OUR TERRORIST. Be sure to read Peter Kornbluh's Nation article on the curious case of Luis Posada Carriles. Posada is suspected of blowing up a Cuban jetliner in 1976, killing 73 people. He has a history of anti-Castro violence, and worked for the CIA during the 1960s and 1970s. Posada has been in the United States for some time, yet the Bush administration has refused to turn him over to the Venezuelan government on the grounds that Venezuela might extradite him to Cuba, which could result in torture. That is to say, in something of a reverse of "extraordinary rendition," the United States is refusing to send a suspected terrorist to Cuba because he might be tortured. The U.S.'s refusal to extradite Posada would be laudable if it stemmed from a genuine desire to prevent the torture of a criminal suspect. Of course, it does not; the Bush administration has refused to declare Posada a terrorist, and has refused to deny his extradition (which would put the responsibility of prosecuting him on the United States). The U.S. has tried to extradite him to a third country, several of which have refused the transfer. If nothing is done, Posada could go free within the next few days. Because Posada has directed his acts of terrorism against a country unfriendly to the United States, because he has friends in the Cuban exile movement, and because he's worked for the CIA, the Bush administration wants nothing to do with him. It's a bit of an understatement to suggest that this stance is morally reprehensible. Indeed, it would be difficult to invent a set of circumstances more likely to demonstrate hypocrisy on the part of the administration. The International Criminal Court would be an ideal venue to try Posada were it not for the fact that the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to crimes committed since 2002, a limitation which spares the administration the additional embarassment of refusing to turn over a terrorist out of ideological hostility to the ICC. So what now? The United States can prosecute Posada under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows any state to prosecute offenses such as slavery, piracy, and terrorism. Given that Posada has worked with the CIA in the past and that he has connections in right-wing political circles, it's unclear that a trial in the U.S. could be conducted with any degree of fairness. The U.S. could turn Posada over to Venezuela, an act which would be in line with international jurisprudence and U.S. policy regarding terrorism over the past five years. The United States has recently done its best to minimize use of the "political exception," which allows states to refuse extradition of terror suspects on the grounds of human rights concerns, although it made liberal use of the exception to prevent the extradition of IRA terrorists in the 1980s. Finally, the administration could release Posada, thus achieving the goal of rendering the phrase "War on Terror" even more meaningless. I think that either handing him to Venezuela or trying him here would be acceptable; both run some risk, but are less problematic than simply letting him go. Deep thanks to several experts on international human rights law for assistance on this post.
--Robert Farley
