Campaigners for the family of Belfast teenager Peter McBride, shot down by two british soldiers in 1992, have raised serious misgivings about the appointment of Dr John Reid as the new Secretary of State. The Derry-based Pat Finucane Centre (PFC) has published a series of questions which it says the new Secretary of State must address.

Reid was Minister of State for the Armed Forces during a crucial period in the campaign to free Scots Guards Mark Wright and James Fisher, convicted of murdering McBride. During this period, Reid and his officials provided false information to campaigners for the McBride family, delayed the decision on the future of the Guardsmen contrary to Queens Regulations, intervened publicly and inappropriately on their behalf and justified the use of MoD facilities by campaigners for the two convicted killers.

``The family of Peter McBride deserves responses to the following questions,'' said the Pat Finucane Centre (PFC). ``It is our view that these questions raise issues of much greater importance than allegations surrounding a passport application.''

On 13 May 1998, Dr Reid, then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, met with representatives of the Guardsmen Wright and Fisher Release Group. Two subsequent requests for meetings with the Mc Bride family were refused. His successor as Armed Forces Minister, Doug Henderson MP did finally agree to a meeting following representations from the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. Why did Dr Reid refuse meetings that his successor agreed to?
Following the meeting with the Release Group, Dr Reid expressed his ``concern'' over the continuing imprisonment of the Guardsmen. Was it appropriate for a minister to express such public support for two convicted murderers given his role as minister in deciding their future in the Army?
In a letter to the PFC dated 29 May 1998, Dr Reid's Military Assistant stated that no decision had been made on the retention of the Guardsmen in the Army because the case has ``been under consideration by the Northern Ireland judicial process for some time'' and claimed that the two ``have either been appealing against the decisions of the court or (have been) seeking judicial review of their cases.'' This information was totally untrue and was known to be so by his officials. Leave to appeal the convictions had been denied two years earlier, in March 1996. Why did he issue false and inaccurate information to justify his own inaction as minister?
In a letter dated 23 July 1998, Reid again endorsed this view, stating, ``...the Army authorities have taken the view that it would be inappropriate for the future of the two Guardsmen to be considered until all judicial debate ceased''. There had been no judicial debate on the issue of the guilt or innocence of the two Guardsmen since March 1996. As the minister with ultimate responsibility in this matter, he was duty bound to ensure that Queen's Regulations be applied. Why did he delay the decision on the Guardsmen's future contrary to Queens Regulation 9.404?
In a letter dated 30 November 1997 to a constituent, Dr Reid justified the use of Scots Guards HQ property and telephones by the Release Group. He stated that ``...the group no longer uses the Wellington Barracks address as their point of contact. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that whilst consideration is being given to their future in the Army, Gdsm Fisher and Wright remain members of the Scots Guards and are entitled to support from their Regiment.'' Why did the Armed Forces Minister believe that two men who were convicted in a court of law of murder were `entitled to support from their Regiment'?
The minister and his officials repeatedly sought to influence the early release of the Guardsmen and improperly delay a decision on their future. The MoD strategy was to delay an Army Board hearing until the two had been released, thus creating circumstances which would allow for their retention. Was it appropriate for the Armed Forces Minister to be involved in a strategy that sought to effectively overturn the judgement of a court of law?
Dr Reid's officials informed the PFC that the Army Board hearing on the future of the Guardsmen was a `quasi-judicial process'. Two of his successors actually sat on the Army Boards that decided on retention of the Guardsmen. Was it appropriate for the minister who would be involved in a decision-making capacity in a `quasi-judicial process' to show such clear bias in favour of two convicted murderers?
For further information on the McBride case see http://www.serve.com/pfc

NATO has no policy on convicted murderers

The Secretary General of NATO has responded to Celtic League concerns about the service with NATO of convicted murderers Wright and Fisher.

The League had asked ``why NATO apparently has no Code of Practice or Standards that precludes convicted murders serving in its armed forces?'' and ``also advise which NATO countries allow those convicted of serious crimes such as murder to serve in their armed forces?''

Astonishingly, the Secretary General's Office has written back indicating that NATO has no ethical code covering the situation.

The writtten reply states that ``each of the 19 NATO member states retain the final and full sovereign authority with respect to the composition of their armed forces''.

The League has expressed its outrage at the situation, pointing that in effect this means that should states ``choose to deploy murderers, rapists thieves etc. as part of their NATO commitment, then the organisation would not have a view on this''.

The League has also asked for a specific response to its query asking which states other than Britain deploy convicted murderers as part of their NATO contribution.