Amnesties and Covenants 2
As the trenchant responses to the ideas floated by sources close to the Eames Bradley group on the past show, you can't expect to talk about an amnesty or to describe the troubles as a "war" without provoking an angry reaction.
The Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde appeared before a Stormont Committee this morning to discuss the devolution of justice. He didn't comment directly on any amnesty or general pardon, but nor did he rule it out. Sir Hugh insisted it is up to the Eames Bradley group to establish if there can be a consensus on the past. He expressed doubts about whether such a consensus can be achieved.
In a news conference ostensibly about his party's response to the budget and programme for government, the Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey ruled out either an amnesty or redefining the troubles as a war. He expressed shock that the Eames Bradley group had allowed themselves to become associated with such notions.
It's all a bit of a re-run of the furore which occurred when the government proposed its "On The Runs" legislation. That envisaged a quasi judicial process after which paramilitary fugitives and former security force members who had committed crimes would walk free. With an overall deal on devolution still up in the air, and Sinn Fein coming under withering fire from the SDLP, both republicans and the government had to walk away from the scheme.
Of course talk of an amnesty is emotive. But how much practical difference it would make given the early release of prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement?
If you are an ex-paramilitary wanting to unburden yourself of your secrets who decides to walk into a police station tomorrow what would happen to you?
The cynic might suppose you would be sent away whilst the desk sergeant sorts through more pressing traffic offences. But what ought to happen is that you would be interviewed by detectives, charged, then remanded either in custody or on bail. You would be tried before a court, but then the Good Friday Agreement would kick in and, presuming you were found guilty, you should spend no more than two years in jail.
You would, however, have a criminal record. A controversial report for the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers suggested employers should only take troubles related convictions into account if they are directly relevant to a job someone is applying for. But that amounts to guidance rather than anything stronger.
So having a criminal record could damage your prospects of employment, as well as getting insurance, taking out a mortgage and getting a visa to go on holiday in places like the USA, Canada, or Australia.
All of which amounts to a disincentive to spill the beans.
In practice even if an amnesty is declared tomorrow there is unlikely to be a long list of repentant paramilitaries queuing up to tell all. But if at some stage the leadership of the IRA and the loyalist organisations decided it was in their interests to support a "truth recovery process", the word could go out to their followers that it is good to talk.
How much credence people will give to what they have to say is, of course, another question.
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I'm sure Eames and Bradley are very well intentioned, but they need to find something better to do with their time.
If I have just had open heart surgery, I do not want to go to the GP and have him rip the wound open again, just to make sure everything is ok in there.
If the paramilitaries want to get something off their chests, let them write it down then lock it in a safe until the last person who remembers the troubles is dead.
We need to quickly shy away from any notion that the excuses of the paramilitaries have value.
And it wasn't a war. Warriors don't kill people in their beds, terrorize their own side, or sell drugs.
Here's an idea: anybody who boasts about paramilitary activities gets the two year sentence and the criminal record they deserve.
NEW FORM OF WORDS…
I see the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Secretary, Jacqui Smith has down-graded the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ to ‘anti-Islamic activity’. I am sure the relatives of those killed and those injured in the London bombings will be outraged to learn that it was just an 'activity'.
The Consultative Group on the Past may have found their ‘form of words’ to describe the murderous atrocities of the terrorists in Northern Ireland as just merely ‘activity’.
Last night the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Office stated that while no phrases have been ‘banned’, they will no longer be using the words ‘war on terror’ or ‘Islamic extremism’.