Should the U.S. grant asylum to Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles?

Great Debates
1

Luis Posada Carriles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles) is an anti-Castro Cuban exile. In 1976 he bombed a Cuban airliner over Venezuela, killing 76 people. He was convicted of the crime in Venezuela, but escaped from prison and, later, helped supply arms to the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan Contras. In 2000 he and three associates were convicted of conspiring to assassinate Castro during a regional summit in Panama, but the Panamanian president pardoned all four of them.

On April 13, 2005, Posada applied for asylum in the U.S.; on May 3, the Venezuelan Supreme Court approved a request to extradite him to Venezuela. Whether he is actually in the U.S. at this time is unclear.

Assuming he can be located, should the U.S. grant him asylum, or extradite him to Venezuela?

Here is an interview with Ricardo Alacon, president of the Cuban National Assembly, setting forth Cuba’s views on the matter: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/09/148248 As Alacon points out, since 9/11/01 the U.S. has been pushing the standard that no country should give harbor to terrorists or even friends or supporters of terrorism; and Posada is a terrorist by any reasonable definition of the term.

2

What exactly is the definition of a terrorist? [rhetorical]

Obviously, the definition will be different depending on your pov. Alas, British historians may have a thing or two to say about who may have fit the definition during some of our countrys’ earlier squirmishes. So too can be said about Native Americans.

Since the early 60s, Cuban exiles living in the States, sometimes presumably with and at other times presumably without the knowledge of the CIA (etc.), have allegedly been involved in some pretty crazy things. Drive-by strafings of resorts of the coast of Cuba, bizarre assasination attempts at Castro, bio attacks of Cuban livestock, grenade/missile launches toward the UN building, bombings, etc., etc., etc. Don’t purport to know what’s real, though there are plenty of bananas for the monkey in every conspiracy theorist’s soul.

But besides all that, some believe there is a level of US guilt for what transpired at Bay of Pigs. Accusations aplenty in the history books as to what went wrong and to whom shoulders the blame. Incidentally, The Warren Commission’s official line is that there was no Cuban involvement as to the answer it sought. But… most things tend not to go Castro/Cuba’s way when lthe U.S. system of justice is involved. Right or wrong, the diaspora’s political pull out of Miami is often credited.

What if he was a CIA operative?

3

Somebody who uses terrorist tactics, in whatever cause. The same person could be classified as a “terrorist” and as a “freedom fighter” with no inconsistency.

That would not confer immunity from criminal prosecution in any court, American or foreign.

4

A workable definition would be someone who violently attacks civilian targets to advance a cause. “Freedom fighters” would be people who attack military or at least governmental targets. It’s not a difficult distinction to draw.
While I’m not going to trust word one out of Castro’s lackeys, based on the Wiki article I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be extradited if he’s found.

Absent more info, I doubt anyone would say otherwise?

5

I guess those are battles nobody likes to talk about.

6

If he did that, he should be extradited. If the US considers that sort of thing OK, then the people who flew the jets into the WTC should be seen as heros by those who think the US is evil.

7

Offering him asylum would make the US no better than Mohammar Qaddafi harboring the people that blew up Pan Am 103.

8

Hand him over.

9

He’s not eligible to enter the U.S, much less to receive asylum, if he has engaged in the persecution of others or of committing certain violent crimes. I’d say murder would certainly count as a violent crime.

http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-22/slb-1796?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act208

"INA: ACT 208 - ASYLUM 1/

Sec. 208.(a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-

(b) Conditions for Granting Asylum. -

(1) In general. - The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Attorney General under this section if the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A).

(2) Exceptions. -

(A) In general. - Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that -

(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;

(iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States;

(iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;

(v) the alien is inadmissible under subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) 2/ of section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) or removable under section 237(a)(4)(B) (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien inadmissible under subclause (IV) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(i), the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General’s discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or

[snip]

(B) Special rules.-

(i) Conviction of aggravated felony. - For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime. "

Looks like he’d be screwed on several counts, barring a major act of Congress. It ain’t gonna happen.

10

Hand him over, on a silver platter. A terrorist is a terrorist.

11

Assylum. I am a firm believer that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. His actions are no worse than most governments’ actions are in war time. His cause is extremely legitimate. Cuba is our enemy. Chavez is really trying hard to be. Don’t kowtow to them with this one.

12

Droll post-modernist irony, right?

13

Would that it were. Unfortunately, I believe the post you’re responding to – ironic or not – represents mainline US attitude at current time.

Grim? No doubt. But it’s not like the rest of the world’s standing still.

Might want to start by taking a look at your own backyard

Disclaimer: not suggesting any of this comes as surprise to people – such as yourself – in the Reality-based community.

14

Are we talking about what the United States should do, hypothetically, or what the Bush administration will do? Because I’m only getting even odds that the two answers will be the same.

15

Certainly can’t send him to Cuba. There’s a place in Cuba, prisoners can be held without charges, lawyers, civil rights, anything. Can’t send him to Cuba. There’s some terrorists in Cuba.

16

Blew up an airplane with 76 innocent people on board?

No asylum, time to leave, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

17

Howzabout this? We turn the matter over to the Organization of American States. You know, throw them a bone like we give a shit what they think. Have to invite a Cuban representative, argue their case.

Say something like “OK, he’s yours. We will abide by a majority decision. You think he goes to Venezuela, he goes. You decide Cuba, we’ll hand him over to Venezuela, your call after that. International Court in the Hague? Whatever. But if you can’t decide, he stays here and we buy him a liquor store in Sausalito, or maybe something nice with the Heritage Foundation…”

Be a nice gesture, show we’re not the 800 lb playground bully, has a birthday every month and everybody’s invited to bring presents, ya know?

18

Sadly, I stand corrected.

Still, other than revealing that some people can take moral relativism to absurd lengths, I have to wonder what the point here is. The US has said they won’t give asylum; other than “Bush is evil,” is there any reason not to believe them?

19

Too much to grant asylum and deal with the hypocrisy fallout yet I’ve not heard anything that would lead me to believe that our formal position is extradition if he is found.

If he is found… perhaps he’s ‘found’ a nice hiding place with or without the knowledge of government officials. Perhaps the unofficial U.S. stance will simply be to not go looking for him. He is in his mid 70s and his physical presence in the U.S. will probably resolve itself before too long.

20

This is quite possible. Particularly if he ever helped the CIA.