*****
After five years of investigation and hearings Mr Justice Peter Smithwick has stated that although the Tribunal has not uncovered direct evidence of collusion between the IRA and the Garda it seems beyond doubt that there was someone within Dundalk Garda Station assisting the IRA.
The BBC refers to Mr Shatter, the Irish Justice Minister, as saying nothing in the report should detract from the good work of An Garda Siochána during the Troubles.
Shatter’s counterpart in Northern Ireland, David Ford, said the suggestion of Garda collusion was "no different from the suggestions in the past of one or two RUC officers behaving inappropriately".
Obviously some Republicans have an obligation to accept the Smithwick Tribunal findings on face value as IRA members participated in the proceedings and most others should likewise accept it in the absence of any obvious discrepancies or failures. I suppose Republicans are similar to Loyalists when it comes to collusion in that there is no reason to be ashamed of it as it produced results in accordance with their opposing ideologies and practice.
However, to suggest RUC-Loyalist collusion is only a mere “suggestion” that “one or two” RUC officers were “behaving inappropriately” is avoiding all available evidence and baffling beyond all credibility.
When Anne Cadwallader’s book Lethal Allies - British Collusion in Ireland was due to be published a former RUC assistant chief constable and senior RUC Special Branch officer stated that:
I worked in the mid-Ulster area in the 1970s and never, at any shape or time, did I see anything that indicated that anybody condoned what was going on.
Senior police officers were obviously too busy to watch the news stories about RUC members in the UVF getting life sentences so it’s understandable that rumours or “suggestions” about the Glenanne gang didn’t reach the upper echelons of the Special Branch.
When Garda members collaborate with the IRA let us call it as it is - collusion. When the RUC collaborate with loyalists let’s not pretend it is anything but collusion. Collusion to aid, abet, assist and procure. Collusion to actively participate in murder as the shoot to kill policy didn’t allow for adequate opportunity to kill Republicans. State collusion with Loyalists was due to the similar ideologies, aims and objectives: to defeat the IRA and maintain the union. While at the same time, at least some of the usually oxymoronic ‘British military intelligence’ realised that sectarian campaigns can be misguided, inefficacious, and internecine and some sought, albeit ineffectively, to focus the campaign on active Republicans through people like Brian Nelson.
But otherwise, and overwhelmingly, the murder of innocent uninvolved Catholics and innocent uninvolved Protestants, who were seen as likely to be Catholics due to unfortunate circumstances like association with the other side, was unabated with significant help from the State agents. Most people are also aware of the intelligence montages retrieved from the security forces the loyalists plastered over Belfast in the eighties.
There was no collusion between the RUC and Republicans. There were state agents in the IRA and other Republican groups, but these were paid differing amounts depending on their ability to thwart, scupper and destroy the Republican campaign. The informers’ aims and that of Republicanism were opposing ones. The RUC’s aims and that of Republicanism were opposing also. So too were those of Loyalists and Republicans. That is why the conflict went on for so long and with so much bitterness.
Should the definition of who is a victim of the Troubles be changed from anyone hurt or injured due to the conflict to something more specific to exclude perpetrators? Which perpetrators are these? What about the State actors within Loyalism who, beyond public scrutiny collaborated or actively murdered innocents? What about those who killed children with plastic bullets? Those who sprayed Divis Flats with machine gun fire from an army vehicle? Those who leaked intelligence? It seems the only innocent people in some people’s eyes are non-combatants or the Security Forces. The same Security Forces who in John Stalker’s, the Police Ombudsman Nuala O’Loan’s, the HET’s and the British Prime Minister’s words were involved in collusion. Collusion is incidentally another word which found its definition changed to a narrower one.
I will eat my hat if Security Force members are imprisoned for things like Bloody Sunday or other state directed actions. That is why I believe an all-encompassing amnesty is appropriate. I know my viewpoint isn’t popular regarding this but the perpetual thirst of some of the victims’ families for justice is never going to be quenched. Why should the British start imprisoning their own people now? It was extremely rare and short-lived when there was fresh evidence available.
It will be a long, revisionist, definition-changing road. There is the choreographed, chummy relationship between the Royals and the ghosts of 1916 and the War for Independence. There will be constant attrition of Republican values and legitimacy on the one hand and the opposite of the British past actions and values on the other. Just you wait and see - by hook or by crook sackcloth and ashes will be worn.
In a nutshell!!
ReplyDeleteSimon,
ReplyDeletethanks for this piece. Plenty to think about there.
Simon
ReplyDeleteVery well written piece. It would come as no surprise for there to have been collusion between the IRA and members of the Gardai or Army. However in the present case Judge Smithwick did not find any evidence of collusion. Therefore logically his conclusion should have been either one of no collusion having occurred or a finding of inconclusive. So I think the Judge may have only achieved throwing in a good dose of allegations of appeasement and into the mix.
There was a lot of murky water sloshing around during the Troubles that I would be hesitant to believe absolutely that "There was no collusion between the RUC and Republicans."
Thanks Anthony. I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteTiarna- "in the present case Judge Smithwick did not find any evidence of collusion." There was some evidence of collusion between someone in that particular Garda station and the IRA generally. But referring to the incident itself he said there was no specific evidence of collusion (no phone call, no traceable payment, no smoking gun). A tribunal can only judge the case on the 'balance of probabilities' which has a lower threshold of proof than a criminal court. That means his remit only goes as far as to say that collusion was more likely than unlikely in the specific incident.
It is a pretty low threshold to meet.
As to your reference to murky water and collusion between the RUC and Republicans it is possible. The IRA colluded with some Loyalists to kill other Loyalists but in those instances it wasn't a case of collusion on an organisational scale like State and Loyalist or State and informer. It wasn't directed from the higher echelons and policy and it certainly wasn't to further each groups reason d'etre as their ideologies were diametrically opposed. Then again there was a story I have read about the PIRA calling the RUC to tell them about news of a huge cocaine shipment which the RUC then intercepted and destoyed. I hope all Republicans can live with that. John Stuart Mill would have been proud.
The best analogy to compare media treatment of institutionalised British state collusion and isolated acts or gardai collusion: trying to fuck a mountain with a rabbit hole.
ReplyDeleteThere was no collusion between the ruc and republicans.Then who was dropping the names of smaller touts who were past their sell by dates to the master touts ie.the nutting squad.
ReplyDeleteGerry Adams is being criticised for saying that the collusion uncovered by the Smithwick Tribunal is different to the collusion of the British in the north of Ireland. On this point I agree with him. There is a difference in terms of scale, direction and design. It is totally misleading to compare to two as it is clear they are a world apart.
ReplyDeleteJudge Smithwick failed to identify who was responsible for passing on on the information to the IRA. There is no "smoking gun" that incontrovertibly points at a named individual, policeman or otherwise. This single example of collision in the south of Ireland pales to insignificance - although the killing of two senior policemen cannot be described as an insignificant act - when compared to the level of British state collusion in the north. The growing body of evidence supports the view that British collusion operated at a much high level within the system implicating senior military and political figures. Whatever took place inside a Dundalk Garda station bears no resemblance to the activities of Stakekhife and Nelson.
Billy- "Then who was dropping the names of smaller touts who were past their sell by dates to the master touts ie.the nutting squad."
ReplyDeleteThis was just another use of informers and by covering and protecting the bigger fish they were able to "thwart, scupper and destroy the Republican campaign." The sacrificing of smaller touts to protect bigger ones would have been more damaging than most things informers did as it kept the prominent ones in place but it was part and parcel of informing. The info was going two ways but between informers and the state. Even if you look at the use of informers in insurrectionist or even criminal enterprises across the world the informers are given info to bolster their position and protect themselves.
And as I said "There were state agents in the IRA and other Republican groups, but these were paid differing amounts depending on their ability to thwart, scupper and destroy the Republican campaign. The informers’ aims and that of Republicanism were opposing ones."
On the question of British/IRA collusion, I find it hard not to regard as collusion the management of the peace process. The British government colluded with key Provisional leaders behind the backs of the bulk of activists to produce a desired outcome for the British: an end to the IRA campaign; an acceptance of the consent principle; a deference to the British state criminal justice system. When Jonathan Powell drafted army council statements it was collusion. If it wasn't then collusion is a term I don't really grasp any longer.
ReplyDeleteI like you Anthony am of the opinion that there was indeed collusion* between the Provisional leadership and the British government.
ReplyDeleteAs you have rightly pointed out above those actions resulted in outcomes totally opposed to the stated objectives of the Republican Movement and effectively secured the desired outcomes of the British and Southern establishment. Treachery? **
Yes Simon, the history will be rewrote and revised, that the role of the compliant be sanitised and that of the dissenter demonised.
Alas "by their deeds shall you know them"!
* (agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone)
** (behaviour that deceives or is not loyal to someone who trusts you)
Cambridge Dictionary On-line.
Simon
ReplyDeleteThe balance of probabilities requires some evidence, even circumstantial or smoking. The judge found no evidence therefore the balance of probability is that it is likely that there was collusion in this case.
Already this finding is showing up as flawed or questionable and as time passes the current knee jerk reactions it will be further unraveled rather than bolstered.
Tiarna,
ReplyDeleteyou are not alone in finding this verdict puzzling. I just can't join the dots. I think it more fits a balance of possibility than probability.
Maybe this is streching things abit. Isn't it at least possible the spooks in suits let the IRA know what route both RUC officers would take?
ReplyDeleteMaybe messers Breen & Buchanan weren't playing ball. The peace process was just getting under way. Maybe they objected to secret talks. It is accepted that certain hardline provisionals were taken out to smooth the way. Why not the same for certain RUC officers?Just a few hours before the BA had 'swamped' the place, then they pull out and not long after the two RUC officers were dead. I'm not saying I'm right. All I'm saying it is possible.
Was reading today that the 8 UDA senior members in West Belfast who were behind the murder of Pat Finucane, well 7 of those people were agents. Not to mention the sheer amount of UVF informers that were outed by the police ombudsman only 2 years ago. Mount Vernon UVF in particular.
ReplyDeleteReally makes you wonder exactly how many are not touts or agents in these groups.
I read 4 out of 5 but I guess it is the same either way.
ReplyDeleteMaitiu,
ReplyDeleteI've read the shooter who killed Pat Finucane wasn't Ken Barret (I read he was the driver) but a UDA/UFF person called 'Davey'. Who knows what to believe.............
Unless there is an open public inquiry then the truth sadly will never be known.
As for Mount Vermin. Guess most of the UVF were simply rats..
Alec,
ReplyDeleteI thought you were talking about Danny Morrison there with your four out of five comment. I heard that five out of every four people don't believe a word he says.
At best the findings are inconclusive and based on conjecture. It may be reasonable for Smithwick to point in the direction of collusion as one possibility among others. Looking at the facts it would appear that a more realistic explanation for the event was the lackadaisical approach of the two policemen to their own personal security. Traveling through the area in their own cars was to tempt fate. After all, the IRA in south Armagh/south Down had a reputation for deadly effectiveness. Dundalk itself was well known as a popular base for OTRs from all over the six-counties. It is mind boggling to think that two high profile RUC officers took such a risk in an area where the IRA was vigilant and alert to the movements of the enemy.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the Smithwick's report I doubt if there was any systemic collusion between the Gardaí and the Provisionals in the killing of these 'fine' police officers. To my mind there is more to suggest on-going antagonism between the parties, particularly in the Dundalk Divisional Area, even previous to the death of Detective Garda Frank Hand.
ReplyDeleteOf course though I wouldn't discount that individual Garda may have been compromised; within any organisation there are vulnerable individuals who are susceptible to exploitation either through blackmail or bribery. If that were the case alas Peter Smithwick's report failed to identify it.
All that said I believe that general personality differences within the Garda Division and some of the shenanigans of a few named officers probably influenced his call.
In terms of on-going 'historical' information management The Dublin Government are probably happy enough with this report insofar as it maybe useful in minimising future disclosures about British Security Forces involvement in such incidences as the Dublin and Monaghan bombing. Referring back to Smithwicks in that context might be very useful in quelling public outrage.
Alec,
ReplyDeletepersuasive as it might sound to a republican ear, the family solicitor tore that argument to shreds on the VB show last night
Even in todays Belfast Telegraph they are once again naming in public the commanders of the illegal UDA and as usual they face no arrest. So why are these groups classed as illegal terrorist groups? Instead of prison they get government funds while destroying their areas with drugs, control and terror.
ReplyDeleteFrankie
ReplyDeleteI would think along the same lines you do above at post: 3:41 PM, December 05, 2013
What did the family say about this, Mackers?
ReplyDeleteMackers,
ReplyDeleteIs the story of them making regular trips across the border in their private cars untrue? I know I read it somewhere.
Alec, try this and see if you can watch it.
ReplyDeletePrivate cars and unarmed as far as I can gather. Apparently, it was part of the protocol they were governed by. Breen had serious reservations. Buchanan did it frequently. Something like 40 times in a matter of months.
Seen john weirs.[x ruc murder gang member]statement on another thread naming breen about 20 times as being deeply involved in collusion in the glenanne gang.And here he is swaning in and out of s/armagh ffs.It doesnt take a brain surgeon to work out he was going to be clipped if the opportunity arose which it did.
ReplyDeleteTiarna- "The judge found no evidence therefore the balance of probability is that it is likely that there was collusion in this case." That is legally incorrect because if there was no evidence at all the judge wouldn't have found that there was collusion. He has to base his findings on evidence.
ReplyDeleteEverything considered in the Tribunal was evidence. In fact everything brought before the Tribunal was evidence of some kind or other.
It wouldn't be enough to decide a criminal case but with a lower standard of proof the Tribunal would consider everything brought before it, inferring things from witness statements whether they corroborate or are unconvincing; to logistical factors like time scales, maps etc; in fact all information to hand and decide, taking everything into account, whether collusion was more likely than unlikely.
Why would it be more likely than unlikely if there is no evidence at all?
They were both open to attack , eventually, Unmarked cars , same route, unarmed.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe their was any collusion , PIRA had their own sources within, they knew exactly who those two in civilian clothes were , and exactly were they departed from , they would be watching them for a very long time.
It paid off.
Mackers,
ReplyDeleteso this was not a case of reckless disregard for their own personal safety. However, the regularity of their trips and the fact they were using private cars, most likely repeatedly, gives rise to the possibility that they came to the attention of someone. Breen, in particular, was known to the IRA at the time.
Simon
ReplyDeleteThat is my point!
The Judge was persuaded that there was evidence of collusion in matters completely unrelated. He found no 'smoking gun' or evidence of collusion in the current case and so he speculated that although there was no evidence there still must have been collusion (somehow someway). It was not judicious for him to speculate like that without evidence.
Tiarna- I think we're at cross purposes although I know where you're coming from.
ReplyDeleteThere was no direct evidence, nothing that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was collusion in the incident in question but there was enough evidence about the incident in question which can't be seen in isolation to lead him to decide that collusion was more likely than unlikely.
The balance of probabilities is the only threshold he can decide on. Beyond reasonable doubt is beyond his remit.
It is the norm for cases like this to be decided on the balance of probabilities with no "smoking gun" so to speak as the weight of evidence doesn't have to be substantial.
Evidence is allowed in cases like this when it wouldn't be in a more serious, criminal case. Evidence which isn't reliable enough in criminal cases is allowed and in turn the threshold of proof is lower.
In other words he has a right to decide without "smoking gun" evidence.
Simon
ReplyDeleteNow I disagree with you.
If there is smoking or circumstantial evidence that someone committed a different offense at a different time no Judge can transfer that to conclude guilt of a wholly different matter or offense.
What Smithwick did was satisfied himself that a Garda had been unduly sympathetic with the IRA and he may have helped them in the past. The Judge then took the weak and tenuous evidence of the other matters and grafted it onto the current case as if it belonged there all along. Crazy.
Tiarna,
ReplyDeleteI remain unconvinced that the guards conspired with PIRA without doubt I am sure there were and are members of the Garda that were and are sympathetic with the IRA.
A few things sway my judgment one being the duration of the tribunal if there was concrete evidence it would not have dragged on which makes me believe they were desperate rather than objective.
Considering it was two high ranking cops I don’t think the tribunal could offer any other conclusion other than collusion. I don’t think it is a matter of satisfying the truth but a case of political expediency where no other outcome could be remotely possible.
It is plausible that someone in the Garda initially whether directly or indirectly tipped off the RA about two high ranking RUC men being frequent visitors to their station. That could be as simple as some Garda man having a few pints and his conversation was overheard by someone else.
If so it wouldn’t take the IRA too long to figure out a pattern which seems creditable as then they would have their own trusted source to confirm or dismiss the information.
I doubt the IRA would have any trust in the Garda and if they did get information from a source within the Garda they surely would have considered the possibility of being set up.
If there was collusion then it would definitely have to be a high ranking Garda who was not only on good business terms with them but also on extremely friendly terms or at least enough to know that they would not deviate from their route home.
Which is highly unlikely it would be more plausible that the supplied information came from within the security forces someone who had the itinerary and considering they would be travelling in and through hostile territory giving their rank I am sure there would have been check in points along the way?
Is it a case of the Provisional’s embarrassed the British government by taking advantage of what appears to be complacency by the two high ranking cops who obviously didn’t take much precaution driving the same route through hostile territory and now will remain another mystery as the tribunal only served excuse rather than truthful reasoning.
I believe in this case the IRA did their homework and got their intended targets as for the collusion that only serves the purpose of hiding the truth by suggesting the IRA were not capable of carrying out the attack without outside help.
Tain Bo
ReplyDeleteYou hit upon a lot of pertinent questions.
I also imagine that after 8 years the Judge probably took Political advice before concluding as he did.
I also wonder would the IRA at this stage be proud to disclose assistance from Gardai for similar reasons that Loyalsist were about RUC help?
This judgment seems to be so perverse that I wonder did Judge Smithwick collude with Lord Widgery?
Tiarna,
ReplyDeleteI cannot see any other reasonable explanation other than the political expediency.
As the conclusion looks like an empty Christmas present of a well wrapped and decorated empty box with no evidence and collusion is the bow that makes it more presentable and acceptable.
I would think the IRA at this stage would admit if they had assistance from the guards but in this case I sincerely don’t believe they did.
Considering this was a high level killing I am positively convinced that the RUC/MI5 with their inexhaustible wealth of informers would have had the identity of the Garda ghost within a few weeks after the killing.
On a minor point even to this day with smuggling being a very lucrative business I am sure there are cops on both sides of the border who turn a blind eye for a few extra quid.
Honestly I think his hand was forced to make a divisive judgment as the powers that be might have been concerned with the lengthy duration that if it continued they might actually stumble upon the truth.
Much like the never ending Kennedy conspiracy theorists I believe Oswald was the lone gunman and in this case I believe the IRA acted alone.
I feel as if all this posturing by southern judges, politicians and media is an attempt to bolster the revisionist narrative that is required to keep the charade going.
ReplyDeleteWe'll all be shown that all sides are as accountable as the other in creating, maintaining and pro longing conflict.
Adam's for his part is merely trying to appeal to the "militant" who he has still under his wing. Rubbing their wee heads and telling them it's ok they were justified.... while demonizing and being complicit in the targeting of republicans who disagree with him and his cadre.
I see no hope, no future for positive change in the north... it's the same ole story repeated with different actors.
It is also important to remember Smithwick's definition of "Collusion" is substantially wider than that of the British one.
ReplyDeleteRTE's examination of the definition of 'collusion'
As RTE's Richard Dowling explains: "The version adopted by Judge Peter Smithwick is quite wide in its scope, allowing findings of collusion where other investigations would have found no collusion although the facts would be the same."
Smithwick can't categorically state that there was definitely collusion (under his wide definition), only that it was likely.
But enough of that, I must sound like a broken record. The article in the link is worth reading though. Particularly Judge Cory's point that "Any lesser definition would have the effect of condoning, or even encouraging, state involvement in crimes, thereby shattering all public confidence in these important agencies."
If you read the article you'll find out whose definition has shrunk in scope again and again. No prizes for guessing!
Simon
ReplyDeleteYou are right to continue to comment, if not I would not have been aware of Smithwicks broader interpretation and the quote (copied below) puts Judge Smithwicks findings in better light (not daylight clear)
"Because of the necessity for public confidence in the army and police, the definition of collusion must be reasonably broad when it is applied to actions of these agencies.
"This is to say that army and police forces must not act collusively by ignoring or turning a blind eye to the wrongful acts of their servants or agents or supplying information to assist them in their wrongful acts or encouraging them to commit wrongful acts.
"Any lesser definition would have the effect of condoning, or even encouraging, state involvement in crimes, thereby shattering all public confidence in these important agencies."
The immediate thing that came into my head is that Unionists and the British jumped with so much glee that they seem to have jumped themselves onto a hook (not one that they wont just ignore).
If Unionists and the British accept Smithwick's report and definition despite the lack of any actual evidence then they know that they set an almost impossible threshold for proving collusion against the RUC/Brit Army for obvious reasons.
Tiarna- At last we can agree on something albeit something which cannot be disputed unlike the Smithwick decision. Your last sentence is a correct interpretation of what I alluded to in my original post when I mentioned that "Collusion is incidentally another word which found its definition changed to a narrower one."
ReplyDeleteIt isn't quite an impossible threshold but the new narrower, British definition immediately rules out a great number of cases of collusion being described as such. There will be a remaining, smaller number of cases where the tag of collusion can still be placed by the British but you are right there is almost an impossible bar to cross in many obvious cases.
It shows how if you change the definition of collusion it can immediately and dramatically reduce the number of cases which can be legally described as such.