U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–142PDF 2014

THE NORTH IRELAND PEACE PROCESS TODAY:

ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH THE PAST

JOINT MEETING AND HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 11, 2014

Serial No. 113–179

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

BRIEFER 

The Baroness Nuala O’Loan (former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland) 

(appearing via videoconference) .......................................................................... 6

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Richard N. Haass, chair, Panel of Parties in the Northern 

Ireland Executive ................................................................................................. 25

Ms. Geraldine Finucane, wife of slain human rights attorney Patrick 

Finucane ............................................................................................................... 47

Mr. Eugene Devlin, victim of the Military Reaction Force .................................. 49

Ms. Julia Hall, expert on criminal justice and counter-terrorism in Europe, 

Amnesty International ......................................................................................... 53

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

The Baroness Nuala O’Loan: Prepared statement ................................................ 10

The Honorable Richard N. Haass: Prepared statement ....................................... 29

Mr. Eugene Devlin: Prepared statement ............................................................... 51

Ms. Julia Hall: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 55

APPENDIX 

Briefing and hearing notice .................................................................................... 70

Briefing and hearing minutes ................................................................................. 71

The Honorable Richard N. Haass: Material submitted for the record ................ 72

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 

Statement from the Pat Finucane Center .......................................................... 76

Statement from Ms. Patricia Lundy ................................................................... 80

Ms. Julia Hall: Material submitted for the record ................................................ 85

(1)

THE NORTH IRELAND PEACE PROCESS 

TODAY: ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH 

THE PAST 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global 

Human Rights, and International Organizations) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing of the subcommittees will come to order. 

Good afternoon to everybody. I want to welcome everyone and 

thank them for joining us this afternoon, particularly to our many 

friends who are testifying today and to others whom I see throughout this room who have been dogged in their determination to 

bring peace and justice and reconciliation to Northern Ireland. 

Today we will inquire into the Northern Ireland peace process, 

particularly the aspect of it which is called ‘‘dealing with the past.’’ 

Sadly, much of what we will hear about amounts to failures to deal 

with the past, as in the rejection of the recent proposal by Dr. Richard Haass. Hopefully, that will turn around, but it is at this point 

not agreed to. 

Dr. Haass serves as chair of the Panel of Parties in the Northern 

Ireland Executive; that is, he was asked to assist in brokering an 

agreement to move the peace process forward. In that capacity, Dr. 

Haass spent months consulting and formulating a proposal. In the 

end, the proposal was not accepted by all of the parties, though it 

clarified where progress can be made and where sticking points remain, and it is a blueprint for the future. 

One of the most important questions that Dr. Haass and the parties dealt with is what will be done with the Historical Inquiries 

Team and the Police Ombudsman of Northern Island, two key bodies established by the Good Friday Agreement to investigate unsolved murders. 

We will discuss Dr. Haass’s proposal to replace the HET and the 

PONI with an Historical Investigations Unit and Baroness 

O’Loan’s suggestion to replace them with a rather different invesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Sep 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\031114\87142 SHIRL
2

tigative commission—it parallels, but there may be some differences—during this hearing. 

For now, I want to underline this: Both agree that the status quo 

of dealing with The Troubles and the crimes that were committed 

should be replaced. Likewise, the parties in the Northern Ireland 

Executive reportedly agreed with this aspect of Dr. Haass’s proposal. So the agreement is broad on this point. It is time to move 

to a better system. 

As Dr. Haass’s proposal states, ‘‘The multiplicity of institutions 

and vehicles for justice and respect of conflict-related incidents, 

however, creates confusion and places enormous burdens on the police.’’ The facts alone tell the story of the more than 3,000 Troubles 

related deaths that occurred between 1968 and 1998. The HET has 

yet to review some 600 cases involving 800 deaths. 

Dr. Haass’s proposed Historical Investigations Unit has much to 

say for it by establishing a single unit with full investigative power 

to eliminate the overlaps, the contradictions, and waste of resources and the mandates of the two other entities. 

Likewise the suggestion of Baroness O’Loan, who served very 

successfully as police ombudsman from 2000 to 2007 and on several 

occasions actually came here and testified very bravely. While her 

idea for an investigative commission that will be ‘‘totally independent investigative, fully empowered and fully resourced body 

. . . with a remit to examine any Troubles-related cases involving 

death up to 2006 . . .’’ Lady O’Loan’s proposal emphasizes the 

need for the unimpeachabality of independent agency in order to 

win the trust of both communities. 

In any case, Dr. Haass’s proposal remains extremely important 

on all points. Those involved most closely in the peace process have 

expressed their confidence that it accurately reflects the current divisions and positions of the parties and will likely serve as an important basis for future discussions. 

I think that those who think everything is done and finished, you 

can close the page on Northern Ireland, really don’t know the situation on the ground. That is why we are having this hearing today, 

and that is why I think these important recommendations need to 

be taken very seriously all over the world, including in the United 

States. 

We will also hear today about the Finucane case and the British 

Military Reaction Force. These aspects of dealing with the past 

were not covered by Dr. Haass’s proposal to the Northern Ireland 

political parties because they deal with matters that are the responsibility of the British Government. 

First, the British Government’s failure to conduct the promised 

inquiry into collusion in the 1989 murder of Patrick Finucane remains an open sore. 

The British Government has a solemn obligation to initiate a 

full, independent, public, judicial inquiry that was agreed to as 

part of the overall peace settlement in Northern Ireland during the 

Weston Park negotiations. 

This obligation, which was undertaken by both governments as 

part of the Belfast Agreement, one of the outstanding diplomatic 

achievements of recent decades, was an extremely serious underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Sep 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\031114\87142 SHIRL
3

taking. In order for the peace process to move forward, the British 

Government must honor it. 

While Prime Minister Cameron has admitted to ‘‘shocking’’ levels 

of collusion between the state and loyalist paramilitaries in the 

murder of Patrick Finucane and apologized to the Finucane family 

for it, this does not substitute for a full exposition of the facts behind the British State’s involvement in the murder. Rather, the 

steady increase in the amount of evidence being revealed publicly 

that the British State colluded with the killers has made honoring 

that commitment more important than ever. 

The British Government committed to implement the recommendation of a judge of international standing on six inquiry 

cases in 2004. Judge Peter Cory, who we have had at two of my 

hearings in the past, a very eminent former justice of the Supreme 

Court in Canada, recommended a public inquiry into the case of 

Patrick Finucane. 

Today, it remains the only case investigated where the recommendation has not been honored, a situation that is deeply unsatisfactory for many reasons, not the least of which it is evidently 

the one that the British Government is most culpable. 

Conversely, it is also the case in which, until the Prime Minister’s announcement in December 2012, there has been the greatest level of sustained official denial by various state agencies. 

The many previous denials and time that has passed has drained 

public confidence in parts of the peace process and diminished respect for the rule of law in Northern Ireland. 

It must be said that there are those who oppose the peace process and their opposition is dangerous. The failure to address the 

case of Finucane in the manner proposed by the British Government provides a readily available propaganda tool for those to further their own ends. 

Secondly, there is the matter of killings committed by the British 

Army’s Military Reaction Force. From approximately 1971 to 1973, 

the British Army ran an undercover unit of approximately 40 soldiers who operated out of uniform and in unmarked cars mostly 

around Belfast. 

On November 21, 2013, the BBC program Panorama aired a documentary in which former members of the MRF broke silence on 

aspects of the unit’s operations, confirming what many had suspected for a long time. 

The BBC reported that, ‘‘We have investigated the unit and discovered evidence that this branch of the British State sometimes 

. . . shot unarmed civilians.’’

The BBC spoke to seven former members of the MRF and, 

though the men were careful not to incriminate themselves or each 

other in specific killings, they made plain that, as the Independent 

fairly characterized the report—and I quote—‘‘The unit . . . would 

carry out drive-by shootings against unarmed people on the street 

without any independent evidence that they were part of the IRA.’’ 

As one of the former members admitted to the BBC, ‘‘We were not 

there to act like an Army unit—we were there to act like a terror 

group.’’

Now the onus is on the British Government to investigate and 

punish these crimes. The British Ministry of Defense has said that 

4

it has referred the matter to the police for investigation. Unfortunately, the BBC reported that, ‘‘these soldiers were undercover, 

and what they did has been airbrushed from the official record.’’

I would like to now turn to my friend and colleague, Mr. Keating, 

for any opening comment he might have. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

It is an honor to welcome Dr. Haass today. 

It has been more than 15 years since the Good Friday Agreement. In that time, courage, conviction, and hard work have led to 

a more peaceful and more prosperous Northern Ireland. 

Of course, there is still much work to do. There is still too much 

tension and mistrust between Catholic and Protestant communities. 

No one can dispute the importance of justice for victims of repression and their loved ones, nor can we discount the role that 

tradition plays in shaping one’s identity. 

As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of truth and 

justice in any criminal investigation, especially one involving allegations of collusion. 

Bringing the facts of a case to light and holding perpetrators accountable is an essential part of closure and can pave the way for 

reconciliation. It is also essential that investigations be independent and free of political influence. 

I look forward to hearing from Dr. Haass about his proposal to 

establish a Historical Investigations Unit. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses on the second panel about their personal experiences. 

Despite tremendous personal risk, they have courageously 

thought to bring to light the facts surrounding political violence in 

Northern Ireland, violence which impacted each of them profoundly 

and tragically. 

As we examine the importance of dealing with the past, I hope 

we will also discuss the importance of looking to the future. 

In doing so, we should look for the example of those who set 

aside division and discord in favor of cooperation and compromise. 

What these men and women have in common is their commitment 

to building a brighter future as well as their faith in the rule of 

law and in equality of opportunity. 

In that same spirit, I believe one area in particular merits very 

close scrutiny. Addressing the issue of segregation in both schools 

and housing is essential to future progress. 

Like the champions of segregation in America’s not-so-distant 

past, many in Northern Ireland today argue that segregation is essential to maintaining peace and order. However, our own history 

shows that segregation only serves to feed fear and resentment. It 

reinforces stereotypes and it perpetuates inequality. 

The United States played a key role in brokering the Good Friday Agreement. We have a responsibility to continue to help the 

process move forward. 

I am concerned that, in the rush to balance the budget, some 

Members of Congress have acted too hastily in pressing the administration to cut funding for the International Fund for Ireland and 

the Mitchell Scholarship funding as well. 

5

These programs have been at the forefront of efforts to confront 

segregation and to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Zeroing out U.S. funding sends exactly the wrong message at a pivotal moment in the Northern Ireland peace process. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Keating. 

Like to yield to my good friend and colleague, the chairman of 

Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee, Dana 

Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, after hearing the opening statements 

from my colleagues, it is clear that they know much more about 

this than I do. And so I will be listening intently and expanding 

my level of understanding of the facts of what has been going on. 

I do know American history, however, and I do know that the 

bloodiest war that we ever had was with each other. And I don’t 

think we should ever forget that. 

And, in fact, at the end of that war, we had President Lincoln, 

who was inaugurated here at the Capitol for his second inauguration, and he used the famous phrase, ‘‘With malice toward none, 

with charity for all.’’

Unfortunately, one of those attending his second inaugural was 

John Wilkes Booth. There is a picture of him watching Lincoln 

being sworn in. 

My reading of American history is that it was our insistence of 

justice being done that created about 100 years of animosity between the North and the South. Had both of our sides decided that 

they would join each other in remorse over such a slaughter of innocent lives and of fellow Americans, perhaps that would have 

been different. 

And so, as we listen to what is going on in Ireland today, I am 

hoping that we hear ‘‘With malice toward none and charity for all’’ 

rather than ‘‘Let’s find out who did what to whom and punish them 

now for what they did 10 or 20 years ago, and we are not going 

to make peace until that happens.’’ I hope that is not what I am 

going to hear. 

But I am very interested because I realize that all of our hopes 

are that the people of Ireland, both North and South, would find 

some accord by now and that the fact that the talks have broken 

down—and, again, I am not an expert on this like my colleagues, 

and I am certainly not an expert on prosecutions as my friend from 

Massachusetts is and whether or not that is the best road to go to 

find peace. But it does seem to me if the issue of a flag is significant here or not. And is this the reason that we have this breakdown? 

Also, I remember—I worked for the greatest Irish-American 

President, as you know, and I know there are some Democrats who 

might disagree with that. But having worked for Ronald Reagan, 

I actually went to Ireland and advanced his trip to Ireland, and it 

was one of the great occasions of my life. 

I spent a couple weeks there visiting Ballyporeen and all these 

places where the old Reagans used to go. And I will have to tell 

you that one of the things that I learned, there were a lot of Protestants there that I met and not one Protestant during that time 

6

complained to me that he was being discriminated against in the 

regular part of Ireland. 

So I don’t fully understand the psychology of fear that does grip 

some of the Protestants in Northern Ireland about, perhaps, that 

there might be some type of persecution going on if there was some 

sort of unification. 

But we cannot just—I don’t believe—and I am waiting for the 

testimony—I don’t think that we can move forward with the idea 

that we are going to right all the wrongs of the past before we 

reach an agreement for the future, because that just isn’t going to 

happen. 

Let’s do our best. And I am really interested in seeing if we are 

doing our best and what suggestions we can have to actually move 

things along. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr Chairman. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Randy Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am glad to hear that our colleagues are experts. I am looking 

forward to hearing them and the witnesses. Let’s go. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

The subcommittees will stand in temporary recess. This is now 

a briefing portion, pursuant to House rules—it is almost a distinction without a difference—but in order to hear the testimony and 

the briefing by Baroness Nuala O’Loan. 

In 1999, Baroness O’Loan became the first police ombudsman in 

Northern Ireland and continued in that post until 2007. In that capacity, she was responsible for the investigation of all complaints 

of criminal behavior and misconduct by police officers and other 

matters involving possible police wrongdoing, not the subject matter of complaint. 

In the course of her work, she has spoken widely at conferences 

and acted in an advisory capacity to government agencies responsible for policing and police accountability in many countries. In 

July 2009, she was appointed to the House of Lords and, consequently, to the Peerage in September 2009 as Baroness O’Loan. 

Baroness O’Loan has also provided this subcommittee a tremendous amount of input and counsel and wisdom as to what was really happening within the police, all part of her efforts. 

She never revealed anything that was not divulgable, but gave 

us a great sense as to what really was going on behind closed doors 

and did it as great risk to herself. She had been frequently threatened. She ignored those threats and went on and did an exemplary 

job as the ombudsman. 

So I would like to now welcome, on behalf of the subcommittees, 

Baroness O’Loan. 

STATEMENT OF THE BARONESS NUALA O’LOAN (FORMER 

POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND) 

[The following testimony was delivered via teleconference.] 

Baroness O’LOAN. Well, thank you. I am honored to be invited 

to give testimony here today. 

And I would very much like to thank you and to express my gratitude to the people of the United States and to your government 

7

for the contribution that you have made over the decades to the 

peace process, but also to people like me who work at the coalface. 

I want to put what we are going to talk about into a little context, if I may. During The Troubles, over 3,600 people died and 

over 50,000 were injured. Had that happened in the United States, 

you would have had over 1⁄2 million people dead and you would 

have had over 8 million people injured, and I ask you to consider 

what the impact of that might have been on your country. 

We still have the families of those who died who want to know 

what happened. We have those seeking justice, and we have those, 

like the Finucane family, seeking to establish the extent of government responsibility for what happened. Those families come from 

right across our community. 

We have victims of bombings and shootings whose lives have 

been effectively disabled or limited by their experience, and we 

have individual investigations of individual bombings or shootings. 

But we also have cases like the Omagh bombing or the 

Ballymurphy killings in 1971, when 11 people were killed over a 

period of a couple of days by the Parachute Regiment. They included a Catholic priest and a young mother who went to the aid 

of a young man who had been shot. 

We have got Enniskillen; Loughinisland; McGurk’s Bar. We have 

a litany of atrocities. And we still have the families of the people 

who are seeking the recovery of their loved ones disappeared by the 

IRA. And we have the highest levels of suicide, mental health problems, and trauma in Europe. 

And we only have a piecemeal process, which I think Mr. Haass 

described well for dealing with the past. So we need a coherent and 

effective strategy. 

If I can just explain what happens at the moment. Four organizations investigate the past. Coroners ask when, where, and how 

did someone die. 

And then the Historic Inquiries Team is part of the police. It is 

a unit. It doesn’t investigate. It just reviews cases. It has no police 

powers at all. And we know there are difficulties about the way in 

which it is operated because it had one set of procedures for nonState actors and another set for State actors. 

And then we have the PSNI crime investigation department, 

which carries out the investigations in circumstances in which HET 

identify investigative opportunities. They investigate anybody who 

is not a police officer. 

And then we have the police ombudsman, who investigates anybody who is a police officer. But, unfortunately, police officers who 

have been engaged in such crime very often are engaged with others who are not police officers so that we, for example, in an investigation I reported on in 2007, identified collusion between loyalist 

paramilitaries and the police over a long period from 1991. 

So I want to tell you what the defects are in the current system, 

why it is not working. The first thing is that cases move about between the various organizations and, when they move about, each 

organization has to start investigating all over again, and that is 

very costly and very time-consuming. 

And then there are strict rules about protecting people so that, 

as police ombudsman, the people I was investigating would be the 

8

police officers. And they would be my suspects and then anybody 

else would be my witness, be they a soldier, a loyalist paramilitary, 

a Republican paramilitary, or anybody else, they would be my witness. 

For the police, the soldier, the Republican paramilitary, the loyalist paramilitary might well be their suspects, but the police officer couldn’t be their suspect. So it is a very complex legal situation. 

There are significant problems, as I have said, with the structure 

and working practices of HET. There is a problem still around access to Special Branch intelligence, and that is critical to investigation. 

And is the Legacy Unit, which deals with this, in fact—there are 

a number of former Special Branch offices there, and I don’t think 

that is calculated to secure trust. 

The current arrangements, then, create significant difficulties if 

you are trying to move toward a prosecution. And I heard Mr. 

Rohrabacher say that, you know, he didn’t want to hear about prosecutions, but the reality is that those who have suffered have the 

right, in international law, to a proper investigation of their cases. 

The Attorney General suggested that Northern Island should 

simply cease all inquiries, investigations, and inquests into deaths 

in the past. I think that is superficially attractive because it would 

allow us to move on, but I don’t think you can have a system in 

which we are prosecuting young men for public order offenses and, 

if we convict them, then they are criminalized, and, yet, we do not 

even try to prosecute those who are suspected of murders and 

bombing and very serious offenses. 

It has all recently been complicated by the revelations of what 

we call the Downey letters, the letters through which some 200 

people received letters—letters which—in, certainly, Mr. Downey’s 

case, gave him a situation in which his prosecution was discontinued for the Hyde Park bombing, the deaths of four soldiers and, 

indeed, of seven horses. 

So I think there is a need to build our future on the rule of law. 

Your poet, Maya Angelou, said that ‘‘History with all its wrenching 

pain cannot be unlived. If faced with courage, it need not be lived 

again.’’ And I think that is where we have to be. 

We all know that, even if we go through prosecution, there may 

not be—even if we go through investigation, there may not be 

many prosecutions, but there is a need for the State to act always 

in accordance with the rule of law. 

So I think we do need the kind of independent commission, 

which Congressman Smith described, to operate in accordance with 

all national and international standards of investigation. 

I think that we need to forthwith terminate the activities of the 

PSNI and of the police ombudsman in respect to historic deaths, 

create one single unit which would deal with them. 

It would require flexibility and imagination. It would have to be 

fully empowered in terms of its ability to arrest, search, seize, 

enter premises, secure scenes, et cetera, et cetera. 

Now, there is common purpose, I think, in that I think the people 

of Northern Ireland have come to the space where it is recognized 

that we need one unit. Eames-Bradley recommended what was 

called a Legacy Unit. 

9

That was attractive, but it had a 5-year time limit, which would 

never have worked. I mean, it took me on one occasion 9 months 

to find a significant, but very important, witness. So you can’t circumscribe it by time. 

I think the Haass proposals have moved us a long way. My criticisms of the Haass proposals, with great respect to Dr. Haass, are 

that, in the language of the Haass statements, it is not stated to 

be independent and it is not clear what it is a unit of. It is thought 

in some circles that it will be a unit of the PSNI, and that, I think, 

would not be independent in the eyes of the people. 

It is further suggested that it will report to the Northern Ireland 

Policing Board. But the problem with that is that the Northern Ireland Policing Board is responsible for the delivery of effective, efficient policing today and it has an interest in the issues which 

would be under investigation by the Historical Investigations Unit. 

There could very well be serving officers in the PSNI today who 

fall under investigation by the Historic Investigations Unit, and I 

would see a conflict arising there. And I’m not sure that it could 

secure the cross-community support. 

But I think, if we took the Haass proposal and, if you like, beefed 

it up to an independent commission, we would be able to bring in 

some international expertise. 

And we have seen a huge contribution by people like George 

Mitchell, which have really enabled change. So I think a commissioner from outside the UK would be very important. 

I have talked about the powers that this organization should 

have. In reality, everybody knows very few cases will go to prosecution. The decisions to prosecute will be made in the normal way according to the law. 

What is important is that ordinary people are able to find out 

what happened, that as much information as possible is given to 

them about the circumstances in which their loved one died or in 

which they themselves were attacked, that that information is provided to them in a respectful way, and that, at the end of the day, 

we allow—where we can, we set people free of the trauma which 

is currently limiting so much of our progress, and we allow our 

country to move on. 

So I think that is the essence, perhaps, Congressman Smith, of 

what I would want to say to you today. 

Mr. SMITH. Baroness O’Loan, thank you very much for your very 

precise and compelling statement. 

[The prepared statement of Baroness O’Loan follows:]

10


87142a-1.eps
11


87142a-2.eps
12


87142a-3.eps
13


87142a-4.eps
14


87142a-5.eps
15


87142a-6.eps
16


87142a-7.eps
17


87142a-8.eps
18

Mr. SMITH. Just very briefly, with regards to the idea of an independent commission, you mention in your written statement that 

the hope would be that they report to Parliament, as you put it, 

some of the reporting before 2006, I believe it is, would go to the 

Parliament and after which it would go to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I might have the date wrong. I am just looking for it. 

But to whom in Parliament would it go to? Would it be a special 

committee? Would it go to the Speaker? The First Minister? How 

do you see that playing out? 

Baroness O’LOAN. Well, I think there are a number of options. 

I think it could—because the responsibility, if you like, is a 

Northern Ireland office responsibility for reserved matters and for 

the history of Northern Ireland, and that goes to the Home Office 

and, to some extent, Department of Justice. 

There are committees of the Houses of Parliament which are well 

placed to investigate. For example, I sit on the Joint Committee on 

Human Rights of the Parliament, which is a joint committee of the 

House of Commons and the House of Lords, or there is a Northern 

Ireland Affairs Committee. 

But I think reporting to Parliament would take out any suspicion 

that, you know, there could be cover-up or there could be a failure 

to be transparent. And that is why I think Parliamentary reporting 

is the way forward. 

Mr. SMITH. You mention that there are conflicts of interest in 

terms of people who are investigated with the current system that 

would be eliminated or at least greatly mitigated by an independent commission. 

Could you elaborate for the committees those conflicts of interest. 

Baroness O’LOAN. Well, as I see it, the Northern Ireland Policing 

Board, which is an independent organization comprising politicians 

and independent members, has a responsibility to secure the delivery of effective, efficient policing. It has no powers to conduct investigations or anything like that. 

And I think it is for that reason the police ombudsman has to 

be independent of the Policing Board in order to make independence a reality so that the Policing Board cannot in any way influence what the police ombudsman does. 

I think this Historic Investigations Unit or Historic Investigation 

Commission, whatever it is, has to be in a position in which there 

can be no suggestion that anybody has influenced in any way any 

of the decisions which are made within the unit, and I think you 

will only be able to do that if you take it away from those who have 

responsibility for policing. 

Mr. SMITH. One of your major observations is that access to Special Branch intelligence is subject to gatekeeping by a Legacy Unit 

which employs former special branch officers. This is not calculated, you go on, to secure the trust of those affected by the arrangements. 

How problematic is that? Is that a huge problem? 

Baroness O’LOAN. I think it is very problematic. I think it is a 

big problem. 

When I was investigating in the final stages both loyalist and 

Republican paramilitaries who were alleged to be in collusion with 

19

police officers, actually accessing the intelligence was profoundly 

difficult. 

I reported on that issue in my Ballast report, which you will find 

at the police ombudsman’s Web site. And I reported in detail about 

the difficulties that we had with Special Branch in getting access 

to the information. You need to have direct access to be able to go 

in, to open up the computers, to look what is there, and to take it 

out. 

Now, I accept fully that there will have to be proper protection 

for that information. I accept fully that where agents of the State 

are involved, there is a need to be conscious of the need to protect 

their lives and the lives of anybody who maybe affected by their activities. But that doesn’t mean it is impossible. 

I am very clear that, having done it myself, it can be done and 

that that access, that direct access to intelligence, should not be the 

subject of gatekeeping and it certainly shouldn’t be the subject of 

gatekeeping by former Special Branch officers, who may be perfectly good, honest people, but who may be perceived to have, if you 

like, a motive not to be as honest and transparent as perhaps they 

would intend to be. 

Mr. SMITH. And just two final points. 

And one of the main reasons for convening this hearing today is, 

I think, the mistaken view that somehow matters in Northern Ireland has moved on, that peace has broken out, reconciliation has 

broken out, but these long-simmering and festering injustices, with 

collusion being a part of it, remain unresolved. 

And I would hope the press and Members of Congress and members of parliaments everywhere would understand that there are 

festering sores. Justice delayed is justice denied. And in this case 

we are denying it. Things have not happened that were supposed 

to happen, one of which is the special public inquiry into Patrick 

Finucane’s assassination. 

Geraldine Finucane is here and will be testifying, if you want to 

speak to that. 

But, also, this idea that Northern Ireland is off the radar screen 

for most people, it ought not to be. And, again, I think Ambassador 

Haass did a yeoman’s work. 

And I would recommend—and he says it in his testimony—everyone should read the proposed agreement, December 31st, 2013, and 

it ought to become a subject of widespread, hopefully, discussion 

and action. But the page has not been turned. There are still unresolved problems that need to be fixed. 

Baroness O’LOAN. I agree with you absolutely. I think that what 

the politicians and Dr. Haass achieved over that 6 months built 

very much upon the Eames-Bradley report. 

And I think there is a potential for a way of dealing with the 

past, subject to some of the criticisms I have made, and I think we 

have to find the courage to go on and to do it. 

I am not going to talk about Mrs. Finucane’s case. I never investigated it. It was not one which came to me. I think she is the person best placed to articulate the difficulties and the trauma of what 

that family experienced. So I would simply pay tribute to her and 

leave it for her. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

20

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you very much for your statement. I just 

have one area I just wanted to get a handle on a little bit more. 

And what is the scope? What would be the scope of the independent commission in terms of your view and the number of cases 

that they would look at, the number of investigations? 

Because I think, when you get a better handle—at least, if I get 

a better handle on the scope, I might have a better view of some 

of the better ways to form that commission or have it conduct its 

work. 

Baroness O’LOAN. I think it would have to be responsible for the 

investigation of all deaths resulting from The Troubles. And I think 

politicians will agree on the cutoff, whether it is 2006 or 2010, 

when justice was devolved. I don’t know. 

But it should have the power and the ability to investigate actors 

of the State, such as agents of the State, soldiers, police officers, 

and ordinary, if you like, Republican and loyalist paramilitaries, 

anyone who was engaged in any way in any of the deaths which 

occurred during The Troubles. 

It should have full police powers. It should be as powerful as, for 

example, your FBI or our Metropolitan Police Service so there 

should be absolutely no question that it can do what it has to do. 

I think probably the most important thing is that it actually has 

the courage to exercise those powers because, you know, there can 

be a lot of pressure on people not to. 

Mr. KEATING. I was just trying to contemplate if there was any 

kind of estimate on—maybe Dr. Haass might be helpful, too—on 

the number of cases. 

Because we have a seldom-used process in the U.S. of an inquest, 

where a judge would sit in a position and have all kinds of powers 

that you had mentioned and deal with an individual investigation 

itself and the judge—it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a prosecution, 

but they could issue a report which then would take the next step 

toward potential legal action. 

So I was thinking, could this ever be done or would it be a secondary step to actually have an individual review of incidents 

themselves? 

Baroness O’LOAN. We have had individual reviews, particularly 

the Cory reports, and Judge Cory did a number of the cases. We 

have 3,600 deaths, approximately, to answer your question about 

the specific numbers. 

Some of them have been very well investigated and, in respect 

to those, there will be no further need for investigation. And there 

is a significant number in respect to which considerable further investigation is required. 

I would see no benefit in appointing a judge to do it, although 

you could have a judicial figure heading your historic unit or your 

independent commission. The important thing is that whoever does 

it has the power to do it properly. 

And I think it does take a compilation of police powers, investigation powers, judicial powers, legal powers, et cetera, to do that effectively. So we have had judge-led inquiries, and that possibly is 

what Mrs. Finucane is seeking. But I don’t see them as being the 

answer to everything. 

21

There are calls for what we call Hillsborough-type inquiries. I 

don’t know if you are aware of that. But this was a situation in 

which a number of—well, I think 128 people died at a football 

match because of defective policing and an inquiry was led by a 

judge, but with academic researchers and police officers to investigate it, and produced a report which has now led to a police investigation. So we have a number of models which are available. 

My concern is that, if we could clarify to make it simple, if we 

could have one commission which could actually do everything and 

if we were prepared to put the money into enabling it to do it, then 

it could be a system in which people could have confidence and it 

could begin to draw the line under the past. 

Mr. KEATING. Great. 

I think, given the number that you mentioned, a commission is 

better approach initially, because the numbers are much too high. 

But maybe, as a secondary approach, that is something that 

could be—for certain cases, could be developed, something that 

could be looked at. 

Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Keating. 

Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

It just seems to me that what you are talking about—and I am 

sorry to—you know, just to be very frank, it sounds like you are 

dwelling so much on the violence of the past that you may not be 

able to lay the groundwork for a very pleasant future for children 

today. 

I will just have to say that—well, let me ask you how extensive 

you want this commission to delve into that and what kind of punishment you think should be dealt out to people who were engaged 

in what at that time was a chaotic situation in which people were 

losing their lives. There were explosions. There were police brutalities. You had an internal conflict, and some people make wrong 

decisions in situations like that. 

Do you believe that political leaders, people who were in elected 

office at that time, for example, who oversaw police policy—and we 

know that the police committed certain acts that are—that we now 

look back on that were not only not right, but were not legal—you 

would have those—what would you have those political leaders 

who turned their backs and just let this happen do? 

Are you saying that now we are going to contact people who are 

80 and 90 years old and put them before a court and ship them 

off to prison and, thus, they can fully explain why they let these 

murderers go who beat some witness to death 30, 40 years ago? 

What extent do you want—you want to take an 80-year-old man or 

an 80-year-old woman who was a police commissioner, let’s say—

is it your idea that we need to take that person to justice, march 

them out, put them on trial, and put them in prison for what they 

did or what they didn’t do? 

Baroness O’LOAN. I think it is most unlikely—the scenario which 

you describe is most unlikely, in the first instance. 

What you need for a prosecution is an unbroken chain of evidence. And we do have law which says that anybody who is conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Sep 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\031114\87142 SHIRL
22

victed of a Troubles related offense can only serve a maximum of 

2 years. So that goes to your question about punishment. It is a 

maximum of 2 years. 

But the reality—if I may say, sir, the reality is that there are 

very likely to be very few of those situations. 

I have to say to you again, where—you know, in London, where 

I am at the moment—in London, for example, the Metropolitan Police are currently conducting an investigation—another investigation into the murder of a young man called Stephen Lawrence who 

died nearly 30 years ago. We are also having a lot of child abuse 

investigations. I think you have those, too. Historic ones. 

I can’t see the difference between—I can’t see why a State would 

choose to investigate things like abuse of children, but choose not 

to investigate the much greater abuse of children which resulted 

from murdering their fathers and mothers. 

So I think that we have to stand back from the emotion, we have 

to accept that there will be very few cases. When people get to the 

age group that you are talking about, they very often can’t remember, they may have difficulties such as forms of dementia and 

things like that. Nobody is going to seek to take those people before 

the court. 

But it is important that there be a process which is compliant 

with the law. And the law says that, if somebody has died, then 

the State has an obligation to investigate and to inform the families. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know, in my——

Baroness O’LOAN. Try to—if we try——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In my area in Orange County, I am very 

much in favor of when the police get out of hand—and there have 

been several cases of that in the last couple years, where the police 

have murdered—for example, in Fullerton, California, where the 

police murdered some poor homeless guy who probably mouthed off 

to them. And there is no doubt that we need to bring people like 

that to justice. 

But to think about 20 or 30 years from now bringing the person 

who oversaw the police in city government who then perhaps let 

these guys go, if that is what happened, that we are going to bring 

justice to the case now, you will have—you’re talking about crimes 

that exist—that happened 30 years ago; are you not? 

Twenty, thirty years ago——

Baroness O’LOAN. But I have——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And if they are 20, 30 years ago, the people 

who oversaw that are older people and may or may not have the 

ability to defend themselves against charges that somebody may—

somebody may be holding grudges; somebody may not—it seems to 

me that what you are talking about is opening up a pandora’s box 

that is a never-ending situation, at least for a century, while—you 

know, when Communism fell, they didn’t take every local police 

chief who let their police do certain crimes against people and they 

didn’t seek vengeance. And, thus, Communism was allowed to 

move on, and the people of Eastern Europe have moved on. 

It seems to me that what you are talking about is not moving 

on but, instead, dwelling on these things. 

Go right ahead and answer. I am sorry. 

23

Baroness O’LOAN. What you have to understand is that it is not 

me that is saying this. It is the people who suffered at the hands 

of those who murdered their loved ones. And Mrs. Finucane will 

speak to you on this issue very clearly, I am quite sure. 

What I would want to say to you is that, again, we are not looking at overseers, for the most part. We are not looking at police 

commissioners. 

We are looking at the situation in which an individual death occurred, and for the most part, it will be paramilitaries who caused 

those deaths with no police involvement either. So we are looking 

at all the cases. 

It is a limited number, 3,600. In respect to a number of them, 

there have already been trials. There have already been prosecutions and convictions. So it is the outstanding numbers that we 

need to look at. 

And I think we need to have a process whereby people opt in if 

they want their case investigated, because there are some families 

who don’t want any further investigation. 

The biggest thing the families want—and most families would 

say to me that they are not interested so much in prosecution. 

They want to know what happened, how it happened, and why it 

happened. And that, I think, is the basis upon which you build society. 

And I think I said when I presented to you that I do not believe 

that this would lead to many prosecutions. That has been my experience doing historic cases. But it is profoundly important that you 

tell people what happened. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that you are well motivated. And, of 

course, who doesn’t condemn the horrible crimes that you are talking about? 

There were some horrible crimes that were committed on both 

sides of this conflict, but the people who were in political power 

have certain more responsibility than do people who were not in 

power at the time. 

So let me just note that your motives are good, and I commend 

you for it. I don’t believe what you are talking about will lead to 

a more peaceful situation in that part of the world, and I—but I 

know that you are talking about justice, which is something we 

should all be about. 

I will just end with this one thing. When I was a young person, 

one of the first lessons that I learned was that you have got to quit 

picking at the scab or your wound will never heal. That is the first 

thing I learned. I would hope that we are not just picking at scabs 

here. I hope we are looking to heal things. 

And I know that you are—you believe that, once all the facts get 

out, there is going to be a better chance at a national healing 

among the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and I understand that. 

And as I say, it is well motivated. I don’t know if that is what 

will be the result, a healing, or just an opening up of a wound. 

Thank you very much. 

Baroness O’LOAN. I can only speak from experience and tell you 

that, from the work which I did over the 7 years when I was police 

ombudsman, trust in the police was lower and the process through 

24

which people began to realize that the police were accountable for 

their actions led to enhanced confidence in policing. Everybody 

from the chief of police to political leaders acknowledged that fact. 

And I think, therefore, there is experience in Northern Ireland 

which suggests that, if we can find a way of dealing with the 

past—and I have to tell you, in so many cases, there is no unbroken chain of evidence, papers have been destroyed, they have been 

blown up, et cetera, et cetera. So we can—it will always be a limited process, in so many cases. 

But, as I said, I don’t think we can have a legal system which 

criminalizes young people for marching down the street or protesting against those who marched down the street whilst it fails 

to deal with those who are suspected of more serious crime. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. I have no questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Chair recognizes Mr. Holding, who I would note parenthetically is the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern Northern 

Carolina district. 

Mr. HOLDING. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really don’t have any questions at this time. But I appreciate 

the informative testimony and listening to the questions of my 

learned colleagues. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Baroness O’Loan, thank you so much for your statement. This is 

our 15th hearing that we have held on policing or injustices that—

especially some of those that have been historical and have remained unresolved. 

We take the view on—at least I do—that there is no statute of 

limitations on murder. As a matter of fact, some of the most important prosecutions, even recently here in the United States, have focused on people who have been murdered during the civil rights 

movement or, even before the civil rights movement got off the 

ground here in the United States. I take the view that accountability is the ultimate confidence-builder. 

And I take your point, as ombudsman, that there was a rising 

tide of confidence because of the work that was done, not as a reaction to anything else, but because of the good work that you and 

others did. And justice is the prerequisite, I think, for a sound and 

functioning society. 

So I do thank you for your exemplary service for so many years. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One other thought I would just like to say. As we look at this, 

I am struck by a saying of a Nobel Prize recipient we have in the 

U.S., Elie Wiesel. 

I think it comes to the core of what you are looking for, Baroness, 

and that is the fact that it is clear that hatred was a factor over 

these many decades. 

And I am reminded of his comment that the opposite of hate is 

not love, but it is indifference. And I think that it is important to 

look at these issues, it is important that we understand those 

issues because we can’t move forward without that. 

So I thank you for your comments. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Baroness. 

25

Baroness O’LOAN. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittees concluded their briefing and 

moved to the hearing.] 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittees now will resume their hearing. 

We will now welcome our first witness for the hearing, Ambassador Richard Haass, former U.S. Special Envoy to Northern Ireland. 

Ambassador Haass served as U.S. Special Envoy to Northern Ireland from 2001 to 2003. More recently, 2013, he served as the independent chair of the official multi-party panel established to address some of the most divisive political issues affecting Northern 

Ireland. 

He is currently the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

He has also been the Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of State, was Special Assistant to President George H.W. 

Bush, and was Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the staff of the National Security Council from 1989 to 

1983. 

Ambassador Haass, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD N. HAASS, CHAIR, 

PANEL OF PARTIES IN THE NORTHERN IRELAND EXECUTIVE 

Ambassador HAASS. Chairman Smith, Chairman Rohrabacher, 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland 

peace process. What I will do is make some fairly brief opening remarks and ask simply that my full statement be put in the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ambassador HAASS. I have twice now been intimately involved 

with this issue. From 2001 to 2003, I was the U.S. envoy to the 

Northern Ireland peace process during the presidency of George W. 

Bush. And as Chairman Smith said, over the last 6 months of last 

year, I was the chair of the Panel of Parties process in the Northern Ireland Executive. 

But there are important differences between the two periods that 

go beyond whom I was representing. When I represented the Bush 

administration more than a decade ago, the principal challenge was 

to implement the recently negotiated Good Friday Agreement, also 

referred to as the Belfast Agreement of 1998. 

And as has been referred to, that agreement constituted a major 

milestone, because what it did was to effectively bring to an end 

the violence that had taken over 3,500 lives over 3 decades. 

The 1998 agreement and the subsequent efforts, to be sure, advanced the peace process, but in no way did they complete it, nor 

did they bring about a normal society. This is not simply my judgment. This judgment was and is widely shared. 

Indeed, in the spring of 2013, the office of the First Minister and 

deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland proposed a process that 

would tackle some of the remaining issues. This process would be 

one that would involve all five parties of the Northern Ireland Executive and it would require, in their view, an independent chair. 

I was then asked by the First Minister and deputy First Minister 

in July 2013 to be that independent chair. And based in large part 

on their support of this process, I accepted, after which I asked 

26

Professor Meghan O’Sullivan of Harvard University to be the vice 

chair. 

Now, our remit was to forge a consensus among the participating 

parties in three areas: The use of flags and emblems both in official 

spaces and in informal public displays; the regulation of the thousands of parades, commemorations, and protests that take place 

each year; and contending with the past, the principal subject of today’s hearing. 

By the end of 2013, we had made seven trips to Northern Ireland, as well as visits to London and Dublin. There were 33 days 

of meetings, most involving the five parties either separately or collectively. 

There were also more than 100 meetings with 500 people, representing a wide range of civil society organizations, along with 

business, religious, and political representatives. 

In addition, we received more than 600 submissions from individuals and groups on a Web site that we established. And the draft 

agreement that emerged on December 31 of last year is now in the 

public domain. 

And here, too, Mr. Chairman, I ask that it be made part of your 

record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ambassador HAASS. The goal of this process was to produce an 

accord acceptable to all five parties that would also help Northern 

Ireland address some of the most vexing issues and, in the process, 

reduce sectarianism and promote reconciliation. 

Just to be clear, the text does not always represent my or Professor O’Sullivan’s view of what would be optimal. Rather, the December 31 document is and was our best effort to produce a set of 

carefully balanced compromises that we believed would both meet 

the various needs of the political parties and leave the society better off. And we reserved at the time the right to issue our own assessments and make recommendations, a step we continue to consider and may indeed well take. 

In two areas, in the areas of parades and the past, the text yields 

extensively and fairly with the challenges Northern Ireland confronts. 

In the realm of flags and emblems, however, where no amount 

of consensus proved possible, the document essentially calls for a 

follow-on process. 

Now, the draft document has the most to offer in the subject of 

your hearing today, in the area of helping Northern Ireland address its past. The proposed mechanisms would increase the 

chances that families could learn more about the specific circumstances around and reasons for the death of loved ones. 

The agreement—and somewhat different than described by Baroness O’Loan—the agreement would create an independent Historical Investigations Unit with investigative powers that would take 

the place of both the Historical Enquiries Team, the HET, and the 

historical role of the existing police ombudsman office. 

But this new institution would be created and empowered in a 

way that in no way would grant the perpetrators of violent acts 

amnesty. This is an important difference between what was proposed here and what is often proposed in other post-conflict sociVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Sep 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\031114\87142 SHIRL
27

eties because the agreement, as written, would not require that the 

pursuit of greater information come at the cost of potential prosecution. 

And I know Congressman Rohrabacher has some concerns about 

this, and I will be glad to discuss why I believe this, on balance, 

was the appropriate way to proceed. 

In addition, in order to help make better sense of the past, one 

entity was to be established that would also assess the presence or 

existence of certain patterns or themes involving both governments 

and paramilitaries and report on the degree of cooperation with 

this process by both. 

The text calls for public statements of acknowledgment of responsibility by individuals, organizations, and governments that were 

involved in the conflict, and I believe such statements are essential 

if there is to be healing at either the individual or societal level. 

The text also establishes new mechanisms and procedures to help 

defuse the tensions around parades, protests, and commemorations. 

Now, while a critical component of Northern Ireland’s culture 

and history, these events can also be an obstacle to good relations. 

The right of free expression must be balanced not only against 

other rights, but also against the goal of creating a less divided society of 1.8 million people sharing a space the size of the State of 

Connecticut. 

The issue of flags proved the most difficult. Flags are the most 

visible and emotive, but not the only representation of what many 

in Northern Ireland hold so dear: Sovereignty, allegiance, identity. 

The text calls for public debate across Northern Ireland on such 

issues as flags, emblems, the role of the Irish language, a bill of 

rights, and the commission overseeing this debate would then submit a report to the leaders of Northern Ireland with its recommendations. 

Our mandate ran until the end of the year, until December 31. 

This was a deadline established by the Northern Ireland Government, and at that point we ended the talks. Two of the parties, 

Sinn Fein and the Social and Democratic and Labor Party, the 

SDLP, endorsed the text in its entirety; a third-party, Alliance, endorsed the part of the text that deals with the past; and the other 

two parties, the DUP, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the 

UUP, the Ulster Unionist Party, decided not to endorse the text. 

Now, some have interpreted this outcome as an indication that 

the agreement met more nationalist than unionist concerns. Both 

Professor O’Sullivan and I reject this categorization. There is a 

great deal in the proposal for unionists; there is a great deal in the 

proposed text for nationalists. There is also a great deal in the text 

for the many in Northern Ireland who are not politically aligned, 

but who simply want to have a better understanding of the past 

and more reason to look forward to their future. 

To be candid, this outcome was a disappointment. The draft reflects months of conversations with individuals and groups within 

Northern Ireland as well as the five parties. It reflects the often 

competing preferences of the five parties and what was required to 

bridge them. 

We understand that no party is fully comfortable with the December 31 text, and that should surprise no one here, indeed no 

28

one anywhere. Politics inevitably requires that each party accepts 

some elements it views as disagreeable in order to advance the 

greater good. 

And here I can do no better than to quote Henry Kissinger, who 

recently wrote that the test of any proposed accord ‘‘is not absolute 

satisfaction, but balanced dissatisfaction.’’ I believe the December 

31 Northern Ireland text met this test and then some. 

Leaders must be prepared to take and make this case to their 

constituents and to the broader public. The true definition of leadership is a willingness to tell your supporters, not just your opponents, what they do not want to hear. A second requirement of 

leadership is to speak to those across the political divide, to reassure them that their core interests are not threatened, and that 

what is in the interest of one party or group or tradition need not 

be inconsistent with that of the other. And in the case of Northern 

Ireland, there is a third requirement for leaders: As appropriate, to 

acknowledge responsibility for the past. 

Since December 31, the parties have held a number of meetings 

in an effort to narrow their remaining differences and to add some 

needed detail, such as in the area of what would constitute a code 

of conduct for parades and protests. This effort, though, came to 

something of a halt when it was disclosed that the British Government had sent letters to nearly 200 people, assuring them that 

they were not wanted by the police. Virtually all I know about 

these letters is what I have learned from public exchanges over the 

past few weeks. 

It is my understanding that the letters essentially inform recipients that there was insufficient evidence to pursue or prosecute 

them should they return to the United Kingdom. But it is also my 

understanding that the letters made clear that prosecution could 

come about if new information regarding violations of the law came 

to light. In short, the letters did not offer amnesty, and I know of 

nothing in their content that would justify anyone walking away 

from the process we are discussing here today. 

So where do things go from here? I agree with the First Minister 

when he says that the three issues at the center of the talks still 

need to be dealt with. To this, though, I would add a sense of urgency. The passage of time will not heal Northern Ireland’s society. 

To the contrary, absent political progress, the passage of time will 

only create an environment in which social division intensifies, violence increases, investment is scared off, alienation grows, and the 

most talented depart. 

Northern Ireland is often cited as a model of peace building, but 

this is premature. Yes, the society has come a long ways from 

where it was two decades ago, but it still has a long ways to go 

before it sets an example others will want to emulate. I hope 

Northern Ireland’s leaders are up to the challenge. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Congressman, thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haass follows:]

29


87142b-1.eps
30


87142b-2.eps
31


87142b-3.eps
32


87142b-4.eps
33


87142b-5.eps
34

Mr. SMITH. Ambassador Haass, thank you very much. And thank 

you for the enormous amount of time you have spent over the 

many years, including much of last year, in trying to cobble together a meaningful and responsive approach that will really take 

Northern Ireland forward and make progress. 

You know, in her testimony in the third panel, Julia Hall from 

Amnesty International points out that the current mechanisms, 

while they have worked for some, have failed to conduct prompt, 

thorough and effective investigations in an independent and impartial manner in line with the UK’s international human rights commitments. And she points out that repeated investigative failures 

across the mechanisms have crucially—I think she means critically, or maybe crucially—undermined confidence and trust in her 

ability to deliver the truth about the past; and secondly, points out 

that the mandates, there has been a piecemeal approach to investigations adopted in Northern Ireland. 

It would appear that both Baroness O’Loan and you are both 

calling for a new, much more effective mechanism. And, again, I 

think many lawmakers and policymakers in this town have moved 

on to other things, the reason why this hearing has been convened. 

Could you speak to those criticisms of the current mechanisms, 

while well-meaning, unwittingly have not produced the record of 

results that one would have hoped for? And then this whole idea 

of unfinished business. I would hope that some of our friends in the 

media today or even tomorrow, when they write their articles and 

publish their stories, would talk about the unfinished business. You 

have it in your report. I have read it. It is excellent. It makes so 

many very fine and, I think, very forward-thinking and very credible recommendations, yet most people don’t even know about it. 

Ambassador HAASS. Well, thank you, sir, for what you said. Just 

to be clear on one thing, it is not my report or our report. 

Mr. SMITH. Good point. 

Ambassador HAASS. It is a report that grew out of this process 

and our attempt to bridge the political divides, yet still put forward 

a set of ideas that, if adopted, we believe would leave Northern Ireland better off, considerably better off. 

On your question, the current approaches, they are multiple. Essentially you have four existing approaches. They are time-consuming; the fact that we are still talking about unfinished investigations tells you that. They are in some cases extraordinarily expensive. In some cases they are quite distracting, because groups 

like the current police service have everyday tasks to carry out, yet 

they are still also obligated to deal with the heavy burden of the 

past. Plus, despite all this, despite all this effort and investment, 

some of the current efforts do not enjoy the kind of broad legitimacy that one needs if they are effectively to deal with the past. 

So it is not a criticism about effort; it is not a criticism of motives; it is simply an observation, if you will, about results. And the 

reason, therefore, we came up with the idea of creating a new and 

independent Historical Investigations Unit with investigative powers was to try to deal with this, the fact that the current approaches were time-consuming, a bit of a distraction, and lacked legitimacy because they were seen as under the police service rather 

than distant from them. 

35

So that is why we have come up with this approach, and we believe it is the best way of threading the needle. It is not, as the 

Baroness suggested, what has been put forward in this report, 

under the police service. That is simply incorrect. It is also independent. 

Now, in a democracy—and we understand this from our own system; indeed, I used the analogy at times in the talks—we have 

things like the Supreme Court, we have the Federal Reserve, we 

have independent institutions. But in a democracy you still need 

accountability. You can’t have free-floating institutions that don’t 

have a degree of tether or of accountability, and therefore there has 

to be an appointments process. There has to be some oversight 

process in a democracy. And what we tried to do was come up with 

the best way we knew—in consultation with the five parties—of 

threading that needle, of coming up with something that was as 

independent as could possibly be construed or constructed, yet at 

the same time have adequate oversight and accountability, and we 

believe that what is in the December 31 text does exactly that. 

On your larger point, and I tried to get to it in my remarks, 

when I was asked to do this, and I accepted it, a lot of people 

seemed surprised, and they seemed surprised back in New York or 

Washington, but also even in London. And everyone said, to a person, I thought this was resolved. Didn’t you have the Good Friday 

or Belfast Agreement in 1998? 

And what I believe that highlights, and you got at it in your 

opening statement, there is a difference between, if you will, ending 

a war and building a peace. Any society coming out of something 

like three decades of Troubles—and Mr. Rohrabacher talked about 

the Civil War in this country—any society like that is traumatized 

for obvious reasons. It is traumatized psychologically, physically, 

economically and politically. There are all sorts of divisions, 

wounds, damage and the like. And obviously Northern Ireland was 

no exception. One day North Korea will be no exception. I look forward that day happening when it gets out from under the rule and 

the division it has known. 

And so what this showed to me is that even though Northern Ireland had emerged from the Troubles, and most of the violence had 

stopped, it had not become anything remotely like a normal society. 

If you walk down parts of Belfast, you were still confronted by concrete barriers separating communities. Upwards of 90 percent of 

the young people still go to divided schools, single-tradition schools. 

Neighborhoods are still divided. 

I don’t see the society sowing the seeds of its own normalization, 

of its own unity, if neighborhoods and schools are still divided. 

What worries me in that kind of environment, particularly where 

politics are not shown to be making progress, alienation will continue to fester, and violence, I fear, could very well reemerge as a 

characteristic of daily life. 

So it is premature to put Northern Ireland, as much as we would 

like to, into the outbox of problems solved. I would love for it to 

be there, and I look forward to that day, but, quite honestly, it is 

not there yet. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank you for that. I hope that that is a message 

that lawmakers and others will convey, especially at the end of the 

36

week when so many people will make their way from the Republic 

of Ireland and Northern Ireland as part of the St. Patrick’s Day 

festivities, because, again, I think there is a superficial understanding about all done, as you put it, it is finished, time to move 

on, and we need, again, to redouble our efforts, again, to take your 

blueprint, and let people know that there is much more that needs 

to be done. 

Let me just ask you, if you would like to respond to it, you know, 

the Finucane case, the horrible, horrific murder of Patrick 

Finucane. His wife, who is here, Geraldine, who was wounded, the 

family was all there, and they have on several occasions testified 

through our subcommittee in an appeal to the British Government, 

different Prime Ministers to finally do what they promised to do, 

and that is implement or create and implement a public inquiry. 

Judge Cory sat where you sat, Ambassador Haass, and he 

couldn’t have been more emphatic. He spoke for the better part of 

an hour, and he kept getting back to the unfinished business of the 

Finucane murder and the collusion that was inherent in it. 

Would you want to speak to that? I mean, this is like one festering sore. I absolutely am in awe of the courage and the tenacity 

of Geraldine and her family in carrying on this call for an accountability. Would you want to respond to it? 

Ambassador HAASS. I am happy to. 

One has to be impressed by the courage of the Finucane family 

and by what they have had to endure. The report deals with the 

question of inquiries, but essentially leaves it to the British Government to make a decision as to whether it is or believes that is 

the best way to deal with the, as you describe it, unfinished business. 

The bulk of the report is on other mechanisms for dealing with 

all sorts of situations that have never been investigated—still there 

are hundreds and hundreds of murders and deaths that have never 

been investigated, and in many cases where they have been investigated by whatever mechanism—there are multiple mechanisms, 

as you know, for investigating them—people are not satisfied with 

the results. 

And we also create a mechanism where there is reason to do so 

for reopening certain things. So that is essentially the approach. 

But that will have to be a decision by the British Government, 

whether they believe that it is worth, from their point of view, 

going down the path of another inquiry. 

Mr. SMITH. By having promised it, it is just we are looking for 

promise fulfilled. 

Let me ask two final questions. Nuala O’Loan made a very 

strong point in both her oral and written testimony about the legacy unit. It seems to me that when you have former Special Branch 

officers in charge of what is allowed out and, you know, revealed 

versus what is not, that without some kind of oversight that is very 

real, that is an engraved invitation, it would seem to me, to just 

continue hiding a truth that may not be very pretty. 

And secondly, with regards to the Military Reaction Force, as one 

of our witnesses Eugene Devlin, who was shot, and, as he says in 

his testimony, Daniel Rooney, age 18 like himself, was killed by a 

37

bullet, and the information now that is becoming much more visible about this Military Reaction Force. Your thoughts on that? 

Ambassador HAASS. Well, again, that is why there are two new 

mechanisms that this report recommends. One is a Historical Investigations Unit, which would look at things through a legal lens; 

and then there is a separate information unit that would be created to encourage people to come forth, because as it turns out, 

there are a number of survivors and victims whose priority, if you 

will, is not necessarily in the legal realm, ‘‘justice’’ or punishment, 

but rather their priority is to simply find out what happened, to 

get the facts about what happened to a loved one. And there are 

certain incentives put forward in order to encourage individuals, 

organizations, and governments to cooperate with this information 

pathway. 

Now, at the same time, there is nothing in the information pathway that provides amnesty; it simply provides what we would call 

limited immunity. So information introduced there cannot be used 

for prosecution, but if other information is somehow gained through 

other means, and that warrants prosecution, prosecution could still 

happen. 

And I think it is important that governments, whether it is the 

British Government or the Irish Government, are involved in this 

process fully, and I believe that obviously paramilitary organizations need to be involved in this process, paramilitary or other organizations across the board, in no small part because the bulk of 

the violence was done at the hands of paramilitaries. But governments do have special obligations under European law, and obviously, I believe the British Government needs to be a participant 

in dealing with the past. 

Can I say one other thing about it? Because it gets at Mr. 

Rohrabacher’s comments. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Ambassador HAASS. The point of view he talked about, and I 

think the analogy you used was the scab. There is a point of view 

that echoes what he says, and it is the idea that in order to deal 

with the future, you have to let go of the past. There is that. And 

public figures and private figures in Northern Ireland do articulate 

that. 

On the other hand, I came away persuaded that it wouldn’t work 

in this case; that you would never get to the point of healing, in 

a sense, to use his analogy—and analogies are always dangerous, 

but I will use it—you would never form the scab without a process, 

you would never get to the point of healing, and that you needed 

a process. 

And I came to this, by the way, after some of the most emotional 

meetings of my career, which was meeting with the victims and 

survivors and meeting with the families. And you can’t emerge 

from these meetings and not be powerfully affected by it. 

And when I met with these individuals, and I met more broadly 

with people in Northern Ireland, I came away persuaded that you 

needed a process that would deal with the past. We have talked 

about, too, a legal dimension; we have talked about also an information availability dimension. 

38

There are other aspects as well. I think this society doesn’t teach 

the past well. We need a curriculum that deals better with it. We 

need a museum. Why wouldn’t there be somewhere a museum 

dedicated to the Troubles, not that you try to come to a common 

narrative. I, for one, believe that is unrealistic at this point given 

how divided the society is. But why couldn’t you have a place 

where competing narratives are allowed, where people understand 

the facts, here is the timeline, here are the facts, and people can 

put forward different narratives? 

But I do believe this is a society that will not be able to get beyond what it has gone through unless there is something of a political, but also psychological process of contending with it. Otherwise 

what will happen is different communities will live with their own 

versions of the past, and I came away thinking that there would 

never be the kind of bridge-building or normalization we and they 

want to see without a multidimensional approach to dealing with 

what happened. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Keating. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At the outset, I do want to say this, that I will apologize. I have 

got dual responsibilities. I am managing the floor debate in just a 

short period of time. So in particular to Ms. Finucane and Mr. 

Devlin, I apologize if I am interrupted back and forth doing that, 

as well as to you, Dr. Haass. 

Quickly, you mentioned the prospects of further violence. Although the political violence has declined significantly, and fatalities have almost been eliminated since the agreement, tensions remain strong between unionist and nationalist communities. Now, 

to what extent are paramilitary organizations on both sides still capable of disrupting the peace? What is your assessment of the risk 

of new outbreaks from these entities? 

Ambassador HAASS. That is a question I ask myself a lot. I think 

there are two kinds of violence we have to worry about in Northern 

Ireland. You have got one, which is paramilitary violence. You still 

have so-called splinter groups on the so-called Republican side in 

the Northern Ireland context. And while I was there, there was 

more than one car bombing and so forth. There were some also letter bombs sent. So you still have that. And you still have paramilitary groups on the loyalist side who are in a position to carry 

out violence. 

So I can’t give you, if you will, a quantitative prediction. It is 

simply my sense that the possibility of a paramilitary violence is 

real, and then I want to come to the other form of violence which 

could affect it, which is political protests of various types. We have 

seen now a larger number of protests or marches or both where 

then you have had friction—I don’t know any other word to use—

with police forces. And you had a large number of policemen hurt 

over the last year as well as individuals. What worries me, then, 

is the possibility for this kind of violence to continue to get worse 

and whether the two kinds of violence could begin to affect one another. 

If you begin to have greater violence at the political level, I worry 

that that creates a context in which then there could well be greatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Sep 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\031114\87142 SHIRL
39

er violence at the paramilitary level. Indeed, this is the history of 

Northern Ireland. Early on, before the Troubles in the early stage, 

you had political protest and violence, and then ultimately it led 

into a much more dangerous era of paramilitary violence, and I do 

not want to see history repeat itself. 

Mr. KEATING. Your last comments actually are along the lines of 

one of my questions. The countries in Central and Eastern Europe 

have enjoyed mixed success in dealing with difficult historical 

issues, whether it is World War II or the Holocaust. In some cases, 

ostensibly independent institutions charged with historical investigations have been unduly politicized as a means of influencing 

public opinion, shaping political debate, or benefitting certain political actors or parties. 

In other cases, in the case of Germany and Poland, academics 

and educators have successfully collaborated to develop historical 

curriculum taught in both countries that encourages students to 

critically consider competing historical narratives as a means of 

promoting reconciliation. 

What are the prospects, long and short, about this? I am in no 

way equating the Holocaust or other things, because each instance 

and terrible instances in our history define themselves, but one of 

the lessons of that, really, has been informative. And I look at 

groups in the U.S., like Facing History and Ourselves and other 

groups from an academic standpoint that have done so much to foster a greater understanding. And you said maybe you never can get 

to full agreement on the issues that you discussed, but we can at 

least foster the kind of academic educational narrative that is important in this instance. 

Ambassador HAASS. I think you are exactly right. I think some 

of it is going on, as best I can tell. You see it at the academic level; 

you see it even with some of these victims and survivor groups. A 

lot of these groups bring people together from different traditions. 

One of the things that makes these meetings powerful is you 

have people who may have suffered at the hands of, say, a Republican paramilitary from the Provisional IRA, and people who suffered from a loyalist paramilitary, and then others who suffered 

then from the hands of that British troop. And there is an ability, 

in that case, to talk across certain divides. 

I would simply say the academic approach has been limited. 

There is a lot more that could and should be done. I would like to 

see—how would I put it?—vehicles created where academics would 

come together. For example, I would like to see the leading historians of Northern Ireland come together to try to do what you suggest, to come up with a—if not a single history of the past, then 

a collective history, because, again, I think it is important that 

young people understand what happened, the reality of what happened. 

Let me give you one reason. I don’t want young people to only 

hear the story from one side, and I never want anyone to get 

caught up in the ‘‘romance of it all.’’ It would be a real tragedy if 

another generation of young people thought that ‘‘fulfillment’’ was 

to be found in the path of becoming a paramilitary. And it would 

be good if there was a place they could go to where they would see 

40

the costs to individuals and the society of that kind of an experience. 

That can only happen if historians from the various traditions 

come together and try to produce a living, not just a physical, 

monument to the past. The shorthand we sometimes used was a 

‘‘museum of the history of the Troubles.’’ Something like that, I believe, would be extraordinarily valuable. 

Mr. KEATING. Just one more thought I had, and this is such a 

profound issue, and it works on so many levels. There are a couple 

of demographics that I just want to raise and see if you think at 

all this can foster a better relationship. 

Number one, the remains of disparity and unemployment with 

Catholics that are much higher that are there, that, left 

unaddressed, and not having the so-called benefits of a peace dividend, I think—I just want to ask you what effect that will have. 

And number two, the other demographics are the population, the 

number of Irish people are—it is growing, and the Protestant people are diminishing somewhat, and then you have that shift that 

is going on there. 

Will either of those things have an effect, positive or negative, on 

efforts to bring peace? 

Ambassador HAASS. On the first point, which is unemployment, 

it is high among Catholics, as you say, but it is really high among 

poorly educated young people in both communities, which is one of 

the problems, because those are, if you will, the foot soldiers of 

some of the violence that we are seeing. 

What this argues for is two things: One is specific projects that 

would employ people with their skill sets, and there are lots of 

ideas around for development. Indeed, there was one area where 

there was a big project that was put forward, and it couldn’t go forward at what is called Maze Long Kesh because it is also the site 

where you have the prison and the hospital which was associated 

with where a lot of people were incarcerated during the Troubles, 

it was where Bobby Sands had his hunger strike, so it has taken 

on obviously a politicized position in Northern Ireland life. 

But there are a lot of potential resources that could go to develop 

that area, put aside the question of what to do about the historic 

places, and a lot of young people can be employed. So projects 

linked to getting the communities working would be great. 

The larger point, as my former boss Colin Powell used to say, is 

that capital is a coward. Investment in Northern Ireland has to 

compete with investment from everywhere else, and capital and investment will stay away from Northern Ireland if its future looks 

uncertain. So it is one of the reasons that it is important that politics advance, or, quite honestly, investors will take their dollars 

elsewhere. 

In terms of population demographics, Protestants still now hold 

what I would call a plurality, as the most recent numbers I have 

seen are slightly below the majority. The Catholics’ share is less 

than that, but it is slightly going up. And I think it obviously is 

part of the backdrop to this process. It is one of the reasons that 

people need to constantly reach across the community divide and 

not just speak to their own supporters, but to reassure people 

about the future. 

41

You know, it is interesting; the document that brought us in 

here, that created this panel that I was asked to chair, the title of 

it was ‘‘Together.’’ And the whole idea was to create a Northern 

Ireland of a shared future. And it had all these grandiose plans. 

What is missing, 90 percent of life, as we used to teach, is implementation, and we need to see some of these plans for a shared future begin to be realized. But as long as people see separate futures, then it is going to be very hard to make the shorter progress 

that, in a sense, both communities, I believe, need. 

Mr. KEATING. Great. 

And just one more in the nature of comment, should I not be 

here for Ms. Finucane and Mr. Devlin’s testimony, is that I must 

tell you as a former prosecutor and someone that was involved in 

our own State as chairman of judiciary, I do believe very strongly 

that going forward, if we are going to respect the rule of law, we 

have to have confidence going backwards that if there wasn’t rule 

of law, that we do things to acknowledge that, correct that, because 

the message will be, well, the rule of law isn’t something that transcends time. It is conveniently turned on and turned off. And I 

think the Commission’s effort and those efforts to go back is important for the future to instill respect in that rule of law. So——

Ambassador HAASS. I am with you on that. I agree about the 

past, and I also agree with it about the present. One of the things 

that was a stumbling point was the idea to embed a code of behavior for all these marches and parades and attending protests and 

to embed it in the rule of law. And that is essential for a democratic society. 

So I think it is true for the past; I think it is true for the present. 

Obviously, and you know better than I do, it has got to be administered fairly and efficiently and all that. But I believe a democratic 

society rests on it, and Northern Ireland can’t be an exception. 

Mr. KEATING. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Keating. 

Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Just before I go into questions, a little bit about a month ago I 

was called over to the Japanese Embassy, and I was asked to provide the toast to Japanese-American friendship, and I think it was 

the Emperor’s birthday or something like that. And I did that, and 

I felt real good about it, and I knew my father would approve. 

My father was a United States Marine in World War II, and how 

ironic that his son is at the Japanese Embassy providing a toast 

to the friendship between the Japanese people and the people of 

the United States. There was a lot of blood there, a lot of bloodshed 

in that relationship, not only U.S. Marines being killed, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians being evaporated by our 

bombing, which was done in order to end that war, I understand. 

But it seems to me that today, Japan and the United States have 

a wonderfully close friendship. We have had that for decades. And 

it is so difficult for me to see two people who are separated by their 

Christian religion not being able to come to have a greater peace 

than they have in Northern Ireland. 

Let me ask you, and, by the way——

Ambassador HAASS. Can I say one thing? 

42

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Go right ahead. 

Ambassador HAASS. I apologize for interrupting. 

What is interesting to me, though, about what you said, well, two 

things. One is one of the things we have called for in this report 

is not simply apologies, but acknowledgments, that people talk 

about their responsibility and role in the past. 

Honesty will go a long way in Northern Ireland. The more honesty there is and people accepting personal responsibility, that kind 

of personal gesture, I believe, will have extraordinary impact. 

When we have seen it already, it has had extraordinary impact. 

The other thing that came to mind what you were saying——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Before you go on to your second point, I agree 

with you 100 percent in that I think that acknowledging one’s 

faults, for that to have a positive result also has to have forgiveness. I mean, that is the other half of the equation. That is what 

Christ talks to us Christians about. 

And excuse me. Go ahead. 

Ambassador HAASS. The other thing—and I know before you 

were raising the question of the some of the dangers or risks of too 

much a focus on the past, but take another analogy from Asia. You 

used the one of the United States and Japan, but look at the Japanese-Korean relationship and the Japanese-Chinese relationship. 

They are increasingly—held back doesn’t begin to get at it; 

poisoned might not be too strong of a word—by the legacy of the 

past. 

And the fact that you have totally different perceptions and takes 

on the past, you teach it different ways in the schools, and it is 

both impressive and depressing how much of the current diplomacy 

is affected and limited by different perceptions of the past. So, 

again, to me that is a lesson about why sometimes you do need to 

deal with the past before you can effectively deal with the future. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is a very good point. 

Let me ask you something about your knowledge, and, first of all, 

thank you for the wonderful work you have dedicated your life to, 

and it is something that is so admirable, that type of—what you 

are expending your energy or intellect and your time of your life 

being a peacemaker; as I say, blessed are the peacemakers, et 

cetera. And that is why we are so proud to work with Chairman 

Smith, because he has dedicated his life to these type of things as 

well. 

Let me ask you about Ireland. Has there been any evidence that 

Protestants have been discriminated against in southern Ireland, 

in the regular part of Ireland? 

Ambassador HAASS. In the Republic of Ireland? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Ambassador HAASS. I don’t know the answer to that question 

about the state of Irish society. I have never heard of that recently. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. I have never heard about it. 

Ambassador HAASS. Yeah. I mean, the population of Ireland is 

also, I think—my numbers could be off here, but it is upwards of 

97, 98 percent Catholic. So all I can say is I have not heard reports 

of that, but I could be—you know, I am certainly uninformed, and 

I could always be misinformed. 

43

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think there was a lot of arguments when 

Ireland was separating from British domination that the Protestants—there would be retaliation against the Protestants, and I 

didn’t see it. I mean, I have studied—I love Ireland. I love the history and the culture, the music, and the beer. I just love Ireland, 

and I have studied a lot about it, and I didn’t see any repercussions 

against the Protestants when the British left. 

Now, I will say this: I personally believe the issue that we are 

talking about today would not exist had the British not 

‘‘shnookered’’ the Irish into the original agreement to give up those 

five counties. The bottom of the line is Ireland is Ireland, and they 

are all Irish, and had that not—we wouldn’t be facing this right 

now. And it is six counties, pardon me. I will leave the British with 

one. 

But the fact is that perhaps today, perhaps the real solution 

lies—and from what I understand, there is only one county that 

has a very big majority of Protestants over Catholics. Maybe if we 

let these people have their right to self-determination via each 

county voting on it might lead to a restructuring of the whole system there, which might lead to a little better feelings after a period 

of time when people have to live together. That is just a thought. 

But let’s get to the question now. And the question is this: The 

Good Friday agreements happened in 1998. 

Ambassador HAASS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is 15 years ago. And so it has been 16 

years since the violence stopped. 

Ambassador HAASS. For the most part. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. During that time period, I don’t see 

anything wrong with people saying anyone held accountable for 

any acts of violence during this time when there wasn’t official 

peace and people were negotiating it, I could understand that. But 

going back beyond the 16 years, the 16 years of peace, before that 

we just heard the Baroness talking about maybe giving people 2 

years in prison for someone who was maybe in their twenties when 

something happened or thirties. Is that part of the plan for peace? 

Ambassador HAASS. Well, again, two separate issues. One is the 

ability to prosecute, and the other is the question of what would 

be the penalty for those found guilty. 

You know, I believe, again, Mr. Keating and I had this exchange, 

and I believe for democratic societies there needs to be the ability 

to prosecute for crimes for which there is no statute of limitations. 

I think that is true from a political and legal point of view. 

I also came away from my experience here thinking that it is 

necessary politically and psychologically; that, again, for people to 

be open to a future, they have got to feel that the past has been 

fairly and comprehensively dealt with. And I don’t believe that 

should be something, by the way, that individuals have the 

right——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I don’t know. I wish I could tell you that I 

believe in what you are saying, because I know that that is the theory that we can—something we can believe in that will create a 

better world. But, again, my father was a Marine in World War II. 

A member of our church, was my father’s best friend, called me 

aside one Sunday and said, you know, I was in Guam, and we went 

44

out after the Japanese had surrendered, and there were little 

groups out there, and we surrounded a group of 13 of them, 13 or 

14 of these Japanese, around a campfire one night, and we had a 

Japanese speaker with us. And we came out and we said, hands 

up, surrender, and they all did. And one of our guys just started 

shooting, then we all started shooting, and we killed all of them. 

And I mean, that was an atrocity. And during the Battle of the 

Bulge, there is another case where I know of where our soldiers actually killed a lot of German soldiers, knowing full well the Germans were killing our soldiers, however. 

It seems that if we are going to have a better world, we have got 

to recognize that those things are evil, and that evil does lurk 

among humankind, but that if we try to go back, I don’t think it 

would be fair to that Marine to go back and then to charge him 

with a war crime. Do you? 

Ambassador HAASS. I am uncomfortable commenting upon other 

situations, because I know enough to know that every situation 

stands on its own and is different and unique. I would simply say, 

though, one of the things you have to think about in the case of 

Northern Ireland is you are not thinking about two different countries, you are talking about a society that we want to be commingled, which is not divided. 

And, again, I don’t believe it is realistic to think that you will 

have a unified society if you have someone across the street living 

from someone else, and people know that this individual was involved in certain activities and that they lost a loved one because 

of it. I think you are expecting too much from human nature to 

think that—that people can get beyond that kind of an experience. 

And, again, we may just simply disagree here. I am not sure it 

is healthy for a society to do that. I do think there has to be a 

sense of accountability and responsibility. Now, what Northern Ireland has tried to do is put certain ceilings in many cases on the 

jail penalty and time that individuals would have to serve. And I 

don’t want to speak for anybody there, but my sense is that is the 

way they have tried to compromise this, to basically have prosecution continue where it is warranted, but also to have a degree of 

mercy, if you will, or limits on the penalties that would be incurred 

by individuals who committed crimes during the periods of the socalled Troubles. As you say, it is different after 1998. 

So I think that has been the balancing act that people in Northern Ireland have had and more broadly have come up with there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. And I know I 

sound a little bit too idealistic here maybe, but I do think that forgiveness—if someone really has contrition, forgiveness goes a long 

way toward creating more peace in the world. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ambassador HAASS. Thank you for what you said. 

Mr. SMITH. I would just comment, if I could, very briefly. I will 

never forget, I was part of a reinterment ceremony at Srebrenica, 

with Reis Ceric, who was the Grand Mufti; Haris Silajdzic, who 

was President. And I remember hearing from widows who told me 

that there were people in the police to that day, this was 9 years 

ago, who were part of the genocide that was committed against, in 

that case, the Muslims who lived in Srebrenica, which was supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Sep 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\031114\87142 SHIRL
45

posed to be a U.N. safe haven, and the horror that they felt knowing that in their police department sat someone in good standing 

still presumably meting out enforcement of law who had committed 

atrocities. And I think what we are trying to, and what you have 

done so well, and what others have done so well, is to say there 

is no statute of limitations for heinous crimes. There can be forgiveness, but that doesn’t preclude justice, and justice means that 

there needs to be accountability. 

And our biggest fear has been in the collusion side, and that is 

what got me into this, holding hearings, doing legislation that ensured that when certain people in the RUC came to the United 

States to get training at the academy, the police academy in Virginia, that they were fully vetted, because so many people had been 

just moved up, even got, we believe, moved up in rank and were 

grandfathered in. I mean, that was one of the flaws of the Patton 

Commission, that it grandfathered in, we believe, some people who 

had committed horrific acts of cruelty. 

And just like with our own civil rights movement here, if you 

committed a crime, if you blew up an African American church and 

we find you, just like we will prosecute. And I think that is what 

we are trying to really—that message that there is no immunity for 

that kind of impunity. So I thank you. 

Ambassador Haass, any final comment before we move on? 

Ambassador HAASS. I would simply say that what was suggested 

in this report, this debate is a real debate. And that is why for certain families what was created was a path that would allow them 

simply to get information, and that people would then be encouraged to provide them information so they could psychologically and 

emotionally deal with what happened to their own families, and 

the person could know that that information itself would not be 

then handed over to authorities. 

So it was not a ‘‘prosecution first’’ approach. We wanted to make 

sure that—on the other hand, we didn’t want to preclude prosecution if that is what the state warranted was necessary, and if that 

information could be gotten through other means. That is the 

whole concept, as you know, of limited immunity. 

So, again, all of this is a balancing act designed to ensure that 

certain principles are respected about the past and also continue to 

be respected in the present about the rule of law; yet also, to take 

into account the fact that there is, what, thousands and thousands 

and thousands, tens of thousands of individuals and families in 

Northern Ireland that have this tremendous burden of the past. 

And they have a special place in this society, and we wanted to 

give them a degree of choice in how they would pursue what it was 

they thought was necessary. And I never use the word ‘‘closure.’’ 

That sounds, I think, offensive for outsiders to say, but at least a 

degree of significant comfort with what happened. 

So what was laid out was a set or a menu of possibilities, because there is no one single answer for every individual or every 

family. And what I think is in this—and, again, it was a collective 

effort, so I am not praising myself—but I actually think is a fairly 

unique approach, which is something, I believe, if adopted, would 

be very good for Northern Ireland and would be worthwhile for 

other societies that have gone through similar types of experiences 

46

to look at, a way of balancing individual needs and collective needs, 

as well as the past, the present and the future. And it is an attempt to come up with some trade-offs. 

And I come back to Henry Kissinger’s line, there is always going 

to be a balance of dissatisfactions, and that, to me, is the element 

of political possibility. But more positively, there is also a balance 

of satisfactions. In every side, if they look at what are the details 

of the past, if they look at what could be there with flags, or what 

is there with parading, there should be enough there that, if adopted, it would not hurt them politically, and it would help the society 

as a whole. 

Those are two pretty good criteria, that they could politically 

manage it, and the society would be better off. And that is what 

we tried to do. We think the document does it. And we very much 

hope that people will come to that realization. There is no way to 

ultimately avoid these three issues, and there is no way you can 

or should in particular avoid the set of questions about the past. 

So I am very hopeful that it is a question of when and not if the 

political leaders of Northern Ireland come to that realization and 

then act on it. So, again, I appreciate what you all have done in 

this hearing by putting a spotlight on it. So thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. And, again, the December 31 proposed agreement remains viable? 

Ambassador HAASS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. Great. Thank you. 

Ambassador HAASS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ambassador Haass. 

I would like to now invite our second panel, if they would make 

their way to the witness table, beginning first with Ms. Geraldine 

Finucane, wife of slain human rights attorney Patrick Finucane. As 

we all know, in 1990, loyalist government forced their way into her 

home and their home and murdered her husband Patrick Finucane, 

an Irish human rights lawyer. 

She has advocated long and effectively for full disclosure of British state collusion in her husband’s murder. She has been all over 

the world, including the United States many times, and including 

before this subcommittee and before Congress on several occasions. 

Collusion in the Finucane murder remains one of the major unresolved questions in the peace process, and the peace process is an 

ongoing venture, and the British Government’s refusal to fulfill its 

promise undermines that very process. 

And, again, I want to welcome her and thank Geraldine for her 

unbelievable courage and tenacity. 

We will then hear from Mr. Eugene Devlin, who was born and 

raised in Belfast. On the night of May 12, 1972, Mr. Devlin, with 

friends, went to a disco, and on their way home was shot by the 

British Army undercover unit, the Military Reaction Force, which 

was a covert, intelligence-gathering and counterinsurgency unit in 

Northern Ireland during the Troubles. 

He later went to London to work, where the bar he was working 

in, it was bombed after 2 weeks. Mr. Devlin eventually came to the 

United States and today owns and operates a bar and restaurant 

in Red Bank, New Jersey. We had a very good conversation before 

the hearing, and, again, I thank him for coming and testifying 

47

about his ordeal and that of others who have been killed by the 

Military Reaction Force. 

And then we will hear from Julia Hall, a human rights lawyer, 

Amnesty International’s expert on criminal justice, counterterrorism and human rights in Europe. Her current work focuses on 

accountability of human rights violations in countries with a history of political violence, including Northern Ireland, and for violations committed in the context of the Global War on Terrorism. 

Ms. Hall served on the research and editing team for a 2013 Amnesty International report on Northern Ireland and authored another research report on Northern Ireland that was published in 

1997. 

So, Geraldine, if you could all come. And as you physically come 

to the witness table, without objection, testimony from Anne 

Cadwallader and Alan Brecknell of the Pat Finucane Center will 

be made a part of the record as well as a submission from the Professor Patricia Lundy of the University of Ulster. 

Ms. Finucane, if you can proceed. 

Mr. Devlin, if you could please come on up, as well as Ms. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF MS. GERALDINE FINUCANE, WIFE OF SLAIN 

HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY PATRICK FINUCANE 

Ms. FINUCANE. My name is Geraldine Finucane. My husband 

was Patrick Finucane, a Belfast solicitor murdered by loyalist 

paramilitaries on the February 12, 1989. My family and I have 

campaigned since the murder for a full public, independent judicial 

inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the killing. We have 

done so because of compelling evidence that his murder was part 

of a widespread British Government policy of collusion between the 

state and loyalist paramilitary. 

Our suspicions, based on the evidence which has emerged over 

the last 25 years, received official confirmation in October 2011 

when the Prime Minister David Cameron told us personally that 

on behalf of his government, he accepted that collusion was real 

and directly led to the murder of my husband. 

The campaign has only had one objective from the outset: To discover and uncover the truth behind Pat’s murder. From the very 

night that Pat was murdered, we knew the authorities were involved in some way, but we did not know the details. Pat had been 

subjected to constant threats from police officers during his professional career, threats made via his clients, threats that started as 

derogatory comments escalated into death threats. 

Then, less than 3 weeks before his death, a government minister, 

Douglas Hogg, M.P., made a statement in the houses of Parliament 

that marked Pat and a small number of 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. Hogg would not relieve why or from whom he had got information which could lead 

to such a statement being made. In later years we learned he had 

been briefed by senior members of the police. 

Over many years my family and I persisted in seeking all the 

facts surrounding Pat’s murder. This followed much investigation, 

48

lobbying, and speaking out at every opportunity. We have been assisted and supported by so many, yourselves included, who concern 

themselves with human rights in Ireland. All who have examined 

the case have been unequivocal in their demand that a public inquiry is necessary. 

We persisted, and despite much deliberate delay, the British 

Government were finally forced to announce that an inquiry would 

be held. In 2001, the British and Irish Governments held talks at 

Weston Park, and one of the agreements to emerge was that an 

international judge would be appointed to look at six cases, and if 

he finds an inquiry necessary in any of the cases, the relevant government would agree to hold the inquiry. 

Judge Peter Cory, a retired Supreme Court judge of Canada, was 

appointed, and in Pat’s case, his report 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 Army, the Force Research Unit 

and RUC Special Branch and the Security Services. I am satisfied that there is a need for a public inquiry.’’

In reply to this report, the British Government once again delayed, and eventually they put in place new legislation, the Inquiries Act 2005. Although the legislation did need modernized, we 

took particular exception to one clause. 

This gives a government minister the power to effectively control 

the flow of information. This power was called restriction notices. 

It allows the government power to dictate to the inquiry, what information is released even if the tribunal itself is in disagreement 

with that decision. This undermining of the judicial process drew 

much criticism. We felt we could not take part in such a process. 

We wanted and still want one inquiry that is open and fair and 

which gives a chance at reaching the truth. 

So at this stage in our campaign, we reached an impasse; however, in 2010, there was a change of government and the new Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, met with us in November of that 

year. He told us his government was committed to resolving the 

case; delay suited no one. We were encouraged. 

What followed was a year of meetings between our legal teams, 

signs were encouraging, and at no stage was an alternative to an 

inquiry ever discussed. So in late summer of 2011, when the Prime 

Minister asked to meet us, we were encouraged. In a telephone 

conversation between a senior Northern Ireland office official and 

my lawyer, Peter Madden, we were told we would be happy with 

what the Prime Minister would offer. We assumed this confidence 

would be a reflection of the position we had outlined over the previous year. How wrong we were. David Cameron stated he was ordering another paper review, an exercise similar to that carried out 

by Judge Cory. It was a meeting I shall never forget. 

Whilst this review was limited in its powers and private in nature, it has revealed some very shocking information about methods employed by the security forces. It has provided many more 

questions and, indeed, reinforced the need for a public inquiry. 

49

An inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane will not solve the 

current re-emerging problems in Northern Ireland, but it would be 

a first step in restoring public confidence in our society. Until such 

time as the British Government lives up to the promise it made to 

my family, I will not give up my fight to expose the truth, and I 

take great encouragement as I look around this room today that 

the fight will be far from a lonely one. 

Thank you so much for this opportunity to put my case on 

record. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Mrs. Finucane, for your testimony and, again, for your dogged determination to get to the bottom of who or how many and who was in collusion with killing 

your husband. Thank you. 

[Ms. Fincuane did not submit a prepared statement.] 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Devlin. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EUGENE DEVLIN, VICTIM OF THE 

MILITARY REACTION FORCE 

Mr. DEVLIN. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Eugene Devlin, 

and today I am a proud American citizen, having made my home 

in this fine country since 1978. I am in the business of owning and 

operating restaurants. The opportunity to participate in this legislative process through this hearing is very much appreciated. 

I was born in Ireland in 1954 in Andersonstown, a suburb of Belfast, County Antrim, in the province of Ulster. The recent Northern 

Ireland Troubles erupted during my teenage years. I had neither 

art nor part in the Troubles, but on the night of 12th of May 1972, 

the Troubles came to me, up close and personal. 

Returning by cab from a school disco, with my friend Aiden 

MacAloon, I had failed to notice a car following us, nor did I notice 

that the car’s unusual turn illuminated us with its headlamps. We 

were nearly home and on familiar turf. Suddenly a number of shots 

rang out and I fell wounded, whilst my companion managed to get 

over a hedge. My left arm was shattered by what I was later told 

was a 9-millimeter bullet, fired from a British Sterling automatic 

submachine gun. I was first taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital 

and then transferred, under heavy guard, to the military wing of 

the Musgrave Park Hospital. After surgery, I spent about a year 

with my arm in a cast, followed by months more in a sling. 

Although they identified the bullet and the type of gun, they 

would not allow me to keep the bullet, as they required it for evidence. Although the 9-millimeter is a deadly force, had the bullet 

been a caliber .45 ACP from a Thompson submachine gun or a high 

velocity rifle bullet, I would probably not be here to testify today. 

Providentially, my arm saved my life, but today I still have the 

physical reminders of that wound and every day carry medication 

as a consequence. 

Police forensics determined that neither my friend nor I had handled any weapons that night, nor have either of us ever been 

charged with any of the violations of law. Later that fateful night, 

a second, separate, such predatory, plain clothes car patrol fired on 

a group of equally innocent men, wounding five and killing Patrick 

McVeigh. 

50

Rumors had been circulating about such death squads and random killings presumably to terrorize the population, but until that 

night, they were not uppermost in my mind. On September 27, 

1972, Daniel Rooney, also aged 18—like myself, was killed by a 

similar bullet in a drive-by shooting, which differed from my situation only in that the perpetrators achieved a more deadly result. 

It was a shock that someone who didn’t know me would try to 

kill me, they nearly did, but I am sure they didn’t care if I died 

any more than they cared about Patrick McVeigh or about Daniel 

Rooney. These shootings were unjustified and remain unjustifiable. 

It was only later that it came out that these shootings were clandestine acts of a secret terrorist force carefully selected from the 

British Army, perhaps calculated to stimulate inter-communal retaliation, divide and conquer, among the various Irish communities. It seems they were part of the secret Military Reaction 

Force (MRF). 

The most disturbing thing about this is that the Army, which 

had been sent in in 1970 to restore order and to protect us from 

sectarian or other violence, had become transformed into an army 

of occupation, with elements of that Army operating outside even 

their own law and regulations. 

When the facts of these atrocities became public, those in whose 

interest, and presumably by whose orders, they were perpetrated 

disavowed any knowledge of specific irregularities. Their records 

are nowhere to be found, yet at the time, Prime Minister Heath ordered that the MRF cease and be disbanded; meanwhile, the perpetrators have generally been rewarded with pensions, promotions, 

and medals. There is a message in that. 

Being shot that night in 1972 was a terrifying experience. The 

only other truly terrifying experience of my life was 9/11 in New 

York City, when I emerged from the subway station very near the 

World Trade Center 2 just as the building was collapsing. In both 

cases, I was an involuntary victim, but the difference in 9/11 was 

that even though I was still terrified, like so many others, I took 

the opportunity to become an instant voluntary responder, making 

it to my own restaurant on Pearl Street, a block or so from 

Fraunces Tavern, and working with my staff to provide aid and 

comfort to many people. Apart from having a terrifying experience, 

the only other similarities are that I wound up in hospital that 

night and also continue to suffer physical effects from the experience. 

In the interests of truth and justice, I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any of your questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Mr. Devlin, for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Devlin follows:]

51


87142d-1.eps
52


87142d-2.eps
53

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JULIA HALL, EXPERT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COUNTER-TERRORISM IN EUROPE, AMNESTY 

INTERNATIONAL 

Ms. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for this opportunity. It 

is nice to see you again. I am here to testify on behalf of Amnesty 

International. 

Mr. Chairman, last November, the New York Times opined that 

although ‘‘much good in safety and sanity has flowed from the Good 

Friday Agreement, there is no need to draw a curtain on a lethal 

past that clearly remains deeply relevant for the people of Northern Ireland.’’

This editorial was in response to the suggestion that perhaps 

there should be no more investigations into crimes committed in 

the course of ‘‘the Troubles.’’ Recognizing very real human suffering 

that people had endured, however, the Times quoted Amnesty 

International’s Patrick Corrigan, who is here with us today, who 

said that such a cap on accountability was ‘‘an utter betrayal of victims’ fundamental right to access to justice.’’

Mr. Chairman, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 

April 1998 signaled a turning point in the history of Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt that 15 years on, remarkable progress 

has been made in moving toward a more peaceful future; however, 

the ongoing failure to deal with Northern Ireland’s difficult past 

has had negative consequences for both individuals and society at 

large. 

Many families from across communities in Northern Ireland are 

still searching for truth, justice and accountability. The legacy of 

the past, however, affects not just individual victims, but society as 

a whole. Writing in The American Scholar in 2011, Duke professor 

Robin Kirk noted, ‘‘Belfast is one of the most segregated cities in 

the the world . . . a landscape of interfaces and peace walls that 

have grown higher, longer and more numerous since the Good Friday Agreement.’’

The Good Friday and subsequent agreements simply did not provide the tools or create the bodies or processes to fully grapple with 

the pain, anger and hurt that are inevitably the legacy of decades 

of violence and conflict. 

In September 2013, Amnesty International issued a report titled, 

Northern Ireland: Time to Deal With the Past. I would ask that 

this report be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection. 

Ms. HALL. Thank you. 

This report assessed the five existing mechanisms for dealing 

with the past in Northern Ireland, you have heard what those 

mechanisms are today, but I must say, we were deeply, deeply disappointed, dismayed in fact at what we found in the course of our 

research. 

We have identified two key problems with the current approach. 

First, these bodies or processes have failed in the main to conduct 

prompt, thorough and effective investigations in an independent 

and impartial manner, in line with the United Kingdom’s international human rights commitments. 

54

The second, more pressing, point is that even if all of these mechanisms were operating at full steam in full compliance with their 

mandates, the piecemeal approach to them is too diffuse to provide 

a comprehensive picture of all the violations and abuses that occurred. As a result, much of the truth remains hidden, while those 

in positions of responsibility consequently have remained shielded. 

Moreover, and this is a critical point, the focus on individual 

cases has limited the possibility for thorough examinations of patterns of abuse that occurred in the course of the conflict. For example, patterns of abuses by armed groups remain woefully under-investigated. Likewise, the role and actions of particular UK State 

actors have also not been subject to effective investigation. For instance, State collusion with Republican and loyalist armed groups 

is one of the critical issues that has yet to be addressed effectively 

by any of the existing mechanisms. Even in the few cases where 

the government has acknowledged that collusion has occurred, as 

in the case of Patrick Finucane, the victim’s family still do not have 

the full truth and no one in higher levels of government has been 

held accountable. 

Our report concluded that one overarching mechanism should be 

established to address the past in a comprehensive manner. It 

needs to be victim focused, empowered to investigate both individual cases and patterns of abuse, and where sufficient evidence 

exists, there needs to be the possibility of bringing to justice those 

responsible. 

Thus, Amnesty International believes that the Haass draft proposals on dealing with the past are a step forward. The proposals 

will need to be refined to ensure that these mechanisms operate in 

compliance with international human rights standards, but they do 

provide a solid basis from which to proceed. 

It is crucial that all the stakeholders in a peaceful Northern Ireland do not let yet another opportunity for progress slip by, due to 

lack of political will and vision. Amnesty International is deeply 

concerned, however, that the Haass proposals on dealing with the 

past may be held hostage to the lack of agreement on other contentious and sensitive issues or may fall victim to inaction in the face 

of other disagreements among the parties. We have urged the 

Northern Ireland’s political parties and the UK and Irish Governments to take the proposals on the past forward as matter of urgency. 

And finally, the U.S. Government and other U.S. political actors 

have an incredibly important role to play at this critical juncture. 

We urge the friends of Northern Ireland among you to call for real 

progress on delivering a comprehensive approach to the past. 

As the Haass draft agreement itself emphasizes, the time to rise 

to the challenge of the past is now, because Northern Ireland does 

not have the luxury of putting off this difficult but potentially 

transformative task any longer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Hall, thank you very much for your testimony 

and for your report, which is very, very disturbing, but we need to 

know what is going on, we need to know the truth, and for asking 

very tough questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hall follows:]

55


87142e-1.eps
56


87142e-2.eps
57


87142e-3.eps
58


87142e-4.eps
59

Mr. SMITH. Your point that no one at higher levels of government 

have been held accountable, I mean, that is appalling. That this 

many years into the process, that that remains the case, and the 

mistreatment of the Finucane family by the British Government is 

symptomatic of a larger problem, but certainly for their sakes, it 

is just a nightmare that just never ends. 

I would like to ask you, if I could, Ms. Finucane, a couple of questions. 

You know, I know you have a legal challenge to the Government’s refusal to order an independent judicial inquiry into the 

state collusion of your husband’s death. Could you give us an update as to where that is? 

Ms. FINUCANE. Yes. After the Prime Minister announced that 

there would be a review, and we felt that, because we have been 

promised an inquiry it was the wrong decision, so we took proceedings in Belfast in the high court and to review the decision to 

have a review and not an inquiry, and that has taken slightly 

longer than we anticipated because they have been very slow at 

disclosing information, but at the same time it has been valuable, 

because much new information, even more information than came 

out in the DeSilva Report has come to light, and one of the interesting things was that the decision was not a unanimous decision 

made by the cabinet. 

One of the chief civil servants was appalled that David Cameron 

could renege on the governmental promise made at Weston Park. 

He was astounded that David Cameron was going to announce a 

review and not an inquiry. 

So we hope that the full hearing will start perhaps in the autumn, but we have to wait and see. 

Mr. SMITH. Has either President Obama or the Prime Minister 

of the Taoiseach, Kenny, supported your efforts by urging Prime 

Minister Cameron to reconsider his decision, not to conduct the 

promised inquiry? Have either of them spoken out specifically on 

your case to Cameron for such an inquiry? 

Ms. FINUCANE. Well, many years ago when the President was a 

Senator, he signed a Senate Resolution agreeing that we needed a 

public inquiry, and I know that the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, continually brings up the case. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. FINUCANE. And, whenever he can and wherever he can, and 

his support is invaluable. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, but has President Obama? You said Senator 

Obama. Has——

Ms. FINUCANE. But——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. President Obama? 

Ms. FINUCANE. I don’t know. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Let me ask you this: Sir Jeremy Heywood, a 

member of Prime Minister Cameron’s cabinet, has questioned the 

Prime Minister as to whether it was right to renege on a commitment to the inquiry, that he characterized the killing and collusion 

as a ‘‘dark moment in the country’s history.’’ Did that give you 

some encouragement to have someone of such high stature bucking 

the boss, so to speak? 

60

Ms. FINUCANE. Well, yes. And he was not the only one and it 

wasn’t a lone voice in the cabinet, but he has served more than one 

Prime Minister, so he is a very senior civil servant. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I ask you, Mr. Devlin, has any representative of 

the British Government at any time ever apologized to you——

Mr. DEVLIN. Never. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. For the terrible——

Mr. DEVLIN. Never. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Attack on you? Never. 

Mr. DEVLIN. Never. 

Mr. SMITH. Do you know what the current status of the investigation into the Military Reaction Force is? I mean, has anybody 

contacted—I mean, you are a victim. 

Mr. DEVLIN. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. You are now here in America, but you are easily 

reachable, it would seem to me. 

Mr. DEVLIN. No one has contacted me and I don’t think there is 

anything being done, which is an absolute disgrace. 

Mr. SMITH. Which again goes to Ms. Hall’s point about no one 

in higher levels of government have been held to account. Perhaps 

you might want to elaborate on that, if you would, and whether or 

not the MRF has been included in at least a request that has been 

made for accountability by the British Government? 

Ms. HALL. If you will permit me to take a step—one step back 

and talk about a report that was issued in July 2013 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary. 

This report found that the HET, the currently existing Historical 

Enquiries Team, treated cases where State actors were involved in 

killings very differently than they treated other cases. This is an 

official report, by the way, it is not the report of a non-governmental organization, although I do find NGO reports very credible. 

It was striking to see Her Majesty’s Inspectorate say that in cases 

where British military officers or other State actors were involved, 

the HET was less rigorous in its inquiry, that various forms of evidence were made available to these actors prior to their giving 

statements in the HET, and this led the HMIC, to conclude that 

there is a serious undermining of confidence in the Historical 

Enquiries Team. 

Now, that context for this notion, that people in higher levels of 

government have not been held accountable. State actors in general, in this process, have evaded accountability, and that is exactly 

why at this point, at this very critical 15-year-on juncture, Baroness O’Loan, Dr. Haass, Amnesty International, many other 

NGO’s, and certainly the NGO’s who are working with victims 

every single day on the ground in Northern Ireland, are calling for 

a comprehensive approach. 

In a comprehensive approach where there is one mechanism that 

is looking at these cases, we could only hope that the force that 

held Mr. Devlin as a victim would definitely be a force that would 

be under investigation. Currently, to our knowledge, it is not under 

investigation in any way in the currently existing mechanisms. 

So I hope that you can take that context and really understand 

very clearly that it is not an accident that higher level State actors 

are not being held accountable, it is not a simple oversight that 

61

this unit has never been under investigation. It is a deliberate policy of the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure that certain truths never are revealed about those years of conflict. 

What they don’t understand is the will of the families like the 

Finucanes, like Mr. Devlin, like the families that we have talked 

to, dozens and dozens of them over 2 years of research, these families are demanding justice and accountability. And I hope that the 

British Government is listening, because I don’t think at this point 

in time, that their voices are going to be able to be drowned out 

any longer. 

Mr. SMITH. In your view, has the Obama administration raised 

this in the way that it ought to? 

Ms. HALL. We are here today to ask them to do so. We are here 

today to ask the United States Government to do precisely that, to 

ask other politicians like yourselves to do that. There are very few 

governments that have the kind of influence on the Government of 

the United Kingdom that the United States Government has. This 

is the forum where we are making that request of the U.S. Government, of President Obama, Vice President Biden and politicians in 

both houses of Congress. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you, Nuala O’Loan called for an independent commission of Dr. Haass, an historical investigations unit. 

In your view, in all of your views, is that—and that does not in any 

way preclude an independent inquiry of the Finucane case, but for 

these other cases, is that something that would yield results, in 

your opinion, Ms. Hall? 

Ms. HALL. It was very interesting to see the dialogue today. Dr. 

Haass was very clear that he spoke basically on behalf of the parties. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Ms. HALL. So was giving voice to people from Northern Ireland, 

Baroness O’Loan, from the United Kingdom. 

What Amnesty International has said is that one mechanism 

that is comprehensive is absolutely essential. The people of Northern Ireland, with the various political parties and the Governments, the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government, should make the decision about what that looks like. From 

Amnesty International’s perspective, the requirement, the sole requirement would be that any mechanism must conform with the 

United Kingdom’s international human rights obligations. It has to 

be independent, thorough, effective, impartial, and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and victims have effective redress. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. So the current mechanisms, just to be 

clear, are broken and need to be replaced with a mechanism that 

is all those things you just said? 

Ms. HALL. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Finucane brought up the whole issue of the restriction notices and you—just for the record, I and others did write 

the Members of Parliament when they were considering a terrorism law and the ability to convey to Ministers a veto power over 

what goes forward or not. 

It seems to me that, again, this is another area where a coverup 

is not too strong of a word. Nuala O’Loan mentioned in her testimony, or testified about the gate-keeping function played by the 

62

legacy unit, which employs former Special Branch officers. It seems 

to me that such an independent inquiry would have to be able to 

overcome that obstacle as well, otherwise, under a false notion of 

national security, people who have committed atrocities will be concealed or hidden from any kind of accountability; is that correct? 

Ms. HALL. There are two issues here: One is the independence, 

which of course former RUC Special Branch officers have no place 

investigating violations by RUC Special Branch, even if they occurred 20 or 30 years ago. So I think that in terms of independence, that is a critical issue. 

The second point to make on the notion of, you know, what is required, we have not actually said whether it should be an actor 

from outside of Northern Ireland or whether it should be composed 

of people from Northern Ireland, but it is absolutely clear that in 

the North, very few people have been untouched by the conflict, 

and if you are not untouched, it means that you cannot be impartial. So our call would be to ensure that there is independence and 

impartiality as well as effectiveness and thoroughness. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Devlin testified that the perpetrators have generally been rewarded with pensions, promotions and medals, there 

is a message in that. Ms. Hall, how would you respond to that, 

talking about the MRF? 

Ms. HALL. You will note in our report that we do not reference 

the MRF, and I feel uncomfortable discussing a factual situation 

with which I have very little firsthand knowledge. But do let me 

say that it is not the first situation of post-conflict where we have 

seen the perpetrators of crimes, the perpetrators of violence actually go up the ladder. 

Right? It is a way of rewarding people who essentially were seen 

at one point as helping to protect the state, but from Amnesty 

International’s point of view, national security concerns can never 

trump fundamental human rights. Patrick Finucane’s life was 

taken, Mr. Devlin’s life was threatened. Those are crimes under 

international law, and the invocation of protecting the state or national security can never trump such fundamental human rights 

protections. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, let me just say it is always an honor to be working 

with Chairman Smith. He is a man of great honor and integrity, 

but also a man of truly a commitment to humanity. And I have 

known—after my 25 years I have been here in Congress, and he 

is one of my most respected colleagues, in my eyes. 

And I am trying to grasp what the best way to make a better 

world is here, and I know we have just—I think we need to make 

sure we have everything in perspective as well. We are talking 

about violence that took place against people who were not engaged 

in violent activity, were not engaged in terrorism, but violence that 

was conducted by authorities on people who were not engaged in 

violence. 

But at that time, there were a lot of people engaged in violence 

in that society, and we did have a situation where pubs were being 

blown up and Margaret Thatcher, I understand, her—there was an 

63

attempt on her life, and several people in the building, they have 

lost their lives when a bomb went off in the building that she was 

in. There was violence being committed. 

Now, let me ask all the way down the line, we are talking about 

justice for people who committed murders who were part of the 

other side, are we not? I mean, we want investigations not just of 

the officials that were engaged in this, but also perhaps people who 

were in the IRA at the time who planted bombs and killed numbers 

of civilians; is that right, Ms. Hall? 

Ms. HALL. I am sorry, Chairman Rohrabacher, you were otherwise engaged with business and you stepped out. 

I had mentioned in my comments that one of the key issues for 

Amnesty International is further investigation of the policies and 

practices of the armed groups, of all of the armed groups——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Ms. HALL [continuing]. Including the IRA, so, yes——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Ms. HALL [continuing]. In fact, abuses by all sides. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. I have some constituents out, and one 

thing about democracy, we have to pay attention to our constituents, so I had a group of constituents I had to say hello to and 

focus on that for a few minutes. 

Thank you for that answer. That is exactly the right answer. You 

know, there is—we know that in the past we have had leaders of 

countries who earlier on had committed acts of violence against civilians, do we not? And I think the one that everybody knows about 

is Mr. Begin, in Israel, who helped bomb the King David Hotel, 

where I happen to stay. And they make a big deal out of it in the 

King David Hotel, where they actually have a video of the bombing 

and then they have a video when Begin came back 20 years later 

as the Prime Minister to the hotel. 

Tell me, would the approach that we are trying to take today, 

would that make peace any better, any easier if Mr. Begin would 

have been prosecuted instead of—which they did, they did not focus 

on that, but said 20 years later, he was elected to Parliament. 

In fact, he became the Prime Minister; is that what we are talking about? 

Ms. FINUCANE. I would say in our case, we have never sought 

prosecutions——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Ms. FINUCANE [continuing]. Against those that perpetrated the 

crime against my husband, but what we—a statement I made 

many, many years ago was in Northern Ireland at the time my 

husband was shot, gunmen were two a penny. It wasn’t hard to get 

somebody to pull a trigger. And I have never really been interested 

in the person who pulled the trigger. I am interested in the people 

behind that, who sent that man out. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Uh-huh 

Ms. FINUCANE. And I want to know how far up the chain of command that went.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that that is very legitimate for someone, anyone who is—it is even legitimate for Mr. Devlin to say, who 

shot me and at least let’s hold someone accountable, if nothing else, 

for an apology for maybe shooting someone that they——

64

Mr. DEVLIN. Well, sir, you had made a comment earlier on about 

giving it up and that in the past was the past and let bygones be 

bygones. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you talk a little bit closer to the mike? 

Mr. DEVLIN. I am sorry. You had made a point earlier on of letting the past be the past and letting bygones be bygones. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. DEVLIN. The Israelis never let the past be the past and let 

bygones be bygones. To this day they still hunt down the people 

who carried out the Holocaust. 

These people carried out a heinous crime in Northern Ireland, 

and something has to be done. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will say this, that my reading of this, and 

I am just not an apologist for Israel and anything they do is right, 

but——

Mr. DEVLIN. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. My reading is if there was an 

agreement with the Palestinians tomorrow, the Israelis would let 

bygones be bygones and actually live at peace with the people who 

are going to live at peace with them. It is the ongoing conflict that 

creates this hatred, and the idea is to try to stop——

Mr. DEVLIN. People just want——

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. To try to stop this type of violence. 

Mr. DEVLIN. People just want the truth. They are not looking to 

have people hang them from a flag pole, they are looking to have 

the truth. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Good. 

Mr. DEVLIN. And if you can’t give us the truth, then what are 

you hiding? The British Government are hiding stuff. The people 

that were in power at the time are hiding stuff. They have to come 

out and tell people what went on. It doesn’t matter what you say, 

how you pinned it. These were criminals that carried these crimes 

out. We know they may not go to jail, but God Almighty, the people 

that gave them the orders to do it have to be brought to justice. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if you are calling for accountability and 

truth, you are pleading your case and people are—and myself and 

others are totally on your side on that call. I mean, this is obviously accountability, but accountability doesn’t necessarily mean 

going back 20 or—one thing is locating people who were involved 

in conflict, it is another thing after 30 or 40 years. 

When I said 25 years, it was 25 years since someone murdered 

your husband. 25 years. It was—but you are right, you are right. 

You deserve to know who was involved in that and you deserve to 

know if the British Government was involved in approving that, 

you deserve to know that, and the public deserves to know that, 

and that is how we will get people in government to make right 

decisions, knowing that eventually the truth will come out if they 

make a criminal decision like to kill an unarmed person or to terrorize a population. So that, I don’t have any disagreement with 

that. Don’t think because I am trying to figure out a way to get 

people to live in peace with one another. 

I will say that there are still 50 pages of the Warren Commission 

report that have not been made public. And I am one of the—I 

65

don’t know if are on this, Chris, but I am, I am one of the guys 

saying everything should be open after 50 years, for Pete’s sake, 

the American people should know everything. 

And, frankly, it shouldn’t even be 50 years and it shouldn’t be 

25 years; at least as soon as possible is to get an honest assessment 

of situations like this, the public should know that. And Amnesty 

International’s been playing a wonderful role in trying to expose 

these evils that governments have done around the world. 

So again, I love Ireland. And I will have to say, I honestly believe 

that had Ireland not been split with those six counties in the north 

and, you would not have this problem today, because the Irish 

throughout the rest of that area are not—the Protestants and the 

Catholics are not at each other’s throats in the Republic of Ireland. 

And so it behooves us to make the right decision on these dramatic era issues of what is going to be one country and sovereignty, 

et cetera, rather than just trying to get over the hump. And what 

happened in—as we know in 1920 and at that time, the British 

people were just tired of fighting, what agreement can we make, 

and they just went ahead and agreed to a rotten agreement, and 

that is why we are still trying to solve it today. But, that is a whole 

other issue. 

And, ma’am, I am sorry that your husband was taken away and 

shot. I mean, that is a horrible thing. 

Ms. FINUCANE. It may seem like a distant time for you, and you 

keep referring back to things that happened in the past and maybe 

letting them go, but for me, it is a current issue, and in 25 years 

in practically every one of those 25 years, there has been new information come to light, so it is never an in-the-past issue, not for me 

or for other people in Northern Ireland. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I understand. 

Ms. FINUCANE. And although it started off as questions about the 

murder of one man, it has now come to be a collusion policy that 

was carried out against every single person in Northern Ireland. 

No matter who you were or what you did, if you were dispensable, 

you could be disposed of. And we want that exposed, we want the 

people who put that policy in place made accountable. 

And you referred earlier on to picking at a little scab. I myself 

used an analogy for many years that what is happening in Northern Ireland, and not just in my case, is a deep, deep wound, and 

you cannot cover a deep wound up. If you stitch it up, it will fester 

and it will burst, and what you need to do is deal with it and pack 

it and start at the bottom, and then you end up with practically 

no scar at all, and that is what we need. 

Because I do one case, because I fight for my husband’s name, 

but it has come to mean quite a lot in Northern Ireland, and many 

people who are unable or unwilling to stand up and be as public 

as I am, encourage me to continue, because they know that if the 

truth comes out in my case, it will satisfy them. And that is all 

they want: Truth and justice. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That was a very fine retort. Thank you. 

Ms. FINUCANE. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very, Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Just a couple final comments. You know, one of the things about 

the Finucane case that got me personally, but also our subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Sep 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\031114\87142 SHIRL
66

committee, so focused, including resolutions that passed in the 

House overwhelmingly that I authored, was the denial, the lies, the 

multi-layered deception that was engaged in by the British Government. And only in recent vintage did they come forward and suggest that there was collusion, but had you, Geraldine, accepted 

those lies, not only would the case of your husband’s mistreatment, 

the cruelty that was meted out against him and yourself and the 

family who witnessed this terrible murder, but it would have enabled those lies and that deception to have further credibility and 

credence going forward. 

This is one big massive coverup that needs to be exposed, and 

I can assure you that this subcommittee and this chairman will not 

cease so long as I have breath to do so. 

I also would ask of Mr. Devlin, in the Panorama documentary by 

the BBC, the three people who speak on record on camera were 

proud——

Mr. DEVLIN. Yeah. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Proud. You watch that, you see a pride 

come through this TV screen for the killings that they engaged in; 

no remorse, no sense of, we have done wrong, I beg your forgiveness. 

If you could—when you watched that, and of course you were a 

part of that show, but when you watched it, what was your reaction looking at cold-blooded murderers talking about drive-by 

shootings and the like? 

Mr. DEVLIN. At that time, it was just like a common thing in 

Northern Ireland, as Mrs. Finucane just said, that no one knew 

who was doing what, and there was—everybody was, like, colluding 

with someone. 

The RUC were colluding with someone, the British Army were 

colluding with someone. They were all—it was like a big game to 

them. And if these guys were on TV, the way they talked, it was 

like they were going out for a cruise that night, and it was like a 

drive-by shooting that you would see in a gangland in LA or in 

South America, that is what they thought they were doing. They 

just thought this was okay: We don’t have anybody to answer to, 

because we have been given carte blanche. 

And they did that and they did it throughout the years. Right up 

until the peace process, they were still doing. 

Mr. SMITH. As you watched the documentary, what was your reaction in watching? 

Mr. DEVLIN. I just thought they were murderers and animals 

and they need to be—listen, I know they might not get any jail 

time, statute of limitations or whatever it is, but these people have 

to be put up on a dock and asked why did you do this and who 

did—told you to do this. But they were animals, they were just 

pure animals. They—they were like the Black and Tans reincarnated, only they were called the MRF. 

Mr. SMITH. Would you like to add anything before we conclude 

the hearing, any of our witnesses? 

You know, Geraldine, our first hearing on your husband, you will 

recall, was back in 1997. Michael testified at that. We will not give 

up until the public inquiry, full, independent with all facts on the 

table occurs and—and we will not give up as a committee, I can 

67

assure you, with good, strong support from both sides of the aisle, 

until that which is hidden becomes known. 

I do plan on introducing a resolution. The gist of it will be focusing on the whole concept of an independent commission along the 

likes of Nuala O’Loan and what Special Envoy Haass, Ambassador 

Haass, talked about. As you pointed out, Ms. Hall, the current systems are not working. 

I would suggest cynically that while they may have had a good 

beginning, many of the guts of it have made it designed to fail, and 

it is failing, so we will work. 

I would invite your input as to what should go into that resolution. And I was just reminded, I did remember, Julia Hall testified 

at that 1997 hearing as well. So thank you for your long stay and 

your focus on this as well. 

Ms. HALL. I did. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the joint subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(69)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

70

f


87142n.eps
71

f


87142m.eps
72

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE RICHARD N. HAASS, 

CHAIR, PANEL OF PARTIES IN THE NORTHERN IRELAND EXECUTIVE


87142f-1.eps
73


87142f-2.eps
74


87142f-3.eps
75

f


87142f-4.eps
76

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


87142g-1.eps
77


87142g-2.eps
78


87142g-3.eps
79

f


87142g-4.eps
80

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


87142h-1.eps
81


87142h-2.eps
82


87142h-3.eps
83


87142h-4.eps
84

f


87142h-5.eps
85

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. JULIA HALL, EXPERT ON CRIMINAL

JUSTICE AND COUNTER-TERRORISM IN EUROPE, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL


87142i-1.eps
86


87142i-2.eps
87


87142i-3.eps
88


87142i-4.eps
89

Æ


87142i-5.eps