Michael McKevitt

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
Skin said:
1. He was not charged with the Omagh bomb
2. He was charged with directing the organisation blamed for that bombing.
3. You've just admitted his guilt is an assumption, we dont convict people in this state on assumptions and if we do then yes it is a police state.
But he is guilty of being supported by a group of criminally stupid fanatics!

With friends like the simianly idiotic 32CSM - there was a twit on one of the Israel threads creaming himself over the mutterings of some Hizbollah groupie- McKevitt needs no enemies.

If we are living in a police state, one of us could be lifted at any moment. Did it ever occur to you that I might be an agent provoceteur of this police state? :wink:
 


DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
mbari hogun said:
It's not a question of whether McKevitt is innocent or not. It's whether he's guilty of the specific charges against him, and whether the evidence used in the trial was genuine. Pretty basic stuff.
It's a question if he's guilty or not of being involved in the Omagh bombing. If he had no involvement then as I've said its the greatest miscarriage of justice in Irish history.
 

Eddy

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
5
emmet100 said:
Is this the same Michael McKevitt that was a member of the RIRA and that oversaw the Omagh bombing and other operations. He directed an illegal organisation that posed a direct and deadly threat to the people of Ireland and Britain. Prison is where he belongs for now.
Wasn't your party founded by an illegal organisation? Didn't Dev et al try to continue the war despite the vote for the Treaty? And they rose to prominence from the ashes of the IRB and the Easter rising, an even smaller, even more unpopular insurgency?

How can you condemn McKevitt as a terrorist when Fianna Fail, of which I'm guessing (because of your avatar), celebrated the martyrs of one of Ireland's most unpopular, (at the time), uprisings in history?
 

emmet100

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
27
Eddy said:
emmet100 said:
Is this the same Michael McKevitt that was a member of the RIRA and that oversaw the Omagh bombing and other operations. He directed an illegal organisation that posed a direct and deadly threat to the people of Ireland and Britain. Prison is where he belongs for now.
Wasn't your party founded by an illegal organisation? Didn't Dev et al try to continue the war despite the vote for the Treaty? And they rose to prominence from the ashes of the IRB and the Easter rising, an even smaller, even more unpopular insurgency?

How can you condemn McKevitt as a terrorist when Fianna Fail, of which I'm guessing (because of your avatar), celebrated the martyrs of one of Ireland's most unpopular, (at the time), uprisings in history?
DeValera was democratically elected by the people to fight for Irish independence. It was the pro-Treaty side that deviated from the mandate given in the 1918 election. McKeviitt had no such mandate and was not elected by the people to any office.
McKevitt broke away from the PIRA with a few followers, hardly a fighting force. Because he was in a republican paramilitary force, he should be celebrated? By that logic anyone could decide one day to set up their own one-man army and expect to be revered as a freedom fighter, regardless of support or mandate.
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
Eddy said:
Wasn't your party founded by an illegal organisation? Didn't Dev et al try to continue the war despite the vote for the Treaty? And they rose to prominence from the ashes of the IRB and the Easter rising, an even smaller, even more unpopular insurgency?

How can you condemn McKevitt as a terrorist when Fianna Fail, of which I'm guessing (because of your avatar), celebrated the martyrs of one of Ireland's most unpopular, (at the time), uprisings in history?
To even mention de Valeras in the same breath as McKevitt is blasphemy.

De Valera was a British stooge who hoodwinked the oppressed and enslaved people of the 26 counties into doing Britain's bidding.

McKevitt on the other hand is the authentic voice of the Irish people, and the true successor to the first Dail of 1919.
 

Eddy

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
5
emmet100 said:
DeValera was democratically elected by the people to fight for Irish independence. It was the pro-Treaty side that deviated from the mandate given in the 1918 election. McKeviitt had no such mandate and was not elected by the people to any office.
McKevitt broke away from the PIRA with a few followers, hardly a fighting force. Because he was in a republican paramilitary force, he should be celebrated? By that logic anyone could decide one day to set up their own one-man army and expect to be revered as a freedom fighter, regardless of support or mandate.
Yes, he was, but the 1916 leaders most definitely weren't...they were very unpopular, as was their movement at the time.

Also, Dail Eireann, (the democratically elected government) voted in favour of the Treaty, as did the people by referendum.

Whether or not you agree with his personal politics is not my point, the point is, your reasons given for condemning McKevvitt, (illegal organisation, endangering civilian lives...) could be applied to any of the republican leaders of any era, Emmet, Tone, Pearse, Collins, Brugha, whoever.
 

emmet100

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
27
Eddy said:
Yes, he was, but the 1916 leaders most definitely weren't...they were very unpopular, as was their movement at the time.

Also, Dail Eireann, (the democratically elected government) voted in favour of the Treaty, as did the people by referendum.

Whether or not you agree with his personal politics is not my point, the point is, your reasons given for condemning McKevvitt, (illegal organisation, endangering civilian lives...) could be applied to any of the republican leaders of any era, Emmet, Tone, Pearse, Collins, Brugha, whoever.
1. The actions of the 1916 rebels were justified and supported by the 1918 general election. McKevitt will never recieve such support.

2. The Treaty was signed and voted on, under duress. . .'war in three days, terrible an immediate' etc. and as such has little value. The referendum showed support from the Irish people, but they were a people tramautised by years of war, terror and oppression and any offer of peace would be welcomed. Also, the people supported DeValera's dismantling of the Treaty via the 1936 constituion referendum, proving the support for the Treaty in 1921 was merely due to practical considerations.

3. Emmet, Tone, Pearse, Collins and Brugha never intentionally attacked civilian targets, such as say, oh I dunno, busy streets in Omagh. And don't start with the conspiracy stuff, because the RIRA were trying to attack civilian targets before that.
 

Skin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
1,079
DSCH said:
But he is guilty of being supported by a group of criminally stupid fanatics!
In your opinion

With friends like the simianly idiotic 32CSM - there was a twit on one of the Israel threads creaming himself over the mutterings of some Hizbollah groupie- McKevitt needs no enemies.
After reading your posts its dubious that you understand what a twit is.


If we are living in a police state, one of us could be lifted at any moment. Did it ever occur to you that I might be an agent provoceteur of this police state? :wink:
Yes, if we are living in a police state, one of us could be lifted at any moment, or.....yawn.....perhaps not, drama queen.
No it never occured to me that you might be an agent provoceteur. But you can pretend to be one if you wish
 

Bogwarrior

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
322
emmet100 said:
Eddy said:
Yes, he was, but the 1916 leaders most definitely weren't...they were very unpopular, as was their movement at the time.

Also, Dail Eireann, (the democratically elected government) voted in favour of the Treaty, as did the people by referendum.

Whether or not you agree with his personal politics is not my point, the point is, your reasons given for condemning McKevvitt, (illegal organisation, endangering civilian lives...) could be applied to any of the republican leaders of any era, Emmet, Tone, Pearse, Collins, Brugha, whoever.
1. The actions of the 1916 rebels were justified and supported by the 1918 general election. McKevitt will never recieve such support.

2. The Treaty was signed and voted on, under duress. . .'war in three days, terrible an immediate' etc. and as such has little value. The referendum showed support from the Irish people, but they were a people tramautised by years of war, terror and oppression and any offer of peace would be welcomed. Also, the people supported DeValera's dismantling of the Treaty via the 1936 constituion referendum, proving the support for the Treaty in 1921 was merely due to practical considerations.

3. Emmet, Tone, Pearse, Collins and Brugha never intentionally attacked civilian targets, such as say, oh I dunno, busy streets in Omagh. And don't start with the conspiracy stuff, because the RIRA were trying to attack civilian targets before that.
You really shouldn't drink in this sun, Emmet.
How the fcuk did those in 1916 enter the GPO with the support or mandate of an election that hadn't taken place till two years after their death. BTW, Thomas Clarke was jailed for conspiracy to bomb in England. His organisation (the Fenians) were responsible for many civilian deaths (Clerkenwell explosion etc) and had no popular support. They were even excommunicated, and many of their members left Ireland for America, such was their disgust of the Irish peoples lack of support.
Incidentally, the GPO, Bolands Mill, skanky looters can all be described as civilian targets.
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
Skin said:
Yes, if we are living in a police state, one of us could be lifted at any moment, or.....yawn.....perhaps not, drama queen.
No it never occured to me that you might be an agent provoceteur. But you can pretend to be one if you wish
You've just admitted his guilt is an assumption, we dont convict people in this state on assumptions and if we do then yes it is a police state.
Well if he was convicted on evidence that was dubious, the judges were obviously assuming he was guilty. John Gilligan was also convicted because the judges put aside the dubious nature of the evidence and assumed he was guilty - 20 years for importing cannabis! Both McKevitt and Gilligan were victims of "political" convictions, that "assumed" they were guilty.

It just doesn't feel like I live in a police state, but then again they thought Hitler could be tamed.....
 

liam

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
14
People should get behind and support this campaign. This example proves its innocent until proven an irish republican.

I think Sinn Fein should get behind this campaign. As they exhaust the legacy of Bobby Sands for the coming election in the 26 counties, we wonder where would Bobby be today.

I dont know if Bobby would be a member of Sinn Fein but what i do know is that Bobby would be looking to get his sisters husband released from prison.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
liam said:
I dont know if Bobby would be a member of Sinn Fein but what i do know is that Bobby would be looking to get his sisters husband released from prison.
Why exactly? I assume, as an IRA member, Bobby Sands didn't believe in due process (its not like the IRA gave jury trials to alleged criminals, informers, etc) so it can't be the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing

So are you saying Sands would want McKevitt out of prison:

a) simply because he wouldn't want his sister's husband in prison no matter what he'd done (which is an attack on Sands integrity)

b) or do you think Sands would have believed McKevitt was innocent

c) or are you saying Sands would have been anti-GFA and believed the Omagh bomb was well-intentioned and its alleged orchestrators shouldn't be held accountable for the consequences?

d) or are you saying Sands would have been anti-GFA and in favour of planting bombs in town centres?
 

liam

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
14
Hi badinage,

Well comrade, what im saying is Bobby Sands would be looking for Michael's release mainly because Michael was framed and also because Michael is a family member. Naturally we would all stand by a family member if they were wrongly convicted. As to whether or not Bobby would be anti GFA or not, doesn't matter. I hope this answers your question.?

Now comrade, Michael nor Bernadette McKevitt have been questioned, arrested or charged in relation to Omagh.

Please check out the website and if your interested there is alot of information there and it would be worthwhile reading.



www.michaelmckevitt.com
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
liam said:
what im saying is Bobby Sands would be looking for Michael's release mainly because Michael was framed and also because Michael is a family member. ... I hope this answers your question.?
not really, no, to be honest. I went to the trouble of providing several clear-cut explanations, specifically as I wanted to avoid a vague response, but unfortunately you ignored my offered explanations and responded in a vague way.

You said Sands would seek his release because he is a family member. Does this mean that even if Sands believed McKevitt was guilty, he would seek his release anyway simply out of family loyalty? If that's what your suggesting, is that not an attack on Sands' character? Most people expect that their political representatives and community leaders would not seek to use their position to get a guilty relative off the hook.

You also say that Sands would seek McKevitt's release "mainly because Michael was framed". By this do you mean that he would believe McKevitt had not directed terrorism, or do you mean that he would believe McKevitt had directed terrorism, but was convicted unfairly due to the dodgy evidence? If it's the latter, then do you believe that Sands believed in due process and disapproved of IRA actions which did not involve due process, or do you believe Sands was one of those people who were ok with republicans killing without due process but expected everyone else to abide by due process?

What is your basis for reaching those conclusions?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
I had a read through that website there. Personally I've no clear opinion on whether McKevitt was a senior RIRA member or not, but I didn't find the website especially convincing. Could Liam or someone explain the "frame-up" for me? Is the argument that McKevitt did not attend any IRA meetings, or that he did attend them, but Rupert is an unreliable witness and therefore McKevitt should not have been convicted?

Couldn't McKevitt just have been convicted by a Garda Superintendant testifying that he has intelligence which proves McKevitt directed RIRA operations, but he can't reveal his sources for security reasons?
 

liam

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
14
Comrade,

I feel i have answered your first question. It was unjust. Michael was set-up. He was denied a basic human right. Thats why. very simple.

"Republican killings without due process" as a young republican, im unaware as to the undertakings of the IRA and how they operated maybe you could describe an example of republican killings without due process?

What i do know of Bobby was that he stood up against an unjust society. I am sure he would be doing the same today.

If a family member of yours was arrested tomorrow and accused of being a pedaphile and sentenced to 20 years in prison. When in fact, there was no evidence to suggest your relative was such except the evidence of an informer who had a past criminal record and was paid millions as a reward. Would you support your relative?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
liam said:
Comrade,

I feel i have answered your first question. It was unjust. Michael was set-up. He was denied a basic human right. Thats why. very simple.
That implies Bobby Sands was a supporter of due process. Please explain why you believe this. His membership of the IRA indicates that he was not.

liam said:
"Republican killings without due process" as a young republican, im unaware as to the undertakings of the IRA and how they operated maybe you could describe an example of republican killings without due process?
Jean McConville. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of other examples. JMcC was murdered without a jury trial, involving an independent judiciary and standard evidence rules.

liam said:
"If a family member of yours was arrested tomorrow and accused of being a pedaphile and sentenced to 20 years in prison. When in fact, there was no evidence to suggest your relative was such except the evidence of an informer who had a past criminal record and was paid millions as a reward. Would you support your relative?
If he was a child rapist, but the gardai framed him for a particular act he did not commit, then I don't think I'd defend him. If he wasn't a child rapist and the gardai framed him, then I would. He'd deserve a fair trial either way however.

Do you believe McKevitt was ever a Provisional IRA or Real IRA member?
 

liam

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
14
"If he was a child rapist, but the gardai framed him for a particular act he did not commit, then I don't think I'd defend him. If he wasn't a child rapist and the gardai framed him, then I would. He'd deserve a fair trial either way however."

So you agree Michael deserves a fair trial? Finally, we have agreed on something :lol:

"Jean McConville. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of other examples. JMcC was murdered without a jury trial, involving an independent judiciary and standard evidence rules."

Depends who you believe. Sources claim Jean was giving information to the British security forces, some claim she had been warned previously, others claim she was never a spy and was killed soley because she helped a British soldier. If that was the case it was wrong.

"That implies Bobby Sands was a supporter of due process. Please explain why you believe this. His membership of the IRA indicates that he was not."

I really dont understand this question now. We can go back as to how the IRA originated and why people joined. And generally, it was to defend peoples rights. Today, Michael is being denied a basic human right. Decent people will support this campaign.
 


Top Bottom