Patrick Finucane

[Fedayn]

I think there's a rule somewhere that says, 'don't be a terrorist'.

Pat Finucane wasn't a terrorist, but carry on with your shitty smears....

There's another rule that says, 'don't simultaneously seek to undermine civil society with acts of violence and expect the trappings of civil society to protect you from reprisals' but as that rule is only written down in SpookyFrank's Big Book Of The Bleeding Obvious few people seem to have taken it on board.

In the weirdo internal minds of Spooky Frank, the self proclaimed anarchist, being a lawyer is tantamount to undermining civil society, and as such is an occupation not deserving of the trappings of said civil society......

Spoooooky....

 

[likesfish]

The troubles werent a full on civil war neither was it peace 2 deaths a week for thirty years.
It wasnt normality so claiming a lawyer was just doing his job especailly when 3 of his brothers were in the IRA is possibly pushing credability a bit.
I think the idea that you can conduct an armed campaign full of atrocity and then act all suprised when a state hits back using the same tactics usually in these situations the rebels come off considerably worse.
Due to a states greater access to firepower and manpower.
It was much safer being an irish republican than a member of the security forces or a civillian

 

[Blagsta]

I think there's a rule somewhere that says, 'don't be a terrorist'.

There's another rule that says, 'don't simultaneously seek to undermine civil society with acts of violence and expect the trappings of civil society to protect you from reprisals' but as that rule is only written down in SpookyFrank's Big Book Of The Bleeding Obvious few people seem to have taken it on board.

Do you know anything about the history of Ireland?

 

[two sheds]

I think there's a rule somewhere that says, 'don't be a terrorist'.

There's another rule that says, 'don't simultaneously seek to undermine civil society with acts of violence and expect the trappings of civil society to protect you from reprisals' but as that rule is only written down in SpookyFrank's Big Book Of The Bleeding Obvious few people seem to have taken it on board.

You'd agree with Israeli extra-judicial killings, then? That's exactly their argument.

 

[Fedayn]

It wasnt normality so claiming a lawyer was just doing his job especailly when 3 of his brothers were in the IRA is possibly pushing credability a bit.

Guilt by association, such a civilised way......

I must have missed the bit where it says it's ok to kill someone because your brothers are bad boys..... I look forward to Lee Cleggs family getting theirs.....

 

[butchersapron]

Finucane did exactly what both the state and good anarchists like Frank wanted. He engaged in the legal side of the system. What happened to him once it became clear that he was quite good at it? And where does that leave their/his argument that this is the only way to change or challenge the system?

 

[elbows]

Well here is another problem with the position:

The state decided to try some of the people involved in terrorism using the justice system. This involves lawyers, and the state couldnt claim to really be using the standard, 'decent' rule of law system if it removed that component.

So in what way is it then justifiable to kill some of those lawyers? The state brought about the conditions that made them part of the game, it cant have it both ways. If it didnt want lawyers defending IRA terrorists then it should have changed the rules and suffered the propaganda consequences of such a move.

 

[butchersapron]

Well here is another problem with the position:

The state decided to try some of the people involved in terrorism using the justice system. This involves lawyers, and the state couldnt claim to really be using the standard, 'decent' rule of law system if it removed that component.

So in what way is it then justifiable to kill some of those lawyers? The state brought about the conditions that made them part of the game, it cant have it both ways. If it didnt want lawyers defending IRA terrorists then it should have changed the rules and suffered the propaganda consequences of such a move.

And they did their very best to at least start move towards that situation with Diplock.

 

[elbows]

Finucane did exactly what both the state and good anarchists like Frank wanted. He engaged in the legal side of the system. What happened to him once it became clear that he was quite good at it? And where does that leave their/his argument that this is the only way to change or challenge the system?

Sorry I didnt see this while I was writing my last post, which rather overlaps with your point, which was probably better made by you.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think the idea that you can conduct an armed campaign full of atrocity and then act all suprised when a state hits back using the same tactics usually in these situations the rebels come off considerably worse.

so you argue the state was directing loyalist death squads.

 

[likesfish]

Not everyone and not all the time mind you they had stakeknife and other pira agents informers but nobody seems to bother if they were directing pira deathsquads.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not everyone and not all the time mind you they had stakeknife and other pira agents informers but nobody seems to bother if they were directing pira deathsquads.

i don't think anyone's ever previously argued that the government was directing ira activity. not before you, anyway.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh dear, how shocking, the British state colluding hey !, well well who would have thought it ?

Everybody, you dumb cunt. Everybody.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Dirty cop hands over a file to his prod mates is a scummy thing to do.
But does not involve posh blokes in suits with some cunning plan

78 other people were killed in the troubles that year

Don't be a twat. If Finucane's murder had been an isolated incident of the above, you could get away with blaming a bent copper and a couple of musclebound loyalist fuckwits, but it wasn't an isolated incident.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I want to see that cunt in a court explaining his actions and comments. Fucking reptile of a man.

I'd rather see him swinging gently in the breeze, wearing a fashionable hempen tie around his neck.

 

[butchersapron]

If Finucane felt this way, why didn't he defend loyalists as well?

He did.

Next.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So this guy makes a career of defending murderers in court and then his family get all upset when his murderers are not brought to justice?

Do try to get it right, Frank. Pat Finucane was a solicitor, not a barrister, so he didn't "defend murderers in court", he sought representation for people accused of murder, just as any solicitor would do for any client. A solicitor is very rarely allowed (unless cross-qualified) to directly represent a client in a Crown Court.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If Finucane felt this way, why didn't he defend loyalists as well?

He had clients from every part of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you condemn all defence solicitors?

Emphasis on "solicitor".

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think there's a rule somewhere that says, 'don't be a terrorist'.

There's another rule that says, 'don't simultaneously seek to undermine civil society with acts of violence and expect the trappings of civil society to protect you from reprisals' but as that rule is only written down in SpookyFrank's Big Book Of The Bleeding Obvious few people seem to have taken it on board.

Like most of your rules, it misses the point.
The point being it is exactly the fact of being able to expect that "the trappings of civil society" will protect you that enables those that seek to undermine and/or change it (whatever their political convictions) to do so. This is basic stuff.

 

[Idaho]

Dirty war was dirty.

 

[Idaho]

Like most of your rules, it misses the point.
The point being it is exactly the fact of being able to expect that "the trappings of civil society" will protect you that enables those that seek to undermine and/or change it (whatever their political convictions) to do so. This is basic stuff.

And yet it is naive to expect them to protect you when the core power structures in that society are threatened. I don't believe Governments tend to orchestrate these extra-judicial killings. I just think that elements within those governments turn a blind eye to the excesses of their allies.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Like most of your rules, it misses the point.
The point being it is exactly the fact of being able to expect that "the trappings of civil society" will protect you that enables those that seek to undermine and/or change it (whatever their political convictions) to do so. This is basic stuff.

Up to the point where you start planting bombs yes.

 

[Idaho]

Oh noes - I've been liked by SpookyFrank and likesfish. I'll have my monothought clique membership pass revoked.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And yet it is naive to expect them to protect you when the core power structures in that society are threatened.

Sure, but it's the leverage gained from public experctations, and from media-monitoring of the state that is the benefit. If a government can be shown not to abide by the rule of law, you've opened a new front in your ongoing war.

I don't believe Governments tend to orchestrate these extra-judicial killings. I just think that elements within those governments turn a blind eye to the excesses of their allies.

I suspect you're confusing governments (transient) with the state (not so transient!) IMO, and every state orchestrates such actions. Why? Because states act to perpetuate the state, including the removal of threats to the onward progression of state actions. Often that removal will merely mean political neutralisation, but sometimes it will include extra-judicial killing (as they refer to it) or murder (as we refer to it).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Up to the point where you start planting bombs yes.

Let me get this straight: The law only protects you until you break the/any law?

Catch a hold of yourself, eh?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh noes - I've been liked by SpookyFrank and likesfish. I'll have my monothought clique membership pass revoked.

By their "likes" shall ye know them!!

 

[Idaho]

I think there is a very human tendancy to see large powerful organisations as monolithic and unchanging. The state is just as transient. People come and go in jobs. They retire. Departments are closed. Organisational maps a changed.

My point is that if we are, rightly, going to be cynical about the methods and motivations of the state, it seems a bit illogical to at the same time carry high expectations of the moral behaviour of the state.

 

[Pickman's model]

Up to the point where you start planting bombs yes.

and what about those DROPPING bombs? eh?

 

[Idaho]

and what about those DROPPING bombs? eh?

Those fighting against people with the power and equipment to drop bombs are usually called terrorists, and they generally go by whatever rules they fancy.