Single Standard For Terrorists

[struggle4progress]

The U.S. has become so zealous in its efforts to exclude potential terrorists from America that it has made it much harder for genuine refugees to find sanctuary here.

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published on 5/11/2005

The New York Times published this editorial on Tuesday, May 10:

In the name of credibility, consistency and justice for the 73 victims, Luis Posada Carriles, the prime suspect in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner, should not be granted political asylum in the United States, which he is thought to have entered illegally six weeks ago. Instead, he should be arrested and extradited for trial, not only for the airliner attack, but also for other terrorist attacks that he has acknowledged planning, including one in 1997 that killed an Italian businessman visiting Havana.

Trying Posada in the United States for those crimes would be difficult, if not impossible, because they did not occur here and the victims were not Americans.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration does not believe in the International Criminal Court, which would otherwise provide the ideal venue for his trial. That leaves the unappealing option of honoring the extradition request already made by Venezuela, Posada's main base of operations during the period of the airliner bombing. Since Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, is a close ally of Fidel Castro, that means Posada could eventually end up on trial in Havana. <snip>

The one thing the Bush administration cannot do is to shelter Posada by granting him political asylum. Since 9/11, the United States has become so zealous in its efforts to exclude potential terrorists from American soil that it has made it much harder for genuine refugees fleeing deadly persecution in their home countries to find sanctuary here. <snip>

http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=faa4e303-e7b2-4edb-8dee-3a33bdf32faf

[undeterred]

1. kick!

"the Bush administration does not believe in the International Criminal Court" or the US Constitution either apparently :dilemma:

[Demeter]

2. Denying Asylum Is Part of The Plan

If the danger of politically motivated and savvy immigrants is removed, there are that many fewer aware and active citizens to call the government to acount, that many fewer eyewitnesses to the reality that the media doesn't show, that many fewer democrats to vote. Aside from the disinherited Cubans, has a migrant group ever gone Republican?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Well,

In America, Caucasians are a migrant group, aren't they?

More seriously, I don't know what fraction of Latinos in the US are migrants, but don't more of them vote Republican than Democrat, or soon will, or something? Or is that wrong? I'm from the UK, and not as well up on US voting statistics as I might be.

And I believe Arab-Americans typically voted Republican up until quite recently, although I think that has now changed dramatically.