For a guy who claimed to be regretful he sure didn’t act like it. His group was behind several attacks on Israel since the Achille Lauro including the 1990 boat attack on Tel Aviv beaches (which would’ve had more people killed if it hadn’t been intercepted) and, according to former FBI counterterrorism analyst Mathew Levitt, “He was the conduit for Saddam Hussein’s financing of the suicide bombers” (he’s gone on record as openly praising those payments).
Life in prison sounds about right.
I have been doing a little more reading on this issue. US fighter planes forced the aircraft carrying the highjackers to land on an Italian base. Reagan wanted the hijackers taken to America but Italy refused. There were tense moments between American and Italian forces where it looked like they might start shooting. Finally the US accepted that the hijackers would be tried in Italy. (BTW, to me this makes perfect sense as the ship was Italian). The hijackers were tried but Abu Abbas was not charged and only considered a witness as he had not participated directly. He left Italy and later tried in absentia and sentenced to life in prison.
In 1996 he apologized. After 9/11 he condemned the attacks on the USA and he has always maintained he is no longer a terrorist.
Dunno, if it is true that he did not participate directly and that he has shown remorse and stayed clean I would say I would be pretty lenient. The Italians seem to have more of a claim on the guy than the USA.
If he was one of the chief individuals who planned the operation then I see no reason to cut him some slack. You don’t get to say “I’m sorry” after certain crimes and then expect to be forgiven. Does a life sentence in Italy preclude the possibility of some sort of parole? The sentence as it stands seems reasonable to me.
Marc
I agree that the Italians have a more valid claim on him than the US, but in any case conspiracy to murder US nationals abroad is a crime in the US. However, I do think that the US should let the Italians have him (mostly since he will certainly face jail time there).
The rest of your statement I have to disagree with. Saying he “did not participate directly” in the Achille Lauro hijacking is like saying that Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed did not participate directly in the 9/11 attacks - literally true, but since he was the chief planner, he probably bears more responsibility than the actual attackers, not less.
I have already stated that his “remorse” is utter BS; unless he had turned himself into the proper authorities and actually desired to face the consequences of his actions, saying “I’m sorry” means nothing.
[hijack]
Note that Abu Abbas role in this terrorist act is fairly identical to the role Menachem Begin played in the terrorist bombing of the King David hotel that killed 91 people.
Begin went on to become prime minister of Israel in 1977. He was in office during the peace process with Egypt and the Camp David Accords. He also launched the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with Ariel Sharon as his minister of defense.
He died March 9, 1992, never having been tried for the bombing of the King David hotel.
[/hijack]
IIRC he was convicted of planning the highjacking but the conslusion was that the murder was not planned and was done without any participation from him and he was never convicted of anything to do directly with the murder.
I see I am in the minority here but I just think this is a perfect case for the USA and western countries in general to show some magnanimity. To say his remorse is utter BS because he did not turn himself in is just silly. He does seem to have come around to the idea that terrorisnm is not the way to go. His voice in the Muslim world carries more weight than all western leaders put together and it would serve the interests of the world to encourage leaders like him. If, instead we punish him, other more radical leaders will take his place. I just think we are missing the big picture. If we insist that every muslim who has done anything wrong by our standards be punished according to our laws then this struggle is never going to end until the day Islam is wiped out because the confrontation will just escalate indefinitely. We see criminals who deserve to be punished. They see the west as criminals who need to be punished. And it will go on indefinitely. Suppose te Iraqi people insist there will be no peace with the USA until all those responsible for all the civilian deaths (all the way up to president Bush) are duly punished.
I just think it is very near sighted to insist on a narrow interpretation of our laws and, while I understand it may be difficult in more recent cases, this case seems to be the perfect one for some leniency. Every struggle has to be settled with understanding and forgiveness on both sides. Thrying to impose our values and our will on Islam is just not going to work. We cannot jail them all. We cannot kill them all.
In Ireland both sides had “criminals” who had to be punished. But an insistence on that would have meant peace was imposible. I really think this is a perfect case for western countries to show we are capable of magnanimity when people show good will.
To me, the fact that Abu Abbas said the hijacking was a mistake and he was sorry he did it and that he condemned the 9/11 attacks carries a lot of weight. Because he had no need to say that at all and yet he said it. Muslims need more men like him, not fewer.
IMHO, that’s a miscarriage of Justice right there. In many jurisdictions (I’ve no idea how Italian law treats it), if someone dies during the commission of your felony, you’re responsible for the murder. Since this particular felon initiated the act which ultimately led to a murder, then he should’ve been, IMHO, tried for murder also.
Another opinion from me: you’re in the minority for two reasons: (1) a lot of people (and jurisdictions) have the outlook I just outlined, and (2) your over-riding thesis for a while on these boards is: “America’s government is automatically wrong.”
Except for that whole fleeing from Justice thing, you’d be right.
Perhaps that trial, conviction, and life sentence hanging over him like the Sword of Damocles had something to do with such an “awakening.”
Please tell me you’re kidding.
There are already other more radical fo…er, leaders who are in place.
What picture would that be, sailor? The one where it’s perfectly okay to piss on the Qu’ran, which is what these murderers are doing.
Nope; “we” are insisting that someone who murders (you know, also in violation of Islam’s Holy Book) gets punished according to the law.
That’s because we’re seeing criminals who kidnap and murder, both activities prohibited by Islam’s Holy Book, and, not incosequently, prohibited by our–and their countries’–laws.
The difference is that they’ve got nothing other than hateful diatribe to declare the West as criminals. OTOH, we have actual laws, and so do their countries, in place to punish someone for doing something criminal, you know, like kidnap and murder.
Given the reaction of the Iraqi people, for the most part, I’d have to say you pulled this scenario out of pure fiction.
Already refuted by more eloquent posters than I.
So Monty, how do you feel about my comparison between Abu Abbas and Menachem Begin. Don’t you find the lack of consequence in the moral scale a complicating factor in cases like this?
Sailor, this is a big fish we caught. He is a terrorist. The US believes that he is an active terrorist, that he is instrumental in providing weapons, training, and funding to Arab militants, by way of a direct linkage from Baghdad to Ramallah, who will then fight against Israel. There is a war between Arabs and Israel, you know, all those people are not just fighting for Palestinian “rights.” Despite the entire world community routinely confusing the two things, it’s a good idea to break the backbone of that larger war while actually working to improve the lot of the Palestinians. Putting this guy in jail, where he belongs, is a positive step IMO.
I have no idea what the point is exactly about Begin. It’s noble to agree to a cease-fire and a peace accord, if everyone adheres to it things will get done. That’s the point - adhere to it, don’t slither around under the protection of a foreign regime and blow raspberries at the peace accords when no one is looking. Dumbshits, they are. (That applies to anyone who does it. Equally.) Begin apparently is not guilty of this. Others are.
I wonder why no one in this thread have spoken of the political ramifications of this arrest. Yesterday in Madrid that small clown of Aznar said something like “Those who said there was no connection between terrorism and Irak should apologize, Abu Abbas was captured and he is a big fish”. Another lie, considering that this man last felony happened 20 years ago .
Concerning the op, the guy is a murderer and a terrorist. Speaking as a lawyer I think that is a case of universal jurisdiction, after all piracy is one of the classic examples of crimes that can be prosecuted by any country. In this case, though, Italy was the first one so there is an argument for italian jurisdiction.
Monty, I wish I could be so certain as you are about everything. I am merely pointing out my doubts about the case but you have no doubts and are so certain. Good for you. I think too many people like you are the problem why we end up having clashes like Iraq. There are people like you on both sides with no doubts that they are right and the other side is wrong but you do not seem to understand that. even though you might not understand it in much of the Muslim world, president Bush is considered as evil a terrorist as you seem to consider Abu Abbas but obviously you do not understand that.
>> your over-riding thesis for a while on these boards is: “America’s government is automatically wrong.”
That is not true. In other words: it is a lie. A big one at that. Other than two major issues lately which are the curtailment of civil liberties by the government of the US and the war against Iraq, with which I do disagree (with the present government) please show me in what other ways I have shown that the American government is “automatically wrong”. Just to give you an example I will point out that I defended the result of the presidential election when many were attacking it as undemocratic. Not to mention the many threads where I have defended the US economic system, legal system etc. So please do not come into this thread attacking me with lies. I call them as I see them and I am sorry if I do not find the US government is correct 100% of the time. And, by the way, I have no idea why you bring all this crap in here since i am not even talking about the US government but about the entire western world because the confrontaion is not between the US and the Musmlim world, it is between the Muslim world and the entire Western world and that is why I have been proposing what the world should do and not what the USA should do. Your quoted phrase just shows your bias and fanaticism.
Since you are so fanatically certain of your position I am not even going to bother addressing the rest of your post. I am more interested in hearing from people who might be better able to see shades of grey where you see black and white. With you I have nothing to discuss. We will just disagree.
>> the guy is a murderer and a terrorist
estilicon, as I understand it the guy is not a murderer. He lead the hijacking and the murder was not in the plan and it happened without his authorization or intervention. You might call him an ex-terrorist because, as you say, his last felony was 18 years ago.
I just think that as long as we think we can use only brute force to erradicate our enemies, we are just making more enemies and what we really need is a lot more understanding of the root causes.
Muslims can probably do with fewer terrorists, apologetic or no.
sailor, how do you reconcile the fact that he’s been the conduit for payments to the families of suicide bombers with his apparent renouncement of terrorism? Isn’t there some dissonance there and, if so, don’t his actions speak louder than his words?
In many parts of the USA, if you plan a felony, and someone is killed during that felony- planned or no- that does make you a “murderer”.
The Olso accords don’t have anything to do with this- Isreal didn’t capture him.
However, we should turn him over to Italy- and then they get to make the call.
Sailor: You can’t have it both ways.
From your post a few days ago in the thread about who is responsible for looting in Baghdad:
" holding only those directly responsible for the acts as the only ones responsible has never been done in the USA. You create the conditions for a mishap and you will be held responsible even if someone else did it."
From your post, above, in this thread:
“as I understand it the guy is not a murderer. He lead the hijacking and the murder was not in the plan and it happened without his authorization or intervention”
Correct me if I’ve misinterpreted something in these two posts.
My understanding is gathered from what I have read in the news and my thought are based on those assumptions. If the assumptions are not true then, obviously, the whole thing collapses. Everything I have read in the news says he renounced terrorism, said it was wrong, apologised and condemned the 9/11 attacks. If it turns out he was indeed still in favor of terrorism, then obviously what I said does not stand. But there seems to be something which doesn’t add up because I doubt he would be aiding terrorists while publicly (there was an interview in Time magazine) denouncing it.
Do you think it would be good to convert present day terrorists into apologetic ex-terrorists? If so, who do you think might be more convincing to them: a repentant ex-terrorist of their own or the USA threatening sword and fire?
I do not see the contradiction. I have not said this guy is entirely innocent. I am just saying it might be a case where some lenience could be used to advantage in decreasing tensions between both sides. I do not think he is directly guilty of murder but he is obviously guilty of the hijacking and, indirectly, of creating the conditions for the murder.
Regarding the looting, I do believe the USA is indirectly responsible and the US military have acknowledged that fact. But please show me where I have advocated any kind of punishment for anybody over this. Nowhere have I said anyone should be punished. And I do think they bear responsibility and they have admitted as much. they have been extremely negligent but I believe it is a political responsibility, not a criminal responsibility. I have *never * said there was a criminal responsibility. Never So, If I advocate NO punishment for anybody over that I cannot see why I am inconsistent in saying it might be a good idea to consider being lenient with Abu Abbas.
Sailor:
OK. I’m not saying that you’ve advocated punishment for US troops over the Baghdad looting. But I wasn’t talking about the punishment, just the method of determining the degree to which someone is responsible for the actions of others. And now that you’re saying the troops are only “indirectly” responsible for the looting, I can agree with you. Earlier, you were arguing that they were DIRECTLY responsible. We exchanged several posts speciifically arguing that point.
BTW, putting this Abbas guy in prison and having him speak out against terrorism are not mutually exclusive. If he’s really repentent, let him “do the time” and use that time to expouse peacefull negotiation instead of terrorism. There are plenty of prisoners who devote their time similarly.
But I’m still willing to leave that up to the Italians, assuming they have sole jurisdiction of his past criminal activities.
John: sailor wants to have it only one way: “America’s wrong–automatically.”
Monty, I do not need your petty personal attacks, thank you very much. I will be more than glad to meet you in the pit if you would like to discuss your unfounded accusations but please let us stay on topic here. John Mace and I seem to be understanding each other’s points pretty well and discussing things quite civilly without your need to come here and try to poison the atmosphere. Please try to be constructive or take it to the pit. Thank you.