Why are members of Dail Eireann opposing Sean Garland's extradittion?

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0714/1224300713304.html

Irish TImes wrote:

Bid to extradite Garland opposed

TDS, SENATORS and councillors from different parties united yesterday to oppose the extradition of veteran republican and former Official IRA leader Seán Garland (76) to the US.

The US is seeking to extradite Mr Garland over allegations that he took part in a counterfeiting operation involving North Korea and the Russian mafia, in which large quantities of counterfeit $100 notes were manufactured.

The High Court in Dublin is to begin hearing the US extradition request against Mr Garland on Monday next. The hearing is expected to take four days.

Chairing a press conference at the Shelbourne Hotel yesterday, Rev Chris Hudson, a Unitarian minister from Belfast, said Mr Garland had been working for peace on the island since 1972, when the Official IRA ceasefire was declared.

Independent TD for Waterford John Halligan said politicians from different parties were “outraged at the attempt to extradite a decent man”, adding that Mr Garland had been virtually “held captive” in his own city of Dublin.

Fianna Fáil Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said: “One can only imagine the trauma that Seán Garland has been put through. All he ever gave to Ireland was service, in every sense of the word.”

Sinn Féin TD Martin Ferris said his party was giving “100 per cent” backing to Mr Garland, adding: “I hope that we will have the support of the Government.”

Other TDs present included Richard Boyd Barrett of the United Left Alliance, Labour’s Joanna Tuffy, Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party, Fianna Fáil’s Timmy Dooley and Independent Finian McGrath.

Weren't we always told the left opposed criminality and violence - seems the OIRA are the exception! Viva la revolucion! :rolleyes:

I can understand Trot Tuffy and the likes being soft on criminality, but some of the others raise eyebrows.

The guy's got a case to answer, so let him answer it. Why on earth members of Dail Eireann would be supporting him beats the hell out of me, all variants of the IRA were dedicated to the overthrow of this state and the overthrow of democracy and it sickens me that any representative of Dail Eireann would connive in this.

Fianna Fáil Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said: “One can only imagine the trauma that Seán Garland has been put through. All he ever gave to Ireland was service, in every sense of the word.”

Some bloody service, with the emphasis on bloody - do these people have no shame, or concept of human dignity or decency?

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man

Maybe because he is a decent man, not a violent one and I suspect many of these politicians know him and his history in detail before supporting such a cause.

It seems to me you've seen the word IRA in his past and went on an rant. He was a previous member of the Official Ira, which has links to several current political parties and nothing like modern day namesake.

Also the fact he was previously OIRA, has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The man is 77 year old who has been seriously ill with cancer and diabetes and harassed by US officials for several years. So I ask you your own question you have no shame, or concept of human dignity or decency?

I highly doubt elected TDs would oppose this especially since it is Americans looking for it, unless they had good reason. I also highly doubt, that Mr Garland ringlead an operation with the Russian Mafia and Korean gangs to make counterfeit notes especially at his age.

I suspect he has no case to answer or at the very least a minor role in what happened. More likely an effort by US officials for some other reasoning.

Hotblack Desiato

Don't you dare make excuses about the Official IRA, they're murderers and you know it.

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man

ninja900 wrote: »

Don't you dare make excuses about the Official IRA, they're murderers and you know it.

If you're willing to say the British Army are murderers then fair enough, otherwise you are a hypocrite. They have killed innocent people too.

Again, I'd say you would have no problem voting for the Labour party either yet their origins come from the Official IRA with at least some of them being involved with the workers party back then.

Anyway what does this have to do with an ill Sean Garland and the Russian Mafia? Nothing to do with the topic, but as usual the dinosaurs will start screaming look at his past and not even bother to look at the topic at hand.

Basically I would rather trust elected officials than the likes of you with a lynch mob mentality, and my love for elected officials is slim to zero.

JustinDee

The moral relativism on this is amazing.
Being ill or aged excuses someone from answering a case against them? It doesn't.
Being suspected of involvement with organised crime is a serious matter. Age or condition doesn't change that.

20Cent

The US don't have a proper justice system, their prisons are inhumane and they torture people. No one should be extradited there.

Pride Fighter

ninja900 wrote: »

Don't you dare make excuses about the Official IRA, they're murderers and you know it.

OIRA and Official Sinn Fein wanted to go down the path of peace. They voted to recognise the Republic of Ireland, fight elections and to be non-violent in the mid 70's. The group that split off were Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA, they were the bloodthirsty ones.

OIRA only fought minor defensive actions, small scale feuding with the INLA/PIRA and engaged in fundraising activities, mainly bank robberies.

Learn your history before you speak. The modern day Sinn Fein is only about 40 years old, and the OIRA despite being no angels dont have the level of blood on their hands the Provisionals do.

whoopdedoo

if I was politically affiliated and had received enough of this guys "super dollars" I'd be offering my support

as it turns out I'm not affiliated with anyone and in the late 90's/early 00's a certain friend was getting so many "super dollars" he was just giving them away and I changed a few here and there.

I say let him away to the us of a!!

anymore

Pride Fighter wrote: »

OIRA and Official Sinn Fein wanted to go down the path of peace. They voted to recognise the Republic of Ireland, fight elections and to be non-violent in the mid 70's. The group that split off were Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA, they were the bloodthirsty ones.

OIRA only fought minor defensive actions, small scale feuding with the INLA/PIRA and engaged in fundraising activities, mainly bank robberies.

Learn your history before you speak. The modern day Sinn Fein is only about 40 years old, and the OIRA despite being no angels dont have the level of blood on their hands the Provisionals do.

Why would a group wishing to go down the path of peace feel the need to rob banks ? Did their Socialist bottoms need to be expensively upholstered ?

Frogeye

Pride Fighter wrote: »

OIRA only fought minor defensive actions, small scale feuding with the INLA/PIRA and engaged in fundraising activities, mainly bank robberies.


Well that alright then isn't! Lovely chaps. I mean small scale feuding... sounds like fisty cuffs outside supermacs after a few pints on a saturday night! I think it was a bit more than that, knee cappings, beatings, murders.... As for the bank robberies.....aggh sure the banks are only a shower of wXXXkers so what harm was there in that! What level of blood is acceptable? I agree they weren't sectarian but they were still thugs just not as focused as the provo's.

OIRA were robbing money and pushing people around for for Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein/the workers party, the workers party and Democratic left right up until the 90's. Gilmore , rabbit and all the other lefties were well aware of it. Could that have something to do with the support of Garland?

Dyr

ninja900 wrote: »

Don't you dare make excuses about the Official IRA, they're murderers and you know it.

They mostly just murdered their fellow republicans, you'll be glad to hear no doubt.

Wolfe Tone

He's a decent man imo, and I wouldn't be a fan of the officials.

He led the assault on the RUC barracks during the border campaign in which Sean South and Fergal O Hanlon were killed. Before that he also joined the British Army as a spy. He was jailed and interned a few times too.

Anyway, he and his policies were pretty progressive for the time, too progressive some would say. His policies where not suitable or realistic at the time.

He's an old man who has worked hard for peace. What he is accused of appears to be the stuff of fantasy. As someone already touched on, I reckon this has quite a lot to do with the state of his health.

FTA69

Sean Garland not a violent man? He presided over the Official IRA which was up to its arse in feuding, racketeering and also worked hand in glove with the crown forces in Ireland. During the Hunger Strike, Garland actually called for people to support Thatcher in her stance against political status for political prisoners and once spoke in front of a banner declaring that "Only State Power Can Defeat the Provisionals."

The absolute irony of the situation here is that Garland and his cronies also vehemently supported the extradition of Republicans to the north where they were to be subject to interrogation in Castlereagh before being sentenced by non-jury Diplock courts on the back of bogus "confessions" which were often extracted via torture. The fact that this arsehole is now calling on people to oppose his extradition after he was nabbed counterfeiting money is gas.

Should he be extradited? Probably not. Would I give a sh*t if he was? Definitely not.

Wolfe Tone

FTA69 wrote: »

Sean Garland not a violent man? He presided over the Official IRA which was up to its arse in feuding, racketeering and also worked hand in glove with the crown forces in Ireland. During the Hunger Strike, Garland actually called for people to support Thatcher in her stance against political status for political prisoners and once spoke in front of a banner declaring that "Only State Power Can Defeat the Provisionals."

The absolute irony of the situation here is that Garland and his cronies also vehemently supported the extradition of Republicans to the north where they were to be subject to interrogation in Castlereagh before being sentenced by non-jury Diplock courts on the back of bogus "confessions" which were often extracted via torture. The fact that this arsehole is now calling on people to oppose his extradition after he was nabbed counterfeiting money is gas.

Should he be extradited? Probably not. Would I give a sh*t if he was? Definitely not.

I wasnt aware of a lot of that(the support Thatcher bit in particular), guess I will have to reevaluate me calling him a "decent man".

Still dont think he should be extradited though.

FTA69

Being honest about it, he shouldn't be extradited. And the Irish government should have the balls to tell the US that they aren't handing over terminally ill pensioners over a non-violent crime. That having been said, Garland's new found piety is nauseating to say the least. Read the Lost Revolution by Brian Hanley, the antics of the Sticks is well documented there.

anymore

FTA69 wrote: »

Sean Garland not a violent man? He presided over the Official IRA which was up to its arse in feuding, racketeering and also worked hand in glove with the crown forces in Ireland. During the Hunger Strike, Garland actually called for people to support Thatcher in her stance against political status for political prisoners and once spoke in front of a banner declaring that "Only State Power Can Defeat the Provisionals."

The absolute irony of the situation here is that Garland and his cronies also vehemently supported the extradition of Republicans to the north where they were to be subject to interrogation in Castlereagh before being sentenced by non-jury Diplock courts on the back of bogus "confessions" which were often extracted via torture. The fact that this arsehole is now calling on people to oppose his extradition after he was nabbed counterfeiting money is gas.

Should he be extradited? Probably not. Would I give a sh*t if he was? Definitely not.

Without knowing too much about the ins and outs of Republican politics, I have long wondered if the reason the IRA went down the path of peace was because the Provos made them look like such incompetent old buffers !:)

charlemont

ninja900 wrote: »

Don't you dare make excuses about the Official IRA, they're murderers and you know it.

He can dare do what he wants. Id rather murderers than oppressors anyday.

anymore

charlemont wrote: »

He can dare do what he wants. Id rather murderers than oppressors anyday.

And the difference is ????

Hotblack Desiato

charlemont wrote: »

He can dare do what he wants. Id rather murderers than oppressors anyday.

My apologies to you and to "I would ride myself because I'm a sexy man", that came out far stronger than I'd intended. Of course one is entitled to hold whatever opinion one desires, and to express that opinion (subject to the constraints of our constitution, libel law and the rules set down by boards.ie) but what I wished to express was my disgust at those who today seek to retrospectively legitimise barbaric murders. History is being rewritten as we speak, the Provos are already being airbrushed into 'heroes' so it's only a matter of time before the Stickies get the same treatment, I suppose. What I can't comprehend is that members of Dail Eireann are conniving in this, do they have no appreciation of the *IRA's contempt for the legitimacy of this state and its institutions?

By all means express your opinion, just don't expect me and people like me to agree with you. People who disagree with murder whether commited by 'freedom fighters' or those sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Thank goodness the *IRA didn't get their way, otherwise the freedom of expression we are all taking advantage of right now simply would not exist.

charlemont

ninja900 wrote: »

My apologies to you and to "I would ride myself because I'm a sexy man", that came out far stronger than I'd intended. Of course one is entitled to hold whatever opinion one desires, and to express that opinion (subject to the constraints of our constitution, libel law and the rules set down by boards.ie) but what I wished to express was my disgust at those who today seek to retrospectively legitimise barbaric murders. History is being rewritten as we speak, the Provos are already being airbrushed into 'heroes' so it's only a matter of time before the Stickies get the same treatment, I suppose. What I can't comprehend is that members of Dail Eireann are conniving in this, do they have no appreciation of the *IRA's contempt for the legitimacy of this state and its institutions?

By all means express your opinion, just don't expect me and people like me to agree with you. People who disagree with murder whether commited by 'freedom fighters' or those sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Thank goodness the *IRA didn't get their way, otherwise the freedom of expression we are all taking advantage of right now simply would not exist.

No need to apologise, I can be an ass sometimes myself, Freedom of Speech is important even if we disagree, With the history left behind in Ireland by colonisation and partition its not hard to see how groups like the IRA emerge, Personally I don't know much about Sean Garland but I don't want to see the man extradited as I support the Peace Process and think all this should be left in the past.

Pat D. Almighty

Perhaps Gilmore is afraid that the truth about his republican past will come to light...

JustinDee

FTA69 wrote: »

Being honest about it, he shouldn't be extradited. And the Irish government should have the balls to tell the US that they aren't handing over terminally ill pensioners over a non-violent crime

What if he is guilty of the crimes he is being extradited to answer on however?
He should be protected just because he is old and ill?? How does this selective application of the law apply exactly? Does it apply to war criminals, for example? Organised criminals? Petty criminals?

I've seen inexplicable behaviour before from the Irish govt over extradition (the Columbia Three, for example) but where does the law come into it? A Minister, Michael Martin, can can decry the likes of Israel for its spies using forged Irish passports in an act of violence. Yet refuse to extradite to Colombia, three Irish individuals for the same passport crimes while guilty of training folk in bomb-making.

Sunnyisland

Bambi wrote: »

They mostly just murdered their fellow republicans, you'll be glad to hear no doubt.

They were the first to kill a British soldier home on leave in derry, They also blew up aldershot barracks in england in revenge for bloody sunday,They have a lot more blood on there hands than people are saying.Also dont forget the INLA and its founding members were all OIRA before the split.As for sean garland & extradition let him be,it wont be doing anybody justice.

Silvio.Dante

There are some in the present Govt who, back in the day were closely associated with some who were allegedly printing Punts in a warehouse in Dublins North inner city. Best let sleeping dogs lie eh...;)

Dyr

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

There are some in the present Govt who, back in the day were closely associated with some who were allegedly printing Punts in a warehouse in Dublins North inner city. Best let sleeping dogs lie eh...;)

Those duds were merely resting in their HQ

Palmach

JustinDee wrote: »

What if he is guilty of the crimes he is being extradited to answer on however?
He should be protected just because he is old and ill?? How does this selective application of the law apply exactly? Does it apply to war criminals, for example? Organised criminals? Petty criminals?

I've seen inexplicable behaviour before from the Irish govt over extradition (the Columbia Three, for example) but where does the law come into it? A Minister, Michael Martin, can can decry the likes of Israel for its spies using forged Irish passports in an act of violence. Yet refuse to extradite to Colombia, three Irish individuals for the same passport crimes while guilty of training folk in bomb-making.

Are you familiar with the Colombian Justice System? It doesn't meet minimum international standards and much as these thugs might deserve jail time they have the right to a fair trial. Ireland no extradition with Colombia at the time so their extradition could not have been facilitated.

The US by contrast has a proper functioning judicial system so garland should face the music.

JustinDee

Palmach wrote: »

Are you familiar with the Colombian Justice System? It doesn't meet minimum international standards and much as these thugs might deserve jail time they have the right to a fair trial. Ireland no extradition with Colombia at the time so their extradition could not have been facilitated.

The US by contrast has a proper functioning judicial system so garland should face the music.

Yes, I am already familiar with Colombia's judiciary. It is full member of the ICC, for a start. I also know of its extradition treaty with Rep.Ireland. Nothing to show extradition should not take place. The guilty parties even had option to serve sentence here.
Same crimes as those in Mossad squad executing the killer from Hamas, who was also travelling on bogus passport.
One standard for one and another, conveniently for another.

Back to this particular issue, regardless of age or condition, everyone should be accountable for their actions.

FTA69

JustinDee wrote: »

What if he is guilty of the crimes he is being extradited to answer on however?
He should be protected just because he is old and ill?? How does this selective application of the law apply exactly? Does it apply to war criminals, for example? Organised criminals? Petty criminals?

His age and his illness should come into it to be honest, especially because it concerns a non-violent crime such as counterfeiting money. At the end of the day Garland didn't murder US citizens etc, neither is he responsible for war crimes etc. I would be sceptical of the morality of extraditing an old and dying man over fiddling US dollars. To be honest about it I am also suspicious of the general way the US conducts itself in regards to foreign policy i.e. treating the rest of the world as their own personal stomping ground in their "war on terror/for oil."

Yet refuse to extradite to Colombia, three Irish individuals for the same passport crimes while guilty of training folk in bomb-making.

They were subjected to a farce of a trial in the most corrupt country in the world where the key witnesses admitted to being liars. They were then found innocent (against all the odds) before the state intervened and decided to pronounce them guilty instead because the verdict didn't suit them. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and that includes not sending them to sh*tholes like Colombia to be subject to kangaroo courts. Do you remember that woman about to be lynched by Islamic courts over naming a teddy-bear Mohammed, if she by chance were to have fled back to Scotland would you have deemed it appropriate to extradite her? Of course not, because like the Colombia 3 she would have been subjected to an improper trial.

JustinDee

Great. So if a suspect in a serious organised-criminal offence such as money-laundering or counterfeiting, just stick it out until you get old or sick then expect a sympathetic release.
As for those charges in Colombia, I'd suggest you do a bit more objective delving into it.
Also travelling under false or stolen passports is a criminal and extraditable offence.

FTA69

JustinDee wrote: »

As for those charges in Colombia, I'd suggest you do a bit more objective delving into it.
Also travelling under false or stolen passports is a criminal and extraditable offence.

I'm very familiar with the case, probably more so than you. The men were convicted of the passport charge and were released after paying a fine, they had already served a year in La Modelo jail on remand. It was after the bullsh*t overturning of the verdict acquitting them of bomb-making that they had bunked on, and rightly so. I wouldn't be hanging around either, and the Irish government was absolutely correct in not facilitating the whims of a tin-pot state like Colombia.

baalthor

ninja900 wrote: »

History is being rewritten as we speak, the Provos are already being airbrushed into 'heroes' so it's only a matter of time before the Stickies get the same treatment

Er, the Stickies got this "treatment" long ago in the 1970s. By the 80s prominent members were in the Dail, in key positions in trade unions and most importantly, practically running RTE (i.e. Eoghan Harris).

You should really read that book "Lost Revolution" that FTA mentioned but to simplify: the Officials/Worker's Party during the 70s/80s were pro-British/Unionist/Conor Cruise O'Brienist on the North and pro-USSR/East Germany/Cuba/North Korea on everything else.

Oh, and Chris Hudson was well known in the 80s/90s as the organiser of the Peace Train movement. This was where groups would organise trips from Dublin to Belfast by train to protest against the Provos blowing up the rail line.

PS: Here is a full list of Garland's supporters:

http://www.seangarland.org/sponsors.html

JustinDee

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm very familiar with the case, probably more so than you. The men were convicted of the passport charge and were released after paying a fine, they had already served a year in La Modelo jail on remand. It was after the bullsh*t overturning of the verdict acquitting them of bomb-making that they had bunked on, and rightly so. I wouldn't be hanging around either, and the Irish government was absolutely correct in not facilitating the whims of a tin-pot state like Colombia.

Given your apologetics for organised-criminal behaviour deeming it as excusable and unpunishable, I'll take your 'legal expertise' of the Colombian extradition with an extreme pinch of salt, thanks.

BlaasForRafa

JustinDee wrote: »

Great. So if a suspect in a serious organised-criminal offence such as money-laundering or counterfeiting, just stick it out until you get old or sick then expect a sympathetic release.
As for those charges in Colombia, I'd suggest you do a bit more objective delving into it.
Also travelling under false or stolen passports is a criminal and extraditable offence.

Oh come on, don't you know that those guys in colombia were out butterfly catching?

As for the counterfeiting, I bet if it was a former unionist leader that you wouldn't have so many on this thread calling for clemency.

goose2005

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man wrote: »

Also the fact he was previously OIRA, has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The man is 77 year old who has been seriously ill with cancer and diabetes and harassed by US officials for several years. So I ask you your own question you have no shame, or concept of human dignity or decency?

Load of crap. Being old or sick shouldn't take a second off your sentence.

FTA69

JustinDee wrote: »

Given your apologetics for organised-criminal behaviour deeming it as excusable and unpunishable, I'll take your 'legal expertise' of the Colombian extradition with an extreme pinch of salt, thanks.

Ha ha ha. In other words: "I have no idea what I was talking about so I'm not discussing it anymore in case I continue to get found out."

JustinDee

FTA69 wrote: »

Ha ha ha. In other words: "I have no idea what I was talking about so I'm not discussing it anymore in case I continue to get found out."

How old are you???
You cherry-pick some opinion from the web and regurgitate it elsewhere in a simplistic tilted synopsis on the web. This somehow 'qualifies' you on the subject, in your eyes anyway.
Then the anonymous internet moniker laughs to themself. Ok-doke.
Don't twist the actualities, fella. If you need help with translation of court particulars, do feel free to ask.

stevenmu

FTA69 wrote: »

Being honest about it, he shouldn't be extradited. And the Irish government should have the balls to tell the US that they aren't handing over terminally ill pensioners over a non-violent crime.

For better or worse balls have nothing to do it. There's fairly rigid extradition treaties in place which define under what circumstances an individual can or can not be extradited to the other country.

There's potentially some very interesting legal arguments to be made about whether someon can be extradited to the user for an alleged action not committed within their durisdiction, and which was not a crime here at the time of the alleged actions.

The worst thing here though IMO is policiticians trying to get involved in something which they are supposed to be exlicitly forbidden to do. An extradition should be purely a matter for the justice system and politicians should have zero influence in it's outcome.

FTA69

How old are you???
You cherry-pick some opinion from the web and regurgitate it elsewhere in a simplistic tilted synopsis on the web. This somehow 'qualifies' you on the subject, in your eyes anyway.
Then the anonymous internet moniker laughs to themself. Ok-doke.
Don't twist the actualities, fella. If you need help with translation of court particulars, do feel free to ask.

Hang on a second here bud, you're the one who threw in a load of guff about false passports being reason enough for extradition, despite the fact that this issue had been dealt with already via a fine and time served. That's the fact of the matter, sin é. The only contentious issue of the case was the charge of training FARC, they were acquitted of that too after a farce of a trial where the main prosecution witnesses were proven to be blatant liars. After their release this verdict was then arbitrarily overturned and they were found guilty in their absence. Not surprisingly, they weren't going to hang around to further suffer the whims of one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

So please, don't lecture me about "particulars" when you're the one demonstrating with every post that you really aren't aware of the facts in this case.

murphaph

FTA69 wrote: »

Hang on a second here bud, you're the one who threw in a load of guff about false passports being reason enough for extradition, despite the fact that this issue had been dealt with already via a fine and time served. That's the fact of the matter, sin é. The only contentious issue of the case was the charge of training FARC, they were acquitted of that too after a farce of a trial where the main prosecution witnesses were proven to be blatant liars. After their release this verdict was then arbitrarily overturned and they were found guilty in their absence. Not surprisingly, they weren't going to hang around to further suffer the whims of one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

So please, don't lecture me about "particulars" when you're the one demonstrating with every post that you really aren't aware of the facts in this case.

But you accept they were up to no good in Colombia, yeah?

JustinDee

murphaph wrote: »

But you accept they were up to no good in Colombia, yeah?

Well there are two warrants out for them (one is from Colombia, one is international) but maybe if they hang on til they get much older or ill, it'll all be forgotten.

FTA69

But you accept they were up to no good in Colombia, yeah?

I don't know what they were doing and neither do you to be honest.

fryup

the guy is neck deep in crime..money laundering etc the evidence against him is overwhelming

so why the hell is the state harbouring this criminal?? does he have tales to tell or are we just soft on republicans? (sneeky regard and all that)

Liam Byrne

JustinDee wrote: »

Great. So if a suspect in a serious organised-criminal offence such as money-laundering or counterfeiting, just stick it out until you get old or sick then expect a sympathetic release.
As for those charges in Colombia, I'd suggest you do a bit more objective delving into it.
Also travelling under false or stolen passports is a criminal and extraditable offence.

It's an approach that worked for Haughey whom we never had the pleasure of watching stand trial.

john reilly

JustinDee wrote: »

What if he is guilty of the crimes he is being extradited to answer on however?
He should be protected just because he is old and ill?? How does this selective application of the law apply exactly? Does it apply to war criminals, for example? Organised criminals? Petty criminals?

I've seen inexplicable behaviour before from the Irish govt over extradition (the Columbia Three, for example) but where does the law come into it? A Minister, Michael Martin, can can decry the likes of Israel for its spies using forged Irish passports in an act of violence. Yet refuse to extradite to Colombia, three Irish individuals for the same passport crimes while guilty of training folk in bomb-making.

So you would support Margaret Thatchers extradition to ireland for war ctimes then.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

So you would support Margaret Thatchers extradition to ireland for war ctimes then.

Is there any particular reason for why you think that I wouldn't?

lugha

fryup wrote: »

the guy is neck deep in crime..money laundering etc the evidence against him is overwhelming

so why the hell is the state harbouring this criminal?? does he have tales to tell or are we just soft on republicans? (sneeky regard and all that)

Did the court not find that the allegations against him also contravene the laws of this state and thus he should stand trial here, if at all?

getz

john reilly wrote: »

So you would support Margaret Thatchers extradition to ireland for war ctimes then.

what war crimes has maggy committed in the republic ?

Dr Galen

Don't dredge up old threads

Cheers

DrG