Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Terrorist or "Freedom Fighter?"
Posted by: McQ on Friday, May 20, 2005

You know the saying: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Depending on ideology and citizenship, the terms are relative.

We've had this discussion many times. Arguments over who is or isn't a terrorist have raged. So it's with interest that I cite this story:
Ever since it was learned that Luis Posada Carriles slipped into the country two months ago, the United States has been in an awkward position about how to deal with the aging Cuban militant wanted in a deadly 1976 jetliner bombing.

On Thursday, the government brought an immigration charge against Posada — a move that could lead to his deportation. But the question remains: Where might the government send him?
A guy who blew up a jetliner? Whoa ... obviously a terrorist ... obviously. What do we call those 13 who flew aircraft into the WTC? Terrorists of course. They took innocent lives through their act of terrorism.

So what have we snagged here? A terrorist plane bomber?

Well sorta. You see the aircraft was Cuban, flying out of Venezuela. And Venezuela, as well as Cuba, consider the act one of terrorism. Personally, if true, I'd have a hard time arguing it wasn't.

Naturally, Venezuela still wants this guy. But you see, the US is and has been opposed to the communist regime in Cuba, and at the moment is none to fond of the regime in Venezeala. So what's the US to do?
Authorities in Venezuela, where the bombing plot allegedly was hatched, desperately want custody of Posada, but U.S. officials have said they won't send anyone to a country that they believe is doing Cuba's bidding. Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez are close allies.
But if he's a terrorist and he's committed terroristic acts, what does that have to do with anything? Venezuela's natural reaction (and make no mistake, I have nothing particularly good to say about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela):
Chavez lambasted U.S. officials for charging Posada only with entering the country illegally, saying it demonstrates U.S. hypocrisy in the war on terrorism.

"We demand that the United States ... send this terrorist, this international bandit" to Venezuela to face justice, Chavez said in a televised address.
As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Chavez on this as presented. I'd also point out that we managed somehow to actually arrest an illegal immigrant, when it has appeared, to this point, that we don't do that (and its an aside, but I couldn't resist).

And a recently released FBI document, despite Posada's denials to the contrary, quotes informants that say he was deeply involved in the '76 bombing.

Now ... as shown above, you could definitely cry "hypocricy" and feel pretty justified in doing so. There are some extenuating and mitigating circumstances, however. One is that he is a former CIA operative. A national security problem? Not if we're willing to deport him to a friendly 3rd country he's not. So that won't wash. But then there is this:
Posada was acquitted after two trials in Venezuela, then escaped from a prison there in 1985 while awaiting a prosecutor's appeal.

Obviously there is more to this story than Venezuela is telling us (or is being reported). Two acquittals? But here's the rub. He escaped from prison before letting the Venezuelan system do its thing and well before Chavez took office. Not knowing Venezuelan law I'm not sure what that means in the big scheme of things, but I certainly know what "escaping from custody" means. The US has an extraditon treaty with Venezuela signed in 1922.

Anyway, reading the above you could almost be swayed to back off your previous determination that the US was being hypocritical. Almost. But then there's this:
Castro has repeatedly renounced Cuba's right to try Posada and has instead argued that he should be turned over to Venezuela or an international tribunal. Castro has branded Posada a terrorist and said the Bush administration would be guilty of a double standard in the war on terrorism if it gave Posada asylum.

Posada has also been linked to a series of 1997 bombings in Cuba that killed an Italian tourist.
So is that dead Italian tourist entitled to have his day in court, to have his accused murderer brought to trial, a trial, per Cuba, which can be held elsewhere?

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

Hypocrisy or a principled stand?

UPDATE: More interesting stuff to read.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Seems to me the outcome of that question depends centrally on your definition of ’freedom’.

I suppose I’ll catch hell from Beck for even the use of the word, but even he cannot argue that there’s not a major difference between the US’s definition, and that of Communist Cuba.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Second thought;
And the question, too.. that Libertarians of ANY stripe will be hard pressed to ignore, in this context; s it possible for a government to be wrong, to be unjust, to make the wrong choices?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
is it possible for a government to be wrong, to be unjust, to make the wrong choices?

Absofreakin’lutely.

That’s the danger of politics in a nutshell, i.e. when politics is substituted for principle, it not only can be wrong, unjust and make wrong choices, you can sorta bank on it doing so.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
FYI:

"The current extradition treaty between the United States and Venezuela was signed in 1922. The treaty contains a limited list of extraditable offenses, and narcotics trafficking is not one of the listed offenses, but Venezuela is a party to the 1988 UN Drug Convention, and by the terms of the Convention narcotics trafficking and related money laundering are deemed extraditable under the bilateral extradition treaty. Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution expressly prohibits the extradition of Venezuelan nationals. Previously, Venezuela only had a statutory bar to the extradition of nationals. Despite this obstacle, Venezuela has demonstrated good faith in extraditing non-Venezuelans to the United States. On other occasions, the Venezuelan authorities have arranged for the deportation or expulsion of non-citizens to stand trial in the United States. Recently, continued progress in U.S.-Venezuelan extradition relations has been slowed by the transition of Venezuelan political institutions and large-scale personnel changes in all branches of government."
 
Written By: praktike
URL: http://
Thanks praktike ... I took a cursory glance at a couple of google sources and couldn’t find them on the list. This makes the cheese even more binding for the US.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Were these military or civilian personel? To me that makes all the difference in the world. If they were civilian we should try him right here.

— Richard Zeien
 
Written By: Richard Zeien
URL: http://
He’s currently in US custody.

The matter is currently being investigated. I don’t believe anyone thinks we should hand over people, just because another country says so.

If we find merits to the charges, and believe he will get a fair trial and his rights upheld in Venezuela, then by all means we should extradite him.

If not, then to an international tribunal. And if not that, what is the difference between us not extraditing him to Venezuala becuase his rights wont be upheld, and Canada not extraditing someone to the US because they may face the death penalty. I would assume both are legal, otherwise the later wouldn’t happen often enough to make the headlines.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I don’t see where the hypocrisy is. At least not yet. If anything, we’re being entirely consistent in that we’ve at least arrested the guy (albeit on immigration charges) and are trying to figure out what to do with him. I agree with the policy of not doing Cuba’s bidding, and I don’t see where helping out Venezuela gets us at this juncture, treaty or no, especially if the guy has already been twice acquitted. Probably the best thing we can do is turn him over to an impartial country with a strong rule of law(the UK? Poland? Australia? Japan?) and let them deal with him. Provided, of course, that he doesn’t pose some sort of security risk to us.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I don’t think the (de)merits of the dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela even begin to enter into this equation. Castro is right—a failure to deal with this fellow as a terrorist would be an abominable double-standard. There’s only one relevant fact: he tried to blow up an airliner. End of story. If that’s the case, then I’m not particularly concerned with WHO we turn him over to, though an international court would be better than the apparent alternatives.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Is it common practice in Venezuela to hold as prisoners people who have already been aquitted until the prosocution can launch an appeal? Anyone who fights against "presumed guilty until proof of guilt is found" is a freedom fighter.

If the guy did indeed blow up the airplane, I have a number of suggestions about how to deal with him and deporting him is one of the mildest. But, he was aquitted, twice, and was still being held prisoner.
 
Written By: Doug Purdie
URL: http://www.onlybaseballmatters.com
Is it common practice in Venezuela to hold as prisoners people who have already been aquitted until the prosocution can launch an appeal?

Can’t answer that, but it may be, considering it was most likely a capital charge.

The question is, did he have a part in that plot (as you know acquittal doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t)? And even if you’d prefer to calim the acquittals make that moot (I’d love to see what he was acquitted OF), how about the charges concerning the bombings in Cuba and the dead Italian tourist?

Do you feel he ought to face those charges somewhere?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Were these military or civilian personnel?

I’m not sure, Richard, but I don’t see the difference.

I mean, if there is a distinction then are you saying that when the terrorists in Iraq blow themselves up next to a recruiting station, or execute 12 army trainess in cold blood, that somehow makes a difference in whether the act is terrorism or not?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
McQ: Yeah, it does make a difference.

Attacking military targets isn’t terrorism, it’s just war (though those not wearing uniforms that do it are in violation of the normal laws and traditions of war, and may quite reasonably be shot summarily on capture).

Army trainees are, well, in the Army. Executing them in cold blood may be a "war crime", but it’s not terrorism, by normal uses of the term.

Now, the reckless disregard for civilian casualties, and the attacks on police recruiting lines lean much more towards terrorist than military action (especially as I have no evidence that Iraq is currently a police state such that the police can be considered no different from the military).

It’s not the fact that the jihadis blow themselves up that makes an action terrorist, it’s the target and the motivation. (One could argue that a motivation to effect political change by causing terror while attacking a military target is "terrorist", but in normal use it’s limited to attacks on non-military targets, or attacks so wilfully, indiscriminate on said targets as to effectively be intentionally attacking civilians as well.)

Anyway, I say the bastard in question should probably be given to an international tribunal. This is probably the only thing the ICC can be good for, as I really can’t bring myself to trust Chavez or Castro to give him a fair trial, which even the guilty deserve. (Even when there’s no question as to the outcome, as with many of the cases at Nuremberg.)

 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
The airliner that Posada helped bomb was filled with Cuban athletes. Fencing athletes if I’m not mistaken.

So...he killed a bunch of innocent athletes. To my thinking, that makes him a terrorist.

He along with Bosch also conspired to kill the president of a sovereign nation. Terrorist.

Responsible for bombing a hotel in Havana full of tourists, killing an Italian tourist. Terrorist.

Here’s some more information on this vile piece of trash.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/posa-m18.shtml
 
Written By: disgustapated
URL: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com
sorry


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/posa-m18.shtml
 
Written By: disgustapated
URL: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com
A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of whether he is also a freedom fighter. We should turn him over.

I’d be interested, though, to hear what the critics of the "rendition" policy have to say, since they presumably would oppose on principle turning him over to regimes that may torture him.
 
Written By: Crank
URL: http://www.baseballcrank.com
This could be the start of a trend: bloggers linked from Google. Congratulations!
 
Written By: Mike
URL: http://www.rigoletto.com/blogger.html
Law and politics aside, the guy is a "former CIA
operative," and he has bombed an airplane.
It would be against common sense to send the guy
back to the country where he was acquitted of
terrorist’ish acts and then allowed to escape.
 
Written By: umdope
URL: http://
No argument.
He is a terrorist by definition.
clik the URL
or copy paste
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/specials/terrorism/frameset.html
 
Written By: ixta
URL: http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/specials/terrorism/frameset.html
We bombed the entire country of Afghanistan in response to "harboring terrorists". To not extradict Posada would be the ultimate in hypocracy.

"since they presumably would oppose on principle turning him over to regimes that may torture him."

As oppposed to the U.S. rendering prisoners to be tortured by proxy in other countries?

How soon Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc. are forgotten.
 
Written By: disgustapated
URL: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com
The US-UK extradition treaty no longer requires the US to present prima facie evidence against anyone whom they want to extradite (Britain is still required to present prima facie evidence before extradition from the US is required - for an idea of the problems with this system, google the ’Bermingham Three’). The US has demanded the extradition of several British citizens on terrorism charges (the only delays are that Britain cannot extradite anyone when they may be executed as a result). This man is accused of terrorism and the US has committed itself to a war on terror. His crimes were committed in Venezuela, which has an extradition treaty with the US; on what grounds can the US refuse to extradite him?

If Cuba or Venezuela were refusing to extradite one of the 9/11 plotters, then the US would probably add them to the Axis of Evil and send in the F-15s. Rank hypocrisy.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Two not guiltys are enough to make his only crime escape, from a prison he was held in after two not guiltys. Fine him $50 and show him where to stand to pick up work.
 
Written By: Walter E. Wallis
URL: http://
Two not guiltys are enough to make his only crime escape ...

And the subsequent bombings in Cuba?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Well... If I was a wanted criminal in the US, I’d catch a flight o Venezuela, as they’d probably give me a medal and a room in a posh hotel at the moment.
 
Written By: Barak
URL: http://
Belgium claims jurisdiction over the entire planet, and the Netherlands has the Hague international court. Send him to any Benelux country that will take him.

Seriously, the U.S. has a procedure for asylum review. Put Mr. Posada through that procedure, and if he does not qualify, deport him to Venezuela. It’s hard to overcome the airline hijacking, if he was involved.
 
Written By: pilsener
URL: http://
So, he was seized less than a week ago.

Nobody has submitted an extradition request for him yet.

The only US condition is that he not be sent to Cuba, which you say is not an issue because Castro doesn’t want/is willing to forego him.

Charging hypocrisy a bit early, aren’t we?
 
Written By: Terry Shipman
URL: http://
You left out one little factoid from this story on the Cuban who slipped into the country and who is wanted in Venezuela:

He has been tried twice for allegedly blowing up the plane, and both times was acquitted.

But in "democratic" Venezuela, the state can try you as many times as it wishes until it gets a conviction.

Carriles was tried twice, and the state did not have enought evidence to convict him. And we should send someone back for that kind of justice?
 
Written By: Simon Lazarus
URL: http://nonameisary.blogspot.com/
Carriles was tried twice, and the state did not have enought evidence to convict him. And we should send someone back for that kind of justice?

Once again I ask .. what about his alleged part in the bombings in Cuba in ’97 that led to the death of the Italian tourist?

Should he be allowed to skate on that because we don’t like the two states involved?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I’ve read several times that he admitted in a NYT interview that he was involved in the hotel bombings, but I didn’t find the article. I did find an interview with the NYT reporter who did the interview, where she said this:
AMY GOODMAN: So you have Luis Posada admitting to involvement in the 1997 bombings of tourist hotels. What else did he admit to you?

ANN LOUISE BARDACH: He did not say that—I asked him about the Cubana shoot-down. He did not say that – he said he did not do it.
Make no mistake, she doesn’t believe him, but she does say he didn’t cop to it, so it may not be a cut-and-dried as the source you quote indicates.

OTH, the abstract of the article on the NYT website says:
Article ... says Posada is proud, boastful and evasive about his work as self-proclaimed freedom fighter, which included series of hotel bombings last year that plunged Cuba into tumult;...
The more I read about this case, the more bizarre it becomes.

 
Written By: Terry Shipman
URL: http://
Absofreakin’lutely.

That’s the danger of politics in a nutshell, i.e. when politics is substituted for principle, it not only can be wrong, unjust and make wrong choices, you can sorta bank on it doing so.
Then it seems to me that we must consider the idea that Castro’s wrong here, and our reaction to his being wrong.

Think, Bruce... Castro’s claim that if we don’t consider the man a terrorist, of there being a double stnadard is only true, if you consider as Jon apparently does, that Castro’s government is a just one, and one whose foundations are based in the freedom of the individual.

There does seem to me to be some room for argument on that point. Indeed; given this, This discussion seems to me very different from it’s original casting, now. The question you’re now forced into asking yourself at this point is, as you point up, one of principle. Namely...

Do we hold politics, or the freedom of the individual as our highest principle?

If we bow to the principle of individual freedom, as I think we must, the man must be considered a freedom fighter.

OTOH, If we play politics, holding the laws of a dictitorial and corrupt government to be higher than those stated principles, and thus label this man a terrorist... well ask yourself; are we not playing into Castro’s game and giving his illegtimate and dictitorial rule of Cuba, and the damage he’s done to the freedom of the individual, legitimacy?

It comes down to this: which principle do you hold higher?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Then it seems to me that we must consider the idea that Castro’s wrong here, and our reaction to his being wrong.

Disagree. There either was or wasn’t a bombing in Cuba in ’98. He either was or wasn’t involved. If there was a bombing (there was) and he was involved (seems to be evidence to support that) then what he was allegedly involved in is considered a terroristic act.

Period.

Now only politics can subvert that. Only rationalization can justify the subversion. And that’s precisely what you’re engaged in.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
So, apparently, you’re willing to bow to the politics, here. Your motivation, your driving principle, is not the freedom of the individual, but rather, the law. You hold the law, (and the government behind it) higher than the freedom f the individual.

Explain to us how I’m wrong in making that statement.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Your motivation, your driving principle, is not the freedom of the individual, but rather, the law. You hold the law, (and the government behind it) higher than the freedom of the individual.

Not at all ... when you figure it out, get back with me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I already have, Bruce.

Refer to my statement, as quoted.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Then tell me about the Italian tourist’s individual rights.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Your motivation, your driving principle, is not the freedom of the individual, but rather, the law. You hold the law, (and the government behind it) higher than the freedom f the individual.
What the hell are you talking about? The guy, apparently, is a terrorist. If he’s a terrorist, he deserves to be punished, even if he has to be punished by an odious regime. We may agree with his opposition to Cuba, but we do not condone his methods.

Well, we do not. Apparently, you’re a pretty forgiving fellow.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The guy, apparently, is a terrorist.
By the definition of the law, correct.
But again, the question; Can the government be wrong? McQ has already stated emphatically it can be so.

Thereby; can the law supporting said government be wrong? Can fighting as such, committing acts outside the law, be RIGHT?

This is not a matter of equivication, but a matter of which principals you hold higher. The laws of an an unjust government, or indivual freedom.

Funny thing; I thought libertarians supported individual freedom.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Funny thing; I thought libertarians supported individual freedom.
Well, it may come as a surprise to you, but there’s no branch of libertarianism which supports an individual freedom to blow up airplanes, or otherwise intentionally kill civilians. What he did was wrong, regardless of your view of the Cuban government.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Funny thing; I thought libertarians supported individual freedom.

Hey "blank out" ... one more time ... what about the individual rights of that Italian tourist?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Hey "blank out" ... one more time ... what about the individual rights of that Italian tourist?
Sorry, I hadn’t seen that one.

In any war, and war it is, innocents get killed regardless of who is involved, correct? I daresay that our own revolution.. and civil war... both invoved civillian casualties. Tell us about Dresden, for another example of such.
Well, it may come as a surprise to you, but there’s no branch of libertarianism which supports an individual freedom to blow up airplanes, or otherwise intentionally kill civilians
And ask yourself, under a government where everyone and everything is owned by the government, what, exactly is a civillian? As a matter of law, since you seem rather heavily dependant on that hinge, the Olympic team in question were Govenrment conscripts,a dn represetitives of the Communist Cuban government.. Not quite as cut and dried, as ’civilians’ is it?

And another point; Tell us what LEGAL methods the Cuban people have to hand to fight the current dictatorship. I submit that there are none. This presents both practical and moral issues to the stand you’ve taken here. This still comes down to which principle you hold higher.

I find your answer to this unacceptable.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
In any war, and war it is, innocents get killed regardless of who is involved, correct? I daresay that our own revolution.. and civil war... both invoved civillian casualties. Tell us about Dresden, for another example of such.

Ah, I see ... now its a "war". Well gee, if we use your rationalization, then he and al-Queda share the distinction of both being at ’war’ and thus are not terrorists.

Dresden, btw, took place in a declared war among a number of countries and isn’t at all relevant to this example. Zawqawri is relevant to this example because he fits precisely the premise you’re trying to construct about the guy in question here.

Politics and rationalization over principle.

And speaking of rationalization, this is so twisted and contorted as to be laughable:
And ask yourself, under a government where everyone and everything is owned by the government, what, exactly is a civillian? As a matter of law, since you seem rather heavily dependant on that hinge, the Olympic team in question were Govenrment conscripts,a dn represetitives of the Communist Cuban government.. Not quite as cut and dried, as ’civilians’ is it?
Give me a freakin’ break. So if Iraqi dissidents, prior to the overthrow of Saddam, had blown the Iraqi Olympic team out of the air, that would have been "okey dokey" with Bit? After all they were esentially conscripts under Uday’s control, and a part of an odius regime, huh?

And another point; Tell us what LEGAL methods the Cuban people have to hand to fight the current dictatorship. I submit that there are none. This presents both practical and moral issues to the stand you’ve taken here. This still comes down to which principle you hold higher.

The same as Iraqi dissidents ... so that makes it ok to blow up airplanes because you’ve twistedly rationalized a "war" and made the occupants of the aircraft in question "government conscripts" instead of athletes?

And then you have the temerity to lecture others about the rights of individuals?

Talk about a bankrupt argument.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And ask yourself, under a government where everyone and everything is owned by the government, what, exactly is a civillian?
It’s a person not engaged in conflict—a person wearing no military uniform, and performing no military function.
Not quite as cut and dried, as ’civilians’ is it?
Yes, it is.
Tell us what LEGAL methods the Cuban people have to hand to fight the current dictatorship.
Legal, by Cuban law? None. Legal by international or moral law? They can fight the regime, or the military of the regime. Killing random civilians is neither.

Really, I find your position hard to believe. You are seriously excusing the method of terrorism, so long as you dislike the regime. If that is an acceptable justification for terrorism, then what the hell objection did you have to terrorism as a method when it was used against the US?

Indeed, you have no moral high ground upon which to decry the actions of the insurgents in Iraq. In fact, you are making precisely the same argument as was made by Ward Churchill about 9/11—the victims were "little Eichman’s" and the 9/11 terrorists were justified in their methods. That, Bithead, is rather despicable.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ah, I see ... now its a "war". Well gee, if we use your rationalization, then he and al-Queda share the distinction of both being at ’war’ and thus are not terrorists.
What is each fighting for? Vastly different things. Are you really making the argument that anyone who kills has the same level of justification for their actions? Isn’t the sole justification for any killing, for what cause the killing occurrs?
Talk about a bankrupt argument.
It’s certainly a better one than you’ve proposed.... not only telling the Cuban people they ahve np choice but to submit... AND handing the Castro dictatorship the hobnail boots to use.
It’s a person not engaged in conflict—a person wearing no military uniform, and performing no military function.
Hmm. Sounds rather like our own revolution, doesn’t it? Did George consider us terrorists? I daresay he did.
Legal, by Cuban law? None. Legal by international or moral law? They can fight the regime, or the military of the regime.
I just gave you an example of that, and you rejected it. Have you others to offer?
Really, I find your position hard to believe. You are seriously excusing the method of terrorism, so long as you dislike the regime.
Whereas you seem intent on defending the letter of the law, regardles of the valifity of the regime enforcing it... thus sealing the fate of the Cuban people. That, Jon, is what is despicable.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Bit, did our FF’s attack civilians for the purposes of creating terror? You’ve given no example of attacking the regime or the military of such. Attacking an Olympic team is neither, and you know that. (or are you suggesting that the pro-Palestinian terrorism of the ’72 Olympics was legitimate warfare?)
Whereas you seem intent on defending the letter of the law, regardles of the valifity of the regime enforcing it... thus sealing the fate of the Cuban people. That, Jon, is what is despicable.
Yes, Bithead, I’m defending a law which prosecutes terrorism...even if the law is put in place by Castro. The Cuban people are not helped by killing them indiscriminately.

I can’t help but feel that your argument comes down to "But the Cuban regime is bad", which isn’t an argument at all. Do you defend terrorism against the Cuban people? If so, why? And if so, why do you find the method of terrorism objectionable when our enemies use it?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
What is each fighting for? Vastly different things.

LOL! If you believe that, then there is absolutely nothing further to be said here.

This is probably the worst argument I’ve ever seen you attempt.

It’s pathetic.

It’s ludicrous.

It’s also a waste of any further time. We’ll just let what we’ve each written speak for itself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Jon - I totally agree with you about Bithead’s argument. But seriously, you say:
If he’s a terrorist, he deserves to be punished, even if he has to be punished by an odious regime.


Now, we know Castro’s regime tortures people. I’d be interested in knowing: do you have any hesitation about turning this guy over to a regime that’s likely to torture him? I don’t; I think if a foreign regime has a legit beef with a guy, it’s really not our place to fight with them about their methods, as long as we’re not purposely delivering somebody to have something done we wouldn’t condone if we did it ourselves. But I know you’ve been a harsh critic of the Administration on prisoner-abuse stories - do you think we should take a harder line here against the possibility of abuse?
 
Written By: Crank
URL: http://www.baseballcrank.com
Well, I’d prefer we turn him over to an international criminal court of some sort, if at all possible. I don’t advocate intervening in the affairs of sovereign dictatorships to deal with minimal abuse, but—given a choice—I’d prefer to achieve the same outcome (trial>prison) without taking positive steps towards facilitating torture. I have no problem with not extraditing to nations that torture, so long as that doesn’t mean a get-out-of-jail-free card.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Bit, did our FF’s attack civilians for the purposes of creating terror?
No. Then again, neither did Carriles in the isntaces cited. Rather, it seems to me an action designed to create disruption of the government’s activities. And I think we can both cite actions in the case of any revolution on record where thatw as the intent, eh?
The Cuban people are not helped by killing them indiscriminately.
I’m unconvinced it was indiscriminate. But do try and convince us.

And McQ: If you’re suggesting that AlQuieda and those fighting against Castro are moral equals, then you’re right, there’s naught left to say, except the obvious; One is fighting for freedom, the other is fighting for domination. If you can’t tell which is which.... (Shake of the head) ... no bloody WONDER you two have no problems handing over this guy to Fidel.



But it does, as I say, answer the question of which value you hold higher... and it’s not freedom.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
But it does, as I say, answer the question of which value you hold higher... and it’s not freedom.

Lectured about freedom by someone who can’t even understand that he has spent the day rationalizing support for a terrorist.

No irony there.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
A terrorist? Well, certainly by the laws of Cuba, I’ll grant you. But given the state of things, there, I question the validity of their definition, whereas you apparently, don’t. If a government is morally invalid, it’s laws (which are designed to prop it up) are as well, I submit.

Nobody has yet provided a ’legal" and ’non-terror" means of the people rising up and defeating the Communists, there, in spite of my repeated asking. I must assume the only option you two intend to provide us is the continuance of such a monster, because it’s ’legal’.

Or perhaps ... understandably...it’s the only one left after you get done moralizing. And the suffering there goes on.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I’m unconvinced it was indiscriminate. But do try and convince us.
Are you really arguing that a bombing planeload of athletes constitutes a legitimate attack on the Cuban regime?
One is fighting for freedom, the other is fighting for domination. If you can’t tell which is which.... (Shake of the head) ... no bloody WONDER you two have no problems handing over this guy to Fidel.
It’s not the purpose we object to, Bithead, it’s the method.

You’re a supporter of terrorism...so long as the terrorist is on your side.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well, let’s see here.
If I recall rightly, anyone from the Soviet Olympic team is a member of the military. And if I recall rightly, the Cubans modeled themselves after the Soviet system. So, are these targets military?

(At least in most western countries, that’s not even close.)
It’s not the purpose we object to, Bithead, it’s the method.
Yet again, I ask; provide an alternative.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
If I recall rightly, anyone from the Soviet Olympic team is a member of the military. And if I recall rightly, the Cubans modeled themselves after the Soviet system. So, are these targets military?

More twisted rationalization for supporting a terrorist (if the Sovs did it, the Cubans probably did it ... all of which fully supports Jon’s contention that terrorism is alright if you don’t like the regime its aimed at).

Keep it up, really. I want to see how deep you can get this hole you’re digging.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Twisted?
I’ll give you twisted... someone calling themself a libertarian, telling me that someone fighting the very personification of tryrrany, is morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.

Look in the mirror on this one, Bruce.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Well, he wasn’t attacking "the very personification of tryrrany", he attacked a planeload of non-combatants and children. Whatever the nature of the regime, terrorism against non-combatants it illegal and immoral. The method and the justification is precisely the same as the one used by muslim fanatics.

Which puts you in that same morally bankrupt boat with supporters of Al Qaeda.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
He attacked represetitives of the government.

And once again, I ask; (what, 4th time?) provide a workable alternative, given his situation. You’ve yet to do so.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Athletes, Bithead? And a pilot? And the kids on the plane? Those are legitimate targets, since they have some connection to the government?

You must have been a big fan of Timothy McVeigh. He did, after all, only kill representatives of the government, their children, and the people who had the misfortune to be in the way.

The alternative, naturally, would be to attack a military installation, the capital building, or an actual combatant. Of course, anybody with the brain power or moral reasoning of a moderately intelligent 4 year old could have figured that out.

That would appear to leave you, this Posada fellow and supporters of Al Qaeda right out.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The alternative, naturally, would be to attack a military installation, the capital building, or an actual combatant. Of course, anybody with the brain power or moral reasoning of a moderately intelligent 4 year old could have figured that out.
Trouble is, the adult part of the mind comes along, and reminds us that there’s no way to accomplish what you propose, in the environment that is Cuba today. Comon, Jon, I’m sure you could see that one.

You’re smarter than you’re letting on, here.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
If he could get a bomb onboard an aircraft, he could do the same to the regime. In the absence of any way to attack the regime, "kill a bunch of innocent civilians" is not an alternative.

Well, to supporters of terrorism such as Eric Florack it may be, but most of us recognize intentional and indiscriminate killing of non-combatants to be murder.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
If he could get a bomb onboard an aircraft, he could do the same to the regime.
Again, where?
In the absence of any way to attack the regime, "kill a bunch of innocent civilians" is not an alternative.
In said absense, it comes down to a pure choice of "what will do the government the most harm, from accessable targets"?

This is not "indiscriminate".. not by any stretch of the imagination, Jon. The target was clearly chosen to draw world attention. An attack against the military would have been swallowed up domestically, even assuming such an attack was possible... (A case you’ve not made)

And Jon; There’s a major difference between supporting terrorism, and recognizing a complete lack of a better alternative... Just like any war, it’s a desperate act. The only alternative to such acts that you’ve provided is akin to the infamous quote about getting raped... "You may as well lay back and enjoy it."

I understand your reluctance... Indeed, I share it.... but in fairness, you’ve been given (by your own position) an impossible task; provide a practical alternative.

There is none.







 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Well, you’ve just justified the 9/11 attacks. You’re a moral cretin, in a class with Ward Churchill and those who justified the 9/11 attacks.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Not at all, since they clearly had other methods available to attain their goals. Had you forgotten?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
You’re claiming paralysis for one group and a wide degree of choices for another group, with no apparent reason behind such a claim. Enough. I’m sick of this demented conversation. You support terrorism by your side, and—really—that’s all I need to know.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
You’re claiming paralysis for one group and a wide degree of choices for another group, with no apparent reason behind such a claim
I hadn’t thought that needed, but (shrug) fair enough. BinLaden, with all the money and resources, could have gone after his own government. Clearly, that choice was bypassed.

But I’m still waiting for you to provide an alternative in the case of Carriles who was operating under and against the Communists, and had no such money and resources.
You support terrorism by your side, and—really—that’s all I need to know.
Yes, Jon, let’s do forget about those pesky facts... they do make your charge so much easier to make, don’t they?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider