or not) to his or her client for them to accept or reject in whole or in part. Moreover, speaking of stating the obvious: what part of they-can-always-go-back-on-the-Hunger-Strike IF THEY WANT TO don't you understand?

[SonnyLaymatina]

Pat McLarnon said: “Your attempt at legal jargon and comparison holds no water”

You mean no juice!

A call made at the time

You mean Gerry Adams’ decision then not to tell the Hunger Strikers of this offer which of course he lied about later on. Talk about cruelty and torture.

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

Imagine you're dying in a hospital bed of what you think is inoperable cancer and your Oncologist quietly approaches your wife to say maybe your cancer can be operated on but your wife doesn’t tell you that preferring instead that you just die. Now maybe the Oncologist is wrong or being disingenuous but don’t you think your wife should have told you this before she decided you’d be better off dead? Don't you think that should have been your decision to make and not your wife's or Uncle Gerry's?

Informed consent?

The patient’s choice based upon all known facts and conditions.

A bit like when they left meals in their cells day after day, what do you call that...

The law: prisons are required under the law to provide all prisoners three hots and a cot daily.

I prefer cruelty and torture.

No doubt.

[SonnyLaymatina]

A bit too obvious for some.

Says the PSF juice drinker. LOL!

[SonnyLaymatina]

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.

That's right! I would only add that 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 for PSF's electoral strategy. And there in lays the deep dark secret of the Hunger Strikes that PSF didn't want you to know about then or now.

[Seánod]

It seems to me that there are people whose pursuit of the 'truth', and their enthusiasm for finding out the 'truth', is only matched by their enthusiasm that this 'truth' will damage Gerry Adams and other individuals who currently support the Good Friday Agreement. If Ruairí Ó Brádaigh were a staunch supporter of the Good Friday Agreement, God Forbid the thought, then he'd find himself cast into the fire as well, and all sorts of connections would be found and propagated.

It is my view that Gerry Adams should become more involved in this debate, including providing a detailed account of the chronology of events and the reasoning behind certain decisions. I don't like the way he has been hounded on this issue, but equally I don't like the almost De Valera-like aloofness he displays in relation to probing questions. He has gotten himself into a difficult situation in one sense. How can he discuss Army Council and IRA decisions at the highest level when he publicly denies being a member of those organisations?

I do feel that some people have conveniently forgotten the nature of the organisation that the hungerstrikers were a part of. The Army Council would have been making difficult and calculating decisions on an almost daily basis throughout the conflict, many of those decisions having consequences for human lives, as is the case in all conflicts and in all armies. I doubt if the hungerstrike was fully in the hands of the hungerstrikers themselves.... just like the conduct of the war on the streets was not entirely in the hands of the volunteers taking part in it. Everyone who ever joined the IRA was placing their trust, to a certain extent, in the Army Council and wider leadership. This may have led to the situation that the Army Council, in relation to the hungerstrike, was making politico-military decisions around the hunger strike, in what they felt was best for the prisoners overall, and which also advanced the struggle. I could envisage a situation there where they might have felt that they had the authority to act on behalf of the IRA prisoners. Remember, the Army Council were sending people out to risk their lives every day of the week. They needed people to risk their lives. Every army does. And they didn't tell everyone everything all of the time. I know the two situations are different, but the point I'm making is that the conflict here was tough, and it required some tough decisions, many of which put the lives of your own comrades in danger. If it comes out, and it hasn't been proven yet, but if it comes out that this was another 'tough' decision made in the midst of a political and military war, I don't think it necessarily justifies the lambasting of the people who made that decision. I think if anyone believes that there is going to be sufficient evidence to suggest that Gerry Adams decided deliberately to let hungerstrikers die for simple electoral purposes, then that is more than likely, for me, a statement of their current political animosity toward him and Sinn Féin, than any genuine pursuit of truth or genuine concern for the families.

I suppose in these relatively peaceful times we have very little to do other than excessively scrutinise every act and every deed and every motive. Aren't we lucky?

In relation to the INLA prisoners who died, I think there is a stronger case to answer. The IRA always, on a daily basis, sought to subdue the authority of the INLA within the prison to their own authority. I am sure that even some of the men who died side by side on hungerstrike were a part of this eternal divide within the prisons too, even though their memory is as one. I am sure that some republican exprisoners on the outside, who are now standing shoulder to shoulder in questioning the hungerstrike, were once part of this divide within the prison. The IRA assumption of authority over all prisoners, including INLA prisoners, was always something I found hard to accept. INLA prisoners had about as much standing within the IRA authorities as women have in the Church... it's ok to have them around, but in a position of authority, no way! So, it is my view, if the INLA and IRSP were not properly informed about offers, then this is indefensible. It is also my view, from my experience of mixing with INLA prisoners, that they would, if anything, be harder to convince to accept anything short of the five demands or anything that could not be properly pinned down and verified. Being poorly treated by the larger republican grouping meant that the need to outdo 'the big brother' was very strong in the pysche of the INLA and IRSP.

I suppose I'd need to make it clear that I don't support any party any more. I'm an independent chaotic republican. I say that because I know some people like to get us all to fit into their neat little boxes.

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

Errr...quite often Assistant DA's will also deny they made an earlier verbal offer if the Head DA over rules them or the Assistant DA will claim what ever suggested offer they made was implicitely conditional on getting the Head DA's authorization. That said, I know of no Defense Attorney who would not immediately communicate any Government offer (genuine or not) to his or her client for them to accept or reject in whole or in part. Moreover, speaking of stating the obvious: what part of they-can-always-go-back-on-the-Hunger-Strike IF THEY WANT TO don't you understand?

the tactic of hunger stike is more than just an individual fasting and relying on that morality alone. the strength comes with making a conestion with the people on the outside its building up a mass of support on the out side to spread your case. it is a very risky tactic. historicly stopping and starting and stoping again a hunger strike has had the effect of createing disbelief in the urgency of the situation in the general public. thats why they simply could not go back to hunger stike.

[SonnyLaymatina]

It seems to me that there are people whose pursuit of the 'truth', and their enthusiasm for finding out the 'truth', is only matched by their enthusiasm that this 'truth' will damage Gerry Adams and other individuals who currently support the Good Friday Agreement. If Ruairí Ó Brádaigh were a staunch supporter of the Good Friday Agreement, God Forbid the thought, then he'd find himself cast into the fire as well, and all sorts of connections would be found and propagated.

It is my view that Gerry Adams should become more involved in this debate, including providing a detailed account of the chronology of events and the reasoning behind certain decisions. I don't like the way he has been hounded on this issue, but equally I don't like the almost De Valera-like aloofness he displays in relation to probing questions. He has gotten himself into a difficult situation in one sense. How can he discuss Army Council and IRA decisions at the highest level when he publicly denies being a member of those organisations?

I do feel that some people have conveniently forgotten the nature of the organisation that the hungerstrikers were a part of. The Army Council would have been making difficult and calculating decisions on an almost daily basis throughout the conflict, many of those decisions having consequences for human lives, as is the case in all conflicts and in all armies. I doubt if the hungerstrike was fully in the hands of the hungerstrikers themselves.... just like the conduct of the war on the streets was not entirely in the hands of the volunteers taking part in it. Everyone who ever joined the IRA was placing their trust, to a certain extent, in the Army Council and wider leadership. This may have led to the situation that the Army Council, in relation to the hungerstrike, was making politico-military decisions around the hunger strike, in what they felt was best for the prisoners overall, and which also advanced the struggle. I could envisage a situation there where they might have felt that they had the authority to act on behalf of the IRA prisoners. Remember, the Army Council were sending people out to risk their lives every day of the week. They needed people to risk their lives. Every army does. And they didn't tell everyone everything all of the time. I know the two situations are different, but the point I'm making is that the conflict here was tough, and it required some tough decisions, many of which put the lives of your own comrades in danger. If it comes out, and it hasn't been proven yet, but if it comes out that this was another 'tough' decision made in the midst of a political and military war, I don't think it necessarily justifies the lambasting of the people who made that decision. I think if anyone believes that there is going to be sufficient evidence to suggest that Gerry Adams decided deliberately to let hungerstrikers die for simple electoral purposes, then that is more than likely, for me, a statement of their current political animosity toward him and Sinn Féin, than any genuine pursuit of truth or genuine concern for the families.

I suppose in these relatively peaceful times we have very little to do other than excessively scrutinise every act and every deed and every motive. Aren't we lucky?

In relation to the INLA prisoners who died, I think there is a stronger case to answer. The IRA always, on a daily basis, sought to subdue the authority of the INLA within the prison to their own authority. I am sure that even some of the men who died side by side on hungerstrike were a part of this eternal divide within the prisons too, even though their memory is as one. I am sure that some republican exprisoners on the outside, who are now standing shoulder to shoulder in questioning the hungerstrike, were once part of this divide within the prison. The IRA assumption of authority over all prisoners, including INLA prisoners, was always something I found hard to accept. INLA prisoners had about as much standing within the IRA authorities as women have in the Church... it's ok to have them around, but in a position of authority, no way! So, it is my view, if the INLA and IRSP were not properly informed about offers, then this is indefensible. It is also my view, from my experience of mixing with INLA prisoners, that they would, if anything, be harder to convince to accept anything short of the five demands or anything that could not be properly pinned down and verified. Being poorly treated by the larger republican grouping meant that the need to outdo 'the big brother' was very strong in the pysche of the INLA and IRSP.

I suppose I'd need to make it clear that I don't support any party any more. I'm an independent chaotic republican. I say that because I know some people like to get us all to fit into their neat little boxes.

Thank you for your thoughtful response but I have some bones to pick with you nonetheless:

I think if anyone believes that there is going to be sufficient evidence to suggest that Gerry Adams decided deliberately to let hunger strikers die for simple electoral purposes, then that is more than likely, for me, a statement of their current political animosity toward him and Sinn Féin, than any genuine pursuit of truth or genuine concern for the families.

Speaking as an old soldier, I am well aware of having to be expendable in time of war. That’s part of the gig and at least in the Army I was in…that was made very well known to you prior to signing up for sworn service. This is what I mean by informed consent. And of course that doesn’t mean your superior officers are above reproach or review for their actions or inactions. That said I don’t buy your reasoning that the Hunger Strikers could be made expendable for an electoral strategy because they were in an Army - unless that’s what the Hunger Strikers wanted to knowingly die for.

So, it is my view, if the INLA and IRSP were not properly informed about offers, then this is indefensible.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It is also my view, from my experience of mixing with INLA prisoners, that they would, if anything, be harder to convince to accept anything short of the five demands or anything that could not be properly pinned down and verified. Being poorly treated by the larger republican grouping meant that the need to outdo 'the big brother' was very strong in the pysche of the INLA and IRSP.

Fine if that’s what they want to do knowingly do.

I don't support any party any more.

Me neither.

I'm an independent chaotic republican.

Me too.

[SonnyLaymatina]

the tactic of hunger stike is more than just an individual fasting and relying on that morality alone. the strength comes with making a conestion with the people on the outside its building up a mass of support on the out side to spread your case. it is a very risky tactic. historicly stopping and starting and stoping again a hunger strike has had the effect of createing disbelief in the urgency of the situation in the general public. thats why they simply could not go back to hunger stike.

As I recall, they were striking because of the conditions in the prison…not to get some one elected.

So if there was an offer to meet some or all of their demands then they should have been told about it.

And if they didn't think that offer was enough or genunine then they could still have stayed on the strike.

But that would have been their choice to knowingly make --- not mine --- not yours --- and not Gerry's.

[picador]

Ruairí Ó Brádaigh refuted the notion that the hunger strikers were sacrificed for electoral purposes. Why do you ignore this?

[merle haggard]

[quote=Seánod;2232057]

It seems to me that there are people whose pursuit of the 'truth', and their enthusiasm for finding out the 'truth', is only matched by their enthusiasm that this 'truth' will damage Gerry Adams and other individuals who currently support the Good Friday Agreement. If Ruairí Ó Brádaigh were a staunch supporter of the Good Friday Agreement, God Forbid the thought, then he'd find himself cast into the fire as well, and all sorts of connections would be found and propagated.

except in this case its much more likely that if mr obradaigh ws a supporter of the belfast agreement and mr adams then an anonymous " staff reporter" would simply not need to completely misrepresent a statement by Mr OBradaigh and spin it to mean something completely different to what the man actually said . Act as a deliberate confusion monger in other words . Which is very clearly what has happened here , which is the actual issue . Which if its not too rude a suggestion , might i suggest you yourself might address .

It is my view that Gerry Adams should become more involved in this debate, including providing a detailed account of the chronology of events and the reasoning behind certain decisions.

he has become involved in it , denied taking decisions , and thus far his accounts do not stand up to any scrutiny

I don't like the way he has been hounded on this issue, but equally I don't like the almost De Valera-like aloofness he displays in relation to probing questions.

he isnt being hounded by anyone . The sandbags he sent out to tell lies about the affair have been blown away in the sense of their accounts not standing up to scrutiny . Leaving a very real need now for him to explain himself . His attempt to do so has fallen flat on its face .

He has gotten himself into a difficult situation in one sense. How can he discuss Army Council and IRA decisions at the highest level when he publicly denies being a member of those organisations?

he doesnt need to surely ? its been confirmed by Mr OBradaigh that the IRA army council as well as the sinn fein leadership were not in any manner involved in these decisions . That they were completely unaware of any offers being made .

I do feel that some people have conveniently forgotten the nature of the organisation that the hungerstrikers were a part of. The Army Council would have been making difficult and calculating decisions on an almost daily basis throughout the conflict, many of those decisions having consequences for human lives, as is the case in all conflicts and in all armies.

i think youve forgotten that it has been revealed by Mr Obradaigh - for the second time in 2 years - that the IRA Army council were not involved in these decisions and that they were completely unaware of any offers being made by the British government.

I doubt if the hungerstrike was fully in the hands of the hungerstrikers themselves.... just like the conduct of the war on the streets was not entirely in the hands of the volunteers taking part in it. Everyone who ever joined the IRA was placing their trust, to a certain extent, in the Army Council and wider leadership.

INLA members werent . Your analysis and reasoning also seems to be backing up that fateful com from Bik McFarlane to Brownie , which puts the ball firmly at the feet of Mr Adams yet again

This may have led to the situation that the Army Council, in relation to the hungerstrike, was making politico-military decisions around the hunger strike, in what they felt was best for the prisoners overall, and which also advanced the struggle.

but they werent , that has been confirmed by MR OBradaigh . Neither were the sinn fein leadership . How hard is this for you to understand . Gerry Adams was not the IRA Aarmy council . Nor was he president of sinn fein .

I could envisage a situation there where they might have felt that they had the authority to act on behalf of the IRA prisoners. Remember, the Army Council were sending people out to risk their lives every day of the week.

remember they knew nothing of any offers

They needed people to risk their lives. Every army does. And they didn't tell everyone everything all of the time. I know the two situations are different, but the point I'm making is that the conflict here was tough, and it required some tough decisions, many of which put the lives of your own comrades in danger.

except they knew nothing of any offers and if mr adams was making these decisions he was making them as gerry adams the individual and nobody else . And the man who directly benefited most from these decisions was gerry adams . The same gerry adams who in a hungerstrikers documentary , when he wasnt so shy about talking , very publicly laid the blame for Bobby Sands death ( in a nice and understanding way of course ) at the feet of the late tormented Brendan Hughes . A dastardly act remarked upon by the preist officiating at Brendan Hughes funeral

If it comes out, and it hasn't been proven yet, but if it comes out that this was another 'tough' decision made in the midst of a political and military war, I don't think it necessarily justifies the lambasting of the people who made that decision.

if it comes out it will be a " tough decison " made by gerry adams alone without him telling the IRA army council or the sinn fein leadership anything about it or the offers which had been made to him .

I think if anyone believes that there is going to be sufficient evidence to suggest that Gerry Adams decided deliberately to let hungerstrikers die for simple electoral purposes, then that is more than likely, for me, a statement of their current political animosity toward him and Sinn Féin, than any genuine pursuit of truth or genuine concern for the families.

you believe that the army council took these decisions - a belief that can only logically be based on a fantasy that gerry adams personally was the IRA army council . This suggests your a complete victim of the cult of personality , that for you adams is somehow the republican alpha and omega . Gerry Adams was answerable to the IRA army council and the Sinn Fein leadership - not the other way around . The IRA army council took no such decisions on any offers becasue the IRA amry council was completely unaware of them , as were the prisoners . Nor did the sinn fein leadership know anything about them .
It has been gerry adams and his associates from that era themselves who have been making the claim for years that these men died to give sinn fein the strength to emerge as an electoral force and to embark on a peace process . Now your actually complaining that people are taking this disgraceful revisionism seriously . And claiming this is simply a hate filled grudge of people willing to believe anything . This demonstrates to me your incapable of looking at this situation remotely rationally .

Id remind you again at this juncture those men died very specifically struggling against British political objectives . Which were specifically - Ulsterisation , Normalisation , Criminalisation , making British rule in some form acceptable to the nationalist community . On the eve of his election victory Bobby sands wrote " where now stands their ulsterisation , their normalisation and their criminalisation ?"
Thats a question people today should be asking themselves .

I suppose in these relatively peaceful times we have very little to do other than excessively scrutinise every act and every deed and every motive. Aren't we lucky?

well we could be living it up on the backs of those who died and claiming our stormont salaries and British ministerial positions were in all honesty what ten men actually died for .

In relation to the INLA prisoners who died, I think there is a stronger case to answer. The IRA always, on a daily basis, sought to subdue the authority of the INLA within the prison to their own authority. I am sure that even some of the men who died side by side on hungerstrike were a part of this eternal divide within the prisons too, even though their memory is as one. I am sure that some republican exprisoners on the outside, who are now standing shoulder to shoulder in questioning the hungerstrike, were once part of this divide within the prison. The IRA assumption of authority over all prisoners, including INLA prisoners, was always something I found hard to accept. INLA prisoners had about as much standing within the IRA authorities as women have in the Church... it's ok to have them around, but in a position of authority, no way! So, it is my view, if the INLA and IRSP were not properly informed about offers, then this is indefensible. It is also my view, from my experience of mixing with INLA prisoners, that they would, if anything, be harder to convince to accept anything short of the five demands or anything that could not be properly pinned down and verified. Being poorly treated by the larger republican grouping meant that the need to outdo 'the big brother' was very strong in the pysche of the INLA and IRSP.

In relation to the INLA and IRA prisoners gerry adams had absolutely no authority over any of them . The IRA army council and sinn fein leadership exercised authority over him . He was their subordinate , not the other way round . They were the only people with even a shred of authority which would entitle anyone to make such cynical decisions . He did not inform the IRA army council or sinn fein leadership of any offers coming from the British governemnt . The IRA leadership and the sinn fein leadership did not take any decisions on any offers as they simply didnt know anything about them . If any decisions were taken as regards offers they were taken solely by gerry adams himself .

I suppose I'd need to make it clear that I don't support any party any more. I'm an independent chaotic republican. I say that because I know some people like to get us all to fit into their neat little boxes.

regardless youve also made it clear that as far as you are concerned Gerry adams is the IRA army council personified , a one man IRA army council with the authority invested in him purely by the stature of his sheer Gerry Adamsness to keep the actual IRA army council and Sinn Fein leadership completely in the dark about his dealings with the British government and MI5 officials . For you that appears to be ok , completely understandable solely on the basis that afterall he is Gerry Adams and therefore doesnt have to do the mundane things expected of other repulicans such as making the army council of the IRA aware of offers by the British governemnt that could bring the hungerstrike to an end . What would seem to be a premature end from his point of view . And something that you have also made clear is perfectly understandable and only to be expected . Its clear you believe the loyalty of all IRA volunteers was not to their leadership but to Gerry Adams personally . And that they should be expected to die for him personally .