TA-HISTORY: Germany Frees Terrorist Who Killed Sailor During 1985 Hijacking

He's a dead man.....if the CIA is what Souljah says it is, than they will hire a gunman to shoot this POS in the streets of Beirut.

America never forgets and this Punk still has not paid in full for what he did.....as far as Germany goes, their actions make me sick.


Maximu§

I find it hard to believe we don't have an extradition treaty with Germany...that's strange. Still, I think Germany should have turned over this creep to us rather than let him go. I hope the speculation here that he's a dead man if he's in Lebanese custody is correct -- if that's the case then perhaps things did turn out for the best, I'm sure whatever justice that exists there is much swifter than he would have faced had he been turned over to the U.S. federal government.

[edit on 12/21/2005 by djohnsto77]

Well, maybe things won't go quite so smoothly after all. Hamadi does seem to be in custody, but Lebanon is expressing reluctance to turn over the scoudrel.

The US does have an extradition treaty with Germany. It's Lebanon that you don't have an agreement with.

www.usextradition.com...

Then why haven't they abided by it?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I find it hard to believe we don't have an extradition treaty with Germany.

As far as I know, German law is against extraditing prisoners to the U.S. if death sentences would be sought.

Originally posted by Riwka

As far as I know, German law is against extraditing prisoners to the U.S. if death sentences would be sought.

So the Germans decided to punish him for America and they expect us to applaud for that. Seriously, do they expect us to leave him alone?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Then why haven't they abided by it?

I don't quite know why, or if they have even broken it. There's a few technicalities and I guess it comes down to how the countries interpret the treaties. I'm no lawyer. I think there is a lot we're not being told.

My best guess is that the initial extradition request was turned down because of the possibility of the death penalty. Germany will not extradite to countries with the death penalty without assurances against it's use. They could have just asked for assurances that it wouldn't be sought, like Canada and the UK do. This is what confuses me. Either Germany didn't ask for assurance or they did and it was refused or they were given assurance and decided against sending him.

Now that he has been convicted and served time in Germany, I suppose they view it as a double-jeopardy situation. They feel he has served his time for this, the US doesn't.

I think its safe to say....whoever is holding this stinkin-peice-of-garbage is waiting to see how much money the US will hand over for him.

Thats what it all comes down to.....cold hard cash.


Maximu§

Originally posted by Duzey
The US does have an extradition treaty with Germany. It's Lebanon that you don't have an agreement with.

www.usextradition.com...

OK...I guess I misread the article

So why didn't Germany hand him over? If its a problem with capital punishment, they make deals all the time to avoid seeking that and get extraditions.

I don't know.

The US has never refused to give Canada assurance on extraditions. I don't know why they wouldn't do the same for Germany.

I suspect that Germany didn't ask for assurance.

Lonestar postulated earlier that Germany could not have negotiated a trade, due to the timeline.

by Lonestar24
That assumption is incorrect. The timeline alone is proof of that.

Thank you for providing the details of the dates. It does help help me determine if it really was impossible that Germany released Hammadi in exchange for a hostage or not.

I would like to analyze the timeline a little, if I may.

by Lonestar24
It was not known what had happened to her until the 29th Nov. when a still image was sent to a german NBC.

I think you mean that it was not publicly known until 29th Nov. Right? It is not known when the German government became aware of the kidnapping. Is it?

by Lonestar24
The first official contact between the kidnappers and the German representatives was made in early December.

The key words being "Official contact". This still leave quite a bit of time for "unofficial contact" and negotiation to be going on from day one. Right?

by Lonestar24
She finally was released on the 18th of December. It is assumed that she wasnt released earlier because many transnational roads were closed

The key words being "assumed". Right? I am afraid that assumption isnt logical to me. Oh, golly dont release the hostage. The roads are all closed! See, what I mean? I exagerate, but it just doesnt add up to me.

by Lonestar24
He was released around the 15th. of December (and not "secretly" as some media reports suggest, there just was no fuzz about it).

The key word, being "around" does not correlate with key words "not secret". Was he released on the 19th or not?



Now lets look at the facts again without any added comments.

Osthoff was kidnapped on the 25th of Nov.
The court ruling to parole Hammadi was made on the 30th Nov.
Hammadi was released from prison around the 15th.
Osthoff finally was released on the 18th of December.

It seems that it was possible for an exchange to be arranged.

[edit on 12/21/05 by makeitso]

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. This guy was convicted of this murder and served 19 years and was released. Or is there a 2nd murder he is wanted for?

Originally posted by Agent47
He stood trial in a different country for charges that encompassed the hijacking not just the murder by itself. This man murdered an American servicemen which is far different from some murderer serving 10-20 for knocking off a rival drug dealer or some nonsense. He kililed a man serving in the Navy and deserves to answer for his crimes.

(sings)Oh, say, can you see.....(/sings)

Pleeeeze. What makes the murder of a US serviceman any worse than the murder of anyone else? The bloke was shot dead, not tortured to death.

He has answered for his crimes.

Why should he be dragged to the US to answer for his crimes when the US refuses to allow its soldiers to be sent to the Hague to answer for theirs?

Especially as the US has such a dismal record of punishing its war criminals.

One rule for the world and one for the US.

Again.

Edit:

No, it appears I was wrong. Earlier today I read a report that said Stetham was shot dead for refusing to denounce the US.

Now I have read a report that described his death as "slow and grisly".

rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk...

It could be that the first report I read, which I cannot now find, simply said he was killed for refusing to denounce the US.

In which case I retract my sarcam and sniping tone but keep my statement that the murder of a US serviceman is in no way worse just because he's a US serviceman.

As for why he wasn't extradited, I point you here:

US officials said the country's extradition treaty with Germany did not permit them to seek the extradition of someone on charges for which they have already served time in prison.

www.news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 22-12-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by makeitso
Now lets look at the facts again without any added comments.

Osthoff was kidnapped on the 25th of Nov.
The court ruling to parole Hammadi was made on the 30th Nov.
Hammadi was released from prison around the 15th.
Osthoff finally was released on the 18th of December.

It seems that it was possible for an exchange to be arranged.

Yes.
One has to know that Germany is also an important broker between Hezbullah and Israeli officials over the issue of detainees in Israel and exchange of prisoners between the two sides.

So I personaly think it could have been possible that Hammadi was released in exchange for Mrs. Osthoff.

Interesting that so many people doubted that a trade would have been arranged, although it is very obvious.
At the same time, so many people want to rake every President of the U.S. since Reagan (except for Clinton) for every possible conspiracy. UPI says she was a spy, now. Does that make you members of this conspiracy board think a little more conspiratorial?

www.wpherald.com...

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

Just because she probably had worked for the BND occasionally that doesnt make her a spy - it makes her a contact.

And again on Hammadi: an extradition treaty creates the POSSIBILTY for extradition, but it doesnt oblige to do that. Apart from that, several state court spokesperson said that there never had been a formal extradition request. And all the news sources I read said that US "government/diplomatic representatives" or "security persons" had negotiated the Hammadi case with the German government - never was it said that the US officials used the proper channels to file the request. It isnt much help to ask any given politian or ambassador to extradite; because they have nothing whatsoever to say to a german court - especially if its a state and not a federal court. Germans call that "Independence of the Law", and I reckon this principle usually is valued in the USA too, isnt it? So why should he have been extradited if the specific court never "formally" knew that the US wanted Hammadi extradited?

Initially people in this thread did not believe the german statements that the parole process started several months before the court ruling to grant parole. Now even the US spokespersons say that they were aware of a parole process this year. So could we please stop drwing any connection between the two cases? No casual BND contact is worth turning the whole german law system upside-down - not least because more than one head would roll if the truth about such a theoretical secret service coup ever came out.

And as a personal note: The apparent broad appraisal in this thread for a government-ordered assasination of Hammadi, which would be against US Law, International Law and about every second juristic principle the western law system is founded upon, is very saddening to put it mildly.

[edit on 10/1/2006 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Just because she probably had worked for the BND occasionally that doesnt make her a spy - it makes her a contact.

No it makes her an agent.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
And as a personal note: The apparent broad appraisal in this thread for a government-ordered assasination of Hammadi, which would be against US Law, International Law and about every second juristic principle the western law system is founded upon, is very saddening to put it mildly.

[edit on 10/1/2006 by Lonestar24]

I for one have no desire to have Hammadi assinated. I would however contribute towards a plane ticket to Iraq for him. Let him go back to his old ways and then he can be killed legally.

Robert Stetham was tortured to get him to cry out over a radio to pressure the Lebanese into sending the plane a fuel truck, when he wouldn't comply he was killed.

(National Review Online) This column was written by Michael Ledeen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a letter from Kenneth Stethem to President George W. Bush. Ken is a former U.S. special-forces operator and the brother of Robert Dean Stethem, the Navy diver who was brutally tortured and murdered by Hezbollah 20 years ago. Robert's murderer was just released by the German government (and fled to Lebanon) in an apparent exchange for a German hostage in Iraq.

Letter to President Bush

Here is Susanne; how can anyone mistake this woman for anything more than a victim?

external image

Oh, but here is another picture of this woman, on Arabic TV, where she looks a bit different, huh? A little propaganda somewehre, I'd say.



Here is another picture, a still from a German TV news, showing her in a very odd light, considering all:



[edit on 11-1-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Here is Susanne; how can anyone mistake this woman for anything more than a victim?

foto.arcor-online.net...

If I may translate the text on the picture:
Susanne Osthoff (43) at an Excavation in South Iraq in May 2005. There she documented theft of archaeological preciouses. Like everyone else there the archaeologist carried a weapon for self-defense.

So what does this picture prove, other than that valuable relics attract criminals and people are eager to defend themselves?

Oh, but here is another picture of this woman, on Arabic TV, where she looks a bit different, huh? A little propaganda somewehre, I'd say.

www.heute.de...

How is this propaganda? She is known to carry a scarf/headdress in public, and specifically on official occasions with muslims. After all she is a muslim. And where is the problem with a person dressing up decently in the face of an international TV interview?

Here is another picture, a still from a German TV news, showing her in a very odd light, considering all:

www.heute.de...

That interview was very strange. The woman acted very confused and wasnt able to form a distinct cohesive sentence - the interview was edited by the channel "to protect herself". The hood however allegedly was because she didnt want to give german media (which she critizised) more fuel against her - it wasnt a religious statement. The interview also largely focused on her relations to Germany, with her refusing to give definitive answers to questions around the kidnapping and its end.

And this is the latest picture of her in an 45 minutes interview on monday:


So what do this and the other pictures prove? Absolutely nothing. What she did do in the 2 german interviews was critizising the handling of the situation by german officials ("They could have acted a lot quicker") and also lamenting about Germany ("The Germans hate me."; "My landlord threw me out."). She did dement a "more than casual and centered on her archaeologic work BND and embassy contact" ("If I had been an informant, they would have killed me.") BTW she did plan to wear a scarf over her hair in that latest interview, but was convinced by her daughter not to "...because it looks like crap".

[edit on 11/1/2006 by Lonestar24]