steissd wrote:First of all, it seems to me that we have different approaches on who can be called guerilla leaders.
I didn't call Abbas a guerilla leader. The reporter from Ha'aretz did. We had this discussion before.
BTW how would you call Jewish far right organisations(like "Revenge of the Infants") targetting Palestinian Schools?
Any terrorists are terrorists, and their activities are prohibited by the Israeli law. I have never heard about terror group called "Revenge of the Infants", but if it exists, its members have real chances to be arrested by the General Security Service of Israel.
Unfortunately, activities of treacherous and pro-terrorist newspaper Ha'aretz are not prohibited; there is no Constitution in Israel, hence no First Amendment, but freedom of speech exists, however.
Just for clarification purposes on exactly what the Oslo Accords say on the issue of detaining/prosecuting people in these situations and the amnesty referred to in this discussion:
From the Oslo Accords:
"ARTICLE XVI
Confidence Building Measures
With a view to fostering a positive and supportive public atmosphere to accompany the implementation of this Agreement, to establish a solid basis of mutual trust and good faith, and in order to facilitate the anticipated cooperation and new relations between the two peoples, both Parties agree to carry out confidence building measures as detailed herewith:
1. Israel will release or turn over to the Palestinian side, Palestinian detainees and prisoners, residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first stage of release of these prisoners and detainees will take place on the signing of this Agreement and the second stage will take place prior to the date of the elections. There will be a third stage of release of detainees and prisoners. Detainees and prisoners will be released from among categories detailed in Annex VII (Release of Palestinian Prisoners and Detainees). Those released will be free to return to their homes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2. Palestinians who have maintained contact with the Israeli authorities will not be subjected to acts of harassment, violence, retribution or prosecution. Appropriate ongoing measures will be taken, in coordination with Israel, in order to ensure their protection.
3. Palestinians from abroad whose entry into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is approved pursuant to this Agreement, and to whom the provisions of this Article are applicable, will not be prosecuted for offenses committed prior to September 13, 1993."
The opening paragraph makes it clear that the agreement is between two parties - Israel and the Palestinians. There is no wording that creates any amnesty by any other nation here.
Fishin'
Why has Israel never arrested this man and handed him over to the US?
Shortly after the hijacking, the U.S. issued a warrant for Abbas's arrest for piracy and kidnapping, and offered a $250,0000 reward for information leading to his capture. A few years ago the warrant
and the reward were dropped.
Why does the US want this man so badly? To cover up their failure of catching the Ba'ath leadership? To give the US public opinion a scapegoat they can tear apart?
frolic wrote:Why has Israel never arrested this man and handed him over to the US?
Read the Oslo agreement above. Israel is one of the 2 parties bound by that amnesty...
Quote:Shortly after the hijacking, the U.S. issued a warrant for Abbas's arrest for piracy and kidnapping, and offered a $250,0000 reward for information leading to his capture. A few years ago the warrant
and the reward were dropped.
There was a large discussion at one point about whether or not the Statute of Limitations had expired on his crimes and teh DOJ had determined that they had. The Congressional Research Service spent 4 years (1996-2000) after that studying US Case Law and finally determined that the statutes hadn't expired and Abbas could still be prosecuted under US law. By that time he wasn't a high-profile concern though..
Quote:Why does the US want this man so badly? To cover up their failure of catching the Ba'ath leadership? To give the US public opinion a scapegoat they can tear apart?
IMO, at the moment it is a publicity coup. Bush accused Iraq of harboring known terrorists several times in 2001/2002. Iraq adamently denied there were any known terrorists within their borders each and every time and those denials were given wide TV play across the Arab nations. Now that he's been caught within Iraq it's another case the Bush Administration can point to where Saddam lied. Every time this type of event occurs it will be played up to the hilt - it demonstrates to the Arab world that they've been lied to by the Arab media. It's all part of "winning the hearts and minds"....
I have another question: why does Frolic want so badly this man not to be prosecuted
Steissd, you better read my postings (again)
He was already tried in Italy so i support the extradition of Abu Abbas to Italy.
I belief people in the US make no difference between Osama Bin Laden or this Abbas. Abbas was a terrorist/guerilla fighter from a different era and fighting for different principles. To some he is a guerilla fighter to others he is a terrorist.
I am no expert on International Law - however, I think it would be very helpful if the USA obeyed it - whatever it is in this case.
Terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. In principle, there is no much difference between bin Laden and Abu Abbas: both deliberately[/color] murder civilians to promote some political agenda. Bil Laden was more "successful": managed to kill more and to evade the justice, that is the only difference.
Italy is a less likely place for Abu Abbas's extradition: there is no death penalty there, just like in Israel. I would like him to be tried in Texas.
