nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (10/11/85)
Well, I'll bet that many of you are happy that the US Government has
hijacked a plane on which the alleged terrorists were leaving
Egypt. I ask you, however, to think for a moment on the implications
of these actions.
Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as
an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? By the US legal
system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted
without the due process of the law being followed. US legal officers
are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a
subject; I realise that the people on the plane were not in the US,
and not subject by law to US constitutional protections, however
I must urge people to extend our protections when dealing with
others (The Golden rule, eh?), otherwise we end up with a regional
chauvanism in our dealings with others.
I do not approve of terrorism, but I do not have an answer. I do know
that the use of terrorism in reprisal is not a cure. How can we expect
people to believe us in the future when we say as a nation that we
do not condone terrorism when we are one of the practitoners?
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
I'll keep an eye on the old man, he seems to have a knack for getting
himself into trouble!
-who said it, what story?tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/12/85)
> [James C. Armstrong] > Well, I'll bet that many of you are happy that the US Government has > hijacked a plane on which the alleged terrorists were leaving > Egypt. I ask you, however, to think for a moment on the implications > of these actions. > > Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as > an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? --------- Unbelievable. Just who is being terrorized here. Terrorism is the deliberate use of terror as a political weapon. Mr. Armstrong is either too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "terrorism", or too dishonest to avoid applying the usage to forcible acts he disapproves of. --------- > By the US legal > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > without the due process of the law being followed. US legal officers > are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a > subject; I realise that the people on the plane were not in the US, > and not subject by law to US constitutional protections, however > I must urge people to extend our protections when dealing with > others (The Golden rule, eh?), otherwise we end up with a regional > chauvanism in our dealings with others. --------- The terrorists were being set free. What sort of due process is that? Were they sitting in an Egyptian or Italian jail instead, awaiting trial, your comment would be valid. --------- > I do not approve of terrorism, but I do not have an answer. I do know > that the use of terrorism in reprisal is not a cure. ----- For god's sake man, look up terrorism in the dictionary. The diversion of that plane was not terrorism. ----- > How can we expect > people to believe us in the future when we say as a nation that we > do not condone terrorism when we are one of the practitoners? ----- How can we expect to discuss issues in net.politics if people like Mr. Armstrong and others make up their own definitions. By debasing the usage of the word "terrorism", Mr. Armstrong and others are only lessening the onus on terrorists. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (10/12/85)
[] In article <903@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken, also known as James C. Armstrong, Jr.) writes: >Well, I'll bet that many of you are happy that the US Government has >hijacked a plane on which the alleged terrorists were leaving >Egypt. ... By the US legal >system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted >without the due process of the law being followed. The alleged terrorists allegedly committed acts of piracy upon the high seas. By a long-established tradition, any law-enforcement agency which can lay hands upon pirates has authority to do so. The four persons who were arrested are being held for trial, rather than being summarily executed. They will have a chance to present their defense. Let me offer some possible lines of argument: 1. They weren't the real terrorists; somebody else did it; this is all a case of mistaken identity. 2. The man who was allegedly killed isn't really dead, he's only pretending. 3. The man whom they killed was attacking them, and they had no recourse but to fire on him in self defense. Oh, I forgot, he was in a wheel chair. Well, I said these were possible lines of defense, I didn't promise that they were likely. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
dce@hammer.UUCP (David Elliott) (10/13/85)
The implications are that the people of the world, not just the U.S., are not going to stand for other people behaving like animals anymore. How do you know it isn't the right solution? If someone comes at me with a knife or a gun and tries to do anything to me, I will rip that person to shreds or die myself (and if I don't, buddy, I will personally invite you to my house to spit in my face). In my opinion, we should have sent forces to Iran and trashed those people that messed with us. We should have gone straight into Berlin and bitten Hitler's face off. Al Capone lived too long. Criminals have got to expect to be treated like the dirt that they are. If I drive too fast, I should get a ticket because there is a law against it. This has nothing to do with whether or not I think a law is right. If I sell heroin, I shouldn't even be protected by illegal search and seizure laws. This has nothing to do with rights. Criminals, by their very crimes, are saying "we don't believe in rights anymore". Fine. Those hijackers and murderers violently violated the rights of U.S. citizens. The U.S. tooks matters into it's own hands and is doing something about it. You ask what the implications of us taking action are? Ask yourself what Russia would have done in the same situation. Ask yourself what you would have done in the same situation. David Elliott tektronix!tekecs!dce "Fate is a hand that we all must play." -- The Damned
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (10/13/85)
> Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as > an act of "state terrorism" by the US Government? By the US legal > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > without the due process of the law being followed. If the U.S. navy assisted the Italian government in capturing the hijackers of "their" cruise ship, I think that's perfectly within the bounds of international law. If the murder was comitted on an Italian vessel on the high seas, the culprits should be tried under Italian law. If it happened within the territorial waters of some other country, I suppose that country could argue for the right to try them under local law. But I don't understand what legal basis Mr. Reagan could have for extradition of the hijackers to the U.S. Baba
sorgatz@ttidcc.UUCP ( Avatar) (10/15/85)
< munch! gobble! chomp! chew! Why don't "THEY" fix this bug? >
I think David Elliott has summed this up rather nicely. I agree, it's
a political posture that's long overdue. Unfortunatly, there will be a
rash of sniveling from the pseudo-intellectual Left. Maybe those people
who object to the US handling of this incident would have no objections
to being handed-over to the Terrorists as 'exchange-prisoners' while the
World Court/U.N. grinds to an inconclusive resolve?? (-|
-Avatar->
Erik K. Sorgatz
Transaction Technology Inc. (Citicorp's R/AD West) ... . ... . ...
3100 ocean Park Blvd. (zone V1) . | |..|..| | .
Santa Monica, Ca. 90405 |.|....|....|.|
USENET path: {garfield,lasspvax,linus,cmcl2,seismo} |.|....|....|.|
!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz | | ...|... | |
("..My poor Krel! Even they must have evolved up from the ..| | .|. | |..
mindless primative..after a million years of shining sanity, they could
hardly have known what power was destroying them!" -Dr. Morbius F.P.)chaiklin@umn-cs.UUCP (Seth Chaiklin) (10/15/85)
In article <1559@hammer.UUCP> dce@hammer.UUCP (David Elliott) writes: [A diatribe about how criminials, Hitler, Capone and others should be treated Basic conclusion: Take off the kid gloves, and bite their heads off.] >Criminals have got to expect to be treated like the dirt that they are. Mr. Elliott puts forward a popular view, but in his haste for immediate action seems to presume that there is an infallible judge who can determine the guilt of a person in all cases. There are several cases of innocent people who were executed in the United States after a trial by jury. Who is going to determine criminality? Who is going to determine the appropriate response? I rather like the idea of due process (even with the obvious mistakes that it commits, see above). Are we less barbaric for acting like criminals towards other criminals? I don't think so. Seth Chaiklin
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (10/15/85)
In article <903@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: > . . . > Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as > an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? By the US legal > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > without the due process of the law being followed. US legal officers > are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a > subject; I don't mind "unpopular viewpoints", but please get your facts straight first. Under US as well as international law, sovereignties are permitted to make arrests--including the use of force--without arrest warrants, under various circumstances. The incident in question occurred in international airspace, but even under US law, it would have been PERFECTLY LEGAL. The most important justification for a warrantless arrest is known as "exigent circumstances". In real life, that means a situation where there is no time to have a warrant drawn, because the suspect is fleeing or importance evidence would be destroyed. Take for example a sitation where a man has just robbed a bank in Miami Beach. The police learn that he has taken off in a boat and has left US waters and is heading for (say) Cuba. Can the Coast Guard or Navy intercept his boat, board it, and arrest him? YOU BETCHA. If he flees (even from a third country) in an airplane, can the plane be intercepted and forced to land either in the US or another country (presumably one with which the US has an extradition treaty)? YOU BETCHA. Leaving all political issues aside, the situation was that four persons were suspected of having committed a crime under US law while on the high seas. (As an aside, you may wish to note that under treaties dating back to the 18th century, ANY sovereignty has jurisdiction to try piracy cases, so strong is the mutual interest in keeping the seas safe.) These persons were believed to be fleeing to a safe haven (Tunisia, Algeria, Greece?) where they would be unable to be arrested and prosecuted, for whatever reasons. The US government quite lawfully intercepted their craft and forced it to land in a third country. There was no use of force, either deadly or non-deadly. Remember that arrests made under threat of force are extremely commonplace in democracies. Is a peace officer justified in drawing a weapon and telling a fleeing bank robber to stop? YOU BETCHA. Of course the bank robber is not yet guilty of any crime. Nor, under US law, are those suspected of piracy of the Achille Lauro. But without the right to arrest suspects by force or threat of force, sovereignties would be powerless to enforce their laws against those who would refuse to be arrested. I am a lawyer, and have studied both international law and US criminal law. I do not practice in either of those areas, and am certainly no expert. But the principles of sovereign power with respect to international fugitives and the use of force and threat of force in the arresting of suspects are both so fundamental that I hope that a comment like Mr. Armstrong's would not be considered seriously. Michael C. Berch, J.D. mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
guest@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) (10/17/85)
> The implications are that the people of the world, not just the U.S., are > not going to stand for other people behaving like animals anymore. How > do you know it isn't the right solution? > If someone comes at me with a knife or a gun and tries to do anything to > me, I will rip that person to shreds or die myself (and if I don't, buddy, > I will personally invite you to my house to spit in my face). You don't know until you have that gun pointing at your head, what your going to do. Even marines think twice when the enemy has the gun pointed right and they don't. There were marine POW's in each of our wars. > In my opinion, we should have sent forces to Iran and trashed those people > that messed with us. We should have gone straight into Berlin and bitten > Hitler's face off. Al Capone lived too long. We let Iraq do our dirty work for us, Hitler shot himself before we could get there, and letting Al Capone die of the Clap was better justice than anything we could have done! > Criminals have got to expect to be treated like the dirt that they are. > If I drive too fast, I should get a ticket because there is a law against > it. Suppose you were NOT speeding, but the officer give you a ticket to fill a quota, still want to pay? > This has nothing to do with whether or not I think a law is right. So if they make having blue eyes a capital offence, you will go to the gas chamber willingly? > If I sell heroin, I shouldn't even be protected by illegal search and > seizure laws. This has nothing to do with rights. If DEA agents bust into your house at 4:00 in the morning, and "Find" heroin that you never knew you had, your going to say "Shoot me"? > Criminals, by their very crimes, are saying "we don't believe in rights > anymore". Fine. Even those criminals who confess to their crimes usually attempt to justify their actions as a reponse to a violation of their rights, real or imagined. Many self-confessed crimes are committed as "Revenge". > You ask what the implications of us taking action are? Ask yourself what > Russia would have done in the same situation. Ask yourself what you would > have done in the same situation. The Russians shot down the KAL 747 claiming "self defence", we condemed them harshly for it. We commit piracy, claiming "hot pursuit", and expect the world to cheer about it. Terrorism is terrorism, be it a war, or the act of rebel forces. Retaliation just breeds more retaliation. Oppression just breeds more Retaliation. If a single Jew had gone to Egypt and shot those pirates, that would be an act of terrorism, in the Arab view. If they had been tried in an open court, they probably would have confessed proudly, and spent the rest of their lives in jail. The U.N. has little provision for trying individuals, no prisons for international felons, and very little "power of extridition". They have Interpol, which is like a toothless dog, lots of bark, but no bite. Neurenburg, could have been a powerful precedent for an international court system, but became a "Kangaroo Court" instead. If you want international law, you must consent to be governed by it. Instead, both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. veto any measure they don't like. As a result, Israel can let the Lebonese slaughter unarmed civilians, the PLO can blow up Embassies, and terrorism becomes a heroic act. Even civil suits cannot be tried because governments deny "subpenea power" for practally any government document that might prove even slightly embarrassing. Occaisionally, we sacrifice a goat (Calley comes to mind) if the evidence is overwhelming, but only at the lowest possible level (Calley was a lutennant wasn't he?). Once the sacrifice is made, the world assumes that it won't happen again. The only reason Woodward an Johnson(?) are alive today is that congress was controlled by Democrats and "Deep Throat" could have made life very uncomfortable for a lot of people. Do you really believe the watergate burglers were the first to be "Paid for thier conviction", or the last? Nobody looked twice against Mondale's smear campaign against Hart! There could have been Republicans setting those placecards.
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x268) (10/17/85)
> > an act of "state terrorism" by the US Government? By the US legal > > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > > without the due process of the law being followed. > > try them under local law. But I don't understand what legal basis > Mr. Reagan could have for extradition of the hijackers to the U.S. I have no love for Arabs in general or Palestinian terrorists in particular. But isn't it an act of piracy by US to force down a plane over the international waters? From what I know US had no warrant for the arrest of the hijackers, or even a firm knowledge of their presence on the plane! The proper steps would be : 1) Locate the body of the man killed by hijackers. 2) prove beyond any reasonable doubt the palestinians had commited a murder. 3) await (and help with) the trial of hijackers by PLO; 4) petition with Tunisia (?) and PLO for their extradition. I don't think any of these steps are realisticly possible. And I think the only thing better than force-landing the Egiptian plane would have been a commando raid on the ship while it was still in the hands of terrorists. But as it is -- US is in the wrong, and I'd love to hear what the Soviets ar going to say about all of this! -- -----------------------------------+ With deep indifference, "I disbelieve an army of invisible | Oleg Kiselev. mind-flayers!" | DISCLAIMER: "OK. They are *still* not there." | I don't know what I am talking about and -----------------------------------+ therefore am not responsible for any damages to people who take me seriously! ...!trwrb!felix!birtch!oleg ...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg Nothing I ever say reflects the views or opinions of my employers. They knew who they hired though!
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/17/85)
> > > Criminals have got to expect to be treated like the dirt that they are. > > If I drive too fast, I should get a ticket because there is a law against > > it. > > Suppose you were NOT speeding, but the officer give you a ticket to > fill a quota, still want to pay? > No, I would say "Scotty, beam me up". > > If I sell heroin, I shouldn't even be protected by illegal search and > > seizure laws. This has nothing to do with rights. > > If DEA agents bust into your house at 4:00 in the morning, and "Find" > heroin that you never knew you had, your going to say "Shoot me"? > No, I'm going to say "Gee, how did that chemical laboratory get into my basement"?
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (10/18/85)
In article <827@umn-cs.UUCP> chaiklin@umn-cs.UUCP (Seth Chaiklin) writes: > >There are several cases of innocent people who were executed in >the United States after a trial by jury. Who? > >Seth Chaiklin Cloyd Goodrum III
andy@Shasta.ARPA (10/18/85)
Oleg@oac6 writes: > The proper steps would be : and > [But as it is] US is in the wrong, and I'd love to hear what the Soviets > are going to say about all of this! I know I'm going to get flamed for this but .... Do any you claiming that the US/Italy/Egypt is wrong/right under international law actually know international law? I suppose it's bad form to ask people to distinquish between opinions and facts. BTW - The last I heard, the Soviets APPROVED of the interception. -andy
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/19/85)
In article <14232@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In article <903@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >> . . . >> Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as >> an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? By the US legal >> system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted >> without the due process of the law being followed. US legal officers >> are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a >> subject; > >I don't mind "unpopular viewpoints", but please get your facts straight >first. Under US as well as international law, sovereignties are >permitted to make arrests--including the use of force--without arrest >warrants, under various circumstances. The incident in question >occurred in international airspace, but even under US law, it would >have been PERFECTLY LEGAL. The most important justification for a >warrantless arrest is known as "exigent circumstances". In real life, ... >Leaving all political issues aside, the situation was that four >persons were suspected of having committed a crime under US law while >on the high seas. (As an aside, you may wish to note that under >treaties dating back to the 18th century, ANY sovereignty has >jurisdiction to try piracy cases, so strong is the mutual interest in >keeping the seas safe.) These persons were believed to be fleeing to a >safe haven (Tunisia, Algeria, Greece?) where they would be unable to >be arrested and prosecuted, for whatever reasons. The US government >quite lawfully intercepted their craft and forced it to land in a >third country. There was no use of force, either deadly or non-deadly. > >Remember that arrests made under threat of force are extremely >commonplace in democracies. Is a peace officer justified in drawing a >weapon and telling a fleeing bank robber to stop? YOU BETCHA. >Of course the bank robber is not yet guilty of any crime. Nor, under >US law, are those suspected of piracy of the Achille Lauro. But >without the right to arrest suspects by force or threat of force, >sovereignties would be powerless to enforce their laws against those >who would refuse to be arrested. > >I am a lawyer, and have studied both international law and US criminal >law. I do not practice in either of those areas, and am certainly no >expert. But the principles of sovereign power with respect to >international fugitives and the use of force and threat of force in >the arresting of suspects are both so fundamental that I hope that a >comment like Mr. Armstrong's would not be considered seriously. > >Michael C. Berch, J.D. >mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA >{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb Well, I'm a lawyer too, and I studied International Law, both private and public at law school also. Likewise, although I have international dealings, I don't practice International Law. And, of course, I disagree. The US has no jurisdiction over an Egyptian aircraft, which was piloted by an Egyptian clearly in command of his own aircraft and acting pursuant to the Egyptian government. In as far as the terrorists are concerned, they were in the proper custody of Egypt at the time the hijacking of the aircraft occurred and subject to Egyptian, *not* US law. You seem to have forgotten the very basic premises of Inter- national Law, formost of which is the Sovereignty of Nations. Having said all this, I think that *overall* I don't feel badly at all about what happened. International Law *must* balance pure 'paper law' with realities of the situation. The US had *good* reason to doubt that justice would otherwise have been done. The problem is, that you Americans are, I think too taken up by Miranda and the fact that your local police must justify what they have done in order to be 'right'. If I may say so, 'forget it'. The dislike of terrorism is strong almost throughout the world. The better part of the world agreed with the action. Just watch out that the precedent doesn't backfire. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (10/20/85)
In article <903@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >Well, I'll bet that many of you are happy that the US Government has >hijacked a plane on which the alleged terrorists were leaving >Egypt. I ask you, however, to think for a moment on the implications >of these actions. > >Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as >an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? By the US legal >system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted >without the due process of the law being followed. >US legal officers are required to follow the laws of the land >when apprehending a >subject; I realise that the people on the plane were not in the US, >and not subject by law to US constitutional protections, however >I must urge people to extend our protections when dealing with >others (The Golden rule, eh?), otherwise we end up with a regional >chauvanism in our dealings with others. Indeed, the alleged murderers of the 69 year old paraplegic had not, as yet, had benefit of trial. However, even in the US, agents of public safety are allowed to apprehend suspects prior to trial. If extradition had been allowed by the Italian authorities, the suspects would have, without doubt, had full benefit of Miranda. If you really want to stick to the letter of the law, then, begging the question of jurisdiction, the fact that the suspects were fleeing in a vehicle belonging to another nation and with the knowledge of the other nation does not provide protection from apprehension.It simply makes the owner of the vehicle an accessory after the fact to premeditated murder. I'm not sure about the jurisdictional question, but I believe that the interception of pirates in international waters or airspace is not a problem. > >I do not approve of terrorism, but I do not have an answer. I do know >that the use of terrorism in reprisal is not a cure. Apprehension of a fleeing suspect is not terrorism. >How can we expect >people to believe us in the future when we say as a nation that we >do not condone terrorism when we are one of the practitoners? We can hope that they will certainly believe that we will continue to support the apprehension, trial, and punishment of murderers. >James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa Bill Oliver The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and should not be considered those of any other official, nor those of any agency or office, of the State of North Carolina.
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (10/21/85)
In article <856@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > . . . The US has no jurisdiction over > an Egyptian aircraft, which was piloted by an Egyptian clearly in > command of his own aircraft and acting pursuant to the Egyptian > government. In as far as the terrorists are concerned, they were > in the proper custody of Egypt at the time the hijacking of the > aircraft occurred and subject to Egyptian, *not* US law. I can't agree that the terrorists were in Egyptian custody at the time they were intercepted by the US forces. Indeed, the fact that the Egyptians had RELEASED the terrorists (reference: statement that the four "had been turned over to the PLO," by Mr. Mubarak, that morning) and that they were free of sovereign custody and in danger of escaping judicial proceedings is what made the US action, in my opinion, timely and lawful. Obviously this would not apply if US forces seized the terrorists on Egyptian soil, etc., but that isn't what happened. Take the following hypothetical, variants of which take place with regularity: X robs a US pleasure boat in international waters but is (let's say) wounded and surrenders to the Bahamanian authorities. The Bahamas decide they have no evidence to hold X and release him. He arranges a chartered Bahamanian flag yacht to take him ... wherever. Can the US Coast guard seize this ship in international waters and arrest X? I certainly hope so, since that is the sort of thing that goes on on a daily basis, mostly with regard to drug smuggling, in the Caribbean. Michael C. Berch mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/21/85)
> > And I think the only > thing better than force-landing the Egiptian plane would have been a commando > raid on the ship while it was still in the hands of terrorists. But as it is -- > US is in the wrong, and I'd love to hear what the Soviets ar going to say about > all of this! > -- The terrorists have in effect declared an international war on citizens. Those countries who don't have mashed potatoes for spines should declare war on terrorism. Then those marshmellows who are now screaming in defense for the terrorists will have no ground to stand on. In times of war, the rules are bent to end the war, thus, forcing down a plane loaded with terrorists will be perfectly acceptable. Why do you care what the Soviets say about this? If you must know, they shocked the US by saying they understood why there was a Rambo Raid on the airliner, they felt the Americans had been through this just too much. Does this make you feel any better?
mr@hou2h.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (10/21/85)
> > The implications are that the people of the world, not just the U.S., are > > not going to stand for other people behaving like animals anymore. How > > do you know it isn't the right solution? > > > If someone comes at me with a knife or a gun and tries to do anything to > > me, I will rip that person to shreds or die myself (and if I don't, buddy, > > I will personally invite you to my house to spit in my face). > > You don't know until you have that gun pointing at your head, what your going > to do. Even marines think twice when the enemy has the gun pointed right > and they don't. There were marine POW's in each of our wars. > > > In my opinion, we should have sent forces to Iran and trashed those people > > that messed with us. We should have gone straight into Berlin and bitten > > Hitler's face off. Al Capone lived too long. > > We let Iraq do our dirty work for us, Hitler shot himself before we could > get there, and letting Al Capone die of the Clap was better justice than > anything we could have done! > > > Criminals have got to expect to be treated like the dirt that they are. > > If I drive too fast, I should get a ticket because there is a law against > > it. > > Suppose you were NOT speeding, but the officer give you a ticket to > fill a quota, still want to pay? This is what courts are for. > > > This has nothing to do with whether or not I think a law is right. > > So if they make having blue eyes a capital offence, you will go to the > gas chamber willingly? > > > If I sell heroin, I shouldn't even be protected by illegal search and > > seizure laws. This has nothing to do with rights. > > If DEA agents bust into your house at 4:00 in the morning, and "Find" > heroin that you never knew you had, your going to say "Shoot me"? > > > Criminals, by their very crimes, are saying "we don't believe in rights > > anymore". Fine. > > Even those criminals who confess to their crimes usually attempt to > justify their actions as a reponse to a violation of their rights, > real or imagined. Many self-confessed crimes are committed as "Revenge". > > > You ask what the implications of us taking action are? Ask yourself what > > Russia would have done in the same situation. Ask yourself what you would > > have done in the same situation. > > The Russians shot down the KAL 747 claiming "self defence", we condemed them Were there any terrorists on board KAL747 ??? Did anyone on that plane ever hurt the USSR or its people ??? > harshly for it. We commit piracy, claiming "hot pursuit", and expect the When did we commit piracy ???? All we did was capture wanted criminals under out laws. > world to cheer about it. > > Terrorism is terrorism, be it a war, or the act of rebel forces. Retaliation This does not make sense. War is NOT terrorism. And NOT ALL acts of rebel forces are called terrorism. Mark
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (10/22/85)
> > Take the following hypothetical, variants of which take place with > regularity: X robs a US pleasure boat in international waters but is > (let's say) wounded and surrenders to the Bahamanian authorities. > The Bahamas decide they have no evidence to hold X and release > him. He arranges a chartered Bahamanian flag yacht to take him ... > wherever. Can the US Coast guard seize this ship in international > waters and arrest X? I certainly hope so, since that is the sort of > thing that goes on on a daily basis, mostly with regard to drug > smuggling, in the Caribbean. > > Michael C. Berch Actually, the Coast Guard does wait for the suspected "smuggling" ship to enter U.S. waters. Some other pretext can be used requiring the Coast Guard to enter such a ship to verify its registration number. This is what happens most of the time. To check this number, a person must get to the center of the ship's hold. If illegal contraband is seen the ship is taken into custody. Mark Reina
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (10/22/85)
>>There are several cases of innocent people who were executed in >>the United States after a trial by jury. > Who? Nicola Sacco; Bartolomeo Vanzetti; Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
weltyrp@rpics.UUCP (Richard Welty) (10/24/85)
> ... and I'd love to hear what the Soviets ar going to say about > all of this! > -- Actually, with three of their people still held hostage, the Soviets are most likely to play it straight, which is what they have been doing ... -- Rich Welty "P. D. Q.'s early infancy ended with a striking decision; at the age of three, P. D. Q. Bach decided to give up music" - Prof. Peter Schickele, from "The Definitive Biography of P. D. Q. Bach" CSNet: weltyrp@rpics ArpaNet: weltyrp.rpics@csnet-relay UUCP: seismo!rpics!weltyrp
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/25/85)
In article <14591@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In article <856@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >> . . . The US has no jurisdiction over >> an Egyptian aircraft, which was piloted by an Egyptian clearly in >> command of his own aircraft and acting pursuant to the Egyptian >> government. In as far as the terrorists are concerned, they were >> in the proper custody of Egypt at the time the hijacking of the >> aircraft occurred and subject to Egyptian, *not* US law. > >I can't agree that the terrorists were in Egyptian custody at the >time they were intercepted by the US forces. Indeed, the fact that the >Egyptians had RELEASED the terrorists (reference: statement that the >four "had been turned over to the PLO," by Mr. Mubarak, that morning) >and that they were free of sovereign custody and in danger of escaping >judicial proceedings is what made the US action, in my opinion, timely >and lawful. Obviously this would not apply if US forces seized the >terrorists on Egyptian soil, etc., but that isn't what happened. > >Take the following hypothetical, variants of which take place with >regularity: X robs a US pleasure boat in international waters but is >(let's say) wounded and surrenders to the Bahamanian authorities. >The Bahamas decide they have no evidence to hold X and release >him. He arranges a chartered Bahamanian flag yacht to take him ... >wherever. Can the US Coast guard seize this ship in international >waters and arrest X? I certainly hope so, since that is the sort of >thing that goes on on a daily basis, mostly with regard to drug >smuggling, in the Caribbean. > >Michael C. Berch >mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA >{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb If They really *do* board ships registered and clearly under the laws of a foreign country in *international* waters, then they're on weak grounds. But this case isn't even *that* strong. The ship on which the original offence took place wasn't even US. In general, the drug smuggling case is not in exactly the same class of your hypothetical or the terrorist case. If a ship is coming *into* your territory, you start to have some basis for meeting it. Even then I think the truth is that its only Bahamian courtesy that stops them from protesting (assuming this also occurs in *international* waters which I have reason to doubt). That's why it's called 'international' waters. *No* country has the right to impose their laws on subjects of another country who are not threatenning or interfering with them. On the otherhand, if by this you are admitting that the US's claims to territorial waters are overstated, well, I think your government may disagree:-) As for the release of the terrorists. That's a good point. Problems are 2fold. 1. Does Egypt have the right to recognize the jurisdiction of the PLO? This is a *bit* arguable, but mainly, if you apply the sovereignty of Nations (Egypt as a nation cannot be dictated to by the US as to whom it does or does not recognize), then yes Egpyt can recognize the PLO's juris- diction. 2. At what point is someone released? I'm not even going to *try* to argue that question because it *is* a hard question in this case. If the Egyptian government told the pilot to return to Egypt because they'd changed their minds and the Terrorists decided other- wise, then what would have happened? At this time I don't know if the Terrorists were given arms. I don't think so, but I don't know. If not, then I don't they were really out of Egypts 'custody or control'--or their jurisdiction. This is a de facto test. A test based on intention on the otherhand would go the other way. The evidence is that Egypt intended to release them. Anyway, if there was *no* juris- diction before, maybe there is now. This get's back to my warning about being careful you don't set a precedent you can't live with. Hypothetical: A Russian poet--political prisoner escapes from Siberia on a boat. Having made a perilous journey risking his life, he is just off the coast of Canada and the US Pacific. Russian patrol boats and aircraft are heading towards his location. He boards a Canuck fishing boat and radios a plea for asylum. The Russians claim he is a convict in their jurisdiction. An ultimatum is given from the Russian government: "Give up X. He is a known terrorist. Refuse and we'll blow you (the Canuck ship) out of the water!" Now what do we do? Which country should the Canuck ship head for? What if the US Coast guard is on the way? Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (10/29/85)
>>> In my opinion, we should have sent forces to Iran and trashed those people >>> that messed with us. We should have gone straight into Berlin and bitten >>> Hitler's face off. Al Capone lived too long. >>> ... etc ... >>> Criminals have got to expect to be treated like the dirt that they are. >>> If I drive too fast, I should get a ticket because there is a law against >>> it. >> >> Suppose you were NOT speeding, but the officer give you a ticket to >> fill a quota, still want to pay? > > This is what courts are for. > What's this bleeding-heart liberal rubbish about _courts_? You're a *criminal*, for goodness sake, it says so right on the ticket; you expect us to waste valuable court time with your whining about whether or not you really were speeding? The capture of the terrorists was, I feel, justified quite properly as apprehending fleeing suspects. The danger is when raving lunatics start asserting that rights are conditional upon some Authority's opinion of you, and appears to feel that police ought to be recruited from the ranks of Mafia hit men, that one has to defend the "wimpy" concept of rights even for "criminals". It is unfortunate that Might doesn't make Right (in the sense of correct, anyway), because Might usually wins. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Out of my way, I'm a scientist! War of the Worlds