Bush on Terrorism
"America has a message for the nations of the world. If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists." -- George Bush
The above quote is fascinating in light of recent news events. An international terrorist named Luis Posada recently entered the United States illegally and hung out for a couple of months. He is wanted by the Venezuelan government in connection with the bombing of a Cuban airliner back in 1976. You'd think that the United States, which has some firsthand experience with terrorism committed with an airliner, might have immediately taken action against this terrorist, especially since it wasn't exactly a secret that he was in the country. But, funnily enough, when the news first broke that he was hiding out now in the United States, the State Department denied it. In fact, they claimed that this charge was "completely manufactured".
Yet, somehow, this person who the State Department insisted was not in the United States got arrested recently--you guessed it--being in the United States illegally. Go figure.
Why all this subterfuge? Why was the State Department doing nothing but sitting on its hands while this terrorist roamed freely in the US? Why did this terrorist even think that he could safely hide out the United States? Well, my friends, the answer is simple. You see, Posada is what the Bushites consider a good terrorist. It doesn't matter if you kill civilians, it doesn't matter if you blow up airplanes--as long as you are a right wing terrorist, that's okay in the neocon philosophy. Normally, when a suspected international terrorist enters the United States, he is immediately whisked away to some other country to be tried or tortured or whatever the destination government feels like doing. Case in point: Maher Ahar. He was a Syrian-born Canadian who was in the US in 2002, and because of his alleged ties to al-Qaeda, he was sent immediately--not to his home in Canada, but to Syria--hardly a friend of the US, but it is a government where he could be subjected to torture. (This is reminiscent of the frequent Bush regime policy of "rendition", where prisoners are sent off to countries that practice torture, thus allowing a sort of torture by proxy, and allowing Bush to export the acts of torture while claiming to wash his hands of the matter himself.)
Nothing like that happened in the case of Posada, who has now been arrested, and the US government is trying to figure out how to handle him. One thing is certain--they are treating him with kid gloves.
There is no doubt, by the way, that Posada is a terrorist. An article from Canada's National Post points out,
So what is the difference, in Bush's mind, between, say, Mohamed Atta, whose act of terrorism involved a airplanes, and Luis Posada? Answer that question, and you will go a long way towards understanding the mentality of the ostensible Bush policy on terrorism. It is interesting to note that not just the current President, but the entire Bush family has a long association with Posada's band of terrorists. The above mentioned article points out that:
We saw this back in March, the State Department denied a visa to Dora Maria Tellez, who had been a leader of the army that overthrew Nicaraguan dictatorship of Somoza. Being in an army that overthrew a dictator got her labeled as a "terrorist" by the State Department, a charge which was patently ridiculous and, obviously, just a cover for an ideologically motivated act of repression. As an article in the UK newspaper the Guardian put it,
Of course, it's early in the game to know how the Posada case will play itself out. I suppose it is possible that Bush may somehow eventually bow to international pressure on this issue and extradite Posada to Venezuela, where he is wanted in connection with the airliner bombing. If he does so, however, it will have taken place only after a snail's pace of activity, hand wringing and reluctance to do anything at all. Bush has already shown where his sympathies lie. He has shown that he doesn't treat all terrorists the same way. As pointed out above, whereas his regime didn't hesitate to send a suspected terrorist to Syria without delay, his State Department is currently taking its time in deciding what to do about Posada. There are reports that Bush is considering some way of giving Posada a "soft landing" by sending him somewhere other than Venezuela, which, I might add, has an extradition treaty with the United States and thus has every right to ask for Posada. Funny how Maher Ahar wasn't given a "soft landing" when he was sent to Syria, possibly to face torture. Whether they end up doing that for Posada or not, the very fact that the State Department would even consider such a thing speaks volumes. Really, what is there to consider?
It is valuable to remember that when Bush uses words like "democracy" or "terrorism", he uses them selectively and in ways that only serve to advance his own agenda. Bush does not really believe in democracy, and his definition of terrorism is skewed to mean essentially whatever he wants it to mean.
The above quote is fascinating in light of recent news events. An international terrorist named Luis Posada recently entered the United States illegally and hung out for a couple of months. He is wanted by the Venezuelan government in connection with the bombing of a Cuban airliner back in 1976. You'd think that the United States, which has some firsthand experience with terrorism committed with an airliner, might have immediately taken action against this terrorist, especially since it wasn't exactly a secret that he was in the country. But, funnily enough, when the news first broke that he was hiding out now in the United States, the State Department denied it. In fact, they claimed that this charge was "completely manufactured".
Yet, somehow, this person who the State Department insisted was not in the United States got arrested recently--you guessed it--being in the United States illegally. Go figure.
Why all this subterfuge? Why was the State Department doing nothing but sitting on its hands while this terrorist roamed freely in the US? Why did this terrorist even think that he could safely hide out the United States? Well, my friends, the answer is simple. You see, Posada is what the Bushites consider a good terrorist. It doesn't matter if you kill civilians, it doesn't matter if you blow up airplanes--as long as you are a right wing terrorist, that's okay in the neocon philosophy. Normally, when a suspected international terrorist enters the United States, he is immediately whisked away to some other country to be tried or tortured or whatever the destination government feels like doing. Case in point: Maher Ahar. He was a Syrian-born Canadian who was in the US in 2002, and because of his alleged ties to al-Qaeda, he was sent immediately--not to his home in Canada, but to Syria--hardly a friend of the US, but it is a government where he could be subjected to torture. (This is reminiscent of the frequent Bush regime policy of "rendition", where prisoners are sent off to countries that practice torture, thus allowing a sort of torture by proxy, and allowing Bush to export the acts of torture while claiming to wash his hands of the matter himself.)
Nothing like that happened in the case of Posada, who has now been arrested, and the US government is trying to figure out how to handle him. One thing is certain--they are treating him with kid gloves.
There is no doubt, by the way, that Posada is a terrorist. An article from Canada's National Post points out,
Posada has since admitted, and later denied, to orchestrating the bombing of Havana tourist hotels in 1997 that killed one person...Though declassified FBI reports link Posada to the Cuban airliner bombing, he has long been viewed by the U.S. government as a "freedom fighter" because of his vigorous opposition to Castro's Communist regime....
If Posada was a terrorist, the logic seemed to go, at least he was America's kind of terrorist.
So what is the difference, in Bush's mind, between, say, Mohamed Atta, whose act of terrorism involved a airplanes, and Luis Posada? Answer that question, and you will go a long way towards understanding the mentality of the ostensible Bush policy on terrorism. It is interesting to note that not just the current President, but the entire Bush family has a long association with Posada's band of terrorists. The above mentioned article points out that:
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush pardoned Orlando Bosch, Posada's alleged co-conspirator in the Cuban airliner bombing, who had snuck into the U.S. illegally three years earlier.Bush's policy on terrorism has a converse side. To borrow a metaphor from the world of medicine, the Posada case is an example of a false negative--he is a terrorist who the Bushites are reluctant to identify as such. There is also the case of the false positive--a political activist who is not a terrorist, but whose politics are left wing, and thus opposed by Bush, and who is consequently banned from the US from entering solely because of his or her politics. The most convenient way to do this is to brand them a "terrorist", without substantiation or justification.The elder Bush intervened against the advice of the Justice department, after interventions from his son Jeb Bush, who was then working for Republican congresswoman and Cuban exile Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
We saw this back in March, the State Department denied a visa to Dora Maria Tellez, who had been a leader of the army that overthrew Nicaraguan dictatorship of Somoza. Being in an army that overthrew a dictator got her labeled as a "terrorist" by the State Department, a charge which was patently ridiculous and, obviously, just a cover for an ideologically motivated act of repression. As an article in the UK newspaper the Guardian put it,
Last year Ms Tellez, now a historian, was appointed as the Robert F Kennedy visiting professor in Latin American studies in the divinity department at Harvard, a post which is shared with the Rockefeller Centre for Latin American Studies. She was due to start teaching students this spring.Of course, Gioconda Belli's rhetorical question about how the United States can justify the invasion of Iraq is itself telling, since there is no justification for that invasion. But then, you knew that.
The US state department has told her she is ineligible because of involvement in "terrorist acts". A spokesman for the department confirmed yesterday that she had been denied a visa under a section making those who had been involved in terrorist acts ineligible. He said he could not comment further on the reasons for the ban.
"I have no idea why they are refusing me a visa," said Ms Tellez from her home in Managua yesterday. "I have been in the US many times before - on holidays, at conferences, on official business."
A number of academics and writers are protesting against the ban. "It is absurd," said Gioconda Belli, the Nicaraguan writer who was also an active member of the Sandinistas and is now based in Los Angeles. "Dora Maria is an outstanding woman who fought against a dictatorship. If fighting against tyranny is 'terrorism' how does the United States justify the invasion of Iraq? It is an insult."
Of course, it's early in the game to know how the Posada case will play itself out. I suppose it is possible that Bush may somehow eventually bow to international pressure on this issue and extradite Posada to Venezuela, where he is wanted in connection with the airliner bombing. If he does so, however, it will have taken place only after a snail's pace of activity, hand wringing and reluctance to do anything at all. Bush has already shown where his sympathies lie. He has shown that he doesn't treat all terrorists the same way. As pointed out above, whereas his regime didn't hesitate to send a suspected terrorist to Syria without delay, his State Department is currently taking its time in deciding what to do about Posada. There are reports that Bush is considering some way of giving Posada a "soft landing" by sending him somewhere other than Venezuela, which, I might add, has an extradition treaty with the United States and thus has every right to ask for Posada. Funny how Maher Ahar wasn't given a "soft landing" when he was sent to Syria, possibly to face torture. Whether they end up doing that for Posada or not, the very fact that the State Department would even consider such a thing speaks volumes. Really, what is there to consider?
It is valuable to remember that when Bush uses words like "democracy" or "terrorism", he uses them selectively and in ways that only serve to advance his own agenda. Bush does not really believe in democracy, and his definition of terrorism is skewed to mean essentially whatever he wants it to mean.
Post a Comment