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



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

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


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

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

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.

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…

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…

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

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

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


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.

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

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.

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.

voltaire . . .

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?

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

Get real!

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 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.

voltaire . . .

If this is true . . .

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)?


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.

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

Two questions:

[ul][li]Exactly how much of Puerto Rico is inhabited by U.S. military installations?[/li][li]How is the presence of U.S. military installations an example of exploitation?[/ul][/li]
voltaire, I’ll talk more with you tomorrow. This will be my last post of today.


  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.