Should Manuel Noriega be freed?

A Recent AP story got me thinking once again about Manuel Noriega. He’s 80 years old now. He’s served prison time in the US (17 years) and France (1.5 years) and is now incarcerated in Panama, currently in year 4 of a 20 year sentence. He would be 96 years old when released if he served the full sentence.

But should he?

Doctors hired by his family say he has a brain tumor and heart problems and he has been hospitalized several times since his return to Panama.

Should Manuel Noriega be freed, or should he continue his incarceration until his sentence is served? Why?

I suppose it depends if you view incarceration as punitive vs rehabilitative.
Although it’s suspect he’s actually rehabilitated I doubt he’s any further threat and may as well be released.
If however you believe the purpose of his incarceration is punitive he’s got a good long way to go before the scales are balanced.

Personally I don’t care - I think the argument for letting his ass rot in a cell is every bit as valid as the argument for letting him out to die in relative comfort. If I could make up any scenario I wanted I’d say stick him in a minimum security facility and let time take it’s course.

Yeah, I’m torn. On one hand, he’s an awful human being. Just truly terrible. On the other hand, he’s entitled to whatever consideration Panamanian law affords, which seems to be a bit more lenient on old age cases. So, I’m not sure, but I’m fine with whatever the judge decides.

He probably also has a few million in Colombian drug money hidden away. Why let him out to enjoy it?

We let Dick Cheney walk around unindicted for much less. But he is a drug lord and I really have no problem with letting him die in jail.

Let the people of Panama decide.

I’d have happily let the Shah die in prison so if they feel the same way, I won’t begrudge them.

I drove past the prison where Noriega is being held a few hours ago.

I don’t see any particular reason why Noriega should be granted leniency. While it’s true that under Panamanian law prisoners over 75 are allowed to be held under house arrest, Noriega is a multiple murderer and was enormously destructive to his own country. The crimes for which he was convicted in Panama was for ordering the murder of opposition leader Hugo Spadafora, and for personally executing Col. Moises Giroldi, leader of one of the coup attempts against him. There are many other murders and other crimes for which he has never been tried.

I worked in Panama from 1977 to 1979, the last years of the Canal Zone. I began working here again in 1988, the worst years of the Noriega regime. It was terrible to see how Panama had deteriorated since my last stay, and the fear of the Panama Defense Forces.

Noriega now is completely irrelevant, but I doubt he’ll be released. The current president’s party is the one that has the strongest grudge against him. (It was the party that was overthrown in a coup by Noriega’s predecessor, Omar Torrijos.) Although one occasionally sees Noriega decals on some of the taxis (mainly I think because he is seen as a tough guy), I don’t think there is any great feeling here that he should be released.

If it’s legal and conscionable incarceration why should he be let out after the heinous crimes he’s committed?

I see no reason this should not be left up to the judiciary of Panama. For pretty much the same reason I think that overthrowing him should have been left up to Panama. It’s Panama’s business, not mine, nor my country’s.

I have an extremely low level of empathy for murderous dictators. By that I mean that I find serial killers of children sympathetic by comparison. Let him rot.

If that had been the case, Noriega likely would still be in power. The opposition didn’t have the arms or the power to overthrow him.

You don’t know anything about the history of Panama or of the Noriega regime, do you? For most of the past century Panama was effectively a US protectorate (and the country itself was created by US intervention against Colombia). The US propped up and supported first the Torrijos dictatorship, and then that of his successor Noriega. Having agreed to give up the Canal, the US wanted a strong military force to defend it as a proxy, so they supported the Panama Defense Forces. Noriega screwed the deal, and so had to be taken out. And he wasn’t deposed because of drugs, but because he refused to support the US efforts against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

The US supported and strengthened the Panamanian military dictatorship out of what it believed to be its self interest at the time, rather than encouraging democracy in the country. When Frankenstein turned on its master, the US was the only force capable of taking down the creature it helped create.

So?

I’m fully aware that the U.S. and Panama have a history. My point is that I don’t care. Panama is a sovereign nation and should have been left to run their own affairs, dictator or not. Just as Nicaragua, El Salvador, and a long laundry list of other countries should have been.

The Panama Canal is the worlds business. Panama, like Egypt, will never be allowed to wield sovereign power over their canals as they could seriously harm the worlds economy.

In principle, sure. But as a dominant world power, what the US does has impact on other countries whether we intend it or not.

This is just naive. Panama was not effectively sovereign for most of its history; as I said, it was a virtual US protectorate. How far back do you want “allowing Panama to run its own affairs” to go? If we had never intervened in Panama then it would still be part of Colombia. The country was in large part a creation of the US, and we ran a significant part of it, adjacent to its two largest cities, as a de facto colony for 75 years.

Here’s some background on Panama’s history:

1903: The US uses gunboat diplomacy to support Panama’s separation from Colombia, because it was able to extort better terms from the new country than it could from Colombia. The US obtains the right to intervene in Panama’s affairs in order to protect the canal. Basically nothing happens in the Panamanian government without at least tacit approval from the US.

1940: Arnulfo Arias is elected for the first time. He is a populist but also a literal fascist, and an open admirer or Hitler. Under US pressure, which obviously didn’t want a Nazi sympathizer in charge adjacent to the canal, he was ousted in a coup in 1941. He becomes president again in 1948 but is again deposed.

1964: Riots break out in Panama, originally triggered by a scuffle over flying the Panamanian flag in the Canal Zone. Twenty-one Panamanians and four US soldiers are killed. The conflict prompts the US to consider renegotiating the Panama Canal treaties.

1968: Arnulfo Arias is elected again but deposed in another military coup after only a few days. Omar Torrijos eventually takes charge of the junta.

1979: The Carter-Torrijos Treaties take effect. The US returns the Canal Zone to Panama and agrees to turn over the Canal and vacate all military bases by the end of 1999. The US begins to cultivate Torrijos’ National Guard, now known as the Panama Defense Forces (PDF) to protect the canal as a proxy once the US leaves. Torrijos founds the Partida Revolutionaria Democratica (PRD) to consolidate his revolution. Several figurehead presidents were appointed to provide a front for the military.

1981: Torrijos is killed in a plane crash and eventually succeeded as head of the PDF by Noriega. Noriega is later rumored to have had a bomb planted in the plane.

1984: In the first election since the military coup in 1068, Arnulfo Arias runs again for president and is widely regarded as having won in a landslide. However, massive fraud gives a narrow election victory to Noriega’s candidate Nicholas Barletta, a former student and protege of US Secretary of State George Schulz. The US quickly endorses the fraudulent results.

Noriega received training by the US at the School of the Americas in Panama, and at Ft. Bragg in the US. He worked for the CIA for several decades. The US was well aware of his involvement with drug dealing and other forms of corruption, but chose to ignore it as long as Noriega served our interests.

The basic error of the US was in not doing more to support actual democracy in Panama. Instead we helped create a military dictator that eventually turned on us. Saying we should have just let him be ignores the history of the situation.

The basic error of the US was in doing what we did. The 20th century seemed to have a lot of situations were the US thought it could just tell people in other countries what to do, could set up power structures at will and basically just dictate how the rest of the world was going to support US interests. Meddling a little then over-correcting and over-correcting and over-correcting until there are completely ludicrous and untenable situations was (and is) terrible foreign policy, IMO.

Thank you for the info you’ve brought to this thread. Your perspective and depth of knowledge are impressive and much appreciated, Colibri.