I guess not! On the heels of the 9/11 ceremony and Bush’s speeches on how the US is fighting a global war on terrorism. Just one more reason for not trusting the USA.
Freudean slip?
So, you and Mullah Omar agree on something.
And this would be bad because…?
Personally I think that a retirement resort for ex dictators, or even Bin Laden, is a pretty sound way of not forcing them to play ‘end game’.
It is only an extention of the Geneva Convention, and without that conventional armies would fight behind the last ditch - or frag their officers
Uh, dudes? Posada isn’t a proven terrorist at all. In fact, it appears that he was aquited.
The CIA documents that are cited as showing Posada as a bomber in fact say “…A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE ABROAD ADVISED HE HAD DISCOVERED THAT…LOZANO…HAD BEEN PART OF THE SUPPORT GROUP IN THE SABOTAGE OPERATION AGAINST THE CUBANA AIRLINER…OPERATION HAD NOT GONE AS PLANNED BECUASE IT WAS INTENDED THAT THE BOMB SHOULD EXPLODE BEFORE THE AIRPLANE TOOK OFF” Another similar cite quotes the same “CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE” as “…ALL BUT ADMITTED THAT POSADA AND BOSCH HAD ENGINEERED THE BOMBING OF THE PLANE”. So, yeah, there was a source that claimed Posda was guilty, but the Source in not identified, nor is the source’s veracity disccussed, nor does it appear to me that the “source” even came though with proff. In other words, an anonymous source made an unverified accusation. :dubious: Big deal. The CIA gets them all the time. So do the Police, FBI, INTERPOL etc.
No doubt that Lozano was involved with anti-Castro activities. It appears that those activities certainly would be illegal in Cuba, but we don’t know exactly what he did, or if he crossed the line between “guerrilla” and “terrorist”.
Dudes- where do we get off saying that “an anonymous accusation without evidence”= “guilty”?
Not that I am saying the dude is a saint or anything, don’t get me wrong, and he could be guilty as hell. But the evidence is slight.
I like the way that this cite:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/
says "The National Security Archive today posted additional documents that show that the CIA had *concrete * advance intelligence, as early as June 1976, on plans by Cuban exile terrorist groups to bomb a Cubana airliner. " (italics mine). Their “concrete” evidence? A CIA memo about “POSSIBLE PLANS OF CUBAN EXILE EXTREMISTS TO BLOW UP A CUBANA AIRLINER”. (Italics mine)
Note the vast gap between “concrete” as claimed by the cite, and “POSSIBLE” as the actual wording in the source document. :rolleyes:
He was convicted of plotting to assainate Castro. He has admitted to have carried out bombings. He was being held for trial in Venezuela when he escaped.
Apparently the countries that are asking for his extradition have plenty of proof to try him. Does it really matter what the CIA has on him?
Assassination of a dictator is indeed guerrila warfare and not terrorism. And, he was pardoned for that, anyway.
“plenty of proof to try him”? :dubious: "Mr Posada Carriles escaped a Venezuelan prison in 1985 while awaiting a trial on appeal. He was *twice acquitted * by Venezuelan courts of plotting to bomb the plane. " Twice acquitted. Got that? That is the *exact opposite * of “plenty of proof” of his guilt- in fact in the USA it is “plenty of proof” of his innocence. In fact, under our laws, he couldn’t have been tried the *second * time, much less a 3rd. And then a fourth, a fifth, and so forth. :rolleyes:
So let’s see: Posada was convicted- but then pardoned- of an act which is not terrorism. He was TWICE aquitted of the terrorist charges, but they want to keep trying him over and over and over again until they get a conviction or worse. Tell me again exactly how he is a “terrorist”?
Cite? Assasination of a dictator isn’t terrorism? I believe in the US a law was passed that made such a thing illegal. And his pardon I believe came from a Panamanian conviction. What prohibits Cuba for trying him on that charge?
He wasn’t acquited in Venezuela. His first trial and acquital by a military tribunal for treason was anulled by a higher military court who ruled the first trial was not legal. Treason got that? When his case was sent to civilian court where it rightfully belonged, he was charged with homocide. He was not acquited. He escaped Venezuela jail while awaiting trial.
Try to get your facts straight.
Well, I can’t prove a negative, so you’ll have to prove that attacking the uniformed Commander in chief is “terrorism” as opposed to “guerrilla warfare”. Do you know the difference between the two? Sure, it’s generally illegal to murder dudes, but murder does not = terrorism.
And, that’s what the cites here said, including Wiki. If you have a different cite, trot it out.
The proper course when wishing to resurrect an old discussion is to submit a new thread, linking to any previous threads on the topic. This avoids the problem of resurrecting old personal feuds or engaging in arguments against posters no longer here to defend their positions, (or themselves).
The original thread was at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315793&highlight=Carriles
I have split this thread off from the zombie. Please refrain from resurrecting old threads in the future.
[ /Moderating ]
I haven’t attacked anyone’s position except Dr Deth’s and obviously he is here to defend himself.
If this thread shouldn’t have been reopened then close it. Cual es el problema?
You edited your previous post while I was typing my last post. You hadn’t yet split it off. My apologies.
I don’t really think it is at all hard to prove that blowing up an airplane is considered a terrorist act but if you really insist on continuing your disingenous argument here is the defintion of terrorism in the US. I really don’t know how Venezuela legally defines it which is really what matters most. Unless of course in your opinion US laws are the only valid laws on the planet.
FBI definiton:
“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
US Dept of Defense
“The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
Umm, dude? I wasn’t talking about blowing up an airplane. Unless the airplane is military, I think we can agree it’s terrorism. What Posada was convicted of (then later pardoned for) was attempting to kill a uniformed member of the armed forces of a nation where he was in rebellion. (Ie he tried to kill Castro). That’s not terrorism.
Do you have a cite for attempted murder of a uniformed member of a armed force by an insurgent being “terrorism”? As to me, that pretty well defines a legit target for the puposes of guerrilla warfare.
Next, I need a cite that differs from Wiki’s as to Posada’s trials.
""Mr Posada Carriles escaped a Venezuelan prison in 1985 while awaiting a trial on appeal. He was twice acquitted by Venezuelan courts of plotting to bomb the plane. " Note that Wiki has been “edited” in the short time since I found that quote.
Posada is wanted for trial in Venezuela for blowing up a civilian airliner. That is considered terrorism.
He is wanted by Cuba for plotting to kill Castro AND blowing up a civilian airliner AND blowing up hotels which caused civilian deaths. That make him a terrorist.
Here is what I got from Wiki:
*"Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles… Ha confesado públicamente ser terrorista, entre sus acusaciones están la de haber realizado varios ataques violentos contra intereses cubanos, incluyendo bombas en varios hoteles y la explosión de un avión de la aerolínea Cubana de Aviación que volaba entre Venezuela y Cuba.
En julio de 1998, en una entrevista con el New York Times, Luis Posada Carriles dijo que Jorge Más Canosa, el director de la Fundación Nacional Cubano Americana, le había dado en total $200.000 por sus operaciones."*
Who’s Wiki is right?
“wanted” does not = “guilty”
And, dude- that’s in spanish.
So when it’s a terrorist against a country we don’t like, he’s given the whole criminal-justice-system shebang, but when it’s an alleged terrorist against US, we have to put hold them without trial in an extraterritorial enclave in which we practice torture against them and that’s fine?
Funny how the Spanish Wiki states that he is a confessed terrorist and the English site doesn’t. Ommission or oversight?
Isn’t that what trials are for? To determine guilt? Has OBL been tried and found guilty? No? Does that mean he isn’t a terrorist? Posada has confessed in the press on numerous occasions that he has committed bombings and other terroristic acts that have killed civilians. I really don’t see much debate here. I don’t really know what motivates you to defend this scumbag, just looking to argue apparently but I don’t see any point in continuing with this.