Sir, - With reference to letters from Padraig O Cuanachain (June 5th) and John Paul McCarthy (June 15th) regarding Kevin Myers's discussion of my book, The IRA and Its Enemies, several points require a response. First of these is Mr O Cuanachain's appeal to the rights of the Dail, as a "lawfully elected government," and the agreed laws of war to defend the actions of the IRA at the Kilmichael ambush and elsewhere.
In fact, whatever its moral or democratic legitimacy, the Dail had no legal standing and was never recognised by any foreign government. Nor did the IRA, as a guerrilla force acting without uniforms and depending on their civilian status for secrecy, meet the requirements of international law. The British government was therefore within its rights to give courts-martial the power to order executions. This, of course, did not empower policemen or soldiers to commit murder - as they certainly did - but this had nothing to do with international law.
Mr O Cuanachain also declares that he is willing to accept Tom Barry's version of Kilmichael, but one of the points my book makes is that Barry's story has changed considerably over time. Does Mr O Cuanachain believe Barry's original account, written in 1920, which makes no mention of a "false surrender" and blames the dead men for exposing themselves? And why shouldn't he believe the many other IRA veterans who were there, who disagreed with Barry's later version published in his memoirs? Surely Mr O Cuanachain would agree that history is a matter of fact, not blind faith in comfortable myths? - Yours, etc., Peter Hart,
School of Politics,
Queen's University,
Belfast BT7.