This article made me shake my head in disbelief US pays 90 million “compensation” at the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
How can this type of official behavior on the part of the US government be seen as anything other than hypocrisy? Why are they allowed to pick and choose the definition of terrorism?
You tell us. What acts of terrorism did the men commit. Taking up arms against a state is not generally considered terrorism, and the linked article did not mention anything about the targeting of civilians.
I agree. I think I know where you’re going with it, but I don’t want to force words down your throat.
Can you clarify, please?
So why then would what Cuba did in this case be considered a terrorist case? They were acting in defense of their homeland against paid mercenaries of the USA?
Apparently the law allows lawsuits against states accused of terrorism. Why was Cuba accused of terrorism for repelling an invasion and plot to overthrow their government?
If the situation was reversed, and country X were to arm rebels in the USA fighting to overthrow the American government, say some of those extremist militia groups, then this wouldn’t be considered terrorism according to the US’ definition and law?
While I don’t see the men’s actions as terrorism, I certainly don’t see what Cuba is supposed to have done wrong. You participate in an invasion; you take your chances.
Gotta say, I think you’re right on this one. The U.S. has a blind spot when it comes to Cuba.
Here’s an article from 2001 about the case, which goes into more detail exactly what the suit was about.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/howard-anderson.htm
The US does have a huge blind spot when it comes to Cuba, as previously noted. Yes, there are definite flavors of hypicrisy.
It seems that the spotlight of terrorism gets flashed on the convenient target.
As I said in my first post: You tell us. You’re the one making a claim about what the US should do. What does the law define as terrorism?
BTW, you could be right on this. I’m just saying you have yet to make your case, and the article doesn’t tell us enough. There’s also the issue that (I believe) the US does not recognize the Cuban gov’t as the legitimate gov’t of that nation. That might be a double standard as well, but I think you need to take that into account.
Here’s the law, which I think has been posted enough times around here to make your request seem like nitpicking:
“The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism[6]. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
“…activities that involve violent… <or life-threatening acts>… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and …<if domestic>…© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…<if international>…© occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…””
These men were involved in an attempt at violent overthrow of another country. I interpret their actions to be terroristic according to the above quote. So to me, that means the US is rewarding terrorists. The US condemned Saddam Hussein for financially compensating suicide bombers’ famililies.
Now I’d like to know in what convoluted way of reasoning the US can rule that Cuba commited an act of terrorism and not self-defense? Note in the definition above " that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and…" This whole thing seems like it is out of a Bizarro World episode of Superman, you know, the victim is the terrorist and the terrorist is the victim. Bizarre and hypocritical.