LET me present you with a problem.

Suppose that you know that an evil person is planning to kill somebody. You know when he is going to do it, how he is going to do it and the place where he is going to do it. He is going to commit murder.
Suppose that on the basis of this information you have to come to a decision. Do you apprehend him before he is able to carry out his evil deed, or do you wait until you can catch him in the act of perpetrating it, and then stop him?
And if you fail to stop him, or are not in time, perhaps the murder will be carried out.
Would you be directly responsible for the murder if you failed to apprehend him before he carried out his evil deed, having been in a position so to do? Would you be guilty of the murder of his victim? Would you be guilty of his murder if you caught him in the act and killed him when you could have apprended him beforehand? What would be your moral duty in those circumstances?
Now let's raise these questions in the context of the Gibraltar killings. Three known members of the IRA were planning a dreadful bombing outrage, a car-bomb that conceivably could have killed and maimed hundreds of people. We are informed that the authorities knew all about it even to the extent of stating the time for which the bomb was set to detonate, the place in which it was going to be situated, the names and number of the people involved.
The car, thought to be carrying the bomb, was driven into its position. The three culprits were later allegedly challenged and then shot because the security forces felt that their lives, or the lives of others might be in danger or that one of the suspects might be able by remote control to detonate the bomb.
What were the moral imperatives upon the Government or the security forces? If there was a real fear that a bomb might have been detonated by a device in the pocket of one of the IRA members, before they were apprehended or shot, should they have been allowed to park a suspect car in the place in which it was parked? As they had been followed all the way up to the frontierand then on to a narrow stretch of land the entrance to Gibraltar should they not have been apprehended there, searched and either charged with possession of bomb-making equipment and weapons or with conspiracy to cause an explosion?
The way it was handled seems irresponsible and dangerous. Should one draw the conclusion that the events were taken recklessly to the brink in order that three known, hard-line IRA members could be "taken-out"? We do not know, and for that reason there should be an inquiry where all the facts can be established and conclusions can be drawn. What we do know is that one of those shot was not killed instantly. If a bomb had been in place and he had had a remote triggering device in his pocket, then hundreds could have been killed because of Government bungling.
What is the duty of the Government in such a situation? Either it was known that there was no bomb in the car, that the bomb was not already in place, in which case the excuse of the need to obviate the use of a triggering device is invalid; or it was genuinely believed that there was a bomb in the car, in which case it was left recklessly late to do anything about it.
So does the Government stand condemned or justified? Putting at risk the lives of the citizens of Gibraltar in order to kill three known members of the IRA and in such a manner was not the behaviour of a civilised and responsible Government. Rather than have three prisoners languishing in jail after being properly convicted of plotting an horrendous crime, the Government is in danger of having created another three martyrs for Old Ireland and another three victims for the Crown.
It is by asking awkward questions about the application of Christian morality to real situations that the Catholic Herald has been a respected journal for a hundred years. If it continues to pose the questions, it will last for another hundred. Ad Multos Annos.