From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Two Requests
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:15:27 GMT
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ

In article <1992Apr3.193757.10640@ncsu.edu> hernlem@che09.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem) writes:

# In article <1992Apr3.182457.25207@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
# makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# > In article <1992Apr3.150149.29622@ncsu.edu> hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU
# (Brad Hernlem) writes:
 
# > 		[ stuff about the World Court deleted - dlm ]
 
# > # For Mr. Makowsky who said in response to my statement:

# > # Me:
# > # # I hope they are prepared to turn over the crew of the USS
# > # # Vincennes to Iran for trial now that the U.S. is backing the idea that
# > # # the accused in such cases should be tried in the countries of the
# victims.
 
# > # Mr. Makowsky:
# > # >	This is asinine.  The US government has already admitted guilt in
# > # >the case of the Vincennes.
 
# > # I don't see any legal difference between the Airbus case and the PanAm
# > # case. You stated below that the PanAm case should be tried because the
# > # crime was committed against Americans and American laws were broken so
# > # why should Iran not be allowed to try the crew of the Vincennes? Do you
# > # mean that if the U.S. determines the guilt of the accused in the PanAm
# > # case the matter will end and the accused will be set free? You say that
# > # the U.S. has admitted guilt in the case of the Airbus downing but what
# > # has been done? The U.S. gave a commendation to the ship's captain! If an
# > # accused party admits guilt does that absolve them of a trial and
# > # subsequent punishment?
 
# > # Me:
# > # # but the U.S.
# > # # government is so brazen as to imply that an International trial would
# > # # not be fair.
 
# > # Mr. Makowsky:
# > # >	It is not a matter of what would be fair.  It is a matter of the
# > # >crimes being committed against Americans and of breaking American law.
# > # >perhaps the international community should have a trial.  But that
# > # >should be seperate and additional to, not instead of an American (and/or
# > # >British) trial.

# > # I think it is extremely hypocritical and contradictory for the U.S. to
# > # demand extradition in the Pan Am case and not offer the crew of the USS
# > # Vincennes to Iran for similar trial. If the basis for jurisdiction is
# > # the origin of the laws which were broken then this basis MUST be applied
# > # in all cases or else it is nothing more than a POLITICAL basis. The U.S.
# > # and Britain claim jurisdiction because of the laws of Britain and the
# > # U.S. and the fact that the crime was committed against their citizens
# > # over British territory. Was the Airbus not filled with Iranians over
# > # Iranian territory? Where is the consistency here?
 
# > 	Your responses are ridiculous for several reasons, both legal and
# > non legal.  I will give some of them here.  There are many more.
 
# > 	The US provides for due process of law, Iran does not.  In fact,
# > the conduct of the Iranian government during the time they kept our
# > diplomats hostages is enough justification in my opinion that they
# > reject any concept of law.  There is no way the captain of the
# > VIncennes would get a fair trial.  In the US they would get a fair
# > trial, or else a judge would rule that no jury could be impartial and
# > all charges would be dropped.
 
# > 	I know of absolutely no proof that the captain of the Vincennes
# > knew the Iranian plane was civillian and not military.
 
# > 	The US has asked for the two Lybians to be extradited, as far as I
# > know the Iranians have made no such appeal.  Even if they had, no
# > American court would turn the American over without some sort of
# > evidence that there was proof he did know it was a civilian airliner
# > and without proof that Iran respects due process of law.
 
# > 	I do not know if there is a difference, but I would guess
# > international law differentiates "crimes" commited by military
# > personel as a soldier and crimes commited by civilians.
 
# > 	As I previously stated, the US has admitted guilt and liability in
# > the case of the Iranian airliner.
 
# > 	Brad, while you may legitimately disagree with the way the US has
# > handled the Iranian airliner tragedy, to say the US is being
# > hypocritical or to even attempt to equate the situations is not at all
# > legitimate, and only shows your anti - American bias.
 
# > 		[ part about Kadaffi deleted - dlm ]

# Didn't you suggest that the matter of jurisdiction was based upon who's
# laws were broken?

	Yes.  And I still stand by it.

# # Mr. Makowsky:
# > # >	It is not a matter of what would be fair.  It is a matter of the
# > # >crimes being committed against Americans and of breaking American law.
# > # >perhaps the international community should have a trial.  But that
# > # >should be seperate and additional to, not instead of an American (and/or
# > # >British) trial.

# How do the issues which you bring up above make this rule applicable in
# one case and not another? 
 
	I would have no problem if Iran wanted to have the Captain of the
Vincennes extradited as long as Iran could prove the Vincennes Captain
would get due process of law (something reasonable any American court
would demand evidence of), as long as they showed evidence in the
extradition hearing that the Vincennes Captain was either grossly
negligent or knew that the airliner was civillian (also something
reasonable an American court would demand), and that no other treaties
or laws that the US is obligated to follow are broken.  I do not think
Iran is capable of fufilling the first two.

# I do not believe that the crew of the Vincennes could get a fair trial
# in Iran

	I agree.

# and I do not believe that the accused Libyans can get a fair
# trial in the U.S. or Britain.

	Why?  This is one of the reasons I believe you are anti -
American.

# I believe that a fair trial in these cases
# can only be achieved through some international "court".

	Again, why?  Actually, I believe that an international "court"
would prevent the US and Britain from getting a fair hearing.  As a
Jew, I am very suspicious about non democratic people sitting in
judgement.  The history of my people supports this.

# I have not
# heard that Iran proposes to try the crew of the Vincennes (Ayatollah
# Yazdi has said that Iran has no such desires) and I do not think they
# should but if the U.S. thinks it has a "right" to try the accused
# Libyans then I don't understand why the same "right" should not apply to
# Iran.

	For several reasons, one of which is they have not requested it!
I listed  the others in my paragraph above giving the standards Iran
would have to meet for extradition.

# Do Americans have some rights that other people of the world do
# not? Do the Iranian families of the Airbus victims have less rights than
# the American families of the Pan Am victims?

	No, but the Airbus victims may come out ahead since the US has
offered to pay (and may have already paid - I do not know)
compensation.  Those guilty of the Pan Am bombing will never do this.

# BTW, I am an American and I take acception to your statement that I am
# anti-American.

	Just because you are American does not mean you cannot be anti -
American.

# I do not find it anti-American to point out the
# injustices of my government. My criticism has nothing to do with the
# people of my country. 

	It is the way you point out inxDjustices, and what you consider
injustices that make you anti - American.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu