Countries going after a harbored terrorist

[Hayabusa Rider]

BTW I voted "generally opposed to this", which allows for some freedom for extreme cases such as with OBL, but for anyone under any circumstances? No.

 

[cganesh75]

The Pakistani government should conduct a covert effort to eliminate the ISI. Oh wait, the ISI IS the government. My bad.

problem is, they dont know that ISI exists either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

problem is, they dont know that ISI exists either.

"No Such Agency"?

 

[LumbergTech]

Pretty pathetic some of the posters attacking Craig ...characterizing him as saying America is evil.. Maybe, just maybe he wants to point out hypocrisy so that we can ELIMINATE that hypocrisy and therefore not be considered evil.

He is making a point, but apparently in your mind standing up for your own team at all costs is the only good and decent way to behave. For me, I think it is acceptable to go in and kill terrorists regardless of the country, but you will still have to deal with the consequences of difference of opinion. If the country you want to kill a terrorist in doesn't agree that he is a terrorist or disagrees with your action to go into their country and they have the means to do something about it, then whether or not it is right really becomes secondary to your ability to accomplish your goal. If you are trying to find self imposable rules for countries which are powerful enough where most countries could not accomplish such a task within them, I think that unfortunately it is a grey area that there is no reasonable answer to. Might doesn't necessarily equal right, but might still trumps right. I am interested to know what Craig thinks the rules should be. If someone is actively pursuing the death of your citizens or has killed them in the past, then I think a country has a right to attempt to take the person out if the harboring country is doing nothing to help.

 

[woolfe9999]

Nothing new here.



And you have specific examples here, with plenty of info, to comment on, but you didn't.



You are making broad generalizations about 'the left' instead of commenting about the topic of the thread.

It's as if I asked you if you think OJ is guilty and you lecture on trial coverage.

Yes, some on the left are sometimes guilty of what you say. You don't say a word about whether that's an issue in THIS thread.

If it's not, your post is quite off-topic - which is ok if it's a side comment and the thread topic is discussed, but it wasn't.

For the examples in this thread, both bin Laden and the others have long histories of many terrorist attacks, well proven, with many casualties, bombs and planes. So the 'context' sounds comparable.

Is the context comparable? Does it matter if the person in question killed 10 people or 3000? I rather think it does. I'm generally in opposition to violating another country's sovreighnty to take someone out, but I think exceptions can be made in extreme cases. Since I can't think of another case as extreme as OBL, I would have to think it qualifies as an exception. Hence, I think you're making a false analogy. Note: since you refuse to engage the broader point I made which IMO was highly relevant to your purpose in starting this thread, this is now no longer a general criticism of "the left," but a specific criticism of your position as set forth in this thread. That on topic enough for you?

 

[LumbergTech]

Is the context comparable? Does it matter if the person in question killed 10 people or 3000? I rather think it does. I'm generally in opposition to violating another country's sovreighnty to take someone out, but I think exceptions can be made in extreme cases. Since I can't think of another case as extreme as OBL, I would have to think it qualifies as an exception. Hence, I think you're making a false analogy. Note: since you refuse to engage the broader point I made which IMO was highly relevant to your purpose in starting this thread, this is now no longer a general criticism of "the left," but a specific criticism of your position as set forth in this thread. That on topic enough for you?

If someone kills 10 people here I am perfectly fine with us taking them out if a country is knowingly harboring them

 

[Gintaras]

If someone kills 10 people here I am perfectly fine with us taking them out if a country is knowingly harboring them

Looks like you've never read Erich Maria Remarque:

One death is a tragedy, many deaths are just statistics...

In US lives a terrorist, who in 70's hijacked an USSR airplane and murdered a stewardess...
What would you think, if that young stewardess was your sister, your wife...etc?

 

[Craig234]

Is the context comparable? Does it matter if the person in question killed 10 people or 3000? I rather think it does. I'm generally in opposition to violating another country's sovreighnty to take someone out, but I think exceptions can be made in extreme cases. Since I can't think of another case as extreme as OBL, I would have to think it qualifies as an exception. Hence, I think you're making a false analogy. Note: since you refuse to engage the broader point I made which IMO was highly relevant to your purpose in starting this thread, this is now no longer a general criticism of "the left," but a specific criticism of your position as set forth in this thread. That on topic enough for you?

So, you actually want to claim that someone who merely has a decades-long history of terrorist bombings and blowing up a passenger airliner is qualitatively different than Osama bin Laden who has a years-long history of terrorist bombings and crashing 4 passenger planes with a higher casualty count, so that one qualifies as a terrorist deserving one policy, and the other isn't a bad enough terrorist to count for that?

A partial list for Cadilla:

In 1976, he founded an organization the FBI called a "terrorist umbrella organization." That same year, he bombed a civilian passenger plane killing all 78 people.

Of course, it could be argued he killed armed people - it included all 24 members of the national Fencing team who had just won all the gold medals in the region.

In the 1980's he took part in the Iran-Contra scandal arming the terrorist contras.

In the 1990's, the FBI believes he was responsible for 41 bombings in Honduras.

In 1997, he did a series of bombings in Cuba to deter the tourst trade.

In 2000, he was caught in Panama with 200 pounds of explosives for an attempted assassination.

So, you tell the countries who had him commit terrorism, "sorry, his wasn't bad enough so that he deserves better treatment".

I'm sorry, it's asinine to try to say that those two records deserve a different set of rules IMO.

So, that's your 'specific criticism' of the point in this thread? You call that a 'false analogy'?

Sorry, 100 bombs or 200, one plane or four planes, are both 'terrorists' and not a 'false analogy'.

If you really want to split that hair, defend where you draw the line, and remember to take into account the proportional populations of the countries involved and which attacks were their biggest.

You are really disappointing here, sounding like a wounded child petulantly defending nonsense.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Carriles is in custody and on trial in the US. The courts will decide his fate so his alleged crimes are being pursued. The US is actively doing something about him. OBL hid in plain sight in Pakistan for some years and nothing was done about it at all. That's no to mention that comparing Carriles to OBL is like comparing some low-level thug to a major crime boss.

 

[Nebor]

Voted might makes right. Good to see I wasn't the only one.

 

[Craig234]

Carriles is in custody and on trial in the US. The courts will decide his fate so his alleged crimes are being pursued. The US is actively doing something about him. OBL hid in plain sight in Pakistan for some years and nothing was done about it at all. That's no to mention that comparing Carriles to OBL is like comparing some low-level thug to a major crime boss.

First, as I said, he was tried on minor immigration issues, not his terrorism.

Second, his trial is over and the jury found him 'not guilty'.

If anything it appears that trying him on those minor charges was a way to refuse the extradition requests for his terrorism - now the requests are being pushed again.

Pathetic that TLC is pushing the line that blowing up a passenger plane is somehow not enough to count for the same 'terrorist' label as OBL - much less founding a terrorist organization and decades of illegal terrorist bombings, attempting to kill a head of state, and more.

But of course then we could also bring in the many other targets we've felt it's ok to assassinate much less imprison overseas, who have far, far less terrorist histories.

The US took a position that a country that harbors a terrorist can be attacked:

We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.

So, you are arguing that Padilla doesn't make the standard for terrorist, but all the people who were 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' or turned in by warlords for the bounties or people who had a grudge against them who had no proven violence, did? Ridiculous and not honest.

Padilla is now free in the US, not under any indictment, the request from Venezuela for his extradition, with whom we have an extradition treaty, being refused.

We're *openly* harboring a terrorist who has his freedom here, while OBL was in hiding in Pakistan, where he clearly had allies in and out of the government - just as Padilla did here, when the son of the President of the US asked for and received a presidential pardon for him from his father - but we don't know 'the government' knew where he was.

 

[Gintaras]

On principle any country committing acts of war against us, through terrorism or not, is a perfectly valid target based on our own discretion and its value to us. September 11th was an act of war. In this case we retaliated against Afghanistan for their involvement in harboring and supporting the terrorists who committed that act of war. This is a clear cut case, to me, of us exercising that 'right'.

1) "Act of war" is already branded on the back of your head...keep on parroting what you can learn best....
2) You think that other people on here can't read newspapers...