Colombia 3 Innocent!

Pompey Magnus

Found innocent of training Farc guerrilas by one of the most corrupt systems in the world, now thats saying something!

I guess this means there are going to be a lot of people who will have to eat their words on this subject at least.

here

What will be the comeback to this one? "Sinn Fein members were caught using false passports, lets suspend them from the assembly"?

mike65

Hmmmm not a surprise I guess...I bet they get the full welcome home party form the Shinners...

Mike.

Mighty_Mouse

I don't know whether to be angry, happy or sad about this. I suppose the decision has to be welcomed and these men get the opportunity to return to their homes.

But I have so much built up anger of having to listen to people who had found these men guilty even before they undertook this completely dodgy trial in Columbia.

Victor

But: Three convicted on passport charges. They may have been found not guilty of the main charge, but they weren't found innocent of it either

Mighty_Mouse

They may have been found not guilty of the main charge, but they weren't found innocent of it either

rte: A Colombian judge has found three Irishmen not guilty of training FARC rebels

Victor

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
rte: A Colombian judge has found three Irishmen not guilty of training FARC rebels

?

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse

But I have so much built up anger of having to listen to people who had found these men guilty even before they undertook this completely dodgy trial in Columbia.

Understandable.
I do think though that it is also understandable also though that, the charges were taken seriously given that it's not exactly legal in Columbia to be helping Fark and given the fact that they were there on false passports.

If foreigners were arrested here for instance on false passports and were suspected to be training say for example the "real IRA" for what ever reason, they might also find them selves temporally in jail pending a trial.
State counsel might fear they would abscond.

That said it is indeed good that their names have been cleared of the central allegation, which is egg on Mr Trimbles face and others.

/me rushes off to have a look at how this is reported on the BBC NI 630 newsline.

Mighty_Mouse

Were they not found innocent of the main charge? Don't tell me people were worried about ex IRA men using false documentation all along!

Victor

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Were they not found innocent of the main charge? Don't tell me people were worried about ex IRA men using false documentation all along!

So I wonder why they were charged for using false documentation if people weren't "worried"? It was actually one of my concerns.

The FARC allegations, while they had some substance at the start, were not proven, however the documentation thing was a bit more clear cut and believeable.

sceptre

You lot are arguing over semantics but if the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" is that important to any of you (and it seems to be), they were found "not guilty" of the main charge.

Courts don't declare people "innocent" for a few very good reasons.


edit: I'm always a little concerned by people using false documentation for its own sake, even ignoring the underlying reason anyone might have to use false documentation (which is likely to be worse)

mike65

Originally posted by sceptre

Courts don't declare people "innocent" for a few very good reasons.

There's alot to be said for the Scottish "Not Proven" judgment.

Mike.

Phil_321

Anyone have any ideas why were they travelling on false passports?

Mighty_Mouse

yes lets all remember that they were only found "NOT GUILTY" of the main charge! I mean for gods sake how can anybody argue that a "not guilty" charge is at all relevant in the bashing of republicans. Sure ignore it all together.

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
Courts don't declare people "innocent" for a few very good reasons.

As, I understand, was Judge Curtin.

Johnny_the_fox

Originally posted by Depeche_Mode

What will be the comeback to this one? "Sinn Fein members were caught using false passports, lets suspend them from the assembly"?

for the 2nd time...

1st time - being the PSNI raids on the Sinn Fein Offices, all the charges were dropped... :rolleyes:

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Victor

The FARC allegations, while they had some substance at the start

I didn't realise that being a Republican was a license to be imprisoned in a foreign prison. Of course being Republicans means that they must have been up to no good. Does this substance that you speak of merit the men being imprisoned for two years?

The fact remains that two citizens from Ireland and one from the North were imprisoned for two years in a squalid prisons for a crime they didn't commit. The presumption of the guilt of these three men has been used to attack Sinn Fein and even damage it (the U.S weren't happy with this at all and threatened to prevent Sinn Fein members from entering the USA).

Questions must now be asked why the verdict of the trial was left till nine months after the trial ended and why the Irish government did little or nothing to try and intervene.

vorbis

if you read the article then you would see that the time they've spent in prison was justified

They were found guilty of passport violations and since they have already served their prison sentences, they are being let go. Sounds like the Columbian justice system handled this case correctly.

Victor

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I didn't realise that being a Republican was a license to be imprisoned in a foreign prison. Of course being Republicans means that they must have been up to no good.

Well if you say so.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Does this substance that you speak of merit the men being imprisoned for two years?

I'm not sure if it does, but that’s a call for a Colombian judge. However, together with the other charges, I think there was merit.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The fact remains that two citizens from Ireland and one from the North were imprisoned for two years in a squalid prisons for a crime they didn't commit.

Hang on they have been found guilty and sentenced to terms exceeding those two years.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The presumption of the guilt of these three men

Excuse me, but I never went beyond suspicion / possibility of guilt point, just as I would with most other accused. By the way the presumption of guilt appears to have been right.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The presumption of the guilt of these three men has been used to attack Sinn Fein and even damage it (the U.S weren't happy with this at all and threatened to prevent Sinn Fein members from entering the USA).

So people made political points. So what? Are SF not politically robust enough to rebut them? Are SF not up to scratch on the politics / democracy ratings? Are they not capable of surviving, oooh, harsh words being used against them?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Questions must now be asked why the verdict of the trial was left till nine months after the trial ended

I suspect this is the speed of the judiciary in Colombia. And since when have republicans been interested in swift judgement? Oh yeah, I forgot when they wan to kneecap someone.

flogen

Victor, are you under the impression that curtain was found innocent in court, or even 'not guilty' (if there is a difference)?

anyway, from what i know of the case, they got the right verdict in the end, as for their false documents, it is claimed that due to their republican past, they HAD to, and cos one was coming from Cuba, he had to aswell, not exactly brilliant excuses, but it would be hard for people in their position to think of better ones.

Flogen

Victor

Originally posted by flogen
Victor, are you under the impression that curtain was found innocent in court, or even 'not guilty' (if there is a difference)?

As I understand it he was found not guilty by direction of the judge. An unsatisfactory decision.

The difference between 'not guilty' (has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt) and 'innocent' (proven beyond all doubt not to be guilty) is substantial. For more presice details look up a legal dictionary.

Originally posted by flogen
anyway, from what i know of the case, they got the right verdict in the end, as for their false documents, it is claimed that due to their republican past, they HAD to, and cos one was coming from Cuba, he had to aswell, not exactly brilliant excuses, but it would be hard for people in their position to think of better ones.

Thats almost like saying "Judge I've been unemployed for 5 years, I *had* to rob the bank." They took a chance, the knew what they were getting into.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Victor
I'm not sure if it does, but that’s a call for a Colombian judge. However, together with the other charges, I think there was merit.

Two years and two month to three years and eight months are certainly not typical sentences when convicted of carrying false passports. The usual course of action is immediate deportation.

Maybe you can answer me this but are these sentences going to be added on top of what they've already served or will they be taken out of the time they've already done?

Originally posted by Victor
Excuse me, but I never went beyond suspicion / possibility of guilt point, just as I would with most other accused. By the way the presumption of guilt appears to have been right.

I wasn't referring to your opinion on this just the medias and politicians in general.

Originally posted by Victor
So people made political points. So what?

They were often based on speculation that the men were guilty of training FARC guerillas.

Originally posted by Victor
Are SF not politically robust enough to rebut them? Are SF not up to scratch on the politics / democracy ratings? Are they not capable of surviving, oooh, harsh words being used against them?

Constant criticism which more often than not is based on hearsay, presumptions and conjecture is getting tiresome. Why don't politicians focus on Sinn Fein's poor impact of the ministries that they're running in the North and some of their ideas they'd implement if they were let into government? It's the Marxist agenda that should be debated not allegations and speculation of Sinn Fein involvement of x, y and z.

Originally posted by Victor
And since when have republicans been interested in swift judgement? Oh yeah, I forgot when they wan to kneecap someone.

So you're saying all Irish Republicans want to kneecap wrong do'ers? Fianna Fail would claim they're a Republican party, I'm not familar with any of their members being into punishment beatings.

capistrano

What were these three boyos doing travelling in Farc held areas on false passports? The only reason to use false documentation is if you're up to no good. I don't think we should celebrate their acquital at all!

But fair play to the Colombian judiciary. Despite a corrupt political system, the judiciary has shown it's independence. While there is a very strong suspicion of mischief, there was not enough hard evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So they were rightly acquitted on the terrorist training charge.

But let us not celebrate it - just like no one is celbrating Justice Curtin's acquittal in Tralee.

sceptre

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Maybe you can answer me this but are these sentences going to be added on top of what they've already served or will they be taken out of the time they've already done?

The latter.

flogen

As I understand it he was found not guilty by direction of the judge. An unsatisfactory decision.

The difference between 'not guilty' (has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt) and 'innocent' (proven beyond all doubt not to be guilty) is substantial. For more presice details look up a legal dictionary.

Firstly the curtain case collapsed, and while he was given the not guilty verdict, it was not based on the evidence but rather the legality of the evidence. I agree that it was unsatisfactory, but sadly thats how it worked out, and its a matter for a different thread.

as for legal definitions, according to this online legal dictionary (which is the best i could get, perhaps you could show us your one), innocent is defined as: adj. without guilt (not guilty). Usually the plea which an accused ... (i added the bold)


oh, and i wasnt justifing there actions regarding false documents, someone had asked what their reasoning was, so i told them what I knew about it.

Flogen

Mighty_Mouse

What were these three boyos doing travelling in Farc held areas on false passports?

From the start of this thing I've been saying the same thing. Revolutionaries have sympathies with other revolutionaries around the world e.g. the Basque, Cuba, South Africa and it was no surprise for me to see three SF travelling to Columbia.

Victor just to clarify. Are you saying that these men are guilty of training FARC gorillas because they have been found guilty of carrying false documents?

PS
Theres a large difference between this and the Curtain case. These men were tried and found not guilty

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
From the start of this thing I've been saying the same thing. Revolutionaries have sympathies with other revolutionaries around the world e.g. the Basque, Cuba, South Africa and it was no surprise for me to see three SF travelling to Columbia.

So, these ex-IRA men travelled on false passports to Columbia for a few pints to sympathize with the FARC fellas?
I can't believe anyone could be that naive.
"We were just on holidays"

Give us some credit.

capistrano

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Theres a large difference between this and the Curtain case. These men were tried and found not guilty

Brian Curtain was also tired and found not-guilty. Strictly speaking, there wasn't a shread of (admisable) evidence so the judge had no choice but to direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty.

So, legally, the Columbia 3 and Brian Curtain and in exactly the same boat. Both have been founf not-guilty but there remains a whiff of suspicion about them.

bugler

They are not in the same boat, really. Curtin had child porn, and a technicality meant that he got away with it. The Columbia 3 were tried and found not guilty on the charge of training FARC guerrillas, and were found guilty on the false passports charges. No technicalities as I have understood it, but I'm engrossed in other matters at the moment. There's a difference between a lack of evidence and improperly obtained evidence.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I didn't realise that being a Republican was a license to be imprisoned in a foreign prison. Of course being Republicans means that they must have been up to no good. Does this substance that you speak of merit the men being imprisoned for two years?

Actually they were Sinn Féin republicans, which means that there was a very good chance they were up to no good. Exactly what, we'll probably never know, but I'm sure it wasn't birdwatching.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

The fact remains that two citizens from Ireland and one from the North were imprisoned for two years in a squalid prisons for a crime they didn't commit. The presumption of the guilt of these three men has been used to attack Sinn Fein and even damage it (the U.S weren't happy with this at all and threatened to prevent Sinn Fein members from entering the USA).

Wrong, they did commit a crime - travelling on false passports, and because of that they have received sentences, for which (I think) only one of the men has served their time.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Questions must now be asked why the verdict of the trial was left till nine months after the trial ended and why the Irish government did little or nothing to try and intervene.

Why should the Irish government intervene. Should the Irish government intervene in the case of every Irishman arrested and accused abroad? Why should these three men recieve special treatment?

Hobart

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Actually they were Sinn Féin republicans,

Are you sure of your facts there? I know that Connolly was a member of SF, and their rep in Cuba. What do you know of the political allegiences of the others?

Why should the Irish government intervene. Should the Irish government intervene in the case of every Irishman arrested and accused abroad?

The Irish Government should have intervened long ago. These men were ready to be deported nearly 2 years ago, because they were caught travelling on false documents. However the intervention of the US, which involved threats of withdrawl of aid and US troops if substantial charges were not pursued with against these men, meant the Colombia had no choice but to put on this shambolic trial. It is to the eternal shame of this government that they were not strong enough to stand up for the rights of their citizens, in a foriegn land, and demand their immediate release.

ReefBreak

It is to the eternal shame of this government that they were not strong enough to stand up for the rights of their citizens, in a foriegn land, and demand their immediate release.

They were caught with false passports travelling in an area controlled by murderous narco-terrorists, reponsible some of the most sickening atrocities on the continent. Why should any government "demand their immediate release"? If I'm caught (say) smuggling arms/exporting drugs/travelling on a false passport, do you think I'll expect the government to "stand up for the rights of their citizens, in a foriegn land, and demand" my "immediate release"?