Columbia 3 given 17-year sentences

RicardoSmith

I don't believe they can be proved guilty. But I don't believe them to be innocent either. Not that makes a difference. But come election time, maybe all this attention will make a difference.

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

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

Do you think they should get Political status here ?

M

RicardoSmith

Muck wrote:

Do you think they should get Political status here ?

M

Depends did they rob any banks for political reasons

cdebru

Muck wrote:

Do you think they should get Political status here ?

M

I dont think they have committed an offence in ireland so i would not see political status as an issue

I would doubt that anything will happen to them once they make it home

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

they did not have british passports

Yes they did, stop lying !

M

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

I dont think they have committed an offence in ireland so i would not see political status as an issue

I would doubt that anything will happen to them once they make it home

Extraditon to the UK as ODC's would be apt ! How do they get home legally anyway , they appear to have 'lost' their passports ?

M

marco murphy

cdebru wrote:

I dont think they have committed an offence in ireland so i would not see political status as an issue

I would doubt that anything will happen to them once they make it home

Correct,the cant be flown back to columbia.They're safe when they get back

cdebru

Muck wrote:

Yes they did, stop lying !

M

you can retract that insulting statement

they did not have british passports

cdebru

Muck wrote:

Extraditon to the UK as ODC's would be apt ! How do they get home legally anyway , they appear to have 'lost' their passports ?

M

no one seems to have asked has the irish goverment issued them with passports

of course their irish passports could have been sent out to them

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

no one seems to have asked has the irish goverment issued them with passports

of course their irish passports could have been sent out to them

as long as they pay €70 like i had to for mine

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

you can retract that insulting statement

they did not have british passports

They were caught in the Airport with them , they were not Irish passports and they were not their passports otherwise they probably would be home years ago. You retract your insult to my intelligence and that of the other readers now !

cdebru wrote:

no one seems to have asked has the irish goverment issued them with passports

of course their irish passports could have been sent out to them

a) One of them and b) impossible legally as 2 of them have none .......respectively.

Nor do I recommend Any of them ever be issued with an Irish passport again, they don't travel well

Finally cdebru Stop Lying about the British Passports , only a third rate junior party hack would go there.

M

Redleslie2

Colombia fighters hand over arms.

Some 550 Colombian right-wing paramilitaries have handed in their weapons as part of an ongoing peace process with the government.

Who's going to protect the simple farmers and legitimate businessmen from the communist thugs and their "birdwatching" IRA friends now? Political correctness gone mad.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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?

Not only did I not say that, I didn't say anything remotely close to it. Stop trying to read my mind, you're not very good at it.

FTA69 wrote:

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.

The only reference in that Amnesty report to anything judicial is to military courts challenging the civil courts' jurisdiction over human rights cases. I don't see any reference whatsoever to political or military pressure on judges.

Any links to specific evidence of political or military pressure in this case?

FTA69 wrote:

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.

In other words, no - there is no such thing as political prisoner status in this country.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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.

I said that if they could have proved their innocence, they wouldn't have been convicted. You decided I meant that they should be considered guilty unless they could prove their innocence. Even in a judicial system that presumes innocence (and I'm not convinced that Colombia's is one) there's nothing to stop you providing evidence that proves your innocence.

I think it was dahamsta who said "don't read between the lines - I didn't write between them."

sovtek wrote:

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

Nope. A higher court reversed the verdict, as is the prerogative of higher courts.

Cork

cdebru wrote:

I dont think they have committed an offence in ireland so i would not see political status as an issue

I would doubt that anything will happen to them once they make it home

Can't see democratically elected governments ignoring interpol.

Hopefully we won't see lobbying to see these 3 to come under the Good Friday Agreement. That would be bringing brass neck to new levels.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Not only did I not say that, I didn't say anything remotely close to it. Stop trying to read my mind, you're not very good at it.

I said that if they could have proved their innocence, they wouldn't have been convicted. You decided I meant that they should be considered guilty unless they could prove their innocence. Even in a judicial system that presumes innocence (and I'm not convinced that Colombia's is one) there's nothing to stop you providing evidence that proves your innocence

It was a question or did you miss the ? at the end. You pointed out that if they could prove that they were eco-tourists, they would not have been convicted. The inference was there for people to pick up. You made absolutely no mention of the fact that the case to prove these men guilty was lacking just that they should have proved their innocence.

billy the squid

It is a little rich for IRA/Sinn fein supporters to come on here and belittle the judicial system of another country when the way it carries out justice its self is questionable.

and yeah it is benchmarking, it says alot if someone is prepared to say that the justice system in columbia is better than what passes for justice in the eyes of the IRA. any justice system which condones corporial punishment is barbaric to say the least. These three men were not sentenced to kneecapping were they, or a beating with baseball bats by men wearing balaclavas.

And yeah, they might have received a hiding or been murdered in prison, that was the risk they took when they entered the country with FAKE BRITTISH PASSPORTS. (see i said it) But then when people who claim to be members of the republican movement shoot guards in their own country both north and south of the border, then how can they be expected to abide by the rules of another country.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It was a question or did you miss the ? at the end. You pointed out that if they could prove that they were eco-tourists, they would not have been convicted. The inference was there for people to pick up. You made absolutely no mention of the fact that the case to prove these men guilty was lacking just that they should have proved their innocence.

See, you're doing it again. I didn't say they "should" have done anything. I will now, though: they should have stayed the hell out of Colombia - it would have saved them, us and the Colombians a lot of hassle.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

See, you're doing it again. I didn't say they "should" have done anything. I will now, though: they should have stayed the hell out of Colombia - it would have saved them, us and the Colombians a lot of hassle.

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?

So what was your point in the above quotation?

spongebob

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So what was your point in the above quotation?

A new low in this thread .

Have you ever heard of real ornithologsts with false passports FFS . ?

Where were the logs/binoculars/photos/long lenses ?

M

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It was a question or did you miss the ? at the end. You pointed out that if they could prove that they were eco-tourists, they would not have been convicted. The inference was there for people to pick up. You made absolutely no mention of the fact that the case to prove these men guilty was lacking just that they should have proved their innocence.

See this is where things get interesting, no one on the pro columbia three side has even bothered to wander into the actual facts of the original ruling or the new ruling, or the new facts in the trial. They've said offered nothing concrete in the new ruling other than it's "obviously" a politically motivated ruling, offering no refutation of the evidence in either case. They just said they were found non guilt, now the prosecution appealled and the prosecution is wrong, and it's unjust. You've offered nothing by way of refuting any of the facts of the case.

For example the video footage that "proves" one of the men was in Dublin during the time allegded, which staggeringly appeared, perhaps this piece of evidence had been fabricated and the prosecution had fabricated. If any of the republican supporters of the three can start picking apart the case on the facts and the new facts presented instead of tugging at their shirts and screaming "are we not wronged" and citing previous cases instead of actually attacking the facts in this case.

bonkey

Muck wrote:

Yes they did, stop lying !

C'mon Muck...you've been around long enough to know the rules.

And on that note...a few deep breaths and calming thoughts all round wouldn't go astray.

And besides....technically, they didn't have British passports. If they did, then they wouldn't have been found guilty of travelling on false British passports....or did they have a second set of valid ones tucked away somewhere that you're referring to?

jc

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So what was your point in the above quotation?

Which part? I've explained "if anyone could confirm it, they wouldn't have been convicted" already, and in case you didn't get it yet, it's a bland statement of fact, with no hidden meaning.

As for "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?" - that was a mildly rhetorical question, which I notice no-one has answered. I was challenging a less-than-credible cover story.

I don't know whether these three men trained FARC terrorists or not. I suspect that no-one else here knows it for a fact either. I didn't say that they should be required to prove their innocence (although once again, that may well be the case in the Colombian system) but I do feel that those who loudly proclaim it here should be in a stronger position to demonstrate that innocence with actual evidence, as opposed to attacking the Colombian government and judiciary in vague general terms.

Let me put it like this: if I arrive home and find a known criminal wandering around outside my house with a crowbar in his hand, I'm not going to invite him in for a cup of tea.

spongebob

bonkey wrote:

C'mon Muck...you've been around long enough to know the rules.

And on that note...a few deep breaths and calming thoughts all round wouldn't go astray.

Phew phew phew pant phew ......OK !

bonkey wrote:

And besides....technically, they didn't have British passports. If they did, then they wouldn't have been found guilty of travelling on false British passports....or did they have a second set of valid ones tucked away somewhere that you're referring to?

I checked this again while houldin my breath.

I was 33% wrong Bonkey and you were 66% wrong .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1495392.stm

Two of the men were travelling on British passports, the other was holding an Irish passport.

It seems Connolly had a false Irish passport , issued in the name of someone who died young so it not stolen and not forged but properly issued however issued against false ID presented by Connolly .

Therefore he must face the music in Ireland or not at all.

M

arcadegame2004

I have to admit that I have very little sympathy with the so-called Columbia Three. What were they doing in Columbia anyway, and especially, what were they doing in the company of the FARC?

If, as they claimed, they were simply researching the Columbian peace-process then why don't they remain in Columbia to appeal their sentences and prove their innocence?

I think they fled because they're as guilty as hell and they know it. :cool:

cdebru

Muck wrote:

Phew phew phew pant phew ......OK !

I checked this again while houldin my breath.

I was 33% wrong Bonkey and you were 66% wrong .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1495392.stm



It seems Connolly had a false Irish passport , issued in the name of someone who died young so it not stolen and not forged but properly issued however issued against false ID presented by Connolly .

Therefore he must face the music in Ireland or not at all.

M

so do i get an apology for accusing me of lying they were not travelling on british passports
or has it sunken in yet
bonkey has pointed it out to you
You were not 33% wrong you were 100% wrong
if they were travelling on british passports or Irish passports they would not have had a problem

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

See this is where things get interesting, no one on the pro columbia three side has even bothered to wander into the actual facts of the original ruling or the new ruling, or the new facts in the trial. They've said offered nothing concrete in the new ruling other than it's "obviously" a politically motivated ruling, offering no refutation of the evidence in either case. They just said they were found non guilt, now the prosecution appealled and the prosecution is wrong, and it's unjust. You've offered nothing by way of refuting any of the facts of the case.

For example the video footage that "proves" one of the men was in Dublin during the time allegded, which staggeringly appeared, perhaps this piece of evidence had been fabricated and the prosecution had fabricated. If any of the republican supporters of the three can start picking apart the case on the facts and the new facts presented instead of tugging at their shirts and screaming "are we not wronged" and citing previous cases instead of actually attacking the facts in this case.

no new evidence was presented at the appeal they were convicted on the evidence rejected by the trial judge

what is staggering about a video placing one of the accused in dublin when the prosecution allege he was in columbia
what is staggering about a fine Gael TD signing an statement that he was at a function attended by Niall connolly in Cuba when the prosecution allege Niall Connolly was in Columbia training Farc

cdebru

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I have to admit that I have very little sympathy with the so-called Columbia Three. What were they doing in Columbia anyway, and especially, what were they doing in the company of the FARC?

If, as they claimed, they were simply researching the Columbian peace-process then why don't they remain in Columbia to appeal their sentences and prove their innocence?

I think they fled because they're as guilty as hell and they know it. :cool:

I think they fled because they don 't have any faith in the columbian justice system and they dont plan on sitting around for the next 17 years in a columbian prision waiting to be found not guilty

RicardoSmith

cdebru wrote:

no new evidence was presented at the appeal they were convicted on the evidence rejected by the trial judge

what is staggering about a video placing one of the accused in dublin when the prosecution allege he was in columbia
what is staggering about a fine Gael TD signing an statement that he was at a function attended by Niall connolly in Cuba when the prosecution allege Niall Connolly was in Columbia training Farc

Without punctuation and sentences how for petes sake can we understand what the heck your saying.

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

Without punctuation and sentences how for petes sake can we understand what the heck your saying.

i didn't realise full stops meant so much to you if you can not understand it dont bother reading it
i'am posting on boards.ie not writing for the Irish times

RicardoSmith

cdebru wrote:

i didn't realise full stops meant so much to you if you can not understand it dont bother reading it
i'am posting on boards.ie not writing for the Irish times

you time mistaken for opunctuation if ever be not times writer english point what