|
US federal appeals court reopens old 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland
 When Boston College launched its Belfast Project the aim was to create an insiders' oral history of Northern Ireland's so-called "Troubles" by collecting the testimonies of participants on all sides of the conflict. What no one expected was for history to rear up and become the present once more. The July 6 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit results from Boston College researchers attempts to block two sets of subpoenas issued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The PSNI wants access to the testimonies in order to pursue prosecutions for unsolved crimes -- in this case one of the most unsettling of the murky 30-year war: the abduction and secret killing of Jean McConville. McConville, a Catholic convert and mother of 10, lived in West Belfast, ground zero for the early years of the conflict. In 1972 she was abducted and killed by the IRA. She subsequently became the best-known of "the disappeared," those believed to have been killed by the IRA in secret because it was feared that revulsion at their killing would have turned nationalists and republicans against the organization. The IRA admitted responsibility for the killing in 1999, but claimed McConville was a spy, which her family denies. Her body was recovered in 2003. The case at issue centers on the testimony of former IRA member Dolours Price, whose interview, police allege, may contain information about the circumstances surrounding Mrs. McConville's murder. Speculation is running wild that Ms. Price's testimony will link Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams to the killing, which, if true, could prove explosive to Northern Ireland's long-standing yet fragile peace accord and power-sharing government. Ironically, all sides want the truth to be told -- the question is when, under what circumstances, and if it will be the full historical record. After the court ruling, the material is expected to be handed over by Boston College in the next month. Boston College is separately appealing the order enforcing one of the sets of subpoenas. Posted by: Pappy 2012-07-16 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=348461 |