They're back....

Cork

mike65 wrote:

Tommy Gorman on RTE News just now speculated the re-emergence of the Columbia 3 was a (in my words, not his) "quid pro quo" for not being able to get the McCabe killers free. Possibly, after all how did the men not get picked up on thier way back here on well documented false passports.

The Garda source in todays Sunday Tribune is adamant the 3 have been in the country since March, surely they'd have been spotted so why we'rent they picked up?

Mike.

Thats a good question. How and wahat documents did they use to enter this country?

I don't believe a deal was done. If there is a Provo shopping list - It would be a defeat for democrats on these islands.

These 3 should be either be sent back to Columbia or serve their sentences here.

hill16

No reply from Mycroft.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Even if the men could show video evidence and alibi statements that they were not in Colombia when the prosecution said they were, it would not be enough for some... Hang on, look at the trial evidence...

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Even if the men could show video evidence and alibi statements that they were not in Colombia when the prosecution said they were, it would not be enough for some... Hang on, look at the trial evidence...

I dont think thats the issue for the posters here who are for want of a better way of putting it "anti the columbia 3"
They have a problem with them being with the farc at all regardless of when it was.
They weren't bird watching thats for sure and they were caught on false passports,the latter pointing to the shady activity.

That said , from my point of view, the line in the sand is drawn here.
I think they were stupid to do that interview at this time and I think ahern would be un pragmatic if he co operated with the authorities to have them extradited.
What matters from my point of view is this country and it's future and I'd put the desire to cooperate with a dodgy columbian regime very low on my list of priorities compared to letting sleeping dogs lie on this particular sensitive issue for republicans.

I might have to put certain foremost moral choices to the side when coming to that view but I think its for the best.It would be a similar sidelining to that done in the choice for the overall GFA settlement which certainly contained unpalletable elements.
Obviously for anyone reading my past posts on the issue,I would not grace the killers of Garda McCabe with the same leeway.

FTA69

Do you honestly believe they were birdwatching?

Their story is that they were observing the peace process in Colombia, not outlandish in the least considering Republicans have gone to Palestine, Basque Country, Catalonia and South Africa to observe political processes there. What you believe they were doing is neither here nor there, the fact remains the men recieved a nonsense trial in some Latin American banana state that colludes with death-squads. Because of this they should be retained in Ireland, a country in which they are not wanted for anything.

What evidence do you have that the trial was unfair?

http://www.bringthemhome.ie/legal.htm

I believe the men's support group has outlined this well.

What evidence do you have that they are to be executed?

I never said they would be, but yet again Mycroft your confrontational arrogance gets the better of you. The men would be incarcerated in La Modelo jail, a penitentiary that does have a slightly worse record than Arbour Hill. The men would be the subject of repeated assasination attempts by right-wing paramilitaries and there is little chance of them lasting 17 years in there.

Why were they there? Why was an IRA bomb maker with them?

There are many ex-IRA prisoners with convictions for explosives. If one goes to Spain on holiday are they automatically training ETA? If one goes to Dunnes Stores are they planning to kidnap Ben Dunne again?

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

There are many ex-IRA prisoners with convictions for explosives. If one goes to Spain on holiday are they automatically training ETA? If one goes to Dunnes Stores are they planning to kidnap Ben Dunne again?

Well no.
But in all fairness if SF wanted to observe a peace process in farc land, couldnt they have done it somewhat more legitimately and without the need to send people with false passports.
It would have made more sense to send a T.D with the full protection/support of the oireachtas if that was the intention and to publicise what it was they were doing.

FTA69

But in all fairness if SF wanted to observe a peace process in farc land, couldnt they have done it somewhat more legitimately and without the need to send people with false passports.

Ex-prisoners are our most learned and experienced activists, it is usually them who are chosen to attend such countries, because of their records however, they are forbidden from travelling thus false documentation is called for.

It would have made more sense to send a T.D with the full protection/support of the oireachtas if that was the intention and to publicise what it was they were doing.

Put it this way, if you were a member of the most famous revolutionary movement in the world would publically you place yourself under the protection of a right-wing government thus putting yourself at risk from right-wing paramilitaries?

Hydroquinone

Ireland has no extradition treat with Colombia, as we all know now. So they can't be sent back without a hell of a big kick off from more quarters than solely the Republican movement.
But why haven't the Gardai arrested them anyway, for being IRA men?
What am I missing? Is membership of the IRA not an offence now, since they've jacked in the armed struggle?

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

Ex-prisoners are our most learned and experienced activists, it is usually them who are chosen to attend such countries, because of their records however, they are forbidden from travelling thus false documentation is called for.

They should have sent somebody like Mr Ferris and an entourage tbh,he knows enough about the situation to have done it assuming it was the peace process they were interested in promoting.

Put it this way, if you were a member of the most famous revolutionary movement in the world would publically you place yourself under the protection of a right-wing government thus putting yourself at risk from right-wing paramilitaries?

I don't know,I'd certainly have no interest /concern/love at all for what was going on in Columbia if it meant there was a risk of being killed.
As regards whoever sanctioned their trip from a SF point of view or advised it in the first place to be done in the way it was done- well I sincerely hope they've learned a lesson not to be so foolish again.

There are many on this board with a less charitable view than that to offer, which given the circumstances is understandable.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

If one goes to Dunnes Stores are they planning to kidnap Ben Dunne again?

Ben Dunne Snr is dead and Ben Dunne Jnr no longer has connections with Dunnes Stores. Haven't you seen the headlines?

jank

Lots of people are going on their gut feelings and disregarding the actual evidence attached to the case here.

Columbia is harldy a bastion of freedom now is it. They were also only convicted for traveling under false passports(As far as I know). Seems thats all they could get.

I would not be comfortable with an Irish government handing over irish citizens to a Government as corrupt as the columbians.

I dont think its going to happen. The furrore will die down next week, well hopefully for the sake of the peace process it will.

mycroft

jank wrote:

Lots of people are going on their gut feelings and disregarding the actual evidence attached to the case here.

Columbia is harldy a bastion of freedom now is it. They were also only convicted for traveling under false passports(As far as I know). Seems thats all they could get.

I would not be comfortable with an Irish government handing over irish citizens to a Government as corrupt as the columbians.

I dont think its going to happen. The furrore will die down next week, well hopefully for the sake of the peace process it will.

So you admit they're guilty then?

So basically if an Irish citizen breaks the law in another country hides and scampers back here, we should just embrace them with open arms?

foxybrowne

Yes

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

So you admit they're guilty then?

How is pointing out that the justice system in Colombia is corrupt means you are admitting they are guilty? If you remove the republican element to this case, you would be at the head of the Q critising the Columbian justice system!!

So basically if an Irish citizen breaks the law in another country hides and scampers back here, we should just embrace them with open arms?

You argue that the Irish government should extradite Irish citizens irrespective of any case against them or the corruptness of the country involved?Ain't gonna happen and you know that.

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

How is pointing out that the justice system in Colombia is corrupt means you are admitting they are guilty? If you remove the republican element to this case, you would be at the head of the Q critising the Columbian justice system!!



You argue that the Irish government should extradite Irish citizens irrespective of any case against them or the corruptness of the country involved?Ain't gonna happen and you know that.

As you're so fond of, facts? links? evidence? non republican sources please. bringthemhome.com is hardly an independent source.

mycroft

FTA69 wrote:

Their story is that they were observing the peace process in Colombia, not outlandish in the least considering Republicans have gone to Palestine, Basque Country, Catalonia and South Africa to observe political processes there.

No their story is they were birdwatching, no wait tourists, meanwhile shall I entertain you with the pleathora of denials SF originally uttered that the men weren't there on SF business, before finally stammering muttering they were.

Their story changed so often so frequently that their version of events can only be treated with contempt.

What you believe they were doing is neither here nor there, the fact remains the men recieved a nonsense trial in some Latin American banana state that colludes with death-squads. Because of this they should be retained in Ireland, a country in which they are not wanted for anything.

What they were doing there is extremely important.

http://www.bringthemhome.ie/legal.htm

I believe the men's support group has outlined this well.

Could you provide an unbiased source. Nope.

I never said they would be, but yet again Mycroft your confrontational arrogance gets the better of you.

no you said;

FTA69 wrote:

Do you honestly think it just to send 3 men convicted in a gerrymandered show-trial back to a country where they would be killed?

Now you've changed it to, they "might be killed"

There are many ex-IRA prisoners with convictions for explosives. If one goes to Spain on holiday are they automatically training ETA? If one goes to Dunnes Stores are they planning to kidnap Ben Dunne again?

No but if they arrived at ben dunnes house with phony IDs in the company of armed paramilitaries and couldn't keep their stories straight why they where there then I'd have a right to be suspicous.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

As you're so fond of, facts? links? evidence? non republican sources please. bringthemhome.com is hardly an independent source.

Amnesty non republican for you?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/col-280604-action-eng

http://www.amnesty.ca/colombia/news/view.php?load=arcview&article=2341&c=Colombia+News

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

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/colombia/

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14272.shtml

Others

http://www.impunidad.com/pressreleases/iapa_news2_02E.html

http://un.op.org/docs/statement.php?id=75

http://www.lasc.ie/news/colombian_president.html

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Amnesty non republican for you?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/col-280604-action-eng

http://www.amnesty.ca/colombia/news/view.php?load=arcview&article=2341&c=Colombia+News

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

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/colombia/

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14272.shtml

Others

http://www.impunidad.com/pressreleases/iapa_news2_02E.html

http://un.op.org/docs/statement.php?id=75

http://www.lasc.ie/news/colombian_president.html

Thats a pretty piss poor collection of links there dub

None of the amnesty links make reference to trials

And the un.op.org link states

In Colombia, in 1997, members of the judiciary declared that it was impossible to deal with the overwhelming number of trials and the lack of adequate resources. In addition, prison authorities were saying that they could not handle more detainees. The situation led to fifty prison riots which caused many deaths and injured. Prisoners were demanding elementary items such as food and drinks, sleeping space, health services, family visits and the right to a fair trial without undue delay.

That the columbian legal system is overworked not corrupt. Thats the best you can do?

Don't get me wrong I don't that the columbian justice system isn't the most efficetive or honest it's just the Sfer habit of arguing that

A)because the justice system is corrupt they couldn't get a fair trial therefore their absconding is acceptable. If it was so corrupt and dangerous for them, why were they free on parole and able to escape, you make it sound like they were rotting in some prison like midnight express.

and and this is a clever bit

Because the columbian justice system is corrupt we shouldn't question their reasons for being there, which has never be adquetely explained.

I don't blame them for escaping and coming back here, and I don't blame them for escaping back here, but I want a damn good explanation

Why SF were sending a delegation (including an experienced bomb marker) in Columbia in the first place.and when captured Sinn Fein orginally denied they were there on offical SF business?

This "they wouldn't have gotten a fair trial" crap is just a smokescreen used by SF to avoid answering some bloody serious questions.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jank

Mycoft do you have any links to prove that the columbian justice system is NOT corrupt?
You keep saying the same ****e over and over and over again about sound bites but if you look to the facts surronding the case you will see that their case for extrediction is very flimsy at best if not non existent.

Corruption is everywhere!

As I said, some on here are no better then the Sinn fien that they hate so much by totally ignoring the FACTS, surrounding this case.

The Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 were convicted terrorists too, doesnt mean they are guilty so imagine whats going over there?

jank

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Link??

mycroft

jank wrote:

Mycoft do you have any links to prove that the columbian justice system is NOT corrupt?
You keep saying the same ****e over and over and over again about sound bites but if you look to the facts surronding the case you will see that their case for extrediction is very flimsy at best if not non existent.

Corruption is everywhere!

As I said, some on here are no better then the Sinn fien that they hate so much by totally ignoring the FACTS, surrounding this case.

The Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 were convicted terrorists too, doesnt mean they are guilty so imagine whats going over there?

Once again jank the point just eludes you.

1) if you claim something the onus is on you to prove it.

2) I'm more interested in SFs original denials that the men when were there on offical SF business before back peddling, and the variety of excuses that have been offered for the men's presence there.

The fact remains the same three SF members including a convicted bomber travelled using false passports to meet a rebel organisation whom lets not forget (while we're having a go at the columbia government) have commited the odd terrorist act. SF have lied about their status and their reasons for being there.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

Once again jank the point just eludes you.

1) if you claim something the onus is on you to prove it.

ROFL, if only you could follow your own guidelines. How many times did I say that you in the past!!!

mycroft, go have a read of the facts about the case, the only two witnesses that the prosecution had were proven to have lied on the stand. Me or you will never know for sure what they were doing out there but I think if you read the facts of the case it becomes clear that the prosecution has no proof either.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

ROFL, if only you could follow your own guidelines. How many times did I say that you in the past!!!

mycroft, go have a read of the facts about the case, the only two witnesses that the prosecution had were proven to have lied on the stand. Me or you will never know for sure what they were doing out there but I think if you read the facts of the case it becomes clear that the prosecution has no proof either.

Oh whimsy thy name is irish1. As I mentioned I'm just really fascinated to know why they were there and what justification they and their party have for their behaviour.

Tell me what were they doing there? Why did they lie? Why did Sinn Fein deny all knowledge of their trip at first? Why were they traveling on false passports?

These are all questions I'd like to know the answer to. And seeing as SF and these men have lied and switched their stories over the purpose and reason for the trip, not once, but, constantly, SF and the Columbia's three word on the matter cannot be trusted.

It's a similiar situation to the five men "who definetly weren't SF members" just happened to be traveling in a van belonging to Angus' campaign staff, which had posters belonging to the TD. Oh and a stun gun, and fake Gardai uniforms, and a list of TDs. That, like this, is another peek at some of the less salubrious activities this party and it's members are still engaged in.

Let me put it to you another way. If three members of the US republican party, or FF, were found and arrested in the company of a terrorist organisation that funds itself through drugs, would you like an explanation?

Then if these men lied and changed their stories about their reasons for being there, would you be satisfied that their word could be trusted?

And If they were traveling under false passports, and their political party at first streniously denied any knowledge of their trip before being forced to admit that they were there on offical party business, but failed to elaborate what that business was exactly, but nevertheless demanded their release. Would you be satisfied with that explanation?

And finally if it turned out one of them was a convicted explosives expert? Meeting with terrorists. Using a false passport? Would you tolerate that from FF or the republican party?

I sincerely doubt it. Loudly shouting that "they're innocent!" "they never got a fair trial" distracts from the real issues. What were they doing there in the first place? and why did SF try and pretend that they had nothing to do with them when they were first arrested?

mycroft

mycroft wrote:

Oh whimsy thy name is irish1.

I presume you meant whimsy as in the post was a whimsy excuse there ?
Clarify thyself mycroft and make thy language clearer.

tomMK1

mycroft wrote:

Oh whimsy thy name is irish1. As I mentioned I'm just really fascinated to know why they were there and what justification they and their party have for their behaviour.

Tell me what were they doing there? Why did they lie? Why did Sinn Fein deny all knowledge of their trip at first? Why were they traveling on false passports?

These are all questions I'd like to know the answer to. And seeing as SF and these men have lied and switched their stories over the purpose and reason for the trip, not once, but, constantly, SF and the Columbia's three word on the matter cannot be trusted.

It's a similiar situation to the five men "who definetly weren't SF members" just happened to be traveling in a van belonging to Angus' campaign staff, which had posters belonging to the TD. Oh and a stun gun, and fake Gardai uniforms, and a list of TDs. That, like this, is another peek at some of the less salubrious activities this party and it's members are still engaged in.

Let me put it to you another way. If three members of the US republican party, or FF, were found and arrested in the company of a terrorist organisation that funds itself through drugs, would you like an explanation?

Then if these men lied and changed their stories about their reasons for being there, would you be satisfied that their word could be trusted?

And If they were traveling under false passports, and their political party at first streniously denied any knowledge of their trip before being forced to admit that they were there on offical party business, but failed to elaborate what that business was exactly, but nevertheless demanded their release. Would you be satisfied with that explanation?

And finally if it turned out one of them was a convicted explosives expert? Meeting with terrorists. Using a false passport? Would you tolerate that from FF or the republican party?

I sincerely doubt it. Loudly shouting that "they're innocent!" "they never got a fair trial" distracts from the real issues. What were they doing there in the first place? and why did SF try and pretend that they had nothing to do with them when they were first arrested?

oh lets arrest people on assumptions then. The initial case proved that one of the three wasnt even in columbia when he was meant to be training whoever, plus that the two witnesses werent telling the truth. If thats allt he prosecution had then there no point in making up reasons.

besides at the time bush wanted blair to join in the war against terrorism. "Here tony....look we found these thre 'IRA' men for you .. help us bomb iraq and we'll have use our influence to have them convicted for ye ..." thats my theory (as unfounded and stupid as it may be)

Lemming

tomMK1 wrote:

oh lets arrest people on assumptions then.

Well, it's a step up from murdering on assumptions eh?

The initial case proved that one of the three wasnt even in columbia when he was meant to be training whoever, plus that the two witnesses werent telling the truth. If thats allt he prosecution had then there no point in making up reasons.

First of all, the alibi provided one fo the three is very subjective and open to much closer scrutiny. Secondly, and irrespective of the rest of the charges, they violated Columbian law by travelling on false passports. Since nobody seems to be refuting that little point, they have to go back to serve (some) time for that.

Villain

Lemming wrote:

Well, it's a step up from murdering on assumptions eh?



First of all, the alibi provided one fo the three is very subjective and open to much closer scrutiny. Secondly, and irrespective of the rest of the charges, they violated Columbian law by travelling on false passports. Since nobody seems to be refuting that little point, they have to go back to serve (some) time for that.

I think they have served enough time to cover the sentences they got for those charges Lemming, AFAIK they were in prison for nearly 2 years, I stand to be corrected but thats how I remember it?

FTA69

What they were doing there is extremely important.

Maybe so, but unless it can be proved by a legitimate legal trial, (as opposed to a show trial riddled with innacuracies and false testimony), then they should not be extradicted back to Colombia.

Could you provide an unbiased source. Nope.

Can you dispute any of the facts in my source? Nope.

Now you've changed it to, they "might be killed"

No I haven't, I never said they might be killed. I am saying they most definitely will be killed if they are put into La Modelo jail for 17 years. Come on now mycroft, you know as well as I do what the conditions in that jail are like, and you also know full well that the men wouldn't have a chance.

No but if they arrived at ben dunnes house with phony IDs in the company of armed paramilitaries and couldn't keep their stories straight why they where there then I'd have a right to be suspicous.

As I have said countless times already on this board, ex-POWs using false documentation is not automatic proof of them training rebels. Some ex-POWs use similar stuff to go on a family holiday to Santa Ponza. Likewise, being in an area controlled by guerillas is not proof of you training those guerillas.