Columbia 3 given 17-year sentences

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

for the reasons already mentioned one as republicans some ex prisioners they would attract the attention of british and american security services

I attracted the attention of American security services when I flew from Chile to Miami a few weeks ago. I was detained for about half an hour by DHS. Then I was let go, because there was a reasonable explanation (bureaucratic incompetence) for the problem, and I had nothing to hide.

cdebru wrote:

also i dont know how they got to columbia but chances are they had to travel through a third or more country access to some countries can be difficult if you have been convicted of "terrorist offences" as can even getting a plane ticket

There's a reason for that. The reason has a lot to do with why I wouldn't have put "terrorist offences" in quotes.

cdebru wrote:

as for british passports what is the point they would look more suspicous travelling on an irsh one even false irish given the history of false irish passports with that guy in the embassy selling them that time and the IRish government selling them to anyone with a spare million i presume they believed the British passport would not attract as much attention

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I travel on an Irish passport all the time, and the guy selling them in the embassy hasn't caused my to be treated with any suspicion.

cdebru wrote:

as for why they were there I dont know about anybody else but as someone with an interest in armed struggles around the world i would be very interested in meeting these people to see first hand what their struggle is about as i would be interested in meeting palestinians for example

Sounds reasonable. Would you feel a need to travel on a false passport to avoid attracting attention to yourself?

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

obviously they are guilty of travelling on false passports

False British passports ..... why will you not say it !??

M

Cork

Could somebody clarify a point for me.

What were these people actually doing in Columbia?

According to the RTE news tonight - they were bird watching.

Is this correct?

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

I attracted the attention of American security services when I flew from Chile to Miami a few weeks ago. I was detained for about half an hour by DHS. Then I was let go, because there was a reasonable explanation (bureaucratic incompetence) for the problem, and I had nothing to hide.?

so what

oscarBravo wrote:

There's a reason for that. The reason has a lot to do with why I wouldn't have put "terrorist offences" in quotes. ?

the quotes are because I dont like the term terrorist
ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that

oscarBravo wrote:

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I travel on an Irish passport all the time, and the guy selling them in the embassy hasn't caused my to be treated with any suspicion. ?

how do you know that IRish passports are not examined more closely than other nations passports

oscarBravo wrote:

Sounds reasonable. Would you feel a need to travel on a false passport to avoid attracting attention to yourself?

no as i have never been to prison but if i had been then i could see why some one would feel the need to do that even just to get into the country

can i just ask this if they had turned up at columbian immigration with their genuine Irish Passports would the columbians have let them in

cdebru

Muck wrote:

False British passports ..... why will you not say it !??

M

read the post again I actually said british passports twice

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

can i just ask this if they had turned up at columbian immigration with their genuine Irish Passports would the columbians have let them in

Again you miss an opportunity to say False British Passports
or to answer any point I made . Their best bet is that the Brits take an 'interest' in them but you refuse to even address the possiblity

M

cdebru

Cork wrote:

Could somebody clarify a point for me.

What were these people actually doing in Columbia?

According to the RTE news tonight - they were bird watching.

Is this correct?

i believe they say they were studying the columbian peace process
and how it compared to the irish experience


afaik
the bird watching story is what they told the columbians before they realised they had been caught by the bollox

Meh

cdebru wrote:

how do you know that IRish passports are not examined more closely than other nations passports[/b]

How do you know they are? The burden of proof is on you. For myself, I've never had any problems with security travelling on my Irish passport.

can i just ask this if they had turned up at columbian immigration with their genuine Irish Passports would the columbians have let them in

Clearly, all their supporters who went over to monitor their trial were let in. And they would have been travelling on Irish passports.

cdebru

Muck wrote:

Again you miss an opportunity to say False British Passports
or to answer any point I made . Their best bet is that the Brits take an 'interest' in them but you refuse to even address the possiblity

M

iam waiting for you to make a point i find it is easier to answer them when you have made them

again read my post twice i used the words british passport
the word false is sprinkled in that post too

I personally couldn't give a flying **** if they were travelling on false chinese passports i dont see the relevance

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

iam waiting for you to make a point i find it is easier to answer them when you have made them

The Brits have a case to extradite them (as I said twice already) which gets them out of Columbia innit

Thoughts......if any ....and if not why not. ?

M

cdebru

Meh wrote:

How do you know they are? The burden of proof is on you. For myself, I've never had any problems with security travelling on my Irish passport..

fair play to you and how long were you in long kesh

Meh wrote:

Clearly, all their supporters who went over to monitor their trial were let in. And they would have been travelling on Irish passports.

and how many of them were in prison

not to mention there is a big difference when you are travelling to monitor a trial

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

so what

Figure it out, Sherlock. Here's a hint: innocent people don't worry about attracting the attention of security agencies.

cdebru wrote:

the quotes are because I dont like the term terrorist
ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that

Hey, some people don't like being blown up/shot/beaten to a pulp by "freedom fighters." Deal with the sticks and stones.

cdebru wrote:

how do you know that IRish passports are not examined more closely than other nations passports

Believe me, if the guy checking my passport on my previous visit to the US had had his eyes open at the time, I wouldn't have had the run-in with the DHS this time around.

cdebru wrote:

no as i have never been to prison but if i had been then i could see why some one would feel the need to do that even just to get into the country

can i just ask this if they had turned up at columbian immigration with their genuine Irish Passports would the columbians have let them in

Ay, there's the rub. What you're saying is, the Columbians might have felt they had enough "freedom fighters" of their own to deal with - so our friends decided to ignore those concerns and enter the country under false pretences.

And that's OK with you.

But hey, as a fan of armed struggle (ever been shot, btw?) I don't suppose the wishes of sovereign governments hold too much sway with you.

cdebru

Muck wrote:

The Brits have a case to extradite them (as I said twice already) which gets them out of Columbia innit

Thoughts......if any ....and if not why not. ?

M

not at the moment they dont as what they have now been convicted of is far more serious than anything the british would have on them

the more serious offence is dealt with first

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

But hey, as a fan of armed struggle (ever been shot, btw?) I don't suppose the wishes of sovereign governments hold too much sway with you.

i never said fan i said someone with an interest

i will ignore the rest of you r waffle

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

not at the moment they dont as what they have now been convicted of is far more serious than anything the british would have on them

The Brits are past masters at spurious extradtion cases, leave it to the experts dude. If your concern is for their safety then all avenues should be explored to get them out, otherwise you would compromise their safety and for what ?

Remember Patrick Ryan in Belgium do ya ?

M

cdebru

Muck wrote:

The Brits are past masters at spurious extradtion cases, leave it to the experts dude. If your concern is for their safety then all avenues should be explored to get them out, otherwise you would compromise their safety and for what ?

Remember Patrick Ryan in Belgium do ya ?

M

tbh
i dont think the brits are going to be too concerned about the safety of three Irish republicans cant see why they would want to get them out I dont see what is in it for them

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

i never said fan i said someone with an interest

What's your interest in armed struggle, and what is it about your interest that can't be satisfied without visiting the areas of conflict?

You said you'd like to meet Palestinians - why not Israelis? They're in an armed struggle too. As are the Americans in Iraq - how about them?

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

The fact they were travelling on false passports does not automatically mean they were "up to no good" as some people would put it. Republican ex-prisoners frequently take this recourse owing to the fact they would not be let into other countries, it is common procedure and by no means implies anything at all really. A man was held in America last year using a false passport to visit his brother.

why would you want to go to a country where you are not welcome.

oscarBravo

Eco-tourism.

is_that_so

cdebru wrote:

there is a very valid reason for travelling on a false passport if travelling on your own is extremely difficult because of your politics

This sounds like real Sinn Fein speak, masters as they are of not using one word when a paragraph will do.

Meanwhile back on topic

Forgive my naivety but this is actually illegal, and therefore implies a prison sentence. To feel a need to travel on false documents in the Western world also suggest that you may be involved in some activity that does not comply with legal standards that you wish to conceal. I don't have much sympathy for them, getting caught with false papers and they should certainly have been punished on that basis. That said 17 years is quite a stretch. As an aside I suggest you listen to Olivia O'Leary for a bit more thoughtful input into the "politics" of Irish Republicanism. http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1214/57live/57live9.smil

billy the squid

one more thing, seeing as cdebru keeps stating that because these men spent time in the slammer that they needed to go to other countries on false passports.

just some questions

1. If they were interested in the columbian peace process, would it not have been more sensable to write to the government of columbia and ask if they could observe their peace process for the purpose of modeling their own peace process after it or as a fact finding mission. get government clearance.

as for bird watching, i guess one mans terrorist is another mans ornithologist.

is_that_so

FTA69 wrote:

The fact they were travelling on false passports does not automatically mean they were "up to no good" as some people would put it. Republican ex-prisoners frequently take this recourse owing to the fact they would not be let into other countries, it is common procedure and by no means implies anything at all really. A man was held in America last year using a false passport to visit his brother.

Hmm, so if I see man wearing a balaclava, does that mean he's cold ? Facetious I know but you must take us for terribly trusting souls.

growler

I don't think that anyone, regardless of their political affiliations, can defend these 3 boys being in Columbia , I have no doubt that the Columbians were in inept in collecting forensics and not above a bit of creative evidence making , but no one really believes they were there for anything remotely legitimate. Freedom Fighter / Terrorist foreign exchange programmes are generally frowned upon by the powers that be (for fairly good reasons) so it's no shock that the *cough* usually incorruptible justice system of Colombia cough* decided to have a change of heart, and make an example of them.

A case of caught red handed, nothing to do with republicanism or a free Ireland.

BuffyBot

The fact they were travelling on false passports does not automatically mean they were "up to no good" as some people would put it. Republican ex-prisoners frequently take this recourse owing to the fact they would not be let into other countries, it is common procedure and by no means implies anything at all really. A man was held in America last year using a false passport to visit his brother

That makes it all ok then!

unkel

Cork wrote:

Could somebody clarify a point for me.

What were these people actually doing in Columbia?

According to the RTE news tonight - they were bird watching.

Is this correct?

Of course it is. There are some very interesting and extremely aggressive birds of prey around in Columbia that use predatory tactics to kill / mutilate their victims. Birds of the same family can nowadays be origining from areas like Northern Ireland, Israel-Palestine and Iraq, not to mention the most populous breeding grounds of some other Middle Eastern countries. Their reach of destination is ever increasing as well

billy the squid wrote:

as for bird watching, i guess one mans terrorist is another mans ornithologist.

I can't see why anyone would classify them as terrorists. Clearly they were only interested in above birds

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

The fact they were travelling on false passports does not automatically mean they were "up to no good" as some people would put it.

Which, if you reworded without the niceties would read:

"The fact that they were breaking the law does not automatically mean that they were breaking the law".

Errr....yes....it does.

There is a case to be made that their conviction is not merited on the grounds of what they have proveably done.

There is not a case to be made that they ahve done nothing wrong, nor that their actions were perfectly reasonable.

Republican ex-prisoners frequently take this recourse owing to the fact they would not be let into other countries, it is common procedure and by no means implies anything at all really.

I'd say it flat-out and unquestioningly supports the allegations that many Sinn Fein members have no regard for any law, except when it is convenient to do so.

If the law says "you can't enter this country with a criminal record", then you can't enter that ocuntry with a criminal record. That doesn't mean that if you disagree with your record its okay for you to break more laws in order to illegally obtain a false passport, to enter said country illegally on two counts (i.e. with a criminal record and a false passport.

Its this nature of defence of Sinn Fein members (and other Republicans) which ultimately does your cause more harm than good. Has it ever occurred to you that one reason why people have no respect for Sinn Fein etc. is not because they break the laws they absolutely can't avoid breaking in order to act as what they see as Freedom Fighters, but rather because they break so many other laws and then have apologists make bullsh1t excuses about how there is nothing wrong with what they did, and how finding someone guilty of breaking a law that they actually broke is a miscarriage of justice.

Seperate the false passports from the 17 years. Admit they had no just excuse for entering the country on false passports. Accept that they should be found guilty and appropriately sentenced for these actions - by the Columbians and the British (it being a crime under British Law, I'm pretty sure to have a false British passport - rather than whining that its yet another case wher ethe law just shouldn't be applied to Republicans because its inconvenient. Come straight out and say that no conviction by the British regarding this issue should even be considered as being negotiable under the GFA, or anything like it.

Do these things and maybe, just maybe, you'll find that people will listen and even agree when you complain about an unsafe conviction made for political reasons and based on no real evidence.

But while you insist that the crimes they've comitted were either "nothing wrong" or simply justified, you'll only meet with derision when you start talking about related miscarriages of justice.

Generally, people only care when those who respect the law are hard done by it. Those who treat the law with derision will rarely garner sympathy when the law treats them in the same manner.

A man was held in America last year using a false passport to visit his brother.

And rightly so.

jc

Ivan

I just heard that they've disappeared?
Was this common knowledge, a recent development or did I take it up wrong?
The original verdict was overturned and when they went to arrest them, the Columbia 3 were nowhere to be found.

Did I miss something?
Doesnt running = Guilty?
Doesnt commiting one crime generally indicate one's disposition to criminal activities?
Doesnt Columbia have feck all birds?

In fairness, it seems to me as an open and shut case of
"They're guilty, but we cant prove it. So we're going to just jail them anyway... oh crap, where did they go?"

A Dub in Glasgo

The false passport issue is an irrelevance, a side issue or a red herring. They were caught red handed travelling on false passports and were convicted and sentenced for that offence. The relevant issue here is the case against these men for training FARC rebels. The presiding judge had ruled that there was no case presented whatsoever and acquitted these men of those charges. An appeal panel has overturned that decision with no additional evidence presented and sentenced these men to 17-17.5 years in prison.

You can skirt around at the fringes and come up with all sort of fanciful ideas as to why those men were in Columbia and that will be a total irrelevance to the fact that these men have been convicted on the flimsiest of cases and political pressure has been put onto the Columbian authorites.

You may come aout with the line that they must be guilty of something and to let them go is an injustice. That is a very dangerous road to go down and it will show your real contempt for justice.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ivan wrote:

Doesnt running = Guilty?

Running does not equate to an admission of guilt,ask Nicky Kelly

Doesnt commiting one crime generally indicate one's disposition to criminal activities?

It is an irrelevance if there is no evidence

Doesnt Columbia have feck all birds?

No idea

In fairness, it seems to me as an open and shut case of
"They're guilty, but we cant prove it. So we're going to just jail them anyway... oh crap, where did they go?"

I would add, 'We think...' at the start of that

Villain

OK I know I'm joining this thread a little late but I think people should look at the facts of the case and not just second guess what happened. The evidence against the 3 men in relation to training Farc Guerillas was very very suspect and basically came down to the word of two former Farc membes who deserted the group. Former Minister for Foreign Affairs was speaking on Morning Ireland this morning and he himself had went to the trial and he said that international observers were not satisfied that these men received a fair trial.

As for the men leaving the country IMHO I would reckon that was for their own safety, Columbia is not a safe place to be and especially if you have been accused of involvement with the Farc group.