Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 32 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 316

Thread: New Developments in 1980s 'Shoot to Kill' Cases

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member picador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Béal Feirste
    Posts
    20,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default New Developments in 1980s 'Shoot to Kill' Cases

    John Larkin, the North's newly appointed Attorney-General, has ordered the Coroner's Office to hold a new inquest into the death of Francis Bradley of Castledawson, Co. Derry, who was killed by the SAS at the scene of an IRA arms dump in February 1986. The SAS soldiers who shot the 20 year-old joiner eight times amid controversial circumstances were not required to attend the initial inquest, at which their statements were read to the court.

    In a separate development at the High Court in Belfast, PSNI Chief Constable Matt Baggot lost an appeal against a coroner's decision to order the release of a redacted version of the Stalker / Sampson report to relatives of some of those republicans killed by E4A, an elite paramilitary police unit, in County Armagh towards the tail-end of 1982.

    All of these killings were highly controversial at the time. It was (and still is) widely believed that the security services were engaged a covert policy of extra-judicial execution against those they suspected of involvement in republican paramilitary activity.

    Today's developments could lead to more light being shed on the murky area of our past that is the 1980s.
    Last edited by picador; 30th May 2010 at 01:49 AM. Reason: castledawson
    The Empire's Over - Why Don't You Go Home?

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    461
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If any of them were in The IRA then I don't see what the problem is.

  3. #3
    Moderator Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ithaca
    Posts
    20,761
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sharpcut View Post
    If any of them were in The IRA then I don't see what the problem is.
    Yeah! Surely, in a war, as the IRA always claimed it was, shoot to kill is the normal modus operandi. What possible objection could so-called Republicans have towards this?
    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson (yeah, I'm aware of the irony)

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sharpcut View Post
    If any of them were in The IRA then I don't see what the problem is.
    but didn't the brits say they were not in a war? in that case they had no right to shoot to kill. if they believed a man was guilty of a crime he should of been dealt with by the courts.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,270
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If the killings were executions there certainly was a problem.
    However those who were engaged in what they regarded as a war, and who themselves did not operate to legal conventions governing the conduct of this war are not in a strong position to complain.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member British Citizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Loyalist East Belfast, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didimus View Post
    If the killings were executions there certainly was a problem.
    However those who were engaged in what they regarded as a war, and who themselves did not operate to legal conventions governing the conduct of this war are not in a strong position to complain.
    Strangely I don't think that'll stop them!

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The term "shoot to kill" is a joke.
    Is there any other type of shooting?

    The whinging about extra-judicial murder is a bit rich coming from Republicans who claim they were an army at war.

    Once a republican swore the oath and joined the cause you were fair game whether you were carrying a gun or not, whether you were sitting a home watching the telly or shooting at an RUC station and they knew the risks.

    The republicans gunned down off duty RUC and UDR members, they blew up coaches carrying Brits on leave or blew up pubs packed with drinkers so they could nail a few troops or loyalist paramilitaries, had no qualms about blowing up economic targets risking civilian casualties and they even killed a British TV game show host who was dumb enough to make a televised pledge of reward money for information on the activities of republicans on his own doorstep.

    Time to stop the whinging when the SAS or RUC knocked off a few IRA on active service.

    War is war. Big Boys Games Big Boys Rules.

    Grow up.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member Clanrickard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last outpost of freedom
    Posts
    31,850
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didimus View Post
    If the killings were executions there certainly was a problem.
    However those who were engaged in what they regarded as a war, and who themselves did not operate to legal conventions governing the conduct of this war are not in a strong position to complain.
    If the IRA were fighting a war then they should have been treated as POWs according to the Geneva Convention. That wasn't the case though. The British said they were criminals/terrorists. If that was the case it wasn't a war and therefore the normal rules of arrest, charging , habeus corpus, right to an attorney apply.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    461
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chadmikeymicheals View Post
    but didn't the brits say they were not in a war? in that case they had no right to shoot to kill. if they believed a man was guilty of a crime he should of been dealt with by the courts.
    First of all, I did see it as a war. Secondly, regardless of legalities, any IRA member should have accepted his status as a legitimate target and subject to liquidation at any time and in any place. He should have informed his family of this and instructed them not to make any complaints if he was killed.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    County Londonderry
    Posts
    35,439
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanrickard View Post
    If the IRA were fighting a war then they should have been treated as POWs according to the Geneva Convention.
    Nope - they didn't meet the qualifying conditions.

Page 1 of 32 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •