Gerry Adams arrested! Breaking News!

Scroll to see replies

My fear is that when Adams is (inevitably) not in fact prosecuted for this series of heinous murders then he will declare himself "completely innocent" and thus rinsed of all connection to the crimes will continue his greasy ascent of the political pole in Eire where he no doubt has his eye on the Presidency in due course. That is the real intent and purpose of his voluntary "arrest".

Reply 41

gladders

I think the amnesty only applies to those who admit they have been involved/actually killed so that the Government can know what they are declaring amnesty for. It doesn't apply if you haven't owned up to a crime, and Adams always insisted he wasn't involved in killing.

This is a very delicate matter.

Reply 42

Observatory

Sorry to sound obtuse, but is it really news that Gerry Adams was involved in sectarian murders? I always assumed they didn't arrest him for political expediency.

Reply 43

Old_Simon

Original post by MostUncivilised

I am a law student so I have great respect for the law and for the principle of equality before the law.

I am, however, also a pragmatist. It is a legitimate object of state policy to use alternatives to the criminal justice system and to prosecution in special cases. The ending of an armed conflict or terrorist insurgency is one of those exceptional cases.

It's also a tenet of our legal system that an individual is entitled to plead an estoppel by representation of fact where they have acted in reliance on representations made to them by the state, and to pursue that by way of a judicial review where the state behaves in a way that is inconsistent with its prior representations. Where the state's representations create a legitimate expectation, they can be held to that in English law. If I were Gerry Adams solicitors I would strongly be considering this line if the DPP attempted to proceed against me.

There are strong policy considerations for the courts in this area, to be sure. But to claim you can either pursue justice at the expense of peace, or vice-versa, is incorrect. Justice also includes the state being held to the representations it makes under the normal rules of judicial review

No estoppel arises in this case. The "On the run" letters simply state that the police had no evidence at that time, and consequently the question of arrest did not arise. We certainly did not grant amnesty or any thing similar to Adams and Co. Adams represented himself as a "political" figure unconnected to PIRA. Hence - he said - he was entitled to come and go and negotiate in the way any political figure would. Everyone "pretended" this was the case when the real facts were simply that there was then insufficient evidence to charge him with anything substantial. This is the conjuring trick which has been at the heart of the peace process for years.
Only a man of Tony Blair's two faced duplicity could have pulled it off; but there were many loose ends which have arisen since. This is one of them. The fate of the "disappeared", who simply vanished without trace is of very great concern to their relatives - who are of course - Republicans. Hence Adams very anxious to be "cleared".

Reply 44

the mezzil

Hang the lying ****.

We don't need a trial, we know they are all former terrorists. Hang them. Get a backbone Cameron, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 45

MatureStudent36

Original post by the mezzil

Hang the lying ****.

We don't need a trial, we know they are all former terrorists. Hang them. Get a backbone Cameron, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

Ignore the rule of law?

Reply 46

the mezzil

Original post by MatureStudent36

Ignore the rule of law?

Making exceptions. After all, isn't the whole point of their party to break away from British law? I say we do them a favour.

Reply 47

Ripper-Roo

Original post by the mezzil

Hang the lying ****.

We don't need a trial, we know they are all former terrorists. Hang them. Get a backbone Cameron, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

Your answer to everything is "hang them". Sweet :daydreaming:

Reply 48

That Bearded Man

Original post by the mezzil

Hang the lying ****.

We don't need a trial, we know they are all former terrorists. Hang them. Get a backbone Cameron, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

What authority does Cameron have over a Northern Ireland arrest?

(Would you arrest Paisley as well? Robinson? The Orange Order? Or is it specifically Republicans you don't like?)

Reply 49

the mezzil

Original post by Ripper-Roo

Your answer to everything is "hang them". Sweet :daydreaming:

No actually.

Original post by That Bearded Man

What authority does Cameron have over a Northern Ireland arrest?

(Would you arrest Paisley as well? Robinson? The Orange Order? Or is it specifically Republicans you don't like?)

He doesn't, but he needs to have a few quiet words behind closed doors.

Eliminate, or "purge" any who committed acts of terror. Set up Gulags in the Shetland Islands. Whatever is necessary to cleanse the world of these scum. I'm sure radical Islamists would love their new IRA Catholic friends.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 50

That Bearded Man

Original post by L i b

What do you think is the nature of that immunity? Immunity for all offences conducted against the other side? Immunity for any paramilitary member for any offence at the time? Immunity from terrorist offences only?

I've yet to see any particular statement of what these supposed guarantees involve and their actual parameters. Obviously this case is one not so much of civil conflict as out-and-out murder.

Well, as an example, the Shankhill Butcher was released after about 5 years in jail due to this agreement, after targeting and killing 13 Catholics for no apparent reason.

The On the Run story is based on testimony that was only given on the promise of immunity, so to manipulate what was promised in spirit by the GFA, and their word given to the OTR Republicans, based on testimony from immune people is grossly unfair.

Reply 51

anarchism101

Original post by Old_Simon

I do wish people like you would not compare the actions of the British Army in Londonderry (so called Bloody Sunday), with the abduction, torture, murder and disappearance of innocent men and women by Gerry Adam's murderous "punishment" squad.

So no-one innocent was killed on Bloody Sunday at all in your view? They were all guilty?

Reply 52

Old_Simon

Original post by anarchism101

So no-one innocent was killed on Bloody Sunday at all in your view? They were all guilty?

Bloody Sunday has already been twice - exhaustively - subject to the process of law. That is the difference.

Reply 53

anarchism101

Original post by Old_Simon

Bloody Sunday has already been twice - exhaustively - subject to the process of law. That is the difference.

The difference is that the paramilitaries had now acknowledged grievances that were not recognised and addressed at the time. As horrible as many of the things they did were, they can't be separated from their political context. The British Army, by contrast, was supposed to be a neutral peacekeeper with no particular political motive.

Reply 54

anarchism101

Original post by the mezzil

Eliminate, or "purge" any who committed acts of terror..

Should we have done that with the original IRA in the 1920s, in your view?

Reply 55

the mezzil

Original post by anarchism101

Should we have done that with the original IRA in the 1920s, in your view?

Only if they became violent. If they were peaceful I have no problems, don't deploy troops. If they wish to get violent, then we should bring extreme violence upon them. Extreme violence only in self defence, not belligerence.

Reply 56

anarchism101

Original post by the mezzil

So in other words, as the original IRA did use violence (Irish War of Independence), you would indeed have sent troops in and rounded them up rather than recognising the legitimacy of their grievance?

How far do you extend this? For example, was it wrong for the WW2 partisans to use violence?

Reply 57

Blue Meltwater

Original post by the mezzil

Set up Gulags in the Shetland Islands.

Hey, we're a peaceful island community - leave us out of this!

Reply 58

the mezzil

Original post by anarchism101

If they started off using violence? Yes. But if they were peaceful and protested etc, no. I don't escalate things on a personal level or when talking about politics. It would be proportional, so if they started using batons against us, the maximum limit we should use it batons against them. If they start killing our citizens, we return the favour with killing IRA members.

From my understanding during the Easter rising, they shipped in arms and ammo. So it was right we did the same. Personally, I would of invited them to take part in elections to see what the people of Ireland wanted, and not enforce a form of martial law. That way they had the choice of peaceful or military means. They would choose, and we would be in the right either way.