Agreed!

Thanks, Chris. I think this gets us back to one of the themes of debate from the main case: the distinction, if there is one, between illegal subpoenas and stupid subpoenas.

This is not an ordinary criminal case — they’re reaching back forty years into actions covered by the Belfast Agreement, and crimes that have a plainly political flavor. One of the accusations outlined to Rea, which you’ve quoted in your post above, is that he met with Prime Minister John Major to negotiate a peace in Northern Ireland, which proves that he had the standing to speak for an illegal paramilitary organization.

So one of the foundations of their accusations is that he negotiated for peace. This is not a gas station robber — he’s a political leader. Using his interviews to get at other people is an attempt to open a door to political organizations, and a repudiation of the agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland. There should be a higher standard, here, than for a routine criminal investigation.

The PSNI and DOJ pursued interview materials regarding the murder of Jean McConville for four difficult years, and the result is that they’ve charged a tangential figure for aiding and abetting, with no charges brought against anyone purported to have actually kidnapped or killed Jean McConville. The police in NI are pulling at the foundations of the peace process to dredge up chickenshit. The proven outcomes of this investigative process aren’t worth the effort and the costs.

Why? In an ordinary criminal case grand juries hear testimony all the time from witnesses not themselves accused of crime. Or they subpoena documents from such third parties.

A barrister representing the chief constable…contended that if crimes had been committed, police have a statutory obligation to investigate.

“Regardless of who committed these offences there are victims, there are those bereaved, and some of them have written to the court expressing an interest in the issue,” he added.

—

So the PSNI is obtaining Winston Rea’s interview material in order to investigate murders and robberies not committed by Winston Rea. “Whether or not the applicant is the individual who has committed those.” “Regardless of who committed these offences.”

I can’t imagine a way to not see this as a cheap and shoddy fishing expedition.

MAM, thanks for the comment! I think the answer is: “it depends.” If the PSNI has already picked up the tapes, then any challenge in the
United States would be moot. If not, I suppose Rae could seek to enjoin the Department of Justice from turning them over, but the chances of success would be very low in light of the outcome of the main case.

I suppose that if the tapes are now in the possession of someone in Washington rather than someone in Boston, Rae could seek relief in the District of Columbia and hope that the court there gives a different answer than did the court in Boston. Massachusetts and the District of Columbia are in different judicial circuits, so the First Circuit’s decision does not formally bind the DC court (though of course it is persuasive as a precedent).

I appreciate your continued objectivity in keeping us informed on this issue. As always, with any new developments in this case there seems to be more questions than answers. Mainly I wonder if Mr. Rea could seek a judicial review here in the US or is this the end of it and his tapes will now be released to the PSNI/PPS?