'Castlerea Five' or 'Killers of Gda McCabe'

A

ajapale

Guest
I have noticed that our Taoiseach Bertie Ahern FF has started referring to these men as the "Castlerea Five" rather than the more accurate "Killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe" (in the case of four of them).

Why the change?

from a pro-prisioner site: [broken link removed]

There are currently four prisoners in Castlerea prison who are serving sentences in relation to the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe in Adare on June 7th 1996. They are:

Kevin Walsh Manslaughter 14 Years

Pearse McCauley Manslaughter 14 Years

Jerry Sheehy Manslaughter 12 Years

Michael O'Neill Manslaughter 11 Years

John Quinn Conspiracy To Rob 6 Years

Pearse McCauley is from Strabane, all the rest are from county Limerick.
Click to expand...

ajapale
 
I think this is a disgrace. While I admit I was a sympatiser of their ideals, I never condoned the way they went about doing it.
There is no way in hell that these murderers can ever be released.
While some people might say there is no difference between these people and people who killed RUC men, that got out under the Good Friday agreement, they are completly different.

Dont take this the wrong way, but the RUC men knew the risks, and accepted them. The IRA has always claimed that they were "ligimate targets", but as for a Gardai - a member of the force of the country they want to join - there is no similarities.

If they ever get out, I will never vote for FF again.
I already have decided not to vote for Sinn Fein again - after voting for them for the last 10 years!
 
Let them serve out the full of their sentences, they are criminals who acted on personal greed. Their crime was outside of the GFA paramaters and so they should stay in behind bars until their time is served and not a minute before.

Another example of Bertie appeasing SF/IRA with his back tracking.
 
Re

If they were just ordinary criminal then why did four of them get convicted for the same shooting. I thought only one of them shot at the dead Garda.
 
Lock them all up

There have been enough breaches of the GFA by the IRA for the Government to be entirely within it's moral and legal rights not only to keep the C4 behind bars but to rearrest all the others out on licence.
 
completly different?

While some people might say there is no difference between these people and people who killed RUC men, that got out under the Good Friday agreement, they are completly different.
Click to expand...
So it's OK to shoot an RUC man while robbing a bank but it's not OK to shoot a Garda?
They were robbing the bank to fund their cause. That's a politically motivated crime in their warped world.
None of those scum bags should get out, but if the ones in the north do then so should the ones in the south.
 
Manslaughter

I have always thought that this was a strange conviction. Were the jury not minded to send them down for 40 years (murder of a garda) and so came back with a manslaughter conviction which meant they would serve a shorter sentence.

They should have been convicted of murder or acquitted. Firing at somebody at point blank range with an AK47 cannot logically fall into the manslaughter category.
 
C4 or the "Killers of Det Gda Jerry McCabe"

All the contributions so far are against the early release.

Any one care to comment on B Ahern's use of language "The Castlerea Five" rather than "the four killers of Det Garda Jerry McCabe".

I note one poster refers to them as the C4 this is an imporvement but I think the use of the term "Castlerea Five" is a deliberate attempt by B Ahern TD FF to cast these guys in the same light as the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six miscarriages of justice. Is B Ahern trying to imply that there is a miscarriage of justice in this case?

I find the use of the term "The Castlerea Five" offensive and call on B Ahern to cease using the term immediately.

ajapale

Now if they moved them to Portlaoise ...
...or split them up between different prisions...
 
bloody hell purple

Purple,

You say:
So it's OK to shoot an RUC man while robbing a bank but it's not OK to shoot a Garda?
Click to expand...

Can you please point out to me where I said it was OK to shoot anyone?
I never said that, and I was waiting for someone to respond to that mail with that very annoying response.

Why I am saying this is as follows (and it does not mean I agree with them):

The IRA are a private army whose aim is to get the North part of the Republic. People from the Republic or people who agree with their ideals should feel like they are exempt from their voilence. The Gardai should feel especially safe as we can all see what happened when they killed one of our own.
As many people didn't care too much when the RUC men were killed, you hopefully will see the difference!
 
Re: bloody hell purple

As many people didn't care too much when the RUC men were killed, you hopefully will see the difference!
Click to expand...

WHAT?!?

Your whole post has me confused!!!
Sorry if I'm sounding thick, but could you explain where your coming from a little more.

Are you saying there Is a difference between the RUC and the Gardai, because the RUC knew that getting killed in the line of duty was an occupational hazzard, whereas the Gardai wouldn't have been expected to get killed and so it's more henious to kill one of them.

I think it's a pretty tenuous argument if that's what you are saying.

-Rd
 
Re.bloody hell purple

Maceface;
People from the Republic or people who agree with their ideals should feel like they are exempt from their voilence. The Gardai should feel especially safe as we can all see what happened when they killed one of our own.
Click to expand...
The IRA does not recognise the government of this country as legitimate. They do not recognise this state. As such to them the Gardai must be viewed as an enemy as they "collaborate" with the forces of the crown in attempting to stop their struggle for a united Ireland. That's why the Gardai are "legitimate" targets.
That's their point of view; to me they are treasonous thugs and murders that have sullied and perverted the memories of so many people who really fought for this country.
I'm with Mickey Mc 100% on that one.

daltonr has said the rest.
 
Killers

The C4 are killers. Nobody denies that. But there are degrees of killing from lawful self defence to premeditated murder. The C4 were found guilty of manslaughter, the same verdict as applied to the Annabel Killer. That is a travesty.

When the AK went out that evening the only killing he had in mind was of the lady variety. The C4 went out prepared, indeed armed, to kill. Not premeditated murder, but at the point of killing deliberate and cold blooded murder. They should serve every minute of their manslaughter sentence.

Manslaughter instead of Murder, that's quite enough appeasement of republican degeneracy.
 
Re: Killers

Sorry if I'm sounding thick, but could you explain where your coming from a little more.

Are you saying there Is a difference between the RUC and the Gardai, because the RUC knew that getting killed in the line of duty was an occupational hazzard, whereas the Gardai wouldn't have been expected to get killed and so it's more henious to kill one of them.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear, I am not saying I personally see a difference and I am completly against all type of violence.

What I am saying is that RUC, and indeed all security forces up the north have been murdered for as long as anyone can remember. The IRA are against these people been in the provence.
The IRA, coutner to what purple pointed out, are not against anyone in the Republic. That argument died out in the 50s with their new bombing campaign.
The IRA are essentially normal folk - they are/were generally not in it for the money, unlike other "terrorist" organisations operating up the north.
They do recognise the South and do not have problems with it, so for them to kill a fellow Republican (simply put, someone from or wanting to be part of the Republic) , can be viewed as killing one of their own (type).

Honestly, this is a very difficult subject for someone to explain, as you can see, and doubly so when you are trying to explain it in written words.

Again, I am totally against any violence, but I do see their point when they say that Army/RUC are legitimet targets, but I can never see how they could claim the Gardai are the same "legitimate target".
 
Bertie's campaign

I do think it is disgusting that Bertie is lending credence to the C4 campaign by refering to them as the Castlerea Four.

They should be split up. Bertie would find it hard to get a Castlrea/Mountjoy/Port Laoise/Arbour Hill Four campaign rolling.
 
Re: Bertie's campaign

Again, I am totally against any violence, but I do see their point when they say that Army/RUC are legitimet targets, but I can never see how they could claim the Gardai are the same "legitimate target".
Click to expand...

Well I think you're about as wrong as a person can be.
You can't be against violence, but understand how a group can be singled out as legitimate targets.

As soon as we start saying that we understand how someone can be considered a legitimate target, we start lending a credence to disgusting actions that should never be tolerated.

To suggest that the British security forces were legitimate targets because the IRA wanted them to be is a very dangerous precedent to set. If Ireland united and they then take a dislike to the Gardai, or if some other groups takes a dislike to the gardai, would you see their point in Making Gardai, or the Goverment of the Republic a Legitimate target?

I know you're trying to rationalise the twisted logic of the IRA, but don't bother. They kill "their own" all the time.
They'd kill you or me if we stood in their way.

-Rd
 
Legitimate Targets

Lots of talk about LTs. Let's face it, the RUC were (are?) a sectarian machine of brutality. They were (are?) LTs.

Now the Gardai are, perhaps unwitting, defenders of this partitionist injustice but are not themselves a brutal sectarian force. Hence, they are not LTs in the ordinary course but they make themselves LTs when they attempt to stop the brave endeavours of the likes of the C4, whose only aim is to free our oppressed brethren in the six counties.
 
Re: Legitimate Targets

You ask:
You can't be against violence, but understand how a group can be singled out as legitimate targets.
Click to expand...

Of course I can.
Tell me, do you understand why the Iraqis are killing the foreigners in Iraq?
Do you understand why the Klu Klux Klan hate black people?
Do you understand how the IRA came to see the RUC as legitimate targets?

Understanding a groups reasons is indeed the first steps in resolving those problems.

If America understood why Arabs have a dislike for them, they would realise that there are other ways to solving that dislike.

Understanding why someone thinks a certain way does not mean agreeing with them, it means you know why they are doing something.

I know why the Iraqis are killing the foreign people in Iraq.
I think I understand why the KKK hate black people, and
I understand how the IRA see certain people as legititmate targets.

As I said, putting this in words leaves it open to people to take their own take on my words. Please read the context of my argument and hopefully it will be clearer.
 
Re: Legitimate Targets

Oh, and I should have mentioned.

I understand how these groups come to think the way they do, but I DO NOT condon it in any way at all.
I am completly against their views!
 
I note that in the Dail yesterday Bertie Ahern has reverted to referring to these guys as "the people responsible for the killing of Det Garda Jerry McCabe". I get the impression he'll be more carefull in future.
ajapale
 
LT's

I see you point maceface but daltonr has a point as well when he says that it is dangerous to rationalise the position of murderers.
Perhaps you are right;this is the wrong forum/medium to get into such complex points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top