|
|
|
Mr Adams said he was sure Tony Blair knew previous British Prime Ministers had authorised collusion with loyalist death squads, and challenged him to "lift the lid off it". "I think that the British government and this British Prime Minister knows what happened, that's my certain conviction having discussed this issue in detail with him on a number of occasions" he said. "He has not admitted any specific acts of collusion but what he has, in the course of very detailed discussions going back over quite a long time and in conversation with myself and Martin McGuinness, implicitly and explicitly conceded that there has been collusion. "What he has said repeatedly is that that is not happening at this time." The Stevens Inquiry into collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries recently found elements within the police and British army helped loyalists murder Catholics in the late 1980's. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens said informants and agents "were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes". Mr Adams said he strongly suspected collusion was also involved in a number of murders in the last two years, including those of Protestant teenager Gavin Brett and Catholic teenager Gerard Lawlor. And he claimed Mr Blair's insistence that he did not sanction those murders proved he knew previous British Prime Ministers had done so in the past. "What Mr Blair was saying was that he had not authorised those killings, he knew how this worked," Mr Adams said. "It's my conviction that he knows that this was state-endorsed and the challenge for him is to lift the lid off it. He's simply saying that he has not authorised such killings since he came in as Prime Minister, implicitly and explicitly in that is that when other Prime Ministers were there, there were such actions endorsed at that level." Mr Adams said collusion had become a daily reality in the north over the last 30 years and had resulted in some of the worst incidents of violence during the conflict. "Hundreds of people were killed, and many more injured and maimed, in what was essentially a campaign of state-sponsored murder," he said. Mr Adams said he was not interested in seeing those who planned a gun or bomb attack on himself appear in court, but he wanted the British government to take responsibility for its actions. "For a peace process to work and for there to be healing, there has to be an equivalence of a grieving process and a healing process and at the moment that is not happening because the British government has yet to acknowledge what it did here," he said.
The Force Research Unit
The innocuous-sounding Force Research Unit is a covert military intelligence unit under the British Army's Special Intelligence Wing, based in Northern Ireland. Its crest is a man with a net; its motto is "Fishers of Men".
The woman at the centre of the controversy surrounding British agent Brian Nelson was awarded a prestigious medal by the Queen at a ceremony in Buckingham Palace, the North Belfast News can exclusively reveal. Captain Margaret Walshaw, believed to have been Nelson's British Army handler, was awarded the British Empire Medal just two weeks after Nelson was charged with offenses related to Pat Finucane’s murder in 1990 by the John Stevens Inquiry. Nelson was charged with the possession of classified military documents and conspiracy to murder nationalists in North and West Belfast, including human rights solicitor Pat Finucane. He also played a central role in importing a huge arms shipment to loyalist paramilitary groups from South Africa which were later used to kill hundreds of nationalists. Margaret Walshaw was a sergeant attached to the highly secretive Forces Research Unit in Belfast during the 1980s and is believed to have been Brian Nelson's main handler. The British government blocked previous attempts to expose the nature of Walshaw's undercover work in the North by issuing injunctions against the Sunday People and the Scottish Sunday Herald. Today we become the first newspaper in the North or Britain to lift the lid on the woman who ran one of British Intelligence's most highly prized agents. © North Belfast News, 2001.
Female FRU operative named A female Force Research Unit operative at the centre of the Pat Finucane controversay and only known previously as "Mags'' has been named on the Internet. An American-based Web site which specialises in releasing intelligence information, "Cryptome'', named the British Intelligence officer as Captain Margaret Walshaw. "Although any British newspaper editor who publishes her name is threatened with imprisonment, she is openly listed in the current offical British government publication, the 'Army List','' according to the Web site article. The Web site also confirms that the FRU, far from being disbanded, is still operating and running agents in Ireland but under a different name. "Since it has become controversial, it has adopted a new cover name. This is JCU (Joint Collection Unit).'' The JCU works directly with MI5 and has offices and technical teams on the ground in the Six Counties, says the Cryptome site. "To confuse the many British journalists who are now investigating the activities of the FRU, another intelligence unit was renamed FIU. This is the Force Intelligence Unit, which runs more orthodox intelligence activities.'' According to the Web site compiler, John Young, British Intelligence illegally hacked into his site to find out who was accessing the material. The MoD admitted as much when they contested a decision by their own D Notice Committee which initally gave British newspapers the go ahead to name Walshaw. The Glasgow-based Sunday Herald, the Sunday Times and Sunday People had been tipped off that Mags' identity had been revealed on a US Web site last week and immediately notified the secretary of the MoD's D Notice Committee, the body which decides whether or not to gag the press on grounds of national security. Rear Admiral Nick Wilkinson told the press they were free to publish the identify of the FRU operative after he established that the information was already within the public domain. But in an unprecedented move, the MoD ignored the committee's ruling and threatened the media with injunctions if they named names. According to the Sunday Herald, the newspaper was contacted by Treasury Solicitor Roland Philips who "made it clear that unless we issued him with an undertaking that we would not publish her name, he was instructed to seek an immedate interdict (a Scotish injunction) to prevent us naming her''. The MoD did not accept that the operative's identity was already within the public domain, because only 230 people had accessed the Internet document, the Herald had been told by Philips. According to Cryptome's editor, such information could only be accessed by the British MoD by illegally hacking into the American Web site. Furthermore, Young says, the MoD's figures are wrong and reflect only a portion of access within one day. To protect visitors to the Web site from scrutiny, Cryptome routinely deletes log files, daily and twice daily when necessary. Within a few days of posting, over 3,000 people had accessed the document, says Young. On the Web site, Cryptome not only names Walshaw but also reveals that since leaving the Six Counties, the former FRU operative has been promoted and awarded a medal. "At the time she ran agent Brian Nelson and supervised his murderous activities, she was a non commissioned officer (sergeant) in Britain's Intelligence Corps,'' say the Web site. "On 1 April 1998, Sergeant Walshaw was promoted from the ranks to become an officer. She has also been awarded the `British Empire Medal' for her achievements.'' As Cryptome points out, Mags' main 'achievement' lay in the deployment of loyalist death squads to target and assassinate Irish republicans and nationalists in what can only be decribed as state killing by proxy. Between 1986 and 1990, Mags and a second FRU operative known only as "Geoff'' were the principal handlers of Brian Nelson, a former member of the Black Watch regiment of the British Army recruited by the FRU and acting as a chief intelligence officer for the loyalist UDA. Mags was directly accountable to FRU commander Colonel "J'', recently named as Gordon Kerr, now a Brigadier and serving as British military attache in Beijing. A covert unit within British Military intelligence, the FRU was funded through British Army headquarters in Thiepval Barracks, County Antrim. The chain of command, through the Joint Security Committee, stretched to the British Cabinet, where the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is known to have taken personal interest in the covert actions of her military forces. On the ground, Mags facilitated the UDA's deadly campaign of terror by producing maps, photographs, details of routes to the scene of the assassinations and information regarding the target's routine.The female operative has been linked to at least 14 deaths including five sectarian killings. A secret FRU document dated 3 May 1988 records that Nelson, identified as '6137', "wants the UDA only to attack legitimate targets and not innocent Catholics. Since 6137 took up his position as intelligence officer, the targeting has developed and is now more professional.'' Another document, dated 6 February 1989, says: "6137 initiates most of the targeting. Of late, 6137 has been more organised and he is currently running an operation against selected republican targets.'' But even the summary execution of "selected republican targets'' did not always satisfy the agenda of the FRU. When it suited British Military Intelligence or their political masters, ordinary Catholics or even effective defence lawyers were deliberately targeted and killed as part of a wider campaign of terror. In September 1987 Francisco Notorantonio, a retired Catholic taxi driver, was shot dead in his bed when masked gunmen smashed their way into his Ballymurphy home. A British Army map was discovered at the scene after the killing and one of gunmen was wearing British Army issue boots. The pensioner was targeted after the UDA was persuaded that he was a "top provo'' by the FRU. Mags deliberately falsified British military intelligence documents in order to encourage the UDA to target Notorantonio. The FRU claims it was a ploy to protect another agent, allegedly within the IRA. Nelson, as the first secret document says, may have preferred to target republicans but the UDA could be just as effectively deployed against ordinary Catholics when it suited the FRU. The FRU used the same smokescreen two years later when an "uppity Catholic lawyer'' was proving difficult to neutralise. Less than a week after the second document was written on February 12 1989 Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane was shot dead in front of his wife and children as the family sat at their Sunday dinner. This week marks the twelveth anniversay of Finucane's death. Finucane was not the only victim targeted by Mags and her FRU colleagues but he has proved to be one of the most controversal, evoking international condemnation which has refused to fall silent over a decade later. As Nelson's handler, Mags played a pivitol role in the plot to kill Pat Finucane. But she was far from alone. While the FRU targeted Finucane and provided his killers with a clear run to and from the scene of the shooting, another British agent, William Stobie, working as an informer for RUC Special Branch, supplied and later disposed of the weaponry. The gun which killed Finucane was from the locally recruited British regiment the UDR, 'stolen' from Palace Barracks. But even before that a British minister had conveniently provided the political cover in which the killing could proceed. Just weeks before Finucane's death, a British Home Office Minister Douglas Hogg had told the House of Commons that "there are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA''. These deliberately inflammatory remarks followed a secret briefing by two RUC Special Branch officers who had spoken to Hogg probably at the behest and certainly with the knowledge of the then head of the RUC John Hermon. A decade later Hermon claimed "Pat Finucane was associated with the IRA and he used his position as a lawyer to act as a contact between suspects in custody and republicans outside.'' The scene has been set, in the run up to the killing, and subsequently, the lie has been perpetuated that Pat Finucane was targeted and killed because he was a republican, either in fact or in perception. But in truth the real threat Finucane posed to British occupation in Ireland was as an effective defence lawyer. It was not, the mythical "PIRA Officer'' claimed by the UDA and like Notorantonio, manufactured by the FRU and RUC, but the real solicitor willing and able to defend human rights that the British had in their sights. In his book "The Irish War'', Tony Geraghty highlights the importance British strategy placed on the manipulation of the courts as a weapon against opposion to British rule in Ireland during this period. Finucane was a thorn in the flesh of this strategy. As a lawyer, Pat Finucane was courageous enough to pursue the British Army and RUC when they broke the law, tenacious enough to challenge the denial of defendents' rights in the non jury courts of the North, persistent enough to hold the British government to account in international courts of law, and finally smart enough to suceed. As his son Michael recently wrote in a British newspaper, "to dwell on the role of people like Brian Nelson and Martin Ingram (another FRU operative) is to miss the point as to why Pat Finucane was murdered. It happened because he was a determined and innovative lawyer and not, as the RUC and others claim, because he was involved in paramilitary activity.'' "When the British government had to decide between preserving the status quo and putting up with some uppity Catholic lawyer, the choice was simple: the lawyer had to go,'' says Michael. The photograph passed by the FRU to the UDA showed Pat Finucane coming out of a courthouse with a client, Pat McGeown. McGeown a former Republican hunger striker and prominent member of Sinn Féin had just been acquitted of murder charges relating to two British Army corporals. The two soldiers had been executed by the IRA after they attacked a funeral cortege in West Belfast. It has been alleged that the two corporals were members of the FRU. If this is true there was an added incentive for the FRU to target Finucane. Mags was a crucial player in this killing and in the FRU's wider campaign of terror. She appears to have relished her role as ruthless spymaster and purveyer of sudden death but she was never a renegade British soldier. If she acted beyond the law it was with the full knowledge of her commanding officers and complete sanction of their political masters. This is why the restricted remit of the Stevens investigation, like the proposed investigation by the new Police Ombudsman's office, can never hope to reveal the full truth behind the Finucane killing. The family's call for a fully independent international public inquiry has gained support within Ireland, throughout Europe and across the Atlantic, leaving the British government standing alone in it's continuing denial. And as Michael Finucane recently pointed out, the state machinery that murdered his father was not established to kill one man. "Others died too, and the question that has to be answered is, how many? "Many people who still live in the Northern Ireland were unaware of how precarious their existence was, and did not realise that for many years each of them was considered expendable. But they are aware now and they want to know the truth.''
Captain Margaret 'Mags' Walshaw can be seen eighth from the left towards the middle of the second
State Sanctioned Murder Uncovered Commenting on the publication of the Cory Report and the British government reaction to it, Sinn Féin spokesperson on Policing and Justice Gerry Kelly said: "This is an important report. It sets out much of what has been known publicly but not acted upon. "Judge Cory's conclusion is that some of the acts in themselves, as well as the cumulative effect of the documents and the statements, 'clearly indicate to me that there is strong evidence that collusive acts were committed by the army (FRU), the RUC Special Branch and the security services. "Sinn Féin supports the family demands for full independent, international inquiries. "The Cory cases are but the tip of the iceberg. At least 80 people listed on the files of just one agent, Brian Nelson, the unionist paramilitary and British Intelligence agent, were attacked. 29 were shot dead. The British securocrats ran many more Brian Nelson's. They still do. "MI5 recruited Nelson. MI5 reports directly to the British Prime Minister in Downing Street. That is where political clearance was given for the policy of collusion. That is where the responsibility lies. That is why a British Secretary of State for Defence sought to persuade the British Attorney General not to prosecute Nelson. That is why senior British officials were involved in the attempted cover up. "The Cory Report is a damning indictment of British rule in Ireland. It reports on the British government killing of citizens with impunity. This is a scenario usually associated with repressive dictatorships. In any democracy in Europe the government would have fallen. "The structures which implemented this policy still exist. The agents are still being run. The handlers are still in place. We need to know where these people are now for many former members of Special Branch have since been placed into senior positions throughout the PSNI. They continue to have a malign influence over policing in the north. "Sinn Féin is calling on the Irish government and on political and civic opinion throughout the island to pursue these matters with the utmost vigour to ensure that the wishes of the victims families are delivered and so that Irish citizens are never again subjected to such a campaign. "The British government must take up it responsibilities. They must put an end to the cover up and to the ethos and structures in which this killing campaign flourished."
The full statement by Paul Murphy can be seen at http://www.serve.com/pfc/cory/cogovres.pdf All of Judge Cory's Collusion Reports can be seen at http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=9220
Made in Britain There have been many definitions of collusion. At various stages in over a decade of discourse, collusion has been portrayed in the limited terms of 'a few bad apples' or as a matter of 'leaks'. In this scenario, collusion has been identified as simply the product of random individual decisions acting outside official sanction and structures. Stevens (1) was largely based on this premise. It was specifically triggered by the loyalist decision to publicly produce Crown force documents to prove their targets were 'legitimate'. Conveniently, the emphasis of the investigation was primarily against those (loyalists) who were the recipients of leaked documents rather than those (Crown force members) who were doing the leaking. Suspicion, not necessarily accompanied by prosecution, was focused upon indigenous groupings, loyalists and the UDR. The RUC was largely kept out of it. British forces were obscured, the close relationship between Special Branch and FRU and MI5 was underplayed by promoting the notion of 'rivalry'. The 'inadvertent' arrest of Brian Nelson (FRU agent and British soldier, sectarian torturer and UDA member) and his decision to admit he was working as a British agent for the FRU to the Stevens team changed the entire collusion landscape. The importance of Nelson as an agent and more significantly the importance of the people behind Nelson (his arrest threatened their exposure) can be guessed by the lengths to which the British went to subvert the conviction. When covert attempts by British agencies like the FRU (the hiding of Nelson's paperwork at Palace barracks, the fire at Stevens' headquarters) failed, the British state could no longer completely hide its hand. The state feared the information that might be exposed during a lengthy court case so much that it had to deploy 'public' mechanisms to curtail the trial. The cover-up had to rely on the DPP and the then Attorney General, Patrick Mayhew (a key political figure within the Thatcher government) and partial exposure of the FRU with the 'appearance' behind screens of Colonel 'J', Gordon Kerr (who remains a key military and political figure, even under Tony Blair). The most politically dynamic revelation to come out of this period was exposure of Nelson's involvement in the Finucane killing. This became and largely remains the cutting edge of the collusion controversy. Stevens (2) was established to manage the political fallout following Nelson's trial. Stevens (3) was established after a British government (under international pressure to hold a public inquiry) claim that the Finucane killing had already been investigated was refuted by Stevens. And now we have Cory. HALF-WAY HOUSE The British Government had fought long and hard to keep 'investigations' into allegations of collusion 'in-house' and the appointment of a Canadian judge outside the immediate jurisdiction of the British state was a significant defeat for those who wished to keep the full horror of British state collusion under wraps. But if Cory's investigation was no longer 'in-house' it was a half way house. Cory could only recommend a fully independent international public inquiry but he couldn't conduct one. It is hardly surprising that the Cory reports are largely a consideration of evidence already in the public arena. Now this might have been a significant disadvantage had it not been for the fact that the entire collusion controversy has a momentum outside the British state apparatus and an enormous amount of evidence has already emerged within the public domain. Add to this a wide range of commentaries by international legal and human rights groups, politicians and lawyers, and it is clear that British state notions of collusion would most likely be swept aside, like the flotsam they always were. In effect, the significance of Cory lies less in the further information he reveals and more in the interpretations he employs. In every discipline the standing theory to explain any phenomenon is accepted until the establishment of exceptions to the rule becomes so great that the theory collapses under its own contradictions. Within the collusion discourse, the Cory reports represent such a critical mass. The British Government may hope to keep its finger in the dyke but the dam won't hold. The representation of collusion as something outside official sanction and support can no longer be sustained. In his reports, Cory defines collusion in a number of ways. He begins by looking at the literal meaning of the verb to collude. Synonyms include to conspire, to connive, to plot and to scheme. Cory goes further, by exploring the verb connive as to deliberately ignore, to overlook, to disregard, to pass over, to turn a blind eye, to excuse and to condone. For a number of years, the British state has attempted to confine damaging notions of collusion to the idea of cover up after the event. When pushed, the British state accepts the notion of collusion by omission. It hopes that by accepting the notion that systems within the state failed (failed to act, failed to inform, failed to arrest, failed to prosecute - whatever) the systems themselves can remain intact. In such a scenario, mechanisms, guidelines etc, can be put in place to 'ensure' failure won't recur or remain unacknowledged but nothing has to be dismantled. In such a scenario, collusion can be explained away as human error or as misguided loyalty rather than a policy sanctioned at the very top and a strategy pursued by the state apparatus itself. But while Cory does focus on collusion by omission, he also paves the way for an emerging notion of collusion by commission. Cory considers both the action and inaction of British Government agencies and significantly 'patterns of behaviour' by government agencies that indicates collusion is integral to its operation. It is here that the British state is most vulnerable to exposure. And it's the Finucane case that poses the greatest threat to the British of this kind of exposure. FINUCANE & NELSON In fact, the assassination of Rosemary Nelson can only really be understood in the light of the assassination of Pat Finucane ten years previous. A public inquiry into the killing of Rosemary Nelson without full consideration of the Finucane killing will necessarily be incomplete if not fatally flawed. The British Government's decision to 'delay' the Finucane inquiry while proceeding with an inquiry into the Rosemary Nelson killing has to be judged in light of this. The 'delay' imposed by the British, as well as censorship of sections of report directly contravenes Cory's recommendations, to which the British Government promised to adhere. Cory specifically warns against delaying a public inquiry into the Finucane killing on the grounds of ongoing criminal prosecutions. "This may be one of the rare situations where a public inquiry will be of greater benefit to a community than prosecutions," writes Cory. A range of agencies were involved in the Finucane killing and the subsequent cover up. One such agency was the covert British Army unit, the FRU. FRU agent and British soldier Brian Nelson targeted the Belfast solicitor and provided intelligence to assist the killing squad. Another FRU operative accompanied Nelson to reconnoitre Finucane's house. FRU Captain M is believed to have ordered a clear run for the killers (she had the power to remove all other British Army and RUC patrols out of the area). Captain M was directly accountable to FRU OC, then Colonel now Brigadier, Gordon Kerr. Special Branch was also involved in the Finucane killing. It was their agent William Stobie who supplied the weaponry and disposed of it afterwards. Despite information from Stobie, Special Branch did nothing to thwart the attack or pursue the executioners. Special Branch also briefed British minister Douglas Hogg, who played a significant role in setting the scene in the run up to the killing. After the briefing, Hogg went on to describe to the British House of Commons some Belfast solicitors as unduly sympathetic to the IRA. Special Branch was also involved in covering up a taped 'confession' to the Finucane murder by UDA killer Ken Barrett. Barrett was subsequently recruited as a Special Branch agent. Special Branch doctored the evidence by replacing the confession tape and later was involved in an attempt to incriminate the CID officer Johnston Brown who had witnessed the confession and informed the Stevens team. Meanwhile, the weaponry used in the killing came from the UDR. COLONEL 'J' Cory considers much of this evidence while also throwing more light on the actions of government agencies like the DPP and government ministers involved in the Finucane case. Cory specifically considers Gordon Kerr's evidence during the Nelson trial and exposes his claims as fundamentally flawed if not downright lies. Kerr appeared in court behind screens and identified only as Colonel 'J'. Cory refers to Kerr as Soldier 'J'. "The evidence given by the CO FRU (soldier 'J') at Nelson's trial could only be described as misleading. The statement that Nelson's actions were responsible for saving close to 217 lives was based on a highly dubious numerical analysis that cannot be supported on any basis," says Cory. Cory's report goes further, suggesting that Colonel 'J' not only lied in court but that there was a conspiracy to lie which involved members of the British Government and other agencies. Kerr told a senior police officer investigating the Finucane killing that he had testified from a 'script' that had been approved by others in authority. He later denied this admission. Cory cites other evidence that supports Kerr's initial claim that he was testifying from an approved script. According to Cory, in 1990, during the first Stevens' inquiry, a senior British Government official was asked for information that might be used to persuade the Attorney General that Brian Nelson should not be prosecuted for crimes he committed while he was a FRU agent. "A document was prepared that described Nelson's life-saving activities in virtually the same language that was used by Soldier 'J' at Nelson's trial. This language also appeared in a letter written by the Secretary of State for Defence to the Attorney General, in which he urged the Attorney not to prosecute Nelson," says Cory. "Whether or not this constituted a 'script', it would appear that Soldier J's testimony describing Nelson's life-saving activities had been both approved and used by others in authority who wished to shield Brian Nelson from criminal prosecution," says Cory. But there's more. At the time Kerr (Soldier J) gave evidence at Nelson's trial in 1992, senior officials were already well aware that the statistics referred to by 'J' were nonsense. "In a letter sent to the Secretary of State for Defence on 25 April 1991, the Attorney General pointed out that the evidence in the possession of the DPP and others indicated that Nelson's intelligence had actually resulted in only two lives being saved and that 'the Chief Constable of the RUC agrees with this conclusion'." In other words, the notion that Nelson's primary function was to save lives was a lie and a known lie at the time of his trial but it was used as the primary justification for the plea bargaining deal and subsequent light sentence. The range of involvement of state agencies and government officials likely to emerge during an independent international public inquiry gives the lie to any notion of collusion as the action of individuals or of a 'rogue' unit like the FRU. It also gives the lie to the notion that state collusion takes place only on the basis of omission. Cory takes us to the edge of preferred notions of collusion used by the British. He goes further by urging us to look into the abyss of British state involvement. No wonder the British government is running scared and Tony Blair is 'considering' alternative forums like truth and reconciliation. A properly constituted independent public inquiry might just open up the whole squirming can of worms. STATE TARGETS ITS CITIZENS The truth about the Finucane killing and the murder of other civilians would even undermine the notion with which the British justify collusion to themselves, the notion of "taking the war to the IRA". An independent public inquiry might just expose the fact that once the 'murder machine' was up and running, no one was safe. It might just reveal that British agencies like Special Branch and the FRU killed at their convenience, to cover the tracks of agents, to eliminate agents past their sell by date or uppity lawyers interfering with delivery of the criminalisation policy, loyalists who knew too much and Britain's political as well as military opponents. It might also show that they were prepared to sacrifice the lives of other British soldiers and members of the RUC. Perhaps, just perhaps, an independent public inquiry might expose the fact that citizens of a state whose authority was under question were killed in the interests of that state. It might conclude that the British state didn't just collude, but actively commissioned the murder of citizens within its jurisdiction. It might just show that the British didn't 'take the war to the IRA', they targeted the Irish people. And finally, collusion might be exposed for what it is, a political policy and counter insurgency strategy exported to Ireland but 'made in Britain'.
"We will not give up. We will have the truth." Michael Finucane delivers the Bobby Sands Memorial Lecture On Friday night, the annual Bobby Sands Memorial Lecture was delivered by Michael Finucane, son of solicitor Patrick Finucane, who was shot dead by the UDA pro-British death squad in 1989. Sinn Féin EU candidate Bairbre de Brún chaired proceedings at the Devonish Entertainment Complex in Belfast. The campaign group, An Fhírinne, used the event to highlight the killings of hundreds of nationalists assassinated by the British Government's proxy gun gangs - the UVF and UDA. Many of the families of people killed in the collusion campaign were present at Friday night's lecture. Robert McClenaghan of An Fhírinne told An Phoblacht that "the Bobby Sands Memorial Lecture was the perfect platform for our campaign given that Pat Finucane was the solicitor who represented the hunger strikers and his killing is so central to the collusion strategy operated by the British".
The following is an edited version of Michael's address: BOBBY SANDS "I cannot think of a more apt time of year to address the topic of collusion, as we remember all of the hunger strikers and, in particular, commemorate the first to die, Bobby Sands. I know that this time of year must be especially difficult for all of the families of those who died on hunger strike in the H-Blocks. I think I can relate to some of what they must be feeling, having gone through a few anniversaries like this myself with my own family. When I read the words written by a man who perhaps knew he was going to die, I find myself moved by the deep humanity of Bobby Sands. He was an IRA volunteer and a soldier in that army. But he was also a human being and, for me, that is what comes across most strongly in his writing. The depth of his empathy with other people is clearly evident, as he constantly mentions his family, his comrades, his friends, admiring them for their efforts while being almost dismissive of his own. His language is an inclusive language; not just remembering the people he knows but speak of what he hopes might be one day, for all people of this island. His writing shows a breadth and depth of vision that was far ahead of its time. It is significant that Bobby Sands' thoughts and vision contain no element of sectarianism, no hint of partisanship about for whom he is seeking a better future. It is everyone, all peoples of this island. He specifically says so in the phrase: "...everyone, Republican or otherwise..." He does not discriminate; he does not exclude. THE VANGUARD OF INCLUSIVENESS Today, we face the challenges of a new Irish society that is not only multi-denominational, but also multi-racial and multi-ethnic. A very different society from the one Bobby Sands knew in his time. I think Bobby Sands would have relished the challenges that the diversity in our modern society has brought. I have no doubt that his contribution today would have been just as significant, if not more, than that of 20 years ago. He would have been to the forefront of meeting the challenges that our new society brings. In today's society, where the very right to become a citizen is about to be put to the vote in a constitutional referendum, Bobby Sands would have been the vanguard of inclusiveness, welcoming those who come to our shores seeking refuge from persecution in their own lands. Not only would he have extended the hand of friendship, he would have placed the burden of expectancy upon each new addition to Ireland by showing them that they had their own part to play. With that burden comes a sense of worth, a comfort that, although something is expected, it is only because we value the unique contribution that is only to be found in each individual human being. It is this meaning in his writings that sets him so far apart from the State he was fighting against: Bobby spoke for all people who claim nothing more than their basic right to govern their own affairs; to decide their own future; to make their own way in the world free from oppression and persecution. I think, too, that Bobby Sands knew what his fate would be, even though he hoped and prayed for another. He knew the enemy far too well to allow himself any false hopes. Perhaps, even, he knew deep down that this would be the fate of many others, though they had not yet realised it and he himself fervently hoped and prayed against it. THE NATURE OF COLLUSION The writings of Bobby Sands demonstrate an understanding of something fundamental about the nature of the place in which we live and, more importantly, the way in which the British sought to control it. In his time, the control went under the titles of 'normalisation' and 'criminalisation'. If criminalisation and normalisation were the watchwords of the late 1970s and early 1980s, the next title to be applied was emerging under cover of extreme secrecy. It was not something that had been given a name in Bobby Sands' time, although it certainly existed and he was no doubt aware of it. It was developed in the early 1980s and nurtured in the years that followed, using state resources and state personnel. I refer, of course, to what we now know as 'collusion'. The true nature of collusion is not difficult to understand. When the State eventually realises that people cannot be criminalised; that they will not give up their identity; that they will fight to retain their individuality and their beliefs; that they will never, ever yield, surrender, and be assimilated into a mindless, soulless institution; there is, really, only one thing left to do: kill them. Or kill those close to them. Or kill those close to them and all around them. Normally, this type of activity goes by another name: murder. The British Government describes it in another way: policy. Collusion is a reality that we know all too well because we have been forced to deal with its effects for so long. We are all of us expendable if the British State so decides. As citizens, our lives are not valued or protected, but assessed, according to what is 'in the interests of the State' at any given time. We have all of us buried too many fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, sisters, brothers and friends, to think anything different. LONG-TERM POLICY The policy of collusion between the British State and loyalist paramilitaries has been in operation for many years. We know this because of the way in which the activities of a key agent, Brian Nelson, have been exposed to public scrutiny. Initially, this happened at his trial in 1992, but subsequent examination of his role has proved far more illuminating. The reports compiled by Sir John Stevens - or, at least, the 20-page summary that was released to the public - and the recent report by the former Canadian Supreme Court Judge, Peter Cory, show the truth of Nelson's activities and also expose the true nature of the work of the Army unit that controlled him, the Force Research Unit (FRU). The FRU was a secret branch of Army Intelligence responsible for running agents and informers to gather intelligence in Ireland. This unit still exists, and is now operating under the name Joint Services Group. At the time Nelson was gathering intelligence for the FRU, the commanding officer was Lt Colonel Gordon Kerr. He is now a Brigadier and is currently the British Military attaché in Beijing, China. My family have campaigned for a public inquiry because of the compelling evidence that my father's murder was part of the approved policy of widespread collusion between the British State and loyalist assassins. JUSTICE DELAYED It is a paradox of my family's campaign that, the more work we do, the more the name of Patrick Finucane becomes known around the world, the farther away an end to this process is pushed. There is a simple explanation for this paradox: the persistent efforts of the British Government to avoid a public inquiry at all costs. It is not difficult to understand the motivation for this when one examines the evidence, for it is both compelling and damning in the extreme. Throughout the many years of campaigning that my family and I have been engaged in, the British Government have never denied that they colluded with loyalist paramilitaries in the murder of my father. They have simply avoided dealing with the case by employing one ruse after another. The all-consuming objective of the British Government has been to delay the possibility that a public inquiry might have to be established within any kind of meaningful timeframe. It has been a very successful strategy. Two key witnesses, including Brian Nelson, have died in the last 15 years. Vital documentary evidence is missing. Recollections are fading fast and will continue to do so. Each day that passes makes it all the more likely that the adage "justice delayed is justice denied", will be all too apt in my father's case. JUDGE CORY My family and I have just witnessed the conclusion of one process of delay in our case. I refer to the investigation carried out by Judge Peter Cory. Judge Cory was appointed under the terms of an agreement reached in July 2001 during political negotiations at a crucial point in the peace process. The British and Irish Governments agreed that they would jointly appoint "a judge of international standing from outside both jurisdictions to undertake a thorough investigation of allegations of collusion" in the murder of my father, as well as five other controversial cases. The two governments stated specifically that, if the judge recommended a public inquiry in any of the six cases, the relevant government would implement that recommendation. Neither my family nor any other family was consulted in advance about the governments' proposals. We did not agree that a review of the evidence was necessary, even by a judge of international standing. It was nothing more than a further delaying tactic by the British Government to avoid establishing a public inquiry. Judge Peter Cory was appointed to the task of reviewing the six cases after considerable negotiation between the two governments about choice of judge. The appointment was supposed to be filled no later than April 2002. This did not happen on time and Judge Cory was not appointed until months after the agreed deadline. My family and I met with Judge Cory shortly before he began his work. At our first meeting with him, we explained our view that his investigation was unnecessary. We made it clear that, although we took no issue with him personally, we could not accept his appointment because it was just another instance of British Government delay. We were already in the process of grappling with another delaying process, the futile police investigation being conducted by Sir John Stevens, 15 years after the murder. We feared that the exercise about to be undertaken by Judge Cory would be the same as that undertaken by Stevens: unaccountable, unnecessary and unwelcome. Given that he had only just been appointed to the job, Judge Cory accepted our position with an admirable degree of composure. He even went so far as to say that if he were in our shoes, he would probably feel the same. However, the governments had decided upon this mechanism and, as such, we were all of us stuck with it. Judge Cory promised that he would conduct as thorough a review as possible in as short a time as possible. He said that he would begin with Pat's case, as it was the largest. He said that he would complete all cases before revealing his findings. He said that he would insist that the commitments the two governments had made to him would be honoured and that he would not stand for any reneging on their agreements. This was reassuring but of little comfort: Judge Cory was still, after all, an appointee of the British Government. INTEGRITY Judge Cory began his work in August 2002. He completed his work on all six cases in October 2003, several weeks ahead of schedule. He informed my family at all times of the progress of his work. He met with us on a number of occasions and answered our questions about his work, insofar as he could without compromising his position. He told us what he would do and has done it. To date, Judge Cory is the only person in any way connected with the British Government who has kept his word to my family and me as regards his involvement in my father's case. My family and I did not know who he was at the time of his appointment, but he was recommended by those who did as a person possessed of a first rate mind, abundant in independence and integrity. In every instance of our dealings, Judge Peter Cory has more than fulfilled his recommendation. The British Government, on the other hand, has reneged on its commitments at every opportunity and where possible, it has changed the conditions of those commitments. BRITISH BETRAYAL One of the original terms of Judge Cory's appointment was that his reports would be made public as soon as possible after completion. He submitted his reports to the British Government at the end of October 2003. By Christmas 2003, they remained unpublished. Some of the contents of the reports had been leaked to the Northern Ireland press. Speculation was rife among sections of the media about what Judge Cory's recommendations were. The number of theories was seemingly endless but sandwiched between all of this newsprint hype were families of murder victims who had no idea what was happening. Judge Cory was constrained by his terms of appointment and could not tell us. The British Government would not. We know now that, at this time, the British Government was engaged in a behind-the-scenes exercise of consultation with the agencies of the State that Judge Cory had investigated. The families of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Billy Wright and Robert Hamill could not be permitted to know what exactly had been recommended about the murders of their relatives, but the British State bureau responsible for each murder was fully consulted and asked for its views. This process took another six months to complete. In that time, Judge Cory made a number of representations about the disclosure of the reports to the families concerned. He asked that, if the reports could not be disclosed in their entirety, could the recommendation in each one not be disclosed? The answer to this basic, humanitarian request was, "no". In the end, Judge Cory decided that he was not prepared to simply await the outcome of the British Government negotiations and contacted my family directly to tell us that he had recommended a public inquiry be established in my father's case. PUBLICATION In the meantime, my family also decided not to wait for the British Government to deign to tell us what we would be permitted to know and when. In February, we launched an action in the courts to compel the British Government to publish Judge Cory's report. It was only after this action had been instigated that the British Government confirmed that it would publish the reports of Judge Cory on 1 April. On 1 April, Mr Paul Murphy MP, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made a statement in the House of Commons. He confirmed that Judge Cory had recommended inquiries in all four cases that he had investigated in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said that the British Government proposed to establish inquiries in three of the cases immediately. In the case of my father, the British Government proposed that it would "set out the way ahead at the conclusion of prosecutions". No inquiry of any kind was mentioned. The British Government's response to Judge Cory's report was simply to say that "the way ahead" would be set out later. No commitment to a public inquiry was given at the time of publication, nor has one been offered since. NO INQUIRY I believe that the reason the British Government has avoided committing itself to an inquiry is because it cannot face such an appalling prospect. The evidence shows clearly that the British State pursued a policy of state-sponsored assassination, using loyalist paramilitaries as its proxy killers. In pursuing this policy, the British were no better than the many despotic regimes around the world today that are condemned for their appalling human rights records. In seeking to cover up what they did for so many years, the British Government continues its policy. Those responsible were rewarded at the time and are now protected in the aftermath. The British Government clearly believes that, if delayed long enough, it will perhaps be possible to avoid an inquiry altogether. We are now engaged in another court case against the British Government to compel them to commence a public inquiry as recommended by Judge Cory. We should not have to do this. The British Government made a commitment to implement the recommendations of Judge Cory and I believe that they are breaking that commitment by delaying it. Again, it is not difficult to understand the motivation. The British Government is trying to postpone the day when it will be exposed to the world as having engaged in the murder of its own citizens. It has delayed the establishment of an inquiry for 15 years, despite calls from distinguished individuals and organisations worldwide that such an inquiry is necessary. INTERNATIONAL CALLS Every domestic and international non-governmental organisation that concerns itself with human rights in Ireland has called for a public inquiry into the case of Pat Finucane. Both Human Rights Commissions, North and South, have done so. Every Law Society and Bar Council in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland have done the same, as have many international bar associations. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Dato Param Cumaraswamy, has called for a public inquiry on four occasions. His successor, Leandro Despoiuy, has continued this call. The UN Special Representative on human rights defenders, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and the UN Human Rights Committee have all supported the call for a public inquiry. On the tenth anniversary of Pat Finucane's murder, over 1,000 lawyers around the world signed a petition supporting the call for a public inquiry. The US House of Representatives has called for an inquiry. The Government of Ireland has repeatedly called for an inquiry through the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen. This was recently repeated by the Irish Government in a statement on the floor of the United Nations. My family believe that the truth will remain hidden until a fully independent public judicial inquiry is established to investigate all of the circumstances. We would very much like to be able to say that the end was in sight, but we cannot. We can only see more delay and obstruction ahead as the British Government continues its policy of postponement. This will not deter us. We will continue until we achieve our goal. The campaign is a means to an end: a public, independent judicial tribunal of inquiry that will fully examine all of the evidence in my father's case. Pat Finucane deserves no less than that, as do all of those murdered by the State through this evil policy of collusion. If the new society we are building is to have any chance of survival, it must know the complete truth of its past, so that it can learn all the necessary lessons to provide a future for everyone. It is our future that matters. It is the future that mattered to people like Bobby Sands and Pat Finucane. We cannot dishonour their memory or their sacrifice by working any less hard toward the future than they did."
'Time for Truth' Meeting Members of the Troops Out Movement were among the many who attended the Public Meeting 'The British Government and Collusion in Ireland: Time for Truth' last Wednesday evening 12th May. MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone, Michelle Gildernew opened the meeting which was held at the Grand Committee Room, House of Commons, London. Michelle introduced Alex Maskey, MLA for South Belfast and spoke of his ground-breaking year as the first republican Mayor of Belfast and then introduced Brendan Curran from Lurgan in County Armagh, who's partner, Sheena Campbell was murdered in 1992.
Brendan informed the audience that he was at the meeting as a member of the group 'An Fhírínne' (The Truth), a group of relatives of those who were murdered as a result of collusion between the British Government, their agents, loyalists and the RUC. He explained how, as the first Sinn Féin councillor to be elected to Craigavon Council, he was targeted by unionist paramilitaries on three occasions, leaving him permanently disabled. He was actually told on a number of occasions by members of the British Army, the UDR and the RUC, that he would be executed - "taken out of it". Brendan then went on to talk about his partner, Sheena Campbell, who was also a member of Sinn Féin and had just started her second year as a law student at Queens University when she was executed by agents of the British State. He told the audience how Sheena, along with Dodie McGuinness, "was instrumental in developing the electoral strategy that has brought Sinn Féin so much success" adding "and she was so good at that type of work that they decided to remove her". Brendan went on to speak of the murder of his partner. He said "Sheena was shot dead at 6.00pm on a Friday evening in the York Hotel in Belfast while she was sitting having a discussion with some of her lecturers. "No member of her family - myself, her son, who at that stage was eleven years of age, her parents or any member of her family - we were never informed by the authorities that Sheena had been killed. "I heard on the 7.00pm news of a shooting at the university - that's the first I knew of it". Brendan said that the RUC never came to the house to inform the family of Sheena's death. Indeed, the only time the RUC did call to the house, which was quite a few days later, it was to "basically interrogate us about what Sheena was doing in Belfast even though they knew full well". Recalling the aftermath, Brendan said "It subsequently transpired that the weapon used to murder Sheena was uncovered in Botanic Avenue, close to the scene. It was found in a car where two leading loyalists were found talking. None of them were charged with her murder, or even in connection with her murder. And that information only came out as a result of a slip at the inquest". Brendan went on to speak about other worrying aspects of the case, including the fact that none of the witnesses to her murder were asked about the gunmen, or how the shooting itself actually happened. Also how Sheena and himself were 'demonised' to the witnesses by the RUC and how the RUC attempted to make the witnesses believe "that they were safer to keep their mouths shut about anything they saw". "And they succeeded" said Brendan. "So much so that people remained silent for almost ten years, afraid to speak - they got such a frightening from the RUC - and said themselves that basically, what they were being told was "Shut up, keep quiet and say nothing" Brendan finished by saying that he wanted the British State to admit it was responsible for killing its own citizens. "That's what we are asking for" he said. "We are asking for that acknowledgement from the British Government, because it is dangerous if we don't get that. "If we don't get that, then the possibility still exists that more people will be killed in exactly the same way by the same minds, using whatever apparatus the State has". Michelle Gildernew thanked Brendan, who she said "has gone through a very horrible experience". Although she didn't know Sheena Campbell personally, Michelle said that someone who had worked with Sheena had said that she was the kind of person who would have been the first female to lead Sinn Féin. "She was a gifted woman, a brilliant strategist, a very dear comrade to those who worked with her and Sinn Féin is worse off without Sheena Campbell". Alex Maskey, speaking of the collusion campaign in the north and the implications of that amongst the northern community, reminded those present that the theme of the meeting was 'Time for Truth' and that acceptance of that was now beginning to "percolate right throughout the political system". He informed the meeting that the NIO had that morning, launched a 'pre-consultation document' with a view to introduce some kind of process to deal with these issues. He said: "In my experience, the majority of people who are asking for inquiries are doing so because they have been denied the truth for so long. "I would acknowledge from the outset that people from all walks of life in our community, no matter what political perspective - or none - that they come from, can argue and rightly so, ask for the truth as to what happened in respect of their own loved ones, no matter from what community or tradition they come from. "And I acknowledge that and I accept that. "At this point in time we are trying to highlight the whole question of collusion in particular, because we believe that collusion has run right to the heart of British policy in Ireland for many decades and has caused untold death." Alex went on to say that the most important element of collusion is that the apparatus, organisations and agencies, as well as key individuals responsible, currently remain in place. He said that one of the main objectives, besides getting at the truth and finding out what has happened in the past, is to make sure that the people who were involved in those structures are actually removed from the system so that it can never happen again. He then went on to talk about the Cory Report and the fact that the British Government is still stalling on its commitment to a Public Inquiry in relation to the Pat Finucane murder and asked for support to ensure that there will be an inquiry "not only into the case of Pat Finucane, but into a whole range of other incidents and deaths which smell very much of collusion". Alex pointed out that British Prime Minister, Tony Blair would argue that none of these controversial issues happened 'on his watch'. Accepting that, Alex said: "but his government now is continuing to conceal evidence and is continuing to thwart inquiries. "Under 'his watch' he is now beginning, unfortunately, to become tarnished because he is not taking the bull by the horns and dealing with this openly and honestly. Regrettably, Tony Blair, who we as a party acknowledge played a major instrumental role in this peace process has been, in a sense, tainted by the negativity around this issue of collusion. And that is something to be regretted and I hope that he sees the error of that particular way." Speaking specifically about Sheena Campbell, Alex said: "Sheena Campbell actually patented and refined considerably Sinn Féin's electoral machine and for one so young, that told people like myself who worked with her - had the great privilege of doing that - that here is a rising star, politically, in our party and our movement and that in years ahead, she would be in the leadership. "I have no doubt that Sheena Campbell and others - Brendan himself, who was a lone voice in that particular part of Armagh for a number of years - they were not targeted 'willy nilly'. They were targeted specifically because they were deemed to be a thorn in the side of the authorities". Alex went on to speak about specific attacks on Sinn Féin members in Belfast, including himself. He said: "These were not random attacks. These were routine, systematic attacks on a political party, because that political party and people like Pat Finucane and others were actually standing up for a community". Alarmingly, he added: "What really angers me is that to this very day the British Government will tell us that all of the Sinn Féin councillors in the City Hall in Belfast are currently under threat of their lives. And that threat remains with those individuals to this very day". Referring to the Cory Report, Alex recommended that all those present should make a real effort to read it. He said the information in it is truly damning of previous British Governments. Moving on to the issue of truth, Alex spoke of the document on the subject launched by Sinn Féin last year. He said that there is no one process that will satisfy all of the victim's families. Some families do not even want to talk about the death of their loved one; some do want to talk about it; some want to know what happened, why it happened, who was involved; some want those responsible imprisoned and some don't want those responsible imprisoned. Alex explained how any truth process must be victim centred, it must have at its fulcrum the interest of the families of those killed and that all of the organisations, combatants and protagonists have to be involved on the same level. It would not be right if one, or more organisations, are compelled to give evidence and others not - one cannot be given more immunity than another. That includes governments, policing and other organisations and agencies. Crucially, any truth process must take place amid a politically stable backdrop. Alex finished his talk by stating that it is important that we continue to campaign for the truth and to open up the whole issue of collusion "that ran to the very core of our conflict". Michelle Gildernew thanked Alex Maskey and stressed that it was vitally important that those present took the information home with them and decided what they could do to help in the collusion campaign. The question and answer session that followed was well contributed to and clearly showed that those present had indeed taken the presentations on board.
Truth for collusion victims While few will dispute that this week's apology from the British government to the Maguire and Conlon families didn't come before time, it serves as cold comfort to those families who believe that same government had a hand in the sectarian murders of their loved ones. While the 15 years Gerry Conlon served for something he didn't do is a huge price to pay for a sour bite of British ‘justice', the pain is equally felt by those robbed of their loved ones permanently. For years the families of those men, women and children cut down by loyalist murder gangs, financed and directed by British security services, have lobbied for an acknowledgment of the part the state had to play in the sectarian murder campaign waged across three decades and claiming hundreds of lives. The involvement of British military intelligence, through the activities of the Force Research Unit and M15 are well documented. Throughout the 1980s in particular, British agents such as Brian Nelson, using details supplied by the British Army and the RUC, identified innocent Catholics for assassination. Nelson was also responsible for smuggling hundreds of automatic weapons into the North of Ireland from South Africa with the help of British military intelligence in 1986. The brutal impact of weapons was almost immediate. In the years leading up to 1986, 71 Catholics were murdered by loyalists. In the six years after 1986, 239 Catholics died at the hands of loyalist gunmen. When the word collusion comes up, several high profile names spring to mind. The cases of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill have grabbed a huge share of the headlines in recent years. But behind these high profile cases there are hundreds of others that rarely get a mention. A support group, An Fhirinne, literally meaning The Truth, has travelled across the globe in recent years as part of a campaign to uncover the facts behind the British government's involvement in the murder of hundreds of Irish civilians. Members of An Fhirinne campaign to highlight the part British Army intelligence, the Force Research Unit, MI5 and the RUC had to play in the death of hundreds of people across the North. While some names are more easily recognisable than others, campaigners say, for them, each and every case is ‘high profile'. “We don't use the term ‘high profile'," explained An Fhirinne spokesman Mark Sykes. “Every case is ‘high profile'. Someone shot going to the shop for a bottle of milk is as important as any other case. The terms of what we regard as collusion are wide. For instance, if the RUC or PSNI did not carry out a thorough investigation we regard that as collusion. “Whether it be Pat Finucane, the Ormeau Road bookie's, Loughinisland or the case of Gerard Slane, each carries equal weight – no distinctions are made. Everybody who is involved in this group believes they are the victims of state murder." Just this week, the Rosemary Nelson Inquiry team began contacting agencies and individuals seeking information relating to the murder of the Portadown solicitor in March 1999. Justice campaigners say the importance of full, independent and public inquiries is vital in helping the effort of other families in their quest for justice. “Issues may be raised at the inquiries that have already been set up that could shed light on other incidents. Obviously these inquiries have to be independent and public. We will be watching the inquiries that have been set up very closely." An Fhirinne draws members from across the North and further and comprises people from different political backgrounds bonded by a strong conviction that they are all victims of a state conspiracy to murder civilians. Mark Sykes himself survived the 1992 Sean Graham bookmaker's massacre. Five Catholics were shot dead and up to a dozen injured when two UDA gunman sprayed unsuspecting customers with automatic gunfire. “The group is very diverse and different people hope to get different things from the campaign. Some people want inquiries to be set up to investigate what happened to their loved ones. Others want those involved in collusion to be held accountable, and that goes as far as the British cabinet. “Judge Cory is on record as saying that he saw papers that went as far as the British cabinet, that they knew that innocent civilians were being targeted by loyalists and the Force Research Unit. Thatcher was the engineer of this policy. She knew collusion was taking place and instigated a culture of concealment.”
THE INQUIRIES BILL: THE WRONG ANSWER
22nd March 2005 The above-listed organisations jointly express our concern over some of the provisions of the Inquiries Bill introduced into Parliament on 24th November 2004. The Bill, being discussed this week by a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, would, if enacted, alter fundamentally the system for establishing and running inquiries into issues of great public importance in the UK, including allegations of serious human rights violations. Should it be passed into law, the effect of the Bill on individuals and cases that merit a public inquiry would be highly detrimental. In particular, in those cases where one or more person has died or been killed, the right of their surviving family members to know the truth about what happened and to an effective investigation could be violated by the operation of the Bill. The fundamental problem contained in the Inquiries Bill is its shift in emphasis towards inquiries established and largely controlled by government Ministers. This shift is achieved by the repeal of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and the terms of several of the Bill's clauses. These clauses grant broad powers to the Minister establishing an inquiry on issues such as the setting of the terms of reference, restrictions on funding for an inquiry, suspension or termination of an inquiry, restrictions on public access to inquiry proceedings and to evidence submitted to an inquiry, and restrictions on public access to the final report of an inquiry. The Bill does not grant the independence to inquiry chairs and panels that has made their role so crucial in examining issues, particularly where public confidence has been undermined. Several of us have already laid out our concerns about the Bill in earlier statements and briefings and we are pleased to note that some amendments to the Bill have already been adopted in the House of Lords. However, we continue to have serious concerns about the Bill in its current form and we urge all members of Parliament to take these concerns into account in their ongoing consideration of the Bill. We also wish to draw attention to the views expressed on this matter by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, by the Public Administration Select Committee, and by two notable jurists, namely Lord Saville of Newdigate and former Canadian Supreme Court justice Judge Peter Cory. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that several provisions of the Bill may not be compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that they would inhibit an effective investigation into cases involving deaths. For example, the Committee has expressed concern that “the threat of withdrawal of funding by the Minister could unduly constrain the independence of an inquiry, and fail to satisfy the Article 2 requirement of an independent inquiry.” The Committee has further stated that “the independence of a tribunal is secured both by the institutional and legal structure in which it operates, and by the restraint and impartiality exercised in practice by those involved. Even given the proper restraint by Ministers in the exercise of powers considered above, their availability in respect of an inquiry would risk affecting its independence, both actual and perceived.” With particular regard to the power of Ministers to issue restriction notices, the Committee concluded that “the independence of an inquiry is put at risk by ministerial power to issue these restrictions, and … this lack of independence may fail to satisfy the Article 2 obligation to investigate…” It also was concerned that the ministerial power to withhold publication of all or part of an inquiry report is “wide enough to compromise the independence of an inquiry.” The Public Administration Select Committee also criticised many facets of the Inquiries Bill, in its report following its inquiry into “Government by Inquiry”. In particular, the Committee expressed concern about Ministers conducting inquiries into their own or their department's actions. Published correspondence between Lord Saville, who chairs the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, and DCA Minister Baroness Ashton relating to the Bill is also of great importance, as it demonstrates the serious reservations of a senior judge and chair of a complex current inquiry. In particular, Lord Saville is concerned about the clause granting Ministers the power to issue notices restricting public access to inquiry proceedings and materials. In a letter of 26th January, Lord Saville states, “I take the view that this provision makes a very serious inroad into the independence of any inquiry and is likely to damage or destroy public confidence in the inquiry and its findings, especially in cases where the conduct of the authorities may be in question.” He further stated that neither he nor his fellow judges on the BSI would be prepared to be appointed as a member of an inquiry that was subject to a provision of that kind. Despite the addition in the House of Lords of a clause setting out a presumption of public access to inquiry proceedings, restriction notices issued by Ministers could still result in secret inquiries that would, as feared by Lord Saville, be “likely to damage or destroy public confidence in the inquiry and its findings, especially in cases where the conduct of the authorities may be in question.” On 15th March, 2005, Judge Peter Cory, a retired Canadian Supreme Court justice who was appointed by the British and Irish governments in 2002 to investigate allegations of state collusion in six controversial murder cases, wrote a letter expressing his own fears about the potential effects of the Inquiries Bill. He described the Bill as “unfortunate to say the least” and with specific reference to the case of murdered Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane stated, “It seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible.” Judge Cory noted that “the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step” and he concluded that he “cannot contemplate any self respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed act”. We agree with all of these views and urge Parliament to take them very seriously. An inquiry held under the Bill as currently drafted would not be effective, independent, impartial or thorough, nor would the evidence presented to it be subject to sufficient public scrutiny. Such an inquiry would fall far short of the requirement of international human rights law that an effective remedy be provided to the victims of human rights violations. Moreover, the passage of the Inquiries Bill in its current form would do great harm to the tradition of public inquiries in the UK and would undermine the important principles of accountability and transparency. In order to command public confidence, it is absolutely necessary that an inquiries system permit close independent public scrutiny and provide for the active participation of the relevant victims. The Inquiries Bill does not do this.
Breen/Buchanan inquiry and collusion double-standards The Dáil last week voted to establish a public inquiry into allegations of collusion between a member of the Garda Siochána and the IRA in the 1989 shooting of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan in South Armagh. They were the most senior RUC officers killed in the conflict. Sinn Féin Dáil leader Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin put the inquiry in the context of the real story of collusion, while Martin Ferris TD highlighted the murky background to the new inquiry, including the role of alleged informers and Irish Times journalist Kevin Myers. We carry here edited versions of their Dáil speeches. Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin We are in favour of a process of truth recovery. The tragic loss of all those who died in the political conflict on this island should be acknowledged and remembered. The grief of their relatives and friends must be acknowledged also. More than 3,500 died in the conflict. They were men, women, children, civilians, combatants and members of all the armed groups, both state and non-state. All armed forces involved in the conflict inflicted death and injury. They need to acknowledge that. Some have done so while others have not. The British Government has never acknowledged its role in the armed conflict in our country. In particular, it has never admitted its use of collusion throughout the conflict since 1969. No one who has seriously and honestly studied this conflict over the past 36 years doubts that there was systematic collusion between British forces and loyalist paramilitaries. The most murderous loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association, which operated under the cover name of the Ulster Freedom Fighters, was co-founded in 1971 by Charles Harding-Smith, a self-confessed British Intelligence agent. The British Army's military reaction force was established by Brigadier Frank Kitson, the leading counter-insurgency officer, to co-ordinate the British military and the loyalist death squads. Throughout the conflict British forces were guided by the British Army's training manual, Land Operations, Volume III — Counter-insurgency Options, which defines its role as "Liaison with, and organisation, training and control of, friendly guerrilla forces operating against the common enemy". That is the basis of collusion. It is not ancient history, but is relevant right up to the present. The British Government has introduced legislation, the Inquiries Bill, which is designed to prevent any realistic inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane or that of any other victim of collusion between British forces and loyalist death squads. That legislation will empower a British Minister to order an inquiry to be held behind closed doors. Judge Peter Cory, who recommended the inquiry being established today, has severely criticised this legislation. He has advised his colleague judges in Canada not to participate in any inquiry under such legislation. British Ministers and military will still have the controlling hand when it comes to the release of information. We have seen how they have used that power. Very little attention has been given to the most recent report of the Oireachtas committee established on foot of the Barron report. That committee severely reprimands the British Prime Minister for his refusal to establish an inquiry, as called for by the Oireachtas, into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. It goes further and states that his action is in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. The British Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI refuse to co-operate in any meaningful way with the Barron investigation or with the work of the Oireachtas committee. Today the Oireachtas is establishing a full-blown public inquiry into the alleged collusion of a member or members of the Garda Síochána into the killing of senior RUC officers, Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan, in 1989, yet no public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane has been established. Even more outrageously, we have had no public inquiry in either jurisdiction into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of nearly 31 years ago or into any of the incidents in which at least 47 people died in the 26 Counties, killed as a result of collusion or directly by British forces. An attempt has been made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, by his fellow Unionists and sections of the media to equate alleged collusion of a Garda or Gardaí in the killing of these two RUC officers with widespread and systematic collusion between British forces, including the RUC, and the loyalist paramilitaries. This is not done out of any desire for truth or justice. It is presented as a debating point and as an attempt to put Sinn Féin in the wrong when we highlight the responsibility of successive British Governments for collusion. That is the blatant and bald truth of it. Anyone with relevant information should come forward to assist this inquiry. The British Government has never admitted to collusion in any form. It has never acknowledged its responsibility for the many deaths it caused as a result of collusion. This was a major part of its war in Ireland which claimed many lives. The primary responsibility in the search for truth rests with that Government. The IRA has admitted its involvement in the killing of these two RUC officers. It saw this attack as an act of war. These were officers of the British state in Ireland. Both of them played key roles in the conflict. Their deaths were no different from those of senior officers in the RIC who were shot in similar circumstances during the 1919 to 1921 period. It was actions such as that which led directly to the foundation of this State. But for actions of that type, the Minister's grandfather, Eoin MacNeill, would never have been a Cabinet Minister and neither would there have been an opportunity for this Minister to participate in an Irish Cabinet. Martin Ferris I endorse the request made by Deputy Ó Caoláin that everybody with relevant information ought to make himself or herself available to this tribunal. The tribunal should be allowed to examine the entire background to the allegations made, particularly in regard to the individual who claims to have persuaded Judge Cory to request that it be established. Toby Harnden is one of the sources for the claims that there was collusion involving members of the Garda in the killing of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan. He has already been castigated by Judge Peter Cory for failing to substantiate that claim. Cory said his interviews with both Harnden and Kevin Myers revealed how little these gentlemen relied on fact and how much on suspicion and hearsay. Harnden has already been found to have made an unsubstantiated allegation that those killed in Bloody Sunday in Derry had been involved in violence that day. It would appear that Harnden distorted a statement given to him by one of the paratroopers involved in that event. Kevin Myers, who repeated the allegations made by Harnden, has already reacted in his usual manner, by attacking Cory, comparing him to Homer Simpson. There has been speculation that both Myers and Harnden will attempt to avoid giving evidence to the tribunal, further proof of the shallow nature of their claims. The centre of the allegation is a person named Peter Keely, who uses the name Kevin Fulton. Keely, who claimed to have been a British agent within the IRA, was discredited by Scotland Yard, which claimed his false information cost it £1.5 million in wasted police time. Another source is a person named Martin Ingram, otherwise known as Jack Graham. He claims to have worked for the Force Research Unit and was completely discredited when he appeared at the Saville tribunal. It is interesting that both he and the other person mentioned have similar claims and used each other to back up their scurrilous allegations. It would appear that the Garda Síochána has already formed an opinion as regards the reliability of their statements. The Garda also described one of them as an intelligent nuisance and a serial informer who is not to be trusted. Yet they are the people whose claims are to form the basis for the setting up of this tribunal. We are therefore entitled to ask what really lies behind the tribunal. I do not doubt that Judge Cory was genuine in his belief that the claims made by the aforementioned warranted further investigation, but I contend that he was gravely misled by that individual. A closer examination of his purported evidence would have come to the same conclusion as investigations into other claims concerning Garda collusion in the killing of Justice Gibson. There must surely be a suspicion, therefore, that allegations made are part of an attempt by British agencies to divert attention from the ongoing investigations of their roles in events in this country. This also comes at a time when a concerted and possibly successful attempt is being made to ensure that Peter Cory's investigations into those events will be sabotaged in the same manner as previous investigations into the involvement in violence by the British state. It is surely convenient at this time, when the spotlight should be on the murky role of British intelligence, that this tribunal has been initiated on the basis of what are generally believed to be baseless allegations made by discredited journalists, who have relied on their own imaginations and the word of discredited informers. If one of the aforementioned informers turns out to be a genuine agent, why did he make the claims, and at whose behest? I note the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, in his remarks did not endorse the Taoiseach's support for Judge Cory's conclusions regarding the efforts to sabotage the Finucane and other inquiries. Neither did he refer to the refusal by the British authorities to co-operate in a meaningful way with the investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
Classic case of collusion On 27 January 1977, Michael McHugh was murdered by two members of the UDA, one of them a British Army agent, at Aghyaran or Corgary near Castlederg, County Tyrone. Michael McHugh was a 32-year-old forestry worker. He had been active in Sinn Féin where he was chairman of the local cumann for a period but had resigned this position before he was assassinated. Michael's house was continually raided by the British Army and the RUC. Not a month passed by when he wasn't arrested or stopped, so much so that after his death his wife accused the British Army of 'putting a name on him'. After Michael was murdered, Fr Denis Faul, a local priest, disclosed that he had sent copies of a letter threatening McHugh to the RUC and British Army in Omagh for investigation. The letter had been sent to McHugh on 29 October 1976. Faul maintained that the style of the letter was 'British', drawing attention to the use of words like 'kiddies', 'kids', 'dad' and 'cheerio'. It is believed the letter was typed in a UDR base and posted in Belfast. The death letter read:- Dear Michael, Just a few lines to let you know your name has been added to our list. By our 'List' we mean our vermin extermination list. Its really too bad that your kids will not have a Daddy, but on second thoughts, none would be better than the rat they have for one now. We know you work part-time in the Forestry-Division and your old yellow lorry.... has been followed by some of us from time to time. We already have our plans made and are just about waiting for the correct time to carry out the execution. Won't the world be a better place without scum like you? Where you are going you won't be able to make any more false accusations or write to any newspapers. Remember, when you are doing a bit of farming, keep looking behind. No, don't worry, we won't take you from behind. We like scum like you to see what's coming to them. Wouldn't it be a sin if anything happened to your kiddies? All because of the action of their dad. See you soon, Michael Cheerio Michael McHugh was continually followed by a UDR man who threatened and harassed him. A week before he died Michael mentioned him to his wife and said: "If anything happens to me he will have something to do with it." With the kidnapping of Dr Tiede Herrema, on 3 of October 1975, the vicinity of McHugh's home began to be searched by the British Army who believed that the IRA were crossing into the area from Donegal. Houses were raided including McHugh's. During these searches two 'civilian representatives' from the British Army barracks began to call at Michael McHugh's house. They often drew the conversation into political problems, and were seen on occasions walking in the fields. On one occasion they even offered Michael McHugh a gun for his protection. Michael McHugh's murder was carried out as the letter predicted on 21 January 1977. He had just left his wife Mary, a schoolteacher and two daughters aged four and two, and driven down the lane in his yellow lorry, on his way to work at the Killester Forest. His wife heard three bursts of machine-gun fire. When she looked out she saw the lorry with its headlights on. She ran out and saw her husband's body lying beside the lorry. Later an anonymous telephone caller in Derry claiming to represent the UFF admitted responsibility for the killing and claimed that McHugh was the IRA's West Tyrone commander, a claim denied by republicans and his family to this day. The caller said that the murder had been carried out by the West Tyrone unit of the UFF. Ten years later, in 1987, following the evidence of an informer, nine UDA men were sentenced for crimes ranging from robbery and hijacking to murder. They were all from the Derry area. One of them, William Bredin, originally from Moville, County Donegal, was sentenced to life for the murder of Michael McHugh. He pleaded guilty and so few details were revealed in court.
Collusion Report Released RUC/UDR Death Squad Activities Exposed A report released today by an international panel of human rights investigators has found significant and credible evidence of Royal Ulster Constabulary and British army collusion in 74 sectarian murders during the most recent conflict in Ireland. An investigation of 25 loyalist atrocities during the 1970s by the panel of human rights experts said senior RUC officers were aware and approved of collusion while officials in London had enough information to intervene. The murder gang was based at the UDR base at Glennane in South Armagh. The panel have called on the British government to appoint an independent inquiry to examine exactly how high up the chain of command collusion went. The group was asked by Derry-based human rights organisation the Pat Finucane Centre to investigate the 25 incidents. Among the controversial murders they investigated were:
Among the witnesses they interviewed about security force collusion with loyalists were former British army intelligence officer Fred Holroyd, ex-civil servant Colin Wallace, former RUC officers John Weir and Billy McCaughey. The group also revealed it was told during its investigation that gardaí in the republic failed to co-operate in apprehending republicans for their involvement in killings in the north. In their 115-page report, the panel said today: "Credible evidence indicates that superiors of violent extremist officers and agents, at least within the RUC, were aware of their sectarian crimes yet failed to act to prevent, investigate or punish them. "On the contrary, they allegedly made statements that appeared to condone participation in these crimes. "Even after Weir and another officer confessed in 1978 - information that should have blown the lid off RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment involvement in murdering Catholics - police investigations and ensuing prosecutions were inadequate by any reasonable standard. "As early as 1973, senior officials of the United Kingdom were put on notice of the danger - and indeed some of the facts - of sectarian violence by UDR soldiers using stolen UDR weapons and ammunition, and supported by UDR training and information. "At least by 1975, senior officials were also informed that some RUC police officers were 'very close' to extremist paramilitaries." In only one case, the group was unable to reach a verdict on collusion because of conflicting accounts - the murder of 51-year-old driver James Marks and 78-year-old passenger Joseph Toland in a gun attack in Gilford, Co Armagh, on a minibus returning from bingo. While the international panel welcomed reforms introduced by the British government to investigate the controversial murders, they claimed they were still insufficient for getting to the heart of collusion cases. They said the north's police ombudsman Nuala O'Loan did not have the powers to investigate collusion involving members of the UDR. The £30 million Historical Enquiries Team, set up by PSNI chief constable Hugh Orde, also fell short of international standards for investigations. The panel called for:
|
