PUERTO RICAN TERRORISTS

[Keeves]

No.

[BobT]

Are you a member of Congress? Both houses just voted for an inquiry to the matter.

[Misanthrope]

Good for them, although I don't know what they're going to find out.

------------------
D'oh

[C K Dexter Haven]

Hey, maybe they can say that he abused his Precendential Power and they can impeach him!

[pluto]

I thought the conventional wisdom was that he'd done it to further his wife's Senate bid. It was supposed to bring her support from the substantial Puerto Rican vote in NYC.

Of course it assumed that the average Puerto Rican citizen was in favor of terrorism, but we can't all be smart all the time! Hence her attempt to distance herself after the shit hit the fan.

Now he's got a record of being soft on terrorists and Hilary's mad at him again anyway! Some days it doesn't pay to get up in the morning!



------------------
"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"
-- William of Ockham

[voltaire]

Hmmmm, lets see....

New York has an extremely large Puerto Rican population....

Hillary Clinton is running for the Senate in New York....

You may draw your own conclusions.

Although I will add that some of those "terrorists" were merely guilty by association and never actively participated in acts of violence. Not to mention the fact that they were fighting for freedom from a colonial ruler, something our own nation was founded from.

[voltaire]

I had composed my previous reply a few hours ago, but the sysadmin over here was working on a few things on our internet and I couldn't submit my reply. Hence the parroting of the Hillary theory. Always a day late and a dollar short I guess...

[voltaire]

I had composed my previous reply a few hours ago, but the sysadmin over here was working on a few things on our internet and I couldn't submit my reply. Hence the parroting of the Hillary theory. Always a day late and a dollar short I guess...

[voltaire]

Ahhh, so thats how people submit double-posts all the time....double clicking the 'submit' button on accident.

[Misanthrope]

Although I will add that some of those "terrorists" were merely guilty
by association and never actively participated in acts of violence.

Is the procurement of weapons to aid in terrorist activities inactive participation?


Not
to mention the fact that they were fighting for freedom from a
colonial ruler, something our own nation was founded from.

Hasn't Puerto Rico voted several times on opting to stay a territory of the United States, rather than declare independence?

------------------
D'oh

[divemaster]

Guilt by association is certainly a valid reason to prosecute. How many people did Manson kill? (hint: less than 1); yet he was sentenced to death (later commuted).

There are many more examples available, especially when it comes to terrorism.

[Nickrz]

Yeah, he never should have hung around with that Squeaky chick.

[voltaire]

Is the procurement of weapons to aid in terrorist activities inactive participation?


I don't know, is it? You might note the word 'some' in my original statement. You might also note that the signers of the Declaration of Independance could also be called terrorists in the modern lexicon.


Hasn't Puerto Rico voted several times on opting to stay a territory of the United
States, rather than declare independence?


Gee, they're given the choice *after* the fact to remain in limbo. They're not a state, not sovereign, but a territory. Why weren't they given the opportunity to vote to become a full-fledged state of the union? Is it because 51 stars just wouldn't look right on the flag, or is it in order to maintain them as second-class non-citizens of the U.S.? After all the exploitation we as a nation have subjected them to, don't they deserve at least the offer of statehood and not some second-rate territoryship?

I'm going to go ahead and state that first of all I am not Puerto Rican. And second of all, I know very little other than the fundamental aspects of this issue. Its those aspects that I find the most disturbing. The bulk of my knowledge on this issue comes from a PBS documentary that I saw a long time ago. So this little discussion will probably motivate me to do a little further research into this subject. That way I won't have to derive all of my info on this from one, possibly biased, source. I suggest that others do the same.

[Misanthrope]

voltaire . . .

You might also note that the signers of the Declaration of Independance could also be called terrorists in the modern lexicon.

Did the signers of the Declaration of Independence commit terroristic acts in England? Or did they commit mostly non-violent acts of civil disobedience until war was actually declared by the British?

Gee, they're given the choice *after* the fact to remain in limbo.

You can either blame the United States or Spain, take your pick. Either way, they certainly are given the choice.

Is it because 51 stars just wouldn't look right on the flag, or is it in order to maintain them as second-class non-citizens of the U.S.?

Get real!

After all the exploitation we as a nation have subjected them to, don't they deserve at least the offer of statehood and not some second-rate territoryship?

Exploitation?!?! Please explain how the United States has exploited the Puerto Ricans, unless you mean by importing their finest baseball players to play for money in the Major Leagues.

And second of all, I know very little other than the fundamental aspects of this issue.

Obviously.



------------------
D'oh

[voltaire]

Guilt by association is certainly a valid reason to prosecute. How many people did
Manson kill? (hint: less than 1); yet he was sentenced to death (later commuted).


I agree. Guilt by association *can* be valid in some cases. Certainly in Manson's case, he influenced, inspired, or directed others to kill. That's one form of association, but there are many, many more types. One of the recently released people was also associated with a 'terrorist'. She was his wife. She agreed with his beliefs, but did nothing to further his goals. Do you also extend "guilt by association" to her?

IOW, IMHO association with a guilty person does not necessarily mean guilt by association.

[Misanthrope]

voltaire . . .

If this is true . . .

One of the recently released people was also associated with a 'terrorist'. She was his wife. She agreed with his beliefs, but did nothing to further his goals.

on what legal theory was she convicted and sentenced? Do you have any actual evidence or proof for these statements or are they something you saw on PBS (probably Frontline)?

------------------
D'oh

[voltaire]

Exploitation?!?! Please explain how the United States has exploited the Puerto Ricans, unless you mean by importing their finest baseball players to play for money in the Major Leagues.


I suggest you take the earlier advice and research some of the facts for yourself. You might start by looking at how much of Puerto Rico is inhabited by U.S. military bases.


And second of all, I know very little other than the fundamental aspects of this issue.

Obviously.


Obviously, I can only say that its obvious that you would find this obvious, since I obviously said it myself.

[Misanthrope]

You might start by looking at how much of Puerto Rico is inhabited by U.S. military bases.

Two questions:

Exactly how much of Puerto Rico is inhabited by U.S. military installations?
How is the presence of U.S. military installations an example of exploitation?

voltaire, I'll talk more with you tomorrow. This will be my last post of today.

------------------
D'oh

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

1) This is a minor caveat, DIVEMASTER, but if I remember Vincent Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter” correctly, Mason was convicted of active participation in the murder of Shorty Shea. Furthermore, I believe “Helter Skelter” and/or “The Family” stated that Mason helped tie up the LaBiancas.
2) Voltaire, how does the presence of a U.S. base on what is U.S. soil (after all, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a territory) constitute oppression? By this logic, Indiana is oppressed because Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center is on Hoosier soil, and Kentucky is oppressed because of Ft. Knox.

[Kat]

Why weren't they given the opportunity to vote to become a full-fledged state of the union? Is it because 51 stars just wouldn't look right on the flag, or is it in order to maintain them as second-class non-citizens of the U.S.? After all the exploitation we as a nation have subjected them to, don't they deserve at least the offer of statehood and not some second-rate territoryship?

Excuse me? First off, as has been stated, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a territory (Guam, e.g., is a territory).

Second, Puerto Rico had the choice to become an independent country, remain a commonwealth, or become a U.S. state, at least the last time the question came to a vote, if not previously.

Not recalling the details, I did a quick websearch for some cites:
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa120698.htm?rf=dp&COB=home&TMog=61159969214335&Mint=2559280283417
"Dateline: 12/06/98
This Sunday, Puerto Ricans will vote whether to remain a U.S. Commonwealth, become our 51st state, or attempt independence."
http://www.puertorico51.org/options/default.htm
http://www.latinolink.com/news/news98/0304npr2.htm
http://members.tripod.com/T3141/puertor.html

[JRDelirious]

Greetings,
JRDelirio here, Puerto Rico's branch of alt.fan.cecil-adams (as quoted in The Straight Dope Tells All) With what I think I know on this, FWIMBW to y'all:


(a) The 16 FALN members (of which 11 were released) were convicted of "seditious conspiracy" on top of common charges ranging from bank robbery to interstate transport of stolen goods to gunrunning to simple criminal conspiracy. SedCon added something like 30 years to their sentences.

(b) SedCon is a charge that is hardly *ever* used. It is claimed, though I'd like to see the corroboration, that at the time it had only been used against the FALN in modern times, i.e, not even the Klan, Panthers, Weathermen, SLA, etc. had got hit with it in the prior 50+ years

(c) A consensus of public opinion around here was that yes, they are guilty of aiding and abetting violent subversive activity, BUT when any other bank robber or gunrunner affiliated to a violent gang that is responsible for drive-by shootings, murders and arsons, gets 10 to 20 w. time off for good behavior, why make it 50 to life only for this one gang 'cause it's looking for "political" gain, rather than dope-pushing turf.
BTW the Feds let the two real hard-core terrorist masterminds just slip away (one was even let out on bail, which of course he jumped) YEARS ago and still can't catch them.

(d) 9 of the 11 had their first parole-officer meeting yesterday and it seems that everything will be just fine and everyone is exceedingly willing to cooperate.

(e)<editorial> Bill had that parole offer on his desk since 1993. He could have waited for Thanksgiving week 2000 to sign it</editorial>.

(f) brief recount on US/PR political History:
Takeover after Span-Am war, 1898; lousy colonial government established 1900.
1917: slightly better version of colonial government established; US Citizenship extended to inhabitants on "take it or take it" basis while at the same time being made requisite for voting and public employment..
1930s-50s wave of nationalist violence and government repression, about evenly violent. Congressmen even threaten to declare PR independent w. NO aid whatsoever.
1st 40 yrs of US rule WERE marked by crude naked exploitation. Sanitation improved some, bit otherwise the masses went to pot.
1940s War and New Deal start pumping the economy.
1940-48 New local leadership starts land reforms, locals replace Anglos in most top Gov't positions
1950-52. Original nationalist insurrection peaks and is crushed. US offers PR to adopt current semi-autonomous Commonwealth Constitution, in take-it-or-leave-it vote; NOT choice of independence or statehood. (At the time Pro-Independence parties were *more numerous* than pro-statehooders) Overwhelming majority says yes to Commonwealth. Apart from keeping the pre-existing tax exemption, it's sorta like a State, but with no vote on anything Federal and Congress retains the right to legislate over us.
1950s-60s Boom Times. Economy blossoms. Independence movement turns leftist (hey, it was the fashion), gets on bad side of Gay Edgar Hoover; collapses from height of 33% to low of 3% of electorate. Meanwile statehood movement rises to replace them as 2nd force in electorate (hey, if quasi-statehood is so good, then...)
1973 OPEC Recession. Bubble bursts. Economy has sorta muddled on ever since
1990s Renaissance of cultural-identity nationalism in media and academia, <editorial> mostly in in reaction to dominance of business/govt establishment by pro-american types </editorial>.

The one and only binding, federally mandated vote that carried with it a commitment to results was the one in the early 50s on Commonwealth: take-or-leave

Three locally called status referenda have been called:
1967: 65% improve on statu-quo, 35% Statehood, independence boycotted
1993: 48% improve commonwealth; 46.5% Statehood, 4.5% Independence,
--1993 Court Decision: You must include "None of the Above" option in future referenda --
1998: 50% NOTA, 46.5% Statehood, 2.5% Independence; pro-commonwealth and dissident pro-independence factions deliberately voted with NOTA in protest over "prejudiced" ballot wording.

Attempts to move thru a federally-mandated all-options referendum in 1989-91 and 1995-98 were all torpedoed in US Senate after rough time in US House: consensus of observers say it is due to unwillingness of Congress to commit to giving us what we ask for, and especially to offer statehood "for the asking".

Statehood seems to have plateaued just short of a majority, Independentism is struggling, and the bare majority is trying to figure out just exactly what *would* be a right, fair arrangement that avoids recriminations and "paybacks", maintains a state of peace, civil liberties, a high (by Caribbean standards) standard of living, cultural identity, integration to US economic sphere and free movement between the Island and US Puerto Rican communities: Even if it does mean paying a greater share of some of the Federal services here, but conversely with greater freedom from an overbearing Congress.
No *Federal* *personal**income* tax on locally-generated income may seem nice [we pay plenty of *other* taxes PLUS just as much income tax as we would to the US, only to the logal treasury], but with no vote in Congress or the Electoral College you're kinda naked when they start looking for whom to sock it to.

(g) major problem w. military right now is not so much large scale of overall activity, but specifically Vieques Island. Inhabited area, 2/3 of it is used as Naval Weapons range. High pollution level, lousy economy, loose ordnance injures folks every so often, last April a civilian got killed when he got bombed by mistake. Brass has been acting really ignorant when called to account for themselves. Other than Vieques the only ones with a problem are the usual complainers (yes, 10% of the land is considered "US Reservation", but over half of that is for the use of our own NatGuard and is mostly *open fields*, or is Corps of Engineers wetlands). Could be different tale if the draft were back, then it would really piss people off to have no vote on it.


José
There will be a test on all this worth 25% of your grade

DISCLOSURE: The Author is employed by the Puerto Rico House of Representatives and is himself nominally affiliated with a party that has statehood in its platform.

[Misanthrope]

Can anyone explain to me why Clinton released the Puerto Rican terrorists???

------------------
D'oh

[voltaire]

Just in time, someone jumps in with the facts...


Three locally called status referenda have been called:
1967: 65% improve on statu-quo, 35% Statehood, independence boycotted
1993: 48% improve commonwealth; 46.5% Statehood, 4.5% Independence,
--1993 Court Decision: You must include "None of the Above" option in future referenda --
1998: 50% NOTA, 46.5% Statehood, 2.5% Independence; pro-commonwealth and dissident pro-independence factions deliberately voted with NOTA in protest over "prejudiced" ballot wording.


Were these actual binding votes or just sort of status polls?

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

JRDelirious:
Thank you for an interesting post.
Although I think the FALN members' sentences were just, I also think the government should have thrown the same book at the Klan, violent bank robbers, the Weathermen et. al.
But then again, our insane government seems to think it more important to jail people for smoking and growing marijuana than hurting others.

[JRDelirious]

Voltaire:
The 1967/1993/1998 votes were not "executable", i.e. no statute would go into effect (or be voided) as a result of the vote (as would in the case of what is normally called referendum). They were held as a way to get a "people's mandate" to legitimate the local government's lobbying in one direction or another. However, stuff happens: in 1967 there was an apparent 65% vote for improving the commonwealth -- but right away in 68 the party whose administration called the vote lost the governorship and the House to pro-statehooders and other priorities took over, though a committee *was* named on how to improve commonwealth it got nowhere. In '93 the vote was called by a pro-statehood administration, riding the crest of a landslide general election victory,and much to their surprise their preferred choice failed to get a majority. In '98 as I mentioned it all became a "protest" vote.

These votes had a turnout of around 67-71% of the electorate. By contrast our GEs usually run along 81-85% of the elegibles.

Anyway none of them would not have been binding on the Senior Partner in this arrangement (USA) anyway since they were not sanctioned by Congress, and there is no system of "voter initiative" at the Federal level anyway.


Peyote Coyote:
I can hear you. I do believe that if the Feds had made the punishment fit the crime in every single case, rather than make an example of these guys specially, public opinion may have been different.

JRD

[JRDelirious]

I mean, of course, that none of them would have been binding on the US.

Slip o' the fingers, what I wrote would have been a disallowed double-neg *even* in Spanish.

[Big Iron]

[[Guilt by association is certainly a valid reason to prosecute. ]]

It most certainly is not.


[[How many people did Manson kill? (hint: less than 1);]]


He may not have been the "triggerman," but he was convicted of murder, not simply for associating with murderers.


[[ yet he was sentenced to death (later commuted).]]

He was convicted of capital murder, but the state (wisely, IMO) subsequently abolished capital punishment.

[divemaster]

But Big Iron,

I admit, my use of the term "assoiciating" was too casual. Just being aquainted with a criminal certainly doesn't justify prosecution.

However, plenty of criminals receive life sentences for criminal association with the wrong people (and rightfully so, I think). For example, two kids decide to hold up a liquor store. One decides to shoot the proprietor in the head. Even if the non-shooter did not even know his partner had a gun, he is going to spend a long time in prison (more than just for robbery).

My point was that you don't have to be the triggerman to get the book thrown at you, and thus, I feel that the FALN terrorists, by their association with that organization, had received just sentences.

And it was the Supreme Court who came to Manson's rescue. Not the state of California. CA still has the death penalty once the Court re-re-decided.

[voltaire]

The 1967/1993/1998 votes were not executable", i.e. no statute would go into effect (or be voided) as a result of the vote


So, would it be correct to say that the people of Puerto Rico have *not* been given a real opportunity to vote for the status of their homeland.

I understand that that's not typically how a state is formed. The potential state doesn't get to decide on whether or not they want to be a state. But it seems to me that if we're not going to offer them statehood, we should at least offer them the choice between complete sovereignty or territoryship. That's what a democracy calls self-determination.

[JRDelirious]

Voltaire:

You got it. A full self-determination vote, i.e. something that is BOTH (a) binding on both parties and that will *cause* the winning choice to *happen* AND (b) contains a choice of options, not just a take-it-or-leave-it on one policy, has not happened. We've had one of the one and three of the other, but not BOTH. Of course, a lot of folks here will insist that we ARE exercising self-determination, by not agitating too hard for a choice and by living well off of the statu quo.

In a de-facto sense, the general policy has been to take the results of our the referanda and of governmental elections (since our parties have clearly defined status planks on their platforms), as a gage of sentiment. The feeling in Congress seems to be that the situation in PR is such that a binding referendum would either (a) wind up with an inconclusively small margin and no majority or (b) worse yet, give the popular win to the solution that is *not* in the best interest of US policy. They would be very cautious though about excluding statehood: even if the Congresspeople indeed do not want to offer, that would be some kind of slap in the face of nearly 800K US citizens (the # of votes for statehood).

So the easy way out is to leave things as they are and throw money at us (we thank you sincerely for it, keep it up)in the hope we stay quiet until another, wiser generation (preferably after we're all comfortably retired to Florida) figures out a solution that pleases everyone and does not break the bank (right). Mostly we muddle thru peacefully, we can wait for the right time.
Our statehood movement lobbies good and hard, and throws a mean soft-money PAC contribution, but w/o a majority it amazes us that the US right-wing seems to think there is some sort of imminent plot to bring PR in as a State. And cultural-identity nationalism is as strong as ever, and our lawful independentists leaders are wined and dined by heads of state everywhere, but that doesn't translate to folks lining up to vote and much less to fight.


In modern times, the territory-to-Statehood process has not happened too often (only 2 new states since 1912, only 3 or 4 in the first 12 years of the Century) but the general pattern involves first a whole lotta lobbying Congress to move towards creating the State; second, an Enabling (transition) Act, passed by Congress to be ratified by a binding referendum -- this allows the territory to organize itself to be a state: draft a State Constitution, draw up Congressional Districts, change its Tax structure, etc., and more importantly contains the list of the Congress' terms for you to meet: reorganize, share your water with the guys downstream, ensure minority rights, etc., what have you; thirdly there is an Admissions Act, which is the Act of Congress recognizing the existence of a sovereign state (small-s) organized by the people of X, and admitting that state, having fulfilled the Enabling Act's terms, into the Union as a (capital-S) State. There *IS* a second binding referendum to say yes or no to finally joining, which *depending on the case* either comes at the end of the Enabling period OR is required within the Admissions Act for it to kick in (in the former case, then the State Assembly will be required to ratify the US Constitution for Admission to kick in). Now, nothing prevents Congress from leaving you just "Enabled" for Statehood till the Red Sox win the World Series, or from putting a "sunset" on the enablement (though a sense of shame has prevented this in the past). In many cases (HI the latest) the territorials may get tired of waiting and adopt the "Tennessee Plan", essentially starting a State Government complete with a delegation of Shadow Senators and Congressmen, while waiting for Congress to make up its mind.

[Big Iron]

[[I admit, my use of the term "assoiciating" was too casual. Just being aquainted with a criminal certainly doesn't justify prosecution.

However, plenty of criminals receive life sentences for criminal association with the wrong people (and rightfully so, I think). For example, two kids decide to hold up a liquor store. One decides to shoot the proprietor in the head. Even if the non-shooter did not even know his partner had a gun, he is going to spend a long time in prison (more than just for robbery).]]


Maybe, maybe not. If he really had no reason to know about it ... I dunno, I'm forgetting my CrimLaw here a bit. To be convicted of felony murder, does the non-triggerman have to have reason to suspect deadly force might be used? I don't think so -- in this case the 2d guy would likely be guilty of murder. I guess that's a form of guilt by association -- of course, I've never been very fond of the felony murder rule.


[[My point was that you don't have to be the triggerman to get the book thrown at you, and thus, I feel that the FALN terrorists, by their association with that organization, had received just sentences.]]


Well, that is one way to look at it, although in these cases the defendents weren't only "not the triggermen," they were not guilty of murder, etc., and thus the aggravated sentences amount to punishment solely on the basis of association.


[[And it was the Supreme Court who came to Manson's rescue. Not the state of California. CA still has the death penalty once the Court re-re-decided.]]


Right -- it was the court that invalidated the death penalty (not necessarily the best way of acheiving that wise result).

[Monty]

Voltaire: Puerto Ricans ARE citizens of the United States of America. Your statement that they are non-citizens is incorrect.

[voltaire]

Puerto Ricans ARE citizens of the United States of America. Your statement that they are non-citizens is incorrect.


Technically you're right. But *I* don't consider someone a citizen if they don't have the right to vote and likewise for their delegate to Congress. An unrepresented citizen is like a keynote speaker at a graduation being given a meaningless "Honorary Degree" (sorry, couldn't think of a better simile, but you get the idea)

[Misanthrope]

In response to Congressional inquiries into Clinton's unbelievable pardon of sixteen Puerto Rican terrorists, Clinton stated

"For me, the question . . . was whether the prisoners' sentences were unduly severe and whether their continuing incarceration served any meaningful purpose."

As to Clinton's first question (were the sentences unduly severe?): the Puerto Rican terrorists received between thirty-five and ninety years for seditious conspiracy and possession of weapons and explosives. At the time these terrorists were convicted, the United States lacked anti-terrorism laws (which would be enacted almost ten years later). If these laws had been in effect, these terrorist would have been prosecuted, and convicted, under these anti-terrorism laws. So, in response to JRDelirious' statement:

SedCon [seditious conspiracy] is a charge that is hardly *ever* used. It is claimed, though I'd like to see the corroboration, that at the time it had only been used against the FALN in modern times, i.e, not even the Klan, Panthers, Weathermen, SLA, etc. had got hit with it in the prior 50+ years . . .

the anti-terrorism laws that replaced the seditious conspiracy charge have been used with some regularity since they were enacted.

As to Clinton's second question (did the terrorists' continuing incarceration serve any meaningful purpose?), look to the victims' statements:


Richard Pastorella, who was blinded and lost the fingers on his right hand:

Who is going to commute my sentence? I've been bearing this cross for 17 years. I'll never be free from it.

Tom Connor, whose father was killed by a FALN bombing:

Clinton's explanation was an affront. His letter is not only weak, but it insults the intelligence of the American people who obviously know that the clemency offer was done for political purposes.

As for the several remarks on this thread that imply that the released terrorists only associated with lawbreakers, it should be noted that

The FALN members . . . were convicted of seditious conspiracy and possession of weapons and explosives.

Emphasis added.

Further, Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton showed a videotape at congressional hearings that showed

. . . two of the militants making a letter bomb.

Burton went on to cite court records that showed that four of the released terrorists had been arrested in connection with an armored car holdup in Connecticut.

The source for all this information was the September 22, 1999 edition of the Houston Chronicle, Section A, p. 2.

------------------
D'oh

[Mojo]

Voltaire said:
But *I* don't consider someone a citizen if they don't have the right to vote and likewise for their delegate to Congress.

As A DC resident, does that make me a half-citizen?