“I do not know the particulars of this man’s original conviction but given that black men were routinely killed on the street back then for things they didn’t do it is then not inconceivable that his original conviction was politically or racially motivated.”
It’s easy enough to find the particulars. Here’s a fairly good synopsis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wright_%28criminal%29
Why are you defending this street thug turned leftist media darling without doing the slightest amount of background research first? It also sounds as if you weren’t around during the whole Black Panther era. I was, living the San Francisco Bay Area. I remember it vividly, the assaults, the drugs, the murders, all wrapped up in a very thin veneer of a (arguably) justifiable social uprising.
Along with other such notables as Mumia Abdul Jabbar and Daniel Ortega, these types became the idols of the moneyed liberal left for some bizarre reason. This is also the time when graffiti vandals were suddenly pronounced “artists”, and we’ve lived the blighted results ever since.
Maybe it was something in the urban water supplies of liberal enclaves that created this madness?
In any event, Wright was nothing more than a New Jersey street thug who indulged in armed robberies. When involved in a murder during one such hold up, he was sentenced to prison. He escaped, and found refuge in Algeria as a Black Panther after engaging in some air piracy.
To me, this was nothing more than criminality wrapped up in opportunistic political posturing and radical chic. And has absolutely nothing to do with the history of race relations in America, IMHO.
In sum, the Portuguese Supreme Court obviously has the same questions I do. And I thank God that there are courts outside of this country that will make independent decisions because, you never know, you and I may end up needing them someday if we can’t get Obama out of the White House.