48 1 min 14 yrs

colombia%203.jpgI see that in his forthcoming book aformer convicted IRA bomb-maker James "Mortar" Monaghan does not believe he will be forced to return to Colombia to serve a jail sentence for training left-wing Colombian terrorists (FARC) how to kiil more efficiently whilst travelling on a false passport. He is confident that the Irish Government will allow him to remain on Irish soil, safe from serving the 17 years in jail that the Colombian courts have sentenced him. What a disgrace this is – the Irish Government just can’t quite bring itself to give up IRA terrorists, can it? Monaghan and his fellow "eco-tourists" should be behind bars but the Irish Government is determined to keep them free.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

48 thoughts on “TERRORIST BOMBERS SAFE IN IRELAND

  1. David.

    I’m not aware of any current atttempt from Colombia to seek the extradition of the three men. Even then it would be a question for the courts not the government.

  2. "Maybe Catriona Ruane will invite Monaghan to Stormont to launch his book as well"

    It’ll be on next year’s English Literature syllabus, a fantasy adventure describing how three ordinary guys (travelling on false passports) decided to do a bit of bird-watching in one of the most dangerolus parts of the world just for the craic like.

    Apparently SF has blocked Monaghan from doing any pre-launch publicity.
    Wonder why?

  3. The Irish government is required to work within the remits of the constitution of the state. They do not have the same control over judiciary as the UK government does.

    As Henry has said, if an international arrest warrant is produced, then and only then can the government react. It cannot voluntarily hand these people over to the Columbians (even though it might want to)

    Why ?? because the Irish constitution forbids it and it would most likely be stopped in the courts before it could get anywhere.

  4. And whatever anyone might believe about the three men there was nothing in the way of evidence against them produced at their trial and they were acquited.

    Their conviction came at a behind closed doors appeal by the state.

  5. Their conviction came at a behind closed doors appeal by the state.

    I’m gutted about that.

  6. And whatever anyone might believe about the three men there was nothing in the way of evidence against them produced at their trial and they were acquited.

    Sorry Henry, whatever my views on the reason why the government cannot react, I just dont hold the view that those lads were over there on a bird watching trip, in my view they were up to mischief there.

    why can’t they be charged as members of an illegal organization?

    Its probably down to the lack of physical evidence. Im guessing here though

  7. Kloot

    Why did SF campaign for release? Why did they speak at SF events? Because of their birding expertise? Plus the book will probably provide further evidence.

  8. I would hope that these three will represent the last of the international mischief exchange that the IRA was often up to. The defense of them while often legally correct has often been morally suspect.

  9. The defense of them while often legally correct has often been morally suspect.

    But as they say, what has morality got to do with law 🙂

  10. Why did SF campaign for release? Why did they speak at SF events? Because of their birding expertise? Plus the book will probably provide further evidence.

    I think your missing my point. Circumstantial evidence might exist, but physical evidence, that would stand up in court, might not. Again, im just surmising.

  11. Kloot: Sometimes little. I don’t begrudge them requiring a government to prove their case, but I am certainly not going to accept them as somehow equal to the Guilford prisoners.

  12. Kloot

    I just dont hold the view that those lads were over there on a bird watching trip, in my view they were up to mischief there.

    You are entitled to that opinion. You might even be right. But there was nothing produced in court that would support it.

  13. I don’t begrudge them requiring a government to prove their case, but I am certainly not going to accept them as somehow equal to the Guilford prisoners.

    Cant argue with you there. If you play with fire you will get burnt

  14. I doubt there are any revelations in the book, but in an interview when someone asks you a question in front of the cameras, and you don’t answer, or skirt the issue – thats where the difficulty comes in – in my view.

    Eco tourists – as Eddie Royale would say, ‘my arse’.

  15. Despite being obviously guilty as hell..(dont think that will get you sued David!) they would walk from any extradition preceedings even if the Colombians did press for it.

    There was conflicting forensic evidence (including from a british forensic expert), the staes witnesses were discredited (I believe one was charged with perjury) and they were basically acquitted (as Henry said) in the only trial they got which roughly approximated "Western world" norms.

  16. The three may have been in Colombia on dodgy business however the fact of the matter is that no physical evidence exists to prove that they were. There was no compelling evidence whatsoever presented at the original trial, [one of the key witnesses was absolutely discredited when defence video evidence presented proved that James Monaghan was in fact in Dublin on the dates he allegedly saw him at a FARC training camp],they were subsequently aquitted and later convicted at a prosecution appeal held in CAMRA.

    I am always amazed at Unionist response to these kind of cases when contrasted to their attitude to cases of alleged collusion;i.e. Where’s the evidence?.

    As to them being convicted of being members of an illegal organisation, again, evidence. Martin McAuley and James Monaghan are ex IRA prisoners, insofar as I understand Niall Connolly has never been convicted of anything. Is the fact that they were Irish Republicans in Colombia enough to convict them of being members of an illegal group?

    As far as I’m aware the most seriuos charge that can be brought against these three individuals is travelling on false papers.

    As for the Education Minister appearing at Stormont with James Monaghan perhaps she’ll be accompanied by Margaret Thatcher who, after all, has a history of campaigning against the extradition of alleged human
    rights abusers / murderers?.

    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108383

  17. It appears that the "Three Stooges" may indeed evade justice. Pity.

    Colombia has an awful lot of problems, they don’t need north Europeans stumbling down south to add to them.

  18. The evidence of belonging to an illegal organization either exists or would be easy to produce. The Dublin government is trying to get away without charging them. That only confirms the opinion of others around the world that the Irish government can be sneaky, deceptive and a nuisance to deal with. Just like their WWII "Emergency".

  19. The evidence of belonging to an illegal organization either exists or would be easy to produce.

    How do you know this ? Do you understand that to charge someone you have to have evidence. For a successful prosecution you need evidence. Hearsay is not evidence. Appearing in a SF march is not evidence.

  20. That only confirms the opinion of others around the world that the Irish government can be sneaky, deceptive and a nuisance to deal with. Just like their WWII "Emergency".

    You do know that we have had many changes in government since 1920 dont you, or are you suggesting one big conspiracy. That each government as its leaving office calls the new one into a little room and passes on the secret that they are to be a nusicance with international powers because thats the way its done.

    Down through the years the Irish government has introduced internment, the special criminal court and many other draconian legislation for targeting the terrorists that killed its citizens and security forces as well as the citizens and security forces of those in the UK.

  21. Indeed Kloot – as well as Section 31 – which was a more draconian restriction on the Media in relation to Republicans than the UK had for many years.

  22. Well said Paul, Andy and Kloot.

    The 3 gentlemen were probably up to no good (but then again maybe not). The fact is there was no physical evidence to convict them. Their conviction was in a 2nd trial which had a somewhat dubious grasp of due process.

    The commentators here saying "they must be guilty" and "extradite them now" etc seem unconcerned at the lack of due process and unaware of the legal procedures regarding extradition. As Paul says, the former is in stark contrast to the attitude re collusion.

    New Yorker, what on earth are you talking about? Care to provide any other examples of this Oirish Government "sneakiness"?!!

  23. When you have a nation that has legitimized terror as a sanctioned and acceptable arm of their political system things like this should never be a shock to anyone.

    Ireland is the example that the terrorists in the Middle East emulate as their ideal political system.

  24. "When you have a nation that has legitimized terror as a sanctioned and acceptable arm of their political system things like this should never be a shock to anyone."

    Care to explain that rather oddball statement?

  25. "When you have a nation that has legitimized terror as a sanctioned and acceptable arm of their political system things like this should never be a shock to anyone."

    LOL, I can’t believe that as an American you typed that with a straight face. LOL

  26. When you have a nation that has legitimized terror as a sanctioned and acceptable arm of their political system things like this should never be a shock to anyone.

    What utter tripe…

  27. "Ireland is the example that the terrorists in the Middle East emulate as their ideal political system."

    So Al Qaida would like a pluralist parliamentary democracy and a written Constitution with a strong Christian ethos then?

  28. "When you have a nation that has legitimized terror as a sanctioned and acceptable arm of their political system"

    Calm down folks. Troll’s only talking about American foreign policy.

  29. Troll,

    Why don’t you ailenate yourself from just about every Irish person here with stupid comments like that.

    I thought you have an understanding of the situation over here. Looks like i was very very wrong!

  30. Yeah Troll – dont share your view with any Irish people eh?

    Especially when the truth hurts them.

  31. >>Why don’t you ailenate yourself from just about every Irish person here with stupid comments like that.<<

    Typhoo, he was talking about the UK.

  32. Kloot

    I presume you would accept confession as evidence of belonging to an illegal organization.

    Traits of those in the political class last much longer than changes in government. The Dublin government politicians over the years are getting better but I note the recent "sneaking" around US immigrant legislation. Honesty not blarney is the best policy. And its all blarney regarding these three international terrorists Dublin is harboring.

  33. ”Ireland is the example that the terrorists in the Middle East emulate as their ideal political system.”

    Was he Noel?

  34. He was clearly talking about Northern Ireland
    (whisper: when he hears that term, he thinks it’s part of the Irish state… you know, like the Southern States are part of the USA)

  35. "I presume you would accept confession as evidence of belonging to an illegal organization"?

    What NY’r, like the confessions of The Guildford Four, Birmingham six, Judith Ward, Pat Kane etc?

    And BTW, NY the Dublin government can’t "charge" them with anything as they haven’t comitted any crime on Irish soil.

  36. Paul McMahon

    Is it not a crime in Irish law to belong to a proscribed organization on Irish soil? If an Al Queda member landed at Dublin Airport, would he be legally charged?

    Do you agree the Dublin government is harboring international terrorists? And, shouldn’t they do something about it?

  37. NY

    >>Is it not a crime in Irish law to belong to a proscribed organization <<

    It’s a crime in both parts of Ireland, but the authorities throughout the Troubles after afterward were always reluctant to charge anyone with that offence alone as they knew they could never get a conviction.

    >>Do you agree the Dublin government is harboring international terrorists?<<

    It isn’t. The people in question are Irish citizens. The Government can’t chuck them out of the country on no legal basis.

  38. Noel Cunningham

    They were reluctant to charge because of the peace process. The peace process concluded with the opening of the current Assembly.
    They should now be charged with membership and if convicted put in an Irish jail not "chucked" out of the country. That would fulfill the obligation to deal with international terrorists as the world would be sure they were not abroad into mischief.

  39. >>They were reluctant to charge because of the peace process. The peace process concluded with the opening of the current Assembly.<<

    No, as I said, if you look back over cases throughout the entire Troubles, the authorities – and probably more so in Northern Ireland than in the Republic – were always reluctant to press charges solely on the basis of membership of an illegal organisation, and almost always waited for some other charge.

    It is true, howefver, that some people have been convicted solely of RealIRA membership in the South recently – and given very stiff sentences. The difference is probably that there is now no physical reality to being a normal member of PIRA, they don’t train, plan attacks etc., whereas mere membership of RIRA is probably a more active state.

  40. "When you have a nation that has legitimized terror as a sanctioned and acceptable arm of their political system things like this should never be a shock to anyone" – Troll

    "I can’t believe that as an American you typed that with a straight face. LOL" – Chris

    Only an American could write it with a straight face!

  41. NY’r

    As both ex IRA prisoners, [Martin McAuley and James Monaghan],have been convicted and paid their debt to Irish society what do you propose that the three individuals be "charged" with?.

    In relation to the second part of your latest polemic diatribe, No, some concrete evidence of your claims, as opposed to hyperbole and sensationalist nonsense may however swing my opinion.

Comments are closed.