Soldier F should face the consequences of his actions

Crikey, you’ve read all 5,000 pages of the report already?

And made an assessment of whether there’s a 50% chance of a conviction!

The CPS could do with more people like you.

“Soldier F should face the consequences of his actions”

I think everyone should, thats after all how we learn

“Is justice really served by retribution aimed at a frail old man, 70 years after the crimes he allegedly committed took place?”

Yes

“Or, to bring us back to the matter at hand, does soldier F deserve a get out of jail free card, simply because 38 years have now elapsed since Bloody Sunday?”

No

What about Martin McGuiness ?

If we’re going to prosecute soldier F it seems only fair to prosecute known terrorists, loyalist and republican, as well.

Rightly or wrongly I think many want to put as much distance as possible between ‘the troubles’ and today’s Northern Ireland – perhaps, Mr Martin McGuinness’s recent attendance at the Grand hotel in Brighton (at the invitation of the Labour party) is emblematic of this?

Richard & Charlie are correct. Didn’t Mandela base his whole stratagy on simply making the truth be known without any recriminations.

We have a can of worms here, feel free to kick it over if you must but the result is not going to be pretty.

“If we’re going to prosecute soldier F it seems only fair to prosecute known terrorists, loyalist and republican, as well.”

Yes, if this was acivil war then surely war crimes committed by both sides should be prosecuted and Gerry Adams would surely qualify as a war crimninal in that context.

Isn’t an important difference between ‘reopening history’ in Spain and Northern Ireland the fact that the book is not so closed in N.I?

Obviously there were still massive political repercussions to Garzon wanting to investigate the disappeared, but it was unlikely that Republicans and Francoists were going to start shooting each other again.

Communal divisions are still stark and political violence remains all-too-frequent in Northern Ireland.

The relative peace has only been achieved due to compromise and the watering down of historical claims. It would be a massive risk to depart from this process.

Can I be told what was so horrendous about saying

Free the terrorists.
Punish the soldiers.

that it should be deleted??

It seems to me that, as we are indeed freeing the terrorists, we have rather reached the “truth and reconciliation” stage.

OP, Dave Oslr: “What is decisive is that future generations are not left with the impression that atrocity can meet with impunity.”

I think that lesson is best taught by prosecuting in the most recent cases. UK soldiers or secret service officials who seem to be complicit with atrocity and torture in the “war against terror” should be our first targets. Evidence, for and against, is clearer in the minds of witnesses and, assuming no political stitch up, the defendants will have better opportunity for justice. Our opposition to illegality “in defence of freedom” can be demonstrated clearly and might even make a difference in future conduct.

What seems to be overlooked here is that the report does confirm that the IRA did indeed fire shots at that time.

But the main thing being overlooked is that the Para’s are combat assault troops trained to kill as fast and as many as possible. They are not policemen.

The people that that put them there bear the responsibility.

And that means primarily the IRA.

Truth, reconciliation – and getting the bastards?

No public interest would be served by prosecuting those responsible, not just because of the time elapsed but because the whole political landscape has changed.

“No public interest would be served by prosecuting those responsible…”

I can think of one.

As someone who lives in the United Kingdom, you might just see that you have an interest in establishing that the government can’t kill you without legal redress.

(All the libertarians here who like to stress out about the size of the state – here you have a real issue…)

Soldiers should know that if they shoot unarmed people in the head when they wave a white flag of surrender, or beg for mercy, or are running away, or are crawling, bleeding to safety – that they will not be backed up by their superiors, that they will not have lies told on their behalf, that they will be prosecuted as the murderer that they are.

That is about the biggest public interest there is. I’m not even sure there is a more serious public interest than that.

“Crikey, you’ve read all 5,000 pages of the report already”

This stuff has been in the public domain for a very, very long time. Do catch up.

Higgins:

“As someone who lives in the United Kingdom, you might just see that you have an interest in establishing that the government can’t kill you without legal redress.”

I see.

And do you apply this to the IRA terrorists who have not only walked free for their crimes but also sit feted in high government office?

How can this be justice when Blair ordered an illegal war of aggression based upon lies that killed far, far more but remains, and will remain untouched?

If the IRA weren’t killing people and plunging NI into a state of civil war then the combat assault troops idiotically deployed as police would not have been there.

The report confirms that the IRA did indeed fire shots that day, but it is being downplayed for whatever reason.

In fact the reason the Para’s were not supposed to enter the Bogside that day was because it was general knowledge that the IRA wanted to start a gunfight.

Try reading an account from a highly respected senior soldier (whom I had the honour of serving under) for a reality check of the atmosphere and environment of that day and away from the complete safety and calm of your computer room:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1286646/BLOODY-SUNDAY-INQUIRY-Brave-British-soldiers-branded-criminals.html

Higgins:

“As someone who lives in the United Kingdom, you might just see that you have an interest in establishing that the government can’t kill you without legal redress.”

I see.

And do you apply this to the IRA terrorists who have not only walked free for their crimes but also sit feted in high government office?

How can this be justice when Blair ordered an illegal war of aggression based upon lies that killed far, far more but remains, and will remain untouched?

If the IRA weren’t killing people and plunging NI into a state of civil war then the combat assault troops idiotically deployed as police would not have been there.

The report confirms that the IRA did indeed fire shots that day, but it is being downplayed for whatever reason.

In fact the reason the Para’s were not supposed to enter the Bogside that day was because it was general knowledge that the IRA wanted to start a gunfight.

Try reading an account from a highly respected senior soldier (whom I had the honour of serving under) for a reality check of the atmosphere and environment of that day and away from the complete safety and calm of your computer room:

Article

As far as I know, there’s quite a body of literature on how to approach this sort of thing. Largely based around dealing with the actions of previous regimes in newly formed democracies. In general there are two ways of dealing with it, as pointed out in the comments above. Either punitive/retributive as with Germany post WW2 or conciliatory as with South Africa.

The point is, that in Northern Ireland, the choice has already been made. By agreeing to release paramilitaries on both sides the commitment has been made to a reconciliatory approach.

Whether or not the soldiers should be prosecuted, once that line has been drawn under events it would seem ill advised to re-open them.

As the Yiddish saying goes ” Half a truth is a whole lie “. If there are to be prosecutions of British soldiers, then every secret should be revealed. This should include all actions by Protestant and Catholic Groups north and south of the border; support given by all politicians north and south of the border ; fund raising in N America; investigation of the rumours that former members of the US Marine Corp were used by the PIRA; fund raising by the PIRA in the Middle East and rumours that the GRU ( Soviet Military Intelligence ) were involved in training some members of the PIRA.

As a side note, the ‘four decades’ since 1969 are not known as the Troubles. The earliest I’ve come across the term – and I’m not an expert – is in the 1930s and it referred to the Irish War of Independence. It may even go so far back as the problems experienced with the land league and the Fenians of the 1800s.

Remember these headlines?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article593334.ece

According to the same report, Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, said The Northern Ireland Offences Bill was necessary to bring closure to the IRA’s campaign of violence. But he was quickly enveloped by a noisy interruptions from all sides of the chamber. MPs complained that the proposed legislation, which will let fugitive terror suspects walk free after a perfunctory trial they will not even have to attend, offered no justice to victims of violence and was inconsistent with the Government’s other anti-terrorism policies.

The cost of relative stability in Northern Ireland has come at a price – while I have great sympathy with the wronged families it seems unjust that there should be amnesty for one group but not another?

@A former Para

I don’t know who you are, but respect the fact that if you are a “former Para” you will have seen some horrifying stuff in your time, perhaps some of it committed by Republicans, while I have not.

I’ve visited war zones only briefly, in a limited charitable capacity.

But if I am now sitting in the comfort of my room on my PC, it is partly because my branch of the Higgins family left NI a couple of generations ago for reasons I scarcely have to go into, and spared me the experience. Lucky me.

But to your arguments:

“And do you apply this to the IRA terrorists who have not only walked free for their crimes but also sit feted in high government office?”

Yes, though it is worth noting that IRA crimes have been prosecuted as such and there is a scarcely a single senior member of that organisation left alive who has not been to jail.

“How can this be justice when Blair ordered an illegal war of aggression based upon lies that killed far, far more but remains, and will remain untouched?”

Who said I’m in favour of that? Book him.

“If the IRA weren’t killing people and plunging NI into a state of civil war then the combat assault troops idiotically deployed as police would not have been there.”

Except the IRA entered 1969 as a largely disarmed force dabbling in Euro-Communism, not a serious, energised and ruthless paramilitary organisation with a formidable arsenal. A lot happened between 1969 and 1972 which brought about that change.

The second part of that sentence is just right.

“The report confirms that the IRA did indeed fire shots that day, but it is being downplayed for whatever reason.”

Because they had no connection with any of the victims who were killed in disgraceful circumstances, the 1st Para took no casualties from hostile fire and it is clear who opened fire first and with what intent.

“In fact the reason the Para’s were not supposed to enter the Bogside that day was because it was general knowledge that the IRA wanted to start a gunfight.”

I don’t doubt it, but is not relevant to the actual Bloody Sunday killings.

“Try reading an account from a highly respected senior soldier (whom I had the honour of serving under) for a reality check of the atmosphere and environment of that day and away from the complete safety and calm of your computer room…”

I have heard in person, sometimes in their homes through their kind hospitality, accounts of that day from people who live in the Bogside and lost their brothers and friends, and endured the added burden of hearing those they lost be constantly slandered and libelled by the Army until yesterday. Their witness statements and others there number in the hundreds and are overwhelming. I would recommend them to you also.

@ Alex

“Yes, though it is worth noting that IRA crimes have been prosecuted as such and there is a scarcely a single senior member of that organisation left alive who has not been to jail.”

And many were only just into their sentences when released and many were never brought to trail because of the ‘reconciliation’ process, including quite a few who returned to NI after years on the run so how can it be right that soldiers are now put through what the IRA have been spared?

If McGuiness and Adams were to serve time at any judicial rate for the crimes they have committed they would need another 100 lifetimes at least.

And if these soldiers were to be investigated with a view to criminal proceedings then justice demands that so should McGuiness and the rest of the IRA there too. After all it a matter of record that McGuiness was at least armed that day. Where would that leave the political process?

“A lot happened between 1969 and 1972 which brought about that change.”

A lot of terrorist activity, yes.

“Because they had no connection with any of the victims who were killed in disgraceful circumstances…”

Being fired upon, first by many accounts including a senior soldier I respect 100% and I know to have 100% integrity, is extremely important and extremely relevant.

I have heard of no ballistic evidence proving that all the dead were killed by the British Army either.

But in any case, the fact is that the judge actually ruled:

1. There were IRA snipers present and they did fire shots
2. .McGuinness was running round with a submachine and “it is possible he fired this weapon”
3. One of the dead had nail bombs – either a horrible coincidence, or he wasn’t the only one – and he was also a member of the IRA

So the bizarre mantra of ‘totally unjustified’ can be screamed as much as people want, it is simply not true.

“I don’t doubt it, but is not relevant to the actual Bloody Sunday killings.”

Of course it is. See above.

“I have heard in person, sometimes in their homes… Their witness statements and others there number in the hundreds and are overwhelming. I would recommend them to you also.”

And believe me I have heard many, many a tale of the bad old British Army and its atrocities, as well as many, many an account from people in the province about what they have been doing when stopped etc

Very, very rarely were they telling the truth.

In fact pretty much everything, apart from the non-stop screaming abuse, was a lie of one sort or another.

I think this will probably be the end of this issue. The families of the dead have the report in their favour. There will no prosecutions. It is a form of T and R.
As a person who served in NI , I always thought that the Paras lost the plot that day. It was very in-disciplined, compared to the most of the work carried by the army in NI. It was an anomaly.