They're back....

ISAW

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 .

I think under the Anglo Irish or the GFA you can be both or possibly "neither" but I am not sure about the neither.

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 .

although done elsewhere one cant do that under Irish constitution. remember the recent referendum about bail and detention? Actually due process is also imperative under US law but not it seems if you are not actually in the US and not declared a prisioner e.g Guantanamo Bay.

ISAW

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.

Because two wrongs do not make a right?
Because it is not for the state to behave in ways that terrorists do?

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

The conviction does not necessitate an explaination but one was given in any case whether you heard it or not.

Hydroquinone

ISAW wrote:

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

I haven't sugested that there is an American law that they might have broken. I know nada about American laws, so they might or might not have broken one for all I know. But if you say they've not, well, fair enough, I see no reason to doubt you. But I wouldn't be surprised if the US could come up with something, if they so chose.

They're very hot on TWAT (The war against terrrrrrrrrrrrrrr) as we all know and they told the president of Colombia not so very long ago that they wouldn't stand for any harbouring of any terrorists at all, so who knows?

That's why I asked.

ISAW

Sponge Bob wrote:

ROFLMAO God that was funny. <ahem >

I suggest you look up "double jeopardy" in a legal dictionary (not on a tv show site)

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

Indeed one should. Unless of course one does not want the authorities stopping one from seeing who one wants to see or even knowing you are seeing them. as many MI6 MI5 CIA KGB MOSSAD and others have over the years.
Incidentally I think you might find they were stopped when leaving the country. If otherwise how could the government claim that they had met the FARC if they were detained when they arrived?

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.

They have been interviewed and as proving a negative is very difficult will you admit you were wrong if I produce evidence as to why they say they were there?

ISAW

Hydroquinone wrote:

I haven't sugested that there is an American law that they might have broken. I know nada about American laws, so they might or might not have broken one for all I know. But if you say they've not, well, fair enough, I see no reason to doubt you. But I wouldn't be surprised if the US could come up with something, if they so chose.

Nope because unlike Ireland which has appeals to "narutal justice" the Us (since WWII anyway) has moved to a "positivist" law system. In other words you have not done any wrong if there isnt a law against it. so it IS a case of "show me the law i have broken"

They're very hot on TWAT (The war against terrrrrrrrrrrrrrr) as we all know and they told the president of Colombia not so very long ago that they wouldn't stand for any harbouring of any terrorists at all, so who knows?

But even if Bush brought in a new law today one can not have a retroactive penal law. it is called "ex post facto" law. Look it up.

That's why I asked.[/QUOTE]

A fair question and many good questions are asked in ignorance. I hope you are a little more wise to the legal principles of justice now. Here are some more no retroactive penal laws, the presumption of innocence, being informed of the charges, legal or other appropriate defence assistance, fair hearing, no compulsion to give testimony or confess guilt, examination of witnesses, higher review of a finding of an infringement, free assistance of an interpreter, and respect for privacy at all stages of the proceedings.

Many of these suffered in the Colombia case.

Lemming

ISAW wrote:

Because two wrongs do not make a right?
Because it is not for the state to behave in ways that terrorists do?

No, of course not ISAW dearest. I was just pointing out the delicious irony of their position, and funnily enough what you've just said. I believe the exact term is "double standards".

SO!!!!

What makes you think that SF/IRA members and their supporters either official or unofficial should be above the law of any country? What makes you think that they should be given "a break" for? Because sure aren't they only wee harmless lads out for a bit of craic? :rolleyes:

The conviction does not necessitate an explaination but one was given in any case whether you heard it or not.

Actually, the insistence of their innocence necessitates an explanation. And a credible one. Not the tripe that has been espoused, then .. no wait ... actually chang... ah, sorry changed again.

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

okay let us


How do you know they are "terrorist"? And what has the fact that FARC have killed civilians got to do with anything?

Look at your first sentence. Now look at your second sentence. That answers your question.

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.

So we you don't quibble about them being funded by drug dealing. Good then.

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?

Among other thing I'm commenting on the irony and the hyprocracy of SF fighting drugs in their community but embracing the source.

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?

Where did I say I supported or thought it was acceptable for the US to have links to Saddam. Trying to squirm out of less than acceptable behaviour by pointing to someone else's crimes is the worst kind of moral cowardice.

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.

So why were they there?

Fact: Official Sinn Féin ore not SF.

That would be a funny typo if it wasn't a fantastic insight into the doublethink of SF supporter/members.

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.

Then why were all three travelling using false passports, and why did SF say they were all there as offical SF representives?

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?

These were the only passports the men had on them.

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

Later explained as a diplomatic mix up over a team of cave explorers BTW.

That is a FACT is it? How do you know?

i've previously on this thread included a link on the matter.

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?

Where exactly did I claim Monaghan was on a bombing campaign?

did he ? when? where?

yes, yes, and yes. All of which has been previously proven on this forum before.

But if you like you can actually listen to Sinn Féin chairman Mitchell McLaughlin claim that none of the men have any connection to SF here
www.rte.ie/news/2001/0817/ira.html.

Also
[from the examiner]
Interestingly, in his statement on October 21 2001, Adams apologised to the Connolly family for the anguish caused by his repeated denials, but there was no apology to the media or the public for repeatedly lying to them. [/quote]

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?

Strenious denials were uttered, and continued to be uttered for weeks after their arrest. Do you not think someone would have checked or informed the entire SF leadership at some point early on. And as mentioned the claim that they were on offical SF business has already been proven.

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

And who's talking about a court of law?

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?

Seriously what are you on about?

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.

Arguing that "I don't believe it" when all of the above is in the public domain is just pretty bloody weak.

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

I'm just really fascinated to know why they were there and what justification they and their party have for their behaviour.

well two thirds of them are not in SF but I suggest you read their own words:

McCauley wrote:

Prior to moving south, I had been involved with former political prisoners in Lurgan, Co. Armagh. When I had settled into my new home I became reinvolved with work for former prisoners. I re-established contact with Jim Monaghan who I had met previously. Through this work I became involved in discussions and debates on conflict and conflict resolution.

I met Niall Connolly through Jim, following a discussion on Latin America. When the idea of the trip to Colombia arose I agreed to travel with Jim and Niall. I had never been to Latin America, and I was interested in visiting this continent and seeing their peace process.

I have lived openly, north and south for 20 years. I have been in regular employment. Part of my employment involved me adapting motor vehicles for use by people with disabilities. I have travelled openly all over Ireland. I have not been charged with any of the offences alleged by the RUC or the British Embassy. I am not a member of the IRA. I am not guilty of the charges laid out against me in this court.

Like my two friends I was using another name. Each of us had experience of threats, harassment and violence in shared and different situations. There is nothing more than a desire to travel unhindered in the fact that I was travelling on another name. I have explained how my life and those of my family have been threatened. I have explained how two human rights lawyers who have worked on my behalf [Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson] were murdered by pro-British death squads.

monaghan wrote:

In the summer of 2001 the three of us travelled to Colombia principally to see the peace process but also to enjoy a holiday. For reasons already stated the three of us travelled with different names. We travelled openly and the way all other travellers would. We visited the peace zone.

We spent several weeks in the zone. We talked to a great many people. We shared experiences about the peace processes in Ireland and Colombia.

We discussed the involvement of outsiders in such processes. From an Irish perspective the advice and experiences of people involved in South Africa, Palestine, East Timor and other regions in Latin America were very important. We discussed the process of becoming involved in a political system seen as hostile and the gains and the problems that resulted from such a course of action. We talked at length about the role of former prisoners in political developments in Ireland and the Irish peace process.

We met with members of the FARC. We learnt from them about the great number of visitors and political representatives who had visited the zone. This included members of the Colombian government and many people from outside Colombia.

connolly wrote:

While in Dublin in early 2001 I met with Jim and a number of other people including Martin McCauley, who had been involved in discussions about conflict situations and conflict resolution processes around the world.

As a result of this meeting I agreed to undertake a trip to Colombia with Jim and Martin. I had travelled with Jim previously and my knowledge of Spanish was a primary reason for asking me to accompany them.

I have experienced first hand the reconciliation process in Nicaragua and El Salvador. I have followed the peace process in Guatemala. I have an interest in the Colombian peace process along with other issues that effect politics in Latin America. When we visited Colombia, the country was trying, through dialogue between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia to define positions that would be used as the foundation for a peace process. The government had given political status to the FARC. Observers from around the world came to learn and to offer solidarity in the search for peace with social justice. I was motivated by my desire to see firsthand another process of conflict resolution in motion. I believed that an historic opportunity had been created between the government and the insurgents in one of the oldest conflicts in Latin America. I hope that a new process of reconciliation with social justice will develop in the future in Colombia.

Tell me what were they doing there? ...Why were they traveling on false passports?
...
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?

Yes.
Hmmm
http://thestraights.com/index.htm

Let me put it back to you! Were they arrested in the company of terrorists?
Where is your evidence?

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?

I dont support SF. The real issue to me is a human rights one.

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

Indeed one should [enter with a visa in one's own name]. Unless of course one does not want the authorities stopping one from seeing who one wants to see or even knowing you are seeing them. as many MI6 MI5 CIA KGB MOSSAD and others have over the years.

Aaahh, that's OK then. Breaking the law is not a problem if it facilitates doing something the authorities don't want you to do. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

What do you suppose happens to MI6, MI5, CIA, KGB or Mossad agents if they're caught travelling on false passports?

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote:

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 .

ISAW wrote:

although done elsewhere one cant do that under Irish constitution. remember the recent referendum about bail and detention? Actually due process is also imperative under US law but not it seems if you are not actually in the US and not declared a prisioner e.g Guantanamo Bay.

That referendum on bail does not apply where the flute is a FLIGHT RISK , we could always confiscate his (real) passport for all the good that will do . L

Otherwise he will be down the dole office tomorrow and will be a burden on the state anyway.

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

Look at your first sentence. Now look at your second sentence. That answers your question.

I asked:
How do you know they are "terrorist"? And what has the fact that FARC have killed civilians got to do with anything?

I asked YOU for the evidence that FARC killed civilians since you claimed they were terrorists and by that I assume your definition is "killing of innoicent civilians". You have not supplied any such evidence. I then asked assuming FARC are terrorists what has that got to do with the columbia three being guilty of anything? talking to terrorists is not a crime is it?

So we you don't quibble about them being funded by drug dealing. Good then.

we do.YOU claimed they run drugs. I informed you that they donmt but that they take money from drug cartels. Now do you know how Opium came to China and the role of England in it? Do you accept the West should trade with regimes who openly abuse human rights? It is not as simple as you paint the issue.

Among other thing I'm commenting on the irony and the hyprocracy of SF fighting drugs in their community but embracing the source.

But you are NOT answering the question you were asked!
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?

And Columbia also are about the fifth biggest supplier of Oil to the US. Why dont you criticise the multinational oil companies who are abusing human rights there for example? Or the murder of trade unionists?

Where did I say I supported or thought it was acceptable for the US to have links to Saddam. Trying to squirm out of less than acceptable behaviour by pointing to someone else's crimes is the worst kind of moral cowardice.

You can name call all you want but I warn you that personal attacks like that may be reported. Furthermore the point is not evasion I am pointing to double standards. I apologise in advance if you have a record of opposing Saddam Hussein before say 1990 but if you do not think it acceptable for states to behave in this way then why is it you seem so focused on this one issue? Why not oppose all human rights abuses? even if it is the abuse of Saddam or of ex bombers?
i pointed to the idea that other countries have been involved with "terrorists". Where were you then? As for me, I dont support SF or the IRA so I have no banner to wave for either of them.

So why were they there?

I posted their own words elsewhere in this thread. Scroll up five messages or so to see them.

Then why were all three travelling using false passports,

ditto

These were the only passports the men had on them.

youdidnt answer so I will repost it.
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?

Later explained as a diplomatic mix up over a team of cave explorers BTW.

really? have you a reference?
[Quote:=ISAW]
That is a FACT is it? How do you know?
(reply = mycroft)
i've previously on this thread included a link on the matter.

Really? Care to show me where?

Where exactly did I claim Monaghan was on a bombing campaign?

mycroft wrote:

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

Now care to explain the relevance of this "fact" of yours?

yes, yes, and yes. All of which has been previously proven on this forum before.

You should have no problem in putting in three tiny links to this proof if you are so aware of the issue then. so where are they?

Strenious denials were uttered, and continued to be uttered for weeks after their arrest. Do you not think someone would have checked or informed the entire SF leadership at some point early on.

Well now you are suggesting they were informed about the visit after the arrest and not that the SF leadership know about it before the arrest. It seems to me judging from recent events that the fastest SF can talk to IRA leadership (and thats IRA leadership and not some ex IRA men on another continent) is about ten to twenty days. So lets say a month to give SF laods of time. Now I have no idea if you are right or wrong but care to supply a chronoligical lilst of denials and see if they lasted for a month? Furthermore if SF knwn before then why deny it? and if SF knew and told they "you are on your own if caught" then why say that the mission was known to others?

And as mentioned the claim that they were on offical SF business has already been proven.

Please supply a reference.

And who's talking about a court of law?

Apparently you are
I stated:
Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.
that is a principle of justice. One does not always get justice in courts whether they be paramilitary kangaroo courts or in camera and subject to political interference. Even in civilised situations one gets the law.

Seriously what are you on about?

You claimed they survived a "hell hole" so it could not have been that bad. I pointed out that some people survived Heroshima and the Nazis but one would not claim that a holocause "wasnt that bad" based on the idea of survivors. Saying they are still alive is not evidence that the prisons are not hell holes!

Arguing that "I don't believe it" when all of the above is in the public domain is just pretty bloody weak.

My point was you just cant assume guilt. Your "facts" need some support and thinking about. You are the one who posted a list of "facts". When your "facts" were challenged it was you who produced the weak support. you provided no references and suggest you are supported by somethings in the public domain. But you do not quote from them. so you argument is opinion only and not fact as you claim. To continue to claim opinion as fact without any support is not in keeping with proper debate or with the charter of this board. You made the claims about your "facts". YOU go and support them when challenged!

ISAW

Sponge Bob wrote:

That referendum on bail does not apply where the flute is a FLIGHT RISK , we could always confiscate his (real) passport for all the good that will do . L

Otherwise he will be down the dole office tomorrow and will be a burden on the state anyway.

I suggest you also look up 34-39

Bunreacht na heireann Article 40...
4. 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

2° Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.

3° Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of the validity of such law to the Supreme Court by way of case stated and may, at the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court shall fix until the Supreme Court has determined the question so referred to it.

4° The High Court before which the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is to be produced in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section shall, if the President of the High Court or, if he is not available, the senior judge of that Court who is available so directs in respect of any particular case, consist of three judges and shall, in every other case, consist of one judge only.

5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion.

6° Provision may be made by law for the refusal of bail by a court to a person charged with a serious offence where it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person.

ISAW

Lemming wrote:

No, of course not ISAW dearest.

please dont patronise me.

I was just pointing out the delicious irony of their position, and funnily enough what you've just said.

well you should have written that then. what you wrote did not come out that way. You questioned whether thater was any wrong in the Colombian state behaving in the way IRA or other terrorists have.

I believe the exact term is "double standards".

I believe you are extracting a meaning from your words which was not written.

What makes you think that SF/IRA members and their supporters either official or unofficial should be above the law of any country?

read what I wrote. what makes you think I stated they should be above the law in Ireland? Also while the IRA is procribed I was not aware it was a crime to be a member of SF.

What makes you think that they should be given "a break" for? Because sure aren't they only wee harmless lads out for a bit of craic? :rolleyes:

Your irony is lost on me. where did I say that the Colombia Three are criminals that should be given a break for a crime?

Actually, the insistence of their innocence necessitates an explanation.

No actually it doesnt! It is a principle of justice that innocence is ASSUMED. One does not have to prove innocence! One proves guilt based on evidence!

And a credible one.

I suppose you are in favour of removal of the legal right to silence as well then?

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

What do you suppose happens to MI6, MI5, CIA, KGB or Mossad agents if they're caught travelling on false passports?

they are usually disowned by their parent agency who claim to not know them at all. I would like to see where The Crown for example admitted that someone was MI6 months after they were caught. They rarely even admit these agencies exist.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote:

What do you suppose happens to MI6, MI5, CIA, KGB or Mossad agents if they're caught travelling on false passports?

[dodgy WWII movie german accent]"vee shoot spies here, you know"[/dodgy WWII movie german accent]

Lads, you're wasting your time. The SFIRA supporters on this board are so in denial of republican criminality that they're denying the crimes of a bunch of 'bird-watchers' who, supposedly have fcuk all to do with SFIRA anymore. :rolleyes:

The dogs in the street know what these boys were up to, and even if it were proven in a court of law it wouldn't stop the denials on here because courts of law are just tools of oppression etc. etc. blah blah blah...

The two Brits should be turfed out to Britain and let them sort them out. The paddy should be charged for forging/altering a passport, a very serious offence.

mycroft

Really? Care to show me where?




Now care to explain the relevance of this "fact" of yours?

You should have no problem in putting in three tiny links to this proof if you are so aware of the issue then. so where are they?

I've linked to both james monaghan's criminal record and SFs denials that they were there on offical SF business, and Adams apology elsewhere on this thread, I see little point in debating with someone who demands evidence ignores it when I tell him, and demands further proof. I posted links to Adams denial and an audio link to Mitchells denial is a response to you for christsake. What more do you want?

Well now you are suggesting they were informed about the visit after the arrest and not that the SF leadership know about it before the arrest. It seems to me judging from recent events that the fastest SF can talk to IRA leadership (and thats IRA leadership and not some ex IRA men on another continent) is about ten to twenty days. So lets say a month to give SF laods of time. Now I have no idea if you are right or wrong but care to supply a chronoligical lilst of denials and see if they lasted for a month? Furthermore if SF knwn before then why deny it? and if SF knew and told they "you are on your own if caught" then why say that the mission was known to others?

Please supply a reference.

I already have, and in a response to you. this juvenile refusal to demand evidence and then ignore it when it's presented is rather pathetic arguing.

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

But if you like you can actually listen to Sinn Féin chairman Mitchell McLaughlin claim that none of the men have any connection to SF here
www.rte.ie/news/2001/0817/ira.html.

Sorry. I missed that. 17 August 2001. Six days after the arrest! Hardly surprising is it? I would like your list of denials so we can both agree when they stopped. I doubt they went on for thirty or maybe even twenty days.

Also

[from the examiner]
Interestingly, in his statement on October 21 2001, Adams apologised to the Connolly family for the anguish caused by his repeated denials, but there was no apology to the media or the public for repeatedly lying to them.

I didnt gat that examiner link. Could you repost it?
Anyway..A full two months later! Maybe after had been informed?

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

Sorry. I missed that. 17 August 2001. Six days after the arrest! Hardly surprising is it? I would like your list of denials so we can both agree when they stopped. I doubt they went on for thirty or maybe even twenty days.

Also
I didnt gat that examiner link. Could you repost it?
Anyway..A full two months later! Maybe after had been informed?

"A full two months", what do you think all SF internal communication is carried out by carrier snail?

If I have your opinion absolutely clear, six days after the men announce they're on offical SF business, the SF party chairman scoffs that they're on SF. One of the men set up SFs Cuba office, a third was involved in "prisoner support" the third a convicted IRA bomber.

And you're trying to tell me, no one in SF rang round to check to see if their story was true? And then and this is the hilarious bit, it takes 8-9 weeks (a little more than your "thirty" days before Adams fesses up. Which was the first admission by SF that they had gotten it wrong.

In a cynical move of the type which caused trouble for New Labour adviser Jo Moore, Adams timed the issuing of this 'clarification' for a couple of hours before the announcement of the IRA's first act of decommissioning.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=71487993825&p=7y487994z3x&n=71487994312

And you accept this? And I'm having trouble with the facts. :rolleyes: Bless.

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

I've linked to both james monaghan's criminal record

I dont see any link to that. but the point is so what? If he served time for being in the IRA why is that relevant to any crime you allege he committed in Colombia? and why suggest he is a "bomber"?

and SFs denials that they were there on offical SF business,

No you havent! You posted ONE link to one denial six days after the event. I already told you that does not surprise me and explained why! But I am not here to defent SF. They can do that themselves. I am asking you what relevance that any of it has to what you suggest they are guilty of and also exactly what you suggest they are guilty of?

and Adams apology elsewhere on this thread, I see little point in debating with someone who demands evidence ignores it when I tell him, and demands further proof.

You claimed facts that you have not fully supported. I already gave you an explaination for denills but that is peripherial to what you suggest they are guilty of with your list of "facts".

I posted links to Adams denial and an audio link to Mitchells denial is a response to you for christsake. What more do you want?

No you didnt. you posted a link to mc Laughlins denial six days after the arrest and Adams apology several months later. I asked you for a list of denials and when they stopped so we could see if they went on for over three or four weeks. But the denials are peripheral. they prove nothing as to whether the three are guilty of anything. I have no problem in you calling anyone in SF liars. I dont support them and am not here to make a case for any SF policy. I am here to discuss the human rights of the columbia three.

isaw wrote:

Well now you are suggesting they were informed about the visit after the arrest and not that the SF leadership know about it before the arrest. Now I have no idea if you are right or wrong but care to supply a chronoligical lilst of denials and see if they lasted for a month? Furthermore if SF knwn before then why deny it? and if SF knew and told they "you are on your own if caught" then why say that the mission was known to others?

I already have, and in a response to you. this juvenile refusal to demand evidence and then ignore it when it's presented is rather pathetic arguing.

No you havent! You have not supplied a list. Do you know what a list is? It is a bit like your "list" of "facts". You suppliued ONE denial and ONE apology for making a denial. One can not extrapolate for a population of one can one? Well maybe you can but I cant. and as I have repeated this is all peripheral. YUou posted a list of "facts" about the Colombia Three. I ask you now to show any "facts" that have any basis in actual fact for imprisionment? Handwaving arguments lilke "SF are liars and they knew liars" or "one of them probably knew about bombs" really is not a good line to be taking. Please be clear about what crime you claim they were committing. I think you know you have little or nothing to support any claims of criminal intent and I think you may well try to run from this one.

Now I have suffered personal attack in this debate but I wont let you away with claiming I ignore evidence. Go back to the list you posted. start at number one and show where you supported ANY "fact" that was challenged and show where this "fact" is relevant to the Colombia three being guilty of anything and I am quite prepared to retract my rebuttal if you can show it to be unsound.

I have made several posts and may have missed some replies. I dont believe I have but that is possible. But please dont claim I am purposfully not following the rules of debate or the charter. If you do you are making an accusation you will have to prove.

Lemming

ISAW wrote:

please dont patronise me.

Dont insult my (and every other sane voter on this island) intelligence and I'll stop treating you like a petulant child.

well you should have written that then. what you wrote did not come out that way. You questioned whether thater was any wrong in the Colombian state behaving in the way IRA or other terrorists have.

You do understand what the term "rehtorical" means right? And "irony"? Good.

I was asking you if you saw a difference between SF/IRA claiming unfair assumption of "guilt" upon three of their members when they themselves see no wrong in either execution (pardon the pun) of, or the backing thereof, attrocities carried out in their name. Most victims being given "verdict" upon the most suprious assumptions of "guilt".

I believe you are extracting a meaning from your words which was not written.

I believe you are not reading correctly in your eagerness to defend the inexcusable.

read what I wrote. what makes you think I stated they should be above the law in Ireland? Also while the IRA is procribed I was not aware it was a crime to be a member of SF.

I did. I'm also noticing that you are thumbing your nose to the laws of other countries. Last time I checked, IRA activity is most "overt" inside the borders of the UK. So once again I ask you what makes you think that SF/IRA members or their supporters are above the law anywhere. Irish law does not apply in Columbia.

Whislt being a member of SF is not a crime, I would hasten to point out SF's very strong ties to a proscribed terrorist organisation and their seemingly sheep-like support for all things associated with that organisation, up to and including the horrific acts of barbarity carried out by said organisation.

Your irony is lost on me. where did I say that the Colombia Three are criminals that should be given a break for a crime?

Well they've been convicted haven't they? And you're claiming that they somehow shouldnt' be returned to the country from which they skipped out of to evade serving their sentence. So, by tacit implication you are insinuating that they should be allowed go about their business and not return to jail.

No actually it doesnt! It is a principle of justice that innocence is ASSUMED. One does not have to prove innocence! One proves guilt based on evidence!

Well since they've been convicted, the burden tends to shift somewhat....... it's up to them to either show that the sentence is wrong, or prove that the court is corrupt.

I suppose you are in favour of removal of the legal right to silence as well then?

No. You'd be surprised at what I'm in favour of and against ISAW. I'm a lot more liberal than you might believe.

ISAW

mycroft wrote:

"A full two months", what do you think all SF internal communication is carried out by carrier snail?

If I have your opinion absolutely clear, six days after the men announce they're on offical SF business, the SF party chairman scoffs that they're on SF. One of the men set up SFs Cuba office, a third was involved in "prisoner support" the third a convicted IRA bomber.

And you're trying to tell me, no one in SF rang round to check to see if their story was true? And then and this is the hilarious bit, it takes 8-9 weeks (a little more than your "thirty" days before Adams fesses up.

I told you already. Denials and apologies for denials are two different things. I have no idea if Adams or anyone else apologised earlier but if it took nine weeks then that is what it took. I dont admire it I dont think he is any hero of mine I dont support SF. But he wasnt denying it nine weeks later.
I was quite clear what I wrote. I did not say anywhere that it would take thirty days for anyone to deny something. I stated it would take at most probably thirty days for them to be aware. The evidence you have to supply to refute this is s denial about a month after the event. I suspecvt you will not find one three weeks after since I told you it took about this time for SF to contact the IRA or other ex IRA or whoever and to find out if anyone knew anyone was on a mission to Colombia.

I still dont know if SF ever met to plan the mission. I dont think they did. I believe the three did it on their own bat. But what has any of this toi do with you "list of facts"? Where have you shown anywhere that the three were guilty of anything?





http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=71487993825&p=7y487
994z3x&n=71487994312
And you accept this? And I'm having trouble with the facts. Bless.[/QUOTE]

I accept the lot of that article. I dont deny SF manipulate the media. But you show nowhere in the reference where denials happened over thirty days after the event! Nor do you show anywhere where it has relevance to the Colombia three being guilty of anything you ist of "facts" alledge. Please quote from articles when you include a reference.

The thrust of this piece is not about the "chronoligical list of denials" you were requested to supply. I note also that this single reference contains ALL the links you claim to be part of you vastly researched public domain.

flogen

I've kind of lost track of this discussion, but I would like to place a theory forward that a friend and I were discussing recently.
This incident will pave the way for the physical decomissioning of weapons within the next week. Basically, the IRA make their statement (good news), the Columbia 3 turn up in Ireland (bad news), the IRA destroy their weapons (good news). So the Columbia 3 issue gets buried by more kind acts of the IRA, and the Unionists are told to stop moaning about extradition and start moving now that the IRA are no longer an issue.

The SF PR machine is much more complex that is often given credit, while the Columbia 3 issue won't derail the peace process, they know it will cause them trouble, so they'll be sure to wrap it up with something fluffy. The reason they went public with the return is because they know it will be difficult for the courts to extradite them and so they could bolster support from wavering hardliners who think the IRA has gone soft (basically, this is the IRA saying they can still do what they want)

ISAW

murphaph wrote:

[dodgy WWII movie german accent]"vee shoot spies here, you know"[/dodgy WWII movie german accent]

Lads, you're wasting your time. The SFIRA supporters on this board are so in denial of republican criminality that they're denying the crimes of a bunch of 'bird-watchers' who, supposedly have fcuk all to do with SFIRA anymore. :rolleyes:

I dont support SF or the IRA. I remember the Birmingham anf Guildford cases. I have met some of them. I probably wouldnt have got on with them in life. But they were fitted up and people all claimed they were terrorists. they werent!

The dogs in the street know what these boys were up to, and even if it were proven in a court of law it wouldn't stop the denials on here because courts of law are just tools of oppression etc. etc. blah blah blah...

"the dogs in the streets know" was trotted out for other innocent people as well. You assumption of guilt is not in line with the principle of justice.


The two Brits should be turfed out to Britain and let them sort them out. The paddy should be charged for forging/altering a passport, a very serious offence.[/QUOTE]

You seem to have no idea of the legalities. The two "Brits" as you call them can be proven Irish under Irish Law. Do you even know what the penalty for "altering a passport" is or whether such a crime exists? Ever heard of "double jeopardy" or time already served?

ISAW

Lemming wrote:

Dont insult my (and every other sane voter on this island) intelligence and I'll stop treating you like a petulant child.

I did not insult you. You patronised me and now you insult me. My posts are not childish nor petulant!

You do understand what the term "rehtorical" means right? And "irony"? Good.

there is no rhetoric or irony in the original quote to which I referred. Here it is:

lemming wrote:

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.

I was asking you if you saw a difference between SF/IRA claiming unfair assumption of "guilt" upon three of their members when they themselves see no wrong in either execution (pardon the pun) of, or the backing thereof, attrocities carried out in their name. Most victims being given "verdict" upon the most suprious assumptions of "guilt".
I believe you are not reading correctly in your eagerness to defend the inexcusable.

It is quite clear what you wrote "double standards" "irony" or "rhetoric" dont come into it. You included no smileys or other suggestions of such. I clearly answered the above question and you came back with a partonising remark and claimed you words meant something completely different to what was written by you.

I ask you what makes you think that SF/IRA members or their supporters are above the law anywhere. Irish law does not apply in Columbia.

Once again I will answer you. The IRA is not above the law in Ireland. I do not believe they should be.You refer to the partiucular and it is sufficient that I answer with a particular. now should you really mean the general I do not believe that the IRA should be above the law everywhere. Indeed I do not believe they should be above the law in Ireland. whether primiae facia cases can be made that they are guilty in another juristiction is a matter for the courts to decide. Furthermore, I think you would have little hope of making such a case with particular reference to the colombian judicial system and the three in question. But since you seem to be so sure of yourself and you are welcome to try.

Whislt being a member of SF is not a crime, I would hasten to point out SF's very strong ties to a proscribed terrorist organisation and their seemingly sheep-like support for all things associated with that organisation, up to and including the horrific acts of barbarity carried out by said organisation.

there is no need to point that out to me. As I stated several times I dont support them. But there is also the matter of their zany political and economic policies and their links in the EU parliament.

Well they've been convicted haven't they? And you're claiming that they somehow shouldnt' be returned to the country from which they skipped out of to evade serving their sentence. So, by tacit implication you are insinuating that they should be allowed go about their business and not return to jail.

I am not tacidly suggesting anything. I am stating that I believe that they should not be returned to a country where their rights have been abused in a show trial. I dont subscribe to their politics but yes they should be allowed to go about their business so long as that does not break the law.

Well since they've been convicted, the burden tends to shift somewhat....... it's up to them to either show that the sentence is wrong, or prove that the court is corrupt.

Both of these have been shown but in any case it is NOT up to them to show anything. It is up to the Irish legal system to decide what to do about the matter.

No. You'd be surprised at what I'm in favour of and against ISAW. I'm a lot more liberal than you might believe.

But if you support the right to silence then you cant claim they have to state why they were in colombia. If they have a right to silence then they can exercise that right. so you cant have it both ways you see! You cant claim all people have a right to silence and also claim three people dont have that right as well!

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

I dont see any link to that. but the point is so what? If he served time for being in the IRA why is that relevant to any crime you allege he committed in Colombia? and why suggest he is a "bomber"?

back up the thread. I'm not suggesting he is a convicted bomber, I'm saying he is a convicted bomber.

No you havent! You posted ONE link to one denial six days after the event. I already told you that does not surprise me and explained why! But I am not here to defent SF. They can do that themselves. I am asking you what relevance that any of it has to what you suggest they are guilty of and also exactly what you suggest they are guilty of?

[/quote]

I've amended my last post to include the link, Mitchell's and Adams comments bookmark SFs start of denials Adam's was the first admission that they were there on Offical SF business.

You incesstantly defended SF and the ideal that SFs internal communication is so insanely implausible that it staggers believe. The only plausible explanation is that SF's internal communication system predates pony express and I don't know messages are tied to slow moving chickens which are set between branch to branch.

You claimed facts that you have not fully supported. I already gave you an explaination for denills but that is peripherial to what you suggest they are guilty of with your list of "facts".

And you'll notice you've

No you didnt. you posted a link to mc Laughlins denial six days after the arrest and Adams apology several months later. I asked you for a list of denials and when they stopped so we could see if they went on for over three or four weeks. But the denials are peripheral. they prove nothing as to whether the three are guilty of anything. I have no problem in you calling anyone in SF liars. I dont support them and am not here to make a case for any SF policy. I am here to discuss the human rights of the columbia three.

You're just going to ignore my OP aren't you? I'm not concerned whether they serve time or not, the individual facts remain

I'm concerned about the poor explanation SF gave for their presence, SFs lies over their status and reason for the visit, and their indifference to explain the situation adequately. or to put it another way, if members of any other politcal party where found meeting with terrorists who fund themselves through drugs, and their party strenously denied their reason for the visit and then fantastically backtracked admitted they were there on party business there would be calls for an investigation. Would there not.

No you havent! You have not supplied a list. Do you know what a list is? It is a bit like your "list" of "facts". You suppliued ONE denial and ONE apology for making a denial. One can not extrapolate for a population of one can one? Well maybe you can but I cant. and as I have repeated this is all peripheral. YUou posted a list of "facts" about the Colombia Three. I ask you now to show any "facts" that have any basis in actual fact for imprisionment? Handwaving arguments lilke "SF are liars and they knew liars" or "one of them probably knew about bombs" really is not a good line to be taking. Please be clear about what crime you claim they were committing. I think you know you have little or nothing to support any claims of criminal intent and I think you may well try to run from this one.

The point just does whistle over your head doesn't it.

Firstly and I'll say this again. Adams admission was the first SF admission that the men had been on offical business. So those two links bookend SF denials and their final admission.

I don't know what crime they commited. But I would like a better explanation for SF, considering both SF and the men have lied about their reasons for being there.

Now I have suffered personal attack in this debate but I wont let you away with claiming I ignore evidence. Go back to the list you posted. start at number one and show where you supported ANY "fact" that was challenged and show where this "fact" is relevant to the Colombia three being guilty of anything and I am quite prepared to retract my rebuttal if you can show it to be unsound.

Amid all the double negative and righteous outrage you've missed my point.

My point is I know columbian justice is corrupt, I don't know what crime they commited. But the actions of SF, the furious denials, the sly admission and the furious demands for their return, while never explaining how the men got the false passports, or what their exact reason for being there is not the behaviour of a party commited to democracy. Amid your furious demands and shrill cries for justice you specutlarly failed to miss that point.

And for someone who "doesn't support" SF you've given a laughable degree of benefit of the doubt.

I have made several posts and may have missed some replies. I dont believe I have but that is possible. But please dont claim I am purposfully not following the rules of debate or the charter. If you do you are making an accusation you will have to prove.

Demanding I prove something that I've done several times on this thread. makes work for me, I told you I proved James Monaghan a bomber earlier on, and you've been bleating on "yeah prove it" and then "so what if he is"

It's incredibly tedious fillabusting on your part.

mycroft

ISAW wrote:

I told you already. Denials and apologies for denials are two different things. I have no idea if Adams or anyone else apologised earlier but if it took nine weeks then that is what it took. I dont admire it I dont think he is any hero of mine I dont support SF. But he wasnt denying it nine weeks later.
I was quite clear what I wrote. I did not say anywhere that it would take thirty days for anyone to deny something.

No you said

Sorry. I missed that. 17 August 2001. Six days after the arrest! Hardly surprising is it? I would like your list of denials so we can both agree when they stopped. I doubt they went on for thirty or maybe even twenty days.

Adams comment was the first admission that the Columbia three were on SF business, so by that logic the denials went on for longer than 9 weeks.

Quit changing your goalposts.

I stated it would take at most probably thirty days for them to be aware. The evidence you have to supply to refute this is s denial about a month after the event. I suspecvt you will not find one three weeks after since I told you it took about this time for SF to contact the IRA or other ex IRA or whoever and to find out if anyone knew anyone was on a mission to Colombia.

And again this hilariously absurd concept of it taking 30 days for a message to pass from one side of belfast to another. ISAW thats a fecking joke. Besides, they weren't there as IRA representives, they were there as SF representives which Adams , finally, admitted in October, three months after their arrest. The suggestion that it took SF three months to find out it sent three men to Columbia, is just, f*cking weak.

I accept the lot of that article. I dont deny SF manipulate the media. But you show nowhere in the reference where denials happened over thirty days after the event! Nor do you show anywhere where it has relevance to the Colombia three being guilty of anything you ist of "facts" alledge. Please quote from articles when you include a reference.

And again once more. Adams comments was the first admission that the three where there on SF business. Hence over two months of denials.

Seriously catch yourself on.

Cork

irish1 wrote:

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?

It is not up to Irish1 or any body in SF to determine the appropriate length that these 3 indivuals have served enough time.

If would be more in their line to make themselves available to the Gardai.

Hydroquinone

ISAW wrote:

please dont patronise me.

You've got a bit of a cheek, asking anyone that; considering the tone you adopted with me on here last night.
This, for instance;

What would the warrant for arrest refer to as the US law you suggest they broke?

when I plainly hadn't suggested anything of the sort.

And this gem;

A fair question and many good questions are asked in ignorance. I hope you are a little more wise to the legal principles of justice now.

So it's OK for you to be patronising to me and undeline my ignorance on a subject but when someone calls you dearest you object to the tone?
Right. Well, as long as we all know, then that's all right then, isn't it?

mycroft

I swear if Tony Blair announced slurry tasted bad, some SF members would be making milkshakes out of it to "prove him wrong" while if Adams told them eating gravel Was good for your teeth, they'd eat it like cereal.

Lets look at a few facts, again.

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.

A large group of FARC terrorists from Colombia kidnapped three U.S. missionaries from the New Tribes Mission at a location near the Colombian border. The missionaries are Mark Rich, David Mankins, and Rick Tenenoff. A five million dollar ransom has been demanded;

Several Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas kidnapped two German and two Austrian tourists in Los Katios National Park, demanding a $15 million ransom. On 4 March Colombia soldiers patrolling an area in Choco Department spotted them along with their captors. The rebels killed two of the hostages when the troops discovered their hideout.

http://www.fattyboombatty.com/moreterroristacts.htm

Experts estimate that FARC takes in $200 million to $400 million annually—at least half of its income—from the illegal drug trade.
http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/farc.html

While there is no evidence of narco-terrorism within the United States, intelligence has revealed that some terrorist organizations, such as Columbia's FARC, and to a lesser extent the National Liberation Army (ELN), support their activities through funds acquired as the result of their protection of drug traffickers or the distribution of drugs in Columbia
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress00/Mccraw.htm

To identify this specialization pattern more clearly each cluster should be studied separately.
Appendix 1 exhibits the complete statistical output for each of the FARC unit clusters. Note
that those FARC units belonging to cluster 1 are responsible (in the sample of the database) for
82.80% of all masacres, 86.63% of all civilian murders, 79.53% of all kidnappings and 79.01% of
all attacks against towns and villages. Moreover, they are responsible for 89.02% of all vehicle
theft/retention, 76.34% of all explosions, 76.96% of all bridge and road blowings, 82.49% of
all oil duct attacks and 64.09% of all attacks against the electric infrastructure.
www.webpondo.org/files_ene_mar04/clustfarc.pd

So any more confusion over farc terrorist acts? Or that they're funded by the distribution of drugs? No? good.


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.

Again anyone in SF/SF supporter want to justify these paradoxs?

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

Leaving ISAW confusion over whether they went there in an offical SF or IRA capacity. Does anyone else doubt they went they were there as offical SF representives?

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

Anyone denying this? Seeing as the men admitted this. And have failed to give any proof that their lives were in danger or faced threats.

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

Anyone still disputing this?

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

Actually this bit I got wrong, however afterwards (after the bird watching claims, both the men and FARC admitted to meeting in FARC territory)

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"

Again, anyone disputing this?

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.

I've provided links to this, but just to re-iterate;

numerous newspaper reports in which Sinn Féin spokespersons, including Gerry Adams himself, insisted that none of the three men arrested in Bogota was a member of Sinn Féin.

from here
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=71487993825&p=7y487994z3x&n=71487994312

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.

Again anyone in SF/SF support want to deny/explain this?

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.

Again while I don't doubt Columbian Jails and justice isn't the finest in the world the fact that the men survived years in these jails are were able to stroll out of the country suggests that at least some of the claims about what the underwent and face are at least exagerated. Anyone in SF/SF supporter disputing this?

---

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

Now to the point convinently lost in all of the nickpicking


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 they were arrested why did SF not admit to the men's purpose for being there? The suggestion that it would take SF six days to confirm whether a extremely high profile former IRA man, and their offical representive in cuba were in SF is just laughable. The fact that it took "three months" is just a pathetic lie.

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?

I've noticed not a single SF supporter/member has touched any of the above.

---

Though the suggestion that it's standard for a message to take three weeks between the IRA and SF and among SF branches has given me the odd chuckle.

Here are the plausible reasons why.

1) Slab Murphy's nickname actually comes from his habit of insisting all internal IRA communication be carved in slab's of granite, ala the ten commandments.

2) Young volunteers have taken the words of P O'Neil "whatever you say, say nothing" to heart to such a degree that they refuse to devulge any message even to the person he's supposed to tell.

3) Not content with keeping the Irish language alive, all volunteers now keep the Irish tradition of caliagraphy and illumination alive. All internal SF memos are painstakingly drawn on vellum by monks on innismore.

Feel free to add your own.

hill16

Mycroft you are obsessed with the Republican movement,I think deep down you are a Republican.