Cuban terrorists

December 2, 2002 11:08 AM

Leniency for Terrorists

CIA memorandums strongly suggest, according to Bardach's book, that Bosch was one of the conspirators, and quotes the then secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, as writing that the "US government had been planning to suggest Bosch's deportation before Cubana airlines crash took place for his suspected involvement in other terrorist acts and violation of his parole".

Bosch's release, often referred to in the US media as a pardon, was the result of pressure brought by hardline Cubans in Miami, with Jeb Bush serving as their point man. Bosch now lives in Miami and remains unrepentant about his militant activities, according to Bardach.

Is there a double standard at work regarding terrorists?
posted by nofundy (26 comments total)

Is there a double standard at work regarding terrorists?

Yes.

Duh! "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
posted by Slothrup at 11:13 AM on December 2, 2002

Exactly Slothrup, to the British the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism carried out by a band of radicals! How about the French resistance during WWII? Examples can go on and on...
posted by Pollomacho at 11:19 AM on December 2, 2002

it's all about how powerful your lobby is. exhibit a: saudi arabia.
posted by donkeyschlong at 11:20 AM on December 2, 2002

Better they die than us!
(Moral equivelancy be damned!)
posted by HTuttle at 11:36 AM on December 2, 2002

The question isn't if a double standard exists, rather when those acts of terrorism are justified to further the cause of "right" We see the Boston Tea Party now as a pivotal and early step towards freedom for the American people (just go with me here on that part) To those that feel that Castro's revolution is some belligerent and oppressive force in Cuba, an act of terrorism against that regime would be justified. Somewhere Ossama and pals find 9/11 to be an equivalent of a Boston Tea Party for the Islamic Revolution.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2002

Is there a double standard at work regarding Prescott Bush and the Nazi regime?
posted by four panels at 11:53 AM on December 2, 2002

I don't think anyone could rightly call the Boston Tea Party "terrorism". Vandalism, definitely. Maybe a riot. But it was essentially a nonviolent protest (unless you count violence towards tea) rather than an act of terror. I'd compare it to the burning of draft cards during the Vietnam war, or maybe even to window-smashing at recent WTO/IMF/World Bank protests: political theater. It's not comparable to real terrorism, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:06 PM on December 2, 2002

by divers ill affected persons, to the subversion of his Majesty's government, and to the utter destruction of the publick peace, and good order of the said town;

I'd say King George found the Tea Party to be an act of terrorism, he (his handlers) referred to it as "subversion of his Majesty's government" in the act which closed the harbor, that sounds like some tough talk for those days! (Granted there wasn't the death toll of say a bomb on a troop train in 1943 France, but...)
posted by Pollomacho at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2002

If you want a contemporary example of what we would call "terrorism" in colonial-era Britain, consider the Gunpowder Plot. The Plot wasn't considered just subversive and destructive to the peace (by the way, are you saying that "disturbing the peace" is equivalent to "terrorism"?): it was called treason, out-and-out, and it was punished accordingly. There's no comparison between Guy Fawkes and Samuel Adams.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:35 PM on December 2, 2002

Better they die than us!

Who are they again? I don't have a scorecard for this one. It's not the Arabs, is it? The Cubans, I guess, you mean. Only the bad Cubans, though, right? I assume you're one of the good Cubans, H, since you say better them than us.
posted by norm29 at 12:36 PM on December 2, 2002

exhibit a: saudi arabia.
posted by homunculus at 12:43 PM on December 2, 2002

Wow! The Guardian says that someone's book says that CIA memorandums "strongly suggest" something! And Jeb Bush lobbied his father -- back in the early 1980s -- which ultimately led to the release of this particular shady character. So even assuming all that to be true, nofundy and The Guardian find their "double standards" based on an individual pardoned twenty years ago who some author believes evidence "strongly suggests" was a terrorist. And in the final coup de grace, this all gets tied in to the policies of the current administration -- twenty years later, and post-9/11 -- with some serious insinuation.

The logic is flawless!
posted by pardonyou? at 12:56 PM on December 2, 2002

hhmmmm .... yes, Bardach certainly has been making the rounds of the talk show circuit hawking her book. And while of course the Guardian and it's devoted followers simply buy her "evidence" as truth (especially any evidence that can smear Bush - any Bush) ... not everyone simply believes everything it says. Try a couple reviews of the book here, and here.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:11 PM on December 2, 2002

It's surprising that anyone should be shocked that the U.S. turns a blind aye to terrorism when it suits our purpose. More surprising still that anyone should try and deny this.

Here's a rundown of Cuba related terrorism and the U.S.'s relationship with it, from the Center for International Policy.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:59 PM on December 2, 2002

Anti-Castro Guerrillas (1975-1996)

Is there a double standard at work regarding terrorists?

No. Of course not. We call our terrorists "soldiers" and "sailors" and "pilots" and sometimes "foreign freedom fighters" fighting in "wars of liberation". 'Course, all our boys -- they're all clean cut. Sure they kill people. But they kill the people we want killed.

Some of the "terrorists" aren't clean cut. And they don't kill the people we want killed. So we use a different word for them. Got it?

And while of course the Guardian and it's devoted followers simply buy her "evidence" as truth...

Now that makes sense. Whine about "the Guardian and its devoted followers..." whose agenda according to you is to "smear Bush - any Bush", then direct MeFites to two web sites for organizations that are the very bastions of objectivity. Thanks.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:40 PM on December 2, 2002

We call our terrorists "soldiers" and "sailors" and "pilots"...

You are a real piece of work, f&m.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:26 PM on December 2, 2002

You are a real piece of work, f&m.
heh. pot, meet kettle.
posted by quonsar at 3:51 PM on December 2, 2002

hardly...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:18 PM on December 2, 2002

blah blah woof woof
posted by y2karl at 4:32 PM on December 2, 2002

"terrorists" aren't clean cut

oh, okay, so all bearded guys = bad guys no matter who trained them?
good I think i'm following this us and them thing now, thanks.
posted by dabitch at 5:17 PM on December 2, 2002

four panels, I say we put Prescott Bush in jail. Who's with me? Anybody know where we need to dig?

As for Bosch, one should note that his pardon was granted in 1990 -- by George H.W. Bush -- you know, the guy who has not been President of the United States for a few days shy of ten years. Given that this occurred somewhat before -- I'd have to check a calendar to be sure -- the September 11 attacks, I'm not certain how effective a point is being made by bringing it up. Certainly the idea of a double standard is somewhat dubious. Surely nofundy is not suggesting similar leniency for other terroriists. And a call for cracking down on Cuban terrorists operating from US soil would be moot, as the crackdown occurred some time ago and such terrorism is no longer a major problem.

If there are new acts of Cuban exile terrorism which take place in the current climate, and those Cuban exile terrorists are treated more leniently, that would be a double standard and contemptible. As it is, a pardon is a privilege granted to the executive in the Constitution, and is irrevocable. There are pardons granted by Democrats that have just as questionable a basis in the current climate -- for example, Clinton's pardon of Puerto Rican terrorists. One supposes there are more examples ad infinitum.
posted by dhartung at 5:19 PM on December 2, 2002

Now that makes sense. Whine about "the Guardian and its devoted followers..." whose agenda according to you is to "smear Bush - any Bush", then direct MeFites to two web sites for organizations that are the very bastions of objectivity.

Wasn't "whining" - unless you'd characterize your comments as "whining". Nor was I saying those two sites were "objective". Just pointing out that if you want to post a slanted article, about a slanted book, its at least helpful to realize there's euqally credible opinions slanted in the opposite direction as well.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:46 PM on December 2, 2002

One supposes there are more examples ad infinitum.

Exactamente! You latched onto something there, pardner, and that something is nofundy's point. Is there a "crackdown" when "terrorists" benefit U.S. goals? Has there been historically? Would you be willing to have some of our new "friends-and-allies-nee-terrorists" in Afghanistan date your sister?

Steve@Linnwood:You are a real piece of work, f&m.

Thanks.

Oh! I get it now. That's the entire extent of your refutation of something I wrote here! The whole shebang! Your sole contribution.

Wow.

I like it. You stuck to the thread topic, clearly addressed any issues raised, supported with concrete details or links, didn't fall back on cliche, refused to resort to errors in logic (ie the messenger = the message), kept adolescent personality spats out of it, and rose well above the level of name-calling and innuendo (something we never never see from you here, Steve@, right?)

Nice job.

Wasn't "whining" - unless you'd characterize your comments as "whining". Nor was I saying those two sites were "objective". Just pointing out that if you want to post a slanted article, about a slanted book, its at least helpful to realize there's euqally credible opinions slanted in the opposite direction as well.

Nope. Was whining...and worse. You prejudge those who are concerned about the "Guardian" article as uncritical "followers", motivated only by a desire to "smear...any Bush". You offer absolutely no support whatsoever for such a characterization. And now you dismiss the thread article as "slanted" without providing a single bit of evidence.

Nice job.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:28 PM on December 2, 2002

Hey, f&M, chill out on S@L-- People have been dogpiling on him a bit too much lately, me included. He's young and hotheaded, which is not exactly a capital offense around here.
posted by y2karl at 4:16 AM on December 3, 2002

So even assuming all that to be true, nofundy and The Guardian find their "double standards" based on an individual pardoned twenty years ago who some author believes evidence "strongly suggests" was a terrorist. And in the final coup de grace, this all gets tied in to the policies of the current administration -- twenty years later, and post-9/11 -- with some serious insinuation.

Pardonyou reads minds!! And then wastes such a talent posting to MeFi!! Thank you for prejudging me and my post. I posed a perfectly valid question and gave one example so that made me an extremist partisan. Good work pardonyou. Can you add to the conversation now or were you only interested in attacking anything you see as possibly negative towards your fearless moronic flag-wrapped leader? (See, I can do it too!)
posted by nofundy at 4:56 AM on December 3, 2002

I think a better term for "our terrorists" would be agents, F&M. While there may be subtle differences in the methods used by Armies as opposed to "terrorist networks" to further their causes, armies are officially sanctioned and use mostly expensive and overt tactics to subject their enemies to their will through a "comply or die" ultimatum. Terrorist networks and cells use cheap, covert means to strike fear in the hearts of the citizenry and thus effect a change by the government, much like secret agents do. I'm not going to argue that all killing is bad, nor will I argue that there is a hell of a lot of difference between "our" terrorists and theirs, just that there is a difference between doing the dirty work with a car bomb and a smart bomb.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:42 AM on December 3, 2002