McDowells claim about FARC-SF connection in tonights debate

[How on earth...?]

Just wondering if he could be sued for libel on this (or does he have immunity as he is MOJ)? I cant remember exactly how he put it but he claimed SF received $25 million dollars for training FARC or something to that effect. now whether it is true or not is another issue, i personally doubt it, but surely SF would want to stop these sort of remarks being thrown at them.

Mc Dowell is an attention seekign toe-rag. He doesn't care to much for fact, just whatever gets him and his ailing party publicity.

He is also a bully - picking on the weak. As in Sinn Fein's standing among the public wopuld mean that most people would believe this so Mc Dowell doesn't need or even want proof.

THESE ARE THE KIND OF INCIDENTS TAHT MAKE PEOPLE TGHROW THE FASCIST LABEL AT HIM

[HP]

It's up to McDowell to stand up his allegations. There was no evidence produced against the three guys either here or in Colombia.

Oh yeah, forgot they were over there bird watching or something like that. I seem to remember them being found guilty and they jumped bail.

What you have forgotten (and it was only last night) is that the allegations were not about anyone in Colombia, they were about Adams who was sitting just a few feet away from him and they were made on live tv without the protection of dail privilege.

[Col]

I was very disappointed with Adams' mute rebuttal to McDowell's claim. It has led many people to believe that there is at least some truth to it.

The facts of the case of the Columbia Three are there for all to see. The FARC policy at the time was to invite any international observers to their territory, an offer which Mo Mowlam and a Papal envoy took up. Does this make them implicit in narco terrorism?

Whatever these three men's intentions, they were found not guilty of providing training to FARC guerillas. Only on appeal was this judgement quashed by the Attorney General's Office. One of the judges on the panel of three said after the appeal by the prosecution was upheld that he was amazed with the decision, given that forensic tests on the men's clothing produced no evidence whatsoever of explosives traces.

Columbia has been indicted by the United Nations for countless human rights violations. There is a reason why Ireland has no extradition agreement with the country. Corruption in the country is rampant and it is widely believed that political motivations were behind the Attorney General's decision to find the men guilty.

It is ludicrous to suggest that FARC guerillas are funding electioneering in Ireland. If that were the case, and if Michael McDowell had any evidence whatsoever, Adams would be facing criminal prosecutions. So either there is a woeful inadequacy in the law of the country to deal with criminal terrorists, or McDowell has no proof that anything happened.

I know this is going to cost at least some votes in the election. Adams has appeared weak in his defence, which has lent credence to McDowell's accusations.So the question is, why is Adams letting him away with it scot free? Surely if there is no evidence, Adams has a good case to make for libel?

[Gerrry]

I was very disappointed with Adams' mute rebuttal to McDowell's claim. It has led many people to believe that there is at least some truth to it.

The facts of the case of the Columbia Three are there for all to see. The FARC policy at the time was to invite any international observers to their territory, an offer which Mo Mowlam and a Papal envoy took up. Does this make them implicit in narco terrorism?

Whatever these three men's intentions, they were found not guilty of providing training to FARC guerillas. Only on appeal was this judgement quashed by the Attorney General's Office. One of the judges on the panel of three said after the appeal by the prosecution was upheld that he was amazed with the decision, given that forensic tests on the men's clothing produced no evidence whatsoever of explosives traces.

Columbia has been indicted by the United Nations for countless human rights violations. There is a reason why Ireland has no extradition agreement with the country. Corruption in the country is rampant and it is widely believed that political motivations were behind the Attorney General's decision to find the men guilty.

It is ludicrous to suggest that FARC guerillas are funding electioneering in Ireland. If that were the case, and if Michael McDowell had any evidence whatsoever, Adams would be facing criminal prosecutions. So either there is a woeful inadequacy in the law of the country to deal with criminal terrorists, or McDowell has no proof that anything happened.

I know this is going to cost at least some votes in the election. Adams has appeared weak in his defence, which has lent credence to McDowell's accusations.So the question is, why is Adams letting him away with it scot free? Surely if there is no evidence, Adams has a good case to make for libel?

Libel has nothing to do with whether an allegation is actually true or not. Adams was right not to get involved in a debate over this sort of bullsh*t from McD. McD was trying to divert attention away from debating real issues and the failures of this Government and to start debating with McD over it would have let him succeed in diverting attention.

bonovox:

Oh yeah, forgot they were over there bird watching or something like that. I seem to remember them being found guilty and they jumped bail.

You conveniently forget that everyscrap of evidence that was offered to accuse these men of training FARC guerillas was completely discredited. You also forget that they were actually found NOT GUILTY. Only because the Government didnt like the verdict, a secret tribunal, which the three lads or the solicitors had no access to present evidence or cross examination etc, overturned the verdict despite no new trial being hel dor evidence presented.

[bobbysands81]

Any Minister of Justice that accuses and tries based on accusations and absolutely no proof should be sacked immediately.

[Gerrry]

Any Minister of Justice that accuses and tries based on accusations and absolutely no proof should be sacked immediately.

And why have no Senior Gardai go the sack for failing to bring any of these people before the courts? Surely McD should have fired them for incompetence if he has so much knowledge of this and yet the Gardai fail to bring any of them before the courts?

[Col]

Libel has nothing to do with whether an allegation is actually true or not.

Point taken but surely if the allegation has no basis in fact whatsoever, Adams has nothing to lose by bringing forward a libel case in order to discredit the accusations. He should at least do something.

Adams was right not to get involved in a debate over this sort of bullsh*t from McD. McD was trying to divert attention away from debating real issues and the failures of this Government and to start debating with McD over it would have let him succeed in diverting attention.

True, McDowell was trying to divert. He also succeeded. I remember very few references to PD failures, and PD policy in general. McDowell went on the defensive, and to most observers it seems as though he won the debate.

Just as an aside, the link given for the Columbia Three article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia_Three) is almost entirely referenced from The Guardian. Be wary in taking it at face value.

For a different perspective go here: http://www.dannymorrison.ie/The_Late...ning_Case.html

[jmcc]

McDowell is an intelligence liability. I would not be surprised if he is off the distribution lists on various issues because of his propensity to leak state secrets in his own interests.

Regards...jmcc