I ran across an interesting little news tidbit in the LA Times (reg reqd) recently.



The article goes on to say:


Questions for debate:
1. Should these men have been detained, questioned and treated as terrorists for their actions?

2. If the United States intends to fight a global war on terror, shouldn't that include all terrorists, even if they happen to be popular with a certain section of the electorate? Is it hypocritical to allow them to go free? Why or why not?

1. Should these men have been detained, questioned and treated as terrorists for their actions?

Of course. If they were killing innocent people for political gain then technically they are terrorists. The fact that they were doing so to topple Castro however means they get a free pass.
Its odd that al Sadr in Iraq gets called a terrorist and yet we have four men acting in much the same way and they are free to enter the USA?

It seems Vladimir Putin is correct in his assessment of the duplicitous nature of America's view of who is and who is not a terrorist.


2. If the United States intends to fight a global war on terror, shouldn't that include all terrorists, even if they happen to be popular with a certain section of the electorate? Is it hypocritical to allow them to go free? Why or why not?

Its becoming apparent that the 'war on terror' has been relegated to a few special forces operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Operations that apparently have borne no fruit. So much for the most powerful nation on Earth..

Frankly, I have a hard time with the idea that it is at all possible to wage such a war any way. I always assumed 'war on terror' was a sexy catch phrase to make Americans feel better about 11 Sept.
'War against those Arabs and muslims we don't like' seems to fit Americas policy better.

Is it hypocritical to allow them to go free?

Every election year in Florida it's the same damn thing. Whether it's the Cuban American National Foundation, Radio Marti broadcasting, or just older generation Cubans scolding their American-born children in degrees for sending money/items to relatives and "aiding the enemy"; the group that clamors the loudest the longest curries the favor of Republican politicians. It's a scratch my back, I'll scratch yours exchange. Whomever can keep an airtight seal around the jefe republicano's sphincter the longest wins the prize: vague promises of remembrance in a post-Castro Cuba. For all their patriotic bluster the ranks of these hardline groups consist of old farts and doting relatives hung up on the Bay of Pigs with no intention of acceding that governments have the right to see to the interests of its citizens first and foremost even as Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista, whom the Eisenhower administration supported; even as these same men and women dream of positions of power and prestige today. But what's another Noriega?



It's definitely hypocritical. It's been thrown in my face more than once how Democrats buy minority votes with freebie social programs but blood takes the cake.

1. Should these men have been detained, questioned and treated as terrorists for their actions?

If the War on Terror is genuine, but I gave up believing that it was some time ago. Global terrorism obviously isn't much of an issue, and terrorism against non-allies is not important at all. Its a shame that the current administration can continue to use this particular vehicle to give them leverage over their Democrat opponents, as it is blatantly a propaganda 'war' to win votes, not a mission to protect the world from terror. Letting these men wander on to American soil without intervention only hastens to point out that the War on Terror isn't even concerned with protecting Americans. A terrorist is a terrorist.

2. If the United States intends to fight a global war on terror, shouldn't that include all terrorists, even if they happen to be popular with a certain section of the electorate? Is it hypocritical to allow them to go free? Why or why not?

Yes to both.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the United States decided that it was going to protect only itself from terrorism. That would be totally understandable; afterall, protecting the world is quite a task, even for the worlds only hyperpower. However, the War on Terror has been promoted as defeating terrorism worldwide. At least, that is how I interpreted it, but maybe I got that wrong. If the Bush Administration are concerned with terrorists in general, and not just the fundamental Islamic networks who have carried out attacks on the US and allies such as Australia and Spain, then all known terrorists should be apprehended and questioned.

So, if they are intending to defeat all terrorism, it is certainly hypocritical (of this particular administration, I'd also suggest 'typical'). On the other hand, perhaps the War on Terror has nothing to do with global terrorism or terrorism in general, and is just concerned with protecting America. Therefore, you can argue that these men are not targeting American interests, rather a government that the US opposes. Thats not what I would argue. A terrorist is always a terrorist, regardless of what his target is. If these were known rapists of Cuban women, or were known to have murdered a number of Cuban civilians, would they be allowed to wander freely in the USA? Whatever way you look at it, it is hypocrisy, and shows an awesome lack of integrity.

Though I suppose it’s true that Posada Carriles is an “escapee from a prison in Venezuela, where he was incarcerated for blowing up an Air Cubana passenger plane in 1976, killing 73”, what the article fails to mention was that he had already been tried and acquitted twice. He escaped awaiting his third trial, and was subsequently convicted in absentia. He was likewise sentenced to death in Cuba after a “trial” in absentia. Though the article states that these men were convicted of "endangering public safety" for their role in an assassination plot against Fidel Castro during a 2000 international summit in Panama, the charges of conspiring assassination were thrown out. They were released, not "inexplicably", but because the President Mireya Moscoso is reaching the end of her term, and fears that the men will otherwise be extradited and killed without a fair trial. Here is a Panama News article offering some information about this.

Regarding the reality of politician pandering to Cuban voting base, I agree that this is certainly the case. It's unfortunate, but Cuban-Americans make up a large, politically active group of people and they have a large voice.Most of these Miami Cubans have had a very up-close and personal experience with Castro’s style of justice. My husband’s family is Cuban, and he has a few relatives who arrived on makeshift boats, while others spent everything they had attempting to bring their relatives over through Spain. They have some rather horrible stories to tell. Suffice it to say, when everything you own has been confiscated, your husband dragged behind a truck and his body parts placed on your doorstep, followed by your own incarceration in a Cuban prison for almost a decade as the punishment for knowing him, you tend to hold a grudge.

1. Should these men have been detained, questioned and treated as terrorists for their actions? For what should we detain them? They have already been tried. Do we detain them indefinitely after they have received a trial? Do we insist they carry out the remaining three years of the sentence after the government that sentenced them pardoned them? Do we extradite Posada for a round of third-jeopardy proceedings and certain death without a fair trial? What do we do here?

2. If the United States intends to fight a global war on terror, shouldn't that include all terrorists, even if they happen to be popular with a certain section of the electorate? Is it hypocritical to allow them to go free? Why or why not? Yes, we should fight all terrorism. These men have been tried and found not guilty of terrorist acts. So..where does that leave us? They should be watched closely and their actions monitored, but I see no grounds to detain them further.

1. Should these men have been detained, questioned and treated as terrorists for their actions?

Yes they should have been detained and question, However, since three held legitimate US Passports I would expect them to be released if no outstanding charges or investigations are out there. Which is how I would expect everyone to be treated.

2. If the United States intends to fight a global war on terror, shouldn't that include all terrorists, even if they happen to be popular with a certain section of the electorate? Is it hypocritical to allow them to go free? Why or why not?

Of course we should. We should be addressing the Palestinian Terrorists, the African Terrorists, the Russian Terrorist our own Eco-Terrorists, etc. To not do so leaves the impression on some that our war on Terrorism is not all inclusive and that is no good for international politics.

However, this issue is not limited to Bush. In the last year of the Clinton Presidency he pardoned Puerto Rician Terrorists who were serving time in prison for there crimes. I think it is pretty obvious that this was also politically motivated. This does not lessen the disregard of the Cuban terrorists in any way, it just shows that this is an issue on both sides of the aisle.

If we are to win the war on Terror we need to bring that war to the Terrorist's doorsteps and to the doors of all those who harbor or support them. Regardless of if a Terrorist group is not directly connected to 9/11 we should fight to dismantle their organization for the good of America and all other civilized nations.

People love to inject politics into this discussion. The Cubans were "Partisans" The Palestinian suicide bombers are "freedom fighters", Fire-Bomb throwing Eco-Terrorists are "enlightened", Etc. If you make deadly surprise attacks on non-military targets, you're a terrorists regardless of your motivation.

I think the point here is that we regularly detain people of arab descent for far less, there are many documented cases. Most of the time we turn out to be wrong about them. Now here is a situation where you have known cuban terrorists (call them freedom fighters if you like, but their tactics are the same as terrorists) and we simply admit them into the country.

To me that reeks of hypocrisy. I'm not suggesting that we put them in jail for not serving their sentence, but at the very least we could I don't know, deny them entry into the country? Just because they haven't been convicted doesn't mean they aren't guilty. First, the justice systems in other countries aren't nearly the same as the justice system in the United States. Secondly, how many people have gotten out off and it is still widely believed they are guilty - OJ or Kobe anyone?

I would never confuse a terrorist with a freedom fighter. If these men are terrorists, they should be shot following a fair trial. You say they are "known Cuban terrorists", and what is your evidence of this? I don't believe that the evidence against them points that way, and the lenient charge adds to my suspicion. I could be wrong, but everything I've read seems to indicate that Castro wants them dead (no doubt, the feeling is mutual), and I wouldn't doubt supporting "evidence" was planted. The other charges against Posada, after two trials and acquittals, should be dropped.

Edited to add: WHo knows? Maybe they should be detained and questioned for a bit, but there eventually have to be charges, and no double jeopardy proceedings.

Mrs Pigpen

I did a Google search on this guy Posada Carriles and I read that he was found guilty and imprisoned in Venezuela, but later released due to CIA pressure on the Venezuelan government. I also read that he was trained by the CIA and that he has a 24 oustanding charges against him in Cuba. I also read that he has been tied to the importation of large quantities of cocaine into the US in support of the Contras in Nicaragua in the 80's

Now, I'm not saying he is or isn't a terrorist, but I would not let him into Denmark if I had any say in the matter. Over here we ban Greenpeace protestors from entering the country if they have a criminal record, so I can't see any reason to allow entry to some one who has apparently been found guilty and is said to have over 100 deaths on his conscience.


editted to add missing words

Well, it's hard to know what to believe. It says here he was tried and acquitted twice, awaiting his third trial in a prison in Venezuela for the same offense when he escaped. That says a lot to me, and I have no faith in Castro's criminal justice system. I frankly think Castro is a lunatic, so I'm biased I'll admit.

In a post-9/11 word, you're right, they weren't found guilty of terrorist acts. After all, these days we call thorny journalists terrorists. But then I wonder how aggressively the allegations were pursued. This article, written by Newsweek's Robert Parry outlines some of Posada's career highlights. The absentia conviction of the "fugitive terrorist" and evidence are questionable. What Posada should be questioned about is his actions in the Nicaraguan Contras.

Elliot Abrams pleaded "guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail" for his Iran-/Nicaraguan-Contra dealings before being pardoned in 1992 by Bush I, presently appointed to the National Security Council by Bush II--the best high profile position the good ol' boy could get without a Senate confirmation hearing. Taking this transparent duplicity into context, something otherworldly is needed for U.S. officials to acknowledge one of their shadow agents is a terrorist.



From what appears to be a neutral website with a timeline of events upon perusal (commies are the best propagandists) regarding Guillermo Novo:






And Pedro Remon:






Here's another article on Novo with a pseudo funny, pseudo creepy account by the author.

Castro assassination attempts don't move me with the exception of potentially harming bystanders. Che Guevera was put to death by CIA trained and equipped Bolivian soldiers in 1967. Orlando Letelier was appointed ambassador after Salvador Allende won the Chilean presidency in a very narrow three-way race. Allende's Marxist beliefs and oligopolistic industry promotions prompted the CIA-backed Pinochet coup d'etat. Letelier was tortured, incarcerated, and released. He went to Washington in 1974 in the hopes of restoring democracy to Chile when he was assassinated by Novo along with aide Ronni Moffit. No huge loss there as far as our government was concerned. Letelier couldn't keep his trap shut about Pinochet's abuses soon enough. Eulalio Jose Negrin and Felix Garcia Rodriguez were gun jobs.

Before my father married he occsasionally had to show up to work early and cut sugar canes without pay for refusing to attend pro-Castro rallies. He was thrown in jail for protesting the regime. I don't know what happened while he was in jail. In my father's opinion Posada was set up by Castro, not responsible for the Air Cubana bomb. I asked him about Moffit's murder, potentially killing innocent people at the UN building, Posada reportedly admitting to supporting Raul Ernesto Cruz Leon in the Cuban hotel bombings. He dismissively said (paraphrasing): "Those consorting with communists get what's coming." This is a typical hardline response, the kind of attitude that emboldens self-appointed assassins. There's no room for circumstances here, much less presumed innocence. He bemoaned Posada's illegal detention and summarily dismissed Gitmo.

When one is prepared to make exceptions in the name of promoting democracy one has to make exceptions for other causes. In this he conceded that Palestinians were right to blow up a bus with Israeli soldiers. At least he's consistent 2 for 3. He'd make a decent neocon.

The GWoT jailhouse may not have room for CIA operatives and exceptions based on alliances and electorate mining are allowed but it's no excuse to forgo treating these men and like-minded vigilantes at least as criminals to keep up appearances.

I believe that most everybody agrees that there should not be double-standards on the issue of terrorism. Blowing up an airliner or planting bombs in hotels is something that ultimately does not work in our interests. Not everyone who is against Castro is our best friend, our true ally and strongest asset is our democratic values. If we cozy up to these dirty types, we will only create more havoc and pain than we need. Then again, I don't feel sorry for a lot of people in Miami. If their previous generations would not have put the screws on the poor and agricultural living peoples for many years, then Fidel Castro wouldn't have come to power in the first place. They asked for and got, the boot off the island by supporting Batista in order to keep their land, money, and privilege. Call it Karma Cuban style.