"US Judge Recommends Release of Suspected Terrorist Posada Carriles"?

Question

Apparently no country will take him except two that want to try him for involvement of blowing up an airline (and which we think use torture) so he is supposed to be set free in the US. We caught him entering illegally from Mexico in May, 2005.

C'mon. Bush is telling us loudly that torture doesn't count if it is against terrorists, anyhow, and we don't really KNOW this guy would be tortured by Cuba and Venezuala, and who in their right mind would want him loose on the streets of the US?

Even our government has previously said he is too dangerous to release.

OK, I'm against torture, and I support Colin Powell's attempts to remind Bush that torture is a bad thing. But I think letting this guy loose in the US is a bad thing, and if Venezuala and Cuba want him, terrific.

Am I being terribly callous here?

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2075

Cora, I had heard that, but I'd have to read that law myself, and I assure you I'd be looking for a different, reasonable interpretation.

Well, I was thinking we could make them give guarantees of no torture, with observers or something, like we have to tell some countries we won't impose a death sentence to extradict people. Our govt said he is too dangerous to release in March, is what bothers me.

Then there's this:
The U.S. government revealed Monday that it has asked six countries, including Mexico and Canada, to take Cuban exile militant Luis Posada Carriles -- but they all refused.

Besides Canada and Mexico, the other countries that rejected Posada were Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala and El Salvador.

-- but we're just going to let this guy out.

I can see that this is more counter-Cuba than I had realized as I try to read up on it more, apparently he used to be a CIA informant or something. And the Cuban exiles think he's a patriot. Maybe he'll live with them.

Answer 1

As much as it hurts, if he has broken no law here, then we can’t keep him locked up.

Answer 2

That's the way the law is written, by Congress (not by the courts).

If someone is ordered deported, but no country can be found who will take them, and if they have committed no crime in the US that requires imprisonment, they must be set free. That's the law.

Cuba doesn't have current extradition treaties with the US, so they have no legal right to demand we turn him over to them for trial. And Venezuela isn't on speaking terms with the US anyway. So, under the laws written by Congress, we can't send someone to a country without extradition knowing that they will be treated illegally. That's a violation of US law, as Congress as enacted it.

If you don't like the laws -- change them. But stop blaming judges for doing what the plain text of the law requires them to do.

{EDIT} And you probably could find another interpretation. The Geneva Convention argument is a stretch, and the INS deportation guidelines are arguably satisfied as long as Carilles would get a fair trial in Venezuela, even if he is also tortured.

But think about it. Has the US really reached the point where we'll lock someone up, solely based on what some other country (who hates the US) has accused that person of doing, when all of the actions were performed outside the US? We'll lock him up, with no trial, just because he might be dangerous, even if he has not committed any crime in the US for which imprisonment is allowed?

Answer 3

"As much as it hurts, if he has broken no law here,"??????
He was caught because he is here illegally, his very existence within our borders is a crime.
if there are any countries that want him due to his being a criminal or a suspected criminal, give the guy over. What they do with him is none of our business!

Little Elian Gonzales was sent to cuba and he was taken by force from American relatives (remember that one?) so why not send this creep back to Cuba??

Answer 4

All you need is $20 and a crack-head to end his days of terror. It's not leagal, but it works.

Answer 5

Right on!!!!!!