Columbia 3 given 17-year sentences

jjmax

Yeah, I did leave out the last line, on purpose, I understood that part of the comment, just not the first bit.
I doubt Sinn Fein have made any statements against the IRA, ever. Why would they? Like it or not they represent Republican's in Northern Ireland, some of whom are members of the IRA, why would they alienate their electorate.
Another like it or not, Sinn Fein have the unenviable task of convincing the more hardline element in the Republican community that the peace process is the best way forward.
So, no, I doubt Sinn Fein have ever spoken out against the so-called 'Kangaroo courts'.
I know loads of people who've travelled on false passports, I lived in Bangkok for a few years and it was big business. I can't remember any of them getting 17 years when they got caught. A lot of these were Iranians too, and in the current political enviornment you'd imagine they'd be hung drawn and quartered!
Don't you think you should drop the whole passport thing? As for the British Passport angle, so what, they're entitled too one, I'm sure there's a good reason for having one, and an equally good reason for not having an Irish one, why not ask Sinn Fein what they're explanation for this is?
You can email info@sinnfein.org, they might be able to help.

oscarBravo

jjmax wrote:

I know loads of people who've travelled on false passports, I lived in Bangkok for a few years and it was big business. I can't remember any of them getting 17 years when they got caught.

*sigh* They didn't get 17 years for travelling on false passports. OK?

jjmax wrote:

Don't you think you should drop the whole passport thing?

You're the one trying to make it seem like they got 17 years for it.

jjmax wrote:

As for the British Passport angle, so what, they're entitled too one

Entitled to forge one? That's a new one.

jjmax wrote:

I'm sure there's a good reason for having one, and an equally good reason for not having an Irish one

I'm sure there is too - why go to all the trouble of getting one without a good reason?

Thing is, I'm sure there are those who consider teaching "freedom fighters" bomb-making techniques to be a really good reason.

billy the squid

Yeah, I did leave out the last line, on purpose, I understood that part of the comment, just not the first bit.
I doubt Sinn Fein have made any statements against the IRA, ever. Why would they? Like it or not they represent Republican's in Northern Ireland, some of whom are members of the IRA, why would they alienate their electorate.

because it is morally wrong.

As for the British Passport angle, so what, they're entitled too one

if they were entitled to brittish passports then there was no need to forge them.

I believe that the whole point of the post mentioned was that sinn fein are more than happy to jump up and down and scream "miscarriage of justice" and ignore the kinds of justice the IRA carries out.

personally the word of a superintendent in this country, and the word of a judge in columbia would hold more water than the word of a terrorist in northern ireland at a kangaroo court

Cork

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And what relevance is this to the reversal of the acquittal for these men?

These 3 were not aquitted on the charge of using false passports. Where are these 3 now?

If they turned up in this county - will SF be claiming they fall under the Good Friday Agreement?

magpie

Sinn Fein are the third largest party in the country

Which country is that? The Republic of Ireland, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

A Dub in Glasgo

Cork wrote:

These 3 were not aquitted on the charge of using false passports.

Please point out where I have said different. The time they spent on remand completed the sentence for the false passport conviction.

The false passport issue is an irrelevance

jjmax

oscarBravo wrote:

*sigh* They didn't get 17 years for travelling on false passports. OK?

OK

oscarBravo wrote:

You're the one trying to make it seem like they got 17 years for it.

The only crime they were found guilty of was travelling on forged documents, correct me if I'm wrong, so 17 years does seem like a hefty sentence for this.

oscarBravo wrote:

Entitled to forge one? That's a new one.

I never said they were entitled to forge one, however it is a relativly minor crime, regardless of what you might think.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm sure there is too - why go to all the trouble of getting one without a good reason?

Exactly.

oscarBravo wrote:

Thing is, I'm sure there are those who consider teaching "freedom fighters" bomb-making techniques to be a really good reason.

I'm sure there are, but I don't see what that has to do with this, I believe their reason for being in Columbia was Eco-Tourism (can anyone confirm this?)

jjmax

Jaysus Billy the Squid there's a lot of things morally wrong.
For instance US troops landing at Shannon is morally wrong, yet our government hasn't condemned it.

RicardoSmith

They been tried convicted and done the time for the false passports. The 17yrs does not relate to that.

The 17yrs relates to the other charges. They were earlier accquited of these charges and that decision has now been reversed. This conviction is questionable (by our standards) but not unexpected in a country like Columbia. They seem to have been convicted on circumstancial evidence and some questionable witness'es.

But thats the risks you take bird watching in Columbia. Its a dangerous hobby. Imagine they had wanted to take photos of the peace process, then there would have been uproar...

billy the squid

jjmax wrote:

Jaysus Billy the Squid there's a lot of things morally wrong.
For instance US troops landing at Shannon is morally wrong, yet our government hasn't condemned it.

you will find that I am as much against the use of shannon airport by US troops as I am against the kangaroo courts carried out by the provos.

I support the elected government as it was voted in by the people. I still will be happy to voice my disagreement with them on certain issues.

sinn fein could, while supporting the ideals of republicanism, should condemn the vigilanteism of the IRA just as much as they condemn the legal systems of The Republic of Ireland, The United Kingdom and Columbia.

its a case of the pot calling the kettle black when sinn fein are willing to call the columbian government human rights abusers while their friends in the IRA are blowing youngsters kneecaps off because some terrorist thinks they are involved in criminality.

At least there was a chance (all be it slim) that the columbia 3 would be able to walk properly in 17 years time, unlike the victims of IRA kneecapping.

oscarBravo

jjmax wrote:

The only crime they were found guilty of was travelling on forged documents, correct me if I'm wrong, so 17 years does seem like a hefty sentence for this.

You are wrong. They were acquitted of the charge of training terrorists, and the acquittal was overturned. That means they have been convicted, and that's what the 17 years is for.

jjmax wrote:

I never said they were entitled to forge one, however it is a relativly minor crime, regardless of what you might think.

Relative to teaching people how to make bombs, I suppose it is.

jjmax wrote:

I'm sure there are, but I don't see what that has to do with this, I believe their reason for being in Columbia was Eco-Tourism (can anyone confirm this?)

If anyone could confirm it, they wouldn't have been convicted.

How many people do you know that are sufficiently avid birdwatchers that they will forge travel documents and run the risk of jail time in a foreign country just to indulge their pastime?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

If anyone could confirm it, they wouldn't have been convicted.

So you think a legal system should operate on a 'presumed guilty unless proven inncent' rule and it up to the defence to prove innocence? This harks back to the 1970s in Britain with regards Irish people and IRA offences.

spongebob

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

This harks back to the 1970s in Britain with regards Irish people and IRA offences.

That was "Innocent until proven Irish" head. No attempt was made to investigate and catch the real perpetrators . In this case they had British Passports . Nobody has denied that have they.

M

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote:

...and if you broke a law in apartheid South Africa, you were subject to their judicial system. There's a straightforward way to avoid the penalties of those judicial systems, regardless of how you feel about them: don't go there and break the law.

The correct term is "the Irish government". And your comparison with apartheid South Africa is bang on the money, yeah?

I'm still waiting for examples - with evidence - of the pressures to which Colombian judges are subjected.

The primary use for false passports is holidaymaking? Are you serious?

The fact that they were in the country on false pretences is intrinsic to the more fundamental question of what they were doing there in the first place. It's not ipso facto proof of guilt; neither is it irrelevant.

Is there such a thing as "political status" within the Irish prison system? Or is there simply a pragmatic approach to dealing with a large group of prisoners who consider themselves to share a common identity? I'm genuinely asking, as I'm not aware of the concept of "political status" per se

I realise the implications of being convicted in apartheid South Africa, what I am saying is that the judiciary and legal system of a state that is rotten to the core is not always morally legitimate. Besides, the only crime for which the Colombia Three were undoubtedly proven to have committed was travelling on false documentation, something which they have served time for already. The conviction for training FARC however, is entirely unsound based on lack of evidence and flawed witnesses.

I don't think that apartheid South Africa and Colombia are worlds apart by any means oscar, in both states blacks and other minorities were and are treated terribly, democracy was also flawed due to racial discrimination in one country and extensive corruption and rigging in the other.

Regards false passports, yes, I am saying the ex-political prisoners often take this recourse for innocuous purposes.

Regards judicial corruption in Colombia, the subject is well documented. Amnesty International have some extensive comment on the subject of human rights abuse in Colombia on the part of the government and the failure of its "justice" system.

http://www.amnesty.ca/colombia/

Regards political status in Ireland, there are indeed provisions for those convicted of "special category" offenses such as the right to one's own clothes, freedom of assembly, free access to postal services etc and unlimited access to reading material and library services. The term applied to this situation is "special category" (as outlined above) and is de facto recognition of the men's status as political prisoners.

spongebob

Even the Columbians , bad as they are, cannot be faulted for the false British Passports FTA , come on.

M

A Dub in Glasgo

Muck wrote:

That was "Innocent until proven Irish" head. No attempt was made to investigate and catch the real perpetrators . In this case they had British Passports . Nobody has denied that have they.

M

And your point is caller? The passport issue is an irrelevance to the reversal of the acquittal verdict for the [/b]training the FARC rebel group[/b]. OB, on the otherhand, appears to say they are guilty of training the FARC because they could not prove they were bird watchers rather than the prosecution proving that they did train the FARC.

spongebob

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And your point is caller? The passport issue is an irrelevance to the reversal of the acquittal verdict for the [/b]training the FARC rebel group[/b].

The passport issue justified the original conviction. The appeal court added an extra conviction. Had the flutes travelled on their own passports we could have disarmanent by now .

M

Capt'n Midnight

FTA69 wrote:

I realise the implications of being convicted in apartheid South Africa, what I am saying is that the judiciary and legal system of a state that is rotten to the core is not always morally legitimate. Besides, the only crime for which the Colombia Three were undoubtedly proven to have committed was travelling on false documentation, something which they have served time for already. The conviction for training FARC however, is entirely unsound based on lack of evidence and flawed witnesses.

Flawed witnesses, I believe there was some intimidation of them all right, cuts both ways - I'm sick of they way you guys like to cherry pick and avoid accountability at all costs. As for lack of evidence well they couldn't send a forensics team could they ? Also the area was under control of FARC who have been known to kill people. Re: "only crime" these people have had previous convictions in other countries, they are almost certainly guilty of using false passports in the previous country if they flew into Columbia. Monoghan escaped from the Dublin criminal court because of two bombs set off - even if he was acquited of the crime he was on trial from there is still the escape.

Regards false passports, yes, I am saying the ex-political prisoners often take this recourse for innocuous purposes.

Again avoiding accountability. Breaking the law is not innocuous. Neither is using explosives or teaching others how to do so.

A Dub in Glasgo

Muck wrote:

The passport issue justified the original conviction. The appeal court added an extra conviction. Had the flutes travelled on their own passports we could have disarmanent by now .

M

Yep, I am well aware that the original conviction for travelling on false passports still stood. The original acquittal of training the FARC was overturned and has nothing to do with false passports. If they travelled on their own passports, they would not have been able to enter the country.

RicardoSmith

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yep, I am well aware that the original conviction for travelling on false passports still stood. The original acquittal of training the FARC was overturned and has nothing to do with false passports. If they travelled on their own passports, they would not have been able to enter the country.

...and they wouldn't have got 17yrs...

A Dub in Glasgo

RicardoSmith wrote:

...and they wouldn't have got 17yrs...

Nah, they would still be guilty according to some on here!

RicardoSmith

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nah, they would still be guilty according to some on here!

Well it would be easier to prove their innocence if they hadn't been in Columbia, and hadn't used fake passports to get there. Obviously if there was a possibility of there being a problem then the smart thing to do was not to go.

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

Well it would be easier to prove their innocence if they hadn't been in Columbia, and hadn't used fake passports to get there. Obviously if there was a possibility of there being a problem then the smart thing to do was not to go.

well if they hadn't been in columbia then they wouldn't have used false passports not to get there
and it woulld have been harder for the columbians to arrest them trying to leave columbia
almost impossible i would imagine

and proving their innocence would not just have been easier it would not be an issue

RicardoSmith

cdebru wrote:

well if they hadn't been in columbia then they wouldn't have used false passports not to get there
and it woulld have been harder for the columbians to arrest them trying to leave columbia
almost impossible i would imagine

and proving their innocence would not just have been easier it would not be an issue

Theres a fierce echo in here.... helooooo...helloooooo

billy the squid

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yep, I am well aware that the original conviction for travelling on false passports still stood. The original acquittal of training the FARC was overturned and has nothing to do with false passports. If they travelled on their own passports, they would not have been able to enter the country.

theres that question again, why would you go to a country where you are not welcome, it would be like turning up at a strangers wedding expecting to get in and then complain about it when you get thrown out.

FTA69

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Flawed witnesses, I believe there was some intimidation of them all right, cuts both ways - I'm sick of they way you guys like to cherry pick and avoid accountability at all costs. As for lack of evidence well they couldn't send a forensics team could they ? Also the area was under control of FARC who have been known to kill people. Re: "only crime" these people have had previous convictions in other countries, they are almost certainly guilty of using false passports in the previous country if they flew into Columbia. Monoghan escaped from the Dublin criminal court because of two bombs set off - even if he was acquited of the crime he was on trial from there is still the escape.

Again avoiding accountability. Breaking the law is not innocuous. Neither is using explosives or teaching others how to do so.

In the context of the trial in Colombia travelling on false passports was the only crime committed and fairl proved, what they did here in Ireland is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

My comments about flawed witnesses stem from the fact that one witness' story changed dramatically several times, another fingered the men as being in a location at a specific time when it later transpired two of them were in Dublin at the time.

No new evidence came to light during the appeal, the fact was that the same flawed "evidence" was used to convict the men. Your reasons for the lack of evidence ie FARC territory, are entirely irrelevant because at the end of the day you our underlining the fact that there was no real evidence in the first place.

I admit that travelling on false passports in itself is not innocuous but that activity is far less inocuous than the trumped up charge with which they were tried, and false documentation alone does not automatically guaruntee their guilt of the training charges.

Slutmonkey57b

Strange that supporters of "political prisoners" seem to regard faking passports as "innocuous" or a "side issue". A passport, and the visas to visit foreign countries, is an integral part of any nation state. It is part of the very political identity that these freedom fighters and prisoners are allegedly fighting to obtain.

Get hold of a british passport and read what the statement on the inside says - it is a request from the monarch to allow one of her subjects free unhindered passage. The granting of this freedom is at the discretion of the country you want to enter. Faking a passport and obtaining a false visa means that
a) you are falsifying the citizen status of a soverign nation, which the IRA has supposedly been blowing up small children for on our behalf over the past few decades.
b) Ignoring the right of the citizens of a soverign country to determine who does and does not enter their country. If the citizens of a country decide they don't want convicted criminals (of any type) entering their country, what right do the muppets above have to overrule them? None whatsoever. What would SF or the IRA say to convicted right-wing columbian drug gangs travelling to Ireland for pigeon shooting trips? On fake passports? Quite a bit, no?

As to the question of what the 3 "victims" were doing there on fake passports, having ignored the rights of the citizens of columbia not to have them there at all, one obvious point has been overlooked:
All terrorist gangs in ireland are funded by the drug trade. Columbia is the source of a large proportion of the western world's drugs. What could they have been doing deep in the rainforest talking to the leaders of a drug-running gang? Hmmm


Hmmmm
Hmmmm.

Hmmm.

I've no idea.

Oh yes, botanical study. Right.

FTA69

Considering the IRA has absolutely no involvement with drugs (rather an active opposition) the above points you have made have absolutely no bearing on reality.

Also, nobody here is preaching the virtues of using false documentation, they are simply pointing out that it does not automatically equate with training FARC guerillas.

Capt'n Midnight

FTA69 wrote:

In the context of the trial in Colombia travelling on false passports was the only crime committed and fairl proved, what they did here in Ireland is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

AFAIAA between them they have also broken laws in Ireland ,UK and probably some other countries as well as Columbia. These are not men of good character. As for fairly proved Your opinion Vs. a local court of law - it's fairer than any IRA kangeroo court AND there was still a possibility of appealing.

My comments about flawed witnesses stem from the fact that one witness' story changed dramatically several times, another fingered the men as being in a location at a specific time when it later transpired two of them were in Dublin at the time.

I've also pointed out that the witnesses were intimidated, a tatic not unknown to either the IRA or FARC.

No new evidence came to light during the appeal, the fact was that the same flawed "evidence" was used to convict the men.

You don't need new evidence to ask for a retrial. And my points about how difficult it would be to get evidence still stand.

Your reasons for the lack of evidence ie FARC territory, are entirely irrelevant because at the end of the day you our underlining the fact that there was no real evidence in the first place.

this is opinion, a court of law has deemed otherwise.

I admit that travelling on false passports in itself is not innocuous but that activity is far less inocuous than the trumped up charge with which they were tried, and false documentation alone does not automatically guaruntee their guilt of the training charges.

TBH, I reckon they should also be patially accountable for the deaths caused by the technology transfer - but that is my opinion. Of course a false passport does not prove the whole case , that is why there were witnesses etc. whether you like it or not. Unlike many people murdered by their collegues these people got a fair trial. You can't have it both ways, both defendants and prosecutors are allowed to appeal. If you argue that one of the defendants has already been a victim of injustice by being shot by the RUC with due process, the you would need to explain what he was doing in Columbia, if I had been shot the last place I would go is to somewhere where people like me are getting killed on a regular basis.

Here is the kicker - they could still have appealed to international law, but doing a runner is an offense so even if proved innocent they will still face time for resisting arrest.

I was in Dundalk when the "death on the rock" bodies were brought through, the streets were lined with people. What sickens me is that then and so many times since no attempt has been made to capitalise on pubic goodwill. Instead it's more of the same old, same old, where they think that apologies, denials and excuses will cover for inexcusable behaviour. It is as if they are very young children saying sorry and promising to behave and then going out and getting caught again.

You see all the retoric is meaningless when actions speak louder than words.

spongebob

What WERE they doing then, is SF going into CITES compliance monitoring ?

M