They're back....

08-08-2005 11:36am

FTA69 wrote:

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.

That amuses me.
There were never any pow's in Irish prisons afaik since the "emergency".

As regards those released under the GFA or indeed ex prisoners who have served time, can they not travel freely across Europe with their own passport?
I know they wont be let into the U.S without a special Visa but they do get them as you know.
That leads me back to the point I made about choosing who you want to travel and promote whatever for you and like other parties here in Ireland, making sure that if they are representing you, that they do so legally and with respect for the laws of the country that they are visiting.

That should be as much a minimum requirement for visitors to Ireland as it is to any other country including columbia.

FTA69 · 08-08-2005 11:52am

That amuses me.
There were never any pow's in Irish prisons afaik since the "emergency".

I'm glad you're so entertained. They were however, prisoners because of their participation in an armed conflict eg a war. By your logic Terence McSwiney wasn't a POW either. However, Earthman, what you or I term them is irrelevant to this discussion. Aren't you the man responsible for ensuring topics don't wind off in all sorts of directions?

As regards those released under the GFA or indeed ex prisoners who have served time, can they not travel freely across Europe with their own passport?

No. Not all countries I don't think.

I know they wont be let into the U.S without a special Visa but they do get them as you know.

Only in special cases, eg Rita O'Hare or Joe Cahill. Bob Volunteer who wants to visit his brother in New York will have a harder time.

oscarBravo · 08-08-2005 12:01pm

Earthman wrote:

...legally and with respect for the laws...

Now that's funny.

daveirl · 08-08-2005 12:03pm

This post has been deleted.

08-08-2005 12:06pm

FTA69 wrote:

I'm glad you're so entertained. They were however, prisoners because of their participation in an armed conflict eg a war. By your logic Terence McSwiney wasn't a POW either. However, Earthman, what you or I term them is irrelevant to this discussion.

Yeah you can term them whatever way you like, but that doesnt make them what you say they are.

Aren't you the man responsible for ensuring topics don't wind off in all sorts of directions?

One of them,I havent seen this going off topic-after all we are discussing how stupid it was to send them there on false passports in the first place.
For instance,SF if it were so concerned could easily have selected and paid for a team of farc people to come over to Ireland-A team on legitimate passports and without convictions.They didn't but I would hope that they have learned form this debacle, ie they will be carefull who and how they send people on foreign missions in future.

Only in special cases, eg Rita O'Hare or Joe Cahill. Bob Volunteer who wants to visit his brother in New York will have a harder time.

With regard to the U.S,the VWP isnt available afaik to anyone with a conviction regardless of what its for.

Villain · 08-08-2005 12:46pm

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You might want to read up on the latest news in relation to the Special Criminal Court, several RIRA men were released last week because the court's convinctions have been ruled unsafe, I think the Special Criminal Court's day could be numbered.

Just to clarify I don't support the release of these terrorists just pointing out the flaws of the Special Criminal Court.

tomMK1 · 08-08-2005 12:47pm

Earthman wrote:

You know I have 2 cold light of day comments to make here.
1. Due process should be served again before we rush to judgement
2. What sort of eejits were the people who made this public? They handed a propaganda tool to the unionists,just when they were finding it hard to have any straws to grasp on to.
I'd hazzard a guess that rank and file IRA members needed to know about this to keep them on board for the Statement-but to make it public in such a way?
What a blunder in terms of peace process management.
They could have simply got one of their local "commanders" from each area to meet them and withness that they were back in Ireland.
I'm guessing that there was "covert" assistance from the Irish Government with their return(which obviously being covert,they will deny).
That "covert" assistance was probably a compromise for the impossibility of the release of the McCabe killers.
I'm also guessing that someone in the IRA took the decision to go public on this as a nah nah nan nah na jeer to unionists and as a buoy up to the IRA rank and file.

Ultimately in my view they did more harm than good by doing it this way.
They werent pragmatic.

I have the strangest of feelings that hardliners are behind the announcement of this. no matter what, its not a good PR thing for SF. I think it wasnt meant to be good PR, more than likely press released by republicans who dont agree with SF and the peace process.

Just a thought.

But still though, that re-trial was a farce you have to admit. they were acquitted and should have stayed acquitted.

tomMK1 · 08-08-2005 12:49pm

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

yeah but does that make the whining untrue?

tomMK1 · 08-08-2005 12:51pm

Lemming wrote:

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

please explain what you mean. did these men murder people or something, or were you just being uuber intelligent or something?

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.

they were acquitted initially. obviously that little point had been dealt with. their retrial was a bit of a field marshall job.

Sponge Bob · 08-08-2005 1:32pm

2 of them had false British passports so send them off to the Brits to deal with who can send them to Columbia thereafter if they feel like it , pretending to be both a republican and a Brit is too much for me

, you can be one or the other .

The other flute had a FALSE IRISH passport so I would remand him in custody right now and then investigate the whole issue very very very slowly, it could take 3 or 4 years .

jank · 08-08-2005 1:48pm

"Everybody should be entitled to a fair trial. However, the Special Criminal Court does not provide that, especially when a person can be convicted on the word of a Garda or on undisclosed or secret evidence. The Special Criminal Court and the way it works makes a mockery of the whole notion of justice, just as the Diplock Courts did in the Six Counties.

Well considering what went on in Donegal and the widespread corruption in the gardai there, he has a point!

Does he not?

The word corruption in the courts isnt actually mentioned in that article but the methods of producing evidence to lock people is disputed, just like in columbia.
Irish1 made that point clear.

Lemming · 08-08-2005 3:20pm

tomMK1 wrote:

please explain what you mean. did these men murder people or something, or were you just being uuber intelligent or something?

Uber snide actually. As I've said, at least they're alive, unlike most of the 'RAs victims, of whom a great deal were murdered on assumption. That seems strong enough for SF/IRA to defend their actions, so why protest at the Columbian government doing same.

Oh ... that's right... it's the "poor me ikkle wikkle sf/'ra person" victim syndrome crap :rolleyes:

they were acquitted initially. obviously that little point had been dealt with. their retrial was a bit of a field marshall job.

They were acquitted of training guerillas initially. Not travelling on false passports. Which I have still to hear a single credible explaination for incidentally ....

jhegarty · 08-08-2005 3:36pm

Sponge Bob wrote:

2 of them had false British passports so send them off to the Brits to deal with who can send them to Columbia thereafter if they feel like it , pretending to be both a republican and a Brit is too much for me , you can be one or the other .

The other flute had a FALSE IRISH passport so I would remand him in custody right now and then investigate the whole issue very very very slowly, it could take 3 or 4 years .

they already served their time on the passport charges... they can't be tried again here for it....

Sponge Bob · 08-08-2005 3:47pm

jhegarty wrote:

they already served their time on the passport charges... they can't be tried again here for it....

ROFLMAO

God that was funny. <ahem >

They served time in Columbia for entering Columbia on false passports , one should generally enter with a visa in ones own name .

They have not been interviewed about uttering forgeries or where they obtained those forgeries . Thats next I believe

. I know they will be most helpful with enquiries.

Trojan · 08-08-2005 3:58pm

In other news, a 16 year old youth in Mayo has been charged with creating false Garda Identification cards and British passports on his home computer. Gardai report finding several tens of euros "in small notes". The youth is "known to local Gardai." More on this to come.

mycroft · 08-08-2005 4:00pm

FTA69 wrote:

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.

And where and why would this trial take place?

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

If I provide a suprious source that suggests Gerry Adams worships cthuhlu, and then demand you disprove it. New to debating are you? A link from their campaign is not an unbiased source.

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.

fact links evidence?

Earthman wrote:

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

I merely mentioned it as the postered missed my post that I was indifferent to the shoddy columbian justice system, and that I was more concerned with SF's behaviour of denial and and sending convicted bombers to meet terrorists using false ID, no offence was meant.

tomMK1 wrote:

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)

And it's funny not a SF member can explain or cares to explain the orginial strenious denials from Adams et all that the men weren't there on SF business, or give an adequate explaination why they were there or why they traveled on false ID.

Keeping snorting about its standard practice for Ex POWs to travel to marbella on false ID doesn't wash.

This was a convicted IRA bomber meeting in secret with terrorist organisation funded by drugs, which both his party and he intiatialy denied, and then refused to explain.

And the pro SF members on this board seem satisfied this is acceptable behaviour for the members and leaders of this democratic party, but I doubt that they'd be so accepting if it occured within another.

tomMK1 · 08-08-2005 4:02pm

Lemming wrote:

Uber snide actually. As I've said, at least they're alive, unlike most of the 'RAs victims, of whom a great deal were murdered on assumption. That seems strong enough for SF/IRA to defend their actions, so why protest at the Columbian government doing same.

Oh ... that's right... it's the "poor me ikkle wikkle sf/'ra person" victim syndrome crap :rolleyes:

boy, you obviously have some issues there. if you think people and even 'sf/'ra person's are all sufferering from 'victim syndrome crap :rolleyes:' then ...hmm .. i dunno

They were acquitted of training guerillas initially. Not travelling on false passports. Which I have still to hear a single credible explaination for incidentally ....

You are certain about that? You'd think, since the columbian government was so desperate to get them, they would have tried for the passports too.

Lemming · 08-08-2005 5:11pm

tomMK1 wrote:

boy, you obviously have some issues there. if you think people and even 'sf/'ra person's are all sufferering from 'victim syndrome crap :rolleyes:' then ...hmm .. i dunno

Oh, look everyone ... a terrorist supporter with victim syndrome AND in denial. Wow, what will come next? The "look over there for a distraction" tactic?

You are certain about that? You'd think, since the columbian government was so desperate to get them, they would have tried for the passports too.

Oh look, it's teh "look over there for a distraction" tactic.

/me yawns

Am I certain that they were found to have effected clandestine entry to Columbia using forged passports? yes. Are you certain they didn't?

jank · 08-08-2005 5:22pm

Yawn .......the same of **** asusual on this board.

Arguing ANY point on this topic is like pissing against huricane force wind.

Lemming · 08-08-2005 5:37pm

jank wrote:

Yawn .......the same of **** asusual on this board.

Arguing ANY point on this topic is like pissing against huricane force wind.

My apologies jank. I only jumped in because I got fed up reading the same mantra over and over again from those supporting teh "Columbia Three" for want of a more apt and less flattering description.

The same old "Sure aren't they SF/IRA people. They're the same as me ergo demand my unconditional and unquestioning support". Nothing more than cattle.

Let me ask everyone this question. Would you give a representative of any other political entity such support? No? Why not? So why are all the SF/IRA people here unable to do the same? Why back what is undefendable and simply admit to something wrong when it is wrong? Whislt I have little regard for the Columbian authorities or the manner in which the trial was conducted, I refuse to allow these people (and their supporters) take an inch of ground in this country until they show that they are a democratic movement bereft of sinister machinations.

People think I'm anti-IRA. I'm not anti-IRA per-se. I'm anti bullsh*t and I see a lot of it, particulary from SF/IRA more than any other political entity.

murphaph · 08-08-2005 6:06pm

Charge and prosecute them for any passport irregularites and then pack them off to Colombia to face justice. Fcuking SF constantly supporting these guys.

mike65 · 08-08-2005 7:05pm

Exellent commentary by Susanne Breen Right click Save As..(Real Audio stream).

Mike.

Sand · 08-08-2005 7:21pm

Legally I think it will be tricky to extradite them, if not impossible.

Which places Ireland in a very tricky position as it highlights us as a terrorist safe haven - which will not do us any favours with the US or indeed other nations facing terrorism. Some have linked Washingtons cool response to the SFIRA statement as being due to the Colombia Three and SFIRAs apparently cross training with other terrorist groups. If these guys are the true patriots they claim to be, they wont mind taking one for the team.

I wouldnt be too concerned about Colombian prison conditions in the case of these lads, they managed to survive for 3 years there so it cant be all that bad. And lets face it, their story is bull****, so Im more concerned about the people who will die thanks to the assistance they have rendered to FARC than I am about their livelihood.

daveirl · 08-08-2005 7:23pm

This post has been deleted.

Hydroquinone · 08-08-2005 8:17pm

I have a question. See this bilateral extradition treaty with the US that McDowell signed us up to a fortnight or so ago? Well a quick Google tells me that the US have a similar gig with Colombia.
So if Bertie doesn't want them to be extradited to Colombia, so as to keep Mr Adams and co sweet, can the US department of justice issue a warant for their arrest on whatever terms the Yanks might consider appropriate then ship them off to Bogota? Could that happen?

mycroft · 08-08-2005 8:46pm

Lets look at a few facts.

1) FARC is a terrorist organisation that, like the Columbia government, has committed atrocities against innocents. FARC fund themselves through the cultivation and distribution of narcotics.

2) SF/IRA empatically deny being funded by drugs, and in fact claim to have set up "community policing units" to punish and stop drug dealing that destroys working class communities.

3) SF/IRA have links to FARC and see no hypocrisy in their anti drugs campaign and the FARCs fund raising activity.

4) the Columbia 3 went to Columbia in an official SF capacity.

5) They traveled under false passports, clandestine to the Columbian government.

6) One of the men James Monaghan is an experienced IRA bomb maker

7) They were arrested in FARC territory in the company of FARC terrorists.

8) After claiming, they were birdwatching or eco tourists, the three eventually claimed that they travelled to Columbia in an official SF capacity to "observe the peace process"

9) For weeks if not months afterward SF leadership from Adams down strenuously denied that the men were there in an official capacity, and in fact, they claimed they had no knowledge of the men's visit, before finally, admitting that they were there in an official SF capacity. No explanation has been made for this turn around. They then demanded the men's return.

10) No explanation has been offered/given for why, if the men were their to "observe the peace process" they not only did not contact one side of the conflict, the Columbian Government, but actively went out of their way to conceal their presence from them.

11) Despite claims that Colombian jails were a "hell hole" and their lives were in danger, the three men spent three years in jail, and despite claims of the massive corruption of the Colombian justice system, the men were free on bail when they fled the country.

Any member/SF supporter, want to deny any of the above?

Okay firstly to the passports. It does not seem to bother any SF member/supporter, that these men had the capacity to forge/ obtain forged documents. In fact according to FTA it's so common place for "ex volunteers" to need forged documents for "holidays" that SF should just go ahead and open their own branch of the passport office.

C'mere kid and let me explain something to you. If "joe volunteer" "has to" obtain a forged passport to visit his brother in New Jersey. Then you know what? "joe volunteer" doesn't get to go. That's the consequences and ramifications of Joe Volunteers wiliness to commit violence to achieve his aims. It does not give Joe Volunteer the right to "forge" a passport so he can go.

However this isn't "Joe Volunteer" this is James Monaghan. Experienced Bomb maker. And he's not visiting his cousin's in NJ, he was was visiting a terrorist organisation in the jungles, trying to downplay this by claiming volunteers have to do to this when going to marbella, doesn't change where he was and who he was meeting.

All this indifference to "inconvenient" laws just demonstrations SFs endemic criminality.

No explanation has been given to why James Monaghan was sent for that matter. SF has demonstrated a superior grasp of PR over the years. Are we lead to believe that no one was concerned how awkward it would look if experienced bomb maker was sent clandestinely under a forged passport, to meet with terrorists?

Nor has an explanation been given for SF's leadership massive bout of amnesia for the first months of their captivity. SF's leadership from Adams down strenuously denied the men were there on official SF capacity. Again if these men were there to "observe" the "peace process" in an "official capacity" why did they not contact one side of the conflict, or for that matter why did they go to great lengths to conceal themselves from the government. When finally found out why did SF not admit to the men's purpose for being there?

Among SF members/Supporters on this site, this event has been greeted with cheers and delight, if any other mainstream political party in the western world engaged in this kind of activity there would be calls for an investigation.

Yet inability for SF to explain its actions and behaviour of their members doesn't seem to bother it's supporters, in fact they also show a marked indifference to trying to answer and explain the above. And you really think this party has turned a corner into become a credible democratic organisation?

Victor · 08-08-2005 9:06pm

tomMK1 wrote:

their retrial was a bit of a field marshall job.

What retrial? What field marshall?

Mercury_Tilt · 08-08-2005 9:16pm

This post has been deleted.

ISAW · 08-08-2005 10:17pm

Lets look at a few facts.

okay let us

1) FARC is a terrorist organisation that, like the Columbia government, has committed atrocities against innocents. FARC fund themselves through the cultivation and distribution of narcotics.

How do you know they are "terrorist"? And what has the fact that FARC have killed civilians got to do with anything?
Straignten the facts out: They partly fund themselves fromextortion of money from drug cartels. They don't produce the drugs or trade them they "tax" those who do by allowing them to ply their trade and fight their enemies i.e government forces; right wing militia; private mercanaries.

2) SF/IRA empatically deny being funded by drugs, and in fact claim to have set up "community policing units" to punish and stop drug dealing that destroys working class communities.

This is correct. what has that to do with it? If you are suggesting that the three were in columbia to learn about how drugs are manufactured and distrubuted then surely they would have contacted the cartels not the FARC?

3) SF/IRA have links to FARC and see no hypocrisy in their anti drugs campaign and the FARCs fund raising activity.

But what sort of links? As I pointed out FARC do not deal drugs directly. Look! The US had links with Saddam Hussein for decades and with the Mujahadeen and saw no hypocracy in that. They still have links with the Sauds and others. Where are you on those issues of fact?

Following the press coverage of the case the US Congress House International Relations Committee in DC decided to look into the alleged FARC/IRA contacts. Initially the committee staff prepared a report titled "International Global Terrorism: Its Links With Illicit Drugs as Illustrated by the IRA and Other Groups in Colombia." The staff report was led by John P. Mackey, committee investigative counsel, and an important bureaucratic promoter of Plan Colombia. Mackey insisted that the US government was convinced of IRA involvement in Colombia and collaboration with the FARC. He furthermore claimed that various ordinance techniques used by the FARC had their roots in the IRA's playbook. Neither the DEAs administrator Asa Hutchinson nor the deputy director of the State Department's counter terrorism office supported Mackey's conclusions, despite the title of his report. Pressed by Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) another witness, Colombian Joint Chiefs of Staff Head Gen. Fernando Tapias, said he had no information about any organizational links between the IRA and the FARC. Nor had the Colombian government detected any terrorist assistance or training in his country by Iran or Cuba, another fantasy suggested by Mackey.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) said he had asked Colombia, Britain and the U.S. intelligence community "if there is even one scintilla of evidence of connection between the IRA or Sinn Fein," the IRA's political arm, with the FARC, "and the answer is no."

4) the Columbia 3 went to Columbia in an official SF capacity.

Fact: Official Sinn Féin ore not SF.
Furthermore as far as I recall ONE of the three, Connolly, was a SF member. the others were ex IRA prisioners. They were not SF members. How "warm"
or how "left" any of they were is a matter for discussion. I would like to see your or anybodies "facts" on that.

5) They traveled under false passports, clandestine to the Columbian government.

Yes. so what? they admitted holding these. If you wanted to meet the FARC would you write to the Colombian government saying so and arrive on your Irish passport? Also get your facts right. Did they travell under them or just possess them? Did they use them in a FARC area? I mean for example where were they arrested and who examined their identities before arrest? did you check that out? How sure are you of this FACT?

Wonder if these guys had false passports: http://houston.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=27945

6) One of the men James Monaghan is an experienced IRA bomb maker

That is a FACT is it? How do you know?
And again so what? The whole link to subsequent FARC bombing campaigns
was totally debunked during the trial. I suggest you try to deal with thinks as they are and not assume guilt. after you prove they were on a bombing mission then you can take into concideration prior time served. Okay?

7) They were arrested in FARC territory in the company of FARC terrorists.

I think your fact may be wrong here. Can you support it? I mean if they were arrested in FARC controlled territory with a FARC group don't you think it would have been difficult? are you not confused and maybe they were arrested in a government controlled Airport when they were actually leaving
Colombia?

8) After claiming, they were birdwatching or eco tourists, the three eventually claimed that they travelled to Columbia in an official SF capacity to "observe the peace process"

When did they make the first two claims?

9) For weeks if not months afterward SF leadership from Adams down strenuously denied that the men were there in an official capacity,

did he ? when? where?

and in fact, they claimed they had no knowledge of the men's visit, before finally, admitting that they were there in an official SF capacity. No explanation has been made for this turn around. They then demanded the men's return.

Have you considered that maybe he had no knowledge and then someone told him? and where is your support that they were there on SF orders and orgainsation?

10) No explanation has been offered/given for why, if the men were their to "observe the peace process" they not only did not contact one side of the conflict, the Columbian Government, but actively went out of their way to conceal their presence from them.

the second bit is dealt with above. As for the first no explaination is necessary. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.

11) Despite claims that Colombian jails were a "hell hole" and their lives were in danger, the three men spent three years in jail, and despite claims of the massive corruption of the Colombian justice system, the men were free on bail when they fled the country.

Despite the claims that nuclear bombs were terrible or concentration camps were death camps there were people that actually survived them. does this mean the camps/bombs were not terrible?

Any member/SF supporter, want to deny any of the above?

I am not a member or supporter of SF but I do remember Irish people with Republican connectiuons being fitted up before. You just cant assume guilt. Your "facts" need some support and thinking about.

ISAW · 08-08-2005 10:24pm

Hydroquinone wrote:

I have a question. See this bilateral extradition treaty with the US that McDowell signed us up to a fortnight or so ago? Well a quick Google tells me that the US have a similar gig with Colombia.
So if Bertie doesn't want them to be extradited to Colombia, so as to keep Mr Adams and co sweet, can the US department of justice issue a warant for their arrest on whatever terms the Yanks might consider appropriate then ship them off to Bogota? Could that happen?

Nope. Because they havent broken any US laws. What would the warrant for arrest refer to as the US law you suggest they broke?

They're back....

Comments