War on Terrorism, tiny hypocrisy?

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
April 30, 2007

On a sunny October afternoon in 1976, a bomb hidden in a tube of Colgate toothpaste brought down a Cubana Airlines plane off the coast of Barbados, killing all 73 people on board. The attack remains the worst of its kind in Latin American history - and earlier this month a court in New Orleans allowed the man widely suspected of masterminding the atrocity to go free.

It's not the first time Luis Posada Carriles, a frail 79-year-old Venezuelan of Cuban origin, has appeared to have gotten away with murder. The CIA-trained anti-Castro dissident, recently described by the LA Times as "the Zacarias Moussaoui of Havana and Caracas", bribed his way out of a Venezuelan jail in 1985 while awaiting trial for planning the Cubana attack.

He was imprisoned in Panama for his part in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro, but soon received a pardon. And he has yet to face charges for his role in a lethal bombing spree that targeted Havana tourist haunts in the 1990., despite boasting to journalists that he helped to orchestrate the attacks.

When Posada was arrested two years ago in Miami, it looked as though his luck might have run out. But in a bizarre display of hypocrisy and political cowardice, the Bush administration has so far declined to either detain him or try him on terror charges;

Venezuela's repeated requests for his extradition under a 1922 treaty between the two countries have been ignored. Instead, Posada is to be tried, laughably, on a count of lying to immigration officials. A judge ruled that Posada posed no flight risk, so he was bailed, issued with an ankle-tag, and sent back to his wife's home in Miami to await trial.

The Justice Department argues that Posada's release on bail was simply due process. "We can't just unilaterally order a person to be held," a spokesman said. Except, of course, that they can: the Patriot Act expressly allows for the detention of suspected terrorists.

The problem is that, despite warnings from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office that Posada had a "long history of criminal activity and violence in which innocent civilians were killed" and that his "release from detention would pose a danger to both the community and the national security of the United States", the Justice Department has so far declined either to admit that Posada is a terrorist or to make any real effort to detain him as a security threat..................

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ben_whitford/2007/04/double_standards.html


OK the article may be biased, whatever.

It raises a good question, Is the CIA trained terrorist enemy of a US enemy a US friend?

If he is a terrorist, and the US is fighting terrorism is this fair?

Why isnt he in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib? Cause he has no secrets?

Since when does the US not "just unilaterally order a person to be held"?

Does this only apply to Iraqi's?
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,318
Reaction score
6,984
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
OK the article may be biased, whatever.
Uh...ya think? LOL

It raises a good question, Is the CIA trained terrorist enemy of a US enemy a US friend?
This is indeed a good question. It would appear as if the enemy of our enemy is indeed our friend. Of course, we did support, arm, and fund Osama bin Laden and his Mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, look how that turned out.

If he is a terrorist, and the US is fighting terrorism is this fair?
Fair? No, probably not. But who ever said life was fair?

Why isnt he in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib?
Because he was not captured on a field of battle. He was not captured while engaged in attacks against U.S. interests.

Cause he has no secrets?
Yeah, that too.

Since when does the US not "just unilaterally order a person to be held"?
Uh...unless you're suspected of terrorism against the U.S., since forever. At least I don't know anyone who has held, at least not without charges pending.

Does this only apply to Iraqi's?
Not necessarily Iraqi's in general, but pretty much anyone they catch attacking U.S. interests, Iraqi infrastructure, the Iraqi civilian population, or the Afghani equivalent.

Double standard? You bet. Fair? Not at all. Hypocritical? Yeah, more than likely. But Carriles is anti-Castro, so is the beleaguered and heretofore failed U.S. policy towards Castro. The enemy of our enemy is our friend...until he is our enemy.

Is this bullshit? You bet it is.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Because he was not captured on a field of battle. He was not captured while engaged in attacks against U.S. interests.
Neither were most of the detainees at GITMO. Many of the detainees at GITMO were rounded up by Pakistani and Afghani troops and turned over to US forces for a bounty. Others were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, and were caught up in security sweeps.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Im really lose superlative. Can you please tell me what you point is?. :eusa_shifty: sorry.
The original post was to draw a lame parallel between the US's stance on Terrorism, and their inaction toward a known terrorist.

Since this terrorist didnt act against the US he isnt being prosecuted the way the US normally would.

Thats all.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The original post was to draw a lame parallel between the US's stance on Terrorism, and their inaction toward a known terrorist.

Since this terrorist didnt act against the US he isnt being prosecuted the way the US normally would.

Thats all.

That's because we prosecute crimes against us. I wouldn't play patty-cakes with Castro nor that idiot clone of his in Venezuela. Screw 'em.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,318
Reaction score
6,984
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
Neither were most of the detainees at GITMO. Many of the detainees at GITMO were rounded up by Pakistani and Afghani troops and turned over to US forces for a bounty. Others were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, and were caught up in security sweeps.
I probably should have used quotes for the words "field of battle," I ment it in the broadest sense of the term. Really really broad.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
That's because we prosecute crimes against us. Screw 'em.
I know,

thats why its just a 'tiny hypocrisy' that we just give international terrorists refuge.

No big.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top