Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Spies and/or damned lies?
The rumours flying around before Christmas have resumed. Mainly at the agency of former spy handler Martin Ingram (not his real name). His Cryptome article produces no direct evidence, but makes some big claims. Sinn Fein’s leader in the Dail, Caoimhghin O Caolain has promised to take Ireland on Sunday to court over its allegations that he was Garda spy.
The Sunday Times kicked off speculation about two prominent Sinn Fein figures. Danny Morrison reports that the view inside Sinn Fein is stoical in the face of what he believes is British intelligence “dirty tricks” and “trial by media”. However Suzanne Breen picks up some dissent beyond Belfast.
Mick Fealty @ 09:51 AM
These rumours aren’t confined to Belfast or Northern Ireland. There are rumours rife around Dublin that a prominent councillor’s sudden decision to spend more time with his family are also connected to this story. Personally I don’t believe it, but then I wouldn’t have believed the whole Stormontgate shennanigans up to a few weeks ago.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 03:14 PMThe article by Martin Ingram raises more questions than it answers.
Why is it that someone as uniquely placed as he is cannot even say that one of the people he claims to be in contact with has named either G or M as informants?
But the biggest question, for me at least, is why on earth would brit spooks spend decades infiltrating an organisation in order to steer it towards a certain path (accepting Brit rule in Northern Ireland), and not choose to do the same with unionists and steer them towards accepting a thirty two county settlement?
It doesn’t add up.
A nod and a wink are sometimes enough, but not from someone who purports to be in the know.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 03:43 PMHi TAFKABO,
Thank you for taking the time to post. I did indeed write a piecein response to an article written by Mick Hill and published on the Blanket site. The article I wrote to which you refer is posted on the IRB site and copied to Cryptome . I dont believe this piece indulges in a Nod and a wink.
For the benefit of doubt however. I will place my beliefs borne from my experiance on the record, as I did with Mr Scappaticci.
1. I believe Martin McGuinness to be an Agent of the British State. Could I prove my theory in regards to Martin? NO, It is my belief and I will be judged upon those beliefs.
2. I don’t acccuse Gerry Adams of direct involvement but he ceratinly has many questions which require answering about many of the decisions taken during his tenure. elements of his family was/is certainly involved with both the FRU and RUC SB/ PSNI of that I am 100%.In respect to the strategy directed towards Republican/ Loyalist organisations by the British Govt over the last thirty years. The chances of a compliant RUC/PSNI being willing to dupe the Loyalist comunity in the way Sinn Fein/IRA duped the Republican comunity was ZERO. In one of the State papers recently released about the early seventies. A British Govt minister reveals the tactic/Strategy was to ” String the IRA along UNTIL THE WILL WAS SAPPED” it did that alright and succeeded.The rotestant comunity remains a much more dangerous foe to the British Govt than the Republican Movement could ever be.
The chosen Strategy was by design and helped by people (Agents) normally paid who were willing to follow directions and implement British Govt policy. The Irish Govt had a similar plan and their Agents undertook a similar type operation.
Are there more Agents within both Sinn Fein and the IRA at senior levels, 100% yes . I should also like to add the vast majority of Agents are good and have my support and respect. Rogue agents as in the case of Freddy and his Handlers do not deserve this respect nor a shield from the courts. This activity is not what good Intelligence is about, that is anarchy. That is why I am eager to see Freddy go before the courts and be judged upon his crimes.
I hope this short reply helps you understand my beliefs, I don’t claim to have the answers to all those questions that are rightly posed but what I do have is experiance and knowledge of what makes the Intelligence game tick.
Happy New Year.Martin.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 04:58 PMI am sorry it was not Mick Hill but Mick Hall.
Martin.PS A edit facility upon this great board would be useful.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 05:11 PMMartin.
Being a unionist I was very concious of reading your initial article and wanting to believe it.Because of this I really went over it again, being as critical as I could be.
Your assesment of the RUC being unwilling to play the Unionists makes sense, but if you don’t mind me asking, why didn’t the layers of establishment and intelligence srvices that are above the RUC try to do something anyway?
Was it really just logistically impossible without some sort of local on the ground security services input?As for your beliefs regarding Martin, it’s no secret that a lot of people think he has had a hands on approach to events, but again, it strikes me as telling that their is no-one willing to say to someone like you, even in private, that he is an agent.
Anyway, thanks for your input, it makes for very interesting reading.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 05:35 PMHi all,
I found all the articles, (except the one from Danny Morrison-can’t get that one) fascinating and would like to make a few comments:
1. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Sinn Fein leadership has not been negotiating with the best interest of the Republican agenda because:
a) they did last year in negotiations what
Margaret Thatcher was unable to do…they negoatiated the terms that would have the IRA state they would stop criminization…ergo the IRA were criminals per SF…which I thought was shameful and told them so.
b) Sinn Fein leadership for whatever motives (zeal to be in gov’t at any cost or being driven by other agenda) had the PIRA give away the cookie store all in the ‘hopes and dreams’ category that the DUP would go back into gov’t. Sinn Fein did not negotiate in reality but pie in the sky promises.Now that said….it all comes out in the wash as they say and rats finally do follow the piper into the river…
So how does one find out who a spy is….why the one(s) who advice was to have the IRA state they would stop their criminalization with the ‘promise’ that gov’t would be up and running and the brit gov’t would pressure the dup…simple. Because as the brother of Mr. McCreesh stated….‘my brother is not a criminal’ and those who work(ed) to have the PIRA members labled as criminals…well…they push the Thatcher/BLair agenda not the Collins agenda
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 06:51 PMOK mr Ingram,
I’m your run of the mill paranoid Irishman.
Who are the “agents of influence” in the media or in the other political parties?
Who in the media do the “intelligence” figures plant stories with.
Who are the Brit spies in the Irish Political estabilishment? Don’t say there are’nt any!
Or is the claim that leading republicans are touts some dirty trick to sow distrust in the ranks and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 06:58 PMmr ingram:
with respect: a remarkably incoherent and unsystematic presentation of your case, and a remarkable indictment of the ‘professionalism’ of british intelligence, if you are who you say you are. or perhaps it explains why you are ‘ex’ intelligence.
i have no particular axe to grind, no corner to defend, in whether mm or ga or anyone else at high levels in sf were working with the state. i would not be completely surprised by it, and in some ways see it as almost irrelevant: the end result—the defeat of republican insurgency—is clear in any case, and the details in terms of the intelligence war are only footnotes to the wider political turn.
but i am struck by your remarks that
‘The chances of a compliant RUC/PSNI being willing to dupe the Loyalist comunity in the way Sinn Fein/IRA duped the Republican comunity was ZERO.’
this seems to me an incredibly confused framework for understanding what has developed in recent years: like comparing apples and oranges. in what sense did/does the ruc provide political leadership of any kind to the loyalist community? what was its capacity for ‘duping’ anyone? why does it matter anyway? what are you on about?
maybe i misunderstand you, but if so its because no one in the security apparatus ever took the time to teach you to express yourself clearly. one wonders where else they fell short.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 07:22 PMSpartacus
I can see the problems there would be with duping the Unionists. It is a more diverse and less coherent target and the possibility of leaks the greater, but I would be in little doubt that there are spooks there as well.
When Martin state, “the problem that I have is when people - whether they are agents or the State - avoid taking responsibility for that small 1% of operations that are not legal and involve murder,” who could disagree. I myself have heard numerous anecdotal tales that would lead one to believe that some atrocious crimes were carried out here with the full knowledge of those who should be upholding standards and the law. Crime is crime and employees of the state should not be above the law.
Makes you wonder what other political movements the spooks are trying to circumvent, Communists obviously, Socialists probably, Greens possibly. When does the perception of ‘National Interest’ become interference in the democratic process?
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 07:52 PMMaybe Martin displays certain body movements that would indicate to the casual observer that he is a British Agent.
After all during the frenzy after Scap, MI came on this very site to back up the ramblings of Peter Keeley after two other North Belfast men were named.
This old tactic of Military Intelligence using their operatives and their contacts in the media to promote this type of feeding frenzy really is old hat.Let it go Ingram, you’ve been rumbled, you are very much still in the field. Though to the fair your concern for the leadership of the nationalist and republican community really is quite touching.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:00 PMTafkabo.
Yes, You are correct. The Protestant/ Loyalist comunity was too strong and enjoyed much influence within the Conservative party during large parts of the troubles.
Kathy C.
I am pleased you enjoyed it and I hope you have gained an insight into this murky world.
Heck,
If you read my book , I make that very point regarding a compliant press, people like Barney Rowan on the BBC dont interview people they allow a party political broadcast.
Sinn Fein have a very cosy relationship with RTE, The stevens inquiry favour Liam Clarke, Lord Steven prefers the Tv , Barney Rowan BBC.ETC.
I like Cryptome and Sunday Times both ask for nothing and are respected and will not publish unless they are confident.
As regards senior Republicans being Informers. You are being humorous here right? Does night follow day my friend.
Spartacus,
I am sorry you found my piece not upto your requirements.
You may post your questions and if possible I will offer a more comprehensive and coherent response.
In response to the one area you could articulate a question in response to my post I offer the following explanation.
The RUC controlled and directed loyalist para militaries. I would estimate that one in three operatives within these illegal organisations were Agents of the State. The infiltration in the upper echelons i.e. Brigadier level was almost 100% . This level of penetration allowed the direction of these illegal organisations to be controlled almost at will. I charge the RUC was in almost overall controll of Loyalist para militaries. To give one example of this. The unit that colluded and murdered Pat Finucane was manned by more Agents than were not. This one act could have been prevented but was not and led ultimately to political implications.
Then again as you say ” Why does it matter anyway”. well plonker because the law of land is not owned by any one section of our comunity it is or should be free from patronage. Clear enough.
Anymore questions feel free to post.
Martin.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:05 PMMartin my post was removed can you answer is McGuinness Steak Knife (Butcher) as opposed to Stake Knife (vampire killer Scap), and when was he turned and why/how
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:07 PMMick
Any chance of a thread on the SDLP’s new policy on British Honours? It dominated Talkback today and would seem worthy of a mention on this site.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:11 PMPat,
I was in the middle of posting my last piece when our paths crossed.
In respect to Keeley. He has a book which is about to be published at the end of this month. I have contributed the foreword to this book. In that foreword I make it clear that this man is no different to Freddy Scappaticci who is also a mass murderer just like Keeley. The common fact is they were both paid Agents of the State.
I take it you dont disagree that Freddy is a mass murderer ? or do you follow Sinn Fein logic of burying ones arse as far up the rectum as is possible.
Regards Pat from a genuine Nationalist.
Martin.Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:13 PMMartin I, what’s your motivation in all of this ? Why should anyone believe what you’re writing here ?
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:13 PMSteak not Stake.
The correct title for Freddy is Steak knife not Stakeknife as in my book. Sorry for any confusion but it was a means to an end.
Martin.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:17 PMThank you. Could you elaborate. How a means to what end. When/Why/How was McGuinness turned.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:20 PMMartin, no offense but your article on Cryptome reads more like the weird rant from a Walter Mitty character - like reading The Committee all over again. I ask again, why should anyone believe you are who you say you are ?
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:24 PMHello Martin
If I were to set you the task of exposing the agent (or innocent) status of Werner Bartells the Luftwaffe pilot and jet engine designer. I think you would get no where.
If I were to set you the task of exposing the Special Branch secret monitor exercise against police inquiries touching on Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder Homes (agreeing some of the sentiments you express about justice) I think you would get no where.
If I were to set you the task of exposing the role of Leonard Cheshire in betraying wartime bomber streams using illicit IFF signals. I think you would get no where.
If I were to set you the task of finding why Cheshire got a VC for surviving 100 missions (against a possible technical betrayal explanation for that survival)whereas Kenneth Wolstenholme (footie commentator) flew more missions but got no VC. I think you would get no where.
If I were to set you the task of naming the “Oslo Person” who betrayed the German technical development secrets early in the war ... you can read his name in the biography of Professor R V Jones, Churchill’s scientific intelligence officer.
Here us a link
http://www.matron-mcgill-decd.com/dec05.htm
You can see that someone in Intelligence had tagged that man as a suspect OIRA asset in Suffolk gathering information on RAF listening post secondments, V bomber weekend leave status and postings to the Oman conflict.
His phone was tapped. So someone was simply monitoring him to find out what he wanted to know and what he learnt.
So there are things which emerge quickly. Things which don’t emerge.
And there are wider political pictures as suggested by Spartacus ?
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:36 PMIM, I have a few links sitting in the back pocket. I’m on a nasty deadline at the moment. Will try to get them out tomorrow.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:44 PMThe British remain quite entitled to channel political motivation into democratic and non-violent activity. Their people were targets after all, and took care to keep democratic and non-violent options open while dealing with terrorist aggression legally and humanely for the most part. There were some extra casualties among both unconvicted outlaws and innocents, but the IRA had already crossed that line many times through choice, not necessity.
Do the IRA thing again, and expect a different result? The obsessive compulsive school of republicanism may imagine somehow that an intensified or continued armed campaign could achieve more than sectarian division and more efficient repression, but we, the meat in their civil war sandwich, are entitled to doubt it.
PIRA might have fought a bloodier war, but were there that many more than Gerry and Martin who could have concluded a peace? Starting wars you cannot finish on humane terms? Now that is criminal.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:45 PMHi all,
aquifer, what exactly do you mean by…“do the IRA thing again”?
Anyone who read the Danny Morrison article that is mentioned above (I can’t get it)...what exactly does he say about Sinn Fein and their beliefs about the brits dirty tricks in all of this. I don’t want to comment on just the little bit spoken about it on the above article…thanks.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 09:01 PMIf “Martin Ingram” is correct, it’s all reminiscent of The Man Who Was Thursday.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 09:11 PMTo continue
In about 1962 the Garland Plan of the IRA fell into the hands of the Irish Police.
It proposed infiltration of the British trades unions and industrial and agriculural sabotage.
The plan was published in the appendices to the Scarman Report and Scarman concluded that this was no plan to overthrow HM Govt ?
So concerned were MI5 about the plan that they put the token binty Stella Rimmington in charge of a reduced budget section dealing with the industrial sabotage threat ?
Wider political pictures ?
There was a group of men (who would later steer Maggie Thatcher to power ?) who rather wanted to paint the trades union movement as the enemy within. And (perhaps to help out the strained resources of MI5 as mentioned) they founded their own intelligence group ?
It has been suggested before on Slugger threads (to some ridicule) that people concerned about Bloody Sunday should consider the 1969 Forces pay review based on skills evaluation.
And to quote from a story about a special forces sergeant major seconded to a technical unit in 1969
“Unfortunately it appears that the Command has a plan, based on their own technical aptitude and political appreciation.”
That would be the sergeant major who took it upon himself to teach the men about the importance of the constable oath of duty and police answerability to an independent judiciary. Perhaps he saw where breaking the law to enforce a narrow perspective of law would lead ?
Soldiers trained by special forces joining the civil police ? I could not possibly comment.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 09:23 PMSean Fear
The Man who was “M” was Maxwell Knight. His widow died in a Sue Ryder Home with staff ordered to deny access to her husband’s biographer.
A charitable care home under MI5 control ? So much for freedom of association and freedom of expression. A care home charity co founded by the Man who was “Saturday” Airey Neave of MI9 later MI6.
Posted by on Jan 03, 2006 @ 09:33 PM
