NationStates Jolt Archive

...but they intend to put him on trial for immigration fraud.


Former CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles, wanted by Cuba and Venezuela for the deadly downing of a Cuban jet, has been freed on bond in Texas, police said Thursday.

"He was out of here this morning," Jerry Payan, a police officer in charge of inmates said, after Posada paid 350,000 dollars to be released pending trial May 11 for immigration fraud and other charges.

[...]

Posada Carriles, a fierce opponent of communist Cuban President Fidel Castro, was convicted of masterminding the downing of a Cuban jet off Barbados in 1976 in which 73 people were killed.

He was detained in Venezuela in 1976 and convicted in the case, but fled prison in 1985.

[...]

Havana and Caracas accuse Washington of harboring a known terrorist.


(Source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070419-bomber-venezuela-cuba-usa-carriles.html))

The US legal system seem to suffer from a particularily vicious form of schizophrenia.

The US legal system seem to suffer from a particularily vicious form of schizophrenia.

I agree. I makes a nice change from 'USA jails unconvicted terrorist forever'

The important thing to note here is "Former CIA Operative". Someone is playing favourites.

Hardly unexpected, it indeed gives you another extreme, on one side Terrorists who hurt the USA are thrown into a jail never to be seen by a judge or lawyer or anyone for that matter again. While terrorists that hurt other nations are let off on bail.

But then again, if the USA did convict the CIA agent. It would send a message to every single intell guy working for the CIA, that after you do what you're told to do by the CIA, you will be punished by the CIA... I think if this person gets convicted us Intell will be in deep shit as nobody will want to work for the CIA anymore, making it blind.

Therefore I suspect the man will "flee" the country never to be seen again (or in otherwords be moved by the CIA out to the middle of nowhere).

US Justice=political tool

US Justice=political tool

Don't be thick. The AG at DOJ and Secretary at DHS both opposed his release on bail, and are actively seeking to prosecute him for immigration fraud, a case in which they have enough evidence to make it a slam dunk and throw his ass in jail for some time to come.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p99s01-duts.html

Rather, a judge has ruled independent of the wishes executive, according to her understanding of the law and reason.

The important thing to note here is "Former CIA Operative". Someone is playing favourites.

What France 24 fails to mention is that the last time he was in the employ of the CIA was 46 years ago. He was one of the exiles trained for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but his unit was never made use of.

How do you think that Immigration fraud came to be??? The CIA needed him, the CIA can go around those things to get informants and in this case, militias. They did it with Russia and they're utelising arabs to get a look at the Arab world.

I think that terrorists should be prosecuted whether working against or for the USA, but I don't think it's in the USA's best interest to prosecute people in America for what they did for the CIA.
Again it sends a message to the current CIA agents of: "We'll use you today, and throw you in jail after your use has been worn out."

How do you think that Immigration fraud came to be??? The CIA needed him, the CIA can go around those things to get informants and in this case, militias. They did it with Russia and they're utelising arabs to get a look at the Arab world.

I think that terrorists should be prosecuted whether working against or for the USA, but I don't think it's in the USA's best interest to prosecute people in America for what they did for the CIA.
Again it sends a message to the current CIA agents of: "We'll use you today, and throw you in jail after your use has been worn out."

He hasn't been in the employ of the CIA for nearly a half century. What he's being charged with has nothing to do with the CIA, rather it is a crime that has been committed independent of his previous involvement with the agency.

He may be a terrorist, but he's our terrorist. *Nods*

He hasn't been in the employ of the CIA for nearly a half century. What he's being charged with has nothing to do with the CIA, rather it is a crime that has been committed independent of his previous involvement with the agency.
you should brush up on your reading and/or maths skills:
Declassified US documents show that Posada Carriles worked for the CIA from 1965 to June 1976. He reportedly helped the US government ferry supplies to the Contra rebels that waged a bloody campaign to topple the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
2007 - 1976 =/= half a century

1976 was the year he masterminded blowing up the Cuban passenger plane.
Which means he was still in the pay of the CIA when he planned and carried out that terrorist attack. Doesn't mean they knew or approved of it, of course. But they could conceivably known what he was doing and turned a blind eye to his terrorist activities - thus legitimising them in a way.

Even if they didn't know or approve of his actions back in 1976, considering what he did during the 1980's in Nicaragua it's not too much a stretch to believe he was working for the CIA (again or still) during that period. By then they did know what he was and what he had done, yet still worked with him. Which certainly does send out a strong message about the USA and the CIA in particularly.
"We don't mind if you're a terrorist and you kill innocent civilians - as long as they're innocents of a country we hate"

you should brush up on your reading and/or maths skills:

2007 - 1976 =/= half a century

1976 was the year he masterminded blowing up the Cuban passenger plane.
Which means he was still in the pay of the CIA when he planned and carried out that terrorist attack. Doesn't mean they knew or approved of it, of course. But they could conceivably known what he was doing and turned a blind eye to his terrorist activities - thus legitimising them in a way.

Even if they didn't know or approve of his actions back in 1976, considering what he did during the 1980's in Nicaragua it's not too much a stretch to believe he was working for the CIA (again or still) during that period. By then they did know what he was and what he had done, yet still worked with him. Which certainly does send out a strong message about the USA and the CIA in particularly.
"We don't mind if you're a terrorist and you kill innocent civilians - as long as they're innocents of a country we hate"

I missed the last paragraph, so what. All the same, it's been a quarter century since he's been in the employ of the CIA, I wasn't even alive when he was let go.

Don't be thick. The AG at DOJ and Secretary at DHS both opposed his release on bail, and are actively seeking to prosecute him for immigration fraud, a case in which they have enough evidence to make it a slam dunk and throw his ass in jail for some time to come.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p99s01-duts.html

Rather, a judge has ruled independent of the wishes executive, according to her understanding of the law and reason.
But they won't extradite him to face even more serious charges elsewhere. No, the US DOJ isn't taking a side in this case. :rolleyes:

But they won't extradite him to face even more serious charges elsewhere. No, the US DOJ isn't taking a side in this case. :rolleyes:

He broke our laws, and he's in our jurisdiction, not to mention that the Venezuelan government has not gone out of its way to nice up to the US these days. If they want to screw with us in the international arena, we'll screw with them. We get him first.

Yeah, but he's against Communists, which means its ok for him to kill innocent people. .........Or something >.> <.<

I missed the last paragraph, so what. All the same, it's been a quarter century since he's been in the employ of the CIA, I wasn't even alive when he was let go.

So, basically your entire "argument", already laughably flimsy on its own, was blown to smithereens and your retort is "he's older than me, so I'm right"?

If this were a square, you'd be able to see all the people pointing and laughing at you.

I missed the last paragraph, so what. All the same, it's been a quarter century since he's been in the employ of the CIA, I wasn't even alive when he was let go.

So, basically your entire "argument", already laughably flimsy on its own, was blown to smithereens and your retort is "he's older than me, so I'm right"?

If this were a square, you'd be able to see all the people pointing and laughing at you.

*points and laughs*

He broke our laws, and he's in our jurisdiction, not to mention that the Venezuelan government has not gone out of its way to nice up to the US these days. If they want to screw with us in the international arena, we'll screw with them. We get him first.

O im having a ball right here :D this is amusing, thanks for the laugh.

The guy worked for the CIA, the CIA turned a blind eye when the guy comitted terrorist actions against a hostile nation.

If you're going down this road may I point out the following:

The FBI and the DEA come to Europe. What they do there is the following:
They pretend to be buyers of drugs, and then after they buy drugs they arrest the dealers. In Europe that's an illegal form of policing as it's very easy to be fraudulous in that way, some nations even have it illegal by the constitution.

The CIA makes secret arrests in Europe and then transports them to camps in Eastern Europe and in Guantanamo where most Europeans will never see a court. Again illegal, sometimes by the constitution.

Now if you're going to make the Argument you just made, then you've just agreed that the EU should be allowed to sue the USA for billions of dollars/Euros and ask for hundreds of CIA/FBI/DEA agents to be sent to European prisons to serve a sentence for knowingly violating multiple laws.

You ofcourse will never agree to that, so Please don't be a hypocrite and make that argument in your favour.

He broke our laws, and he's in our jurisdiction, not to mention that the Venezuelan government has not gone out of its way to nice up to the US these days. If they want to screw with us in the international arena, we'll screw with them. We get him first.

So how is this not using the justice system for political ends?

So, basically your entire "argument", already laughably flimsy on its own, was blown to smithereens and your retort is "he's older than me, so I'm right"?

If this were a square, you'd be able to see all the people pointing and laughing at you.

I'm saying his association with the CIA is prehistoric, primarily pre-Church committee even.

So how is this not using the justice system for political ends?

Once again, the charge that I'm arguing with in this thread is that he was released on bail for political reasons, which he clearly wasn't. I'm not arguing that we are not being non-political in refusing to extradite him, we are. The US refusal to extradite to Venezuela has everything to do with Hugo Chavez being a whiny, anti-American populist.

It's this charge that he's getting leniency for his political associations inside the US that I'm disagreeing with.

What this really does is open the way for prosecuting people for "terrorism" using immigration laws.

Like, getting rid of immigrants. Because they're 'terrorists.'

What this really does is open the way for prosecuting people for "terrorism" using immigration laws.

Like, getting rid of immigrants. Because they're 'terrorists.'

Indeed before you know it people will be prosecuted for terrorism if they look at Americans in the wrong way...

O im having a ball right here :D this is amusing, thanks for the laugh.

The guy worked for the CIA, the CIA turned a blind eye when the guy comitted terrorist actions against a hostile nation.

If you're going down this road may I point out the following:

The FBI and the DEA come to Europe. What they do there is the following:
They pretend to be buyers of drugs, and then after they buy drugs they arrest the dealers. In Europe that's an illegal form of policing as it's very easy to be fraudulous in that way, some nations even have it illegal by the constitution.

The CIA makes secret arrests in Europe and then transports them to camps in Eastern Europe and in Guantanamo where most Europeans will never see a court. Again illegal, sometimes by the constitution.

Now if you're going to make the Argument you just made, then you've just agreed that the EU should be allowed to sue the USA for billions of dollars/Euros and ask for hundreds of CIA/FBI/DEA agents to be sent to European prisons to serve a sentence for knowingly violating multiple laws.

You ofcourse will never agree to that, so Please don't be a hypocrite and make that argument in your favour.

I'm certainly not arguing in favor of the deplorable actions of the current administration in this arena, but rather, that this is the appropriate tack to take with Posada.

If they want to screw with us in the international arena, we'll screw with them.

So said the Taliban.

So said the Taliban.

Except the Taliban wasn't making any manuevers to prosecute Mr. Bin Laden on any charges. The US is prosecuting Mr. Posada on our own criminal charges.

Except the Taliban wasn't making any manuevers to prosecute Mr. Bin Laden on any charges. The US is prosecuting Mr. Posada on our own criminal charges.

So if the Taliban had decided to prosecute him for stealing a goat, do you think the US should have relented?

Once again, the charge that I'm arguing with in this thread is that he was released on bail for political reasons, which he clearly wasn't. I'm not arguing that we are not being non-political in refusing to extradite him, we are. The US refusal to extradite to Venezuela has everything to do with Hugo Chavez being a whiny, anti-American populist.

It's this charge that he's getting leniency for his political associations inside the US that I'm disagreeing with.

Well, there is the fact that it was the CIA, his former political associates, who helped him avoid criminal charges after he bombed that plane (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/index.htm)...

Do you think that counts as getting leniency for his political associations? Shouldn't he be in a prison in Cuba?

So if the Taliban had decided to prosecute him for stealing a goat, do you think the US should have relented?

The US should have relented, and permitted Afghan law to run Mr. Bin Laden through their system, if there were legitimate charges for them to prosecute him with, first.

Afghanistan would have had primary jurisdiction.

The point is the USA is ignoring the fact that they themselves prosecute someone for following orders given to them by the CIA.

You know, when the USSR did these kind of things the USA called it show trials. Now they're doing it themselves.

IMHO, this is why the Cuban exile community has no legitimacy as an opposition group to Fidel. I mean no one minds independent minds offering alternates to policy, as a peaceful opposition does. But when your opposition is funded by the assassination wing of that countries biggest enemy state, when these exiles carry out invasions of their 'own' country in the name of some foreign power. We they are funded by people who have tried 'too many times to remember' to kill Fidel, and have done everything in their power to bring economic hardship to their 'own' people, when all his happens they loose legitimacy. Cuban exiles need to be called for what they really are, CIA mercenaries and criminals in the employ of a government, they have no interest in democracy, only in lining their pockets with more US tax payer dollars.