Did IRA Prisoners deserve POW status?

[Imperia Babylonia]

On 5th of May 1981, Bobby Sands died. An Irish revolutionary who fought to free Ireland from imperialists went on the Anti-H Block hunger strike, and died 66 (I believe) days later. His reason, to gain political status for his comrades who were falsely arrested and being treated like shit for fighting the oppressors. This raised the question,
Did the IRA fighters deserve political prisoner or POW status?

I personally think they shouldn't have been arrested in the first place, but if they were going to be they deserved Political Prisoner status
If an English person fought to free his country, he'd be called a hero, but when an Irish person does it they get called a criminal by Margaret Thatcher.

[The Northumbrian Republic]

Yes, 32 county Ireland when?

[World Anarchic Union]

Of course a political prisoner.
As you mentioned, they fought against the oppressor. Thatcher let them die. This is legal, is it ethical too?

[Dreadful Sagittarius]

It's legally iffy. They didn't wear military uniforms, which meant that British forces would have been quite right to have shot them out of hand, and the one exception to the rule about guerillas is that they may be accorded status as lawful combatants, regardless of a lack of a uniform, if they carry their weapons openly during military operations. That then raises the question of 'does parking a carbomb outside a police station constitute a military action', or 'does conducting a drive-by shooting on members of the opposing side's public constitute a military action'?

All in all, I think it was better to treat them as criminals, since that's the standard by which we treat those extremist Islamic militants we can recover safely these days.

[Greater-London]

IRA prisoners where not political prisoners. It was not illegal to believe in a united Ireland, it was not illegal to campaign for united Ireland through protest or democratic means. They where arrested because they where members of an organisation which used violence as a method to achieve its means OR where violent towards somebody.

[Marcurix]

On 5th of May 1981, Bobby Sands died. An Irish revolutionary who fought to free Ireland from imperialists went on the Anti-H Block hunger strike, and died 66 (I believe) days later. His reason, to gain political status for his comrades who were falsely arrested and being treated like shit for fighting the oppressors. This raised the question,
Did the IRA fighters deserve political prisoner or POW status?

I personally think they shouldn't have been arrested in the first place, but if they were going to be they deserved Political Prisoner status
If an English person fought to free his country, he'd be called a hero, but when an Irish person does it they get called a criminal by Margaret Thatcher.

No attempt to be impartial i see.

It's iffy legally, given they were part of a group whom used violent unconventional tactics ignoring rules of engagements and such in order to achieve a political goal. So the question would be were they arrested for being part of a violent group, or for the political objective of said group?

[United Russian Soviet States]

They do deserve POW status.

[Gauthier]

They do deserve POW status.

As do members of Al'Qaeda, Daesh...

[California Prime]

No.
Non-uniformed, irregular soldiers are not real soldiers as defined by international warfighting conventions. Should they have been treated the way they were? No, but they should have been treated the way that other people arrested for violent crimes are treated, not treatment reserved specifically for captured soldiers.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

NO

Guerillas kill Soldiers. Terrorists kill Civilians.

Geneva has rules to define the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

In the long ago time, IRA mostly attacked British Soldiers and would have been valid POW.
1960 to 2000. IRA mostly attacked Civilians.

[Imperia Babylonia]

NO

Guerillas kill Soldiers. Terrorists kill Civilians.

Geneva has rules to define the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

In the long ago time, IRA mostly attacked British Soldiers and would have been valid POW.
1960 to 2000. IRA mostly attacked Civilians.

Thats cute.
But I didn't see as many civilians die to Republicans as they did to Loyalists.

[Keyboard Warriors]

NO

Guerillas kill Soldiers. Terrorists kill Civilians.

Geneva has rules to define the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

In the long ago time, IRA mostly attacked British Soldiers and would have been valid POW.
1960 to 2000. IRA mostly attacked Civilians.

Thats cute.
But I didn't see as many civilians die to Republicans as they did to Loyalists.

That isn't what's being discussed.

[Dremovia]

YES! It's better to fight for what you beleive then live a life in shame! Good man we need more like him

[Avaerilon]

1. Loaded, overtly biased OP. Might be better to next time make it a bit longer and remove some of the loaded words and phrases. It's now quite popular to include a division in the OP with your opinion below the opening section to keep it clean.

2. No they did not. The PIRA et al were a terrorist group; no matter whether you agree with their ultimate aims or not, they, like the various Loyalist paramilitaries, mainly attacked civilians. Look at it this way; most modern armies are not going to plant a massive bomb in a public space, ring-up the authorities with a coded message, and then detonate it with the aim of maiming, killing and demoralising ordinary civilians. Terrorist groups do. Furthermore, they were not the legitimate army of Eire (that being the Irish Army, whose government saw the IRA et al as terrorists, along with most other western governments) fighting a conventional war against another state, which means they were not entitled to be viewed as prisoners of war when taken captive. As other people have pointed-out before me, there are conventions and rules with regards to PoW status, and the IRA did not meet those requirements to be considered as such, the same as the UVF, UDA and anyone else.

[Costa Fierro]

Did the IRA fighters deserve political prisoner or POW status?

Neither. They were insurgents fighting in an asymmetrical war. The goals were political, but so are the goals of those fighting Israelis in Palestine or those of ETA in Spain. None of the people imprisoned during the conflicts there were given either of those statuses because they weren't political prisoners or prisoners of conscience. They weren't members of a state fighting another state for control over Northern Ireland. They were Northern Irish people killing fellow Northern Irish by means to spread terror and fear in communities with whom they had mutual hatred and distrust.

In short, they were and will remain, terrorists.

[British Empire Strikes Back]

On 5th of May 1981, Bobby Sands died. An Irish revolutionary who fought to free Ireland from imperialists went on the Anti-H Block hunger strike, and died 66 (I believe) days later. His reason, to gain political status for his comrades who were falsely arrested and being treated like shit for fighting the oppressors. This raised the question,
Did the IRA fighters deserve political prisoner or POW status?

I personally think they shouldn't have been arrested in the first place, but if they were going to be they deserved Political Prisoner status
If an English person fought to free his country, he'd be called a hero, but when an Irish person does it they get called a criminal by Margaret Thatcher.

First off, Northern Irish. As a Northern Irish person myself (my people were grocers not in the IRA, they left way before then, ok?), Irish and Northern Irish people are different ethnic groups. Both sides did horrible things in The Troubles. No side was right. However, one cannot act like the IRA was a bunch on innocent peace-loving hippes who just wanted to peacefully protesr and then wrire a petition made out of hemp paper and soy ink to the UK, asking for unification with Ireland. That is not the case. The IRA killed more people than the British did. Also, the IRA never succeded in getting independence, did they? Because it will never happen, Northern Ireland will always be British no matted what a very large minority or half of the North thinks.

[New Skaaneland]

There's English blood in my veins, the kind of football support which is the very basis of my life stemns from a Brittish mentality which is largely Loyalist and I do not support a so called "unified Ireland". However, I also do unconditionally support the use of paramilitaries and the true will of the people. Actions taken by civilians can be vital to upholding a great nation.

I do realise that I could've just remained silent and I'm not a part of any organisation related to this conflict, but I truly do believe that the lack of discipline which I hereby show - and which I am aware of myself - is essential to upholding the free world in which I wish to live.

As for "prisoners of war" or not I don't think that certein classification makes any difference at all.

[Old Tyrannia]

No, of course not. They weren't enemy soldiers. They were terrorists. Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be treated as a prisoner of war?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, 32 county Ireland when?

When a majority of residents of Northern Ireland agree to such a thing.
It's in the Good Friday agreement.

[Imperializt Russia]

No, of course not. They weren't enemy soldiers. They were terrorists. Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be treated as a prisoner of war?

Well, no, but that's partly because Dzhokar and Tamerlan were acting alone, and not a part of an actual conflict.

[Smithdown and Wavertree]

As do members of Al'Qaeda, Daesh...

are you really actually comparing the IR fuckin A to ISIS

[The Grim Reaper]

As do members of Al'Qaeda, Daesh...

are you really actually comparing the IR fuckin A to ISIS

More to the point, can you believe the bloody cheeky? He compared Al-Qaeda to Da'esh! How could he DARE to say [arbitrarily chosen armed group] is comparable to [other arbitrarily chosen armed group] regarding [shared use of arms]?

[Smithdown and Wavertree]

More to the point, can you believe the bloody cheeky? He compared Al-Qaeda to Da'esh! How could he DARE to say [arbitrarily chosen armed group] is comparable to [other arbitrarily chosen armed group] regarding [shared use of arms]?

the IRA were not even vaguely comparable to ISIS in terms of tactics, goals, weaponry, strategy, literally anything. You cannot compare them at all

[Napkiraly]

As do members of Al'Qaeda, Daesh...

are you really actually comparing the IR fuckin A to ISIS

While ISIS is worse, they are both terrorist organisations.

[Imperializt Russia]

More to the point, can you believe the bloody cheeky? He compared Al-Qaeda to Da'esh! How could he DARE to say [arbitrarily chosen armed group] is comparable to [other arbitrarily chosen armed group] regarding [shared use of arms]?

the IRA were not even vaguely comparable to ISIS in terms of tactics, goals, weaponry, strategy, literally anything. You cannot compare them at all

They're armed secessionist groups with political agendas. The comparison is pretty inseparable.