Victims' concern over ‘need to promote narrative of peace' before Omagh bomb
The Real IRA bomb in the Co Tyrone town in August 1998 killed 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins, in the worst single atrocity in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
The bomb exploded months after the Good Friday Agreement was signed, largely bringing an end to decades of political violence in the region.
The inquiry heard a statement from Hugh Southey on behalf of victims represented by solicitor John Fox.
They included the families of Aiden Gallagher, Ann McCombe, Fred and Bryan White, Avril and Maura Monaghan, Oran Doherty, Shaun McLaughlin, Jolene Marlow, James Barker, Brian McCrory, Rocio Abad Ramos, Sean McGrath, Geraldine Breslin, Mary Grimes and Esther Gibson, who were all killed in the massacre, as well as several other people who were injured.
Mr Southey told the inquiry it was 'possible that politics had an influence on security activities' in 1998.
He said: 'In simple terms there is a concern that the need to promote a narrative of peace may have resulted in a light touch being adopted to terrorist activity.'
The barrister continued: 'A key issue is whether there was a decision to relax security that was inappropriate and contributed to the bomb.
'There is a linked issue as to whether any flawed decision was political.'
Mr Southey said there was a clear desire from his clients for the public inquiry to 'conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the Omagh bomb'.
He said: 'In a real sense this may be the last opportunity for a cathartic, healing process.'
Mr Southey said there was a need for the inquiry to investigate 'differential policing'.
He said: 'What I mean by that is was the policing of terrorism in Northern Ireland as effective as that in England?
'Preparedness for warning calls is an aspect of this. Did England have more effective procedures to respond to bomb threats?
'The Army had regularly been called upon during bomb alerts, as it possessed a range of expertise, including bomb disposal expertise.
'However on August 15 1998 they were not deployed into Omagh following warnings being issued.'
He added: 'This raises the question of why the Army were not deployed on the day of the bomb and what was the protocol governing their attendance.
'Victims and survivors submit that an aspect of preventability was whether a decision not to deploy the Army was or should have been influenced by intelligence and other material suggesting a threat.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Trump team hears pitches on access to Myanmar's rare earths
WASHINGTON/BANGKOK, July 28 (Reuters) - The Trump administration has heard competing proposals that would significantly alter longstanding U.S. policy toward Myanmar, with the aim of diverting its vast supplies of rare earth minerals away from strategic rival China, four people with direct knowledge of the discussions said. Nothing has been decided and experts say there are huge logistical obstacles, but if the ideas are ever acted upon, Washington may need to strike a deal with the ethnic rebels controlling most of Myanmar's rich deposits of heavy rare earths. Among the proposals are one advocating talks with Myanmar's ruling junta to get a peace deal with the Kachin Independence Army rebels and another calling for the U.S. to instead work directly with the KIA without engaging the junta. Washington has avoided direct talks with the country's military leaders following their overthrow of the country's democratically elected government in 2021. The ideas have been proposed to administration officials by a U.S. business lobbyist, a former adviser to Aung San Suu Kyi, in indirect talks with the KIA and some outside experts, the sources said. The conversations have not previously been reported. Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion. So-called heavy rare earths are used to build fighter jets and other high-performance weaponry. The U.S. produces very small amounts of heavy rare earths and is reliant on imports. Securing supplies of the minerals is a major focus of the Trump administration in its strategic competition with China, which is responsible for nearly 90% of global processing capacity, according to the International Energy Agency. Engaging the junta would be a sharp departure for the United States, given U.S. sanctions on the military leaders and the violence committed against the Rohingya minority that Washington calls genocide and crimes against humanity, opens new tab. Last week, the Trump administration lifted sanctions designations on several junta allies, but U.S. officials said this does not indicate any broader shift in U.S. policy toward Myanmar. The ideas pitched to the U.S. administration also include easing U.S. President Donald Trump's threatened 40% tariffs on the country, pulling back sanctions against the junta and its allies, working with India to process some heavy rare earths exported from Myanmar, and appointing a special envoy to execute these tasks, people familiar with the matter said. Some of these suggestions were discussed in a July 17 meeting in Vice President JD Vance's offices that included Adam Castillo, a former head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Myanmar who runs a security firm in the country, a person close to Vance's office said. Among those present were advisers to Vance on Asian affairs and trade. Vance himself did not attend, the source said. Castillo told Reuters he suggested to U.S. officials that the United States could play a peace-broker role in Myanmar and urged Washington to take a page out of China's playbook by first brokering a bilateral self-governance deal between the Myanmar military and the KIA. Myanmar's ruling junta and the KIA did not respond to a request for comment. While Vance's office declined to comment on Castillo's visit to the White House, one person familiar with the situation said the Trump administration has been reviewing policy on Myanmar, also known as Burma, since Trump's January inauguration and had weighed direct discussions with the junta over trade and tariffs. The White House declined to comment. The White House discussions were described as exploratory and in early stages by people familiar with them, who added the talks may result in no shift in strategy at all by Trump, given the administration's wariness about intervening in foreign conflicts and in Myanmar's complex crisis. "The officials took this meeting as a courtesy to the American business community and to support President Trump's efforts to balance the U.S. $579 (million) trade deficit with Burma," a senior administration official said when asked about the July 17 meeting. Castillo, who describes Myanmar's rare earth deposits as China's "golden goose," said he told U.S. officials that key ethnic armed groups - particularly the KIA - were tired of being exploited by China and wanted to work with the United States. Mines in Myanmar's Kachin region are major producers of heavy rare earths that are exported to China for processing. He said he had repeatedly urged officials in Washington to pursue a deal with the KIA that includes cooperation with U.S. partners in the Quad grouping - specifically India - for resource processing and eventual heavy rare earths supply to the United States. The so-called Quad grouping brings together the United States with India, as well as Australia and Japan. India's Ministry of Mines did not respond to an email seeking comment. An Indian government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he was unaware of whether the Trump administration had communicated any such plan to India but stressed that such a move would take several years to materialize because it would require infrastructure to be built for processing rare earths. Another pitch to the White House was more in line with the Myanmar policy Trump inherited from former President Joe Biden. Sean Turnell, an Australian economist and former adviser to Suu Kyi, whose government the junta toppled in 2021, said his rare earths proposal was to encourage the Trump administration to continue supporting Myanmar's democratic forces. In a visit to Washington earlier this year, Turnell said he met with officials from the State Department, the White House National Security Council and Congress, and urged continued support for the country's opposition. "One of the pitches was that the U.S. could access rare earths via KIA etc," he said, adding that the group wants to diversify away from China. There have also been multiple discussions between U.S. officials and the Kachin rebel group on rare earths through interlocutors in recent months, said a person with knowledge of the talks, which have not previously been reported. In the years since the coup, Myanmar has been ravaged by civil war and the junta and its allies have been pushed out of much of the country's borderlands, including the rare earths mining belt currently under control of the KIA. A rare earths industry source said that U.S. officials had reached out around three months ago, following the Kachin takeover of the Chipwe-Pangwa mining belt, to ask for an overview of the Kachin rare earths mining industry. The person added that any new, major rare earths supply chain, which would require moving the minerals out of remote and mountainous Kachin State into India and onward, may not be feasible. Swedish author Bertil Lintner, a leading expert on Kachin State, said the idea of the United States obtaining rare earths from Myanmar from under the nose of China seemed "totally crazy" given the unforgiving mountainous terrain and primitive logistics. "If they want to transport the rare earths from these mines, which are all on the Chinese border, to India, there's only one road," Lintner said. "And the Chinese would certainly step in and stop it." For its part, the junta appears eager to engage with Washington after years of isolation. When Trump threatened new tariffs on Myanmar's U.S.-bound exports this month as part of his global trade offensive, he did so in a signed letter addressed personally to the junta's chief, Min Aung Hlaing. Min Aung Hlaing responded by lavishing praise on Trump for his "strong leadership" while asking for lower rates and the lifting of sanctions. He said he was ready to send a negotiating team to Washington, if needed. Senior Trump administration officials said the decision to lift some sanctions was unrelated to the general's letter.
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
Will of alleged IRA spy ‘Stakeknife' to be kept secret
Sir Julian said that there was 'the need to protect [Mr Johnson] and those named in the will from the real risk of serious physical harm or even death because they might be thought to be guilty by association' with Scappaticci. He said: 'The real risk to his life and wellbeing which the deceased faced in his lifetime is amply demonstrated. Publication of the will would be both undesirable and inappropriate.' The judge concluded that holding the hearing in public would have 'defeated the whole object' of the bid to have the will sealed. Sir Julian said in his 18-page ruling that Scappaticci was alleged to have been a leading member of the Provisional IRA, and was part of the 'Nutting Squad' from around 1980 until the mid-1990s, which interrogated suspected informers during the Troubles. In 2003, media reports claimed that Scappaticci had spied on the IRA for the British government, and that while working for both organisations 'was responsible for the torture and murder of dozens of alleged IRA informers'. Scappaticci always denied the claim but failed in a legal bid to force the British government to publicly state that he was not Stakeknife, forcing him to move to England in 2003. Sir Julian said: 'He could not have remained in Northern Ireland, as he could have been killed by one side or the other. Even after he moved to England and changed his name, he continued to receive death threats. Such was their nature that he had to relocate at short notice several times over the years.' Operation Kenova Operation Kenova was then launched to investigate the activities of Stakeknife within the Provisional IRA and crimes such as murder and torture, as well as the role played by the security services. The investigation, which was undertaken by Bedfordshire Police and cost tens of millions of pounds, reported its interim findings last year after Scappaticci's death. While it stopped short of naming him as Stakeknife, it found that more lives were probably lost than saved by the agent's actions. Jon Boutcher, the former chief constable of Bedfordshire Police and author of the interim report, said the identity of Stakeknife 'will have to be confirmed at some point' but that he would 'have to leave this to my final report'. He said: 'For now, it suffices to say that Mr Scappaticci was and still is inextricably bound up with and a critical person of interest at the heart of Operation Kenova. 'I believe that we found strong evidence of very serious criminality on the part of Mr Scappaticci and his prosecution would have been in the interests of victims, families and justice.' Prosecutors said at the time the interim report was published that the examination of files containing evidence of serious criminality by Scappaticci was at an advanced stage at the time of his death.
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why we must keep humans at the heart of AI in warfare
Since 2016, discussions of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS have been ongoing, but International Humanitarian Law (IHL) still lacks any specific, binding regulations relating to AI. As noted by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) President Mirjana Spoljaric, AI in war is 'no longer an issue for tomorrow', but rather 'an urgent humanitarian priority today', requiring the immediate 'negotiation of new legally binding international rules'. Accordingly, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres recommended, in his 2023 New Agenda for Peace, that 'a legally binding instrument' to prohibit and/or regulate AI weapons be concluded by 2026. Read more The ICRC has stressed that responsibility in warfare must remain with humans. 'Human control must be maintained,' it argues, and limits on autonomy urgently established 'to ensure compliance with international law and to satisfy ethical concerns'. In 2022, the MoD itself echoed this sentiment. It stated that only human soldiers 'can make instinctive decisions on the ground in a conflict zone; improvise on rescue missions during natural disasters; or offer empathy and sympathy.' The then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace added that 'at its heart, our Army relies on the judgment of its own individuals.' A recruitment campaign at the time carried the tagline: 'Technology will help us do incredible things. But nothing can do what a soldier can do.' Colonel Nick Mackenzie, then Assistant Director for Recruitment, highlighted that, while 'technology is really, really important… there is always somebody, a person, behind that technology,' who is ultimately responsible for its use and the decisions it enables. Since then, however, the use of AI-enabled rapid target identification systems in contemporary conflicts has grown rapidly, with notable examples being Lavender and Where's Daddy (Israel/Palestine), Saker and Wolly (Russia/Ukraine). A human being is generally still required in order to engage any lethal effects, but technological capabilities are already being developed to remove human input from the targeting process altogether. Against this backdrop, the MoD's Strategic Defence Review 2025, released last month, calls for 'greater use of autonomy and Artificial Intelligence within the UK's conventional forces' to deliver 'greater accuracy, lethality, and cheaper capabilities'. 'As in Ukraine,' the Review continues, 'this would provide greater accuracy, lethality, and cheaper capabilities – changing the economics of defence.' One example is Project ASGARD, which will help the Army locate and strike enemy targets at greater distances using AI as a 'force multiplier'. This is just one of over 400 AI-related projects being run by the MoD. What remains unclear, but is critical from a legal and moral perspective, is what role human judgment will play in these projects and the military operations they support. Computer scientist Pei Wang has said that while AI can behave like human intelligence in some ways, it is fundamentally different. AI shouldn't replace human intelligence, but rather support and enhance it – helping people make better-informed decisions. Human-robot interaction specialist Karolina Zawieska warns of the need to distinguish between what is human and what is only human-like. AI systems often function as a 'black box', meaning it is not always clear how or why they produce certain outcomes. This creates serious problems for human understanding, control, and accountability. When properly used, AI can support situational awareness and help human operators make better decisions. In this sense, it is a tool – not a decision-maker. But if too much control is handed over to AI, we risk removing human judgment and with it, moral responsibility. Professor Jeff McMahan, moral philosopher at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, has argued that it is essential for combatants to feel 'deep inhibitions about tackling non-combatants'. However accurate or efficient AI may be, these inhibitions cannot be replicated by algorithms. As political scientist Valerie Morkevičius has pointed out, the emotional and moral 'messiness' of war is a feature, not a flaw because it slows down violence and prompts ethical reflection. Military decisions should be difficult. This is why human judgment must remain at the centre. While defence and national security are reserved for Westminster, Scotland plays a key role in UK defence, from the bases at Faslane and Lossiemouth to the defence research carried out at Scottish universities. The issues raised in the Strategic Defence Review therefore carry particular relevance here. UN Secretary General António Guterres has recommended that 'a legally binding instrument' to prohibit and/or regulate AI weapons be concluded by 2026 (Image: Getty) Scotland's approach to AI, shaped by the AI Strategy (2021) and the Scottish AI Playbook (2024), is notably human-centred. Informed by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) principles, both documents stress the importance of trustworthy, ethical, and inclusive AI that improves people's lives. They highlight the need for transparency, human control, and robust accountability. Though not military in scope, these principles nevertheless offer a useful framework for a Scottish perspective on the development and use of AI for military purposes: keeping people at the centre, and ensuring that technology supports rather than replaces human agency. The goal should not be the delegation of human decisions to machines, or the replacement of human beings with technology. Rather, AI should support and strengthen human decision-making – a tool for the enactment of human agency: a technological means for strictly human ends. Dr Joanna LD Wilson is a Lecturer in Law at the University of the West of Scotland
