Asking the Awkward Questions
national |
miscellaneous |
news report
Monday December 02, 2002 14:34
by IRISH REPUBLICAN SOCALIST PARTY
IRISH REPUBLICAN SOCALIST PARTY 1 December 2002 Asking the Awkward Questions Terry Harkin Over the last few weeks assisting with the IRSP's effort to expose the use - by an unreconstructed RUC - of child informers to spy on their own people. I was struck with the lack of interest expressed by the media, Policing Board and world in general. Here we were, a legitimate political party with what by any standards was a major story. It had all the elements - sleaze, child abuse, paramilitaries and crooked cops.
IRISH REPUBLICAN SOCALIST PARTY
1 December 2002
Asking the Awkward Questions
Terry Harkin
Over the last few weeks assisting with the IRSP's effort to expose the use
- by an unreconstructed RUC - of child informers to spy on their own
people. I was struck with the lack of interest expressed by the media,
Policing Board and world in general. Here we were, a legitimate political
party with what by any standards was a major story. It had all the elements
- sleaze, child abuse, paramilitaries and crooked cops.
The story as we seen it was this: during August of this year an RUC/PSNI
patrol picked up a drunk, confused and very frightened 13 year old boy with
learning difficulties. They arrested him on suspicion of "going equipped to
steal a car" and took him to the nearest RUC/PSNI barracks. Once there he
was interviewed, illegally without his parents or Social Services being
informed. He was threatened that he would be charged with offences if he
did not spy on his own community. A community that at that point in time
was under daily attack from armed loyalist thugs. The deal was simple -
agree to work for the RUC/PSNI, observing and reporting back to his
handlers on the movements and activities of those volunteers of the Irish
National Liberation Army suspected of involvement in the by now 24 hour a
day defence of North Belfast, go to prison, or worse. He was a frightened,
drunk, wee boy with a mental age of 8. He was in the company of authority
figures who abused him and played on his disabilities to induce terror and
break him to their will. And they did - he cracked like a dropped plate.
These were the circumstances that led to the boy being released without his
parents or any statutory body being informed that he had even been in
custody, never mind interviewed. He'd been given the number of an Orange
mobile phone to call and a name (Johnny) to ask for when he had
information. And, so it was that for the best part of 3 months this
disabled child was exploited and exposed to the risk of harm by those
allegedly there to protect him. He was on an odyssey that involved secret
meetings on far away roads, being driven around Nationalist North Belfast
in an RUC/PSNI Landrover, pointing out suspected INLA personnel and
eventually giving away the location of a weapon being used by those
involved in the defence of his own area. This in turn led to his unmasking
by the INLA. It was then that the INLA displayed a degree of empathy for
this child that was sadly lacking in the forces of the crown. Instead of
the execution the RUC/PSNI would have expected for one of their unmasked
agents, the INLA treated the boy humanely, contacted the Church. And the
IRSP then referred the family an internationally respected human rights
lawyer.
As I said at the start, what a story! Or so you would think. The Irish News
was given the exclusive - they talked to the INLA, the IRSP, and the priest
the boy and the family. They then buried the story on the inside pages. The
Guardian did better, two paragraphs on page 14. The Andytown News said that
the INLA were going to start shooting children as informers. Amid the
crying of the collective babies, covered in dirty water, sitting on their
collective sore bare asses having just been thrown out with the bath water,
two papers got it right. Only the Derry News and North Belfast News caught
the drift of what the INLA had uncovered and what the IRSP is trying to
expose.
This isn't just about one scared wee disabled kid from North Belfast. This
is a tactic. If it's in use in North Belfast, is it in use in the West of
the city? The East and South, Derry, Armagh, Strabane, Dungannon? Are
loyalist children being blackmailed in this way? Take two steps back and
look at the big picture. As part of the so-called UK, the RUC/PSNI are
trained by MI5 and the FBI. Is this tactic in common use by other agencies
of the British government? Are police forces in England, Scotland and Wales
using the children of Muslims in Birmingham, Swansea and Glasgow to spy on
their communities? What of the Miners in the 80's, the Turks and Kurdish,
Scots, Welsh and English Republicans, the firemen? Is North Belfast just
the tip of the iceberg, a ground zero for something that has ramifications
for all political activists and ethnic minorities deemed hostile or
subversive by the state?
But for now, all we can be sure of is this one scared child in Belfast. The
trail starts with him. The Orange phone number he was given has been
removed from Orange's database - that much has been uncovered by the IRSP.
It is our understanding that this phone was not a "pay as you go", but
rather had an account and as such must have generated a bill. Who paid that
bill and, more importantly, who approached Orange to remove the number and
who at Orange acted to cover up this act of state sponsored child abuse?
At every meeting the boy was given 80 pounds by his RUC/PSNI handlers. Who
signed for this money, who authorised its use and who put it into the boy's
hands?
Alan McQuillan, the deputy chief constable of the RUC/PSNI who would, under
law, need to approve the use of such a young and "vulnerable" intelligence
source has been quick to wash his hands in public over this:
"I would have to authorise something like this and I have not. If an
officer has done this it would be a serious breach," or words to that
effect.
I've been an Irp all my life and I've never seen a peeler so quick to get
his denial in first. Surprisingly he did not say, 'I'm confident the PSNI
would never do such a thing', he just said, 'I didn't do it'. A strange
thing for a senior RUC/PSNI officer to say about his force, or is it?
Let's take two steps forward and look again just at the North of Ireland.
It has been clear for sometime those elements within the RUC/PSNI loyal to
the old Ascendancy have been working with people inside the media with a
similar agenda to destabilise the Peace Process. The raid on the Sinn Fein
office was so media staged that it turned out campier than a Whitehall
farce. In the interviews outside Stormont, Hugh Orde would only say that he
knew the raid was going to take place. No one in the press pack thought to
ask why the warrant was not executed at the same time as the homes of Sinn
Fein employees and supporters were raided. Sure any police force in the
world would know how to co-ordinate an operation like that.
They came for the press and the press dutifully bayed for the blood of
alleged spies. A democratically elected Assembly was brought down, two
peoples were disenfranchised.
Let's face it, the Assembly was a lame duck and a waste of money that would
have been better spent in pay raises in the public sector and kidney
machines. But, there is an unmissible parallel between these two spy
stories. In one, a police force abuses its power and brings down a
democratically elected body and the media don't ask questions. In the
other, that same force are exposed using a mentally under developed child
to spy for them. And still the media don't ask questions.
There is no press pack hounding Orde and Mc Quillan. The Policing Board
took two weeks to get back to the IRSP when they tried to contact them.
Questions need to be asked about what happened to this boy and no one seems
to want to ask them or even consider the wider ranging implications of what
has been uncovered by the INLA. Why? Are nationalist politicians and
newspapers so wedded to this sectarian agreement that they are willing to
sacrifice the rights and welfare of this child and who knows how many
others on its altar? Are the organs of the state, the BBC and ITN, so
toothless that they turn a blind eye while the State and/or Ascendancy
blackmail and corrupt the innocent? Of course they are, that's a given.
Their only concern is to spoon-feed the population drivel and sanitised
versions of the truth. A version that cannot be allowed to show that the
Agreement has not worked and will not work. How can it work when unionists
are still empowered with a built-in veto and the much vaunted reform of the
RUC cannot prevent a disabled boy from being abused and debased for low
grade intelligence work? The deafening silence that surrounds the October
15th break in at the Bloody Sunday Inquire in London and the fact that
English MP's are forced to ask questions as to why the writings of LVF
murder victim, journalist Martin O' Hagan have yet to be returned to his
family and publisher only serve to add grist to this mill. What has
changed? The only thing that I can see that has changed is the
unwillingness of the nationalist press to take up any issue that is not
rubber stamped by Sinn Fein or the Brits.
This has happened before of course, the media manipulation, the covering up
of dissent, control of perception, control of the population by using their
children to spy on them. I wonder where it was?
In closing, and at the risk of being sued by John Grisham, I would like to
pose a challenge to those of the nationalist press in Ireland and the
middle-Left broadsheets of Britain. Close your eyes, imagine the terror of
a 13 year old Irish boy with learning difficulties lifted off the street at
his most vulnerable, denied his basic human and legal right to be seen by
his family or by social services. Alone, scared, with the police all around
you, telling you that you're going to prison if you don't sell the
defenders of your community for 80 pounds a time. Imagine the fear he then
had to live with, the stress the fear of exposure must have generated in
his young mind every time he left his home. Then forget that the boy is
Irish. Don't see him as Muslim or the son of some Lefty trade unionist.
Imagine it's your son. Then open your eyes, take your fingers out of your
backsides and drag this whole sordid mess out into the public domain where
it belongs.
392 FALLS ROAD,
BELFAST BT12 6DH
IRELAND
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (21 of 21)
Jump To Comment: 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Someone posting to a newswire, arguing that journalistic ethics may be an oxymoron. Isn't that something of an oxymoron?
As I said, Hebe, I didn't say anything about where Pat possibly works. You did. You idiot. Frankly, I feel you should judge yourself in accordance with your own ethical compendium. I guess, in that melodramatically addled world view of your own devising, that makes you mccarthyite. And, apparently, worse than secret service thugs.
Who do I really work for? You're presupposing I stated at any stage that I work for anyone. As for your problems with agent provocateurs, that breed has a mixed history, both fine and foul. Agent provaocateurs apparently have no place in your view of what an open newswire should be. This desired absence comments more on your own ethical limitations than it does on the content of my posts.
Your paranoia, and it is paranoia...who is he really working for...he's an agent provaocateur I tell you...he'll bring us all down. Why, with his typing, and his words, and his not saying where people work...he's worse than mccarthy, I tell you. Jesus, brother. Just how weird can you take it brother, before your mind will crack.
Suffice to say, the content of your comments is rebuttal enough against you. Aspire to mediocrity hebe. And perhaps sanity on a good day.
For someone who is devoted to logic and "journalistic ethics" (if such is not an oxymoron), Abraham is indulging in what must be some uncomfortable contortions.
An agent provocateur who openly plys his trade as Abraham does cannot then expect to so easily escape the responsibility for his actions.
Who are you really working for?
I also never said he worked for the department of heritage. I said I might see him there, and that said department was no hotbed of Marxist activities. I never ever said he worked for them. All sorts of people, Hebe, hang around the department of heritage, and are associated with it - Interest groups, teachers, archaeologists, planners, and those whose job it is to object to planning, journalists, no governmental organisations.
It pleases me greatly that the person accusing me of coercion through information is the only person who actually said ythe word workplace.
I've no idea if Pat works in the heritage dept. It was a guess, based on the email address he posted a while ago. One from the department of Heritage, apparently, according to other people who noticed and commented on it. I've no idea whether he does or not. But it seems likely. Its also, insofar as I can ascertain, fairly public knowledge amongst those with whom he campaigns. could, of course be wrong.
Thus, I haven't disclosed anything not already disclosed.
And as Pat posted it, he put it squarely in the public arena. In journalism, we call it fair use.
Also, hell, if I were a McCarthyite, I would have condemned him for un-irish activities, attempted to have him disbarred from a variety of employments, and sent g-men around to harass him, and evryone he has ever known.
I didn't. I refereed to something already, apparently, in the public arena.
"Who needs Special Branch or the Heavy Gangs with "radicals" like these?"
Exactly. Their idea of radicalism is to identify the employers of their opponents. McCarthyism lives on indymedia.ie.
Remains a crying shame that there's still a vocal minority who condemn the so-called "hardmen" for living "in the past" by recounting historical black propaganda, who view the actions of revolutionary groups from capitalist/colonial-shaded glasses and condemn them from the bosses' perspective, who have ultimately given up on the North and view revolutionary action as gutteral and animalistic. Ain't no convincing them, no argument will suffice, no amount of fact or evidence that would disprove their allegations would matter -- they're still going to operate under the fetish for pacifism. Extremist militant pacifism. Who needs Special Branch or the Heavy Gangs with "radicals" like these?
Philosophy. Odd that YOU were the one to bring the point up. Not me. It seems you are too preoccupied with your own fictions to adequately keep track of them. But hell. Lets run with it.
Philosophy. Literal translation, from the greek, love of wisdom. From Philo and sophia. I can see the problem there then Pat. A love of wisdom could well prove problematic to you.
I would add an insulting comment re Marxism, and your adept assumption of its mantle. But I'll hazard you are no Marxist. The department of Heritage is an unlikely hotbed of revolutionary activity.
To explain the suckfish remark...ten percenter. Parasitical organism. Colloquial. It puts you firmly in the order with which you belong - politicians, marketers, rhetoriticians, and cheapjack political hacks. See Aristotle. The Poetics. Specifically the chapters on rhetoric.
Just because you don't understand the reference Pat, it doesn't mean that it isn't logical.
I have not imposed my rules for discussion on anyone Pat. That would be firmly beyond my power. I did, however endeavour to involve you in what we call a "conversation", wherein through "dialogue"...now follow me with this Pat, this is where it gets difficult...we attempt to attain the "truth." You seem to mistake imposition for disagreement. It's called, I believe you refeered to it earlier, the cut and thrust of debate. I'd call your imposition quote hypocritical, but hell, I don't have that much respect for your intelligence.
Lets put it simply. People disagree. I disagree with you. We deal with these disagreements through a socially legislated form of interaction we term conversation, and dialogue. If you happen to feel that that is an infringement on your rights, as you seem to, my vocabulary is then far too slim a volume to give voice to your problems. Deal with it Pat. We call it democracy. In the Greek sense.
Regarding my definition of polemic. Look it up here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polemic. Your assumption of my imposing upon you borders on paranoia. I haven't decided the defition of polemic, Pat. A variety of dictionaries have, however. And according to all of them your replies most certainly do not qualify as such.
Am I a frustrated schoolteacher. No Pat. I am a journalist. I'll see you in the department of Heritage no doubt. Being a frustrated anarchist.
Lies on your part? You did state that I was referring to a philosophical discourse. No I wasn't. And I never did. I'd also accuse you of lying through omission, and misdirection. Your inability to answer direction questions is most arguably malfeasance. Or some form of chronic contextual dyslexia.
The question regarding the bodies didn't need much context Pat. Articles about paramilitary organisations tend to provide their own context. If you needed a context to understand the question "where are the bodies" in the comments section of an article about the INLA, your imbecility has reached cosmic proportions. The link seems obvious Pat. The author of it can hardly be expected to speak to your particularly challenged horizons of ability.
My opinions are not laws of nature? Well done Pat. You seem to be getting the hang of this conversation gig. Now, just apply the same dictum to yourself, and you'll be one step further to that communication thing you've probably heard so much about.
You paranoid little freak. If I could tolerate you, I'd say that your disengenuity is a tragedy that dooms you to its repition. I don't. You're an imbecile.
Abraham sounds like an English Teacher from Hell!
"
"Cut and thrust is it?
by Abraham Abulafia Wed, Dec 4 2002, 2:33pm
Damn right Pat. There is no place in the practice of politics for conversation an dialogue. Definitely no place for philosphy. The possibility is precluded."
well as marx wrote: "philosophy is to the study of real life as masturbation is to sexual intercourse.
abraham , you are truly a great philosopher.
"You rancid suckfish. You poisonous bucket of lies."
And pray what is the semantic, philisophical or logical content of that "sentence"?
"Philosophical discourse? I was referring to your endemic inability to follow the rules of conversation, you dimwitted diatribist. "
you are the one who seems to wish to impose your rules on the discussion. you want to play soccer , i want to play gaelic. the rules atre mutually exclusive; but neither set of rules is wrong.
"Regarding polemic, polemic indicates refutation. Which falls squarely under the rules of conversation. I presume that you are at least aware of them?"
again we get back to your presumption, that you will decide on how a debate is to be conducted.
are you a frustrated school teacher?
"Your "head on rebuttal" managed to sidestep the question entirely. You took the personal insult part of the post, and replied to that."
the question regarding the "bodies" was given no context. i sidestepped nothing.
"You lying git."
you have not shown any lies on my part.
"The spirit, and the actual question itself you conveniently sideswiped. When one is engaged in murder, both casual and premeditated, one must expect a degree of hostility to be aimed at one during discussion. But you are right. The poor old INLA have had traditionally no way of defending themselves."
what ever are you rambling about? i do not regard the killing of british soldiers, rucmen or loyalist paramilitaries as murder. you may do so.
but thats your opinion.
your opinions are just that; they are not laws of nature.
i have pointed out that there were actions of the inla i disagreed with.
"Don't ever twist my words again, Pat, you sophistic junkie. I'll rip you a new philosophical arsehole. I never mentioned philosphical discourse. I referred to conversaton, dialogue, and the rules thereof. If you can't win the argument on it's own merits, avoid it."
you are rambling again; apparently you are the only one who will decide on the appropriate form that a debate should take.
thats not just sophistry on your part; you suffer from an extreme case of solipsism. you are in danger of disappearing up your own philisophical arsehole.
do go to the skeptic lecture; it might bring you out of your fantasy world. or alternatively it might convince you that you dont exist.
in any case, thanks for the amusement you have provided. i now have more pressing matters to attend to and will not be returning to this thread.
solipsists of the world unite!
you've nothing to lose but your dreams!
Damn right Pat. There is no place in the practice of politics for conversation an dialogue. Definitely no place for philosphy. The possibility is precluded. You rancid suckfish. You poisonous bucket of lies.
Philosophical discourse? I was referring to your endemic inability to follow the rules of conversation, you dimwitted diatribist.
Regarding polemic, polemic indicates refutation. Which falls squarely under the rules of conversation. I presume that you are at least aware of them?
Your "head on rebuttal" managed to sidestep the question entirely. You took the personal insult part of the post, and replied to that. You lying git. The spirit, and the actual question itself you conveniently sideswiped. When one is engaged in murder, both casual and premeditated, one must expect a degree of hostility to be aimed at one during discussion. But you are right. The poor old INLA have had traditionally no way of defending themselves.
Don't ever twist my words again, Pat, you sophistic junkie. I'll rip you a new philosophical arsehole. I never mentioned philosphical discourse. I referred to conversaton, dialogue, and the rules thereof. If you can't win the argument on it's own merits, avoid it.
there is a difference between the philisophical discourse you are reffering to and the political polemic in which i was engaging. if you choose to use one style bully for you; i prefer mine.
however it is wrong for you to suggest that i am being disingenuous because of our differing styles. i met a political & personalised (an individual was named)attack head on.
if DT wants to engage in a gentler debate then he shouldn't attack like a rottweiler.
anyway, at least on this thread you havent received the abuse you got from spartacus.
dont get me wrong, i am not attacking your philisophical style per se, its just that in the cut & thrust of political debate, it wont get you very far on indymedia.
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
Something which both Doubting Thomas and Abraham might be interested in:
Launch of Irish Skeptics Society
Lecture: "The Flight from Science and Rationality in Modern Society".
Buswells Hotel, Molesworth Street
Wednesday 4 (Tonight!)
8 pm
I'm going to miss it due to the Grassroots Anti war meeting.
It didn't Pat. The question, regardless of it's phrasing, didn't merit your reply. Your reply was disingenuous, an evasion. And a perfectly obvious one at that.
It was the answer one would epect from a career politician, full of sound and fury, as it were, but signifying nothing.
It was politics, Pat, not conversation. There is a difference between the two. Your reply had no bearing on the impingeability of the INLA. It was not, in any accurate, logical or syllogistic sense a reasonable defence of them.
Do not mistake sleight of hand, misdirection, for conversation pat. And do not insult me by attempting to convince me of it.
I'd suggest you read Aristotles poetics, and his work on rhetoric. You need to both sharpen your skills, and correctly estimate your opponents. Presumptions of facility on your part are beneath me.
the manner in which the question was asked, imho, justified my response.
there are many people out there who condemn republican violence but do not condemn the violence of the state or of para-state death squads.
i believe that the disappeared , be they informers or whatever, deserve a decent burial.
i know the inla & the ira have taken all possible steps to identify where the bodies are buried.
the criticism posted was a valid, if strongly worded, question. The INLA have killed. And not all the victims have been found.
The answer to the question "where are the bodies?" is NOT "the RUC/PSNI are a bunch of murderous swine." There is every possibility that they are, but that is not relevant to the matter at hand - that the INLA are murderous swine.
Your original post strikes nothing if not a petulant note, one rather discordant with the severity of the matters at hand. And there is no reason on earth why anyone else should have to deal with that. It was a stupid answer to a pertinent question.
you posted a two line piece which included a personalised attack.
how am i a sheep? i've always been a contrary goat.
Pat C in word twisting shock!!!!
Pat I questioned the ethic and reasoning behind the INLA attack on the PSNI.
This was as cynical as the PSNI's behaviour (which I didn't defend).
The INLA, interrogated a child of 13, with a dimished mental capacity.
The INLA usual tact when dealing with an informer is a bullet in the back of the head, and this was just one situation where they couldn't get away with it (think of the PR), so their apologists jumped up and down, and went to the court of human rights.
Have the INLA ever heard of the geneva convention, they consider themselves an army, yet ignore those inconvient parts about their own prisoners.
Instead of blindly bleating and towing the party line, I questioned the motives of Danielle and her ilk, and that to you is a cardinal sin.
BAA BAA
Get your mind back in the pen Pat you're having an independent thought.
when someone attacks a story on ruc/psni recruitment of a child as an informer, then surely i'm entitled to question his motives?
surely its ok to sound him out on his views on state violence & loyalist violence?
as i've said in the past i have criticisms of some of the actions of the inla.
i am not a blind cheer-leader for them.
You're damn right. Absolutely. Syllogistically imperative, even. The fact that the opposition has blood on its hands washes clean the hands of the INLA, that fine, upstanding, body of men. And anybody who criticises them implicitly supports unionism in all its guises.
Imbecile.
Your thoughts are the mark of a deeply irrational man. Criticism of the INLA is implicitly acceptable, and demonstrably applicable, especially in the context of a story about the INLA.
Perhaps DT means the bodies of those murdered by RUC & SAS shoot to kill squads?
Does he mean the bodies of those killed by loyalist hit squads, set up, armed and supplied with inteeligence by the British?
Could it be the bodies of IRSP members Miriam Daly, Ronnie Bunting & Noel Lyttle, assassinated by loyalists with British colusion?
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear, goddamit?
Perhaps the lack of interest - though both the English Independent and Guardian reported it - has something to do with the allegations coming from the INLA? And allegations of malfeasance from the INLA may tend not to carry the same weight as those coming from non psychotically violent, non fanatically partisan, and frankly barkingly sectarian sectors.
But hey. I could be wrong. There is every chance in the world that an interrogation by the INLA will yield unimpingeable testimony by the interrogated.
...yeah, but you're all scumbags, so nobody gives a shit.