Castlerea Four and decommissioning

by Republican watcher Sun May 16, 2004 01:58

I would concur with your analysis.

In relation to the killing of Jerry McCabe, it is common knowledge in the mid-west region that there was no attempt to rob the post office van by the IRA active service unit. The special branch car containing Jerry McCabe and Ben O'Sullivan was rammed from behind by a 4 wheel-drive. 4 IRA volunteers then proceeded to get out of the 4 wheel drive, surround the cop car and riddle it with gunfire. They then got back into the 4 wheel drive and drove off making no attempt to rob the post office van.

It has also been suggested that the acutal target of the assassinationwas not Jerry McCabe but his co-driver.

One other thing that has to be taking into account is that during this period there was considerable conflict within the republican movement over how far Adams was willing to go to reach agreement with the two Governments and that a secondary factor in the attack was to fire a warning shot across Adams to indicate that he shouldn't take the republican movement for granted. This is also indicated in your quotation from the republican commemoration in Clarecastle.

Finally, some people have express an opinion that the reason that the murder charges were dropped against the Castlerea four was in order to make it easier for the Irish Government to release them when final agreement was reached with the republican movement.

by Sean Tracy Sun May 16, 2004 04:07

The gardai lost any credibility they ever had when they allowed themselves to be recruited by the british "intelligence" services during the early seventies. While I would never advocate violence I find it impossible to have any sympathy for any guard who became a casualty.
The article and the first comment appear to be posted as part of a shit-stiring operation, and may even have been posted by the same person.

by dan breen Sun May 16, 2004 09:47

It is clear that the only date of significance in this latest round of the Jerry McCabe thing is June 11. Elections and the ongoing, and judging by today's opinion polls unsucessful, attempt to damage SF.

You'll hear nothing about it afterwards.

by Conan Drumm Sun May 16, 2004 11:27 conandrumm at hotmail dot com

For the record, I am not the author of any of the subsequent comments above, and I have an open mind on the manner of the death of Hugh Hehir.

I should have mentioned in my analysis that Arnie O'Connell [Patrick Aaron O'Connell] is a member of the Sinn Féin Ard Comhairle

I consider myself a republican and a socialist but have never supported violence as a tactic. I have believed since the late 1960s that violence has corrupted republicanism and that organised pacifist resistance would ultimately have secured full civil and human rights in a less polarised society.

by Republican Watcher Sun May 16, 2004 12:37

Just and honest attempt at analysis of an event that is newsworthy at the moment. In fact I believe the the Irish government have far more to answer on this question, than the republican movement, in terms of the way that the issue has been manipulated by them.

The Irish government have been attempting to cut across the growing support for Sinn Fein, but the issue of Jerry McCabe is doing more damage to the government than anyone else.

Saying that, it doesn't negate the fact that the killing in Adare was an assassination and not a botched robbery.

by dan breen Sun May 16, 2004 20:27

You're a republican socialist but you just happen to put up shite you think will damage Sinn Féin!

by Conan Drumm Sun May 16, 2004 22:52

Dear Dan,

I don't believe anything I've written here is necessarily damaging to Sinn Féin. However, I don't believe SF 'fudge' just as much as I don't believe the Irish government's 'fudge'. We cannot deal with the issues by fudging them. They both want a 'fudge', and they both want the political power that 'fudge' can buy.

And to be clear what I mean - a 'fudge' is an agreement open to different interpretation by everyone who signs up to it, and everyone who signs up to it is able (and liable) to validly disclaim responsibility for actions inimical to the maintenance of the same agreement. ie Fianna Fail is not a republican party; Sinn Féin is the obverse face of the IRA etc etc etc

Republicans of the SF variety (and they don't own or have a monopoly on republican politics) are still selling it both ways... there is one message for the electorate and another for An Phoblacht readers.

There is a lot of interesting material in today's papers concerning the Castlerea Four and the killing of Garda Jerry McCabe. I don't believe all of it but some of it, if you are a real republican, merits serious consideration. It suggests that the distance between the SF leadership and those responsible for killing Garda Jerry McCabe is shorter than previously thought.

I don't believe the killing was authorised by the 'Army Council' but it is possible that it was a murder planned and executed in the brief period of time when those who carried it out believed they could escape the full legal penalty were they caught. I would like to know exactly what motivated them, what justification they believed they had. McCabe and O'Sullivan were partners since the 1970s, were they the two guards present when Hugh Hehir was shot in Caher, Co. Clare in May 1988?

The attack on McCabe and O'Sullivan may have been the last act in a blood feud between 'Southern Command' and the Limerick Special Branch but I don't see what that has to do with republican politics.

Anyone in the 'movement' with balls enough for it should name it for what it was. A vendetta? They should as it were 'own' it. Otherwise one can only conclude that it's a cover up just as bad as any cover up manufactured / maintained by the state or the Brits over the last thirty years.

Does Arnie O'Connell still believe there'll be no decommissioning until the British have left Ireland? I've no problem with him if that's his belief - but let him say it, on the record, for the electorate - rather than over the grave of a fallen comrade, to a small group of the party faithful.

And if I might add a further thought, re the forthcoming elections. Since when did SF or any true republican party buy into the cult of personality? Gerry Adams is all over the lamp posts in my neighbourhood but he's not standing for election. What am I meant to do, vote for him by proxy?

I don't doubt that SF will do well in the elections but they could a lot better if they dropped the doublespeak, and gave up their auld sins. Until that happens the republican socialism practised by SF remains too close to national socialism, in the opinion of this (unaligned republican) citizen of the Irish Republic.

by dan breen Sun May 16, 2004 23:10

By any means neccescary. There'll be plenty of time to clear up historical puzzles such as you refer to afterwards.

by on the one road Mon May 17, 2004 13:30

you presume that the intimidation off witnessess came from the republican side, you talk about a brief sós when they could escape seious punishment, adare happened during the return to active service in 1996 prior to the negotiation/signing of the gfa

by Watcher Mon May 17, 2004 13:36

"Anyone in the 'movement' with balls enough for it should name it for what it was. A vendetta?"

DO you seriously think your average Shinner can answer that? Do you seriously think that anyone other than senior members of the IRA can answer that? And do you seriously think that senior members of the IRA have nothing better to do than sit around drafting responses to questions on Indymedia?

by Conan Drumm Mon May 17, 2004 13:41 conandrumm at hotmail dot com

Dear Dan,

The rubric "By whatever means necessary" is the catch cry that leads to the Somme, to Belsen, Dresden and Hiroshima, to Cambodia's killing fields, Rwanda's genocide, the 9/11 atrocity, the Omagh and Harrods bombings, the handiwork of the Shankill Butchers, and the myriad of deaths of persons known and unknown which have been inspired by ideologues since time began.

At least you are frank and honest, unlike those you support.

by i Mon May 17, 2004 14:30

Given the day that's in it, I'm surprised you omited to mention the Dublin & Monaghan Bombings. Obviously that massacre does not count as being as important as Harrods or Omagh?

by Dan Breen Mon May 17, 2004 14:36

Are you inumerate???

There were three people killed at Harrods. So does that or anything else the RA ever did rank anywhere near the things you refer to?

by Conan Drumm Mon May 17, 2004 16:00 conandrumm at hotmail dot com

... when you're counting you're keeping score, and maybe that's the problem with the faithful adherents of ideologues, they're always keeping ahead, or catching up, or getting even.

Next thing you know its thirty years on and there are bodies everywhere.

And no, I don't forget Monaghan and Dublin, I remember well - there was a call for emergency donations of particular blood types, not mine, as it happened. I think it was that event which convinced me politics and killing don't go hand in hand.

Ar dheis Dé srl...

by Conan Drumm Tue May 18, 2004 10:39 conandrumm at hotmail dot com

Looks like we're finally in the 'final phase'.

I can't abide PD politics - they want a low tax 'society' (actually an economy which is a debased form of society) where the wealthy can chose what to spend their money on - education, health, public utilities and services - while the majority suffer downgraded and underfunded public services.

However, McDowell recognises certain realities of the Sinn Féin and IRA symbiosis. He seems intent on pushing matters to the stage where the Irish government may soon be openly negotiating with the IRA rather than with Sinn Féin. That would be a good thing.

Gerry Adams seemed either to be just about keeping his anger bottled up, or he was more under pressure than I've ever heard him exhibit on air. But if the latter was the case then the pressure was coming from some other quarter than McDowell.

The only significant point scored by McDowell was on the issue of the constitutional legitimacy of the Irish government. Interestingly Adams fudged this by affirming the sovereignty of the Irish people, and by alluding to the Irish people of the 32 counties. He did not affirm the constitutional legitimacy of the government of the Republic of Ireland.

He also said, prefacing his absolete refutation of allegations of IRA criminality providing SF with its election funds - and I'm closely paraphrasing - "Whatever about anything else... etc etc ".

What does that mean - "Whatever about anything else..."? Does that mean he can totally refute the allegation concerning election funds, but not others? Could it be that he is now on a 'need to know' basis on certain activities?

It's a small step now to open negotiation with the IRA. Perhaps it's time for Adams (SF) to step aside, time to see if the men and women of the IRA really mean what Sinn Féin have been saying behind closed doors (on their behalf).

by Conan Drumm Tue May 18, 2004 13:46 conandrumm at hotmail dot com

Just to correct a typo in the 2nd/3rd last paragraph - for 'absolete' please read absolute. An e/u error ;-)

by dan breen Tue May 18, 2004 14:49

Probably more correct to say that they should not. However, they are no longer hand in hand, well not for republicans anyway.

You see, I have no difficulty in people criticisng the IRA campaign from whatever perspective but that campaign ended quite some years ago and yet people still speak as though this was 1984 not 2004.

The war ended because republicans wanted it to end.

by Conan Drumm Tue May 18, 2004 16:21 conandrumm at hotmail dot com

Well Dan,
If the war ended "because republicans wanted it to end", then what need is there for guns and semtex? And why are there people still getting their joints broken? The only logical conclusion re the latter is that it's a means of building and maintaining political hegemony.

We either believe there is a legitimate authority in the land, flawed and all as it may be, or that whoever stands over us with a gun or a baseball bat is the government and there's no such thing as human rights under their regime.

I know people who've been held up at gunpoint at home and at work - ordinary citizens of the Republic who were targeted as a source of money. There is no excusing the trauma and the consequences they have endured.

The men in Castlerea and other 'ASU's in Munster specialised in this form of 'fundraising'. I've yet to hear them apologise for it. I've yet to hear them say, without equivocation, that the "war is over". And nobody has argued the case on this thread, so far, that the Castlerea Four were 'fundraising' rather than on a mission to assassinate one or other, or both, of Jerry McCabe or Ben O'Sullivan.

Gerry Adams was on the radio news at lunchtime today, again saying he had an agreement with Bertie Ahern - face to face, no witnesses - for the release of the Castlerea Four as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

The problem for him is that the government has any number of outs, all of them valid under the GFA, not least of which is that paramilitary activty is ongoing. The IRA is not stood down. But it's my belief that Gerry Adams was on national radio (twice) today because he's under enormous internal pressure to get the men released.

by dan breen Tue May 18, 2004 17:43

Everyone knows that it's over. RA, however, are no more likely to say this than MI5 are going to say "Well done Paddy old chap, you kicked our arse".

As for beatings - and I don't deny there have been - are to enforce "political hegemony" That's nonsense. The beatings are of criminals including the worst sort of scum being used by PSNI as infoermers in turn for immunity.

Are the IRA beating up SDLP people, SWP, SP, Unionists ????

by Conan Drumm Tue May 18, 2004 18:10 conandrumm at hotmail dot com

Dan,
I'm not far from agreeing with you, but there's an important gap to be bridged. That's why I think now's the time for direct negotiations with the IRA. They are less likely to suffer a loss of 'face' if they come out from behind the Sinn Féin front - its usefulness is crumbling as we get to the end game.

And I have to ask, who determines who is a "criminal"? There is circumstantial evidence which suggests that certain "criminals" are licensed in their dealings while others suffer "punishment beatings".