Columbia 3 given 17-year sentences

RicardoSmith

FTA69 wrote:

.....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.

No it doesn't.

But travelling on false passports, changing their story from bird watching, to observing a peace process, associating with Farc rebels and one of them being Sinn Fein's representative in Cuba, and another with an IRA conviction in NI. Isn't the average holiday eh?

Slutmonkey57b

The IRA's "opposition" to the drug trade is simply to remove opposing drug gangs from the scene. Using the fair and due process of civilian law of course. With no intimidation, or forced extradition either. SF is currently capitalising on its "law and order" perception among high-crime areas of ireland to win votes - little do the voters appreciate that while SF might "magically" clean a lot of the scumbags off the street, what is replacing them is far far worse. And no reduction in the drug trade either.

I sincerely hope the Columbia 3 turn up back home so they can be extradited - anywhere.

Slutmonkey57b

And yes, for all the "you can't prove they were there to train the FARC" we haven't actualy heard an explaination for what they WERE doing there, have we? Oh yes, sorry. Birdwatching and riverboating. Riiiight. Only they decided against that when the laughter got too loud, eh? Wonder why? Could it be that explaination #1 was a lie? Why I do believe it was.

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And yes, for all the "you can't prove they were there to train the FARC" we haven't actualy heard an explaination for what they WERE doing there, have we? Oh yes, sorry. Birdwatching and riverboating. Riiiight. Only they decided against that when the laughter got too loud, eh? Wonder why? Could it be that explaination #1 was a lie? Why I do believe it was.

Now dealing with the case as it stands, they have now been convicted in Columbia, on extremely flimsy evidence, of training FARC rebels.

They must be guilty of something therefore it is OK to chuck them in prison for 17 years even if we cannot prove it.

Isn't that riiight?

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

The IRA's "opposition" to the drug trade is simply to remove opposing drug gangs from the scene. Using the fair and due process of civilian law of course. With no intimidation, or forced extradition either. SF is currently capitalising on its "law and order" perception among high-crime areas of ireland to win votes - little do the voters appreciate that while SF might "magically" clean a lot of the scumbags off the street, what is replacing them is far far worse. And no reduction in the drug trade either.

And you know this for a fact?

In the area where I grew up, the drug gangs had nothing to do with SF or the IRA.

A Dub in Glasgo

RicardoSmith wrote:

No it doesn't.

But travelling on false passports, changing their story from bird watching, to observing a peace process, associating with Farc rebels and one of them being Sinn Fein's representative in Cuba, and another with an IRA conviction in NI. Isn't the average holiday eh?

A lot of circumstational stuff there to point out that they were not telling the truth but it is OK now, we got them anyway on something or another and they can spend the rest of their lives in prison. Lets just forget the little detail of evidence shall we?

A Dub in Glasgo

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

----SNIP

---

I've no idea.

---

SNIP

---

The most accurate thing you have said

RicardoSmith

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

A lot of circumstational stuff there to point out that they were not telling the truth but it is OK now, we got them anyway on something or another and they can spend the rest of their lives in prison. Lets just forget the little detail of evidence shall we?

Specifically whats circumstantial in my post that your quoting.

RicardoSmith wrote:

No it doesn't.

But travelling on false passports, changing their story from bird watching, to observing a peace process, associating with Farc rebels and one of them being Sinn Fein's representative in Cuba, and another with an IRA conviction in NI. Isn't the average holiday eh?

Actually two of them have previous IRA convictions.

sovtek

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And yes, for all the "you can't prove they were there to train the FARC" we haven't actualy heard an explaination for what they WERE doing there, have we?

I'm not that familiar with the Columbian court system...I would imagine that it at least has the veneer of "innocent until proven guilty"...therefore they don't have to prove or even explain why they were there...the Columbian court, on the other hand, DOES have to prove that they were there training FARC.

Cork

Interpool are now looking for these 3 individuals.

A Sinn Fein TD has even described Niall Bennett's conviction as unsafe.Link Just because you don't get the "right result" is no cause to rubbish a countrys justice system.

Look at how the the IRA dispense justice with base ball bats.

As for the 3 bird watchers - have they not now violated the conditions of their bail?

Should they not face sanction for this as well?

RicardoSmith

sovtek wrote:

I'm not that familiar with the Columbian court system...I would imagine that it at least has the veneer of "innocent until proven guilty"...therefore they don't have to prove or even explain why they were there...the Columbian court, on the other hand, DOES have to prove that they were there training FARC.

Of course. The Columbian court felt that proof had been established. Mainly due to the strong circumstancial eveidence and the witness'es. Obviously most rational people would agree that its not a good conviction.

Regardless of the legality of the conviction. Most rational people are just not going to believe that they were not guilty of doing something. So hence the lack of sympathy for their plight.

This PR is doing SF no favours at all. Its makes them all out to be a bunch of muppets.

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

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

i was trying to highlight what you said made no sense

cdebru

Cork wrote:

Interpool are now looking for these 3 individuals.

A Sinn Fein TD has even described Niall Bennett's conviction as unsafe.Link Just because you don't get the "right result" is no cause to rubbish a countrys justice system.

Look at how the the IRA dispense justice with base ball bats.

As for the 3 bird watchers - have they not now violated the conditions of their bail?

Should they not face sanction for this as well?

I see so your logic is that as long as it is better than the way the IRA dish out justice that is good enough for you
that is the human rights benchmark that you would like us to work from
is it better than the IRA ok that will do

as for skipping bail it would seem to me that the columbians were quite happy to let these people leave columbia then change the verdict to save the attorney generals face as he was left with egg on his face when the trial judge said his two main witnesses should be investigated for perjury
now he has a conviction with out the bother of having anyone really too bothered about it as these three men are not in prison
they will make it back to ireland which does not have extradition arrangements with columbia and everyone will forget about it in a couple of weeks

FTA69

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

The IRA's "opposition" to the drug trade is simply to remove opposing drug gangs from the scene. Using the fair and due process of civilian law of course. With no intimidation, or forced extradition either. SF is currently capitalising on its "law and order" perception among high-crime areas of ireland to win votes - little do the voters appreciate that while SF might "magically" clean a lot of the scumbags off the street, what is replacing them is far far worse. And no reduction in the drug trade either.

I sincerely hope the Columbia 3 turn up back home so they can be extradited - anywhere.

Your above comments really do sum up your ignorance on the subject of drug-dealing in this country. Admittedly the IRA policy of shooting drug-dealers was largely ineffective owing to the nature of that business. When the top dog is removed from an operation new people often step up to take his place and thus the cycle repeats. As long as there is a market of addicts there will be someone to supply drugs so no matter how often you shoot dealers the supply will continue, that is the reason why there is no "reduction".

What IRA members have ever been convicted of drug dealing slutmonkey? IRA members have been sentenced to about 10,000 years in prison over the course of the conflict but not one of those have been for drug possesion with intent to supply. Odd isn't it, considering you alledge they are the biggest drugs gang in the country?

Ask anyone from Ballymurphy to Ballymun who the drug dealers are in working class estates, more importantly, ask them who are the biggest opposition to drugs in those area. The answer won't include the police you can be sure of that.

RicardoSmith

cdebru wrote:

i was trying to highlight what you said made no sense

If they weren't there they wouldn't be in this mess. What about that doesn't make sense? Repeating what I said explains nothing.

FTA69

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

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.

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

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.

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

A court of law? True, but a Colombian court of law nonetheless. Saddam Hussein processed many people through his "justice" system, perhaps all people incarcerated during his regime should be re-imprisoned, they were after all, criminals in the eyes of the law.

What I am trying to explain is that the Colombian "justice" system is deeply flawed and the dictats of a corrupt judiciary in a corrupt country is not mirally binding in any way.

I agree with you is your assertions that witnesses were intimidated, but your implications that the IRA or FARC were doing the intimidating is simply farcical. Why would those two organisations intimidate a witness into helping secure a conviction against the Colombia 3. That does not make the slightest bit of sense. The Colombian government however have obviously had a hand in the coercion of witnesses which goes to prove my point that the trial was a farce.

RicardoSmith

FTA69 wrote:

Your above comments really do sum up your ignorance on the subject of drug-dealing in this country. Admittedly the IRA policy of shooting drug-dealers was largely ineffective owing to the nature of that business. ...

Ummm, shooting them. Theres due process... :rolleyes:

FTA69

We are not debating the ethics of shooting drug dealers, rather the myth that the IRA are engaged in drug dealing.

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

Ummm, shooting them. Theres due process... :rolleyes:

there we are back to benchmarking judicial systems against the actions of the IRA

sovtek

RicardoSmith wrote:

Of course. The Columbian court felt that proof had been established.

At first the court found that it didn't, actually....and then reversed itself with the same evidence.

sly most rational people would agree that its not a good conviction.

Hence the people here that don't agree with the second dodgy verdict and state so.

less of the legality of the conviction. Most rational people are just not going to believe that they were not guilty of doing something. So hence the lack of sympathy for their plight.

That most sounds like a subjective sort of most.

R is doing SF no favours at all. Its makes them all out to be a bunch of muppets.

SF's PR doesn't influence my decision in the least.

sovtek

RicardoSmith wrote:

If they weren't there they wouldn't be in this mess. What about that doesn't make sense? Repeating what I said explains nothing.

So now it's just because they were there and thats it?
Guilt by geography?

RicardoSmith

Benchmarking judicial systems? Does it really matter if your going to ignore the judicial systems anyway? You might be able to disassociate one from the other. But the majority of people won't.

One court had one verdict the other higher court reversed it. This is not unusual in any law system. But either you willing to work in the constraints of the legal system or you're not. You can't cherry pick which laws you'll obey and which you won't. But thats what people are doing here.

How can you demand due process as a right, but then ignore the fact that the people demanding it, are associated with an organisation that has no due process. Theres no credability in that. Either for the defendents, their organisation or their supporters.

sovtek wrote:

So now it's just because they were there and thats it?
Guilt by geography?

You taking that out of context. Which is just pointless. Theres a whole series of facts that destroy their credibility. Its up to the law to prove the case. At this point in time it one groups word against another and neither side is credible.

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

Benchmarking judicial systems? Does it really matter if your going to ignore the judicial systems anyway? You might be able to disassociate one from the other. But the majority of people won't. .

either a system is fair or it is not
saying it is fairer than the system that the IRA operated does not mean that the system is fair
alot of people here seem to be of the opinion that republicans have no right to expect a fair trial because the IRA did not operate a full judicial system with open courts in the six counties

RicardoSmith wrote:

One court had one verdict the other higher court reversed it. This is not unusual in any law system. .

it would be unusual in the justice system in Ireland were a not guilty verdict can not be appealed to a higher court
However i accept that this is part of the columbian system

RicardoSmith wrote:

But either you willing to work in the constraints of the legal system or you're not. You can't cherry pick which laws you'll obey and which you won't. But thats what people are doing here. .

so if the justice system is unfair or biased you just have to accept that and get on with it
who is cherry picking laws and what laws are being cherry picked

RicardoSmith wrote:

How can you demand due process as a right, but then ignore the fact that the people demanding it, are associated with an organisation that has no due process. Theres no credability in that. Either for the defendents, their organisation or their supporters.

so due process is not a right
it is a privilege for some people but can be denied to others depending on their beliefs or political convictions

sovtek

RicardoSmith wrote:

One court had one verdict the other higher court reversed it. This is not unusual in any law system.

In Columbia that might very well be true...that doesn't make it a legitimate decision.
A lower court found that the evidence was seriously lacking...and a higher court found that same evidence was sufficient.

But either you willing to work in the constraints of the legal system or you're not. You can't cherry pick which laws you'll obey and which you won't. But thats what people are doing here.

NO they are saying that this legal system is in general and in this specific case, not legitimate.

How can you demand due process as a right, but then ignore the fact that the people demanding it, are associated with an organisation that has no due process.

McDonalds doesn't have a due process in their organization either...but that doesn't exclude their employees from due process in the courts.

Theres no credability in that. Either for the defendents, their organisation or their supporters.

It's the Columbian courts credability thats lacking here.

You taking that out of context. Which is just pointless. Theres a whole series of facts that destroy their credibility. Its up to the law to prove the case. At this point in time it one groups word against another and neither side is credible.

And in this context the IRA or membership in that group isn't relevant. What is relevant is what evidence there is that the Columbian 3 were training FARC to blow up people. Supposedly we don't expect the IRA to adhere to international or criminal law (because they're terrorist killers...murdering scum....drug dealing murders terrorist killers like anybody knows) but the court system of a sovereign nation is going to be held up and scrutinized.

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

Its up to the law to prove the case. At this point in time it one groups word against another and neither side is credible.

if neither side is credible then you must agree that whilst you dont believe the men were there bird watching the state has not proved that they were doing anything else
so they should be found not guilty

Cork

cdebru wrote:

as for skipping bail it would seem to me that the columbians were quite happy to let these people leave columbia then change the verdict to save the attorney generals face as he was left with egg on his face when the trial judge said his two main witnesses should be investigated for perjury
now he has a conviction with out the bother of having anyone really too bothered about it as these three men are not in prison
they will make it back to ireland which does not have extradition arrangements with columbia and everyone will forget about it in a couple of weeks

As far as I know, Interpol are now involved so specific extradition arrangements are not needed. So the whole no extradition arrangements agruement holds little water.

This country will not want to be seen as a haven for fugitives internationally.

spongebob

RicardoSmith wrote:

Benchmarking judicial systems?

We could benchmark the meaning of Ceasefire against the normal usage of the English language too but that could ALSO go badly wrong like our friends Dickybird spotting gig so lets not go there.

I want these morons taken out of the political equation in this country now. They are not entitled to influence anything here or to waste any of the taxpayers money...even discussing them. They simply do not exist for poltical purposes .

They took themselves out when they travelled on Crown documents IMO , no true Irish patriot would do so .

Bye Bye muppets.

M

A Dub in Glasgo

Cork wrote:

As far as I know, Interpol are now involved so specific extradition arrangements are not needed. So the whole no extradition arrangements agruement holds little water.

This country will not want to be seen as a haven for fugitives internationally.

Taken from Interpols webiste

Do red notices have a legal status?

The legal basis for a red notice is the arrest warrant or court order issued by the judicial authorities in the country concerned and therefore serves the purposes of both police and judicial officials.

Many of the Organization's member countries consider a red notice to be a valid request for provisional arrest, especially when the requested country is linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty or an extradition convention. Furthermore, Interpol is recognized as an official channel for transmitting requests for provisional arrest in a number of bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties, such as the European Convention on Extradition, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention on Extradition, and the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition.

If a red notice is considered to be a valid request for provisional arrest, the appropriate judicial authority in a country receiving the notice can decide that the wanted person should be provisionally arrested. In that case, the requesting country will be informed that the wanted person has been provisionally arrested and that the extradition process can be launched. It will also have an assurance that the person concerned will be detained for an adequate length of time.

If, on the other hand, a fugitive is traced in a country where a red notice is not considered to be a valid request for provisional arrest, the requesting country will have to issue a request for provisional arrest. There is then an obvious risk that the individual will have time to escape to another country or that he will have to be released before extradition proceedings can be initiated. Consequently, the recognition of a red notice as a valid request for provisional arrest both simplifies and speeds up the extradition process.

Taken from todays Sunday Independent

While many countries view the Interpol 'Red Notice' as an effective arrest warrant, others do not and would have to have extradition treaties with Colombia to arrest the men.

Ireland does not have an extradition treaty with Colombia and does not regard the Interpol Red Notice as a de facto arrest warrant. Legal experts say if the three came back here, they would almost certainly be untouched.

cdebru

Cork wrote:

As far as I know, Interpol are now involved so specific extradition arrangements are not needed. So the whole no extradition arrangements agruement holds little water.

This country will not want to be seen as a haven for fugitives internationally.

i think your wrong there columbia itself rarely extradites its citizens

i think if they turn up here the columbians have to seek their extradition no arrangement is in place with columbia also Irish courts would have to take into account the mens human rights wether they had recieved a fari trial etc

cdebru

Muck wrote:

We could benchmark the meaning of Ceasefire against the normal usage of the English language too but that could ALSO go badly wrong like our friends Dickybird spotting gig so lets not go there.

I want these morons taken out of the political equation in this country now. They are not entitled to influence anything here or to waste any of the taxpayers money...even discussing them. They simply do not exist for poltical purposes .

They took themselves out when they travelled on Crown documents IMO , no true Irish patriot would do so .

Bye Bye muppets.

M

I think you missed the point they did not travel on crown documents
they did not have british passports