[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONCERNS REGARDING POSSIBLE COLLUSION IN NORTHERN IRELAND: POLICE AND
PARAMILITARY GROUPS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 22, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-985 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, California TED POE, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BARBARA LEE, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on International Organizations,
Human Rights and Oversight
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri DANA ROHRABACHER, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota RON PAUL, Texas
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey TED POE, Texas
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
Cliff Stammerman, Subcommittee Staff Director
Paul Berkowitz, Republican Professional Staff Member
Brian Forni, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Raymond McCord, Sr., Belfast, Northern Ireland............... 7
Mr. John Finucane, Belfast, Northern Ireland..................... 25
Ms. Jane Winter, Director, British Irish Rights Watch............ 39
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Raymond McCord, Sr.: Prepared statement...................... 10
Mr. John Finucane: Prepared statement............................ 31
Ms. Jane Winter: Prepared statement.............................. 41
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
The Honorable Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York: Prepared statement................. 62
CONCERNS REGARDING POSSIBLE COLLUSION IN NORTHERN IRELAND: POLICE AND
PARAMILITARY GROUPS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Organizations,
Human Rights and Oversight,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Delahunt
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Delahunt. Let me begin, and I want to welcome my friend
and colleague from New Jersey who has been very active in these
issues during the course of his public life, Chris Smith, who
will serve as the ranking member since the official ranking
member, Mr. Rohrabacher, is unable to attend today.
Well, the Troubles in Northern Ireland refer to a period of
over three decades of violence between the Nationalist
community, mainly Catholic, and Unionist community, mainly
Protestant. Paramilitary groups for both sides were used to
intimidate segments of the population through violence and
fear. Many innocent civilians were caught in the cross-fire.
Since 1969, over 3,200 people have died as a result of this
political violence. After years of fighting and many rounds of
intense political debate, the Good Friday Agreement was signed
in April 1998.
This agreement called for a restoration of devolved
government, including provisions on disarmament, policing,
human rights, security normalization, status of prisoners, and
that a change in Northern Ireland's status could only come at
the consent of a majority of its people voting in a referendum.
As we all know, however, decades of animosity and violence are
sometimes difficult to overcome. Peace has not come easily for
the people of Northern Ireland.
Full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement has at
times been problematic and difficult, with the newly created
devolved government being suspended on four different
occasions, most recently in October 2002, before finally being
restored to its current state in May 2007 by the St. Andrews
Agreement. The United States shares a common interest with the
events taking place in Northern Ireland. According to the U.S.
Census, there are currently an estimated 34.5 million Americans
that can trace their ancestry back to Ireland. I happen to be
one of them.
The Secretary of State visited Northern Ireland's Stormont
Assembly recently, drawing international attention to the
standoff between Catholic and Protestant leaders over the
transfer of police and court authority from London to Belfast,
and I want to note and applaud these discussions currently
underway and hope that a conclusion is reached in a way that
satisfies both sides, and most importantly, does justice. With
the peace process moving forward, I have been asked, why hold a
hearing on events that took place in the past?
Well, my answer is simple. I believe that a key factor in
this peace process actually lies with the unsolved murders that
occurred during the Troubles. Bringing them to the attention of
the American people once more and seeking a public
investigation will surely stir old emotions, but I believe it
will go far in creating a lasting peace and genuine
reconciliation. So that is why we are here today. I want to
focus specifically on the misuse of informants and whether the
steps that have been taken by authorities in recent years will
help restore the trust and confidence to a group of people that
have had to endure far too many years of heartache and loss.
Old wounds can be difficult to heal, and they often
highlight the failings of government or law enforcement
authorities. The greatest tragedy is the one that can be
prevented. Here in the United States, there has been
considerable controversy focused on the Boston office of the
FBI and its relationship and supervision of informants. I know
that story well, having been the district attorney or the
state's attorney in the metropolitan Boston area for some 22
years.
Verdicts in the tens of millions of dollars have been
awarded against the government because of murders by informants
that could have been avoided. Today we highlight two specific
cases. On February 12, 1989, Patrick Finucane was shot multiple
times in his kitchen in front of his wife and children, and on
November 9, 1997, Raymond McCord, Jr., was kicked and beaten to
death with a cinder block. We are indeed fortunate to have
their family members here today with us to testify regarding
the circumstances surrounding their deaths. And let me offer my
condolences and that of the United States Congress to both
families for your losses.
A number of reports have examined the issue of state
collusion in criminal activities in Northern Ireland, such as
the retired judge, Canadian Judge Cory report and the Lord
Stevens inquiries. In a moment we will hear from the former
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Ms. O'Loan, whose
report, Operation Ballast, exposed the crimes of an informant
for the RUC, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which included ten
murders, ten attempted murders, and numerous assaults and
weapons charges, all while being a paid informant collecting
over 80,000 British pounds, or $120,000 American, over the
course of more than a decade.
Furthermore, it was particularly distressing that the
Police Ombudsman faced countless obstacles while carrying out
her investigation, including missing and destroyed homicide
files and decision logs, as well as resistance to her interview
requests. Retired Judge Cory said in his report, and I am
quoting Judge Cory:
``Without public scrutiny, doubts based solely on myth
and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their
malignant infection throughout the Northern Ireland
community.''
Without allowing the people of Northern Ireland to fully
understand and come to terms with the past, how can the
government expect them to move forward? To address these
concerns, the Government of the United Kingdom passed the
Inquiries Act of 2005. This was designed to provide a framework
under which future inquiries set up by ministers into events
that have caused or have potential to cause public concern can
operate effectively to deliver valuable and practicable
recommendations in reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.
Yet, respected voices expressed concern almost immediately.
Amnesty International asked members of the British judiciary
not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act, and Judge
Cory--again, I am quoting Judge Cory--had this to say:
``It seems to me that the proposed new Act would make
a meaningful inquiry impossible. The commissions would
be working in an impossible situation. For example, the
minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be
reviewed by the public inquiry, would have the
authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every
step.'' deg.
``It really creates an intolerable Alice in
Wonderland situation. There have been references in the
press to an international judicial membership in the
inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would
advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in
light of the impossible situation they would be facing.
In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting
Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry
constituted under the proposed Act.''
Certainly not a ringing endorsement, and I know both the
Finucane and McCord families have their concerns with this Act.
In a democratic society, only a full and transparent
investigation of unsolved murders and inquiries into police
collusion should take place, or the authorities risk losing the
trust and confidence of the people. In a healthy democracy, the
integrity of the justice system is absolutely essential, or
democracy itself is at risk.
Today we look forward to the testimony that will be given
to this subcommittee as we weigh what, if any, actions Congress
should take. And now, let me turn to my friend from New Jersey,
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I want to thank my good friend and colleague
Chairman Delahunt, first of all, for convening this important
and timely hearing and briefing on what remains unfinished and
unresolved. There is no statute of limitations on murder, and I
appreciate the chairman for convening this hearing and bringing
this committee together to focus on these unresolved cases that
absolutely must be resolved. I also want to welcome, a special
welcome to our witnesses, or rather, welcome back, to Baroness
O'Loan, Jane Winter, and welcome to John Finucane and Raymond
McCord, and to everyone joining us this morning, including some
of the real long-time advocates for peace, justice and
reconciliation in Northern Ireland, including Jim McFarland,
Michael Glass, Sean Pender, Malachy McAllister, and Father Sean
McManus, among others who are here today and who have been
steadfast in promoting justice and peace and reconciliation in
Northern Ireland.
Since April 1998, Mr. Chairman, much progress has been made
toward full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and
the policing reforms promoted by the Agreement have made an
enormous impact in advancing peace and justice in the North of
Ireland. Mr. Chairman, as you know, between 1997 and 2006, I
chaired the first ever and a total of 11 hearings on human
rights and the peace process in Northern Ireland. Each of those
hearings focused in whole or in part on what we consider to be
the lynchpin of a lasting peace in the North: Real and
sustainable police reform.
One of the messages we heard most consistently at those
hearings was that, in order to endure, the peace process
required a police force that both sides could have confidence
in, and this would require accountability for past crimes as
well as for the security forces' collusion with paramilitary
groups. We heard this message from human rights organizations
across the board, including Jane Winter of British Irish Rights
Watch, but also from Baroness O'Loan and from John Finucane's
courageous and gracious mother, Geraldine Finucane, from his
brother, Michael Finucane, who is also here today, and from
Param Cumaraswamy, the U.N. Special Rapporteur, from retired
Canadian Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory, who investigated the
possibility of collusion at the request of the Irish and the
British Governments, and we heard the message most tragically
and poignantly from Rosemary Nelson, human rights attorney who
testified here in this very room about death threats she had
received from RUC officers. She did that just 6 months before
she was assassinated.
All expressed that to move forward with confidence and in
peace, there was a need to hold to account human rights abusers
in the security forces. The wisdom of this message has been
proven by events since 1998. The reform of the Royal Ulster
Constabulary into the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with
new badges and uniforms and a culture more hospitable to
Catholic officers, has been a success, yet there are many,
especially in the British Government, who think reform can stop
there, that it doesn't require full honesty about and
accountability for security services' collusion with
paramilitary killers.
I disagree. In fact, it was in this room 10 years ago that
I and other members implored the Right Honorable Christopher
Patten, Chairman of the Independent Commission on Policing for
Northern Ireland, to work to ensure that his groundbreaking
report, entitled ``A New Beginning: Policing in Northern
Ireland,'' be just that, a beginning. The report mandated by
the Good Friday Agreement needed to be a floor, not a ceiling,
for systemic reform in law enforcement systems in Northern
Ireland.
I expressed disappointment at the time that the police
reforms did not include a ``vetting process'' for the so-called
bad apples, as he called them, because I believe, as so many
human rights activists do, that if people who have committed
egregious abuse in the past are in the same jobs or work up in
the chain of command and are never held to account, then your
reform is only as good as your weakest link. My opinion about
the vetting process and holding people to account is no
different today.
Thus, I remain extremely disappointed that our friends in
the British Government refuse to see the benefit of getting to
the truth about serious allegations of collusion. We see this
refusal, this blind spot, if you will, and the shocking refusal
to live up to the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent
Weston Park Agreement, which requires a public judicial inquiry
into the death of Patrick Finucane. We also see it in their
refusal to make public previous government reports about Pat
Finucane's murder and in the 2005 passage of the Inquiries Act,
designed to restrict real, public and transparent investigation
into the widespread allegations of collusion.
It has taken enormous courage by a dedicated few to
consistently follow the trail of collusion and fight for human
rights of the victims and their surviving family members. For 9
years, the fiercely independent Police Ombudsman for Northern
Ireland, Baroness Nuala O'Loan, worked at great risk to her own
security and that of her family. She always showed the utmost
integrity and gave people on both sides of the divide the
confidence to move forward with the policing aspects of the
Good Friday Agreement.
Likewise, Jane Winter, the heroic British director of
British Irish Rights Watch, has taken great risks to offer her
services to anyone of either community whose rights have been
violated. The Finucane and the McCord families have already
been devastated by killers enabled by colluding officials, and
they bear risks in taking up the defense of human rights. So
Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by applauding our witnesses'
contribution to police reform, as it is at the heart of
sustained police and peace in Northern Ireland.
They have provided guidance and insight to our Government
and to this Congress, including to my bill and subsequent laws
that suspended U.S. exchanges with the RUC until standards were
set to vet out officers engaged in human rights abuses. Our
witnesses have also provided great insights to officials in
Northern Ireland, as well as successive Irish and British
Governments. Without their wisdom and courage, I doubt police
reform would have succeeded as well as it has, and I am eager
to hear what we can do next to keep the reform and the peace
process moving.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Chris, and I want to acknowledge,
we have been joined by two colleagues, Mary Jo Kilroy from Ohio
and Mike McMahon from New York, and it is my understanding that
Congresswoman Kilroy would like to make a statement, so please
proceed, and then we will introduce the Baroness and listen to
her testimony during the course of the briefing.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I don't
ordinarily sit on this committee and will have to return to the
committee that I do sit on because we will have votes in about
20 minutes, but I did want to thank you for your leadership in
this issue and for holding this hearing. I want to thank all of
the witnesses who have traveled here to present their
testimony. I, as my colleagues have done, want to thank you and
applaud you for your leadership and your advocacy.
I also want to offer my condolences to the families who
have lost their members through this kind of assassination and
murder. I think it is critically important in order to achieve
peace and justice and reconciliation that the truth of these
killings be made public and that we get all of the facts out
through independent and public judicial inquiries. I had the
great pleasure of meeting Patrick Finucane on one of his tours
in this country, and he was there to tell lawyers in the
American legal system about what was going on in the legal
system in the North of Ireland at that time, to bring out the
importance of due process and openness in the court system.
His assassination obviously was a huge blow to his family,
but it was also a huge blow to the right to free speech. It was
also a huge blow to the establishment of an independent
judicial system and the right to counsel. It is very important
that the facts of his assassination and that of Mr. McCord be
made fully public, and I congratulate you for your work on
doing that and thank again the chairman for his leadership, and
I yield back.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I understand
our friend and colleague from New York wishes to make a brief
opening statement. Mike McMahon?
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will, to get the
proceeding going, I will submit a lengthier statement for the
record. I just want to commend you for holding this very
important hearing, certainly for me as an Irish-American, but
also for my district, where just this past weekend we hosted
Foreign Minister Michael Martin and Ambassador Michael Collins
as we dedicated bones of Irish immigrants from the 1850s that
had been found in a mass grave in Staten Island.
So the Irish experience, of course, is very important for
me as it relates to this country, but also in Ireland as well.
I had the privilege of being in Ireland in 2007 as part of a
city delegation that met with Ian Paisley as he just was going
to announce that he would move forward with the Good Friday
Accords, and like many in this room, I am very concerned about
the allegations of collusion and what it has meant to these two
families, the loss of their loved ones, and so I join together
with you, Mr. Chairman, committed to seeing that justice is
provided in this case and that we get to a day where our hopes
and aspirations for peace in Ireland are realized. Thank you.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Congressman.
[Briefing off the record.]
Mr. Delahunt. Why don't we call forward our panel, Ms.
Winter, Mr. McCord, Mr. Finucane? And let me give a brief
introduction of each of these witnesses, and before I forget,
we are now convening a hearing.
Raymond McCord, Sr., was born in Belfast. He is a
Protestant from a strong Unionist family. He and his wife
Vivienne had three sons, the late Raymond, Jr., plus Gareth and
Glenn. When his son Raymond, Jr., was murdered in 1997, he
embarked on a long quest for the truth, which led directly to
the O'Loan Report, Operation Ballast 2007. He is a pipe fitter
and a welder by trade and it has been my pleasure to have an
opportunity to spend some time with Mr. McCord. Welcome.
And Mr. Finucane. At 29 years old, John is the youngest son
of Patrick Finucane, a human rights lawyer from Belfast who was
murdered in 1989. He is a qualified solicitor practicing in
Belfast and specializes in criminal defense work, having
obtained a law degree in 2002 from Dundee Law School in
Scotland. He is currently on the roll of solicitors in Northern
Ireland, England and Wales. He has worked on a range of cases,
mainly within criminal defense, but also coroner's inquests and
police ombudsman investigations. All have included contentious
and high-profile work, including the ongoing shoot-to-kill
inquests from the 1980s, and historical, politically sensitive
actions against the police.
Jane Winter has been monitoring and researching the human
rights dimension of the conflict in Northern Ireland since
1990. Since 1995, she has been the director of British Irish
Rights Watch, an independent human rights non-governmental
organization whose services are available free of charge to
anyone whose human rights have been violated because of the
conflict, regardless of religious, political or community
affiliations. She has received numerous awards and commands
great respect within the United Kingdom and here in the United
States.
Welcome all, and let us begin with Mr. McCord.
STATEMENT OF MR. RAYMOND MCCORD, SR., BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. McCord. Mr. Chairman and members, I am most grateful
for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. I
request my written statement be entered into the record. I see
this hearing as a lifeline that has been thrown to me and my
family. I cannot help but be struck by the difference between
the way I have been treated by Members of Congress and the way
Unionist Protestant politicians have treated me. In 2008, when
there was a vote taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly on my
son's case, a majority of the Unionist politicians walked out.
You can therefore see just what your support means to me. I
look to the United States Congress as my last hope of getting
justice for my son. He was brutally murdered in 1997 near
Belfast. The killers belonged to a Protestant paramilitary
group, the Ulster Volunteer Force. The man who gave the orders
to kill my son is Mark Haddock. He was a long-time paid British
Government agent, police informer and serial killer, as the
Police Ombudsman's report of 2007 established.
For nearly 10 years, I have campaigned for justice for my
son and for those years the British Government, my government,
that is, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, my police,
have blocked and stonewalled me. They have colluded and are
still colluding with the killers of my son and many other
victims. I really want to emphasize to the subcommittee that my
son's case is not about police corruption. It is about police
and state collusion with murder.
The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 promised a new beginning
to policing. My family and I have experienced no new beginning.
We have only experienced cover-ups, lies and threats.
Throughout the key period, the police were controlled by Ronnie
Flanagan, the former head of the Special Branch and chief
constable from 1996 to 2002. However, I do recognize there are
many fine individual cops in Northern Ireland who weren't
allowed to do their job.
Sir Hugh Orde, who until very recently was chief constable,
was seen as bringing a new attitude to policing, but even he
retained Mark Haddock as a paid agent for 15 months after it
was established that Haddock had been involved in many murders.
Not long after Raymond's murder, as I began campaigning for
justice, the UVF on one night covered the walls on Protestant
houses near my home with the following message: ``Daddy
Raymond, which son next, Gareth or Glenn? Your choice.''
Hours earlier, they had smashed Raymond's headstone with
hammers, one of three such attacks. Even though the names of
the perpetrators were given to the police, I was the one who
was arrested and put in a police cell to shut me up. It was one
of many times the police arrested me for no reason other than
to try to silence me. The continuing campaign of intimidation
and death threats against my family and me is not random.
It is controlled and organized and the perpetrators are
known because the police and British intelligence have totally
penetrated the UVF. The Ombudsman's report too has established
this. In May 2009, the Irish National Caucus sponsored my visit
to Capitol Hill. While here, the Northern Ireland Bureau in
Washington arranged for me to visit the British Embassy to
speak with Nic Hailey, the spokesman for justice and policing
in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hailey never answered one question, never offered any
explanation, and never uttered the slightest hope that I might
get justice for my son. Why is there such a conspiracy of
silence surrounding Raymond's murder? My son was an innocent
22-year-old, a loving son and brother. He was not a threat to
any person or state. Why has Mark Haddock had so much
influence? How can he so shamefully blackmail the British
Government and their security forces?
What and who gives this murderer so much power? The answer
is collusion. It effectively gives killers the power to control
their government. Haddock's first murder was in 1993, which he
admitted to two RUC detectives a day after the murder, but
instead of being arrested, he was given money to go on a
foreign holiday and continued to work as an agent and killer
for another 10 years or more. There are questions which are
central to my son's case, and which the British Embassy refused
to answer.
Why has no one been charged with Raymond's murder? Why was
Haddock allowed to kill for so long and get paid for it? Why no
action against present or former RUC/PSNI officers who refused
to be interviewed or to cooperate with the Ombudsman's
investigation? Why were police officers allowed to get away
with admitting to coaching and babysitting suspects in sham
interviews to ensure the suspects would not admit to murder?
Police officers even got away with admitting they handed
over a bomb to Haddock that was used in the Irish Republic. A
democratic society requires that the police must not be above
the law, rather, they must uphold it and be seen to do so, yet
my son's case clearly demonstrates that in Northern Ireland,
some police officers and their agents can literally get away
with murder. This is not only collusion, but also collusion
sanctioned from the very top.
It is not about the corruption of a few bad apples. What
does it do to Northern Ireland's society when the government
pays serial killers? What does it do to the policing system
when killers are given a wage increase of 60% after they commit
their first murder? That is what happened with Mark Haddock
when he murdered Sharon McKenna in 1993. This is the shocking
collusion I have been battling against for 12 lonely years, but
now it is my hope that with the help of the U.S. Congress, my
son will at last be given justice and a great wrong will be
righted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, from the bottom of my
heart. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCord
follows:]Raymond McCord deg.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. McCord, for that very moving
and poignant testimony. I think we all, those of us who are
parents, can empathize with the pain and the desire for
justice, not for revenge, but just for simple justice that you
are seeking.
Mr. Finucane?
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN FINUCANE, BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Finucane. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my
fellow speakers, ladies and gentlemen, my name is John
Finucane. My father was Patrick Finucane, the Belfast solicitor
murdered by lawless paramilitaries in 1989. My family and I
have campaigned since his murder for a fully independent
judicial public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the
killing. We have done so because of compelling evidence that my
father's murder was part of an approved British Government
policy of widespread collusion between the state and Loyalist
paramilitaries, which incorporated state complicity in all
types of illegal activity, up to and including murder.
The campaign my family and I have conducted for the
establishment of a public judicial inquiry into my father's
murder has lasted for over 20 years. We have had only one
objective from the outset, to discover and uncover the truth
behind my father's murder. On the very night my father was shot
dead, the 12th of February, 1989, my family knew the
authorities were involved in some way, but we didn't know the
details.
We did know that my father had been subjected to constant
threats from police officers during his professional career,
threats that were never made to his face but rather to his
clients while they were interrogated in the absence of their
lawyer. Derogatory comments quickly escalated into threats.
Threats quickly escalated into death threats, all of which came
from the police. Less than 3 weeks before he was killed, a
government minister, Douglas Hogg, MP, made a statement in the
British Parliament that marked Pat and other solicitors for
murder.
He said, ``I have to state that there are in Northern
Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to
the cause of the IRA.'' This comment was shocking and
provocative at the time, but what was to prove even more
sinister was its foundation. Hogg said at the time that he
based his statement on ``advice that he had received,'' He did
not reveal from whom, and it was later revealed, however, that
he had been told this by police in a private briefing the year
before.
Over many years, my family and I persisted in seeking all
of the facts surrounding my father's murder. This followed much
investigation, lobbying, speaking out at every opportunity, and
no little personal risk. My mother was forced to move from her
home for several months as a result of death threats from
Loyalist paramilitaries. Others have been attacked just for
being part of the Finucane family. Even so, we have persisted.
After much delay, the British Government was eventually
forced to announce in 2001 that a judge of international
standing would review our case and recommend a public inquiry
if evidence of collusion was found. This was included as part
of a larger intergovernmental agreement made between Britain
and Ireland as part of the peace negotiations. The judge
appointed was Peter Cory, former Justice of the Supreme Court
of Canada.
My family was not involved in the negotiations that led to
the agreement. We did not feel that further examination was
required to prove our case. We did not doubt the credibility or
integrity of Judge Cory. We believed that this was simply a
delaying tactic by the British Government. However, Judge Cory
did ultimately conclude that evidence of collusion existed, and
recommended a public inquiry in our case.
In his final report, he said, ``The documents and
statements I have referred to in this review have a cumulative
effect. Considered together, they clearly indicate to me that
there is strong evidence that collusive acts were committed by
the British Army, the RUC Special Branch and the Security
Service. I am satisfied that there is a need for a public
inquiry.'' When his report was published, something that was
delayed for some time by the British Government, Judge Cory
stated that any appointed commission should have all powers
normally associated with a commission of inquiry.
The most important power is that a commission decides
itself what matters should be considered and what should be
made public. However, after the publication of the Cory Report,
the British Government announced that a new law was required.
The British Secretary of State at the time, Paul Murphy, said
on September 23, 2004:
``The government has taken into account the
exceptional concern about this case. Against that
background, the government has concluded that steps
should now be taken to enable the establishment of an
inquiry into the death of Patrick
Finucane.'' deg.
``In order that the inquiry can take place speedily
and effectively and in a way that takes into account
the public interest, including the requirements of
national security, it will be necessary to hold the
inquiry on the basis of new legislation, which will be
introduced shortly.''
And he later explained that this was necessary because ``much
of the material that would have to be examined in this inquiry
is highly sensitive to national security
issues.'' deg. `` deg.For example, many of
the operational techniques that would be discussed in the
inquiry would be used currently in the War Against Terror, for
instance.'' And these operational techniques that he referred
to were analyzed further in a different investigation into my
father's murder. It was carried out by the former Commissioner
for the London Metropolitan Police, Lord John Stevens, and the
techniques in question were confirmed to be collusion.
Lord Stevens summarized them in this way, and I again
repeat what another witness, Nuala O'Loan, has already referred
to:
``My inquiries have highlighted collusion. The willful
failure to keep records, the absence of accountability,
the withholding of intelligence and evidence, and the
extreme of agents being involved in murder. These
serious acts and omissions have meant that people have
been killed or seriously injured.''
This is not the only report written about the murder of my
father. The case is being examined by dozens of organizations
and individuals of international repute, and all have concluded
that the evidence in the case demands an independent public
inquiry. One series of reports was prepared by Human Rights
First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and
charts the progress of the case for an inquiry into the murder
of Patrick Finucane over an entire decade from an international
perspective.
It is illustrative because it demonstrates the extent to
which the case has grown in strength over the years, and
highlights the determination of the British Government to
suppress the truth. The original examination of the case by
Human Rights First took place in 1992 with a delegation led by
Dr. Michael Posner. Subsequent reports were published in 1995
and 2003, and with each new assessment, more information was
uncovered and made public.
The first report found ``credible evidence that Finucane's
effective legal advocacy and politically sensitive cases
resulted in his harassment and ultimately led to his killing.
We also find credible evidence suggesting collusion between
elements within the security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries
and Finucane's murder.'' The report continued:
``There is also evidence pointing to the involvement of
the RUC in the form of knowing acquiescence or perhaps
even instigation. Two independent sources told us that
the RUC had a double agent in the Ulster Defense
Association. According to these sources, the double
agent informed the RUC that Finucane was a target,
assuming they would prevent the murder from taking
place.''
The deputy chief constable of the RUC at the time, Michael
McAtamney, wrote to the Lawyers Committee complaining about the
contents of the report. In a letter dated the 25th of January,
1993, he said:
``The shortcomings of the report are such as to lead me
to the conclusion that it does not merit detailed
comment, and in its present form is not capable of
being constructively amended. Among its many defects,
there is a repetition of unsubstantiated allegations,
as if these constituted evidence of security forces or
official misconduct. One is left with the distinct
impression of a mass of allegations resting on a
limited, unrepresentative base of sources.''
The Northern Ireland office gave a similar response. In
particular, it rejected any allegation made about the possible
involvement of the RUC:
``We particularly believe that the report, especially
in the section on Mr. Finucane's murder, is unfair to
the security forces, and especially the Royal Ulster
Constabulary. Unsubstantiated allegations are no
substitute for evidence, particularly in view of the
very serious charges you lay at the RUC's door.''
This is, and was, typical of official reaction to the
allegations being leveled at the police and the security
forces. It is almost surreal to look back at these comments in
light of what we know today, namely, that all of the
allegations were true, but denied as false and malicious. Ten
years after they released the first report, Human Rights First
published an up-to-date document entitled ``Beyond Collusion,''
a collection of information gathered by many people over the
intervening years.
The report is introduced with the following statement:
``Over the last 10 years, the Lawyers Committee has
conducted a series of missions to Northern Ireland to
investigate reports of official collusion in the
murder. The evidence that has emerged over this period
extends far beyond isolated acts of collusion by
individual members of the security forces, and
implicates the very foundations of the British
Government's security policy in Northern Ireland. There
are many allegations that units within both the British
Army and the RUC were involved at an institutional
level in the murder and subsequent cover-up.''
Recent correspondence between the British Government's
Northern Ireland office and my family via our legal team
underscores a continued policy of delay. I wish to place copies
of this correspondence on the record of this hearing, and ask
that they be read into the record. I believe they show a lack
of any real commitment on the part of the British Government to
fulfill its agreement to hold an inquiry. One excuse after
another is presented.
In a letter from February 2006, the British Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, explained that we were
wrong about the British Government's intentions. He wrote to us
saying, ``It is simply not the case that the Inquiries Act is
the British Government's way of changing the rules for this
inquiry. The Act was a general reform measure introduced
following a 3-month consultation exercise in 2004 and a study
carried out in 2002.''
He went on to explain the necessity for restricting
information was because, and I again quote from this letter,
``the volume of sensitive material is far too great. It is
likely that any inquiry into your husband's death will want to
examine all the potentially relevant information held within
government and the law enforcement agencies, and all the
evidence collected by the different investigations carried out
so far.''
In Autumn 2006, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State
Peter Hain decided to cease work on preparations for the
inquiry, and we were first told of this in a letter from the
Northern Ireland office 1\1/2\ years after he had made his
decision. He decided to stop work because, ``in light of the
Finucane family's continuing opposition, it was no longer
justifiable to continue to devote public money to preparations
for an inquiry which the family would refuse to accept under
the terms of the Inquiries Act.''
Correspondence received during the intervening period made
no mention of Mr. Hain's decision. We have since been
discussing with the British Government how and when they
propose to complete preparations for the inquiry, and also how
we will resolve the issues of transparency and independence.
This has not been easy. The current Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland, Shaun Woodward, has been reluctant to discuss
ways of moving the situation forward or even meet with my
family.
In a letter to mother Geraldine shortly after he assumed
his post in Northern Ireland, he dismissed the idea that a
meeting to discuss the inquiry could be beneficial, and he
wrote:
``You met Peter Hain in February 2006, and he
subsequently wrote to you responding in detail to the
concerns you raised. I have considered carefully all
the points previously made, and I share my
predecessor's view that an inquiry under the Inquiries
Act would be independent.'' deg.
``Against that background, it is not clear to me that
a further meeting is likely to expose new points which
have not been identified previously. If that assumption
is mistaken, please let me know, and in those
circumstances, I will ensure that we meet.''
Mr. Woodward did not mention in his letter that in the
meantime, no further work would be done on the inquiry. As I
stated earlier, this was not revealed until April 2008.
To date, the Secretary of State has not met with my family.
It is only recently that they have conceded even a meeting
between our respective legal advisors. The commitment to hold
an inquiry has been postponed and delayed as much as possible
using every possible excuse. The inquiry was even diverted into
the work of the consultative group in the past, which was
entirely unnecessary, since the group was tasked with searching
for mechanisms to address the legacy of the conflict, and the
mechanism for resolving our case has been decided already by
the two governments.
The inclusion of our case by the consultative group was not
a development that my family welcomed, and we met with the
group to express our concerns. It is disappointing that they
did not respect our wishes in their final report, as we have no
wish to become part of any overall truth commission forum.
Perhaps most weighing of all is the suggestion by the British
Government in their most recent correspondence that an inquiry
should not now be held at all, in the public interest.
They claim that the passage of time since the murder has
rendered it of little relevance to the issues faced by Northern
Ireland today. The fact that it is the government that has
caused the lion's share of delay appears to count for very
little. Much of the delay was occasioned by the insistence of
the British Government that a new law to control inquiries was
required. They asserted that any inquiry would be capable of
getting to the truth by using this new legislation, but it is
an assertion that does not stand up to scrutiny.
The Inquiries Act 2005 prevents any inquiry from acting
independently. It forces the tribunal, no matter how
independent----
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Finucane?
Mr. Finucane. Yes?
Mr. Delahunt. Could you suspend for a minute, because we
are going to have a series of votes that will probably require
about 40 minutes, so I am going to ask Ms. Winter if you will
all bear with us, but before we leave to vote, and again, my
apologies, but this is what happens in this body, could you
wrap up your testimony so that when we come back we can have
Ms. Winter commence hers?
Mr. Finucane. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
finish by reminding Mr. Chairman and everyone here today that
these houses of Congress have also endorsed the prompt holding
of a public inquiry in accordance with the intergovernmental
agreement. This was contained in H.R. 740, passed by this House
on the 18th of May, 2006. An identical term was passed by the
Senate on the 24th of May, 2006, and the thing that I want to
know most of all is that I want to know the truth about my
father's murder.
I want to know who was responsible. I want to know why no
one warned him he was in danger, and I want to know why he
wasn't protected. I want to know who covered it up. My brother
Michael, who is here with me today, wants the same thing, as
does our mother Geraldine and our sister Catherine. All of my
family and my friends and my father's friends want this. If the
British Government is serious about resolving the situation in
Northern Ireland for good and building a lasting peace, then
all we ask is this one simple thing.
They cannot give me back my father, but the least they can
do is tell me the truth. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Finucane
follows:]John Finucane deg.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Finucane, and before we
recess, I want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Engel from
New York, and I hope he can rejoin us when we return, although
I know all members have a very frenetic schedule, so we shall
come back and we will look forward to hearing from Ms. Winter.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Delahunt. I understand that there are some time
constraints, so Mr. Smith, if you would come up here. If Ms.
Winter would come to the table, and if you could proceed, Ms.
Winter, give us a brief synopsis of your testimony, I know that
you have a, is it a 1:15 plane or a train, or. . .?
Ms. Winter. It is a 2 p.m. train.
Mr. Delahunt. A 2-p.m. train.
Ms. Winter. Yes.
Mr. Delahunt. Give it to us in 3 or 4 minutes, and I
understand Mr. Finucane also has that time frame, so we want to
get you out.
Ms. Winter. Thank you very much.
Mr. Delahunt. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MS. JANE WINTER, DIRECTOR, BRITISH IRISH RIGHTS
WATCH
Ms. Winter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this
honorable subcommittee for the opportunity to give evidence
before you today. This is a summary of the longer written
submission which I request be read into the record.
Mr. Delahunt. Without objection.
Ms. Winter. We have been studying collusion in Northern
Ireland ever since our inception in 1990, and the first case
that we examined was that of Patrick Finucane, and of course we
have also worked on Raymond McCord's case since then, and many,
many others. Indeed, until very recently, it was the NGOs who
were systematically researching and exposing collusion in
Northern Ireland. Collusion is a very difficult thing to
measure because it is illegal and clandestine.
No one knows its true extent, but all the work on collusion
throws up patterns of behavior which suggest that it has become
systemic. It is significant that the Consultative Group on the
Past set up by the government to look at how Northern Ireland
can deal with its very troubled legacy and move forward into a
better future cited collusion as an issue that must be
examined. At first, successive governments denied that
collusion existed, but today it is widely accepted that it has
taken place, partly thanks to the groundbreaking report issued
by Baroness Nuala O'Loan following her investigation into the
death of Raymond McCord, Jr., and to the work done by Lord
Stevens in the Finucane case.
There are currently three inquiries taking place in
Northern Ireland into alleged collusion. These are the cases of
Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright, and I think
that speaks for itself in terms of the fact that collusion is
now recognized as a genuine problem. What concerns the BIRW is
that, as Nuala O'Loan and Lord Stevens' work has shown, these
were not exceptional cases. They have simply become emblematic
of collusion, which has permeated policing and in particular
the intelligence services in Northern Ireland from the early
1970s to the present day.
Collusion has become, if you like, mainstreamed. A key
feature of collusion has been the suppression of reports into
contentious deaths in Northern Ireland, most notably, the
reports of the Stalker/Sampson inquiry and the three reports
produced by Lord Stevens. The intelligence services in Northern
Ireland have been heavily dependent upon recruiting informers
amongst the paramilitary organizations, both Republican and
Loyalist.
Loyalists regarded themselves in many ways as being on the
same side as the security forces, and many of them were prime
intelligence sources for the security forces. In this sense,
they were double agents. However, the duality of their role
made them difficult to control from the point of view of the
intelligence services, as we have heard in the case of Mark
Haddock from Raymond McCord. Republicans have not seen
themselves as being on the same side as the intelligence
services, so different methods have been used to recruit them,
mainly involving deals and bribery.
Most nations have some form of intelligence service. There
can be no doubt that intelligence is necessary to combat the
many scourges that beset modern society, including terrorism,
organized crime, people trafficking, and the drugs trade.
However, intelligence has only two legitimate aims: The
prevention and the detection of crime. Most unfortunately, in
Northern Ireland, it has become apparent that gathering of
intelligence for its own sake----
[The prepared statement of Ms. Winter
follows:]Jane Winter deg.
Mr. Delahunt. If I can interrupt you, I thought what was
fascinating, and I knew you were here listening to the
Baroness' testimony, she related that one anecdote about the
stopping of a motor vehicle based on informant information, and
yet, the three individuals in the vehicle were all informants.
That is truly an Alice in Wonderland vision, if you will, where
up is down and down is up, and if we are going to do something
about crime, maybe if all of the informants were prosecuted and
incarcerated, we would see a dramatic reduction in crime.
Ms. Winter. We would, but I think the difficulty there
would be that many of them could say that they had been
coerced, that they had been put under pressure, on them or on
their family, and that they were in an impossible position, and
it is not simply an issue of those who act as informants. It is
those who recruit them and those who handle them and mishandle
them.
Mr. Delahunt. Right. You know, let me--we talk about
collusion, but I think there is something more fundamental, and
let me put this out to all of you, but let me direct it first
to Ms. Winter. Obviously, it is difficult to determine whether
collusion has occurred, because as you said, we are operating
in a clandestine world, but the predicate to determining the
truth has to be information. All too often in this country now,
there is, in my judgment, a classification system that has no
basis in reality.
I know I have attended classified briefings, and in my
opinion and in my judgment, they ought never to have been
classified. I guess what I am looking for--and what occurred
recently was, and I was surprised, to be honest with you, that
the Obama Justice Department continued to press the British
Government not to reveal certain information in a case that was
being pursued in British courts, and the British Government
would not release that particular information.
I have grave concerns about the functioning of democracy
with a continued over-reliance, without compromising national
security, on classification. How do we ever get to the point
where the truth of the murder of John Finucane's father and
Raymond McCord's son ever come to light if we continue to say,
we can't, that is a state secret, that implicates national
security, and when we review these records decades later, we
discover, that was an inaccurate assessment?
That information has to be made public, in my judgment, if
we are going to continue to maintain faith of the American
people and the people in Ireland and Britain and Wales in terms
of the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Ms. Winter. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and just to
give you an anecdotal example, in Judge Cory's report about
Rosemary Nelson, I myself was mentioned, but the government saw
fit to refer to me as Ms. D. Now, there was no secret about who
I was and I had no problem with being named in that report, but
that is a good example of that----
Mr. Delahunt. I mean, isn't it really absurd?
Ms. Winter. Yes.
Mr. Delahunt. I mean, we are here with, we have present
here two families that have endured a horrific loss, but this,
I daresay, is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. What else has
gone on that we are unaware of? What else has gone on? And for
democracy to be shielded from, or truth, if you will, to be
shielded by national security, there has to be some other
mechanism outside of intelligence agencies that reviews (A) the
classification issue, and whether it is truly a state secret,
or whether there are grounds for that information to be
revealed. We cannot continue, as the world's leading
democracies, to continue going in that trend.
Ms. Winter. I think that is where the role of lawyers is so
important. Certainly in the Finucane case, the lawyers for 19,
20 years now have been asking questions and refusing to accept
no for an answer, and a lot of information has come out. In the
case that you referred to about British and American
intelligence, it was the judiciary who said, this is not
information which should be classified, and we rely on their
independence to----
Mr. Delahunt. Right, but it doesn't get to the judiciary.
Ms. Winter. Not always, no, but I guess it is our job as
NGOs and lawyers to try and make sure that it does.
Mr. Delahunt. I guess what I am saying, Ms. Winter, is that
it ought not to be. It ought not to be.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just
say, we shouldn't be here today. The British Government made
solemn commitments which helped bring into bloom the Good
Friday Agreement at Weston Park. Those agreements have not been
lived up to, and I say that with great sadness. I would ask,
Mr. Chairman, that a letter that Congressman Neal and I sent to
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland last spring, this
past spring, be made a part of the record, as well as two other
pieces of correspondence, including an answer back from the
Right Honorable Shaun Woodward, in which he says, of Mr.
Finucane, he says, ``We are currently in correspondence with
their,'' your, ``legal advisors about the basis upon which an
inquiry would be established. We have offered to meet with
their legal team in the summer. Only once these discussions
with the family and their legal representatives have concluded
will we be in a position to take a decision about the way
forward.''
I am wondering if those meetings took place, why does it
seem so unclear to the British Government as to how they should
proceed? Judge Cory couldn't have been more clear. As he said
in his letter, and he said it repeatedly in testimony here in
Washington as well as elsewhere, that the 1921 Public Inquiry
Act is clearly what he had in mind in terms of the legal
framework in which the inquiry would ensue. He also made it
very clear, as did we, as did so many others, that as the
Inquiries Act was being considered by the House of Commons and
then eventually enacted into law, that we saw that there was a
cover-up in the making, and warned them that we thought that
this was being done in a way to give veto power over evidence,
over information that could be damning to certain people within
the British Government and within the RUC and elsewhere.
So, about those meetings, did they occur, or where are we
in terms of the inquiry, because it seems to me that there
seems to be a calculus being made on the part of leaders in the
British Government that if you delay this long enough, it will
somehow go away. And again, I want to thank Chairman Delahunt
for convening this hearing and making it absolutely clear that,
in a bipartisan way, this is not going away on this side of the
Atlantic.
I don't think it is going away in Northern Ireland either.
As we have seen with our own civil rights cases that date back
to Martin Luther King's days, there is no statute of
limitations on murder and on collusion, and as Nuala O'Loan
said, there is no crime of collusion, but there are crimes of
aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and other misconduct by police
or other officers who are in some kind of law enforcement or
government employment.
So first of all, Mr. Finucane, if you could answer those
questions, and----
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Finucane, before you respond, if the
gentleman would yield to me----
Mr. Smith. Sure.
Mr. Delahunt. I have been visited by members of the
Parliament, the British Parliament, about their concern about
the issues I just discussed regarding secrecy and state
secrets, and the fact that they share those concerns. It wasn't
specific to the Finucane case or the McCord case, but I detect
within the House of Commons a genuine concern about the free
flow of information to those who are members of Parliament and
who have oversight responsibility and who share our concern
about accountability, and Mr. Smith, maybe you and I or some of
our colleagues ought to consider contacting members of the
British Parliament, the House of Commons, and work in
conjunction in a collaborative effort to discuss, not just
these cases, but the mechanisms which I am sure could be agreed
to that would ensure that there is accountability among the
intelligence services, and I think I daresay that many in the
intelligence circles would welcome that clarity, because they
ought not to have to operate in this murky world where many of
them really are, I believe, unclear as to where the lines are
and what they will have to respond to.
It is just a suggestion and you can comment on that. Mr.
Finucane, feel free to respond now to Mr. Smith's question.
Mr. Finucane. Thank you.
You said at the start that we shouldn't be here, and I
agree with that, but if it is not too much of a contradiction,
I again thank the committee and the chairman for inviting me
here and I am glad to be here to address our concerns. In
relation to whether we have met with the British Government,
and by way, it would be our legal team, no, in short. That
meeting hasn't happened. It would be our conclusion, and I
believe it is reflected in the correspondence that has been put
into the record today that that has been as a result of a
deliberate policy of delay engaged on behalf of the British
Government.
There is due to be a meeting in November between the
British Government's legal advisors and our legal advisors, and
it is very much a meeting that we have pushed. Whilst we are
not happy with the Inquiries Act, we see no merit in standing
outside shouting and complaining about it. We want to be
involved in an inquiry that is credible and we have made steps
to engage with the British Government to see, is there any
common ground that we could possibly share to enable an inquiry
to get up and running, because delay does not suit my
interests, my family's interests, and I would respectfully
submit, the interests of this committee and the international
human rights community.
That meeting is due to take place in November, and if you
will allow me just to comment briefly as to why the meeting is
taking place, it is concerned primarily with what is called a
restriction notice, the power by which the Inquiries Act gives
a minister in the British Government the power to withhold
evidence, the power to have hearings held in private, and what
I would say in respect of the issue of national security, my
family does not wish to be reckless or immature with regard to
issues of national security, but to quote Justice Peter Cory,
who put it a lot more eloquently than I could, he stated that
legislation prior to the Inquiries Act was capable of dealing
with the security of the realm, as he put, quite sufficiently,
and what we want, we knew that we were only going to get one
shot at an inquiry and we want that to be a credible shot.
We don't want to go into an inquiry knowing that it is not
going to get to the truth and then complain about it at the
end. What we want is a level playing field whereby, if there is
an issue, perhaps dealing with national security, if that does
come up, then it is the inquiry itself, it is the panel of
judges itself who makes that decision. We may not like the
decision. The British Government's lawyers will make their
representations, we would make our representations, but we have
to have trust and faith in the inquiry as it is constituted.
The way it stands currently is that even if the inquiry
itself would agree with our representations, the British
Government would have the ultimate control, and that is what we
are attempting to negotiate with the British Government at
present, but it is a frustration that that hasn't happened as
yet. I was also very encouraged by the opening remarks by, I
think, everybody, to be fair, in the committee, and that is
that I think a democracy and society is greatly undermined, and
I echo your concerns, Mr. Chairman, if these matters are shied
away from, and it is unfortunate that presently within Northern
Ireland there remains elements who wish to capitalize upon any
aspect of insecurity that still exists in our society.
I believe shying away from dealing with these matters only
adds to that insecurity and I don't think would assist or lead
toward the building of a very concrete and lasting peace. I
think it is a difficult issue. There is no shying away from
that, but I think it is an issue that must be met, and I would
also ask that this committee keeps up its work and keeps the
focus and the pressure on this issue. There may or there may
not be a change of government in the United Kingdom in the near
future.
My father's murder took place under a Conservative
government. We would allege that the cover-up is continued, you
know, in a bipartisan fashion, whether it is Conservative or
Labor, but we would certainly not be optimistic that a
Conservative government would have any appetite toward looking
at these matters, as they would probably say it is a matter
that is probably best left in the past, and I would again
encourage all of you who are here today to not allow them to
say that.
Mr. Delahunt. Let me interrupt, because what I found
fascinating, Mr. Finucane, are those MPs that have visited with
me are Conservative, and clearly, my politics tend to go in
another direction, and yet, the most outspoken critics of
secrecy, if you will, in government, at least those that I have
dealt with, are Conservative members of the House of Commons,
which I found rather ironic and surprising.
Mr. Smith. You know, let me just comment briefly that I
actually brought up a resolution at the OSCE, the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, about defense attorneys
and the protection of defense attorneys, that you put sandbags
around those men and women who defend, even if it is not
``politically correct.'' I am glad to hear the chairman talk
about a new openness on the part of the MPs, because as a
result of that, the British members of the Parliament at the
OSCE, and they had a sizable delegation, wouldn't even meet
with us and discontinued for the next year what had been a
friendly get-together every year.
Thankfully, we are back to doing that again, over some
cocktails or tea or whatever, but it hit a raw nerve then and
hopefully, some time and new people in the Parliament opens up
an opportunity to say, you know, impunity can't be covered up,
and so I thank you. I am glad to hear some of those new
perspectives because I was persona non grata when I offered
that resolution at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly with regards
to the British parliamentarians.
Let me just ask a couple of very brief questions. Nuala
O'Loan had said earlier, Mr. McCord, how 20 recommendations
were in her report, which were accepted by the chief
constable--and Ms. Winter, you might want to touch on this as
well--then what? You know, it is as if reporting is done and
the actionable evidence that may be gleaned from it does not
get used. Where are the prosecutions? I mean, your frustration,
just like Mr. Finucane's, has to be beyond words. Here is a
government that dictates to the world, says to the world that
they believe in the rule of law, that says that their model,
the British style of legal systems is something to be emulated,
and yet there is this black cloud over how they have dealt with
you, Mr. McCord, and you as well, Mr. Finucane.
What happened after those recommendations were made, and
while answering this--and Ms. Winter, you might want to touch
on this--Al Hutchinson, the new Ombudsman, does his office,
does that have the power, does it have the passion, does it
have the resources? Is the individual, Mr. Hutchinson himself,
like Nuala O'Loan, who is very approachable, absolutely
transparent, one of the most transparent public officials I
have ever met?
She just cared about getting to the truth. Wherever and
whoever it may bring embarrassment to was not even an issue. Do
we have that same kind of access to the new Ombudsman, and how
well is that office functioning, Mr. McCord?
Mr. McCord. First of all, the new recommendations haven't
brought myself any closer to having convictions in the murder
of my son. It hasn't brought the other families in Nuala's
report any closer to justice. The British Government still
won't put their hands up and admit that went on. Nuala quite
rightly said that they accepted the report, but you know, we
have listened to Nuala and the rest who speak here today in
relation to collusion, policemen destroying documents. No
police officers have been charged.
I have been fighting for 12 years for justice for my son.
You know, no one has explained to me how this affects national
security. They are letting a serial killer stay on the books.
It is not as if the Russians were coming. You know, and Mark
Haddock wasn't the only one. It was right across the board and
all the paramilitaries, and the Pat Finucane murder is the
same. Families have been told lies, cover-ups. When new laws
have been brought out, new regulations, the British Government
has quite blatantly changed it to suit themselves.
You know, all the families want, which people are entitled
to throughout the world, is truth and justice, and we are being
denied it by a policy of collusion that the British Government
has done, not with criminals, with terrorist organizations.
These are the people who preach to the rest of the world and
condemn terrorist atrocities, but they are quite willing to pay
terrorists back home in Northern Ireland all through the
Troubles.
Referring to the current Police Ombudsman, I have a current
complaint there regarding Sir Ronnie Flanagan. I have no faith
in the current Police Ombudsman, and the best way I can put it,
it is like chalk and cheese dealing with him and dealing with
Nuala. I have complete confidence in Nuala O'Loan. She is very
up-front, very sympathetic, and you know, I have met Al
Hutchinson and the complaint just went nowhere. I don't forget
the words that Ronnie Flanagan said to me in front of my MP in
'98 once after my son was murdered, ``Murderers don't work for
the RUC,'' and we have a chief constable who told the father of
a victim of one of the people who was working for him at the
time lies.
We want the truth. We are not asking for people to be hung
up outside and put against the wall and shot. We want what
every person in the world is entitled to, and that is truth and
justice, but unfortunately, the British Government have denied
us it. They arrested me many times in the past to try and
silence me. One of the most positive things that has come out
of this has been the formation of the Historical Enquiries
Team, and they are dealing with Operation Ballast.
They have arrested something like 12 members of Haddock's
old mob, the majority of them informants, but as the man that
is running HET has said to me, this could have and should have
been done 12 years ago when your son was murdered, and I would
like this opportunity now to say that I believe one of the ways
forward to help these families in Operation Ballast is for
Gordon Brown to give proper funding to the HET team, show that
he means business. Don't be throwing them pennies.
Give them a proper funding, and I am confident that this
police unit, which is made up of Englishmen, will deliver for a
lot of victims.
Mr. Delahunt. I want to acknowledge the presence of Mr.
Engel and also note that really the leader on these issues in
the United States Congress is sitting in the audience, my
colleague from Massachusetts, Richie Neal. Richie, if you want
to come up to the dais, you are very welcome. I know that you
know these issues as well as anyone, and I am sure you know
more people in the audience than anyone here. So the choice is
yours.
Eliot, would you care to make a comment or ask a question?
Mr. Engel. Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I
am glad that you mentioned Richie Neal, who is my classmate. We
came to Congress together in January 1989, and I have been
proud to work with him on these issues of concern involving
Northern Ireland for 21 years, and I can tell you we have all
worked hard, but no one has worked harder and has accomplished
more than Richie Neal. So I am glad he is here, and you know,
we first of all thank all three of you for your courage,
particularly Mr. Finucane, who has been in my office with his
mom many times, and Mr. McCord, and I had the pleasure of
meeting Ms. Winter yesterday.
You know, one of the things that really strikes me with all
the things that have happened, there has been a complacency
that has set in. People think that with the signing of the Good
Friday Accords, everything is hunky-dory and we needn't worry
about these things, and in fact, I would daresay that some of
the people will accuse you, Mr. Finucane and you, Mr. McCord,
of living in the past and wallowing in the past and bringing up
things that are inconvenient.
We have our former Vice President Al Gore who talks a lot
about global warming and he produced his film called ``An
Inconvenient Truth,'' and I would say what the three of you are
doing is reminding all of us of an inconvenient truth: That
there are still festering sores from the inequities in the
North of Ireland, and that these sores will not go away, will
never go away, but they certainly won't go away as long as the
injustice is still there and the perpetrators of this collusion
are not brought to justice.
I just want to also acknowledge a good friend of mine in
the audience, Malachy McAllister. We have been, and Mr. Smith
and Mr. Neal and I and others have all been involved for many
years in the fight to keep him in the United States, and that
is something where many officials in the United States have
been less than stellar about, and some have been very good and
that is one of the reasons why Mr. McAllister is still here,
but we need to also close the book on his case, and that is
something in the United States that we must deal with, and it
is he and others who are still kind of out there in limbo, so
far being allowed to stay, but not really being allowed to
integrate into U.S. society without any kinds of worries.
It is a disgrace and it should end. I have gotten to know
Malachy very well and frankly, I don't know how he sleeps at
night knowing that his future is sort of uncertain and it is
hanging by the whims of whoever happens to get elected or
appointed to highest office. It should just end, and so we
needn't be illusioned that somehow or other, we in the United
States are looking at Britain and looking at their policies and
are being critical of them, and rightfully, we should be, but
we have enough of our own policies in the United States that
have not been ameliorated through many, many long years, and we
need to change.
It always strikes me as, you know, for all the criticism of
Britain, and I have been, believe me, there up-front publicly
criticizing them for many years about their policies, much
worse in the past than it is now, but we still have these
festering sores, very often it seems to us that the United
States Government is still fighting the fight, even where some
in the British Government have thrown up their hands and said
okay, we concede certain things and we put things in the past,
some in the U.S. Government are still fighting the fight, still
fighting the old British fight, and that is why Malachy and
others don't yet have comfort to have their status regulated
and approved to stay here indefinitely, and I just want to
raise that, Mr. Chairman, because I think that we sometimes
feel, well, you know, these other countries, these British,
they are not doing right.
We are not still doing right by our people, and we need to
do it. I just have one question if you will----
Mr. Delahunt. Eliot, if I can just make a point, because
two of our witnesses have to leave almost in the next several
minutes, so I am going to ask you to send your question to the
committee.
Mr. Engel. Okay.
Mr. Delahunt. And I am just going to ask Congressman Neal
if he wants to make any comment. Richie?
Mr. Neal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and
Mr. Smith and Mr. Engel. Your credentials on these issues are,
in my judgment, consistent over decades. I am grateful for the
notion that again today that you have raised the specter of
some of these cases. Thirty-one years ago when Bobby Sands died
as a young city council member in Springfield, I became
immersed in the details of what was happening across the North
of Ireland, and I must tell you that it is important to
acknowledge today how far we have come, and the North of
Ireland now is a society that is in transformation.
Ancient adversaries are now working together in a power-
sharing government and political objectives are now pursued
through exclusively peaceful means. People around the world now
look to the North of Ireland as a model for successful conflict
resolution. We are at another critical point in the peace
process with talks progressing on the transfer of policing and
justice powers from London to Belfast, and I have been in the
middle of many of those discussions and negotiations.
I am confident that that final act of devolution will be
completed soon. What I think we need to remind ourselves of
today is, we frequently were making progress even when we
didn't see it, and much of that success is due to the tireless
work of those in the Irish Government, the British Government,
the American Government, whose representatives are here today,
and indeed, the political parties in the North of Ireland who
have committed themselves to a more prosperous and peaceful
future.
Prime Minister Brown and the Taoiseach Brian Cowen, they
should be acknowledged as well for their continued interest and
leadership. I think the United States in its role as an honest
broker has also has also helped move the process forward at
critical moments and we should applaud Secretary Clinton for
this past week and the success that she had in her visit to the
island where she challenged the political parties to move
forward for the last pivotal piece in the puzzle.
When it comes to the pursuit of justice and accountability
and the truth in the North, I have had a long history of being
outspoken, and I think it is important to recognize where many
of these issues turned out. I supported the Guilford Four, who
were wrongly convicted. I spoke out on behalf of the Birmingham
Six, whose convictions were overturned. I fought vigorously
against the deportation of Joe Doherty, including a meeting in
the Attorney General's office, Janet Reno, and I certainly was
highly critical of the killing of the unarmed Gibraltar Three.
The deportee case turned out to be a successful one for us,
and I certainly encouraged aggressively an independent inquiry
into the events of Bloody Sunday, which I think remains the
most important element of our discussions about the past, and I
hope that Lord Saville's report will be published soon. I have
also urged Hugh Ward and Shaun Woodward to pay attention to
these high-profile cases, as recently as this past summer in
London.
I have said publicly and privately that an independent
inquiry into several of the most high-profile and emblematic
cases would help to heal old wounds and address the past. I
believe these inquiries would promote reconciliation and
healing and bring a measure of closure for many of those
touched by the Troubles. In my opinion, there are four cases
that deserve a full and public hearing: Raymond McCord, Jr.,
Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and the Billy Wright case are the
most prominent, along with a full and honest independent
inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday.
I want to say this as well, that when you talk about
success that we don't see, it is members of the Nationalist
community in the North who have urged me to stand up on behalf
of Ray McCord because they think that that is a very important
part of the healing process, and he knows that and I have
passed that information on to him before. I have known
Geraldine Finucane and her family for two decades. I remember
when they were all young and I met them in Derry for the first
time, and I promised her that I am going to continue my efforts
to secure an independent inquiry into the death of her husband.
Her family is here today and we want to acknowledge them for
their continued courage.
I have also made a commitment to Ray McCord, as he knows,
and I hope that others here will sign a letter to Prime
Minister Gordon Brown requesting that he personally meet with
Mr. McCord. As chairman of the Friends of Ireland, I want to
ask my colleagues to co-sign that letter and we will get it off
very, very quickly, and I know with Ray's testimony today, it
only helps our argument. If we are to overcome the divisions
that exist in the North of Ireland, we must commit ourselves to
a process of reconciliation.
After years of conflict, I believe the people in the North
want to live a peaceful and prosperous life, and I do
acknowledge that we can't revisit every case, but I do think
these high-profile cases would go a long way, with some others,
of ensuring that as we go forward there will at least be an
honest acknowledgment of what happened in the past. We have had
much success, and I hope that public and independent inquiries
will proceed and I hope that the witnesses that are here today
will continue this fight, because I must tell you, I think that
the American dimension has been indispensable in helping us to
bring these cases forward.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for providing the
time to me.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for the
statement, and I am sure that all of us will sign that letter
to the Prime Minister. I am going to end with my friend and
colleague to my left, to my physical left, I should say, Mr.
Smith, who has a question for Jane Winter.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Well, I do want to thank
you again, Chairman Delahunt, for this extremely important
hearing and the timeliness of it, and so I thank you for
arranging for this today. You know, a father fighting for
justice for his murdered son, a son fighting for justice for
his murdered dad, both seeking an end to the, as Mr. McCord put
it earlier, cover-ups and lies--no cover-up, however, is ever
absolute. No cover-up is forever and I think it is important
that the British Government know that this Congress, in a
bipartisan way, will never cease in getting to the facts,
getting to the truth, and most importantly, getting to the
prosecutions that I think just have to occur in order for there
to be true reconciliation and healing.
I would like to ask Ms. Winter, if you could, to comment on
the current Ombudsman, and also on her about, you know, all
prosecutors have discretion, prosecurial discretion as to what
they emphasize. Where you put your resources makes all the
difference in what you actually ultimately get convictions on.
In the cases of Pat Finucane and of course, Mr. McCord, Raymond
McCord, how would you rate whether or not they are serious
about going wherever the information, wherever the evidence may
lead? And I thank you again.
Ms. Winter. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Could I just preface my
remarks by drawing the committee's attention to the six
recommendations at the end of my testimony for action, which I
hope that the committee will consider taking on----
Mr. Delahunt. So noted.
Ms. Winter [continuing]. On behalf of both Mr. McCord and
Mr. Finucane, as well as other matters. In relation to the
Police Ombudsman, I do believe that Al Hutchinson is as
independent as Nuala O'Loan. He has a very different style and
I think he has less of an appetite for looking at the past and
more of an appetite for dealing with current policing. So I
agree with Raymond McCord, there is an element of chalk and
cheese there. It is a different approach, but I don't believe
that he lacks independence.
I do believe, however, that he lacks resources. Nuala
O'Loan said that she wasn't sure, but I am here to tell you
that I have spoken recently with the Ombudsman's office and
they are severely under-resourced, and----
Mr. Smith. What does that mean in terms of actual money?
Ms. Winter. I am afraid I don't know the actual figures,
but they were talking about having to make very significant
cuts, which clearly means that they cannot carry out their
duties in any kind of timely fashion, which is not helpful, and
the Historical Enquiries Team is in the same boat, and I
absolutely echo what Raymond has said about needing to resource
them fully until such time as any kind of amalgamation may take
place between the two organizations for dealing with cases
arising out of the conflict.
In relation to the director of Public Prosecutions, I
regret to say that over the years, we have had many, many
questions about decisions taken by his office, not just in
relation to the Finucane and McCord case, but in many other
cases where there have been no reasons given for failing to
prosecute cases which seem to us to merit prosecution, and
sometimes prosecutions have gone ahead but deals have been done
which have rendered the outcome of the case a travesty of
justice for the victims, and there have recently been some
moves by the DPP's office to make themselves more transparent
and we really welcome those, but there needs to be a lot more
done before we would consider them to be a fully functioning
independent office.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, again, I want to extend the gratitude
of the committee for your appearance here, for your testimony,
and it was an excellent hearing. Thank you, and God speed.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
Minutes deg.
McMahon statement deg.
__________