Author
Joe Broadhurst
UK Whistleblower Martin Ingram joins Joe Broadhurst of CKUT's "Friday Morning After" (35:45)
Interview with Martin Ingram: He is a former Defense Intelligence Officer with the British government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Ingram") turned whistleblower. He managed agents inside the IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland and contends that 60-70% of the terror which took place in the UK and Northern Ireland between 1969-Today is State-sponsored terror.
This is particularly of interest today as we watch a similiar colonial operation in Palestine. It is widely known that Israel's Mossad plays a major role in supporting the terror operations carried out in the West Bank & Gaza.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html
"Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)"."
Transcript of Interview with Martin Ingram:
Joe Broadhurst: Ok, Mr. Martin Ingram, how are you today ?
Martin Ingram: I’m fine, thank you Joe.
J: Can you give my audience a background, your military background, and what you’ve been doing since then?
M: I was enrolled within the Army’s intelligence corps in 1980, and then I served for 12 years within the intelligence corps and more specifically with the Force Research Unit of a 2-3 ½ year tour and during that period I was used extensively in agents handling within Northern Ireland which was dealing with agents within the government in the IRA.
J: And what have you been doing since then?
M: Well, since I left the Army, I worked in business and I’m a freelance journalist, I’m the author of the best-selling book, Stakeknife.
J: Do you consider yourself a whistleblower?
M: Yes, I do.
J: And what exactly are you trying to bring forth and let the people know about?
M: I try to make sure that we learn from the mistakes of the past and that my children and future generations don’t need to suffer from in the past and what people still suffer from today and that is the State, basically, mounting terrorist operations.
J: Is it your contention that State-sponsored terror makes up a relatively large amount of the actual terror that is out there?
M: Well, within the Northern Ireland context, I would suggest it is well in excess of 60-70%.
J: 60 or 70 percent of all the terror that has happened inside the United Kingdom and in Ireland is State-sponsored, is that what you are saying?
M: Well, State-sponsored in the respect that it’s agents are involved in the majority of strategies, designed and developed by her majesty’s government. So yes, I would agree to that.
J: First of all, can you tell my audience just a little bit about or give my audience a brief history of the Dirty Wars and the Troubles and perhaps how, your position, what role you played at that time.
M: There was big ---- campaign within Northern Ireland which started in the 1969-1970 period and its run through all the way until today. You basically have two sides of the divide, the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. There are the loyalists for the Protestants and the IRA for the Catholics. And basically, the British government have been portrayed as being the honest broker between two parties.
The truth is, it was actually running both paramilitary organizations, through its leadership, forcing them more heavily into it, throughout the period of this conflict. (phone rings) Therefore, it wasn’t an innocent bystander by any stretch of the imagination, it was driving the conflict forward.
J: And what you did you actually play during this period, being a part of the military?
M: Well, I was one of the people that actually controlled and directed those agents and was responsible for much of that mayhem that was caused.
J: So you directed groups of people, is that correct?
M: Not only groups but individuals as well. People like Kevin Fulton, Freddie Scappaticci, Hank Haggerty, people like that, not specifically those individuals, but people like that, to commit crime for and on behalf of the state.
J: Did your specific group participate in getting rid of agents inside of those organizations?
M: Yes, the group did have agents who removed agents that deemed to be a risk.
J: So tell me basically how this works. How does one infiltrate those groups over there, say, the IRA? You take someone from the local level, you recruit them, and then, they work themselves up, is that correct? How does that work?
M: Yes, that is one of the tactics used by the State. Take a young boy and develop him throughout his career. The other way is to turn somebody who is already established. But that is, how can I put this, a little bit more hit and miss. For the long-term strategy, you are much better off getting people in from the ground level and developing them all the way through. Ideally, you would want to turn somebody from a really high level but that’s not always possible.
J: Now you’ve written a book called Stakeknife, and it is your contention that Freddie Scappaticci is Stakeknife, is that correct?
M: Well, it is not only my contention. Security forces no longer argue the point. He’s received injunctions from the State. The State is protecting him today. Scappaticci is Stakeknife, he is a murderer, he’s protected by the State and they continue to protect him today.
J: And how many people do you contend that he murdered, or, at least, helped to murder?
M: Well in excess of 20, 25.
J: And who exactly were these people?
M: These people were a cross-pollination of people. They include members of the security forces, members of the IRA and also, civilians.
J: In this regard, let’s take a person like Stakeknife, is he killing people to help solve the problem or is he killing people in order to let the problem continue?
M: Well, that’s a difficult question to answer. We’ve all got the benefit of hindsight today. I think his handlers were genuinely looking towards a better environment. I would disagree at the moment but that was an honest belief on their part.
J: You’ve written the forward for Kevin Fulton. Was he working with the British government?
M: Yes, he was a soldier that was recruited whilst he was a serving soldier and asked to leave his regiment and then was gradually infiltrated within the IRA and have a long and potential career within that paramilitary organization.
J: And he’s recently come out and become a whistleblower and he fears for his life, is that correct?
M: No, Kevin’s not a whistleblower. Let me put that into context. Kevin is of the opinion that he deserves to be protected by the State and that they owe him his pension and other financial considerations. Kevin would never describe himself as a whistleblower. He is reaching back in the corner of his own interests.
J: Is he in danger of being killed by both the United Kingdom as well as people within the IRA?
M: He certainly is at risk, yes.
J: Do you consider your life in danger?
M: Potentially, yes. I don’t let it take much of my time. I don’t really worry about it. But it is a consideration.
J: Have you been approached by the government over there to please be quiet?
M: Yes, I’ve been arrested and jailed and the subject of an injunction and technically, by speaking to you today, I could be returned to jail tomorrow.
J: Can you give us a brief description of your book and tell us a little bit about Stakeknife and his background?
M: The book, Stakeknife, is an overview of what went on during the Troubles. It gives you an insight into the agent handling techniques, how people are recruited, a number of case histories. It also details the career of Mr. Scappaticci and some of the activities that he was involved in. And may I add also Kevin Fulton, as Kevin Fulton worked alongside Mr. Scappaticci for a number of years. Mr. Scappaticci grew up in the ranks of the IRA and was allowed to stay within the security department, eventually as the Number 2, for over two decades. That is, for over 20 years, he did that because he had the support of other senior British agents who allowed him to stay in that position.
J: Is it your contention, or do you believe that Britain is continuing these activities?
M: Yes, it has a long history of this type of activity but, more importantly, it isn’t interested in reaching it’s responsibilities for what has occurred. That is, you’ve seen Judge Cory, who’s recommended public inquiries the British government initially agreed that that would be a good idea, and subsequently, they’ve gone back on what was agreed with Judge Cory and made new restrictions in terms of reference on public inquiries and that is an extremely bad decision. I cannot understand why the British government won’t have a public inquiry when it initially agreed to it. You have an internationally respected judge, a Canadian, Judge Peter Cory, who said there should be a public inquiry, that these incidents deserved to be inspected and yet the British government decided that they will restrict the terms of reference.
J: I just saw in the news that they are continuing to put a ban on the press of using Mr. Scappaticci’s photo in any kind of way and you have a photo in your book, Stakeknife. Has your book been banned?
M: Well, the book is available today. The book is published in the Republic of Ireland and not in the United Kingdom so they will find it very difficult to uphold that injunction.
J: Is it for sale in the United Kingdom right now?
M:It is, yes.
J: You’ve basically said it has been four years since Scappaticci is actually Stakeknife and nothing has been done. Are people listening to that? Are officials in the government listening to that, or is the public wanting to know why nothing has been done?
M: Well, the public in Northern Ireland knows that he is Stakeknife and have accepted that news. They understand that the British government is complicit not only in these crimes but in many other crimes. There’s the Omagh bombing, there’s the ongoing trial of the -----, there’s the murder of Mr. Patrick Fiducane, which after denying it, denying any involvement, seven of the people involved were agents. So, this is not a stand-alone subject. There are many, many other dimensions, which frankly, have allowed the public to become somewhat apathetic to it.
J: Can you tell my listeners just a little bit about the Omagh bombing and the role the British government played in what happened?
M: Well, the ---- for Northern Ireland, who led the investigation after an ------ was put into the public domain from Mr. Kevin Fulton. A result of her investigation detailed the activities of two individuals, Man A and Man B. Man A, basically, was caught by Kevin Fulton making the components of a bomb some days previous to the bombing at Omagh and the police refused to question him. There is some suspicion that he is a British agent. He’s been named in the House of Commons by MPs as being an agent. His phone was used within 30 seconds of the Omagh bombing going off in very close proximity to the bomb. And there is very good evidence that this man was involved. Now, he is, along with Frank Scappaticci, a mass killer and one of the most experienced terrorists of the last 30 years. The State has refused a public inquiry into Omagh. It is presently engaging in a trial of another person, Mr Sean Gerard Hoey, which, at face value, the evidence looks very circumspect, and it appears they want to move the direction of the attention from Man A to this individual. The State is constructively trying to put someone away for an offence he is not guilty of.
J: There is obviously going to be political fallout from the people finding out that this is going on. That the British government is playing an active role in these organizations. One of the ways that they try to cover their tracks is through disinformation. I’m wondering if you can help us, people who are reading on the internet or listening to interviews like this one, who are trying to find out what the truth is. How do you feel that the British government is putting out disinformation in order to confuse people and muddy the subject, as it were?
M: I actually cover this in the book, Stakeknife, in as much as I truly believe there are very good journalists in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom but there are some compliant ones also. And that is, I know from experience that the State has the ability to control the flow of information. It also has the ability to put totally untrue statements into the press and they are published in regular intervals. So the control over the press has been, to this point, very easy to control. But with the advance of the internet, they now are in a very difficult position. They find it very difficult to control the flow of information and they have fear. And I believe the American government does also, of not being able to control that flow of information.
J: An article just appeared, and it was available on the Cryptome website, by a man named Trowbridge H; Ford. Have you read that?
M: I haven’t but I’ve known Trowbridge for some time. Just to give you some background, Trowbridge accused me of assassinating the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr Olaf Palme. And he accused me and certain individuals when the Director of the British Irish Rights Watch, a very well respected NGO, declared that I was not the individual involved in the murder of the Swedish Prime Minister, nor was I a drug-runner, which Trowbridge Ford accused me of being. So, Trowbridge has his own website and has his own unique way at looking at individuals. So it does come from -------
J: Because basically he’s saying that you’re part of that disinformation campaign and I wonder, do you have any response to that?
M: I do have a response to that because I’d like to pick up my last ten years of wages, please.
J: As far as your wages go, how did you leave the service? Did you quit or were you, essentially, fired?
M: I left because I met an Irish lady who was, I would have had a problem with my vetting, to continue on, because she was a Roman Catholic, and I decided for the parting of the ways. And we parted on very good terms and I have my last confidential report which has the highest classification to leave and so no, we did not part on bad ways. As I say in my book, I support 99.9% of all intelligence operations.
J: So, do you think the British government should continue these types of operations?
M: No. The 0.1% of operations which I would not agree with, the types of operations which I’ve outlined to you that involve state-sponsored terrorism and people being murdered. I would not accept that ----- to run a democratic society.
J: In the course of your career, managing these operations, these individuals, these people, were you at anytime aware of the same operations being conducted by the United States government?
M: Well, I worked with the CIA in Belize, when I worked in a similar role in Belize, in 1987. That was my only direct experience except for when I worked in the Ministry of Defense. We would see, regularly, some of your material, or not your material but material which is produced over the Echelon intelligence network.
J: Did you ever work on any Canadian operations as well?
M: No. As you know yourself, the Echelon network does cover you but I did not work directly with the Canadian military.
J: A Mr. Frost, who worked with CSIS here in Canada, wrote an article a while back, back in 1996, in a magazine, and basically he had talked about the way that governments use other government’s agencies, from other countries, in order to conduct domestic operations when they don’t want to be a part, or want to distance themselves. Are you aware of any outside countries conducting operations during the Dirty Wars? Are you aware of any CIA operations that happened during this time? Or say, the British government had asked Canada to help them with?
M: No, I’m aware of none such…In my opinion, they didn’t need the outside assistance because they had directly the two. That is, the IRA and the Loyalists, as extensions of the British Army. They used and directed those in a similar way as they would their own troops. So there was no need. It was a ----- operation, albeit, using two paramilitary organizations.
J: Agents such as Kevin Fulton and Mr. Scappaticci, are they murderers? Do you consider them to be murderers?
M: Absolutely.
J: Absolutely?
M: Absolutely. Unequivocal.
J: There are still these types of agents walking around, doing this type of work?
M: Yes.
J: Because I think, in some people’s minds, the whole James Bond thing, you know, this is a fantasy, but certainly, governments use agents like this, to take care of their dirty business. And there are many of them, for each country, and they are walking around on the streets today. So I guess I just want you to confirm that?
M: Absolutely. I can’t speak for the Canadian government because I have no direct experience. And I find it very difficult to speak for the American government because again, I have no real direct experience. But for the United Kingdom’s position, I can say without hesitation, that it has been involved in State-sponsored terrorism.
J: On its own soil?
M: Absolutely, against its own citizens.
J: Can you elaborate a little bit?
M: Well, in Northern Ireland, there are many tens of people who have been killed. The State’s own citizens who have been killed, bombed by agents of the State. Take the Omagh bombing, 29 people died in that, including an unborn child. That is the one bombing that they and the Mormons are avoiding a public inquiry into. And it would be very easy to demonstrate that agents of the State were involved in that. Clearly, this government should accept its responsibility for the past. If you look at the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane, another of its State citizens, he was targeted repeatedly by agents of the State, at the request of the Police, and those agents, at the instructions of the Police, they subsequently killed him. They shot him a number of times, on a Sunday evening, in front of his family.
J: We know now there is a process going on now over the Omagh bombing, in the British courts. What kind of validity does that process have?
M: It has very little, and just to give you one example: On Monday of this week, one of the witnesses for the State, was shown to have been caught, and was shown to have had some influence been put on him by the State, and the Judge, when this information was brought to him, his answer was, well “don’t worry, When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” That is clearly against due process. It is plainly unfair. Now, something else your listeners should understand. In Northern Ireland, they don’t have a jury. They have a system called the despot system. Which is that one judge listens to the evidence and he then maintains whether this person is innocent or guilty as charged. Clearly, when that judge then says, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”, it wouldn’t inspire confidence that justice is going to be done.
J: Do you have a sense that the people understand that that process is unfair and that peraps it is just a show?
M: Absolutely.
J: And is there resistance to this process?
M: Yes. There is much media coverage of it. There is desire, I believe, by the victims to have genuine justice. If the man is not guilty of the crime, he should not be sentenced. I mean, the leaders of the victims have made that very clear.
J: Has the British government or anyone on the other side of the defense asked you to testify?
M: Well, certainly the British government wouldn’t ask me to testify and the defense have not asked me to testify because, you know, I would not have any inside knowledge into the activities of Mr. Sean Hoey, although I believe, looking at it from an outsider’s viewpoint, some of the evidence put forward is circumspect at best.
J: Over here in Canada and in the United States, we are fairly new to domestic terrorism, while over in your part of the woods, or part of the Earth, you’re fairly, you’ve been dealing with domestic terrorism for a long time. On July 7, 2005 some bombs placed in the subway. Do you believe the United Kingdom or the British government was involved with that at all?
M: I believe the United Kingdom and government know a lot more than they are making public. The initial press release from her Majesty’s government said that the individuals involved in this operation were completely virgin. And it turns out that that is incorrect. Through a number of disclosures, It seems a lot of the individuals concerned with that operation had been under surveillance. From my experience, I would not rely on these releases from her Majesty’s government. Do I honestly believe that they would involve themselves in a bombing of the tube station? I don’t. I would have to see very convincing evidence to support that allegation. But clearly, they do know more than they are making public. And I think that much of the information they haven’t made public is probably going to be very embarrassing. But nonetheless, I don’t believe they would plot to bomb the underground.
J: After the July 7th bombing, we saw the release of certain information at certain different times, and I’m wondering if you were watching that process, the process of the government releasing information, and if that process that took place after July 7th correlates at all with say, the aftermath of something that the British government was involved with before?
M: Yes, I understand the logic of your question. When your dealing with insurgency issues, it is a difficult balance to strike. Her Majesty’s government clearly had a major instance with 7/7. When you look at what happened in Northern Ireland with what is happening today, with al Qaida and the general Muslim threat from within the United Kingdom, I don’t think there is a parallel to be drawn. With respect to Northern Ireland, that has been a very old, traditional conflict, if you like, which has been run out through three generations of Irish men and women. Within the Muslim community in the United Kingdom, that is an altogether different problem. I do genuinely believe that her Majesty’s government would have a very, very serious problem if it didn’t collect from within those ---. And I think the difficulty in collecting it, it cannot be overemphasized, collecting intelligence on Irish ---, is relatively easy. Collecting intelligence on the Muslim or the al Qaida is an altogether different proposition.
J: One of things, I think, that concerns people here is that, the person that they say is the leader of al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, was financially and physically supported by the CIA, and helped to be propped-up in their fight for Afghanistan, to beat the Russians. What I’m wondering is, if the CIA was part of an operation like that, would the CIA recoil and not be a part of that operation any more? Have you, in your past, let’s notice say, the British government would go into a certain group, infiltrate, support them, and then pull out completely? Or would they, at least, maintain some type of operational control until that group is completely gone?
M: Let me put it this way, Do I honestly believe that Osama bin Laden could survive, ----, on the planet? If the Americans wanted to find him, they would find him. I have no doubt about that. Clearly, there are other interests at work. What those interests are, I think most of us could speculate. But I am absolutely convinced that if the Americans wanted to find him, they would have found him.
J: They just don’t leave somebody like that to go off by themselves and do whatever they want, right?
M: Absolutely not. Not only the individual but the structure of the organization. That’s probably more important. Because when you have an element of control over it, you understand it, you understand the symantics, the detail involved, and you would not allow it to turn and fight and attack your interests.
J: In your history in Intelligence, did you ever pull out of a group? Did you ever say, this group’s OK, we can pull out and we can go on to different things?
M: No. You’ve too much invested.
J: Once you pour millions of dollars and get the people involved, there’s too much invested?
M: Absolutely, yeah.
J: And what are your prospects for the future?
M: Well, my prospects are really good. The prospects for Northern Ireland are probably a status quo. That is, politically, we will find it very difficult to move very much forward. But if you believe in a United Ireland, as I do, if you are genuine Irish Nationalist, then you will be dismayed, because the genuine possibility of a United Ireland is further away today, than it was prior to 1970.
J: What are the best prospects of making that happen?
M: Well, the best prospects for making that happen is for Irish Republicans and the Nationalists to move away from Sein Fein and for the regeneration of those genuine interests under a new political platform. A genuine party which will represent Irish Nationalism in today’s modern world. Free from British influence. The leadership of the Republican Movement and Sein Fein are totally corrupt. Their integrity is not even worth commenting on. And you will see from the last 30 years, ----, we will never --- the right of Irish men and women to take up arms to a point today where, frankly, they’re part and parcel of the British administration in a paid role. When policing eventually takes place at the end of this year, to use a Star Trek analogy, they’ll be assimilated into British society.
Do you think there’s going to be a big push by the people to make all that happen?
M: I think ,generally, people are thankful that the Troubles have come to an end. But that’s an altogether different argument of if they believe in a United Ireland. Genuinely, the people of Northern Ireland are good people and they don’t want the killing. But if the political argument can’t be at hand without the killing, I think they would be more than willing to take up that battle. I don’t think anyone wants to return to the violence of the past. They want to realize their lifetime’s ambition of seeing a United Ireland. But that will not happen with the leadership of Sein Fein as it is today. They are, frankly, agents of the State. If you were to go onto the website of Sein Fein, it’s like going onto her Majesty’s government website.
E-mail
Link