If You Harbour Terrorists You Are A Terrorist Or Are You?

BlueMark

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Posts
2,233
Likes
12
Location
MELB
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
Thread starter #1
“If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist”
September 19, 2004
William Marina


While delegates to the GOP convention were congratulating themselves for their candidate’s tough stand against terrorism, the Bush administration was creating an international incident—little publicized in the United States—by harboring a notorious group of international terrorists on U.S. soil.

Earlier this month, three anti-Castro Cuban exiles flew to Miami from Panama after serving four years in prison for “endangering public safety.” They were arrested in 2000 for plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro by planting explosives at a meeting the Cuban dictator planned to hold with university students in Panama.

The average convicted terrorist does not just waltz past U.S. immigration authorities in this post-9/11 age of orange alerts, “no fly” lists and shoe searches. Senator Edward Kennedy reportedly gets stopped by airport authorities every time he tries to make a flight, allegedly because the “Kennedy” name appears on a database of suspects.

Only political influence exerted at the highest level could account for terrorists reentering U.S. borders without impediment, despite rap sheets extending back as long as forty years:

Pedro Rémon, sentenced to seven years for the bomb plot in Panama, pleaded guilty in 1986 to bombing Cuba’s mission to the United Nations and later conspiring to murder its ambassador to the UN. A New York detective also fingered Rémon for the machine-gun murders of two political opponents.


Gaspar Jiménez, sentenced to eight years for the Panama bomb plot and falsifying documents, had previously served time in Mexico for the attempted kidnapping and murder of Cuban diplomats there. He was also indicted in Florida for blowing the legs off a liberal Miami radio talk show host in 1976. (The indictment was eventually dropped for insufficient evidence, even though the main witness passed several lie-detector tests.)


Guillermo Novo, sentenced to 7 years for the Panama terror plot, was arrested in 1964 for firing a bazooka at the United Nations, where Che Guevara was speaking. In 1978, he was convicted of participating in one of the worst acts of terrorism ever committed on U.S. soil, the car bombing in Washington, D.C. of former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. (The conviction was later overturned on a technicality, though Novo was convicted of perjury.)


A fourth Panama conspirator, Louis Posada Carriles, left Panama for Honduras. He is still wanted in Venezuela on charges of bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 passengers. In 1998, in an interview with the New York Times from a hideout in Central America, Posada admitted taking part in numerous acts of terrorism, including a wave of Havana hotel bombings in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist. He said his violence was funded by prominent U.S.-based supporters in the Cuban exile community.
The release of these terrorists from Panama—ordered by its outgoing president—has caused a furor in Central America. Venezuela recalled its ambassador and Cuba severed diplomatic relations with Panama.

Honduras also protested. “I will . . . demand that the United States and Panama explain how Posada Carriles used a false U.S. passport,” declared Honduran President Ricardo Maduro. “How did that airplane leave Panama with Posada Carriles, reach Honduras, and wind up in the United States?”

“We know we’re dealing with important international influences,” the president added.

Those influences no doubt include the fact that Posada was trained by the CIA in the 1960s in sabotage techniques, remained on the CIA payroll into the 1970s, and in the mid-1980s (after escaping from a Venezuelan jail) assisted the Reagan administration’s covert supply operation on behalf of the Nicaraguan Contras.

Then there’s the undeniable fact that Cuban exile terrorists enjoy strong political support in the swing state of Florida, thanks to organized lobbying by such groups as the Cuban American National Foundation. That explains why President Bush, in 2001, rejected the advice of the FBI and freed from INS custody two convicted colleagues of Guillermo Novo in the Letelier assassination.

Conservatives have long (and rightly) derided the glib phrase, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The incoming Panamanian president, Martin Torrijos, likewise stood on principle when he rejected his predecessor’s decision to pardon the terrorists, saying, “For me, there are not two classes of terrorism, one that is condemned and another that is pardoned. . . . It has to be fought no matter what its origins.”

Three years ago, after 9/11, President Bush appeared to draw the same line in the sand. Addressing members of the 101st Airborne Division, he declared, “If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.”

Today, Americans should ask whether those tough words were only rhetoric, quickly forgotten when political convenience dictates.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Marina is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and Professor Emeritus in History at Florida Atlantic University.

Appalling behavouir from freedom lovin' law abiding' US of A
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mulhollanddrive

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
3,618
Likes
6
Location
home
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#3
Or Israeli, especially the 5 Israelis caught video camering the 9/11 attacks and jumping up and down in joy, not to mention the suddenly vanished Israeli spy that was discovered but never acknowledged.
 

afc9798

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Posts
7,495
Likes
19
Location
To the Left of the Right
AFL Club
Adelaide
#5
MGREG said:
Those anit-Castro guys should have been given medals after all, they only attempted to do what Castro himself does every day of the year.
So terrorism is acceptable then? I notice Jane and Hawky have avoided this thread like the plague, at least you acknowledged it.

Either terrorism is acceptable or it is not, you can't have it both ways. Looks like the hypocrisy of the loony Christian right at it again and being selective with its' morals.
 

MGREG

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Posts
2,981
Likes
1
Location
Beatles best band ever
Other Teams
Collingwood
#6
afc9798 said:
So terrorism is acceptable then? I notice Jane and Hawky have avoided this thread like the plague, at least you acknowledged it.

Either terrorism is acceptable or it is not, you can't have it both ways. Looks like the hypocrisy of the loony Christian right at it again and being selective with its' morals.
Castro was an angel. It is easier now just to wait for him to triip over and fracture his totalitarian skull.

Now THAT would be funny. :D

BTW, are you calling me a right wing loony Christian?
 

afc9798

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Posts
7,495
Likes
19
Location
To the Left of the Right
AFL Club
Adelaide
#7
MGREG said:
Castro was an angel. It is easier now just to wait for him to triip over and fracture his totalitarian skull.

Now THAT would be funny. :D

BTW, are you calling me a right wing loony Christian?
No, i'm calling those hypocrites who selectively decide which terrorists are OK and which are not. Castro is certainly no angel, but it doesn't justify the use of terrorist tactics as the are apparently unacceptable at any other time. Double standards at play again.
 

^Eagle^

All Australian
Joined
May 9, 2003
Posts
889
Likes
0
Location
Yisrael
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Coast
#9
mulhollanddrive said:
Or Israeli, especially the 5 Israelis caught video camering the 9/11 attacks and jumping up and down in joy, not to mention the suddenly vanished Israeli spy that was discovered but never acknowledged.
say what?????

i dont think a true Israeli would celebrate a downfall of the USA, israel's biggest ally.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,231
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#10
afc9798 said:
So terrorism is acceptable then? I notice Jane and Hawky have avoided this thread like the plague, at least you acknowledged it.

Either terrorism is acceptable or it is not, you can't have it both ways. Looks like the hypocrisy of the loony Christian right at it again and being selective with its' morals.
So the killing by SOE trained operatives of Heydrich in WWII was unacceptable then was it? Ditto the bomb plot against Hitler. etc etc.
 

BlueMark

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Posts
2,233
Likes
12
Location
MELB
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
Thread starter #11
medusala said:
So the killing by SOE trained operatives of Heydrich in WWII was unacceptable then was it? Ditto the bomb plot against Hitler. etc etc.
According to the Germans the people involved were terrorists and were executed as such.

Proves the point One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
May 6, 2003
Posts
261
Likes
2
Location
California
AFL Club
Sydney
#12
afc9798 said:
No, i'm calling those hypocrites who selectively decide which terrorists are OK and which are not. Castro is certainly no angel, but it doesn't justify the use of terrorist tactics as the are apparently unacceptable at any other time. Double standards at play again.
How is it Hypocritical to select between two sides? And comparing this with the christian right....? Seems like someone's got a hard on for something.

Additionally this story has all the hallmarks of a highly slanted take by one side, but if you prefer to take as fact the rantings of a disaffected liberal research fellow and history professor then perhaps we should take your rantings with a grain of salt.
 

afc9798

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Posts
7,495
Likes
19
Location
To the Left of the Right
AFL Club
Adelaide
#13
FootyontheBrain said:
How is it Hypocritical to select between two sides? And comparing this with the christian right....? Seems like someone's got a hard on for something.

Additionally this story has all the hallmarks of a highly slanted take by one side, but if you prefer to take as fact the rantings of a disaffected liberal research fellow and history professor then perhaps we should take your rantings with a grain of salt.
Obviously hit a nerve with you. Looking at your location, I can now see why. Ironic that there are people who believe that Foxnews is "fair and Balanced", I can only assume that you are one of them. The most appropriate comment made is by Bluemark in that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It is clearly hypocritical to select between two sides, when you spend a great deal of time trying to convince the world that your administration abhors terrorism of any description. I'll take these ramblings over yours, thanks anyway.
 
Top Bottom