Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!oliver
From: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: State Terrorism
Message-ID: <355@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 21:09:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.355
Posted: Sat Oct 19 21:09:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 00:37:41 EDT
References: <903@abnji.UUCP>
Reply-To: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver)
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.flame:12420 net.politics:11586
Summary: 

In article <903@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes:
>Well, I'll bet that many of you are happy that the US Government has
>hijacked a plane on which the alleged terrorists were leaving
>Egypt.  I ask you, however, to think for a moment on the implications
>of these actions.
>
>Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as
>an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government?  By the US legal
>system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted
>without the due process of the law being followed.
>US legal officers are required to follow the laws of the land 
>when apprehending a 
>subject; I realise that the people on the plane were not in the US,
>and not subject by law to US constitutional protections, however
>I must urge people to extend our protections when dealing with
>others (The Golden rule, eh?), otherwise we end up with a regional
>chauvanism in our dealings with others.


Indeed, the alleged murderers of the 69 year old paraplegic had not, as
yet, had benefit of trial.  However, even in the US, agents of public safety 
are allowed to apprehend suspects prior to trial.  If extradition had been
allowed by the Italian authorities, the suspects would have, without doubt,
had full benefit of Miranda. 

If you really want to stick to the letter of the law, then, begging the
question of jurisdiction, the fact that the suspects were fleeing 
in a vehicle belonging to another nation and with
the knowledge of the other nation does not provide protection from apprehension.It simply makes the owner of the vehicle an accessory after the fact to
premeditated murder. 

I'm not sure about the jurisdictional question, but I believe that the
interception of pirates in international waters or airspace is not
a problem.  


>
>I do not approve of terrorism, but I do not have an answer.  I do know
>that the use of terrorism in reprisal is not a cure.  

Apprehension of a fleeing suspect is not terrorism.

>How can we expect
>people to believe us in the future when we say as a nation that we
>do not condone terrorism when we are one of the practitoners?

We can hope that they will certainly believe that we will continue
to support the apprehension, trial, and punishment of murderers.


>James C. Armstrong, Jnr.	{ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa

Bill Oliver

The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and 
should not be considered those of any other
official, nor those of any agency or office, of the State of North Carolina.