Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site cad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!cad!hijab
From: hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <315@cad.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-May-86 13:38:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: cad.315
Posted: Sat May 10 13:38:26 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 00:35:48 EDT
References: <720@ark.UUCP> <4600001@qtecmuc.UUCP> <152@suneast.uucp> <2323@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Organization: U. C. Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 21
Summary: On French and Italian Attitudes Toward Terrorists

In article <2323@hcrvx2.UUCP>, jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
> Note that the policy being ascribed to France  is consistent with
> the "France first" nationalism that exists there. Also, let us not
> forget that it was Italy who refused to hold on to Abu Niddas (sp?)
> when they had him. If there was a good reason for letting him go that
> I did not hear about, I would be more than willing to entertain it now.

Abu Abbas was freed because of two reasons:

	1) The evidence of his direct involvement claimed by the
	   U.S. was not in the hands of the Italian judiciary.

	2) Abu Abbas had a diplomatic passport, which meant he 
	   could not be detained without due cause, and without
	   antagonizing the country which issued the passport
	   (I am not sure which one.)

Abu Abbas had not committed any crimes on Italian soil. However, even if
he had, Italy would still have had to release him. An example of this is
the British release of the Libyan embassy official who shot the British
policewoman, because he had diplomatic immunity.