Marselo Tone <Revolucion@gnn.com> wrote: >You disappoint me and disillusion me a bit. I can't believe that you're >willing to believe what the anti-Castro Herald says right off the bat. Oh, gee. I've disappointed Marselo Tone. What do I do now? Look, Marselo, I have no doubt that the Herald's article was factual as far as it went. There is every reason to believe that the ICAO did in fact determine that the planes were in international airspace, that the pilots were not given adequate warning, and that the US failed to take vigorous action against the HAR overflights. The Herald, Marselo, reported that the ICAO had made these findings. Do you think the ICAO made such findings? The issue is not whether you agree with the ICAO: you can believe whatever you wish about what actually happened on February 24th. I, however, took a public position in this forum back in February and March that the US had rushed to judge Cuba before all the facts were in. I stated at that time that Cuba deserved an impartial hearing before a neutral body. I stated at that time that the ICAO was the appropriate neutral body before which such a hearing should take place. And I stated that I would accept the ICAO's ruling, if it appeared to be fair. >From what I've seen so far, the ICAO ruling clearly appears to be fair. Cuba's objections to the ruling, as posted by Nino, strike me as particularly weak on the most fundamental issues. On some incidental points, I think Cuba might have legitimate grievances. But on the main question of where the planes were when they were shot down, I find the official Cuban position to be utterly unconvincing. [21 lines left ... full text available at <url:http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/go?choice=message&table=04_1997&mid=4326516&hilit=COPYRIGHT+LEGAL> ] -------------------------------- Article-ID: 04_1997&4338185 Score: 78 Subject: Re: What Johnnie Jackboots knows about the Internet