[Mithras]

linky (reg. req.)

Hmm, three men fly to Miami. They and their fourth co-conspirator have:
* bombed a passenger plane, killing 76
* assassinated Chilean, Cuban, and US diplomats
* fired rockets at the UN
* plotted to plant bombs at a university

Does the Bush administration immediately arrest, strip citizenship from, or send these men to Gitmo? Of course not: they're radical anti-Castro Cubans, and hence greeted as "freedom fighters" instead.

Is George Bush really fighting a war on terror? Or just a Putinesque war for political control?

A little-noticed but chilling scene at Opa-locka Airport outside Miami last month demonstrates that the Bush administration's commitment to fighting international terrorism can be overtaken by presidential politics — even if that means admitting known terrorists onto U.S. soil.

That's what happened when outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso inexplicably pardoned four Cuban exiles convicted of "endangering public safety" for their role in an assassination plot against Fidel Castro during a 2000 international summit in Panama.

After their release, three of the four immediately flew via private jet to Miami, where they were greeted with a cheering fiesta organized by the hard-line anti-Castro community. Federal officials briefly interviewed the pardoned men — all holders of U.S. passports — and then let them go their way.

The fourth man, Luis Posada Carriles, was the most notorious member of this anti-Castro cell. He is an escapee from a prison in Venezuela, where he was incarcerated for blowing up an Air Cubana passenger plane in 1976, killing 73. He also admitted plotting six hotel bombings in Havana that killed one tourist and injured 11 others in 1997. Posada has gone into hiding in Honduras while seeking a Central American country that will harbor him, prompting Honduran President Ricardo Maduro to demand an explanation from the Bush administration on how a renowned terrorist could enter his country using a false U.S. passport.

The terrorist backgrounds of Posada's three comrades-in-arms are as well documented as their leader's. Guillermo Novo once fired a bazooka at the U.N. building; in February 1979, he was convicted and sentenced to 40 years for conspiracy in the 1976 assassination of former Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier and his American colleague, Ronni Moffitt, in Washington. (His conviction was subsequently vacated on a legal technicality.) Gaspar Jimenez was convicted and imprisoned in Mexico in 1977 for murdering a Cuban consulate official; he was released by authorities in 1983. Pedro Remon received a 10-year sentence in 1986 for conspiring to kill Cuba's ambassador to the United Nations in 1980. These are violent men. Panamanian prosecutors said they had planned to detonate 33 pounds of explosives while Castro was speaking at a university in Panama. Had they not been intercepted by the authorities, the blast not only would have killed the Cuban president but quite possibly hundreds of others gathered to hear him speak during the inter-American summit.

[PacHead]

So what ? Castro is the socialist, commie loving dude, who let nukes be placed on his little dictator island. Any cubans trying to kill him should be applauded.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by PacHead:
So what ? Castro is the socialist, commie loving dude, who let nukes be placed on his little dictator island. Any cubans trying to kill him should be applauded.

...including those who would kill 73 civilians on a plane in the name of their cause, right? And, of course, if someone happens to hold similarly unfavorable opinions about George Bush, and is willing to kill a few innocent Americans along the way... that's fair game, right?

Errr, wait, which side are we on again? The side of freedom and decency? Or the side of the terrorists?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Mithras:
...including those who would kill civilians in the name of their cause, right? And, of course, if someone happens to hold similarly unfavorable opinions about George Bush, and is willing to kill a few innocent Americans along the way... that's fair game, right?

Errr, wait, which side are we on again? The side of freedom and decency? Or the side of the terrorists?

All dictators need to die, a view I have always held.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by PacHead:
All dictators need to die, a view I have always held.

The question is not the dictator -- I more or less agree. The question is whether we sanction those who freely kill civilians in the pursuit of their political cause.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Mithras:
The question is not the dictator -- I more or less agree. The question is whether we sanction those who freely kill civilians in the pursuit of their political cause.

No, that I agree with. Otherwise, we'd be like idiots who support palestinian terrorists.

It seems like the one out of the four in that group definitely is bad news, and should be dealt with. The one who blew up the plane.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
linky (reg. req.)

Hmm, three men fly to Miami. They and their fourth co-conspirator have:
* bombed a passenger plane, killing 76
* assassinated Chilean, Cuban, and US diplomats
* fired rockets at the UN
* plotted to plant bombs at a university

Does the Bush administration immediately arrest, strip citizenship from, or send these men to Gitmo? Of course not: they're radical anti-Castro Cubans, and hence greeted as "freedom fighters" instead.

Is George Bush really fighting a war on terror? Or just a Putinesque war for political control?

Those men are obviously freedom fighters. (it's easy to tell; terrorist activities in line with US foreign policy is actually Freedom Fighting)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
All dictators need to die, a view I have always held.

Then, shouldn't Libya be invaded soon?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Then, shouldn't Libya be invaded soon?

Or perhaps some smart Libyans will kill him. Like I said, ALL dictators should die, and I will smile everytime one of them bites the dust.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Or perhaps some smart Libyans will kill him. Like I said, ALL dictators should die, and I will smile everytime one of them bites the dust.

But, isn't the Bush admin supporting Ghadafi?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
But, isn't the Bush admin supporting Ghadafi?

Not really, Ghadafi is and will always be a terrorist. He seems to be playing nice for the moment, since he recently decided to abandon his nuke project. The day he changes his mind, is the day we take a different stance. There's plenty of scum in the world, can't handle them all at the same time. Patience my friend, one or two at a time.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Hmm. A one-sided op-ed. I wouldn't mind an article with more information. For example, an explanation from the US government about what the visa statuses of these individuals are. Could they have been denied entry as a matter of law?

If I read this correctly, we have people who convicted and then pardoned by the governments of friendly countries, and another whose conviction in the US was overturned by the US courts. It seems like maybe their official records at this moment are clean. But I am just guessing. It's hard to tell from this rather breathless op-ed editorial.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Not really, Ghadafi is and will always be a terrorist. He seems to be playing nice for the moment, since he recently decided to abandon his nuke project. The day he changes his mind, is the day we take a different stance. There's plenty of scum in the world, can't handle them all at the same time. Patience my friend, one or two at a time.

So, as long as he's a nice dictator, he doesn't have to die?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, as long as he's a nice dictator, he doesn't have to die?

Sure he does. No such thing as a "nice" dictator.

[bamburg dunes]

The U.S. doesn't seem to have cracked down much on Loyalist (N. Ireland) terrorist supporters. In fact, many big businesses have fund raising ventures every year to funnel money to these terrorist groups.

Same deal with the I.R.A. supporters in the U.S.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
The U.S. doesn't seem to have cracked down much on Loyalist (N. Ireland) terrorist supporters. In fact, many big businesses have fund raising ventures every year to funnel money to these terrorist groups.

Same deal with the I.R.A. supporters in the U.S.

Uh, no. That's not true. Groups like Noraid are under much closer scrutiny as a result of the Patriot Act, passed after 9/11. It's now illegal to raise funds for such purposes in the US, whereas it wasn't before 9/11.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by PacHead:
All dictators need to die, a view I have always held.

Yet it isn't always the view of the U.S. government.

There is something to be said for the speediness that a dictatorship brings to a country.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Uh, no. That's not true. Groups like Noraid are under much closer scrutiny as a result of the Patriot Act, passed after 9/11. It's now illegal to raise funds for such purposes in the US, whereas it wasn't before 9/11.

The key words there are, 'under close scrutiny', but the reality is that plenty of money is still being funneled out to Ireland. Being monitored closely, and actual prevention are two different things. There is less crutiny on these groups than say, Islamic ones.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Sure he does. No such thing as a "nice" dictator.

And, yet, the US has resumed diplomatic relations with Libya.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And, yet, the US has resumed diplomatic relations with Libya.

Yes, because we have their nuke stash now. Hard concept to grasp heh ?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
The key words there are, 'under close scrutiny', but the reality is that plenty of money is still being funneled out to Ireland. Being monitored closely, and actual prevention are two different things. There is less crutiny on these groups than say, Islamic ones.

Do you have any evidence for these opinions?

[Cody Dawg]

Honestly, I don't care. They tried to kill Fidel Castro? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

<shakes head>

Too bad.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you have any evidence for these opinions?

Yes, I do. From personal experience in recent years (post 9/11, Patriot Act) due to witnessing such things with my own eyes; to various Governmental bodies writs, memos, etc.

The N. Ireland office is aware of these things, and that despite the restrictions laid out by law in the U.S. The reality is that the fund raisers are still going strong, and although monitored, they are hardly hindered in their actions.
If I get the time, I'll scan in some documents that I've collected and post them up on my personal website.

Edit: To be clearer here, Republicanism, Loyalism, and the Irish problem has been an interest of mine for quite a while.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mithras:
linky (reg. req.)

Hmm, three men fly to Miami. They and their fourth co-conspirator have:
* bombed a passenger plane, killing 76
* assassinated Chilean, Cuban, and US diplomats
* fired rockets at the UN
* plotted to plant bombs at a university

Does the Bush administration immediately arrest, strip citizenship from, or send these men to Gitmo? Of course not: they're radical anti-Castro Cubans, and hence greeted as "freedom fighters" instead.

Is George Bush really fighting a war on terror? Or just a Putinesque war for political control?

Nope, if the allegations are true, they should ship these guys back to Cuba... fitted with matching toe-tags.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
it's easy to tell; terrorist activities in line with US foreign policy is actually Freedom Fighting

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yes, because we have their nuke stash now. Hard concept to grasp heh ?

Libya's "nuke" stash? lol! OK, pulling myself up off the floor ... assuming what Libya had could actually be considered a "nuke stash", that does not negate the fact that Gadhafi is still a dictator. Or, are only dictators with "nuke stashes" required to die?

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by Mithras:
[B
Errr, wait, which side are we on again? The side of freedom and decency? Or the side of the terrorists? [/B]

You are on the side of the terrorist. You are a terrorist sympathizer for disagreeing with anything Bush has done. Bush is the president of the United States and he knows ALL.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
You are on the side of the terrorist. You are a terrorist sympathizer for disagreeing with anything Bush has done. Bush is the president of the United States and he knows ALL.

That's me! that's me! (waives hand furiously). I support terrorists, no wait, I oppose most of what Bush says and does, ack, same thing then.

[macvillage.net]

It's important to remember the US *does not* have a policy against using terrorism. It has a strict policy about being subject to such tactics. The state dept. has made that super clear.

In recent history we had the 'School of the Americas', with the privilage of training some of the worst genocides in the Americas.

Not to mention the training of militants during hte cold war in the middle east (in particular Afganistan, Iran/Iraq). The US didn't want the reputation of using car bombers... so we trained militants to do so, in hopes of creating instability.

It's not a republican thing, it's not a Democrat thing... it's an American thing.


Heck you can trace terrorist tactics back to the Revolutionary War. British loyalists found themselves in quite a few occasions tarred and feathered (literally), arson, etc. etc.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's important to remember the US *does not* have a policy against using terrorism. It has a strict policy about being subject to such tactics. The state dept. has made that super clear.

Nicely put.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's important to remember the US *does not* have a policy against using terrorism. It has a strict policy about being subject to such tactics. The state dept. has made that super clear.

In recent history we had the 'School of the Americas', with the privilage of training some of the worst genocides in the Americas.

Not to mention the training of militants during hte cold war in the middle east (in particular Afganistan, Iran/Iraq). The US didn't want the reputation of using car bombers... so we trained militants to do so, in hopes of creating instability.

It's not a republican thing, it's not a Democrat thing... it's an American thing.


Heck you can trace terrorist tactics back to the Revolutionary War. British loyalists found themselves in quite a few occasions tarred and feathered (literally), arson, etc. etc.

Close your beaks, or at least speak the truth. What a joke.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's important to remember the US *does not* have a policy against using terrorism. It has a strict policy about being subject to such tactics. The state dept. has made that super clear.

In recent history we had the 'School of the Americas', with the privilage of training some of the worst genocides in the Americas.

Not to mention the training of militants during hte cold war in the middle east (in particular Afganistan, Iran/Iraq). The US didn't want the reputation of using car bombers... so we trained militants to do so, in hopes of creating instability.

It's not a republican thing, it's not a Democrat thing... it's an American thing.


Heck you can trace terrorist tactics back to the Revolutionary War. British loyalists found themselves in quite a few occasions tarred and feathered (literally), arson, etc. etc.

It seems to be U.S. policy to get others to do the dirty work for you.
This "terrorist" has information, so ship him over to China and let them torture him. After all, we're a civilized nation who would never stoop to such tactics.

Terrorism has existed since the beginnings of warfare, and will always be a part of war. In spite of how much you bomb another country.

[Rygar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Close your beaks, or at least speak the truth. What a joke.

Pick up a history book and check for yourself.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by PacHead:
All dictators need to die, a view I have always held.

Then you're in the wrong country. The United States has (many times) over thrown legitimate governments (democracys) and put dictators into power.

Saddam was there because we put him there, Castro is in power because we supported him. Ever heard of the Panama Canal? We started/supported a revolt and overthrew the government in that area to gain access to land. This is just the tip of a very large ice berg.

[thunderous_funker]

Why is anyone surprised by this?

Have you met Bush's U.S. Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere ?

Anyone who appoints him to such a position obviously has dubious credibility for waging a "War on Terrorism".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Where have you been? I haven't seen you around these parts in a while. Did you change your username, go away for a long vacation, need a break from these crazy lounge liberals...???

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Where have you been? I haven't seen you around these parts in a while. Did you change your username, go away for a long vacation, etc???

My old lazy IT job enabled my previous participation. My new job in Portland gives me virtually zero time to be on the forum.

I check in once in a while but I usually dont' have time or energy to participate.

Did ya miss me?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
Yes, I do. From personal experience in recent years (post 9/11, Patriot Act) due to witnessing such things with my own eyes; to various Governmental bodies writs, memos, etc.

The N. Ireland office is aware of these things, and that despite the restrictions laid out by law in the U.S. The reality is that the fund raisers are still going strong, and although monitored, they are hardly hindered in their actions.
If I get the time, I'll scan in some documents that I've collected and post them up on my personal website.

Edit: To be clearer here, Republicanism, Loyalism, and the Irish problem has been an interest of mine for quite a while.

Then post it.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Then post it.

Post what? My paper documents? Sure. Like I said above, when I get the time I'll scan in some relevant articles for you, and various other bits of data I have and post them on my personal website.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
Post what? My paper documents? Sure. Like I said above, when I get the time I'll scan in some relevant articles for you, and various other bits of data I have and post them on my personal website.

That would be good, thanks.

You could probably just cite the articles. Some of us have access to Lexis.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That would be good, thanks.

You could probably just cite the articles. Some of us have access to Lexis.

They aren't all public documents, plus I still need to go rummage through them to get the relevant documents. I don't keep those on my computer, but just collections in my filers.


Once I get some time I'll post you a link in here, and any articles that might be available on the net, I'll cite them for you.

Cheers.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
My old lazy IT job enabled my previous participation. My new job in Portland gives me virtually zero time to be on the forum.

I check in once in a while but I usually dont' have time or energy to participate.

Did ya miss me?

You should have asked me that before you jumped on me about Iran in the other thread. Now I wish you'd just go back to work. Actually, I'm about to dive in hard w/ my work as well, so I will be vanishing similarly very soon.

I hope all is well with your new job. I hear Portland is the strip-club capital of the USA... not quite the liberal dream of a strip-club on every street corner, but I hear that it's getting there. </sarcasm>

Anyway, it's nice to see you're still alive and that Ashcroft didn't order your detainment. He must not have read my email.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Close your beaks, or at least speak the truth. What a joke.

Can't deny what the US did and does. Not even the US does.

Remember the United States Pentagon repeatedly has reiterated as early as the day it was created our troops in ANY conflict are not bound to the Geneva Convention... but if caputured, are to be treated under it's doctorine. It's really one of only a few nations left who refuse to abide by the convention. While many did originally say they wouldn't abide by it, most now do.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nope, if the allegations are true, they should ship these guys back to Cuba... fitted with matching toe-tags.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Remember the United States Pentagon repeatedly has reiterated as early as the day it was created our troops in ANY conflict are not bound to the Geneva Convention... but if caputured, are to be treated under it's doctorine. It's really one of only a few nations left who refuse to abide by the convention. While many did originally say they wouldn't abide by it, most now do.

What are you talking about? The US has never said any such thing. U.S. troops are bound to all the of the conventions on the laws of war to which the US is a party. That includes the major Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. There are some more recent and very controversial protocols to which the US is not a party. This is not unique. Those Protocols were never universally accepted by the international community. Nevertheless, the US considers many provisions of those Protocols binding on our troops even though we are not formally a party.

The US does require its troops to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
The troops are bound by law. It is codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is set out in clear terms to the troops in such field manuals as FM 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare. This is why there are prosecutions of US war criminals coming out of Abu-Ghraib and from other incidents. Those soldiers violated the regulations that implement the laws of war.

You really shouldn't make wild an inaccurate assertions like that, Robert.

[Spliffdaddy]

what did you expect?

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Those men are obviously freedom fighters. (it's easy to tell; terrorist activities in line with US foreign policy is actually Freedom Fighting)