June Books 19) The Bloody Sunday Report, Volume I

[nwhyte]

The admirable decision to post the whole of the report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry online (first volume in PDF available here) may not actually spur a lot of people to read it, but it has gripped me, and over lunch breaks and commutes in the last week or so I have been poring over the details of the first volume. (In case you are interested, I've

Comments

[hano]

Mind if I forward this post to a few non LJ people?

[nwhyte]

It's a free internet!

[annafdd]

I have to read this all very slowly and ponder it, but I would like to add something to your (erm... let me count) second point, about the soldiers being or not being all liars, from the point of view of having studied a bit of psychology.

It is perfectly possible for people to affirm something that is objectively untrue without being aware that they are lying. It happens all the time. People confess to crimes they did not commit, testify to things they haven't seen, and what's more, do so in complete and utter good faith.

You may know about Asch's experiment with recognizing which segment was the same length as a sample among three possibilities, when the real subject is surrounded by confederated of the experimenter that give consistently the wrong answer. What's more interesting is that Asch asked follow-up questions and many of the subjects that bowed to peer pressure and gave the (wrong) answer together with the group actually were convinced that the wrong answer was trueIn other words, faced with all their comrades saying

[nwhyte]

I am quite sure that the report will get into much detail about the soldiers' state of mind at the time, and their problematic accounts of their actions afterwards, in later volumes. But I suggest you have a look at Chapter 5 which is clear and succinct. [5.1] "Neither [of the first two casualties] was doing anything that justified either of them being shot." [5.3] With one or possibly two exceptions, "none of the firing by the soldiers of Support Company was aimed at people posing a threat of causing death or serious injury". will report back as I get through the rest of it.

[annafdd]

Oh, I have no doubts about the facts, and very very few about how the soldiers percieved them. Personally I think they shot because they saw the people as enemies and were angry and, well, a regiment that reacts - is presumably trained to - in a certain way to that combination. My comment is only to the effect that yeah, people can and do remember things that most posivitely did not happen. This is, of course, not an excuse.

[yea_mon]

I shall have to download that. A few comments:

4.7 it was submitted that those who fired did so because of a “culture” that had grown up among soldiers at the time in Northern Ireland, to the effect that they could fire with impunity, secure in the knowledge ... that their actions would ... be investigated ... by the Royal Military Police

There's a point that has been made a few times that it was foolish to send the Paras into Northern Ireland at all. They are an elite fighting force, whose role is much different and much more dangerous than the rest of the Army. They can expect to get sent into very dangerous situations and are trained accordingly.

On their last posting to Northern Ireland they operated in the Dungannon area - where there were complaints from the Unionist populace about their conduct!

and were done with 7.74 mm rounds

The SLR used 7.62 mm rounds - does the report state 7.74?

[nwhyte]

On the Paras, I'm sure that your mind boggled slightly, as did mine, at the complaints heard from serving members of the regiment that the Bloody Sunday report might undermine their morale in Afghanistan. If you get upset when people write reports about you shooting unarmed civilians, possibly the best remedy is not to make a habit of shooting unarmed civilians.

On the calibre of the ammunition, you're correct, and so is the report; my mistake (and have changed it now).

[annafdd]

I don't think training people to be trigger-happy and unclear on the definition of civilian is a good thing in any circumstance. Of course alienating, say, the Poles during the Nazi occupation when you've come to liberate them would have been more difficult, but hey, enough civilian casualties and the people stop telling you which way to go in that scenario too.

[annafdd]

BTW - this was exactly the same rationale, and even more bogglesome, why the police in Italy complained about the thugs who tortured people in Genoa being sent down. Despite the fact that from what I know, from inside sources, is that a lot of police were damn glad when the thugs got their comeuppance.