Free Leonard Hardy!

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
smiffy said:
DOD said:
I think he should be free like the other combatants in the war.
The problem here is that the Irish, British and German governments don't recognise IRA members who committed offences here or abroad as combatants in a war. The release of prisoners under the GFA was part of a political settlement, and was not a recognition of POW status (unless you can point me to the article in the Agreement that states otherwise). Therefore, unless you can come up with some other reason why he should be released which the German government should take seriously, your arguments aren't going to carry much weight.

If you genuinely believe that he should be treated like a POW, perhaps you might be better off referring the case to the International Committee of the Red Cross. However, if you went down the route of citing International Humanitarian Law, you might find the IRA on a very sticky wicket when it comes to the laws regarding the targeting of civilians.
The GFA is the only argument to use. Germany should be made realise the change in the situation since the GFA.
 


DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
edifice. said:
DOD said:
[quote="edifice.":nyahkkwm]I think DOD missed an opportunity to say nothing. (You are buying the Sindo :lol: )
No I'm not. I read it online. If you must know, I buy the SBP, the IOS and the people.
And that's where you should have left it.[/quote:nyahkkwm]

Where I should have left what? I don't follow you.
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
candid said:
Combatant???? War?? The countless innocent victims of a campaign of cowardly terrorism would beg to differ with you.

I hope this person is exposed to the full rigours of German law and, if proven guilty, gets to spend a very long time in prison. And yes I will email the Minister for Justice and ask him to do his utmost to ensure that Mr. Hardy is left in Germany where he belongs.
He blew up a British Army base, that's about as legitimate as you can get. I'm sure you wouldn't consider the SAS men who killed 8 volunteers (and one civillian) in Loughall, to be terrorists. So drop the double standards.
 

jjcarroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
314
Website
www.semper-idem.eu
He blew up a British Army base, that's about as legitimate as you can get. I'm sure you wouldn't consider the SAS men who killed 8 volunteers (and one civillian) in Loughall, to be terrorists. So drop the double standards.
Ah, no. The SAS were a force reponsible to a state, which was run by a democratically elected government. The IRA on the other hand were an unaccountable undemocratic and illegal group.

BTW, when did he blow up a British Army base?
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,325
DOD said:
edifice. said:
DOD said:
[quote="edifice.":2vk4e06z]I think DOD missed an opportunity to say nothing. (You are buying the Sindo :lol: )
No I'm not. I read it online. If you must know, I buy the SBP, the IOS and the people.
And that's where you should have left it.
Where I should have left what? I don't follow you.[/quote:2vk4e06z]

This issue. And Hardy should have sought legal advice before he travelled.
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
jjcarroll said:
He blew up a British Army base, that's about as legitimate as you can get. I'm sure you wouldn't consider the SAS men who killed 8 volunteers (and one civillian) in Loughall, to be terrorists. So drop the double standards.
Ah, no. The SAS were a force reponsible to a state, which was run by a democratically elected government. The IRA on the other hand were an unaccountable undemocratic and illegal group.

BTW, when did he blow up a British Army base?
Sorry, I of course meant allegedly.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
DOD, you seemed to have skipped over my question and answered several other peoples', so I'll ask it again.

I asked if UK military bases in Germany are German or British territory, and you said probably German, then said:
DOD said:
but it does not alter the fact that the action was in no way against the German State or people.
I then offered an example of another bombing which took place in one state, but was directed at the forces of another state:
badinage said:
Does that mean that Kenya should not seek the prosecution of the Al Qaeda bombers who bombed the US embassy?


If you think Kenya should prosecute them (because over a hundred Kenyans were killed), then are you saying that if a German citizen was killed by an IRA attack on a UK base in Germany (e.g. a civilian barman, or cleaner, employed by the MOD), that Germany should then be allowed prosecute IRA members?
 

Badboy

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
34
DOD you sound like Risteard. Expecting a sovereign foreign government to accept definitions that only make sense in your own head.

I voted for the GFA like most people. I did not realise that when I did it I was legitimising an armed struggle carried out in my name against my wishes.

I did not believe it made the "combatants" soldiers.

I thought it was a dirty little compromise to buy a bit of peace. I thought it was a fudge to allow us all to move away from the misery of the past.

If I am wrong and that, legally, my state of birth recognises what happened as a war and the people involved in it, soldiers, then I was lied to by my government and my vote cost far more than I ever believed possibly - the integrity of my nation.

If this guy did what he is accused of, then all he achieved was to dirty the name of Ireland abroad and antagonise the German nation against the cause he was fighting for.

My understanding of the rules of war - and they are very limited - is that carrying out attacks on territories that are not involved in the war is either terrorism or espionage.

I believe that while Germany is still at war with Berwick on Tweed it is not at war with the rest of the UK, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Ulster, The Free State, the 26 county statelet, the six counties, Ulster, The Peoples Republic of Cork, the directory of Connaught or even Risteard.

So unless the people responsible for the Osnabruck bombings were beamed off the deck of the Star Ship Enterprise to a part of British teritory where they could shell the barracks without explosives passing through German airspace then, even by your own warped version of the rules of war, these people need not be recognised as battle field commandents by the German Government.

Now I hope they send the guy home and he gets on with his life. Perhaps he is innocent. Enough people have suffered for long enough. But spare me your righteous indignation.

It was bad enough having the Colombia Three paraded aroung like they had won a prize at the Spring Show!
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Badboy said:
My understanding of the rules of war - and they are very limited - is that carrying out attacks on territories that are not involved in the war is either terrorism or espionage.
especially if those responsible are wearing civilian clothing and carrying false documentation :wink:
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
459
ON THE ONE ROAD said:
think some sort of truth commision could be good for some people, personal view.
It failed in South Africa, so you would like to give it the opporunity to fail here too?
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
badinage said:
If you think Kenya should prosecute them (because over a hundred Kenyans were killed), then are you saying that if a German citizen was killed by an IRA attack on a UK base in Germany (e.g. a civilian barman, or cleaner, employed by the MOD), that Germany should then be allowed prosecute IRA members?
[/quote]

I'll answer that silly little question with a question of my own. Are Al Quayeda subject to a peace agreement with America?
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
Badboy said:
DOD you sound like Risteard. Expecting a sovereign foreign government to accept definitions that only make sense in your own head.

I voted for the GFA like most people. I did not realise that when I did it I was legitimising an armed struggle carried out in my name against my wishes.
Presumably you mean you voted to change articles two and three? If not, I was unaware we were ever asked to vote for the GFA.
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
jjcarroll said:
Are the IRA party to the Good Friday Agreement?
No, but their prisoners were still entitled to be released under the GFA.

If I'm not mistaken, Hardy was one of those released from Portlaoise as part of the deal on the Ceasefire in 1994. The Irish authorities realised his release had to come as part of a settlement.

Listen I'm not getting into this anymore. The purpose of the thread was to get people who were interested to take some action on it, not to get into an argument with blueshirts.
 

Badboy

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
34
DOD said:
Badboy said:
DOD you sound like Risteard. Expecting a sovereign foreign government to accept definitions that only make sense in your own head.

I voted for the GFA like most people. I did not realise that when I did it I was legitimising an armed struggle carried out in my name against my wishes.
Presumably you mean you voted to change articles two and three? If not, I was unaware we were ever asked to vote for the GFA.
A very good question!

I think we voted to change articles two and three as as part of the obligations of the government under the Good Friday Agreement.

The vote was considered an informal endorsement of the GFA.

My understanding was that if the referendum had failed the GFA would have sunk with it.
 

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
Badboy said:
My understanding was that if the referendum had failed the GFA would have sunk with it.
Which was very unfortunate. I was totally against the proposal at the time (although I was too young to vote) while being for the agreement. I think both claims should just have been kept, I never paid any heed to the government of Ireland act anyway.
 

mjcoughlan

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Messages
242
Website
www.bebo.com
DOD said:
Badboy said:
My understanding was that if the referendum had failed the GFA would have sunk with it.
Which was very unfortunate. I was totally against the proposal at the time (although I was too young to vote) while being for the agreement. I think both claims should just have been kept, I never paid any heed to the government of Ireland act anyway.
Yes because we all pick and choose what laws we wish to recognise, don't we?
 

Badboy

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
34
DOD said:
Badboy said:
My understanding was that if the referendum had failed the GFA would have sunk with it.
Which was very unfortunate. I was totally against the proposal at the time (although I was too young to vote) while being for the agreement. I think both claims should just have been kept, I never paid any heed to the government of Ireland act anyway.
Part of being a grown up is you make choices. I hate tax and I want free health care.

Now do you care to explain how the bombers of Osnabruck are entitled to be treated with anything other than the full rigours of German Law.
 


Top Bottom