Best news this year - Scumbag Mckevitt to rot in jail
dublin |
anti-war / imperialism |
news report
Wednesday August 06, 2003 13:47
by Pádraig - Fuck the 'RA
Hopefully he'll never see his family again.
August 6, 2003
(12:26) Michael McKevitt has been found guilty of membership of an illegal organisation, and of directing terrorism.
The Special Criminal Court gave its verdict this morning in the case involving the alleged leader of the Real IRA.
53-year-old McKevitt, from Blackrock in Co Louth, was the first person to be charged with directing terrorism, an offence created under legislation brought in after the Omagh bombing.
advertisement
advertisement
He could face life imprisonment. During the trial, McKevitt denied both charges.
The main prosecution witness, FBI agent David Rupert, told the court about army council meetings he attended with him and plans that McKevitt had to launch a new wave of shootings and bombings in the North and in Britain.
However, when a Garda surveillance document was disclosed to the court, McKevitt's defence claimed it contradicted evidence Mr Rupert had given under oath, and applied to have the trial stopped.
When this was refused, McKevitt sacked his legal team and refused to participate any further. He called it a political showtrial and stopped attending court.
The remaining witnesses, including the Garda Chief Superintendent who testified that he knew the 53-year-old to be a member of an illegal organisation, gave their evidence to the court unchallenged.
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (72 of 72)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72F**k the Ra, oh what an intelligent observation on one of the most obvious miscarriages of justice seen in this state in years. Human rights completely violated and a man found guilty of directing terrorism based on defence evidence that contradicted itself, actually Im not going to waste my time falling for your little trap to lure people into a debate on the back of your crap, forget it Im sure someone with a brain will publish a more informed piece on this case
It says something about the state of, and respect for, civil liberties, that I feel obliged to state right at the beginning that I do not support the RIRA or McKevitt's politics. Sadly, anyone raising questions about this case are simply accused of being RIRA fifth columnists and can then be safely ignored.
But let's look at the facts. The main witness was paid for his testimony, he admitted on the stand that he cannot remember a single person he has not lied to over the last five to ten years. His evidence at times contradicted itself, and often contradicted previous statements he had made and even contradicted Garda surveillance reports.
So, we have a man who is a self-confessed liar and fantasyist, paid hundreds of thousands for his testimony and whose evidence was contradictory. And this is enough to convict a person? Well, not enough by itself, according to the Court, posession of a guidebook on Yugoslavia was corroboration. As some-one with guidebooks to the Basque Country, France and China at home, i have to say I'm deeply worried about what implications they have.
This is bullshit, whether he's guilty or not, the evidence to convict was not there, but the Political Criminal Court has never let such things stand in its way before.
Disagree with McKevitt. Hate him and his politics if you want. Curse him from mountain top to valey deep. But he was convicted on false, misleading and purchased evidence in a political show trial. Whatever you think of his politics, that should give anyone pause for thought.
I must say I agree. As well as affronting civil liberties, convicting McKevitt on such tenuous evidence could potentially make him a martyr. The RIRA have probably been handed key propaganda and fundraising opportunities abroad.
I know the Omagh bombing victims are thirsty for justice, but I don't think a dodgy conviction does anybody any favours.
1. Of course he was paid for his testimony - why else would anyone become an informer for murderous vermin in the RIRA.
2. Almost all his evidence was backed up by the Irish and NI security people. Enough to convict him.
Of course, if he wasn't a far-left socialist/rebublican animal (sorry, he's worse than an animal), nobody in this site would be complaining.
He should be kept naked in a tiny cage not big enough to lie down or sit up or stand up with rats running on his head.
Next time I see you cunts petitioning your for it.
Don't indulge poisonous posters like "Pádraig"
from those insightful comments. You don't have the faintest fucking clue what you're talking about and you are proud of it. Paid informants are generally considered to be very unreliable witnesses in general, for well documented reasons. So, even if his testimony had been watertight we would have to be skeptical about it. In this case, however, he wasn't even able to stick to the same story throughout, contradicted himself a number of times. Most of the time it looked like he was making it up as he went along.
The police didn't so much as corroborate his story as give a different story in which he was also guilty. Police testimony when dealing with political dissidents, like the testimony of paid informers, has also proved to be very dubious again and again. If there is a republican in the dock, the state can always find a garda witness to assert that they are guilty of whatever the state wants to find them guilty of - it's just the way the game works. There is a massive amount of evidence to support this.
This case, like most of the SCC cases, is a stitch up. It might surprise you, but it is possible to have this opinion even though you may despise the politics of the accused. The RIRA are certainly not far-left, in fact they are closer to a right wing traditionalist set of politics and in my mind are very reactionary. However, I can recognise that two wrongs certainly don't make a right.
I. DON'T. CARE.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT SCUMBAG MCKEVITT IS THE MAN BEHIND THE RIRA.
YOU KNOW IT.
I KNOW IT.
HOPEFULLY HE WILL GET TORTURED IN JAIL.
It would be better for everyone if people like Padraig didn’t exist as it has been the same flaws that has seen innocent people killed throughout history, for some reason only known to himself, this Padraig fuck wit has decided that he knows who the leader of the so called RIRA is!!, sure you probably knew McKevitt was planning to blow Omagh as well, sure you did Padraig, go read some book, believe every word in it and then shout your mouth off about things you haven’t a fucking clue about, someday hopefully you will be treated with the same level of ignorance you stupid pathetic gimp
It should be noted that McKevitt was kicked out of the RIRA last October for issuing a statement denouncing the RIRA leadership and calling for a ceasefire. Much like what happened a few years back when INLA people called for a ceasefire from the court dock to save their own necks. All the media claiming he is the leader of the RIRA is wrong. I dont agree with his politics but the "evidence" he was convicted on was a joke.
Don't indulge poisonous posers.
May he die in jail. Everybody knows he's vermin - I don't give a fuck about the evidence either, one less bomber to kil innocent people.
But the man is below scum. Its simple really, Everyone knows hes guilty, you are guys are gonna claim that he is a man convicted wrongfully, well of course you guys know more than the Intelligence services of THREE countries as well as numerous countries who probably were not mentioned. The man is Guilty as hell. I am only sorry the man was not sentenced to the death penalty. I know it doesn't sole everything, but lets face it I would rather have the cunt DEAD, than taking up my tax money so he can live a rather pleasent life in jail where he gets everything he needs with regard to comfort and after a while MIGHT be able to get out on early release. Screw him, lets hope he suffers immense pain for the horrendous crime he was willing to aid in. Lets hope we don't end with his ass in jail. Lets hope he rats more of the bastards out before he gets fucked beyond belief.
I thought this page had some intelligent conversation on it, but you guys really have NO idea what you are talking about!
we know its possible for guilty people to go free when cases hang on technicalities. it is clear to one and all that this man is/was a terrorist and that means the conviction has placed him in his rightful place. maybe it will pave the way for more terrorist/scumbags to be brought down.
the man is below scum...I would rather have the cunt DEAD, than taking up my tax money...a rather pleasent life in jail... et al.
If you're looking forn intelligent conversation, contribute some. Anyone who thinks republicans, of whatever political analysis, get a comfortable life in prison clearly lacks a great deal of information.
The issue isn't what the intelligenvce services of three nations KNOW, it's what they can prove. I KNOW Galway are going to win the All-Ireland. It has not yet been PROVEN. In some Irish courts, it is necessary for the State to prove its case. It could only do that in this case by trying McKevitt in a political court, with bought, contradictory and perjured evidence.
As for simon, we also know it is possible for innocent people to be convicted on technicalities, or indeed outright lies. That's why the State is oblliged to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to do that in this case, the State had to dispense with juries, buy testimony, contradict its own evidence etc.
I have my own views on his innocence or guilt, but I also have my own views on his right to a fair trial and whether the State proved its case. He didn't get a fair trial and the State failed to meet the burden of proof.
this whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, do they?
If the guy is guilty, and I think he most likely is, then fine, throw away the key. But that guilt has to be proven, not just asserted.
I understand the importance of civil rights and fair trials but i simply wanted to point out that the justice system leeks in countless places. as far as i saw it there was nothing to prove. If you want to get tangled up in technicalities we'd probably see this guy evade justice which is not something any of you could defend.
Can you tell what you would be saying if he was let slip through the justice system??
would you be happy that another scumbag/terrorist evaded justice...
i hope this sends out a message to all the other 'politically' motivated murderers. we dont want anymore violence. f*** all that IgnorRAnt bullshit.
'Technicalities' are there for a reason - to protect the innocent from wrongful arrest an imprisonment, and to protect all of us from wrongful invasions of our privacy.
Evidence being paid for is not like someone forgetting to put a full stop at the end of a sentence.
Contradictory evidence is not the same as someone forgetting the date when they're filling in a traffic form.
You can't throw someone in jail just because 'everyone knows' he's guilty. If everyone does actually know it, then the case should be easy to _prove_. If you can't prove your case, then maybe 'everyone' was wrong.
What would you be saying if he escaped justice?
what is your understanding of his life/actions and where do your loyalties lie?
Its better that a guilty man go free than that an innocent man be wrongly imprisoned.
Its better that prosecutors have to work harder to obtain convictions, than that they be allowed to convict people because they are 'sure'.
Its better that we have a right to privacy, a right to freedom of speech and association, and a right to a fair trial, than that the police can imprison whoever they want.
I have nothing but contempt for the RIRA, or for McKevitt's political positions. But these rights mean nothing if they don't apply to everybody.
If McKevitt is as guilty as you say he is, and if this guilt is as obvious as you believe, then it should be easy for this guilt to be proved. Without undermining the fairness of the trial.
What are you saying?
Are you saying that trials don't matter as long as you think someone is guilty?
Are you saying that you think the police should be allowed jail anyone for anything?
Are you saying that once you describe someone as a terrorist, you can do anything you want to him? Where do your loyalties lie - with the rule of law or the rule of the police?
let him go its all been a big mistake.pah!!
this shows how your law is an ass. if there is a question that this guy could walk free through a process you see as just and fair i dont need to say anymore. do expect me to feel sympathy or even want to protract the situation!! He has prescribed to a lifestyle (no denying that) and he deserves what he gets.
to guage your levels of just intent and fairness - do you sympathise with known war criminals??
I note Simon's instinctive reaction above was to question where Ray's loyalties lie. This is typical nonsense. You support the concepts of a fair trial and civil rights, therefore you must side with the RIRA. Is it so beyond your ability to conceive thoughts that people might loathe an individuals politics, might actually as some have done, engage in struggle against a person and their political organisation, and also believe that this person's human rights should not be violated?
I don't think you at all understand the concepts of civil rights and fair trials as you claim above Simon because you display no respect for them, dismissing such things a 'technicalities' upon which we should not get hung up. Personally speaking I find the pervasion of ideas and thinking like yours a lot more dangerous, and a lot more threatening in the long run, than Mickey McKevitt ever was.
i already said I have little faith in the 'justice' system because its riddled with inconsistencies and faults (guilty people let go/innocent people sent to jail). you can harp on about your ideals of what is just and fair but you have to answer me how can you stand by your system when it has failed on so many countless of occasions. would you be singing the praises of your 'fair' system if he was let go (please answer my question)!!!!!!!
youve clouded your openess to progressive judgement with dated and cloudy notions of civil rights.
so you regard the conviction of a known terrorist as more dangerous than some academic assumption of what is legally right. I think you should spend some time with the people whos lives are spent tracking a trying to bring to book these scumbags. are living in the real world of murder/crime/terrorism etc. have you met any of the families that have been destroyed by terrorism
You say you have no faith in the justice system because it has sent innocent people to jail.
But you also want to remove any protection afforded to people accused of a crime, and think that, as long as you and the gardai agree that someone is guilty, then he should be sent to jail and no trial is necessary.
If McKevitt was as guilty as you say he is, if the dogs in the street knew he was guilty, then it should have been easy to prove, shouldn't it? There shouldn't be any need for a unjust trial, when a fair trial would have proven him guilty.
I don't sympathise with war criminals. But I require EVIDENCE that someone is a war criminal, not just your say-so.
do you really believe that the case was based on hear-say and say-so or whatever. come of it.
oh and please answer my question about standing by your system of 'fairness' if he was let go.
by the way the word technicalities is used to portray a wide number (ususally complicated) scenarios etc. saves time
Civil rights and the notion of a fair trial are outdated? Now I get you. Doesn't go well with your dubious claim to understand civil rights above but makes a lot more sense.
If he was let go on the basis of the evidence before the Court, yes I would be singing its praises. There is only one issue here Simon, one and one alone. It's not what the cops tell you, it's not what you read in the papers, it's not what you read in books, it's not what your mates in the pub tell you, it's not what your gypsy fucking fortune teller tells you, it's what is proved in court. Everything else is irrelevant.
I have my own opinions on McKevitt's guilt or not as a member of the RIRA, but on what was presented in the Court, no matter how much I personally dislike both the man and his politics, I could not have convicted. He should have been let go because the State failed to prove its case. All other things are irrelevant. That's the court system we are supposed to have in a western democracy. Instead, a man of dubious character and a reputation as a liar and a fantasist was paid over a million dollars and counting for his evidence. This evidence contradicted itself, contradicted Garda evidence and contradicted previous statements he had made. And yet it was enough to convict in a political court.
And yes, I have met people and have friends whose lives have been affected by the conflict, lost family members, been injured, so fucking what? My opinion is not one iota more valuable because I have first hand experience of the Troubles. Your opinion is not one iota more sensible if you have had. Is it against the law to have an opinion about the state of civil rights and fair trials in Ireland unless you know a victim? Is that the level of farce your argument has descended to?
The State failed to prove their case and had insufficent evidence to convict. It is the sign of a healthy democratic state that in such circumstances the accused is not convicted. It is a sign of the perilous state of civil liberties in Ireland that a judgement can be bought in a biased political trial.
I said that 1) its better that a guilty man go free than that an innocent man be falsely imprisoned, and 2) if McKevitt is as guilty as you say he is, then the gardai should have been able to prove it in a fair trial.
If he is guilty, but the gardai don't present the evidence of his guilt, then he should be let go and the gardai blamed for fucking up. I think McKevitt almost certainly is guilty, but that the evidence of his guilt should have been presented in court, and his guilt should have been proven.
Now, I've answered your question (again). How about you answer mine (from 10.49)?
'healthy democratic system'. You dont need a degree in law to know that that ideal is rubbish. i dont have faith in it on grounds of the obvious.
your lovely system hasnt brought many people to justice over countless of issues (terrorism/corruption etc.).
if you think he ended up in front of the judge on grounds of one witness your naive in the extreme.
your blind faith in the workings of the court has seen to many injustices for me to think you know what your talking about.
Half thinking this must be trolling since every post I've made has been criticising the Irish court system and yet you accuse me of having blind faith in the workings of the court? What blind faith exactly Simon?
Is the bit where I say the evidence on which a conviction was obtained was contradictory an example of blind faith in the judicial process? Is the bit where I say testimony was bought in a court case suggestive of blind faith in our legal system? Perhaps the bit where I question the neutrality of the judge suggested blind faith in the neutrality of the legal system?
You are the one with the blind faith in the Irish legal system because you are the one who doesn't care whether witnesses perjure themselves, doesn't care if the State pays for evidence, doesn't care if the trial has no jury, doesn't care if the Special Criminal Court is a violation of civil rights all by itself, doesn't care if evidence is contradictory so long as a man you have decided is guilty, is found so. Perhaps the blind faith you have is not in the Courts, but in yourself and your own prejudices.
The evidence against McKevitt, and I was paying very close attention to thise case for personal reasons, hinged on Rupert's testimony. They _might_ have got him for membership without it but a recent SCC case suggested that simply Garda evidence alone was not enough to convict, creating an interesting precedent; they wouldn't have even had the evidence to press a charge of directing terrorism without him.
Ray said earlier it is better for a guilty man to go free than for many innocent men to be wrongly imprisoned. It's a god philosophy. Regardless of what you might like to think you stand condemned by your own words of another philosophy, that says it is better for many innocent men to suffer and be at risk, than for one guilty man to go free, because that's exactly what the McKevitt case has done. From now on, convictions solely on the evidence of an informer, and you might be too young to remember the Supergrass trials but I'm not, is back and in business. And we emember what a disaster for civil rights that was.
"If he is guilty, but the gardai don't present the evidence of his guilt, then he should be let go and the gardai blamed for fucking up. I think McKevitt almost certainly is guilty, but that the evidence of his guilt should have been presented in court, and his guilt should have been proven."
there is my problem with what you are saying - you claim that hes guilty but should be let go on grounds of a 'technicality' and a technicality in a system that we now to be dubious.
Ive simply seen to much failure of the 'system' to have your blind faith in the 'way' of the courts. I have gathered my information from numerous sources and it seems clear to me now it to be proven to me that he is not guilty. maybe ive simply lost patience with accommodation of terrorists and terroist organisations.
im talking to two different people here:
o.k. Janus do YOU believe he was innocent / that he wasnt deeply involved in terroism etc.
p.s. no trolls here i just dont agree with you.
Both the 6 county and 26 county state used to have a system whereby they could put away people they 'knew' were 'terrorists'. It dispensed with any need for a trial or due process of any description. It was called Internment. You just raid hundreds of houses and collect all the scum (or relatives, friends, anyone - sure what does it matter) and you herd them into a camp or onto a rotting hulk offshore. And leave them there for months, even years. Beating, torture, white noise, starvation, attacks by dogs, etc. are all additional niceties that can be added to the main policy.
Internment has always been a massive success when employed with maximum efficiency. It ensures you create hundreds more 'terrorists'. It's just great - obviously some of the posters above are weeping over the abolition of this enlightened state method of justice imposition.
Actually what is in force now is little more than judicial internment - it is a policy of taking people out of circulation for periods of up to 5 years on no evidence other than the word of a Garda Superintendant who believes that the person is a member of an illegal organisation. Sure there is no way such a person would lie. Dozens of people have been put away on this basis in the past few years.
Fair play to you Janus for bother to argue with the reactionaries. I have got bored with it...
I would like to see McKevitt _proven_ guilty. You seem to regard 'proof' as a 'technicality'. As long as your sources tell you someone is guilty, there is no need for a trial. Fuck that.
I have my own opinion on it Simon, and it's extremely strongly held, but it's also irrelevant. What we are talking about here is a very simple matter. On the basis of what was presented in Court, was there enough evidence to convict? I do not believe there was. If not, is his conviction right? I do not believe it was.
You say you have gathered your evidence from numerous sources. Great, irrelevant.
I don't think the fact that the Guards don't have enough evidence to convict someone of something is a technicality, kind of fundamental I would have thought.
I note you still have not answered Ray's questions from 10.49 so to add one in of my own. REGARDLESS of your opinion as to his guilt or innocence and IRRELEVANT of what you know, or think you know, do you think he got a fair trial and that sufficent evidence was presented to merit his conviction? And if so, how do you respond to the points we have made regarding contradictions in evidence and paid testimony?
god you people are so naïve. why do you presume im for internment or a troll or a reactionary simply because i think your thinking is flawed.
i think you let you political motivation cloud your judgment on cases such as this. i repeat this man was deeply involved in terroism. and you and the judicial system needs to lift its arse out of the sand and be more progressive in the way it deals with terrorism. and no i dont mean setting up guantanamo bays all over the place or some other baseless reaction you'll probably throw at me.
i simply find it amazing that you can question the merits of this conviction when its clear (maybe not clear through the process hammered down by the convoluted legal system) that this man was a terrorist, period. A major step in dealing with the situation of Northern Ireland and dealing with scars of our history is to see these kinds of people berought to justice.
Janus you are just repeating your blind faith in the legal system and the way of the court that you say you dont have.
you have to see that the process to bring somebody like this to justice isnt as clear cut as you would like but you cant deny the result isnt worth it
i didnt answer the questions because i felt they were baseless.
Are you saying that trials don't matter as long as you think someone is guilty? NO.
Are you saying that you think the police should be allowed jail anyone for anything? NO.
Are you saying that once you describe someone as a terrorist, you can do anything you want to him? NO
Where do your loyalties lie - with the rule of law or the rule of the police? neither frankly.
sometimes things arent as clear-cut, b/w or as clearly labelled as you would like.
anyway Im off on holidays and a terrorist is going to jail. I think Ill have a happy weekend.
As republicans, socialists, lefties and the rest, we probably have more experience of the inequalities and injustice of this state's court and legal system than you can imagine. I have no blind faith in the legal system and you can't point to any evidence that I do since my entire argument has been based on the failure of the legal system in the McKevitt case.
YOUR blind faith has been in McKevitt's guilt without any evidence presented to in court. YOUR blind faith in his guilt allows you to be satisfied with the Gardai cutting corners and dubious evidence because what you believe to be the 'right' verdict was obtained. And despite answering NO to all of Ray's questions, every statement and post you have made contradicts those responses.
My blind faith as you call it, is not in the legal system of this State, which I don't even fucking recognise, but in the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. It is not a concept you share and thus statements that you are reactionary are perfectly valid.
Your mindset convicted the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Colombia Three without evidence, always naively willing to believe everything and anything you read in the paper or from a 'senior police/government source'. Couple this with your touching, Stallone movie philosophy on law and order, and you have a person ready made to embrace the joys of fascism.
-Are you saying that trials don't matter as long as you think someone is guilty? NO. -
But you don't think these trials must be fair, is that it?
- Are you saying that you think the police should be allowed jail anyone for anything? NO.-
But you are saying that the police don't have to prove their case, they only have to make an allegation.
- Are you saying that once you describe someone as a terrorist, you can do anything you want to him? NO -
But you are saying that it doesn't matter that the evidence against McKevitt is wanting, as long as you are convinced.
"I have my own opinion on it Simon, and it's extremely strongly held, but it's also irrelevant. What we are talking about here is a very simple matter. On the basis of what was presented in Court, was there enough evidence to convict? I do not believe there was. If not, is his conviction right? I do not believe it was."
sounds tome like you have faith in the legal system and the way of the court or is it that you dont recognise a system but continue to criticise it or do you denounce the police but think they should live to their word - which is it. as i said you let your political motivation cloud your judgment.
I have to laugh when you insinuate that I would fall under some stallone-style or fascist category. Thats your problem, if your neatly constructed opinion is questioned you yell Troll, Fascist or whatever baseless insult you can.
Ray, my point is that you dont seem to know what you are crticising. On the one hand you denouce the judgement and the ruling of the court and on the other you say that the ruling of the court hasnt been upheld.
statement from Drbinoche
Its simple really, Everyone knows hes guilty, you are guys are gonna claim that he is a man convicted wrongfully, well of course you guys know more than the Intelligence services of THREE countries as well as numerous countries who probably were not mentioned.
Question
How many Intelligence services throughout the world confirmed weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, where are they now, was Saddam really a Magician?
Statement by simon
it is clear to one and all that this man is/was a terrorist
Question
From the list below please identify the people you believe to be terrorists
George Washington
Che Guevara
O. Bin Laden
Thomas Jefferson
Malcom X
Michael Collins
George Bush
Daniel Ortega
Eamon DeValera
Oliver Cromwell
James Connolly
Mao TseTung
Oliver North
Tony Blair
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Query
Are there good bombs and bad bombs?
When is killing not murder?
If a bomb explodes in Iraq killing children (a terrorist act?) is Blair / Bush guilty of "directing terrorism"
Fair Trial?
"The dogs on the street know he is guilty"
Well the dogs in Fleet Street certainly decided he was guilty long before he was charged or even arrested. Trial by media?
mc kevitt gets 20 years for directing, 6 years for membership, effectively more than a life sentence.
I don't support the rira, or any ira. But this is a joke the man was shafted by the state. He is probably guilty of something but lets not do a GW Bush on it and just get him for rubbish like "directing terrorism". I would like to live in a liberal democracy show trials like this rubbish that.
An utter nonsense process.
Whatever about the integrity of the trial, I have always wondered why you have to 'apply' for leave to appeal. I mean, the same judge who convicted and sentenced Mickey McKevitt then had to decide if he could appeal, and turned it down ! It's not a great system, is it ? To be honest much as I dislike rira, I find the whole thing a bit tarnishing of our justice system.
That comment above posted by some cowardly moron at 1.16pm is not from me. Undoubtedly s/he got some sort of perverted pleasure out of posing as Pat C, maybe it is the sunstroke getting to the trolls.
Of course I do not believe that the trial was fair or the verdict was just. The evidence was from paid tout, an American intelligence agent operating in Ireland to entrap Irish citizens. The trail revealed Rupert's dodgy business background and airbrushed over his involvement in the sexual abuse and/or rape of a female minor in the US. He happily admitted to being paid for his evidence. The judges seem to have no problem with this. It reveals what a cesspit the so-called 'justice system' is. Hopefully, for their own sake, the people on here gloating will never have to face it themselves. Admittedly that is unlikely.
You must have a boring life to be going about posting under other people's names.
It should be pointed out that McKevitt was not charged with anything to do with Omagh, nor was he convicted of such. If the prosecution had any evidence on this they would have used it. Maybe he was involved, or maybe not. The point is THE COURT HAS TO PROVE IT. They didn't.
Maybe it is too much to hope that Mr Anonymous Troll might have a bit more sensitivity than to throw around the names of the Omagh dead in the above manner. They have relatives and friends still alive. They were people, not just a list of names for idiots to use as they see fit to make some irrelevant point that he is too ashamed even to put his real name to.
Don't rise to the idiot's bait, Pat. Just contact the editors and ask them to remove the impersonations.
someone is trying to "bait" everyone into comment on this thread. SO think before you comment even to highlight someone else's impersonation of your style or name. The whole text is still _there_ on the hidden list and on the editorial list.
article aptly numbered sixty666.
Neither bait nor hate/spam-mail will stop any of the regular contributors to this newswire commenting or _not_ where they see fit.
& think before _you_ send a worm to any of the contributors who regularly use this site.
names of the Omagh dead in the above manner. They have relatives and friends still alive. They were people, not just a list of names for idiots to use as they see fit to make some irrelevant point
ONLY LAST WEEK YOU WERE CUT 'N' PASTING THE NAMES OF DEAD SECURITY FORCE PERSONNEL, WHERE DO YOU GET OF TAKING PLEASURE IN THE DEATHS OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED JUST UP THE ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The conviction of Michael McKevitt is an important milestone, not only for the future of terrorist groups throughout Ireland but for the relatives of the Omagh bomb victims and the peace process itself. He is the first to be found guilty in the Republic of the new crime of directing terrorism and his sentence sends out a strong message that the authorities are determined to eliminate terrorism, in all its forms.
Others have come before the courts, in the past, and many have been let off on a technicality. This time, however, the court was prepared to accept the word of a key American witness, backed up by Garda surveillance, despite desperate attempts to discredit his evidence.
McKevitt's offences were committed after the Omagh bomb, five years ago, but he has been found to be the leader of the group - the Real IRA - which constructed it. Although he has apparently quit the organisation, in opposition to its continuing campaign, he cannot escape responsibility for what happened in the Troubles' worst atrocity, even if the Continuity IRA has been blamed for planting the bomb.
He will appeal the verdict, but his days as a credible terrorist leader, who quit as Provisional IRA quartermaster in disgust with the peace process, are over. He was duped by an American FBI agent, from their first meeting, and confided many secrets to him that convinced the court of McKevitt's guilt.
Since a Garda Superintendent had testified against McKevitt, his only defence was to show that the American was an unreliable witness. Despite his chequered career, however, and substantial payments made to him by the FBI, the court accepted that he was "a truthful witness" and judged that "his credibility has in no way been impugned".
One man is behind bars, giving the relatives of the Omagh victims new hope that their civil action against the suspected perpetrators will come to fruition. Although they have been named and shamed, in the media, they are still at large, and will only have their cases heard if the last £.5m of the £1.5m legal bill can be raised.
The message from Dublin is that Omagh is not a forgotten chapter, either by the security forces or by the relatives. Those who are or have been directors or operatives in the terror business can never rest easy. Sooner or later, the many who have penetrated their organisations, or who repent of their old ways, will come forward to clear their consciences, like David Rupert did, when he chanced to see a TV programme on the fearful injuries caused in Omagh. Fanaticism may continue, but it has fewer and fewer followers.
SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS HE IS/WAS A MEMBER OF A TERRORIST ORGANISATION THAT HAS KILLED INNOCENT PEOPLE AND SO HE SHOULD ROT FOR HIS CRIMES, SO DON'T FEEL SORRY FOR HIM, FEEL SORRY FOR HIS VICTIMS, INCLUDING THE UNBORN TWINS THAT WERE MURDERED WHILE STILL IN THEIR MOTHERS WOMB.
Well said, Robby.
McKevitt is exactly what the gardai / police /security acencies said he was.They knew that its breaching a persons rights to pay someone else to testify against said person.Its in the person who is being paids interest to testify and subsequently gain a conviction and so renders this persons testimony unsafe in a democratic world.The powers that be used the dirtiest of tactics here.They knew it ,but with the techniques the terrorists now use to avoid detection they were obviously desperate for a conviction.The match ends at Police 1 Civil rights 0
by the way for a million and a half I will testify he is second in command in the taliban and will grow a beard to prove it!!
This is really what the government and the law are up to in the McKevitt case. It should be a concern to us all that this can happen, as we or people we know could be next.
Not only have the rules been changed, but all of the proceedings take place in a non-jury court.
At a minimum prisoners convicted under such a system must be granted special status as they have been tried and convicted under a different system with different rules than the rest of the prison population, to do otherwise is doubly unjust.
If there's one thing that annoys me deeply it is injustice and inequality. It particularly galls me that in this country we devote enormous effort to getting a conviction when it comes to suspected paramilitaries changing the rules as we go.
If we were consistent we would change the rules so people like Liam Lawler, and drug-lords such as the Monk (who pose a far greater threat to people than RIRA as any pub-goer in Inchicore will confirm) end up in jail instead of on the streets.
Of course this will never happen as politicians will never make it easier to put one of their number in jail. In fact I'm sure FF are looking enviously at the type of immunity Berlusconi has given himself in Italy.
The logical end-game for everyone who is not a politician or gun-toting drug-dealer will end up in a Guantanamo-type internment-camp in legal limbo on Inis Vicalaun for all those the government perceives as a threat (the left, peace protestors etc.).
and he has done time inside. Enough to ruin his reputation which is greatest punishment you can give to a politician. I think we have a great system of Justice, and no, the rules weren't changed to get McKevitt.
O'Donoghue introduced an ammendment to cover directing terrorism after the Omagh bombing to crack down on RIRA & McKevitt, he said so this morning on RTE radio1.
Lawler didn't kill anybody (and that wasn't the point in any case) but drug-dealing scum have killed that number over the past 2 years, albeit not in one go.
The biggest blow to Lawler and drug-dealing scum is to take all of their money away and leave homeless, the CAB have this power but it isn't used against peddlers of politics or other substances.
Almost all Irish people agreed that placing a car bomb in Omagh was a despicable act.
So why do some Irish people who post here apparently think that car bombs are OK, as long as they just kill Colombians?
Colombia Car Bombing Kills at Least 5
Fri Aug 8, 9:00 PM ET
Associated Press
BOGOTA, Colombia - Suspected rebels set off a car bomb Friday outside a violence-wracked town in eastern Colombia, killing five civilians, including two children, police said.
The attack came the same day that security for President Alvaro Uribe was doubled after reports indicated the nation's largest rebel group may be planning suicide attacks to kill the leader.
According to military intelligence, Jorge Briceno of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, 15 days ago ordered his troops to prepare suicide commandos to assassinate Uribe, promising large amounts of money to their families.
The FARC has sent hostages, and even unwitting children, on deadly bomb attacks in the past, but its own men have never willingly participated in suicide missions.
The FARC has already attempted to assassinate Uribe numerous times. During his campaign in April 2002, a bomb placed under a bridge exploded as his caravan passed by in the Caribbean coastal city of Barranquilla, killing three bystanders. A mortar attack during his inauguration a year ago left 21 people dead.
Despite the latest threats, however, Uribe plans to continue traveling around the country — even in areas where the FARC has a strong presence.
Man, what the hell is your problem!? Give it a rest allready, you wanker!
Suffering succertach Joe , your right out of a cartoon book!
Why did the Gardai not act on information they had received from a Dublin informer and stop the bombing of Omagh?
Now that's a dispicable act for the chapter titled "Dublin/Monaghan/Omagh - British intelligence/Garda involvement finally revealed"
Colossal collusion Batman, this is dispicable!
The thing is, nobody here thinks its okay for FARC to kill people in a car bomb.
However it seems when people just happen to point out that 90% of the deaths in Colombia are caused by the right wing death squads and the military, that by your silence, you seem to indicate that it is okay for them to kill innocent people. But perhaps it is okay for them because they are the government or their proxy agents and they are just trying make conditions in Colombia more favourable for multinational corporations -because that's what this war is about.
As the above poster says Joe, I don't think most people who post here think the above actions are "okay". If some do think its okay then I totally agree with you in disagreeing with these people.
I think these actions are despicable, arbitrary and innocent lives get killed.
But again as the above poster says, do you not think it is the right wing Columbian government, with its military and death squads that are at the root of the Columbian troubles?? Just as the Israeli government is at the root of the troubles there (albeit Palestinian atrocities are despicable), and as in Northern Ireland where the British government was at the root of the problem (albeit IRA atrocities were despicable)??
I think that some people are missing the point.
Everything the USA does is essentially good.
Above all else it should not be faulted for pursuing its civilising mission among the uncivilised races which inhabit this earth and are incapable of self-government.
This is its world-historical mission as the rightful heir to the now largely defunct British Empire.
As Mr. Kipling once said:
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
...
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Look at me as prime example. If it wasn't for the blessings of civilisation which the British Empire brought to Ireland in days gone by, I'd still be mouthing some unintelligible aboriginal gibberish in Gaelic and hoking praties out of a hole in the ground for a living.
So I think it is about time that the ill-informed youth of this country gave up its senseless anti-American posturing.
Ye'd be far better off going down to O'Connell Street and treating yourselves to a Big Mac and a Coke.
Have a nice day.
"If it wasn't for the blessings of civilisation which the British Empire brought to Ireland in days gone by"
Are you taking the piss?
How can you expect people to respond to you Seanin?
I tried.
Regards.
Some loser is using my tag. Probably an Anarchist or a Socialist Worker *spits*.
Briseann an dúchas amach trí shúile an chat.
Why do administrators of this site censor coverage of war in Colombia ?
Some days ago I published a news report on the burning to death of five people in Colombia, slain by a FARC car bomb. This item, together with another on Colombia not submitted by me, has been removed by someone with control over this site. Why ?
they delete all my responses to a debate about my activities.
Actually joey boy your post was not censored.
It got moved to another thread by some diligent IMC person.
I think you will find it here ...
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60666&PHPSESSID=40f85ecb15b46bf3bff4eb0eba4271b7
It seems that the references you made to the Onagh bombing inspired some poor overworked underpaid IMC editor to dump it in the "scumbag mckevitt" thread .....
One might question the appropriateness of this editorial decision ... but "censorship" it is not .....
My thanks to the keen-eyed Observer for spotting what happened in this case. I agree that shifting discussion of car bombs in Colombia to a thread about the Omagh bombing was a strange editorial decision, though I can see the logic. As for me, I opposed the bombing of Belgrade, of Belfast, of Baghdad. AND I oppose the bombing of Bogota...
And where do you stand on the Dublin/Monaghan car bombings ?
The perpetrators and their "handlers" in the British Intelligence services are still at large ....
Will all those who abandoned themselves to wild paroxysms of joy at the news of McKevitts sentencing do the decent thing and clarify their position on the Dublin/Monaghan incidents ?
I think not ... they're only interested in parroting "Omagh" - "Omagh" - "Omagh" ....
There's no denying Omagh was a nasty piece of business but it's sheer hypocrisy to condemn it in the loudest tones possible while maintaining a discreet "politically correct" silence on Dublin/Monaghan.
because we had a peace deal in place which was accepted by the voters on both parts of the island. There was no purpose at all to it except to attack democracy.
Do we know who did the Dublin/Monaghan bombs? I haven't a clue about Norn Iron, to be honest.
I won't dispute the "egregious" nature of Omagh.
But Dublin / Monaghan (1974) counted as the single worst "incident" of the "Troubles" - at least prior to Omagh.
(Not sure about comaprative body counts).
Do we know who did Dublin / Monaghan ?
Not really. But there is a lot of research done by journalists and others which indicates that although it was carried out by "loyalist" paramilitaries British intelligence played a significant part in it (like the murder of Pat Finucane & Rosemary Nelson) and that attempts to investigate it were stifled by persons in high positions.
If you want more details you can refer to the site:
http://www.dublinmonaghanbombings.org/art.php?artid=37
I can understand people getting upset about Omagh.
But how is it possible to ignore an open sore like Dublin / Monaghan ?
The perpetrators are still at large and there has never been a credible official investigation.
If you scream for joy at Mr. McKevitt's incarceration, then how about showing some consistency and calling for justice in the case of Dublin / Monaghan.
PS: In case you haven't noticed Dublin and Monaghan are not in "Norn Iron". This was a case where elements of British Intelligence apparently assisted in the murder of Irish civilians on (southern) Irish territory.
By the way just in case anyone needs reminding of how Parnell Street looked on that day in May 1974 ... here's the link.
The names I printedon indy were those of members of the armed State Forces and their political masters.Bit of a difference, which a foollike you wouldnt appreciate.