More civil actions?
I began the day in the Stormont members dining room, where Sir Patrick Cormack and his Northern Ireland affairs committee were launching what they billed as their "most important" report yet. It covered the fallout from John Ware's Panorama documentary about Omagh, which suggested that intercept material from GCHQ had not been made available quickly enough to those investigating the 1998 bombing. The Committee expressed intense annoyance that their chairman had not been allowed to see Sir Peter Gibson's full report on the matter. They also called for a further investigation into how the intelligence was shared (or not shared) between the old RUC Special Branch and the investigating team.
Presumably because of the general disquiet at Westminster about the length and cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry Sir Patrick's committee stopped short of accepting the Omagh families' demand for a full public inquiry.
However they did argue that the government should look in the future at funding civil cases taken by victims of terrorism, like the one launched by the Omagh families (which is currently being appealed). Sir Patrick told me this was not a panacea for all such cases, and appearing on Stormont Live the committee member Alasdair McDonnell argued that the criminal law must be the first resort. But if funding was more readily available it's easy to imagine other family groups resorting to the courts, perhaps in relation to events prior to 1998 in which they know that even if the perpetrators were prosecuted they would be subject to the early release scheme contained within the Good Friday Agreement.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark, How about an inquiry into the actions of Special Branch and all of its acts of terrorism, inflicted on all shades of Irish people, nationalist and unionist???
Complain about this comment
MY TAKE ON INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
Mark
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has commented on the report by Sir Peter Gibson (Intelligence Services Commissioner) on intelligence gathering relating to the Omagh bombing in that the report leaves many critical questions unanswered. These ‘questions’ appear to centre primarily on telephone conversations which GCHQ tapped into and presumably recorded. The main charge being that such information or (intelligence) if provided and processed quickly may have prevented the Omagh atrocity.
My understanding is information relating to the UK obtained by the ‘listening techniques’ used by GCHQ remain classified. The intelligence gathered, is passed to other agencies of the state i.e. MI5, MI6 and Defence Intelligence. This latter element, generally, would make the initial assessment as to its significance, before passing on to others. The process of assessment can literally take weeks. (WMD is an example).
GCHQ would never pass obtained information (including that relating to Omagh) directly to the RUC Special Branch. Purported intelligence information would never be directly passed to a foreign agency such as a special unit of An Garda Síochána. This would be a direct breach of the OSA by GCHQ.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Chairman, Sir Patrick Cormack, was critical of the government for not providing the full contents of the Gibson Report (which would likely have contained classified material) to his committee.
MPs do not sign the OSA nor do any Secretaries of State, even the PM; although the Secretaries of State and PM may receive relevant and related intelligence impacting upon their responsibilities (here again WMD). It would be incredulous if Sir Patrick Cormack and the committee were not aware of this fact.
What would the NIA Committee do or how would its members act upon seeing the report in full? Would they be totally irresponsible and make public classified material and likely compromising those intelligence agencies and their officials? Surely not?
Last year, an article appeared in a Sunday edition of a national newspaper suggesting that an MLA who is also an MP was angling for a seat at the table of the Intelligence and Security Committee and named the individual. He/she was not a member of the UUP or SF. This has not happened. I wonder why?
Pandora
Complain about this comment
Mark,
If the evil people who carried out in Omagh were caught and jailed, within 10 years they would be MLA's. What a democracy we have...
Stormontspy
Complain about this comment
Stormontspy,
I guess you would prefer us to have direct rule then???
Complain about this comment
I would prefer direct rule. That direct rule from our government. Not from 2.
Complain about this comment
2. At 8:45pm on 16 Mar 2010, Pan-dora wrote:
GCHQ would never pass obtained information (including that relating to Omagh) directly to the RUC Special Branch. Purported intelligence information would never be directly passed to a foreign agency such as a special unit of An Garda Síochána. "This would be a direct breach of the OSA by GCHQ".
In other words "Sometimes an act of terrorism on disputed territory or British soil suits our agenda and we allow it to happen so we can blackmail the perpetrators to work for us in carrying out similar actions to suit our political agenda"
What is the difference between the people who carried out the Omagh bombing and the State agencies that knew about it and allowed it to happen.
Pan-dora are you suggesting that if "information obtained by the ‘listening techniques’ used by GCHQ" about an attack on a British Government minister on foreign soil was intercepted, that they would not pass this on to the person affected or to the foreign agencies that are in control of that British Ministers security because of the OSA. What if it was going to happen on American soil - are you saying they dont share intelligence.
Stormontspy - Once again " Who are the real terrorists"
Complain about this comment
Antrimview2
Why would you prefer direct rule by the British government?
Complain about this comment
sometimes i wonder if you guys really understand who is actually running the country becos the answer is the civil service (in any country/region) and that applies no matter who or what side of the house the minister 'in charge' may originate from. Thats why the business of governing continues in times of plenty as well as the baron times or during transitional periods. A minister is only the spokesperson/fall guy/public face of the department.
Complain about this comment
the-way-i-see-it-hi,
Your right. It is the Civil Service who are making a mess out of the country with the politicians help. Yet the Civil Servants reward is a big financial bonus. The government is corrupt.
Stormontspy
Complain about this comment
Stormontspy,
Would you like us to return to direct rule???
Who, in your eyes, should run our state giving the fact that everyone is a terrorist and everyone is corrupt???
Please inform!!!
Complain about this comment
9. At 3:20pm on 17 Mar 2010, Stormontspy wrote:
the-way-i-see-it-hi,
Your right. It is the Civil Service who are making a mess out of the country with the politicians help. Yet the Civil Servants reward is a big financial bonus. The government is corrupt.
Stormontspy
yeah your right - oh can the minister not sack anyone who's not doing their jobs properly.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS