[Clann]

New evidence on Loughgall Martyrs

By Michael Pierse

New independent evidence regarding the SAS and RUC operation, which resulted in the killing of eight IRA Volunteers and one civilian at Loughgall on 8 May 1987, has been revealed by the Loughgall Truth and Justice Campaign.

According to the evidence, gathered in a year-long investigation by legal counsel to the campaign, the SAS operation made no efforts to prevent the IRA Volunteers from conducting their offensive and furthermore was orchestrated to execute the unit.

An independent report by ex - US Navy Seal Kenneth Cummings, who was a trainee of British Special Operations Groups, has suggested that the SAS acted as ``judge, jury and executioner'' for the nine killed, including one civilian. In his report there is an unequivocal indictment of the methods used on the fateful day in Loughgall as being a premeditated ambush, intended to execute the volunteers involved and ``to also send a message to demoralize other IRA personnel.'' In essence `` it is clear to any reasonable prudent professional involved in such military matters that a classic elimination plan of these eight IRA individuals and two innocent civilians was executed by the SAS.'' It is also stated that the RUC barracks, which was known by the crown forces in advance to be the intended target of the unit, was unmanned, and any pretence of saving lives is implausible. The true callousness of the SAS operation was underlined by what Cummings said is ``consistent with SAS practice of taking a `souvenir'.'' This, he conveyed, may explain the missing tooth of Patrick Kelly.

Cummings also referred to the report conducted by Dr Hiroshi Nakazawa as unearthing evidence suggesting the SAS actions were consistent with a ``Shoot - to - kill'' policy. Nakazawa commented that the hasty ``back - to - back'' autopsies did not ``provide a full opportunity for a proper review.'' Victims of the SAS ambush, he revealed, ``sustained mortal wounds while lying on the ground'' and civilian Patrick J Kelly received ``wounds to the head that exposed the brain.'' There was, he concluded, ``excessive force utilised.''

Máiréad Kelly of the Loughgall Truth and Justice Campaign stated this week that they are ``now calling for the British Government to open a full and independent inquiry into the murders of the nine men at Loughgall and to hold those responsible, accountable for their actions that night.''

[Spin]

The IRA care for a life of a civilian? Oh theres a shock. Its a joke to complain that IRA members got killed while in the middle of trying to kill Policemen. How many people have the IRA ambushed? THe provos reek of hypocrisy sometimes.

[Clann]

My understanding was that the police station was unmanned and that the S.A.S knew that the I.R.A were coming and could have arrested them. The S.A.S acted as executioners and used excessive force. The men were executed while lying on the ground. The British government reek of hypocrisy sometimes.

[Spin]

Ahh. But was the way this was carried out supported by the government? And weren't the IRA men armed?

[Clann]

Yes they were armed however the S.A.S knew well in advance of the operation due to a tapped phone call alluding to the attack. The point is that if these men were merely criminals as the British government would have us believe they should have been arrested. As it happened I think they actually detonated the digger bomb then they were sprayed with gunfire and summarily executed while lying on the ground wounded and dying. The S.A.S sprayed the I.R.A men so much that they hit a civilian. My guess is that there were indedd "shoot to kill" orders given by the British government.

[Rifleman]

I wasn't there, nor were you. As the saying does the first casualty of war is truth. However, if you have an open mind and want to hear my take as an Ex British Soldier who served in your neighbourhood I am happy to give you it.

"Yes they were armed however the S.A.S knew well in advance of the operation due to a tapped phone call alluding to the attack."

The Army knew a great deal about planned Operations of the East Tyrone Brigade through all manner of intelligence gathering. However, I never saw intelligence so accurate and specific, in a case like this, that would enable arrests to be made in in advance of the IRA embarking on the operation. Although you may prefer not to believe it the Army had to operate within the law, so arresting someone without also having evidence of conspiracy would be quite pointless.

Even assuming their dentities were known, thier movements known, and it was possible to arrest them all at the same time without warning (all very difficult to contrive), without evidence arrest would not have stopped thier activities. In just the same way that police forces worldwide who have intelligence , but no evidence to get convictions, allow robberies etc to go ahead, so it was for the British Army.

So now we are dealing with at least half a dozen armed men who we know will galdly kill British Soldiers. So we are going to mount an ambush in an area where we know that the IRA enjoy the support of much of the local community. What would the British Armys priorities be. 1) To conduct operations that are within the law. 2) To minimise the risk to civilians and security forces. 3) To make arrests if possible, but above all to ensure that the IRA members cannot threaten life.

How are we going to do that? Well we already have a good deal of experience of, and knowledge of how the IRA operate and how they may react to any challenge. One operation I was involved in, not disimilar to this one in many respects, was in Keady some years earlier. On that occasion a warning was shouted, the IRA men opened fire, we returned fire killing two of the men, the third died later in hospital. None of our guys were hurt. So we know that actually getting a group of these guys to surrender isn't easy. They embark on aggresive operations prepared to kill and when the proverbial hits the fan that is normally just what they will try to do.

So we are going to make sure that if the shooting starts our guys are in good positions to return overwhelming fire, and when it starts that is just what they will do. I assume you have never been in a firefight, but if you had you will know that it is very frightening and chaotic. It is very easy to pontificate after the event.

I once gave an IRA gunman the benefit of the doubt, not in your neighbourhood but in Belfast. He was armed, had already fired on my patrol once, and looked as if he would continue too. I did not legally have to give any warning and could have return fire at once. I foolishly made time to shout a warning, during this time he fired again and I took the round. Fortunately I wasn't hurt too badly.

My point really is that is is naive to think that making arrests is an easy matter in these situations, or that making arrests prevents operations from being mounted against the security forces.

The summary execution stuff I cannot refute and you don't know to be true. But my father, myself and my brother all served tours between 1969 and 1980 and all shared the conviction that our role was to keep the peace and uphold the law, most certainly not to break it. My dad was is 22 SAS for much of his career too, so please don't give me the old chestnut about them being some sort of assasination squad.

Ultimately, whether you like it our not, it was quite legitimate to put the lives of soldiers and civilians before the lives of these men. Nobody forced them to go on the operation, they knew the risks, they paid the price.

That civilians get caught up sometimes is a sad fact. I know that any innocent party shot by a soldier will have been inadvertantly shot. Not so my unarmed no combatant friends who died in the Regents Park bombing.

[Clann]

I appreciate your input into this debate. The fact remains however that you are naive in your assumptions of the British army. You present the British army as some sort of benevolent foce in "Northern Ireland", as a neutral force. This is not the case or my own personal experiences of the British army in Ireland. One only has to look back at other shoot to kill instances for example the murder of three unarmed I.R.A volunteers in Gibralter (during their subsequent funeral Michael Stone attacked mourners with hand grenades and a pistol).

I have seen evidence that the security forces were aware of the attack at least 24 hours before it was due to take place, that the ASU was under surveillance while collecting their weapons from the dump and that police knew the make, model and registration of the van they arrived in. There was no attempt made to stop the bomb being exploded. The unit was sprayed with over 600 rounds and had wounds which could only have been inflicted while they were lying on the ground. The SAS did not act within the law, they acted as judge, jury and executioner on that day. They were not set up for arrest, they were set up for ambush and there were several points at which the attack could have been halted including cordoning off the village. Nothing was done because they did not want to alert the I.R.A men to their presence, these men had to die.

[Rifleman]

The fact remains however that you are naive in your assumptions of the British army. You present the British army as some sort of benevolent foce in "Northern Ireland", as a neutral force.

Is no different from saying my experiences, and my perspective, counts for nothing. Which is sadly all too common in the political debate in NI.

Whether the British Army is a benevolent force is not a matter of fact, but of opinion and that opinion will depend very much on ones own experiences or political persuasion. I present the British Army in NI only as I see it from the persepctive of a soldier who served in it. What I say is all true, including that neither you nor I actually know what happened on that day. We both make judgements about what may hav happened on that day based on the evidence as we see it. You will lend more credibility to some evidence, in this case a report by a well known republican journalist, than I will.

I would not expect a Republican to accept the British Army as benevolent. There is no question that they stand, at least so long as the electorate in NI do not favour it, in the way of your desire to see Ireland United.

I don't doubt that they were set up for an ambush, doing so would be the proper and sensible thing to do for the reasons already explained. I would also point out that the British Army always shoot to kill when they do shoot. The question is whether they properly opened fire in the first place, given that these men were armed and had detonated a bomb it would appear likely that they did so. That may be to your chagrin, but it would appear to have been lawful

600 rounds sounds like a great deal of ammunition to a layman, but since I don't know what weapons were deployed I cannot say whether that was excessive. Assuming that, as I might think reasonable depending upon the ground and cercumstances, a GPMG in the SF Role was deployed it respresent about 3 minutes of fire by just that one weapon, not very much ammo at all. There are also many explanations as to why men may have been shot on the ground, but I doubt that my providing them will alter your view. Forgive me if I am wrong, but my assumption is that your mind is made up and any evidence that undermines your allegations will be dismissed as my previous post was?

You see the problem is that I am far from naive, I am very knowledgable about the British Army, its weapons, organisation, tactics, etc in NI.

I certainly have an open mind about whether soldiers have acted outside of the law and have no particular problem with people making accusations of that kind. We both know that there are occasions when the have, the courts have found them guilty of having done so, and they have been sentenced just as anyone else would be.

If the IRA mount aggresive operations they will obviously be met with an agressive response. Fortunately they do not do so at present and that provides an opportunity for you and others to find common ground. I sincerely hope that you will take that opportunity as I genuinely hope that your community finds lasting peace. By and large the people of Tyrone and Armagh that I met appeared to desire peace regardless of whether they were Republican or Loyalist. Of course many Republicans viewed my presence as an obstacle to peace, but that was thier view, not a fact.

Should you manage to secure permanent peace I wouldn't not expect you to acknowledge the contribution that the security forces have made to maintaining law and order and enabling peace to be found, but many will.

[Irish_Lefty]

Im the IRA acted like civilised soldiers when they broke into the homes of UDR , RUC and British Army members in the middle of the night and shot them in their beds . Well at least the SAS had the guts to face there enemy unlike the IRA who most the time hide behind bombs killing pregant woman and children. You say it is murder but when a British soldier dies it isnt I dont think you get what a war is.

[Clann]

Your little tirade didn't really do much for the argument so I think i'm going to ignore it. There are a few points however that I would like to address.

Well at least the SAS had the guts to face there enemy unlike the IRA who most the time hide behind bombs killing pregant woman and children.

Evidence of the I.R.A intentionally killing "pregant woman" and children?

The S.A.S did not have guts, they hid, waited until the bomb was detonated and then riddlem the I.R.A men with 600 bullets from their concealed ambush position.

You say it is murder but when a British soldier dies it isnt I dont think you get what a war is.

If you could actually clarify what you are saying there I might be able to answer.

[Irish_Lefty]

Omagh bomb also look up the list of those who died at the hands of Republicans.

[repr0bate]

Just a couple of points. Rifleman is entirely right about 600 rounds, that's hardly uncommon for a firefight and not what I'd call excessive considering the rate of fire of most modern automatic weapons. Secondly, in regards to wounds being sustained on the ground; the first explanation is that most intelligent shooters will have the sense to fire from prone, accuracy is greatly reduced whilst making yourself a much smaller target. Secondly, a man can easily be hit once he has fallen if supressing fire is being layed down.

If the IRA mount aggresive operations they will obviously be met with an agressive response.

Exactly. I'm sorry Clann, but what do you expect an army unit to do when confronting armed individuals? Calmly ask them to lay down their weapons and arrest them? As Rifleman demonstrated that's close to laughable. You seriously think that cordoning off and mounting an offensive (that is obviously what it would come to) on an entire village of people friendly to the IRA is going to result in less death? You have to be kidding...

As soon as these men picked up weapons and set off on their way to attack a base they sealed their own fate. You use the poetic 'judge, jury and executioner', but the reality is they have already allowed that judgement to happen by entering into the risk of confronting other armed units who are forced to make a snap decision.

[Clann]

Omagh bomb also look up the list of those who died at the hands of Republicans.

My question was "evidence of the I.R.A intentionally killing "pregant woman" and children?" If you remember the Omagh bomb was planted by the Real I.R.A, we are talking about the Provisional Republican movement who were on ceasefire at the time of the horrific Omagh bombing.

If the IRA mount aggresive operations they will obviously be met with an agressive response.

In response to that and repro's comments I have no problem with that, it's a war! The evidence however speaks volumes, read my post. The security forces knew of the attack a few weeks in advance, they were given 24 hoursnotice of the attack happening, the I.R.A unit was under surveillance while they obtained weapons from the dump. There was ample time and opportunity to arrest these men even before they were armed. The security forces could have and should have arrested these men. Instead they were ambushed, killed and executed with a bullet to the head while laying wounded on the ground. Judge, jury, executioner.

[repr0bate]

executed with a bullet to the head while laying wounded on the ground

Mate...you're really jumping to conclusions there. There's nothing in that article or that I've seen that makes it that explicit.

[Clann]

I'm afraid there is, I will attempt to find it again.

[Rifleman]

repr0bate

There's nothing in that article or that I've seen that makes it that explicit.

Also bear in mind the source of the article is Republican News, not reknowned for honest accurate and independent reporting about the Army in NI.

Whilst the reports are described as being by independent experts there is no explanation of why or how they undertook thier investigations. No doubt they were commisioned by republicans, so the independence at least must be in question incidentally I do attend court as an expert (nothing military, that was a past life) on occasions and the courts have very strict protocols on what independent experts must and must not do. Did these experts follow those protocols? You see there is far more in an competent expert report than a simple opinion as what may have happened, indeed from a courts point of view the experts "opinion" is of little value, what is of value is the experts presentation of facts he is able to establish. No competent expert would conclude that these guys were executed. He might agree that the evidence was compatible with Clann na Gael's claims, but he would likely also admit that they were compatible with the possibilities that you put forward. That is why we have juries to decide what the facts mean. Otherwise we would have trial by expert and experts frequently have different opinions, whereas the facts presented by experts following the proper protocols to ensure they are independent are rarely disputed.

Neither of the reports appear to have been published in full, and even if they are available I would want them from a source I could be confident had not edited them.

There is no detailed information regarding the qualifications or experience of these experts who, on the surface at least, do not appear to have much experience of the matters they report on. As you said the likelyhood is that these men were in the prone position and even if they were not they would have been as soon as the first high velocity round hit them, ergo being shot whilst on the ground would be normal and no indicator that anything untoward happened. Similarly one would expect a large number of head shots, again because in the prone position only the head is exposed.

I think all this thread proves is that sadly we have a long long way to go before the wounds heal. I am not sure whether enquiries help or not. Suppose we have an enquiry and Clann na Gael's claims are vindicated? What then? The suggestion is that this was an assasination squad, not some rougue soldiers, so will he be happy to know the truth or will he want them to be punished? And if so just them? What about thier commanders? What of the politicians who, if they knew of this, had a hand in it? All punished? All jailed?

What then of all of those friends and families of people killed by Republicans? Do they not deserve this kind of enquiry and punishment to be meted out too? Do you not think all this potentiallly takes us back down the road to more conflict? I'll be honest I don't know, but I can see as many negative consequences and positive ones.

And what if the enquiry concluded the soldiers had done no wrong? Would Clann na Gael be satisfied? No doubt he can answer for himself, but I think he would say it was a whitewash.

I am inclined to think the soldiers did nothing wrong, but I can't know that they didn't any more than Clann na Gael knows that they did. I have no problem with an enquiry in principle, but as the bloody sunday enquiry has been sitting since 3 April 1999 and is going to cost an estimated £155 million I would prefer to await the outcome of that and guage whether is has indeed helped people move on before wanting to embark on another inquiry into alledged criminal behaviour by soldiers.

In any event I would question whether an enquiry is appropriate given the allegations, it seems to me that it might serve some political purpose for the Republican propoganda machine, but not justice. An enquiry is not a trial, it cannot sentence anyone. Moreover, assuming that it is conducted under the same legislation as the Bloody Sunday enquiry then even if such an enquiry got an outright confession of guilt that evidence coulkd not be used in a later criminal prosecution.

If the NI police service think there is no case, or the CPS will not prosecute, then the shortly to be convened international criminal court in Rome will have jusrisdiction and if there is a case to be made it can be taken there. Of course if there is no case then the court is unlikely to allow a trial. Personally I would rather see that court deal with this kind of thing, whenever British institutions reach conclusions that do not favour the Republican view they are dismissed by Republicans as a whitewash. This accusation could not be levied at the ICC and so whatever the outcome it is likely to be more satisfactory.

However, as I have already said, I don't see much of a legal case merely a lot of allegations.