Posted on 04/17/2003 6:46:47 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Barry Rubin is the author, with Judith Colp Rubin, of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography," to be published by Oxford University Press in August.
The capture of Abul Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, in Baghdad may turn into one of the biggest stories to come out of the Iraq war -- and it will serve as powerful proof of the operation's value for the war against terrorism.
What's more, if he is brought back to the United States and prosecuted, it could make for the most spectacular international terrorist trial ever held in America.
By now, most people know that Abbas was wanted in the United States for his involvement in the murder of a 69-year-old wheelchair-bound U.S. citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, aboard the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985. Many also know that as a longtime client of the Iraqi regime, he knows more about Saddam Hussein's involvement in international terrorism than any other non-Iraqi.
But fewer people know that Abbas is in a position to implicate Yasser Arafat in detail on the Palestinian leader's involvement in terrorism. The PLF hijackers told hostages on the Achille Lauro, "We came on behalf of Yasser Arafat." For at least 20 years, Abbas was one of Arafat's most important allies in the Palestine Liberation Organization and a frequent go-between for Arafat and Hussein. In Tunis, Abbas' office was a few feet from that of the PLO chief, who paid the PLF's bills.
When Abbas launched a 1990 attack on Israel in boats, the terrorists were killed or captured just before they landed on the beach. I have vivid memories of that day because I was standing at the place where they would have landed if soldiers had not arrived minutes before to evacuate everyone. One of those captured by Israel that day, the operation's deputy commander, told journalists that the attack's target was Tel Aviv's beachfront hotel district and that his orders were: "Don't leave anyone alive. Kill them all ... children, women and elderly people."
Arafat protected Abbas at that time. Breaking his own promise to the United States, Arafat refused to denounce the attack as terrorism and thus lost his chance -- for the moment -- to open a dialogue with Washington. At the time, Arafat had an added incentive to support Abbas: He was jumping on the bandwagon of the PLF leader's master, Hussein, who was mobilizing for his invasion of Kuwait.
Today, at a time when Arafat is under unprecedented pressure from Palestinian reformers and the U.S., Abbas could be the one to break Arafat's hold on power if he turns state's evidence with what he knows about terrorism, corruption and deals with Hussein.
So how would the Palestinian leadership react if there were to be a trial? Would it denounce the United States? Would Arafat remain silent when one of his colleagues -- whom he refused to extradite -- was being prosecuted in the United States? Would some Palestinians threaten terrorist acts to free him? Would others, perhaps with European help, suggest that putting Abbas on trial would hurt efforts to restart peace negotiations with Israel?
The last time I saw Abbas in person was in 1988 when we physically collided in Tunis while scrambling for copies of the resolutions just passed by the PLO parliament. A few minutes earlier, it had passed a resolution declaring an independent Palestinian state.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
if he is brought back to the United States and prosecuted,
He's already been convicted in Italy, and they've asked to extradite him.
Since the Italians have such a good claim to him, I suggest that we bring him back to the US, give him a fair trial, sentence him to death, execute that sentence, and then extradite him to Italy.
It went something like this: Given that Abu Abbas has committed no terrorist acts for many years and has renounced terrorism, why are we arresting him now?
UNbelievable.
I agree. ""Damn the delays - let's give him a fair trial and then hang him!" -Judge Roy Bean
Q[uestion:] General, Paul Adams, BBC... on Abu Abbas, I'm just wondering why you found it necessary to devote time and energy to arresting a man who, for the last dozen years or so, has not been involved, to the best of anyone's knowledge, in any acts of terrorism, who's actually renounced terrorism and condemned 9/11; is, in effect, a has-been.
And here is General Brooks's answer
Gen. Brooks:...Abu Abbas is a terrorist. He was a terrorist. He remains a terrorist. And he will be viewed as such. Notwithstanding any declarations that have been made in recent years, his role in terrorism, his links to terrorist organizations, are abundantly clear.
Good point, which is why we needed to get rid of Saddam.
Only if you give him a pass on recent events like the following
+The murder of Jerusalem teenager Yuri Gushchin in Ramallah in July 2001
+The bombing of a checkpoint junction in Haifa which injured five
+The planting of a bomb near Um Safa
+The attempted bombing of a military bus near Jenin
+A conspiracy to carry out attacks at Ben Gurion Airport and in Tel-Aviv
This is an L.A. Times article? It looks more like an article I would expect in the Washington Times.
It's a "Commentary," or opinion piece -- the crumbs that the liberal press throw to non-liberals to prove how "fair" the liberal press is. The L.A. Times has not had an epiphany.
Proof that IQs have dropped significantly in the reporting profession.
Maybe there's a statute of limitations on killing an American citizen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.