according to the report into the killing of solicitor Pat Finucane there was
"no overarching state conspiracy".

Despite the fact the report concluding that the RUC


That MI5


that the British Army,


So elements of the Police, MI5 and the army were involved in the organising, killing and cover up of Finucanes murder but they all acted as indaviduals completely independently of each other.

Bearing in mind Security force involvement in many other murders and provision of weapons and intelligence to Loyalist paramilitaries the conclusion of the De Silva report beggars belief.

I'm sure that this sort of thing happens in many other countries around the world too.

The idea of state sponsored murder is actually very popular in this country. I believe "Skyfall" has made record receipts at the box office this year.

Why does it beg belief?

"However, despite the different strands of involvement by elements of the state, I am satisfied that they were not linked to an over-arching state conspiracy to murder Patrick Finucane."

Well, it's basically saying that these agencies acted on their own accord without top level authorisation. Do we really think that our secret services authorised this kind of activity on its own without any sort of input from the government? That's a big risk especially when you consider how strained relations were in Northern Ireland at the time. Would a government agency collude with the loyalists off its own back?

So you only accept parts of the report you agree with?

Yes I believe they would, i also believe it probably wasn't the "agencies" per se but elements within them who were often given virtual free reign with little oversight or accountability. These were people operating at the sharpest of sharp ends of a dirty world, I don't find it unreasonable to think they would step over the line without direct, or even implied, authorisation or instruction from higher up. I would also find it hard to believe that a member of the government would lay themselves open to prosecution by ordering or authorising the murder of a man like Finucan.
It's not an episode of Spooks.

Yep, that's a chalk mark in the "Somnambulist Theory" column.

You see, guys like Reagan (and even Blair) were masters at digging themselves out of such mire.

[i"Well, golly, I really should have paid more attention when the secret services were briefing me. Had I known THIS sort of stuff was going on I'd have quickly put a stop to it. It's just not the British thing. As you know I'm for life ..."[/i

More evidence of state illegality.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20715507[/url

I'm only ever surprised by the people that are surprised that it happens.

You will forgive me if after the Hillsborough failings (not to mention the many other deliberate political lies and cover-ups) if I bare on the side of critical thinking when non-independent reports like this come out. Hillsborough, you may remember, had a similar inquiry that wasn't independent and had a same approach to justice. It took an independent inquiry to unearth the truth and it's also why I want no part of Parliament legislating around the press. I mean, we can't even trust these MPs to be ethical when it comes to expenses but we're supposed to believe they're as honest as our mums when it comes to questionable government policies? There was collusion admitted in this report but we're supposed to believe it was something done off the back of their own inspiration? Come on man.

And if it hadn't been for our pesky security and intelligence agencies making a small error in relation to WMD then there'd have been no need for us to go and kill a (c)1,000,000 Iraqi's.

Sh!t happens, I suppose.

Could I believe that some members of the MI5, army special units or officers in the now-disbanded Royal Ulster Constabulary acted in this way considering what they faced every day from the IRA and other republican paramilitaries?

Yep.

Are you aware of 'Death on the Rock' when the UK govt authorised the assassination of three IRA members in Gilbraltar? That was the year before the Finucane murder and if the govt had to authorise that doesn't it follow that they would also have to authorise something like a collusion killing? I'm not aware of any patterns where the Secret Service have been involved with civilian killings on their own. I am aware of a succession of cover-ups and sneaky establishment tactics though. Again, to get some sort of truth the relatives of the Gibraltar three had to go to the European Court of Human Rights because the govt deliberately mislead the public.

You don't have to agree with me btw but I don't think I've suggested anything that's a stretch given the previous behaviour of UK govts.

I'm not saying it is a stretch, what I was questioning is the op's stance that the report had to be wrong to because he didn't agree with it.

Not a good week for the British image of justice and fair play, has it?

What with this and paying off the victims of our "deliver a dissident" work on behalf of the Gadaffi regime. Without admission of liability, obviously

[url=http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/13/apology-for-pat-finucane-not-enoughSo the army's Force Research Unit enlisted an ex-soldier, Brian Nelson, to streamline the UDA's killing machine. De Silva describes Nelson as "to all intents and purposes a direct state employee" – a remarkable admission. MI5 used him to orchestrate arms shipments from South Africa to distribute among loyalists. The state, it seems, took control of re-tooling the paramilitaries.[/url

Former secret service operatives such as Ray McGovern, John Stockwell, Phil Agee, Bob Baer (and even the notoriously cryptic Peter Wright of "Spycatcher" fame) have all poured scorn on the "rogue agent" excuse. It's not that spooks aren't encouraged to use their own initiative - far from it. But such people are usually much further up the food chain - giving orders. Footsoldiers, on the other hand, have very little latitude not least because the overwhelming majority of intelligence gathering is procedural, form filling, briefings, de-briefings etc. It's mind-numbing tedium and to take a you need half a dozen signatures in triplicate.

I mean, sure, it’s [ipossible[/i that a low-ranking operative was put into a position where he could execute a political target (the political blowback from which would have fallen not on him but his superiors), but is it [iprobable?[/i

As Peter Wright said, senior politicians (such as the PM, Home Secretary etc.) and decision-makers in MI5 & MI6 wouldn’t dream of authorising the assassination of a political figure unless they were protected from being held accountable in a court of law at some point in the future. Orthodox methods of record-keeping are subverted so that those involved always retain plausible deniability.

If the political fallout is too extreme then it’s the easiest thing in the world (as well as the oldest trick in the book) to throw some low-ranking officer to the wolves. Regrettable to be sure. But entirely necessary if we are to maintain order and stability.