Quick trial, firing squad for three men provoke fury

The Miami Herald ^ | 4/12/2003 | ALFONSO CHARDY

[RyeWhiskeyJoe]

AFE--I agree wholeheartedly--and amazingly I just read the next post and I am in complete agreement with Luis on this one too. A point of agreement--it's a start.

[RyeWhiskeyJoe]

"BTW, have you comne up with that passage in International Law that allows for the execution of hijackers?"

Yes I have Luis, but you are not going to like it.
http://www.un.org/law/ilc

This will take you to the International Law Commission (ILC) website.

Select sec VII. PENALTIES, Then select Article 47(2),
which is the ILC statute that allows the court to

"have regard to the penalties provided for by the law of:

(a) the State of which the convicted person is a national;

(b) the State where the crime was committed; and

(c) the State which had custody of and jurisdiction over the accused."

In addition, Article 46(2) requires the trial chamber to
"take into account such factors as the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person".

It took awhile because I wanted to get the quote exact and the UN does not like to make it easy to track their actions.

Luis, neither of us thinks very highly of either the UN or Castro's government but unfortunately Castro's Cuba IS the 'State' of record in Article 47(2), (a), (b), & (c) above. Perhaps the provisions of Article 46(2) explain, at least partially, the broad range of sentences metered out. I know this is not what you wanted to hear, but you did ask me to provide it and I did promise to answer all questions honestly. And we were just starting to agree on some points.....sorry.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thanks for the information.

I'm sure that the law you posted will be what the regime's thugs, and its apologists, will try to hide behind when faced with world opinion on its actions, but it will be done only by the most vile of the vile, Fidel and his useful idiots; because even the UN condemns Fidel's lack of respect for International Law

[RyeWhiskeyJoe]

"because even the UN condemns Fidel's lack of respect for International Law "

So do I Luis, so do I. It's been interesting my friend. You are the most knowlegable person I have ever talked with on the abuses of Castro's regime and those abuses are obviously very close to your heart. I think you and I are both 'law and order' advocates, I just feel that individual responsibilty for one's actions should be universal and you feel that it can't be until the chains of the world's dictators are broken. To me, that creates a legally responsible vs. legally exempt rift in world justice that I will never be able to endorse. To you, it is simply a necessary, temporary correction until the world is a better place for us all. I guess this difference between us will always exist.

Despite our rhetoric, I do respect your opinion and your right to hold it. I have also tried to answer every question you (and sarasmom) have asked in a logical, honest fashion and to express my most sincerely held beliefs. I can't say that 'it's been fun', the subject matter is much to serious for fun, but you have pushed me to re-evaluate my beliefs. I haven't changed my beliefs (nor, I'm sure, have you), but it is never wrong to re-evaluate any belief. I really enjoy FR, and yes I did lurk for those 5 years. Our little running debate has, however, kept me from having the time to enjoy any other threads, so I'll be signing off on this one to see what else is going on around the forum. I'll be watching for your tagline--you are very interesting.

RyeWhiskeyJoe

PS-The only question of yours I never answered was why do MIGS shoot down Cessnas? In this very imperfect world, Luis, I think it is because they can--with very little threat of retaiation in kind.

[RyeWhiskeyJoe]

Let's try "retaliation"

[republicofdavis]

OK, I'm going to give this one more try.

I've got to side with Cuba on this one.
20 posted on 04/12/2003 9:58 AM EDT by republicofdavis

LG, your pulling up of this quote was a cheap debating trick. I have explained many times at great length that I was really commenting on the slow pace of US justice and I also explained that it was a flippant remark and that I would no longer offer such remarks (I am relatively new to posting). So for you to pull it out at the end of a long and substantive discussion and assert that it means I stand with Castro is deliberately dishonest.

There seem to be two conversations going on here: You two are engaged in a specific discussion about whether what happened to these men was proper. In order to further that discussion I've tried to engage in an academic dialogue about what are the limits of possible harm to others that can be tolerated. In fact, LG began that discussion in post 182. I answered in Post 185 and awaited his position on that point, which never came. Instead, I get back from both of you that nothing happened to these people.

I will accept that this hijacking was not as bad as the hijackings I'm accustomed to, where people are put in fear and danger. We'll call it "hijacking-lite." But I will not accept your characaterization of me as standing with Castro. In fact, in Post 113, I advocated a US-led overthrow of Castro which LG declined. Fine, but don't say that makes me pro-Castro.

Sarasmom, you win. There's no question that the punishment did not fit the crime, given all the facts as reported (and I have seen the post with the discussion with the passengers). Certainly American standards of due process were not followed. So what's going to be done about it? You say the world shrugs and you're right, because the leading opinion-makers are actually pro-Castro. I would say we should facilitate his removal but I guess the strategy is to wait til he dies.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"In order to further that discussion I've tried to engage in an academic dialogue about what are the limits of possible harm to others that can be tolerated."

Except that punishment is not set in accordance to what could have possibly happened, but it is set on what DID happen. And that's what wrong with this whole argument, the hijackers were not tried and punished using any sort of standard other than defiance for the Cuban government. In Cuba, that carries the death penalty, without possibility of either defense, or reprieve.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I also explained that it was a flippant remark and that I would no longer offer such remarks."

I missed that post, I apologize for that.

[reg45]

Dear hg,

Has Fidel made WMD that are a threat to the US? At 25 you are too young to remember The Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Prodigal Daughter]

I had to wait a few days until I could sit down and read about this execution. You see, I was in the bakery picking up an order of "pastelitos" to take to an award ceremony at a high school, and the women in the bakery were so upset because they had been listening to the news on Miami Cuban radio and told me of how the mother of one of the men killed BY FIRING SQUAD was 19 YEARS OLD! Castro's goons came to her house in the middle of the night and and took him away for trial, and then they came to her house again and said to the mother, "You can go see your son now, he's at such and such plot of ground, in HIS GRAVE." I don't think THAT will ever be reported on CNN, et al.

So I spent the day at the high school looking at all the 17 and 18 year olds and couldn't help thinking about this poor kid being executed and his poor mother.

Do you know which of the victims was the 19 year old? I noticed two Sephardic names above, Isaac and Montoya, and I'm reminded of Jose Cohen! His kids are still in Cuba as far as I know! So is the little girl whose mother came with Elisabeth Bretons! Never forget: Jimmy Carter and CNN.

[safeasthebanks]

bump