The Sunday Tribune believes Ireland will have lost credibility in the "war against terror" were we to refuse to extradite the "Colombia Three" or at least jail them for the 17 years here to which they were sentenced in Colombia.
The newspaper said the Americans are adamant this is to happen because they are aware that the "Colombia Three" were but a few of a horde of IRA terrorists who went to Colombia to instruct Farc terrorists in the arts of terrorism.
The Sunday Independent tells us that the vast majority of the Irish people, according to their own telephone poll, want the "Colombia Three" extradited or sentenced here.
Both papers are of the view that the appearance of these three, so soon after the IRA declaration of an end to its military campaign, is further proof of the cynicism of the IRA.
Fintan O'Toole, in a contribution to BBC2's Newsnight, said it was another example of characteristic IRA conduct: one step forward and two steps back, the kind of cynicism that the Sunday Independent spoke of.
It is extremely doubtful that the Americans could care less about the "Colombia Three" and, so long as we don't get stroppy over the use of Shannon and vote with them in international forums when our vote matters, they will not be bothered with us.
But even if this is wrong and the Americans do want us to extradite or jail the "Colombia Three", then we might have a few questions for them.
If they know so well that the "Colombia Three" were in Colombia to teach Farc in the arts of terrorism, why did they not arrange to have this evidence presented in court in the men's original trial?
If it was because the information was sensitive "intelligence", why should we pay any attention, since we know about the reliability of American "intelligence" on far more serious matters?
Like most other people, I don't buy the claim that the "Colombia Three" were in the demilitarised zone of Colombia, controlled by Farc, either to examine the peace process or to engage in a spot of bird watching. I suspect they were there for some nefarious purpose.
But what have my suspicions, or anybody else's suspicions, got to do with whether these people should be extradited or put in jail?
Even if there were an extradition treaty with Colombia, surely the courts would have to be satisfied about the validity of the men's convictions? And if they were to be jailed here, surely it would be on the basis of some evidence, not suspicions?
These men were acquitted by the court that heard all the evidence, assessed the credibility of witnesses and heard submissions from the prosecution and defence.
The court that found them guilty heard no evidence, was in no position to assess the credibility or reliability of witnesses and heard no submissions. This appeal court believed the evidence of the witnesses although it never heard their evidence, ever assessed their credibility and even though the trial judge thought some witnesses should be investigated for perjury.
What kind of appeals court is that? How could we be expected to extradite these men on the basis of such a conviction or to jail them here on that basis?
As for Fintan O'Toole's contention that the IRA strategy all along has been one step forward and two steps back - what is the evidence for that?
It might be fair to claim the tactic has been two steps forward, one step back but that's something very different and not what he said.
If it were one step forward and two steps back, how then, in the course of the last decade and a bit have we seen the IRA halt its military campaign, more or less (I accept more or less is not enough but it is a hell of an advance on what was the case previously)? That's not one step forward and two steps back.
There has been some decommissioning after initial obduracy. That's not one step forward, two steps back. Yes, not enough steps forward, so far, but a step forward.
The commitment to end all military activity and all other activity "whatsoever" may not be realised in practice but the significance of the commitment is real and not susceptible to even one step back, for thereby the republican movement has disposed of the IRA card in negotiations.
The denigration of the peace process has contribution significantly to unionist obduracy. Unionists have not perceived the huge advantage to them of the process and of the Good Friday agreement, and those who talk in terms of one step forward and two steps back have contributed to that, recklessly.
It was inevitable the "Colombia Three" would return at some stage, once it was obvious they had fled Colombia. What were they to do, dissolve into cyberspace?
Their return signifies nothing relevant to the peace process. They should not be extradited - not because of the peace process, but because it would be unjust. They should not be jailed here for the same reason.
So, let's get a grip.