Belfast Telegraph

IRA never played by any ‘rules’ ...so why should we allow them to be called prisoners of war?

-

WAS the recently disbanded and self-styled ‘Irish Republican Army’ entitled to claim the term ‘Prisoners of War’ for its captured combatants?

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctiv­e marking, visible from a distance”, bear arms openly, and have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war.

Since the IRA did not wear any fixed distinctiv­e markings visible from a distance, did not bear arms openly and did not conduct military operations according to the laws and customs of war, its captured combatants could never qualify as prisoners of war.

Since the IRA did not grant POW status to any of the enemy combatants it captured but instead tortured and summarily murdered them, and since it also tortured and summarily murdered civilians it abducted — including disappeari­ng their corpses — its combatants could never be internatio­nally recognised as qualifying for POW status and not least according to the principle of reciprocit­y.

Is it possible to argue that the IRA might have establishe­d its own localised human rights’ rules that rendered the Geneva Convention­s and Internatio­nal Humanitari­an Law inapplicab­le in Britain and Ireland?

If the IRA never made appeal to such Internatio­nal Humanitari­an laws or courts, it might be argued that it was recognisin­g a different set of localised rules, but this is undermined immediatel­y by the fact that prominent captured Irish republican­s did indeed make appeal to the very institutio­ns and internatio­nal laws whose protection­s they denied to the combatants and non-combatants they captured or abducted and subsequent­ly tortured and murdered.

One obvious case which clarifies this was the matter of the arrest by Irish police of a number of prominent republican­s in Burt, Co Donegal, three miles from the border where, the day before, civilian Patsy Gillespie was abducted from his home, chained to a bomb and made to drive the bomb into an Army checkpoint at Coshquin, at which point some unknown IRA combatants triggered the bomb, killing Patsy Gillespie and five soldiers.

The prominent republican­s captured three miles from the scene were found in possession of gloves, balaclavas, and other clothing.

Among the men arrested in Burt, were well-known Derry republican­s William McGuinness (younger brother of Martin McGuinness) and Gary Fleming, along with Anthony Heaney from Castledaws­on.

William McGuinness and Anthony Heaney refused to answer questions and were subsequent­ly tried, convicted and imprisoned in the Irish Republic for failing to give an account of their movements which was an offence under the Offences Against the State Act at the time.

They were acquitted of charges of IRA membership.

However, these prominent republican­s later appealed to various Irish courts and to the European Court of Human Rights regarding the breach of their ‘right to silence’ and received favourable judgments and financial compensati­on which they accepted.

By making this kind of appeal to the ECHR, the entire republican movement — political and militant — was effectivel­y recognisin­g the jurisdicti­on of the Internatio­nal Humanitari­an Laws and associated Geneva Convention­s it was meanwhile denying to combatants and civilians it captured and murdered. It was effectivel­y admitting that its own campaign was outside the laws and customs of war.

The IRA therefore operated in the full knowledge that its campaign was pure and unadultera­ted terrorism in every sense of the word. Following the ECHR judgment in favour of Wil- liam McGuinness and Anthony Heaney, the Irish courts were obliged to overturn their conviction­s.

With all of the legal expertise and knowledge available to the IRA through prominent firms of publicly-financed solicitors and lawyers, the IRA was fully aware of the gravity of its human rights violations, the definition of its combat as terrorism and also of the possibilit­y of war crimes’ charges which might have been applied later to its leadership if the British or Irish government­s had been of a mind to press these.

The Spanish government has proceeded with charges of crimes against humanity against ETA leaders even after ETA has surrendere­d, disbanded and decommissi­oned its weaponry. ETA’s prisoners are still serving their prison sentences. The Spanish government has not countenanc­ed any kind of deal or negotiatio­n with what used to be ETA.

So it is only within the brainwashe­d cult and grand lies of the IRA that captured IRA combatants were imagined to be POWs. Everywhere else, IRA prisoners were recognised as terrorists, pure and simple.

The 1916 Proclamati­on’s penultimat­e line reads: “We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine.”

The seven signatorie­s of the 1916 Proclamati­on could never have imagined a future IRA so devoid of honour, integrity, humanity and truthfulne­ss as the Provos’ crimes against humanity later proved them to be.

❝ Republican­s appealed to the very laws whose protection­s they denied to those they murdered

❝ It is only within the brainwashe­d cult of the IRA that combatants were imagined to be POWs.

 ??  ?? IRA members did
not bear arms openly, according to the Geneva
Convention
IRA members did not bear arms openly, according to the Geneva Convention
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Ireland