Armies are supposed to behave better than "terrorists". They don't, but that is the theory, and that is the propaganda line that is passed out to the public day-in day-out.

Until, that is, it becomes crystal-clear that an army has in fact itself been involved in terrorism - and at that point the line shifts, and the argument is that it's unreasonable to expect the agents of the state to comply with the law, because their opponents don't.

The thing is, when a state crosses over the line and itself adopts terrorist tactics, it does so with a level of resources that is vastly greater than their opponents. That makes it especially important to identify whether terrorism is the outcome of indiscipline at a relatively low level, or policy at a higher level.

What complicates it is that typically cover-ups are carried out at a relatively high level - and the typical end-story we are expected to believe is that though the cover-up was at a high level, it was to mask a breakdown in discipline at a low level.

In this case we can expect to be left with a finding that it was all down to a few low-level perpetrators, who won't be named, who acted in an indisciplined manner of their own accord, and a dead judge who can't say who gave him his orders to arrange a cover-up.

Meanwhile in Israel a war criminal with direct responsibility for appalling atrocities far worse than Bloody Sunday has probably been elected Prime minister.