Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) terrorist paroled

84 posts in this topic

This casts doubt that she has reformed:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Haule

Haule was due for release in 2001, but the Rhein-Main Air Base bombing and murder of Edward Pimental charges were brought against her. New pieces of evidence (which involved Haule's own letters to another RAF member in prison containing self-incriminating information) were used to prove her guilt and she has since had her sentence extended.

What else has she done? At least four murders, two bombings and a robbery, plus membership in a terrorist group. If she had confessed to everything when she was caught, or while in prison, you could make a better case for her being reformed, although it would still be a weak one.

 

EDIT: so, it looks like she only got six years for the three murders of Americans!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ Gideon: Deterrent?

At the time of their crimes, there was still the death penalty in the UK though not by the time they came for sentencing.

Didn't deter Brady and Hindley did it?

But yuo cant answer me the question of how many did it deter?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be best to steer this thread away from a debate on the death penalty.

 

Just sayin'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If she had confessed to everything when she was caught, or while in prison

Ever heard of "you have the right to remain silent" ?

 

As I said, I can't judge how reformed she is from one article and a Wiki entry.

That's what social workers and the probation officers are for.

 

She did the crime.

She did the time.

She is released on probation under the due legal process.

 

You are pefectly entitled to disagree with the legal process as it now stands, but that is how it stands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monkstown, six years for killing three people, wounding, what, 23, and a bombing? A reformed person would not cover up a crime that had been committed, which she obviously did.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

She did the crime.

She did the time.

Do you know, this as a saying has the moral fortitude comparable with "I was only following orders", or "Hamas used those children we bombed as human shields".

 

and aslong as she remains silent, how can we as a society - lets forget the left leaning fluffy social workers who can be worked like puppets by people - know she has refomed if we do not know the extent of her crime?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conq. Sentencing in Europe is concurrent not consecutive.

You see sentences in USA courts (vagueley remember from a link of yours) of people getting 100 year sentences etc.

Or 5 times 50 years or whatever.

 

Doesn't happen that way in Europe.

 

She did the crime

She did the time

 

might sound pat Gideon, but it is a statement of the fact.

She comitted crimes, she was subjected to the due legal process.

The alternative is that there is no legal process.

 

It may well be that one feels that the recommended minimum either by judge and / or statute was too short.

But there has to be that minimum / parole date combination.

 

In Europe, you don't "throw away the key".

Until Hindley did every UK Home Secretary a favour by dying, she was on the brink of forcing a release through the European Courts.

 

The minimum plus the extended sentencing in this case could have been set at twenty years and thiis discussion would simply be happening five years down the line.

 

Probation Workers is different from social workers, I've known a couple in my time and they aren't that fluffy.

Did she commit more crimes? Possibly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seeing as the USA has supported terrorist groups all over the globe, if I were a US citizen I wouldn't make too much of a fuss when someone else has the same idea and it comes back and bites you on the arse.

 

http://www.noraid.com/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

 

etc etc etc. If you dont like the laws of other countries why dont you just kidnap the suspects send them off to some third world country for a bit of special treatment and then lock them up on an island somewhere without trial...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well seeing as the USA has supported terrorist groups all over the globe, if I were a US citizen I wouldn't make too much of a fuss when someone else has the same idea and it comes back and bites you on the arse.

[

OK, Fuchs, name those terrorist groups. Every single one, as well as the specific nature of that support.

 

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone would excuse the cold-blooded murder of US servicemembers.

 

EDIT: You cite noraid.com? What is wrong with you? It is not as if it was official US policy to support the IRA- it was anything but.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

She did the crime

She did the time

 

might sound pat Gideon, but it is a statement of the fact.

She comitted crimes, she was subjected to the due legal process.

The alternative is that there is no legal process.

Sorry, she didnt steal cars did she. She didn't dodge taxes. Those are crimes. What she took was irreplacable. This just shows the draw back to a non-jury system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone would excuse the cold-blooded murder of US servicemembers.

Stop playing the permenant bloody victim!

 

The reason you started this thread was not to discuss the working of the due legal process but goad someone into

making the above (not especially helpful) comment so you could run crying to mummy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This just shows the draw back to a non-jury system.

How would a jury or otherwise influence the sentence?

They might well make a reccomendation, the judge makes his judgement in sentencing in combination with current statute.

 

We (as society) set out the penalties for certain crimes in advance, neutrally, coldly.

The tarif for murder is up to "life, with a reccomendation the convict serve X years".

 

Once those X years up, they must be given a parole date.

 

As I said, we could as a society set that X as 20, 25 years - though following the USA style 100 years would probably fail in the European courts.

Once those X years are up, we get into the same situation we are in now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, Fuchs, name those terrorist groups. Every single one, as well as the specific nature of that support.

 

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone would excuse the cold-blooded murder of US servicemembers.

EDIT: You cite noraid.com? What is wrong with you?

The CIA supported the Ba'ath Party's 1968 coup d'état against the Government of Rahman Arif, with Saddam Husein eventually assuming power

 

The Taliban were based in the Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan regions, and were overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominantly Durrani Pashtuns. They received training and arms from Pakistan, the U.S. as well as other Middle Eastern countries who had been recruited by the U.S. to thwart the Soviet invasion of this region.

 

Often cited as one of the American intelligence community's biggest mistakes was the training, arming, supplying and supporting of the Mujahedeen (Islamist fighters) in Afghanistan, initiated under Carter and greatly expanded under Reagan, as American proxy soldiers against the Marxist regime and later the Soviet intervention. Part of the Mujahedeen trained by the CIA later became the core cadre of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda Islamist organization.

 

n the United States in November 1982, five men were acquitted of smuggling arms to the IRA after they revealed the Central Intelligence Agency had approved the shipment (although the CIA officially denied this)

 

thats the product of 10 minutes of me looking around.

 

just helping out :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stop playing the permenant bloody victim!

 

The reason you started this thread was not to discuss the working of the due legal process but goad someone into

making the above (not especially helpful) comment so you could run crying to mummy.

Wrong. It was to discuss the sentences given out in Germany for some of the most heinous murders and terrorist attacks this country has seen. Direct your fire at your countryman Fuchs for his ridiculous remarks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, Fuchs, name those terrorist groups. Every single one, as well as the specific nature of that support.

 

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone would excuse the cold-blooded murder of US servicemembers.

I'm not excusing ANY deaths caused by terrorists, where did I say that?

 

As for a full list that would be difficult wouldn't it? There are however some glaring examples 2 of which are above

 

NORAID an organisation that provided financial and material support to the IRA for a couple of decades and was allowed to do so, where do you think the "Boyos" got hold of Barratt 50 cal sniper rifles that led to the deaths of British soldiers? It was an organisation that was allowed to operate in the open without interferance from the authorities.

 

How about the Contras? "Freedom fighters" I hear you squeek, well one man's freedom fighter is anothers terrorist and they certainly took part in terrorist operations.

 

Hang on aren't the Taliban terrorists these days? Well the US was falling over itself to provide them and or their predecessors with arms when they were fighting against the Great Satan of the day.

 

The RAF terrorists (who survived) were subject to the laws of this land, bust!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was to discuss the sentences given out in Germany for some of the most heinous murders and terrorist attacks this country has seen.

She was sentenced under due legal process.

You could argue for the due legal process to be changed if such a case was ever sentenced again.

 

But if you move X years from 15 to 20 or even 25, it doesn't change the fundamental principle.

In Europe, there are (in theory) no executions, no 100 year etc prison sentences and sentences generally run concurrently.

 

 

Direct your fire at your countryman Fuchs for his ridiculous remarks.

I don't think Fuchs66's comment were particuarly helpful to this discussion.

The fact that he and I happen (it appears) to have Liz Windsor's tag on our passport means what?

 

It's exactly the same as when you shout "IRA" at any Irish poster who disagrees with you or pulls you up for talking shite.

It exposes you, shows you are floundering in even the shallowest of waters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How would a jury or otherwise influence the sentence?

Because it gives the judge a reality check. I've only ever met one high court judge here in Munich, and as an amazingly a liberal guy as he was, his view of the world was based on what was written in those books, not what society requested and called for. Any argument on what would be an emotionaly charged moral question would faze him. Typical ethics I guess, you know a child is hidden somewhwere and if you dont find out where she'll die. The criminal is linked by non-refutable proof to the crime DNA CCTV but refuses to say anything. What do you do?

 

You have to admit 15 for three lives works out a five a pop. Cheap. Disgustingly so. I'm sure each family took longer thanthat to get back up on their feet. Oh but shes reformed. Good. She got away with it, more like and is keeping stum about the rest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in English it's "schtumm" :P

That's the moral question one can alway come back to Gideon. Is there only a "little bit of torture" to get someone to talk?

Didn't a chief copper near Frankfurt have to resign over just a comment about that a few years ago?

 

The input of society IS important and I think that should happen IN ADVANCE.

So let us as a society decide to move that X to 20 years, 25 years.

But it doesn't change the fundamentals of the argument.

 

Didn't German society have the change to change the sentencing priactice between 1977 and 1988?

Schäuble was part of the government then wasn't he?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The CIA supported the Ba'ath Party's 1968 coup d'état against the Government of Rahman Arif, with Saddam Husein eventually assuming power

 

thats the product of 10 minutes of me looking around.

 

just helping out

You need to cite some source to back you up on the 1968 coup. Keep in mind that Rahman Arif's brother came to power in 1963 via a military coup. Are you saying that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist?

 

Just like a roach motel- the anti-American crowd is checking in.

 

Try to cite your quotes from Wikipedia, it's not that hard to do:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

The Taliban were based in the Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan regions, and were overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominantly Durrani Pashtuns. They received training and arms from Pakistan, the U.S. as well as other Middle Eastern countries who had been recruited by the U.S. to thwart the Soviet invasion of this region.

 

The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994

The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1988. The Taliban did not come into being until 6 years later. Sorry, they were not funded as a terrorist group. Try to Spend a little more than 10 minutes on your anti-American fantasies.

 

 

Often cited as one of the American intelligence community's biggest mistakes was the training, arming, supplying and supporting of the Mujahedeen (Islamist fighters) in Afghanistan, initiated under Carter and greatly expanded under Reagan, as American proxy soldiers against the Marxist regime and later the Soviet intervention. Part of the Mujahedeen trained by the CIA later became the core cadre of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda Islamist organization.

Were they, in your own estimation, terrorists at the time they were provided aid? I don't think so, therefore that was not aiding terrorists.

 

By your logic, the parents of the Red Army Faction are guilty of supporting terrorism by giving birth to the terrorists.

 

n

 

 

the United States in November 1982, five men were acquitted of smuggling arms to the IRA after they revealed the Central Intelligence Agency had approved the shipment (although the CIA officially denied this)

Wow, that's very specific. More information, such as at least their names, needed to actually get some reliable and complete information about this. Sounds doubtful to me- the UK is one of the US' closest allies, and you can guess who the IRA had ties to.

 

Thin gruel from the anti-American crowd, as usual. No suprise there, as you don't require much, if any, evidence to support your reflexive anti-Americanism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0