0
   

The fate of Abu Abbas...

 
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:11 pm
The claims that the US doesn't have jurisdiction don't hold much water. Under International Law there is a provision for "Universal Jurisdiction" in cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, terrorism, torture, extrajudicial executions or 'disappearances.' Spain used those laws to bring charges against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet although none of those crimes were ever committed in Spain or in any Spanish territory. People accused of these types of crimes can be prosecuted by pretty much any country regardless of where the crime occurs.

IMO, he should be turned over to the Italians to serve the terms he was sentenced to. It is unlikely they'd just release him with the sentences already in place and since the sentences were decided long before the Oslo Accords there isn't much of a valid argument that detention in Italy would be in violation of those accords.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:17 pm
Owi, Abu Abbas and Mahmoud Abbas are not the same person. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen, the new PM of the PA) has never been directly involved in any terror attack.
0 Replies
 
owi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:24 pm
already saw the mistake and deleted it Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
owi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:27 pm
nevertheless i have other information:

Quote:
He became a member of PLO's Executive Committee in 1984 and during the Palestinian National Council meeting of 1989 supported the organization's acceptance of UN's resolution 242. Abu Abbas became famous after his organization hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship in October 1985.


http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=29
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:28 pm
fishin' wrote:
The claims that the US doesn't have jurisdiction don't hold much water. Under International Law there is a provision for "Universal Jurisdiction" in cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, terrorism, torture, extrajudicial executions or 'disappearances.' Spain used those laws to bring charges against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet although none of those crimes were ever committed in Spain or in any Spanish territory. People accused of these types of crimes can be prosecuted by pretty much any country regardless of where the crime occurs.

IMO, he should be turned over to the Italians to serve the terms he was sentenced to. It is unlikely they'd just release him with the sentences already in place and since the sentences were decided long before the Oslo Accords there isn't much of a valid argument that detention in Italy would be in violation of those accords.


You mean the "Universal Jurisdiction" the US and Israel so strongly oppose?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:30 pm
Spain wanted to sue Mr. Pinochet for being involved in killing the Spanish citizens. U.S. is supposed to prosecute Abu Abbas for killing the U.S. citizen. If Belgium planned prosecuting people for killing the Belgian citizens, I guess, no one would object to such an approach.
0 Replies
 
owi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:36 pm
The problem here is, that as part of the Oslo accord there was an amnesty.The U.S. signed it and therefor should not be allowed to arrest him.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:39 pm
steissd wrote:
Spain wanted to sue Mr. Pinochet for being involved in killing the Spanish citizens. U.S. is supposed to prosecute Abu Abbas for killing the U.S. citizen. If Belgium planned prosecuting people for killing the Belgian citizens, I guess, no one would object to such an approach.


So if we grant some killed Palestinians Belgian Nationality, Post Mortem. Like the US does with its hispanic canonflesh, its OK by you?

serious now, You say every crime against a American should be trialed for an American court. And what about American GI's raping a Japanese girl? Or American pilots recklessly flying their jet into a gondola cable, killing 20 people? Who should trial them?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 02:42 pm
Granting citizenship post mortem is just a dirty trick. The killed passenger was an American citizen by birth. By the way, calling U.S. soldiers of Mexican or Puerto Rican origin an "hispanic cannonflesh" sounds somewhat racist, if not to say more.
U.S. soldiers that trespass law are usually being judged by the U.S. military courts.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 03:04 pm
steissd wrote:
Granting citizenship post mortem is just a dirty trick. The killed passenger was an American citizen by birth. By the way, calling U.S. soldiers of Mexican or Puerto Rican origin an "hispanic cannonflesh" sounds somewhat racist, if not to say more.


Hispanic Canonflesh isn't an insult. Its reality. I'm glad you agree with me its an act of racism to send mainly foreign hispanic soldiers in the frontline.

An article in the LA Times. The Title alone says it all.

Quote:

Fighting for Their Citizenship

About 37,000 in the U.S. military have green cards. A fast track to naturalization is the goal for many; others seek education, careers.
By Rich Connell and Nora Zamichow
The Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2003


Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, one of the first Marines killed in combat in Iraq, fought and died for a country that he could not quite call his.

The young Guatemalan was among tens of thousands of noncitizens -- so-called green card troops -- serving in the United States military.

They are a fraction of the overall force, but their numbers have been growing, from 28,000 in 2000 to more than 37,000 today. California contributes nearly one of every three green card soldiers -- more than any other state. So far, at least half of the first 10 Californians killed in the war were not citizens.

In some Los Angeles neighborhoods, Army and Marine recruiters say 50% of enlistees are not citizens. Military officials say these recruits join the service for many reasons, including education benefits, job security and love of their adopted country. And now, enlisting puts them on a fast track to citizenship.

Enlistees "come in the day they receive their green card," which documents their residency, said Sgt. Jorge R. Montes, a Marine recruiter in East Los Angeles. "They're very thankful for what this country has to offer them. They really have an appreciation of what they have over here."

Many are like Arian Cabral, a 23-year-old Filipino who ships out for Army basic training Wednesday. The Eagle Rock resident, who will be a chemical operations specialist, is so excited that he packed his "Go Army" bag more than a week in advance.

Cabral's mother works in a factory that processes carrots. His father is a mini-mart cashier. Neither is a U.S. citizen. Arian Cabral plans to become a naturalized citizen as a soldier. When he starts to talk about it, his eyes fill with tears.

"I love this country," said Cabral, whose family emigrated from the Philippines 13 years ago.

Cabral watches the war news avidly. He's not deterred. "Just to call myself a citizen -- that's big, that's huge for me and my family."

President Bush, who has described military service as the "ultimate act of patriotism," has sweetened the incentive for recruits like Cabral. Citing the war on terrorism, Bush in July issued an order permitting green card holders who are on active duty to immediately apply for citizenship, waiving the usual three-year waiting time. The government also created a team to quickly process citizenship applications from the military. Such requests have since quadrupled, from about 300 a month to more than 1,300 a month.

Similar decrees during World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam and the 1991 Persian Gulf War helped hundreds of thousands of immigrants become U.S. citizens.

The White House says the new policy is not aimed at boosting recruitment but is intended to reward those who volunteer in the war against terrorism. It's unclear how many noncitizens may be signing up as a result of the program.

Naturalization gives some legal immigrants an additional incentive to reenlist: Only citizens can be commissioned officers or seek such elite assignments as the Navy SEALs.

Military officials acknowledge that the prospect of citizenship helps woo recruits. But "it's not something where we go out and say, 'Here, become citizens,' " said Lt. Bill Davis, a Navy spokesman.

Army Sgt. Arturo Ramos-Martinez said citizenship is seldom the most important consideration among the predominantly Latino enlistees at his Exposition Park recruiting station. "For people who were borderline," he said, "this would roll them in favor of joining."

USC professor Dowell Myers, an immigrant studies expert, said the large proportion of noncitizen soldiers from California reflects the state's changing population.

The military has long been a route to upward mobility, he said, as well as a "great bonding force" for America's newcomers. "The military takes all these people, throws them in ranks and treats them like interchangeable parts," Myers said. The process instills "common goals that override ... differences."

Petty Officer 3rd Class Filipp Asmolov, 22, an aviation boatswain's mate, is aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf. Asmolov, who came to the United States from Ukraine with his family in 1993, said he feels like an American, even if he's only a green card sailor.

"I came here when I was little. This is my home and my country, and I have to protect it," said Asmolov, grease-smudged after a 12-hour shift maintaining one of the flight deck's four plane-launching catapults. "This is where I live and where I will bring up my own kids someday."

Like all young male citizens, most immigrants living in the U.S. are supposed to register with Selective Service when they turn 18.

Critics say the government is playing off the desire for citizenship to exploit these mostly poor immigrants -- from Latin America, Asia and the Caribbean -- for the war effort.

"Especially at a time when the doors for citizenship are closing, this may be one of few routes left," said Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney. "It's a tough but well-worn path. Is it fair? No."

Citizenship promises to U.S. troops have not always been kept, said Gary Okihiro, a professor and director of the Center of Ethnicity and Race at Columbia University in New York. Some Filipinos in World War II and Japanese Americans in World War I were never naturalized despite their service, Okihiro said. Hawaiians who served on the Union side in the U.S. Civil War were also jilted, he said.

Still, military historians say volunteers and draftees from other lands have served in every conflict from the American Revolution to the 1991 Gulf War. In recent years, immigrants have made up 4% to 5% of total military enlistees, and of those 95% are not naturalized citizens.

Gutierrez, the Marine from Lomita who was killed in the opening days of the war, signed up last year to earn tuition to study architecture. Federal officials say they have no record that he applied for citizenship.

Los Angeles City College student Winston Leiva is motivated by loyalty and respect. He came to Los Angeles at 14, joining family members who were escaping political oppression and economic hardship in Guatemala. Out of gratitude to America, the 29-year-old Koreatown resident said, he signed up for the Marines and is prepared to go to war.

"People like me, once we come here, we see anything can be achieved. There are no obstacles, except yourself," Leiva said. "Why not help protect the basis of this country?"

Other recruits are more focused on a shortcut to naturalization. Some have spent years and thousands of dollars seeking citizenship through attorneys and immigration consultants, recruiters say.

Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), who counts many Latino green card soldiers among his constituents, is pushing a bill to further smooth their way to citizenship. Applicants would still undergo interviews and background checks. But the government would waive fees and other out-of-pocket expenses that can total more than $1,000, Frost said.

"Many new arrivals are particularly patriotic, especially in the Hispanic community," Frost said. "If they are willing to risk their lives ... they should be accorded priority status in becoming citizens."

Spanish-language media coverage of Bush's expedited naturalization program prompted rumors here and in Mexico that the U.S. would make citizens of anyone who signed up to fight. In fact, green cards, known officially as permanent resident cards, must first be obtained, and these generally require applicants to be sponsored by U.S. employers, have close relatives who are U.S. citizens, or qualify for political asylum.

Today, most of the people who walk into his East L.A. office don't have green cards, said Montes, the Marine recruiter. "They say they heard on news that residency is not required."

Officials at the U.S. Embassy and consulate offices in Mexico are receiving hundreds of inquiries a day from would-be soldiers. Despite three separate statements by embassy officials in recent weeks to debunk the rumor, "the calls keep coming," said Jim Dickmayer, an embassy spokesman in Mexico City. "It speaks to the great desire that people have to get into the United States."

Meanwhile, green card holders weigh their options.

Alex Thong, born in Hong Kong, agonized over whether to join the Army, mainly to expedite a citizenship application so he can one day become a police officer.

The 22-year-old Rosemead resident attends Pasadena City College and works part time as a parking lot attendant. If not for the war, Thong would join without hesitation.
"I want to serve, but I don't want to die," he said.
Thong waffled over his decision several times but finally enlisted Friday.
He will ship out for basic training this summer.
"To be part of America, to be part of society," Thong said, "would mean that doors would open for me."


steissd wrote:
U.S. soldiers that trespass law are usually being judged by the U.S. military courts.


Ask the relatives from the gondola in Italy if those pilots were judged.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 03:14 pm
owi wrote:
The problem here is, that as part of the Oslo accord there was an amnesty.The U.S. signed it and therefor should not be allowed to arrest him.


Only a slight quibble here - I believe the amnesty states that the signatories would not PROSECUTE for crimes committed prior to the signing. In this case he had already been prosecuted and convicted by Italian authorities and there was no provision in the Oslo agreement to expunge existing convictions.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 03:20 pm
frolic wrote:
You mean the "Universal Jurisdiction" the US and Israel so strongly oppose?


What US opposition is there to Universial Jurisdiction??? You've managed to confuse Universial Jurisdiction with the ICC. The two are not the same thing.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 03:30 pm
fishin' wrote:
frolic wrote:
You mean the "Universal Jurisdiction" the US and Israel so strongly oppose?


What US opposition is there to Universial Jurisdiction??? You've managed to confuse Universial Jurisdiction with the ICC. The two are not the same thing.


They are based on the same principals. Just like the genocide law in Belgium. After the Nurenberg trials and after the Geneva conventions every country has the right and even the plight to trial warcriminals and crimes against humanity based on the universal jurisdiction.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 03:39 pm
frolic wrote:
They are based on the same principals.


Based on the same principles? lmao "Universial Jurisdiction" is a legal concept. The ICC is a courtroom with staff and judges who would hear cases BASED ON Universial Jurisdiction.

Quote:
Just like the genocide law in Belgium. After the Nurenberg trials and after the Geneva conventions every country has the right and even the plight to trial warcriminals and crimes against humanity based on the universal jurisdiction.


Yeah?? Every COUNTRY? And exactly what country is the ICC a part of?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 11:44 pm
Frolic wrote:
Hispanic Canonflesh isn't an insult. Its reality. I'm glad you agree with me its an act of racism to send mainly foreign hispanic soldiers in the frontline.

It is not an act of racism to send a combattant soldier of any origin to the frontlines: partticipation in battles is the main destination of any combattant soldier (I have some experience in this, being an infantry soldier/officer of the Soviet Army in 1981-86, and a reserve service soldier of IDF since 1995).
It is an act of racism to invent derogatory term referring to the soldier's language and ethnic origin. These people are not an "Hispanic canonflesh", but the U.S. soldiers having Spanish as their first language.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 11:54 pm
I do not see anything wrong either that the soldiers enlisting to the U.S. Armed Forces have some incentives: faster and cheaper citizenship procedures, access to good education, etc. U.S. Armed Forces do not have compulsory conscription, so they have to attract recruits by some privileges.
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 12:18 am
book mark
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 01:05 am
Steissd, i dont think its your favorite newspaper but is came across an interesting article in the Ha'aretz.

I marked some interesting words and remarks of the author in red.

Quote:

U.S.: Abu Abbas not immune under Israeli-Palestinian deal

By News Agencies

WASHINGTON - The United States said Wednesday that a 1995 agreement between Israel and the Palestinians did not give immunity to Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Abbas, who was detained by U.S. forces in Baghdad this week.

Later Wednesday, Sky News reported that Italy would request the extradition of Abu Abbas for masterminding the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985 and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer.

Under the agreement, members of the Palestine Liberation Organization may not be detained or tried for matters they committed before the 1993 Oslo peace accords, said Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat, who demanded the U.S. set Abu Abbas free.

But a State Department official, who asked not to be identified, said: "The 1995 interim agreement concerns arrangements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority for the detention and prosecution of certain persons. It does not apply to the legal status of persons detained in a third country."

"We demand the United States release Abu Abbas. It has no right to imprison him," said Erekat, claiming Abbas' detention by U.S. forces in Iraq violated the peace deal signed by Washington.

"The Palestinian-Israeli interim agreement signed on September 28, 1995 stated that members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation must not be detained or tried for matters they committed before the Oslo peace accord of September 13, 1993," Erekat said.

"This interim agreement was signed on the U.S. side by President Clinton and his secretary of state, Warren Christopher."

But, Erekat said later Wednesday, the arrest of the PLF leader would not delay the presentation of the road map to Middle East peace.

PLF leader says arrest is PR ploy
A leader of Abu Abbas' organization in the West Bank condemned the arrest as a public relations ploy.

"The U.S. administration is attempting to convince public opinion in the United States that it has succeeded in capturing the terrorists who were hiding in Iraq," Wasel Abu Yusef told The Associated Press.

He added that Abu Abbas had travelled freely throughout the world in recent years without any attempt to arrest him.

"The Americans have re-opened an old file for an attack on a ship that is now part of history," Abu Yusef said.

Sources: Abbas tried to flee to Syria
Officials close to Palestinian terror leader Abu Abbas said he had tried to flee west to Syria without informing Syrian authorities, following the fall of Baghdad to coalition forces last week. Prior to his capture overnight Wednesday by U.S. special forces, Abbas traveled from Baghdad to the northern city of Mosul and then to the Syrian border but was recognized at the border and turned back by Syrian officials.

Several days ago, Abu Abbas again went to Mosul and on to the Syrian border to try to leave Iraq after Palestinian guerrilla factions based in Damascus tried to intercede with the Syrian government on his behalf. He was again turned away. He returned to Baghdad, where he has been living for most of the last 18 years. The next day he was captured, the officials said from south Lebanon, on condition that they not be identified further.

Abu Abbas was also attempting through other channels to get into Iran, Iraq's eastern neighbor, said the officials.

Italian Justice Minister Roberto Castelli said Wednesday that his country planned to seek the extradition of Abu Abbas. Castelli said Italy would seek the extradition once juridical questions were cleared up.

Abbas, also known as Mohammed Abbas, was sentenced in absentia in Italy to life in prison for planning the hijacking of the Italian liner Achille Lauro in the eastern Mediterranean in 1985.

The hijackers killed a disabled elderly American Jewish passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, shooting him and pushing his wheelchair over the side of the ship.

The PLF carried out the 1979 attack on a residential home in Nahariya, in which four people - Danny Hern, his daughters Einat and Yael, and police officer Eliahu Shahar - were killed. The group was also tried to infiltrate into Israel via Nitzanim beach in June 1990.

U.S. Central Command, which is overseeing the war in Iraq, said in a statement that Abbas was picked up in a raid in southern Baghdad on Monday evening.

It said his capture "removes a portion of the terror network supported by Iraq and represents yet another victory in the global war on terrorism," although Abbas has long renounced violence and Israel has allowed him to travel to Gaza.

Asked what would happen to Abbas now, Central Command spokesman Maj. Brad Bartelt said: "Justice will be served." He gave no further details.

Abbas was sentenced in absentia in Italy to life in prison for planning the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship in the eastern Mediterranean.

The hijackers killed a disabled elderly American Jewish passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, shooting him and pushing his wheelchair over the side of the ship.

Klinghoffer and his wife, Marilyn, along with nine friends from the New York area, took the cruise to celebrate their 36th wedding anniversary. They were among 500 passengers taken hostage. Klinghoffer's wife died of cancer just four months after the hijacking.

His daughters, Lisa and Ilsa Klinghoffer, released a statement late on Tuesday urging the United States to try Abbas on charges of piracy, hostage-taking and conspiracy.

"We are delighted that the murderous terrorist Abu Abbas is in U.S. custody. While we personally seek justice for our father's murder, the larger issue is terrorism," they said.

"Bringing Abbas to justice will send a strong signal to terrorists anywhere in the world that there is no place to run, no place to hide."

Abbas returned to Gaza in 1999
Abbas, in his mid-50s, has spent much of the last 17 years in Iraq. He has traveled in the Middle East and stayed for some time in Gaza with the permission of the Israelis.

Although he was the target of a manhunt after the Achille Lauro incident, Washington dropped a warrant for his arrest several years ago.
A hero of battle to Palestinians and the incarnation of evil to Israelis, Abbas became portly in middle age, his hair gray after decades as a fugitive.

While he was not aboard the Achille Lauro, Italian courts sentenced Abbas in absentia to five life terms for planning the operation.

In a 1998 interview with Reuters, he called the ship hijack a mistake and said the PLF mission had been to use the ship as transportation to Israel for an attack on a naval base.

"The ship was only a means of transport like any other means we used to reach our goal," Abbas said.

The Israeli Supreme Court declared Abbas immune from prosecution in Israel over the Achille Lauro in 1999 after he was allowed to return to Gaza by a Security Committee which had concluded that he had renounced violence.

Abbas, who is married, was born in Haifa, then moved to Syria after his family fled from their home near Haifa when the state of Israel was created, where he studied Arabic literature and English at Damascus University.

He joined the PLF in 1965 and after it splintered over the years, retained control of the main pro-Yasser Arafat wing.

His PLF operated under the umbrella of Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization and he used imaginative methods, including hang-gliders, to evade Israeli defenses.

"I've been chased by the world now for 20 years. When America is chasing you, the whole world is chasing you," Abbas said in the 1998 Reuters interview at his office in Gaza.

Central Command said one of the key objectives of the war in Iraq had been to "search for, capture and drive out terrorists who have found safe haven in Iraq." It added: "This mission success highlights the U.S. and our coalition partners' commitment to defeating terrorism worldwide."

Bush mentioned Abbas in an October speech in which he outlined the United States' argument for removing Saddam from power.

Late last year, in an interview in Baghdad with the New York Times, Abbas distanced himself from Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida and condemned the September 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks on New York and Washington.

One month before those attacks, Abbas faulted the policies of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and defended his group's decision in the mid-1960s to embark on a violent path against Israel and the United States.

"The people don't hear if you don't knock loudly on the door," he told Finnish journalist Michael Franck in an interview in August 2001 and made available to Reuters by Sands Digital Media of Los Angeles.

Interviewed at his well-appointed home and office in Baghdad, Abbas said he ended up in the Iraqi capital at the government's invitation "because I haven't any place to go."


The most striking in this article is the fact they don't call him a terrorist but "Palestinian guerrilla leader"
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 01:26 am
First of all, it seems to me that we have different approaches on who can be called guerilla leaders. There was a strong guerilla movement in the USSR in 1941-44 when part of our territory then was occupied by Nazis. The guerilla fighters exploded railroads and munition warehouses, killed Nazi (not only German, there were also collaborators from many European countries) soldiers and officers, collected intelligence information and transferred it to Moscow; but they never deliberately aimed civilians, whatever they were: Germans or not.
Abu Abbas is not a guerilla leader, he is a terrorist.
Second, I never advocated extradition of Abu Abbas to the Israeli authorities. Mr. Klinghoffer was a Jew, but not an Israeli citizen; he was an American, so his murderer is to be prosecuted by the U.S. justice. Well, I guess that Abu Abbas would even prefer to be tried in Israel: there is no death penalty here, while in the USA he may get fried on the electric chair (that is what, IMO, he deserves, but the decision is in the court's competence).
About calling Abbas in this way or another: I guess, the quotation is taken from the continental European[/i] source and quoted in HaAretz, and the latter are very sympathetic to terrorists. Well, the newspaper mentioned is also suspicious in promotion of the terrorists' agenda under "humanitarian" cover.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 03:56 am
I'm with the following Article from The Independent.

The US forces in Iraq have only themselves to blame if they have looked foolish in trumpeting their capture of the Palestinian militant, Abu Abbas. His presence in Baghdad was hardly a secret, nor does anyone regard him as much of a menace any more. His capture is neither a great coup in the war against terror nor proof of Saddam Hussein's links with terrorism.

Yet that Abu Abbas was a terrorist, and a peculiarly nasty one in his day, cannot be denied. The leader of a small faction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), he was found guilty in absentia for hijacking an Italian cruise ship in 1985 and killing one of its passengers, the disabled New Yorker Leon Klinghoffer.

True, he later recanted his crime and was even allowed to pass through Israeli checkpoints on a visit to Gaza under an amnesty agreed as part of the Oslo peace accords.

But what passes between the Palestinians and the Israelis hardly affects a crime committed on an Italian ship for which the perpetrator has been sentenced to five life terms. The Palestinians say he should be released on the grounds that members of the PLO should not be detained or tried for matters committed before the Oslo peace accords. As that agreement was signed by President Bill Clinton among others, the US has no right to detain Abu Abbas.

The Italians say that the sentence passed by their courts still stands and Abu Abbas must be extradited. And on this they are right. Terrorist crimes such as hijacking are a menace to the whole international community. If nothing else, the world came solidly behind the US on this issue after 11 September. America may still have to prove its case for saying that President Saddam was promoting terrorism when the Allies chose to invade Iraq. The 17-year residence of an ageing figure from the past such as Abu Abbas in Baghdad proves nothing. However, a terrorist killer he was, and he should be returned to Italy to serve his sentence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 01:45:09