Bloody Sunday: Put Britain in the dock

I witnessed the events of Bloody Sunday and its violent legacy. The British government, not soldiers, should be held to account


* Bernadette Devlin McAliskey
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 June 2010 22.00 BST


I was on the speaker's platform on Bloody Sunday. Despite burying the images in some deep mental archive, Bloody Sunday refuses to fade or mellow in my consciousness. Initially, disbelief gave way to fear, horror, anger, and then detachment. Finally, I was angry only with myself.

My political analysis had until then discounted any real belief – despite the long history of Anglo-Irish conflict – that the British government would countenance killing the people in order to suppress the protests. Now that it had happened, it made sense to me that it had always been going to happen and would continue; it was fundamental to the nature of the British state in Ireland. I felt I should have known that, and now I did, I was still up for the fight.

The key impact of Bloody Sunday was that a whole generation made a similar analysis and this fuelled some 25 years of violent political conflict, at least tolerated by the majority of the "minority population" and actively pursued by a significant but sustainable minority. It is responsibility for this legacy that sets Bloody Sunday apart from subsequent atrocities on all sides.

As a member of parliament at the time, I was denied the right to give parliament an eyewitness account. The home secretary, Reginald Maudling, lied to the House and the media willingly collaborated in uncritically repeating the government misrepresentation. In what was considered gross overreaction and disgracefully violent behaviour, I crossed the floor of the House and hit him.

I did not call for a public inquiry, did not welcome the Saville inquiry and only testified to respect the wishes of the bereaved families. I regret none of those things, but challenge the view that it was an expensive waste of time, energy and money. Had Bloody Sunday been no more than a violent and disgraceful overreaction or unlawful behaviour on the part of a few "squaddies" or overzealous commanders, it would not have required the British government and its military to create the complicated labyrinth of lies and deceit which has taken hundreds of testimonies, thousands of pages, millions of pounds and 38 years to unravel.

The Bloody Sunday Trust and the bereaved families have shown great stamina and courage in their quest for disclosure and truth. Respectfully, however, Bloody Sunday isn't just about the families or how the 13 individuals lost their lives. It is about whether the British government committed a war crime in 1972 and in so doing started a war. It is the British government, not their anonymous and brutalised soldiers of their alphabet army who should be in the dock, at the international court of justice at The Hague. If Saville has closed that route to truth and justice, the British government will consider it worth every penny.

Had the British state been speedily held to account at The Hague, things might have been different for a lot of people, not least for nine Turkish human rights activists on their way to Gaza. They might not have been so confidently slaughtered by the state of Israel.

Bloody Sunday: Put Britain in the dock | Bernadette Devlin McAliskey | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Great, a piece from a radical republician and far left socialist who has had links with both the IRA and INLA. No doubt her opinions are both balanced and well worth considering.

Or maybe not.

__________________

Originally Posted by contracycle

I Had Bloody Sunday been no more than a violent and disgraceful overreaction or unlawful behaviour on the part of a few "squaddies" or overzealous commanders, it would not have required the British government and its military to create the complicated labyrinth of lies and deceit which has taken hundreds of testimonies, thousands of pages, millions of pounds and 38 years to unravel.

Disagree. The fact of a high-level damage control and cover-up does NOT imply a high-level policy origin of the massacre. It's the natural reaction of pols to lie to cover their asses, and then lie more to cover the first lies. Such things can create great corruption. I believe that Waco did that here.

While British policy was doubtess flawed at the time, I doubt that Whitehall was stupid enough to think a massacre would do anything but cause horrible trouble, and would not have created one by high policy.

__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881
QOTD

My BLOG: Things Have Changed

Also, the best quote from the days events have to be this...

Quote:

“Martin McGuinness was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun”, Lord Saville wrote, “and though it is possible that he fired the weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.”

So I can dander down the street, with a submachine gun, and that is no justification for a solider to shot me. Right xD

__________________

Originally Posted by Noir

Great, a piece from a radical republician and far left socialist who has had links with both the IRA and INLA. No doubt her opinions are both balanced and well worth considering.

Yes.

Quote:

So I can dander down the street, with a submachine gun, and that is no justification for a solider to shot me. Right xD

They didn't shoot at him. They shot at a bunch of civilians.

Total cost: somewhere around £400m.

Nice work if you can get it!

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Yes.

xD
And no doubt for comentery on the affairs of the middle east you listen to ex members of AQ who left it because they were getting too soft LOL
Srsly dude, they don't come much more dyed in the wool than Devlin McAliskey. It's truly sickening to hear her be taken seriously.

Quote:

They didn't shoot at him. They shot at a bunch of civilians.

I know they didn't, sadly, however the report says he did nothing to provoke the army, I dare say walking about with a sub machine gun is provocation, no?

I am quite certain that the troops over reacted that day, for what reasons we may never know, but that does not mean we should give airtime to scum like McAliskey or suggest that there was nothing provokagive about the march when the 2nd in command of a known terrorist group was dandering about with a tompson and atleast one of the men who was shot dead had nail-bomb explosives in his possession.

TBH I think there has been a somewhat glossed over story from the republican side, and I can see why it was done. Nothing short of singing the praises of th dead men would have been good enough for their families, and now that they have been sung they will quiten down and move on, bringing an end to it all, while it is good politics to do so, it will be sour to watch and read about such heavy handed bias from scum like McAliskey for the next week or two.

__________________

Originally Posted by Noir

Srsly dude, they don't come much more dyed in the wool than Devlin McAliskey. It's truly sickening to hear her be taken seriously.

Poisoning the well.

Your position amounts to nothing more than saying she is a Bad Person and therefore shouldn't be listened to.

Yes yes, they said that about Nelson Mandela too, etc.

Quote:

I know they didn't, sadly, however the report says he did nothing to provoke the army, I dare say walking about with a sub machine gun is provocation, no?

He denies it, and even though the report said that they had reason to believe he was so equipped, I haven't seen any indication suggesting that the soldiers saw him and reacted acoordingly; as such it is irrelevant. Likewise the nail bombs in pockets; if they were never thrown, and never threatened to be thrown, then they don't serve as provocation.

You say we can't "suggest that there was nothing provocative" about the march when in fact that is precisely what the report does suggest; and even Cameron, a Tory for gods sake, can say that the shootings were "unjustified and unjustifiable".

Originally Posted by contracycle

Poisoning the well. Your position amounts to nothing more than saying she is a Bad Person and therefore shouldn't be listened to. Yes yes, they said that about Nelson Mandela too, etc.

LOL
Everyones opinion is vaild...even terrorist supporting rupublicans when talking about the British state.
I'd say she pissed in her own well when she got involved with the IRA and INLA. but then again, who cares if she supported such groups, she has a right to be heard and taken seriously...

Quote:

He denies it, and even though the report said that they had reason to believe he was so equipped, I haven't seen any indication suggesting that the soldiers saw him and reacted acoordingly; as such it is irrelevant. Likewise the nail bombs in pockets; if they were never thrown, and never threatened to be thrown, then they don't serve as provocation.

Oh, he denies it, well then he MUST be telling the truth. Despite the fact that he lied fir how many years about even being in the IRA, never mind 2nd in command, even though every man and his dog knew he was lying. But there I am, posioning the well again, I guess we're not allowed to hold that against him on his opinion of whether or not he had a machine gun, amiright?

Quote:

You say we can't "suggest that there was nothing provocative" about the march when in fact that is precisely what the report does suggest; and even Cameron, a Tory for gods sake, can say that the shootings were "unjustified and unjustifiable".

I know that's what the report says, and I know why it says it, and I know why Cameron said what he said. Our community will roll over and take it, theirs won't. Simple.

I don't know if you've ever lived over here but I'm guessig not. Having talked with many English people who think they know abot the politics here (and indeed many of them had studied it) it's amazing just how certian things are impossible to grasp unless you are living through it. Which is party why I think it's niave for use to spend so much time on isreal/pali, because I'm sure none of us in the UK really have the first clue about it.

__________________

Noir - are you really so dim that you don't understand that having their people murdered is what turns believers in democratic reform to what you call 'terrorism'? The democratic movement in NI certainly had a great deal more reason for taking up arms that the rich American tax-dodgers who didn't want to pay for their defence against the French back in the C18.

__________________
Nox est perpetua una dormienda