Hypothetical question

[mushy]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

[Darat]

No, why should they be?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

Are you friends with a guy named EJArmstrong?

[mushy]

Unloved, can we keep the thread on topic please. I'm sick of trolls on this site, who would rather insult than discuss.

[mushy]

No, why should they be?

Well, my thinking would be, if Americans would not stand for it, why do they feel they can do it to other countries?

[Ysidro]

Oh, this is some UBL thing? IN that case, your hypothetical is different.

In that case, someone responsibile for financing and ordering multiple terrorist attacks worldwide is hiding in a country that is not his own. Several nations are looking for him, including a really big one that had a terrorist attack by his organization a decade ago. After asking the nation he is hiding in for help finding him, as they suspect he's somewhere in country, he's discovered being hidden in an area known for military types keeping their homes. Then, in accordance with international law, a raid is authorized.

A little more complex.

Many Pakistanis are probably still upset. Many Americans probably don't care.

[uk_dave]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America....

Why haven't the Americans arrested him?

[Darat]

Well, my thinking would be, if Americans would not stand for it, why do they feel they can do it to other countries?

1) Because they can
2) Specific circumstances

[eeyore1954]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

No but the big difference would be America would be actively looking for him.

Maybe if he was a citizen of another country had been on the run for 10 years and had been hiding out in America for several years in a not very hiden location.

[mushy]

1) Because they can
2) Specific circumstances

1) Sounds like the same attitude a lot of bullys have.

Don't get me wrong, im not saying America are bad guys here. My point is how Americans themselves don't think about or understand how their actions provoke others, they simply cannot fathom something like that happening to them.

[Darat]

1) Sounds like the same attitude a lot of bullys have.
...snip...

No it doesn't, it sounds like a country using the resources it has to fulfil what is believed to be in the best interest of the country.


Don't get me wrong, im not saying America are bad guys here. My point is how Americans themselves don't think about or understand how their actions provoke others, they simply cannot fathom something like that happening to them.

Sorry but that is a generalisation that is so obviously flawed based on nothing more than some of the posts from Americans in threads in this section that I can't understand why you are making it.

[mushy]

No it doesn't, it sounds like a country using the resources it has to fulfil what is believed to be in the best interest of the country.


So if its in North Koreas best intrest to nuke south Korea, you see that as acceptable?

[Darat]

So if its in North Koreas best intrest to nuke south Korea, you see that as acceptable?

I've made no comments regarding acceptability of any action.

[mushy]

You stated you are ok with what america did I asked why and you stated that it because they can and its in their best interests.

So its pretty clear your opinion is, if its in Americas best interest they can do it. Either you feel the same about North Korea or you have double standards.

[MRC_Hans]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

Probably not.

It would make sense for China to demand to have him arrested and handed over, or failing that, be tried within his own country.

I think the US had fair reason to believe that they could not make Pakistan arrest OBL, either because strong powers in Pakistan would not allow it, or because Pakistani authorites are hopelessly incompetent.

Hans

[Travis]

In this scenario, Mushy, is this terrorist being actively hunted by American law enforcement? If not, why not? Is this terrorist being protected by a huge support network inside the USA? Has China been looking for him for ten years while the USA insists he isn't actually in the country?

[Darat]

You stated you are ok with what america did I asked why and you stated that it because they can and its in their best interests.


No I didn't, you are perhaps getting me confused with someone else.



So its pretty clear your opinion is, if its in Americas best interest they can do it. Either you feel the same about North Korea or you have double standards.

Or you are making things up.

[mushy]

Wow Darat, i wasn't expecting that. Like everyone else you take up a position, but choose your words carefully so you can switch position when proven wrong and say you never said that you supported it.

So no, i can't quote you as saying it. But its quite clear you implied it.

[Darat]

Wow Darat, i wasn't expecting that. Like everyone else you take up a position, but choose your words carefully so you can switch position when proven wrong and say you never said that you supported it.

So no, i can't quote you as saying it. But its quite clear you implied it.

As I said I did not say what you have tried to claim I did.

[lionking]

How many more OBL apologist threads will there be?

[mushy]

This thread has nothing to do with OBL, its definitely not an apologist thread for him. Since when has questioning American ethics made you a OBL apologist?

[Crossbow]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

I would say no.

However, if you are referring to the bin Laden case, then I would like to remind you of a few things:

First, there are people in Pakistan as well as some people in the Pakistan government/military/intelligence services who actively helped bin Laden, therefore it was very difficult (if not impossible) to expect Pakistan to help the USA to apprehend bin Laden.

Whereas your scenario does not say anything about such a thing.

Second, the official government postion of Pakistan was to help the USA apprehend bin Laden and fight al Queda.

Whereas your scenario does not say anything about such a thing.

Third, Pakistan has at least tacitly approved of US military actions in Pakistan as is seen in the drone strikes and significant CIA presence in Pakistan.

Whereas your scenario does not say anything about such a thing.

Therefore, for these three reasons alone you are making an 'apples and oranges' comparison between your scenario and the bin Laden operation.

[dtugg]

It is unlikely to the extreme that such a person would be hiding out in the USA and the Chinese could find him but the US Government couldn't/wouldn't. If it did happen that would mean that the US Government was too incompetent or too corrupt to take care of it and thus the Chinese would be justified in coming over here and whacking the guy themselves. And without permission because for all they know the US Government is actively protecting him.

Would Americans be pissed? Yeah. But it doesn't mean that there would be anything wrong with it. And really, the blame would be on us for having a government too incompetent or too corrupt to deal with the problem.

[Mr. Purple]

I think the difference Mushy, is that Pakistan has been unable/unwilling to capture them himself. The probability of a parallel situation in the US is unlikely.

The US would be looking for him, and it is doubtful that another country would have superior intelligence. Even if they did, they would likely share it with us and we would go get the terrorist ourselves.

Extradition would be an entirely different discussion.

[triforcharity]

This thread has nothing to do with OBL,


Yeah, ti just resembles the Osama bin Laden raid to a "T". But, hey, it's totally different......suuuurrreeeee :rolleyes:


its definitely not an apologist thread for him.


Maybe not, but some of your other posts certainly do defend him, and cast blame on America. (Do you see that? The "A" in America is capitalized. As it should be. So should China. )



Since when has questioning American ethics made you a OBL apologist?

Since you've shown your willingness to try to defend the actions of bin Laden et al. in other threads, while trying to make America look like the bad guy.

A leopard cannot change his spots. You are not a cameleon.

[Toontown]

How many more OBL apologist threads will there be?

Over what time period?

OBL apologist threads and "illegal raid" threads may well supplant the ubiquitous generic Amerika-bashing threads in the days, weeks, months, and years to come.

[mushy]

Yeah, ti just resembles the Osama bin Laden raid to a "T". But, hey, it's totally different......suuuurrreeeee :rolleyes:



Maybe not, but some of your other posts certainly do defend him, and cast blame on America. (Do you see that? The "A" in America is capitalized. As it should be. So should China. )




Since you've shown your willingness to try to defend the actions of bin Laden et al. in other threads, while trying to make America look like the bad guy.

A leopard cannot change his spots. You are not a cameleon.

Provide proof of your claim that i defend OBL. Because its rubbish.

[PGH]

Provide proof of your claim that i defend OBL. Because its rubbish.


Having studied law at AS level, i at least learnt that murder was defined as

"The unlawful killing of another human under the queens peace, with malice aforethought"

He didn't physically kill anyone. Therefore, not a murderer.

Exhibit A

[headscratcher4]

Provide proof of your claim that i defend OBL. Because its rubbish.

Sound at all familiar: "Like everyone else you take up a position, but choose your words carefully so you can switch position when proven wrong and say you never said that you supported it.

So no, i can't quote you as saying it. But its quite clear you implied it."

[Travis]

Mushy, could you answer my questions about your scenario. See my answer to your initial question depends on those clarifications.

Or were you expecting me to just go, "NO, USA, USA," until I ran out of breath?

[Toontown]

Obama made it quite clear before his election that, if he had actionable intelligence as to the exact location of bin Laden in Pakistan, then he would order a strike.

Surely the Pakistanis must have heard these public announcements, and must have been informed of Obama's intention through diplomatic channels.

If the Pakistanis were so dead set agaist a raid inside Pakistan to take out bin Laden, then why did the Pakistanis continue to accept billions of dollars in U.S. aid, flood relief, etc? And now, given the attitude the Pakistanis have copped, what should Americans make of Pakistani duplicity and hypocrisy?

[PGH]

Provide proof of your claim that i defend OBL. Because its rubbish.


Why did he kill Americans : In his messed up head America had been killing "his people" for decades.

When he kills Americans over the course of a decade. You all want to murder him.

Why is it ok for Americans to want to kill him for killing Americans, but not ok for him to Want to kill Americans for killing Muslims?

Exhibit B

[MRC_Hans]

This thread has nothing to do with OBL, its definitely not an apologist thread for him. Since when has questioning American ethics made you a OBL apologist?

I can agree that the ethics in the OBL killing is questionable. There are, however, situations in life where ethics is a luxury you can't afford.

Hans

[JoeTheJuggler]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

Was China also giving the U.S. tens of billions of dollars for the purpose of fighting these terrorists? Were China and the U.S. supposedly allies in the fight against these American terrorists? And the U.S., in your hypothetical, was allowing terrorists from a China-occupied failed state in Canada to have safe haven across the border?

While I agree with the general idea that we should abide by laws, including those that respect a country's sovereignty, your hypothetical is akin to asking, "If a false statement were true, would you agree with it?"

[Resume]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

How far behind the boat do you put your lure spread?

[Toontown]

Imagine a U.S. Marine division is in South Korea, on the U.N.'s first mission, immobilized by intense winter cold. Suddenly 10 Chinese divisions rush into South Korea and surround the Marine division, intent on slaughtering the Marines or forcing them into a long, excruciating winter death march. Instead, the Marine division mobilizes, and with the help of the Marine Air Wing, fights it's way out of the trap, leaving 10 shattered Chinese divisions in it's wake.

Question: Should Americans be OK with the attempted Chinese slaughter of 10,000 Americans who were not on Chinese soil and were engaged in a legal international police action against a brutal communist invasion of South Korea?

[redhotrebel]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

Your hypothetical situation is too vague to give an appropriate answer. I disagree with most imperialistic actions (by any nation) if that is what your point is getting at. However, in certain circumstances a criminal must be detained at all costs. Albeit, alive where they can stand trial would be optimal. I think you'll run the gambit on possibilities. Allowing the family to dispose of their loved one is a separate issue altogether.

If you're using OBL as the example and the situation were to hold true and he was in the U.S. being hidden, and we refused to hand him over for a trial, yes, I would support China in their decision to contain that criminal force with extreme prejudice.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your hypothetical situation is too vague to give an appropriate answer.

I don't think vagueness is the problem. He's basically asking if everything were parallel such that hypothetical China is the real U.S. and the hypothetical U.S. is the real Pakistan. He neglected a lot of details, but that's clearly the idea.

See my last post. If the hypothetical is, "If a false statement were the same as a true statement, would you agree with it?" the answer has to be yes.

But it's a silly hypothetical. If a false statement were true, it would no longer be false. If China were the U.S. and the U.S. were Pakistan, they would no longer be China and the U.S.

[ZirconBlue]

A) OBL is not a Pakistani citizen, and

2) Do we actually know that the Pakistani government did not give permission for this mission?

[dtugg]

2) Do we actually know that the Pakistani government did not give permission for this mission?

Obama says he told them nothing. I believe him. I wouldn't trust them with that information either.

[Tricky]

The hypothetical scenario it completely outlandish, but I'll engage in the willing suspension of disbelief for a moment.

In the event that the US had a known and self-admitted terrorist hiding in the country and China (somehow) had information on where he was hiding and (for some unexplained reason) could not share this information with the US authorities and China was (somehow) able to attack a target within the US without drawing attention to their attack and was able to take out the well-known terrorist without injuring anyone other than the people supporting that terrorist, the the US would be annoyed but would get over it.

Of course, this is simply not going to happen for a number of reasons, but I believe the US is a country that would not knowingly harbor terrorists and would work for, and be glad for, removing them if they were unknowingly harboring them.

[headscratcher4]

Obama says he told them nothing. I believe him. I wouldn't trust them with that information either.

Maybe...but arguably, Pakistan would need plausable deniability here for domestic political purposes. Also, while there is "outrage" in Pakistan, I think it is safe to say that a) OBL is not missed all that much (even by rabid American haters as, arguable, he is a distraction from their political aspirations) and as evidenced by smallish protests and not really a huge anti-American display (yet, and a'la an attack on the U.S. embassy) and b) by the Administration's luke warm but nonetheless public statements in support of continuing engagement with packistan.

What Mushy leaves out in his OBL senario that is not an OBL senario is the question of an act of war. China would be commiting an act of war in his senario, but whether it was worth it for the U.S. to go to war or just be outraged is an entirely different, diplomatic, financial, national integrity and security question.

Our going after OBL...which I think was justified and which we fully warned Pakistan and any country knowingly or unknowingly harboring OBL we would do...was for all intents and purposes an act of war. Pakistan seems to be judging these circumstances something less than a worthwhile cause beli. Would it be the same if the U.S. had determined that it wanted the capture or death of the Pakistani intelligence service and swooped down in a raid on his house or office, is a very different set of questions.

[PGH]

The hypothetical scenario it completely outlandish, but I'll engage in the willing suspension of disbelief for a moment.

In the event that the US had a known and self-admitted terrorist hiding in the country and China (somehow) had information on where he was hiding and (for some unexplained reason) could not share this information with the US authorities and China was (somehow) able to attack a target within the US without drawing attention to their attack and was able to take out the well-known terrorist without injuring anyone other than the people supporting that terrorist, the the US would be annoyed but would get over it.

Of course, this is simply not going to happen for a number of reasons, but I believe the US is a country that would not knowingly harbor terrorists and would work for, and be glad for, removing them if they were unknowingly harboring them.

I'm willing to go a step further and say the only thing that would annoy me about the contrived situation is that China apprehended him as opposed to the U.S. It would be disgraceful to find out we were harboring terrorists and the only course of action I'd recommend in response to China is sincere apologies and steps to make sure it didn't happen again.

I certainly wouldn't be angry with China if one of our citizens attacked them and we didn't do the job of rooting him out ourselves.

But, like many have said, it's a pretty outlandish scenario and we all know the real reason behind it.

[tyr_13]

The reaction of the US: "Damnit China that was just completely unacceptable. You rode in here like a damn cowboy, used insanely expensive aircraft, employed highly trained and cool as hell professionals, and killed the Pepsi loving ninth circle out of that terrorist!


We wanted to do that! We are officially calling dibs on the next one."

[Darat]

...snip...

Of course, this is simply not going to happen for a number of reasons, but I believe the US is a country that would not knowingly harbor terrorists and would work for, and be glad for, removing them if they were unknowingly harboring them.

Sadly we know this not to be the case but I think your point as a generalisation has some merit.

[triforcharity]

Provide proof of your claim that i defend OBL. Because its rubbish.

Exhibit C (not to be confused with B, as originally reported)

America needs to accept that their invasive foreign policy creates this kind of hate. That the reason these people attack you is because you bomb them and kill their children, it doesn't matter if its by accident.


Now, if you don't call this DEFENDING Osama, I don't know what is.

[excaza]

Now, if you don't call this DEFENDING Osama, I don't know what it.

Given his warped understanding of 'murder', I'm sure he's got a similarly warped one of 'defending'.

[PGH]

Exhibit B



Now, if you don't call this DEFENDING Osama, I don't know what it.

That would actually be Exhibit C, keep up bro! :D

[triforcharity]

That would actually be Exhibit C, keep up bro! :D

I replied before reading the rest of the thread.

Fixed now.

[triforcharity]

Given his warped understanding of 'murder', I'm sure he's got a similarly warped one of 'defending'.

And by "warped understanding" you really mean completly wrong and breathtakingly retarded, right? :)

[mushy]

Exhibit B

That is about how a word is defined. Not supporting him. I might have to stop replying to your posts. Removed breach.

[mushy]

Exhibit C (not to be confused with B, as originally reported)



Now, if you don't call this DEFENDING Osama, I don't know what is.

Thats not defending him. Its nothing Ron Paul hasn't said himself lots of times before and i don't think you can claim he supports Osama. Its pointing out a fact, the fact being why America is hated.

[Toontown]

Thats not defending him. Its nothing Ron Paul hasn't said himself lots of times before and i don't think you can claim he supports Osama. Its pointing out a fact, the fact being why America is hated.

I find your rationales as to why America is hated to be themselves objectionable in the extreme, and good and sufficient cause to hate the haters.

IOW, telling us all the batty reasons why you hate us only makes us hate you in return. More and more, the longer you persist.

[Dancing David]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?

What police and secret service routes were tried?

[PGH]

That is about how a word is defined. Not supporting him. I might have to stop replying to your posts. Removed breach in quote.

If you don't like your own words being used against you you should choose them better. No amount of name calling will change the fact that it's only what you said that I'm presenting.

[mushy]

If you don't like your own words being used against you you should choose them better. No amount of name calling will change the fact that it's only what you said that I'm presenting.

Lol you are the one who is claiming im an osama supporter. Removed inappropriate comments.

[PGH]

Lol you are the one who is claiming im an osama supporter. Removed quote of moderated content.

No, you are the one who said that any talk of you defending Osama Bin Laden is rubbish. I then provided examples of you doing as much in your own words. If you take issue with them maybe you should not have said them.

If you're really not trying to insult me you probably shouldn't cast doubts as to my intelligence level. Because that is insulting someone.

[JoelKatz]

Say for example an Irrational American terrorist had killed thousands of people in china.

China had found out he was living in America and without asking permission launched a raid on his house, killing unarmed people in the house and shooting the terrorist and taking him out of the country and throwing him in the sea.

Would Americans be ok with this?Honestly, I think we probably would bitch a bit and then get over it. Similar things do happen all the time, and that's what countries do. For example, Israeli agents murdered a terrorist in Saudi Arabia. What happened?

The main thing people would be upset about is the unnecessary risk. Why not just have American authorities arrest him? But if there was some good reason they couldn't do it that way, then it would be necessary risk, which is of course okay.

[trvlr2]

How far behind the boat do you put your lure spread?

It would appear that he sets them in the fifth column.

[triforcharity]

That is about how a word is defined. Not supporting him. I might have to stop replying to your posts. Removed breach in quote.

You claim to have studied law. (I have my doubts) You claim that just because someone did not pull the trigger, then he is not a murderer.

That is a lie. That is a weasel way of TRYING to twist the facts so that your pal OBL is not labeled a murderer.

By every definition in US law, and most likely international law too, he is a murderer.

Stop trying to defend a known murderer.

[triforcharity]

Thats not defending him. Its nothing Ron Paul hasn't said himself lots of times before and i don't think you can claim he supports Osama. Its pointing out a fact, the fact being why America is hated.

Source showing that R.P claims the same thing. If true, he will also be labeled a OBL apologist also. Not that I liked the guy any before.....

[Tricky]

...snip...

Of course, this is simply not going to happen for a number of reasons, but I believe the US is a country that would not knowingly harbor terrorists and would work for, and be glad for, removing them if they were unknowingly harboring them.

Sadly we know this not to be the case but I think your point as a generalisation has some merit.
To say that this is "not the case" gets into the very marshy ground of defining "what is a terrorist". Extreme cases are easy. Bin Laden was. Ghandi was not. When you try to decide whether or not bomber pilots are terrorists or not though, there will be a lot of disagreement.

[Travis]

Anyways, Mushy, if the USA had become a totalitarian state. And if the USA was knowingly harboring terrorists that had killed thousands. Then I would say that China had the right to do it as I would probably already be actively opposed to the ruling American government.

[yomero]

Why haven't the Americans arrested him?

No but the big difference would be America would be actively looking for him.

Maybe if he was a citizen of another country had been on the run for 10 years and had been hiding out in America for several years in a not very hiden location.

Probably not.

It would make sense for China to demand to have him arrested and handed over, or failing that, be tried within his own country.

I think the US had fair reason to believe that they could not make Pakistan arrest OBL, either because strong powers in Pakistan would not allow it, or because Pakistani authorites are hopelessly incompetent.

Hans

I think the difference Mushy, is that Pakistan has been unable/unwilling to capture them himself. The probability of a parallel situation in the US is unlikely.

The US would be looking for him, and it is doubtful that another country would have superior intelligence. Even if they did, they would likely share it with us and we would go get the terrorist ourselves.

Extradition would be an entirely different discussion.


...But it's a silly hypothetical....

The hypothetical scenario it completely outlandish, but I'll engage in the willing suspension of disbelief for a moment...

...Of course, this is simply not going to happen for a number of reasons, but I believe the US is a country that would not knowingly harbor terrorists and would work for, and be glad for, removing them if they were unknowingly harboring them.

There is a real, not hypothetical, case where the USA is protecting a known terrorist and murderer: Luis Posada Carriles. Posada Carriles is not even hiding, he is free to live, even if 2 foreign nations demand his extradition.

Posada Carriles began his criminal ativities with the CIA's Operation 40 in the 1960's. This group (Carriles was not the leader) was responsible for the death of 75 persons and 200 wounded by the attack on Havana bay on the Belgian ship La Coubre. In 1976 (no longer officially with the CIA), operating from Caracas, he masterminded the bombing of Cubana de Aviacion flight 455 which killed all 73 passengers. Carriles organized the 1997 bombings on Cuban hotels that resulted in the death of at least 1 person. In 2001 in Panama, he attempted to detonate 200 lbs. of explosives inside an auditorium filled with students, hoping to kill Fidel Castro. He failed.

The Panamanians jailed Carriles until 2004 when pro-USA president Mireya Moscoso released him. He fled to the US and he was arrested. On immigration fraud! and released on bail. Carriles was tried in El Paso on 11 counts of immigration fraud and obstruction of justice. Last month, he was acquitted of all charges.

There you have a real case, nothing hypothetical about it. How committed are the American government and the American citizens to combat terrorism? Requests for his extradition to Venezuela were denied by an American judge, alleging that he might be tortured. This was during Bush Jr's administration when terrorist suspects were being sent to other countries to be tortured. Venezuela and Cuba call for his extradition, but Carriles is completely free, living I believe in Miami.

[yomero]

In the above post, I forgot to post links. What I wrote is not a conspiracy theory, it's facts supported by ample evidence.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-11/luis-posada-carriles-trial-of-the-terrorist-who-almost-killed-me/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB334/index.htm

On the last link you may click on ''Document 1,'' ''Document 2'', etc. to link to the CIA's documents on Posada Carriles.

[triforcharity]

Why did Panama release him?

[yomero]

Why did Panama release him?

Panama's pro-USA president Mireya Moscoso released him during her last week in office. It has been speculated that she did this influenced by Florida governor Jeb Bush and the Cuban community of Miami. The next paragraph is from the Wiki article on Luis Posada Carriles.

In August 2004, Posada and the three other convicted plotters were pardoned by outgoing Panamanian president Mireya Moscoso. Moscoso, who had been close to the Bush administration in the U.S., denied that she had been pressured by U.S. officials to engineer a release of the men, though U.S. officials said they were not involved. "This was a decision made by the government of Panama," said State Department spokesman J. Adam Ereli. "We never lobbied the Panamanian government to pardon anyone involved in this case, and I'd leave it to the government of Panama to discuss the action." President Mireya Moscoso commented, saying that "No foreign government has pressured me to take the decision," she told reporters. "I knew that if these men stayed here, they would be extradited to Cuba and Venezuela, and there they were surely going to kill them there."[44]

The U.S. government declined to condemn the actions of the four men.[44] Moscoso's decision was heavily criticized by incoming president Martín Torrijos,[45] and speculation was rife that the pardon was politically motivated.[44] Cuba expert Julia E. Sweig said the decision "reeks of political and diplomatic cronyism". Sweig cited business and personal connections between Panama and the Cuban American exile community in Florida, and implied that Florida governor Jeb Bush may have had a role in the release.[44][46] Immediately after news of the pardon broke, Venezuela and Cuba withdrew diplomatic ties with Panama.[45]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36924-2004Aug26.html

[Travis]

Well then let's see Venezuela come and get him.

[MRC_Hans]

In the above post, I forgot to post links. What I wrote is not a conspiracy theory, it's facts supported by ample evidence.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-11/luis-posada-carriles-trial-of-the-terrorist-who-almost-killed-me/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB334/index.htm

On the last link you may click on ''Document 1,'' ''Document 2'', etc. to link to the CIA's documents on Posada Carriles.

So let's presume they come to the US and assinate him. What will the US do? Be happy? - No. Start a war? - No. Forget soon? - Yes.

Hans

[mushy]

Start a war? - No.

Not worth it, no oil there. If it was a muslim country, America would proclaim it an invasion and an act of war and proceed to bomb the poop out of them.

[dtugg]

Not worth it, no oil there. If it was a muslim country, America would proclaim it an invasion and an act of war and proceed to bomb the poop out of them.

So the US only invades countries with oil? Is that what you're going with?

[excaza]

Not worth it, no oil there. If it was a muslim country, America would proclaim it an invasion and an act of war and proceed to bomb the poop out of them.

Do you even know where most of the US oil imports come from?

http://ironic1.com/craig-mountie.gif

[MRC_Hans]

Not worth it, no oil there. If it was a muslim country, America would proclaim it an invasion and an act of war and proceed to bomb the poop out of them.

So this is why they're in Afganistan.

...... wait!:confused:

Yeah, bombing the poop out of them is a good way to ensure oil supplies.:rolleyes:

Hans

[headscratcher4]

Do you even know where most of the US oil imports come from?

http://ironic1.com/craig-mountie.gif

And they're harboring Celine Dion!

[triforcharity]

Panama's pro-USA president Mireya Moscoso released him during her last week in office. It has been speculated that she did this influenced by Florida governor Jeb Bush and the Cuban community of Miami. The next paragraph is from the Wiki article on Luis Posada Carriles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36924-2004Aug26.html

Sorry, speculation does not equal fact.

Case dismissed.

[yomero]

Panama's pro-USA president Mireya Moscoso released him during her last week in office. It has been speculated that she did this influenced by Florida governor Jeb Bush and the Cuban community of Miami. The next paragraph is from the Wiki article on Luis Posada Carriles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36924-2004Aug26.html

Sorry, speculation does not equal fact.

Case dismissed.

I clearly stated that Moscoso's motives and Jeb Bush's influence in releasing Posada Carriles were speculations. But I don't consider them wild speculations. In a case where secrecy is an important ingredient, not all the facts are at our disposal. Even the pro-Cuban blog I found, Mesa Redonda says in reference to this (my translation from Spanish): ''It is yet undetermined if the then governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, had knowledge or not of what was happening.''

But the fact remains that the USA government is giving sanctuary to a terrorist murderer. On Mar 24, 2006, George W. Bush declared: ''One of the lessons learned after September the 11th is that we must hold people to account for harboring terrorists, if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're as equally guilty as the terrorist.'' So, case is certainly not dismissed.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/042606.html
http://www.nnc.cubaweb.cu/mesas_2011/mesa25-1-11.htm

[yomero]

I found this YouTube video, or more exactly, audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_YwgYu0Ix0

It's in Spanish. I have translated the conversation. The audio starts on mid.sentence, with a man's voice announcing: ....'' the news is a scoop for all of you. the conversation, the telephone message that the president of Panama, Mrs. Mireya Moscoso delivers to then United States ambassador, Dr. Simon Ferro. We are going to hear what President Moscoso says in the recording to Simon Ferro.'' After this, a mature woman's voice with a Caribbean accent is heard. The first couple of words are unintelligible, then ''...I am the President, to inform you that the 4 Cubans have already been pardoned last night and that they already left the country. Three are going to Miami and the other, well, in an unknown direction. So long. An embrace.''

There are other unrelated YouTube videos where Moscoso's voice may be heard. It resembles the voice from the recording. I have no way of checking if it was indeed to American Ambassador Ferro that she was reporting.

But the important point I am making is not that Moscoso released Posada Carriles due to American government influence. The pont is that the American government is protecting an evil, murderous terrorist. Two countries demand his extradition. This after George W. Bush declared war on terrorism on all fronts.

[MRC_Hans]

Methinks you are missing the basic distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter:

Terrorist: He is with my enemies.
Freedom fighter: He is against my enemies.

- No, it's not fair.

Did somebody tell you the world would be fair? - He/she lied.

Hans

[Travis]

I would like to know more about the denial of extradition. Courts in the USA don't just do that for fun you know.

[dtugg]

I would like to know more about the denial of extradition. Courts in the USA don't just do that for fun you know.

According to wikipedia, it was because he might be facing torture if extradited. Which is probably true.

[mushy]

According to wikipedia, it was because he might be facing torture if extradited. Which is probably true.

I see a problem with your logic.

[dtugg]

I see a problem with your logic.

There is zero problems with my logic. Wikipedia cited its source, the BBC. Or perhaps you mean the problem with my logic was thinking it is true that he might be tortured. In which case, Wikipedia has nothing to do with it.

[mushy]

Yes, wikipedia and "might probably be true" are evidence. Just as youtube videos are evidence for UFO's.

[triforcharity]

I clearly stated that Moscoso's motives and Jeb Bush's influence in releasing Posada Carriles were speculations. But I don't consider them wild speculations. In a case where secrecy is an important ingredient, not all the facts are at our disposal. Even the pro-Cuban blog I found, Mesa Redonda says in reference to this (my translation from Spanish): ''It is yet undetermined if the then governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, had knowledge or not of what was happening.''

But the fact remains that the USA government is giving sanctuary to a terrorist murderer. On Mar 24, 2006, George W. Bush declared: ''One of the lessons learned after September the 11th is that we must hold people to account for harboring terrorists, if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're as equally guilty as the terrorist.'' So, case is certainly not dismissed.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/042606.html
http://www.nnc.cubaweb.cu/mesas_2011/mesa25-1-11.htm

Is this guy currently under indictment for a capital crime?

[triforcharity]

Yes, wikipedia and "might probably be true" are evidence. Just as youtube videos are evidence for UFO's.

Well, considering the Wiki page is backed up with links to pages, and when you go to those pages, it supports what is written in the Wiki page, then yes, I would consider that evidence. (For the most part. It must be a reputable source)

YouTube videos can be evidence, but not when they make wild speculations that are backed by "This guy over here agrees with me."

[dtugg]

Yes, wikipedia and "might probably be true" are evidence. Just as youtube videos are evidence for UFO's.

The wikipedia article cited its source. The BBC. You fail.

[Spindrift]

Lol you are the one who is claiming im an osama supporter.
So how about clarifying things, do you support Osama bin Laden?

[mushy]

So how about clarifying things, do you support Osama bin Laden?

No, of course not.

[Spindrift]

No, of course not.

Do you think he was responsible for the murder of thousands?

[mushy]

Do you think he was responsible for the murder of thousands?


Yes, but he didnt literally kill them himself. Thats all i said.

[Spindrift]

Yes, but he didnt literally kill them himself. Thats all i said.

That's not all you said. You said he wasn't a murderer. Yes he is, by the legal definition of murder.

And that he didn't 'literally kill them himself' somehow makes him less horrible?

[mushy]

That's not all you said. You said he wasn't a murderer. Yes he is, by the legal definition of murder.

And that he didn't 'literally kill them himself' somehow makes him less horrible?


I didnt say it makes him any less evil or his crime any less horrible. I said he literally didn't kill/murder them. He organised it, but didn't carry it out himself.

[Spindrift]

I didnt say it makes him any less evil or his crime any less horrible. I said he literally didn't kill/murder them. He organised it, but didn't carry it out himself.

But you did say he wasn't a murderer, when that simply isn't true.

[yomero]

Why did Panama release him?

Panama's pro-USA president Mireya Moscoso released him during her last week in office. It has been speculated that she did this influenced by Florida governor Jeb Bush and the Cuban community of Miami. The next paragraph is from the Wiki article on Luis Posada Carriles.
....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36924-2004Aug26.html

Sorry, speculation does not equal fact.

Case dismissed.

Is this guy currently under indictment for a capital crime?

I was under the impression that you were using the phrase ''case dismissed'' colloquially, and not in its strict legal meaning. Of course there is no indictment currently against Posada Carriles in the USA. The 11 trivial charges of immigration fraud and obstruction of justice were dismissed. But he is still being charged by the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, they have not dropped the case. So, yes, he is still being accused.

Are American citizens satisfied that a man responsible for the death of at least 74 persons be allowed to live freely in Miami? Former president Bush considered those who harbor terrorists as guilty as the terrorists. I am not aware if Obama has changed that. The ''case'' before the sense of justice of American citizens is still very open, in my opinion.

[yomero]

I would like to know more about the denial of extradition. Courts in the USA don't just do that for fun you know.

According to wikipedia, it was because he might be facing torture if extradited. Which is probably true.

I see a problem with your logic.

There is zero problems with my logic. Wikipedia cited its source, the BBC. Or perhaps you mean the problem with my logic was thinking it is true that he might be tortured. In which case, Wikipedia has nothing to do with it.

Well, considering the Wiki page is backed up with links to pages, and when you go to those pages, it supports what is written in the Wiki page, then yes, I would consider that evidence. (For the most part. It must be a reputable source)

YouTube videos can be evidence, but not when they make wild speculations that are backed by "This guy over here agrees with me."

The wikipedia article cited its source. The BBC. You fail.

It is my opinion that Mushy is right on this. Neither the Wikipedia article nor the one from the BBC affirm that Posada Carriles would be tortured. That speculation was stated by the Immigration judge that denied the extradition to Venezuela. Both Wiki and the BBC limit themselves to quoting the judge. That decision makes me wonder if there is a double standard set by the US government. The US can capture suspects, ship them to other countries to be tortured, but it will not allow one of its accomplices to face justice. I realize that there is a clear division of powers between the executive and the judicial branches of government. The Department of Homeland Security was the plaintiff on this case. It did not produce a single witness in rebuttal to the hypothetical torture, nor did it appeal. http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2006/02/strange-case-of-luis-posada-carriles.html

On Nov. 2005 the USA signed and ratified The Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism. It compels its signataries to deny sanctuary to suspected terrorists. It denies the suspected terrorist the ''political offence'' exception to prevent extradition. I think that means that if a terrorist is being sought by a country his real crimes, he can not allege to be politically persecuted. Here are the pertinent articles:

Article 11

Inapplicability of political offense exception



For the purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, none of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 shall be regarded as a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition or mutual legal assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives.

Article 12

Denial of refugee status

Each state party shall take appropriate measures, consistent with the relevant provisions of national and international law, for the purpose of ensuring that refugee status is not granted to any person in respect of whom there are serious reasons for considering that he or she has committed an offense established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention.

Article 13

Denial of asylum

Each state party shall take appropriate measures, consistent with the relevant provisions of national and international law, for the purpose of ensuring that asylum is not granted to any person in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has committed an offense established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention..

[Travis]

So you think the Judge lied when it was stated that torture was the potential reason?

[Travis]

Oh and, Mushy, how do you think the USA should have dealt with Bin Laden?

[yomero]

So you think the Judge lied when it was stated that torture was the potential reason?

I haven't found any direct information on the extradition trial. As I understand, the argument that Posada Carriles could be tortured in Venezuela was presented by his attorney. The Department of Homeland Security wasn't motivated to refute that. Apparently, the judge ruled based on what was presented to him/her.

ETA. The USA has signed and ratified several anti-terrorist treaties. One of those, I linked in my previous post. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-66.html. Those accords stipulate that a country is obligated to deny refugee or asylum-seeker status to any terrorist suspect that is sought by another nation for real crimes.. Political persecution is not allowed as a defense, if there were real crimes committed. I don't know if suspicion that torture would be used against the suspect, is sufficient to deny the extradition. Probably yes. In that case, the country holding the suspect is bound to prosecute the suspect and deliver punishment if found guilty, in conformity with the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

ETA # 2: I have found the possibility of torture is enough to deny extradition. Article 3 of the 1971 Convention against Torture deals with this.

[excaza]

I didnt say it makes him any less evil or his crime any less horrible. I said he literally didn't kill/murder them. He organised it, but didn't carry it out himself.

And, as you've been repeatedly told, the distinction you keep making is meaningless by all definitions of the law.

[Dorian Gray]

Wow Darat, i wasn't expecting that. Like everyone else you take up a position, but choose your words carefully so you can switch position when proven wrong and say you never said that you supported it.

So no, i can't quote you as saying it. But its quite clear you implied it.
Didn't you say you were tired of trolls?