Patriots or terrorists?

Información enviada al Director de Tlahui. Puerto Rico 14 May 1999. Re: May 14 posting. "Patriots or terrorists?". Tuesday, May 11, 1999. , El Nuevo Día, by Hector Reichard Cardona [ex-Secretary of Justice]

The fifteen Puerto Ricans who are serving prison sentences in the United States for Federal crimes are the object of an agitated polemic: some think they should be released for being patriots, and others think they are appropriately sentenced for being criminals, terrorists.

Love of the homeland, for a free Puerto Rico, is what justifies--some say--robbery to finance the cause of independence with the proceeds of such an act. Preparing, possessing, and being ready to use at a given moment explosives and weapons to assault strategic properties and thus advance the cause of independence, some think, is acting as a patriot.

Those who think this way argue that Puerto Rico is an occupied nation: Puerto Rico was invaded in 1898 and thus, force is justified to repel the invader. It may be asked: what difference is there, after all, between repelling the English in the United States' revolution, and repelling the Northamericans in Puerto Rico?

At the other end of the spectrum of political thought, these arguments which certain separatists maintain are questioned on moral and political terms. They are terrorists, some say; common criminals, say others [...].

People of the stature of Carlos Romero Barceló refuse to make distinctions between the fifteen convicted of Federal offenses and any other person convicted because--correctly--there are no political offenses in the Northamerican legal system. Nor is it less correct that the prisoners' motivation for the commission of these offenses, from the moral and ethical point of view--I would clarify, not from the legal point of view--makes their situation distinguishable, although unacceptable for a society constituted under the imperial rule of law.

Regardless of what has been said so far, in favor or against their freedom, whether they are called patriots or terrorists, the reality is that a cross-section of our Puerto Rican society, a significant group of our civil society, supports the release of our fellow citizens. People of the stature of don Luis A. Ferré, of the senior Bishops of the Christian Churches, as well as pastors and priests of different denominations, have declared their support for the release of these Puerto Rican prisoners.

Up to now, the manner in which their freedom has been sought has been through letters signed by thousands of Puerto Ricans, directed to the Honorable William (Bill) Clinton, seeking their release. In essence, what these people are seeking is that the President consider that the time these imprisoned people have lived behind bars, and, in many cases, the way in which they have lived and have been treated, has been sufficient punishment for the offense committed. Seen from another perspective, what is sought is that each case be evaluated individually and that it be determined whether they have paid their debt to society: whether they have paid for their guilt.

There is a juridical basis for the case-by-case examination of the files of these imprisoned people. It is proven by multiple studies carried out in the United States by responsible individuals and entities that the criminal system results in relatively more severe sentences against Blacks and Hispanics than against white anglosaxons. There are fully documented experiences that the imprisonment of Blacks and Hispanics in the United States is more severe, oppressive and with more limitations and fewer privileges than that of whites confined in similar situations. This double discrimination we present here is nothing new. On the contrary, this information is easily available.

In light of the foregoing, the case-by-case examination we suggest is something no one can object to because it has to do with equal justice for all. To not do so is to close one's eyes to reality while rejecting a moral obligation. The result of these examinations will dictate what should be done in the way of justice and for what is know, there should be enough reasons to do it.

President Clinton, former Attorney General from the state of Arkansas, should favorably receive the kind of suggestion I am making, given that it is the way in which ordinarily petitions for executive clemency are handled.

This way of handling the request in favor of the fifteen people should receive the overwhelming support of all sectors of civil society, which would nourish favor for a rapid consideration on the part of the President and widen its possibility of success. Without doubt, a united Puerto Rico would achieve the proposed objectives.

Patriots or terrorists? Each person will decide according to his own criteria, but let us not permit a definition to avoid a just result, because at the end of the day, what is important is that justice and truth triumph.

The author is an ex-secretary of Justice.

From: National Committee to Free Puerto Rican Prisoners prpowpp@aol.com
Más información - Further information - Plus d'information