oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (05/17/86)
In article <1314@rlvd.UUCP> kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) writes: > Your government legislates, and under its legislation it protects IRA > terrorists from extradition because it holds their acts of murder > as 'political'. > > And you know damn well that it does so because of the Irish American > vote. ------------------------------ $50.00 to you or your favorite charity if you can name or number ANY such law in the Federal Register, Mr. Dancey. Failing that, I'll merely claim you're utterly wrong. I'm trying to be charitable. Earn your reward, eh? Personal aside: People who can't find enough legitimate beefs against the US, and must resort to wholesale fantasy, vitiate the value of their postings. -- Oded Feingold MIT AI Lab. 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 OAF@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU {harvard!think,ihnp4}mit-eddie!mit-vax!oaf 617-253-8598 ---------------------------------------- ---> (If you don't have anything nice to say, come and sit by me.) <---
mnl@cernvax.UUCP (mnl) (05/22/86)
In article <40@mit-vax.UUCP> oaf@mit-vax.UUCP writes: >In article <1314@rlvd.UUCP> kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) writes: >> Your government legislates, and under its legislation it protects IRA >> terrorists from extradition because it holds their acts of murder >> as 'political'. >> >> And you know damn well that it does so because of the Irish American >> vote. > ------------------------------ > $50.00 to you or your favorite charity if you can name or number >ANY such law in the Federal Register, Mr. Dancey. > > Failing that, I'll merely claim you're utterly wrong. I'm trying >to be charitable. Earn your reward, eh? > I believe that you will find American laws which prohibit extradition for "political" crimes. However, I don't think it was Northern Ireland and the IRA which prompted these laws, but rather other countries having broader defintions of "political" crimes, e.g. public gatherings of greater than 10 people, operation of an illegal printing press, and other various things which totalitarian governments tend to outlaw. However, I kind of wonder about the judges who ruled that this law applys to IRA terrorists. I think I read something in the Internation Herald-Tribune within the past month about Britain and the U.S. being in the process of negotiating a new extradition treaty, specifically over this issue. -- Mark Nelson mnl@cernvax.bitnet or ...!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!mnl If the ACM had a sub-group for naturalists, would it be ACM SIGnature?
hijab@cad.UUCP (05/25/86)
> >> Your government legislates, and under its legislation it protects IRA > >> terrorists from extradition because it holds their acts of murder > >> as 'political'. > >> > >> And you know damn well that it does so because of the Irish American > >> vote. > > > I believe that you will find American laws which prohibit extradition > for "political" crimes. > > However, I kind of wonder about the judges who ruled that this law > applys to IRA terrorists. > -- > Mark Nelson Shortly after Reagan became president there were a couple of extradition cases in the courts; one involved a prominent IRA man, while the other involved a young Palestinian student at a Midwest school. The IRA man (whose name escapes me) was demanded by Britain on charges of a bombing in Ulster. The Palestinian, Ziad Abu Ain, was demanded by Israel on a similar charge. However, whereas the Irishman was a well known IRA figure, Abu Ain was implicated purely by a confession obtained under questionable circumstances from another young Palestinian -who later denied the confession. There was such a strong sense of Abu Ain's innocence, and the slimness of his chances for a fair trial, that the Arab-American community lobbied extensively to prevent his extradition. The State Department was determined to release him to Israel, however, and interfered repeatedly with the court proceedings. Abu Ain was eventually sent to Israel, where he was imprisoned until his release in the well known PLO-Israel prisoner exchange. The government did not interfere with the IRA man's trial, and he was declared immune on the grounds that his was a political case. I personally consider both to have been political cases. Certainly in the case of Abu Ain, who -if he were guilty- would be merely resisting an acknowledged occupation. However, regardless of one's own philosophy on the matter, there is a glaring difference in the attitude of the U.S. government. The only logical explanation is that in both cases the government was yielding to the pressure of powerful domestic constituencies.