From: wlarkin@panix.com (Ward Larkin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: 'terrorists' vs. 'freedom-fighters'
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:40:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul24.062359.9504@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.150625.25828@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
>
>>Hmm...the FMLN guerrillas were strict adherents to international modes of 
>>conduct; the same can't be said for El Salvador's death-squads which were
>>armed and trained by the US. 
>
>Really?  Perhaps you forgot the time the FMLN kidnapped President
>Duarte's daughter?  Or was she a combatant?  
>
I agree that the FMLN has committed their fair share of terrorism.

>Also, would you like to discuss the murder of two wounded US
>servicemen whose helicopter the FMLN shot down?
>
But this is a bad example.  The U.S. helicopter was flying at low
altitude in El Salvador ( where they didn't have permission to be )
over an FMLN occupied war zone.

>When you're done with that perhaps you'll tell us what happened to the
>prisoners taken by the FMLN.  They didn't release very many.  Gotta
>wonder what happened to them.
>
>By the way, Autonome, who the heck are you?  Most people who post
>don't need to hide behind pseudonymns.
>
>>And what about Iran-Contra? Not only were the
>>contras 'terrorists'
>
>Depends on who you ask.
>
You're calling the FMLN terrorists ( which I won't argue ) but
you're not willing to call the contras terrorists.  Every
well respected human rights monitoring organization I know of
called the contras terrorists.  Groups like Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International, the American Friends Service Committee.

>>that clandestine scheme violated all national and
>>international laws.
>
>Re national laws, name one.  Walsh hasn't been able to get a single
>conviction on that basis.  You, however, seem to have the inane idea
>that it violated evey single federal law.  I'm not sure why you post
>that kind is silliness since I;m sure even you don't really velieve
>it.
>
Actually Walsh did get convictions, but they were later over turned.
And you know as well as I that the convictions were over turned
solely because of Congress's "limited immunity" guarantees for
giving Congressional testimony.  

So national laws were broken.  It's just that those that committed
the crimes were prosecuted due soley to technical reasons.

Which reminds me, didn't elliot abrams plead guilty to two
misdemeanor charges?

And Isn't limited immunity like being a little bit pregnant?

>As far as international law goes, there we get into neat questions
>like the right to retaliate.  After all, the Sandinistas were helling
>out the FMLN and even continued to do so after Chamorro took office.
>(Remember that missile delivery?)
>
Wow!  Talk about hyprocricy.  It's OK for the U.S. to force Honduras
essentially to give the contras a free center of operations.  It's
OK for the U.S. to spend $1,000,000s to create, to train, to 
perpetuate the contras.  It's OK for the U.S. to mine Nicaraguan
harbors, which the United Nations, the Organization of American
States and the World Court all censured in strongest terms.

But it's not OK for Nicaragua to send food, clothing, ammunition
and for the most part small arms to the FMLN.  David MacMichael,
member of the CIA from 1981-1983, says that's all the Nicaragua
gave to the FMLN during that period.

>>but none of the government officials responsible are in
>>prison.
>
>Why should they be?  Among other things, international law has no
>punitive provisions and no national laws were broken.
>
But national laws were broken.  And how much can one trust Lawrence
Walsh who has gone on record to say that it is difficult to prosecute
people that he likes and respects.

>>A note to the Net right-wing: think before you write.
>
>I did.  Di you?
>
Essentially this comes down to what one thinks of U.S. Foreign
Policy.  If one agrees with U.S. imperialism, then the terrorism
inflicted upon Nicaragua by the United States is readily 
justifiable.  If one thinks that U.S. Foreign Policy is nothing
more than a bully interference in the internal affairs of other
governments hiding behind a smoke screen of pious expressions
of high-sounding purpose, then everything and everyone 
associated with the U.S. State Department has to be questioned.
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.