20 May 05
People here disagree on many things but I think most agree blowing up civilian airliners is the action of a terrorist. The bombing of an airliner near Barbados in 1976 which killed 73 people was then an act of terror.
A suspect - Luis Posada Carriles - was acquitted after two trials in Venezuela, then escaped from a prison there in 1985 while awaiting a prosecutor's appeal. One would expect any country serious about curbing terrorism to assist in bringing this escaped criminal to justice.
Posada is now in the US. The question is - should the US now protect this alleged terrorist as Libya did for the Lockerbie suspects or turn him over to Venezuala for trial?
20 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikeYou are a little behind in the news; Luis Posada Carriles is currently being detained without bond on immigration charges. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/national/19cnd-cuba.html?ex=1117166400&en=35e08e7857ea1cb5&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS
People here disagree on many things but I think most agree blowing up civilian airliners is the action of a terrorist. The bombing of an airliner near Barbados in 1976 which killed 73 people was then an act of terror.
A suspect - Luis Posada Carriles - was acquitted after two trials in Venezuela, then escaped from a prison there in 1985 while awaiting ...[text shortened]... eged terrorist as Libya did for the Lockerbie suspects or turn him over to Venezuala for trial?
But if all the formal charges stem from an act which he was acquitted of, I think he should be released (although I see no reason to grant him political asylum and would toss him from the country). I find it unjust that a legal system would allow somebody who was acquitted of a charge to be imprisoned pending a prosecutor's appeal; an acquittal means there was insufficient proof submitted to prove the man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if a higher court rules that there were errors that prejuduced the prosecution and thus a new trial is needed (a THIRD one in this case), I would say that the man is innocent (as judged by two factfinders) until proven guilty and should be free.
20 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikehttp://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/051905Castillo/051905castillo.html
People here disagree on many things but I think most agree blowing up civilian airliners is the action of a terrorist. The bombing of an airliner near Barbados in 1976 which killed 73 people was then an act of terror.
A suspect - Luis Posada Carriles - was acquitted after two trials in Venezuela, then escaped from a prison there in 1985 while awaiting ...[text shortened]... eged terrorist as Libya did for the Lockerbie suspects or turn him over to Venezuala for trial?
He is in custody for now...
Meanwhile Venezuelan people are petitioning the US for his return.
20 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you think it is fine to hold terrorist suspects for four years now, without trial in Guantanamo Bay - while protecting an escaped criminal charged wiith blowing up an airliner?
You are a little behind in the news; Luis Posada Carriles is currently being detained without bond on immigration charges. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/national/19cnd-cuba.html?ex=1117166400&en=35e08e7857ea1cb5&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS
But if all the formal charges stem from an act which he was acquitted of, I think he should be ...[text shortened]... that the man is innocent (as judged by two factfinders) until proven guilty and should be free.
What about the charges he has been linked to a series of 1997 bombings in Cuba that killed an Italian tourist?
20 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikeIf you're sooooooooo stupid that you think I believe holding people at Gitmo without trial is OK, then you've never actually read any of my posts.
So you think it is fine to hold terrorist suspects for four years now, without trial in Guantanamo Bay - while protecting an escaped criminal charged wiith blowing up an airliner?
What about the charges he has been linked to a series of 1997 bombings in Cuba that killed an Italian tourist?
The man doesn't seem to be an escaped criminal as he has not been convicted of a crime; that is the definition of a criminal. If he has been formally charged in the 1997 bombings, then he should be extradited if there is sufficient evidence to warrant it. "Charges" is a vague word in the context you are using; it could either mean a formal legal proceeding or people saying he did something. Big difference in my view.
20 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderEscaping from prison is still a crime on most counties.
If you're sooooooooo stupid that you think I believe holding people at Gitmo without trial is OK, then you've never actually read any of my posts.
The man doesn't seem to be an escaped criminal as he has not been convicted of a crime; that is the definition of a criminal. If he has been formally charged in the 1997 bombings, then ...[text shortened]... er mean a formal legal proceeding or people saying he did something. Big difference in my view.
So what are the chances of a terrorist bomber being extradited to Cuba?
20 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikeI would not extradite him for escaping from prison when he was being held even though he had been acquitted; that is contrary to US law and simple standards of justice.
Escaping from prison is still a crime on most counties.
So what are the chances of a terrorist bomber being extradited to Cuba?
To your question, the answer is none under any US administration from either of the two main political parties; very good if we had an administration that respected international law.
20 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderLooks like Mounir el Motassadeq should be released then.
I would not extradite him for escaping from prison when he was being held even though he had been acquitted; that is contrary to US law and simple standards of justice.
To your question, the answer is none under any US administration from either of the two main political parties; very good if we had an administration that respected international law.
He is being retried on more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder and membership in a terrorist organization on suspicion he provided logistical support for the September 11 suicide hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Samir Jarrah.
He was convicted in 2003 by the Hamburg state court on the same charges and sentenced to the maximum 15 years, but an appeals court threw out the conviction last year and ordered a retrial. It ruled that he had been unfairly denied testimony by key al Qaeda suspects in U.S. custody.
So where do you stand on retrying this acquitted man?