New York obviously thought the proof was strong enough otherwise they would not have prosecuted... as I said... US government chose to ignore British government intel that NORAID were buying guns and bombs. the fact that you later change your law with the Patriot act does not change this simple fact... this is how you treat your biggest ally in the world..... so back to the original question of why more nations won't help out.... because the US want these nations to act in the US interest rather than in the world or their own interest.

THE PATRIOT ACT WAS POST 9/11 AND STILL WAS ALMOST REPEALED!! A law like this would never have survived pre-9/11. New York Prosecuted? Did they win? Or did they have insufficient proof to convict? IF YOUR COUNTRY WANTED TO TAKE DOWN IRISH FUNDING ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS PRESENT PROSECUTERS IN THE ORGANIZATIONS AREA WITH EVIDENCE TO USE. NO EVIDENCE THEY CANNOT DO SH!T.

As a person who grew up in Northern Ireland betwenn 79 and 97 I can tell you that EVERYONE knew that 90% of the funds which kept the campaign of terror going came from the US, that is a fact. Paul is not US bashing, he just wants you to accept the fact that the IRA are not the romantiscised freedom fighters they were protrayed as. They wee terrorist scum just like all the rest. Admit you made a mistake and that the "Irish American" politicians who turned a blind eye should have bothered to find out what was going on.

I have no love for the irish terrorist. I have a problem with the fact that he is making us responsible for the fact the Prosecutors had no proof to shut down noraid and its like. We could not shut them down because everyone knew it. Everyone knows Michael Jackson is guilty, but alas, insufficient evidence to convict. OJ Simpson, guilty as hell, evidence and procedure let him off. He is angry we could not stop something we had no evidence on. If i remember correctly Britain had evidence but could not release it for use in prosecution. What does he expect us to do? The evidence to convict these people doesnt start here, it starts there, where the money is laundered from Aid related activites to terror. We needed British intelligence to have a hope of convicting these people. As to the Irish Americans who supported these organizations, many simply did not believe the people they knew, their family and friends, were using the money for terror, some might have known but nowhere near a majority. HOW DO YOU WIN A COURT CASE WITHOUT EVIDENCE?

I can understand that you won't get a conviction when jury's are involved. New York obviously though the proof was enough to convict but the jury thought otherwise. this does not change the fact that NORAID raised money for terrorists for 30 years and "nothing realistic" was done to stop it in the US... I don't know if this is because pro terrorist politicians blocked it or not (I call anybody supporting the IRA a terroist supporter)... the IRA were classed as terrorists and raising money for them should not have been allowed. NORAID claiming the money goes to supporting families ect is exacly the same as Iran or someone else paying families od suicide bombers money... anybody attemtping to block this should have been exposed as supporters of terrorists.... forget voters here because the IRA were not romantic. they murdered women and children and that is what should have been pointed out.. anybody trying to defend NORAID should have been on TV being shown to be a terrorist supporter. anyway. lets drop this because the sept 11 should have changed the US view on terror once and for all. no support for recognised terrorists for any reason, anywhere.

Straight up Paul, the legislation that allows us to shut down those organizations is Unconstitutional. The laws may be repealed eventually. The ACLU is hard at work. Free Societies have problems that might seem ludicrous to others with more realistic laws, but those are our nations rights. Personally i like the fact the Government took these steps, but the slope they have started down is a long and slippery road which leads we know not where.

Another ignorant. France fights terrorism since a long time (We French have already began the terrorist hunt as your president was still shaking dirty saudis hands). French SF, Navy and AF are involved in Afghanistan since the beggining of WOT, as Germany. As you can see with terrorist attacks in London, be a vassal of the USA is not the best anti-terrorist policy.... :-D

"Another ignorant. France fights terrorism since a long time (We French have already began the terrorist hunt as your president was still shaking dirty saudis hands). French SF, Navy and AF are involved in Afghanistan since the beggining of WOT, as Germany. As you can see with terrorist attacks in London, be a vassal of the USA is not the best anti-terrorist policy.... :-D" So they should be French vassals? Just wondering, are you going to trade off Eastern Europe again to the next Hitler?

Of course we convieniently ignore the fact that Algeria used to be a French colony, which would only make it natural for the French to be involved with Algerian issues (such as terrorism). It must be said however that of all the Eurpean countries France suprisingly is the toughest on terrorism. On an internet lecture the following example was given (which dates form prior to the latest UK attacks): - In Great Britain ex Guantanamo bay prisoners were interviewed for 2 hours and then let loose, after which they went to media with all kinds of stories. - In France ex Guantanamo bay prisoners were taken right of the plane and put into jail, which prevented media contacts and no stories. The fact that Britain was domestically soft on fundamentalists has propably more to do with causing the attacks than participation in the Iraq war.