Second, would be the establishment of a joint Irish-British border patrol, along the boundary between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, to help bring an end to logistic support for guerrilla and terrorist operations in Northern Ireland.

Third, there should be a gradual lowering of the British military profile in Northern Ireland as the violence itself subsides. Incidentally, I do not believe it is realistic for us to expect the immediate withdrawal of all British troops. As Prime Minister Lynch recently pointed out, such a withdrawal could lead to even bloodier fighting in the North. But there could be a phased withdrawal. Fourth, and finally, there should be some immediate and positive action by the British government to end existing social, political, and economic discrimination against Catholics living in Ulster.

Mr. Chairman, a resolution centered on these four points can, I believe, be helpful in this tragic situation and should be adopted by the Congress.

As I have already said, the key to the problem lies in ending the discrimination and in moving eventually to reunite what is clearly one country, in accordance of course with the freely expressed wishes of the people themselves. Once a genuine effort has been made in that direction, with the participation of the established leaders of Ireland and England, there would no longer be any reason for the continuation of either the terrorism or the harsh internment.

I believe our Government should do what it can to see that action along these lines is undertaken at the earliest possible moment by all the parties and governments concerned, and a resolution to that effect by this Congress would thus be a very substantial step in the right direction.

STATEMENT By Hon. Lester Wolff, a REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, In too many parts of the world, violence, bloodshed and death threaten the safety and well-being of humanity; in Northern Ireland, these terrors have plagued the citizens of the Catholic minority for so long that they are looked upon as the prevailing condition of life.

In light of the continuing turmoil and disruption, it is particularly regretful that the Nixon Administration has not yet evidenced its concern over the discrimination and repression that plague the minority citizens in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chairman, I deplore discrimination of any kind here in the United States, and I deplore it wherever it rears its ugly head. Surely, it is unconscionable that the nations of the world sit idly by as this reign of terror is perpetrated on a vocal but powerless minority.

The minority citizens of Northern Ireland have time and again over the years petitioned the government for redress of their legitimate grievances. They have rightfully requested an end to discrimination in housing, employment and educational opportunity, and have requested a fair measure of political representation, in proportion to their numbers. All this, as we know, has been denied, and even worse, greater repressions continue to occur so that a peaceful route to settlement of differences becomes more and more remote.

Clearly, this situation cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. Positive steps must be taken at once to put an end to the bloodshed and death, the terror and harrassment that has become a way of life grievances of the Northern Ireland minority, will surely add weight to the growing world pressure to settle this conflict. If we in the Congress, representing the people of the United States, present a united front of opposition and repudiation of the policies of the governments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is little doubt that these governments, as part of the great world community, will necessarily acknowledge the support of our great nation of the minority struggle for equality in Northern Ireland, and hopefully relent in their obdurate refusal to recognize the legitimacy of these grievances.

I therefore call upon my colleagues to join with me in supporting the legislation we consider here today, to express our country's deepest concern over the present situation in Northern Ireland and to call for immediate implementation of civil, economic, political and religious reforms.

In addition, it is incumbent upon us, as Members of Congress, to urge that emergency legislation be enacted to permit the immigration of these political refugees to the United States. I have co-sponsored legislation to this effect, which is now pending in the Judiciary Committee. I therefore urge as well my colleagues' support for H.R. 166.

APPENDIX

REPORT ON ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT MADE BY PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER THE SPECIAL POWERS ACT AFTER AUGUST 8,

1971

REPORT BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL-OCTOBER 30, 1971

BRIEF SUMMARY

This memorandum deals with the allegations made by certain persons (all males) arrested under the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland from the date it was enforced (9th August, 1971) to the present.

Definite patterns emerge from an analysis of the allegations, which follows in detail. In each case the initial arrest was made by army personnel. On the majority of cases involving persons released within 48 hours of arrest, allegations were limited to assertions of severe beatings, usually about the head and shoulders with truncheons. Other common allegations concern lesser brutalities, such as being made to run barefoot for several hundred yards over stoney ground strewn with broken glass, rough boards and other debris. Indignities were also commonly alleged, including verbal abuse ridiculing the presumed religious beliefs of the persons in custody. But on selected testimonials the pattern alters radically. Apparently pre-designated persons were arrested and not maltreated until processed and transferred to a special interrogation centre, where they were subjected to severe beatings and physical tortures in the nature of being forced to stand in a "search position" (legs apart, hands against wall) for hours at a time. When they would collapse, severe beatings were again administered. This pattern was followed by prolonged interrogation, often over several hours. The prisoners were offered money to give information relating to Irish Republican Army activities in Northern Ireland. During these tortures, the prisoners were first stripped naked, their heads covered with an opaque cloth with no ventilation. They were then dressed in large boiler suits (one-piece coverall garments). They were forced into the search position in a room filled with the high pitched whining sound of an air compressor or similar device. This went on in some cases for six to seven days. Many prisoners felt they were on the brink of insanity-one alleges he prayed for death, another that he tried to kill himself by banging his head against some metal piping in the room.

In short, the allegations are of such a nature as to provide a prima facie case of brutality and torture in contravention of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These statements conjure a familiar picture of activities employed by an army of occupation against a hostile population. The United Kingdom Government has set up a Commission of Inquiry to deal with the allegations concerning only those who were arrested on 9th August, 1971. Subsequently arrested persons, who have made allegations similar to those above, are not covered by the terms of reference of this Commission. It could be argued that soldiers and police in Northern Ireland believe that they may act arbitrarily in torturing or brutalising prisoners after 9th August simply because their complicity will not be heard by the present Committee of Inquiry.

PERSONS ARRESTED AUGUST 9, 1971

Under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland), 1922, which grants unlimited power to the Minister of Home Affairs of Northern Ireland to take measures to keep the peace as he sees fit, the arrest of 337 persons was carried out in the early hours of Monday, 9th August, 1971. Amnesty is in possession of 25 affidavits executed by persons alleging that torture and brutality were

77-178-72- -23

used against them during the period when their liberty was thus curtailed. Of those 25, 21 were arrested on 9th August, the remainder within a few days.

ALLEGATIONS BY DETAINEES

The statements are, as noted preliminarily above, broadly of two types. Those of detainees (persons released within 48 hours of arrest) will be treated first. These allegations (12 in number) have many similarities: all arrests were made by army personnel; all were in the pre-dawn hours of 9th August; rarely was mention made of the authority by which the arrest was made; all were carried off within 5 minutes of being arrested, most with no chance to dress properly. The indignities began at once, with the detainee usually forced to lie on the floor of the army vehicle in which he was transported often with other detainees. In several cases the vehicles were subjected to attack from outside by missiles (often stones) hurled at them, and the detainees were used to shield army personnel from possible injury. Some beatings took place en route to prison, many savage in nature. Certain of the older (over 60 years) men in the group were brutalised to such a degree that they could not properly walk or speak upon arrival at prison.

Upon entry into "prison," usually an army barracks or headquarters, these men were taken to a gymnasium or exercise hall where they sat for some hours. Their possessions were taken from them along with their shoes. Many had their hands tied behind their backs. The men were then directed to run from the gymnasium across rough ground strewn with broken glass. The purpose of this exercise was apparently to convey the prisoners to the nearby Crumlin Road prison. In so doing, the soldiers ran along with the detainees, beating them as they ran and stumbled. Many fell and were again "savaged". Alsatian guard dogs are alleged to have been allowed to chase the men to within inches of their bodies when their leads would be restrained with military laughter-but one person was not so protected and had his arm bitten and coat ripped off his back in such an attack. The men were allowed little sleep and were forced to do exercises at great length in some cases. Finally, they ran a sort of gauntlet over an obstacle course, a brutal practise in no way justified by the necessity to transfer them quickly to a nearby

station.

These men generally were not severely brutalised (if a comparative standard can be employed to measure any such dehumanising activity) but they were subjected to calculated cruelties, imposed on them solely for the entertainment of their captors. The beatings and verbal abuse in these areas were clearly of such an unsophisticated type that it cannot be supposed that they were employed to ease the future extortion of information from the detainees. Rather, it served as a summary punishment for being suspect. The men were subjected also to indignities designed to disgrace them in the eyes of their fellows. Typical of this type of activity is the experience of the person who broke out in a rash after being beaten and was shaven from scalp to ankles "to protect the other men", "after being told by a "doctor" that he had venereal disease (after release an M.D. confirmed that this man had no such condition).

In conclusion, it is noted that all of these men were released within 48 hours of arrest. Many were arrested by mistake: one of the men most severely brutalised was 61 years of age and the licensed owner of two guns. He was savagely attacked in his own home by soldiers and again at an army camp.

TENSIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

A FACT FINDING REPORT OF A SPECIAL DELEGATION OF THE APPEAL OF CONSCIENCE FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, N.Y., DECEMBER 2, 1970

The delegation consisted of Rabbi Arthur Schneier of Park East Synagogue, President of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation; Rev. Donald R. Campion, S.J., editor-in-chief of the Jesuit weekly, AMERICA; Hon. Angier Biddle Duke, former U.S. Ambassador to Spain; Dr. David H. C. Read of the Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, all Members of the Board of the Foundation. The delegation visited London, Belfast and Dublin from July 20th through July 28th, 1970, where they met with government, church, labor and business leaders.

Among the many leaders whom they met during the course of their mission, they wish to acknowledge their appreciation to the following people for their spirit of cooperation:

In London.-Minister of State of the Home Office Richard Sharples; Mr. Drinkall of the Foreign Office; Mr. Cairn Cross of the Home Office; Mr. North of the Home Office.

In Belfast.-Major James Chichester-Clark-Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; Mr. R. Porter-Minister of Home Affairs; Dr. Robert Simpson—Minister of Community Relations; Mr. W. Slinger-Secretary of Ministry of Community Relations; Mr. R. A. Burrough-United Kingdom Government Representative in Northern Ireland; Rt. Rev. Principal Dr. J. M. HaireModerator, Presbyterian Church in Ireland; Rev. J. Davidson and Rev. E. Gallagher-Methodist Conference in Ireland; Canon E. P. M. Elliott-Church of Ireland; Bishop Wm. Philbin-Roman Catholic Church; Monsignor P. J. Mullally-Vicar General; Rabbi V. Berman-Jewish Community, Belfast; Rev. William Beattie M.P.; Mr. J. H. Binks, J.P. and colleagues-Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions; J. A. Rodgers, J.P.-President, Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce & Industry; R. E. Thompson-First Vice President, Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce & Industry; H. H. Gabbey-Second Vice President, Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce & Industry; J. M. Gray-Wm. Hwart & Son, Ltd.; Dr. G. Chambers-Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland; Dr. H. S. Corscadden-Ulster Bank Ltd.; K. Turner-B F Refinary (Northern Ireland) Ltd.; G. H. Coates-Post Office Headquarters; J. W. Swann-British European Airways; G. P. C. Thompson— President, Belfast Junior Chamber of Commerce; S. Kernaghan-Superintendent of Police; Senator N. Kennedy, J.P.; Senator J. G. Lennon; Captain J. Brooke, M.P.

In Dublin. Mr. John M. Lynch-Prime Minister, Republic of Ireland; Dr. Patrick J. Hillery-Minister for External Affairs, Republic of Ireland; Chief Justice Hon. Cearbhall O. Dalaigh; Most Reverend Dr. John C. McQuaid— Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland; Most Reverend Dr. Alan Buchanan-Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland; Dr. Isaac Cohen-Chief Rabbi of Ireland; Board of Governors, Bank of Ireland-John A. Ryan, Hugh W. Kennedy, Dr. F. H. Boland, W. P. Ganley, Sir Basil Goulding, Patrick A. Duggan; P. J. Lyons-Chairman of the National Youth Council of Ireland; Michael Adams-Secretary General of the Youth Council of Ireland; Mr. John Horgan and Mr. Gaighby-Irish Times; To the Journalists of the British, Northern Ireland and Irish Press; We express our appreciation to Ambassador John Freeman-British Ambassador to the United States; Ambassador William Warnock-Irish Ambassador in Washington; Charles V. Whelan-Consul General of Ireland in New York.

TENSIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation delegation saw its mission as essentially a fact-finding one. Throughout their stay in Northern Ireland, and their stops in England and the Republic of Ireland, the members of the delegation concerned themselves primarily with the task of gathering impressions on the degree to

which tensions and turbulence in Northern Ireland might have roots in the religious differences existing in that area as well as in political, economic and social differences.

It should be stated that the concern of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, and specifically of the group that traveled in its name to Northern Ireland, had a double focus: one was the troubled situation in Ireland as communicated to world opinion through the mass media, a situation that had at least surface indications of religious conflict and discrimination against a religious minority; the other, the impact of such popular reportage, whether accurate or not, in its analysis of a clearly complex situation, on inter-religious relations in other parts of the world, including particularly the United States.

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation felt, then, that it had a duty to understand and interpret a complex set of relationships and conflicts for the benefit of interested groups in the United States and, perhaps, other lands outside of Northern Ireland. The delegation sent by the Foundation had no desire or ambition to judge and prescribe. Its hope was that by performing the task of gathering and interpreting facts it could contribute to informed understanding of the Irish situation among men of good will in the United States and elsewhere. On the basis of expressions of keen interest in any findings it might make that the group encountered almost everywhere it went in Northern Ireland, England and the Irish Republic, it came also to entertain some modest hope that its efforts would provide a measure of encouragement and moral support to forces of good will at work in Northern Ireland and in circles outside that area vitally concerned with its future.

Libraries have been filled with books and pamphlets about the troubled skein of Irish history that serves as a centuries-long prologue to the current disturbance in the six counties that make up today Northern Ireland. A decisive point in more recent hisotry was the passage by the British Parliament in 1920 of the Government of Ireland Act. This act provided for the creation of two parliaments in Ireland, one in Dublin for the twenty-six counties in the south, and one in Belfast for the six counties in the north. (This act also proposed establishment of a Council of Ireland that would treat matters of common interest to the two sectors.) The provisions of the 1920 Act won acceptance in the six counties of what now became Northern Ireland, but never went into effect in the remainder of Ireland, where a free state came into existence that eventually became the Irish Republic.

A variety of circumstances, internal and external to Northern Ireland, combined over the years after 1920 to set the stage for a series of social explosions that rocked the land. There is, first of all, the fact of religious differences. A study conducted in 1969, under the sponsorship of all major religious bodies in Northern Ireland and of the British Independent Television Authority, yielded this breakdown of the total population along religious lines: Church of Ireland (Episcopal), 25 percent; Methodist, 5 percent; Presbyterian, 30 percent; other (including a small Jewish community), 3 percent; Roman Catholic, 36 percent; no church membership, 2 percent. Two things should be noted about the religious picture of Northern Ireland revealed in these statistics: first, the Catholics constitute a minority, but a substantial one; second, religious affiliation is almost universal (a point reinforced by a further finding of the 1969 study which indicated that 57 percent of the total population of Northern Ireland, as compared with 22 percent of the population of Britain, scored very high on the count of "religiosity" or the importance of religion to an individual in his or her daily life).

More important than the mere fact of religion division, however, is the extent to which the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic" have come to have a significance in the popular mind and usage that has little or nothing to do with religion or religious affiliation except for chance association or a reinforcing function. These religious labels have come, for example, to be used as code words to describe political positions with respect to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Protestant here means Unionist (linked to the Unionist Party) and thus a supporter of continued integration of the six counties within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and representation by elected members in the British Parliament. Catholic, in this context, is taken to mean one who favors (by violent or nonviolent means, a distinction that "Protestants" do not find significant) a break with the British Crown and merger with the Irish Republic (and its ninety-five percent Catholic population) of the South.

The reality, in this area of political or constitutional sentiment, is manifestly more complex than the handy cross identification of Protestant/Catholic and Unionist/Nationalist suggests. There are, on the one hand, "Protestants"-a term