MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Italy recalls ambassador on Brazil’s refusal to extradite four-murder terrorist
Italy recalled its ambassador to Brazil on Friday after Brasilia refused to extradite a former left-wing guerrilla convicted of four murders. The decision by Brazil's Supreme Court earlier this week to uphold a government refusal to extradite Italian Cesare Battisti, allowing him to walk free, has brought relations between the two countries to a low point. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOh dear oh dear, what a dilemma, but that’s ok, Italy has a new friend in south America now, the up and coming Argentina,
Jun 11th, 2011 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it’s not what you know-it’s who you know, and Italy knows Christina,
But like all new friends, will she or wont she. That is the question ??
L'imparcialité!
Jun 13th, 2011 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps we should retrospectively give the Schrebrenica murderer Ratko Mladić refugee status in Brasil,
Jun 13th, 2011 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0or perhaps Lula only over-rules the Law for Red Brigade and other Ultra-Left revolutionaries.
Does Dilma have no opinion on the matter?
Is she such a God-awfully bad politician that she sees no way through the paradoxes of high office?
The refugee status Battisti enjoys wasn't given to him by Lula. It was a decision of Ministry of Justice. Lula only got involved in the affair after the Supreme Court ruled that he had the authority to decide on Battisti's status.
Jun 13th, 2011 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for Dilma, this case is of too little importance to deserve her attention. Battisti has no meaning for Brazil, and he's no longer a threat to Italy (considering that he ever was). All the noise from Italy can be reduced to a desire for revenge. Well, perhaps there would be more goodwill towards the Italians had they deported Salvatore Cacciola when Brazil asked they to. And if Dilma overrules Lula's decision - which I'm not sure she can really do, considering the Court has recently ruled that Lula's decision was a final one - no doubt this will be interpreted by the media as a rift within the PT.
*asked them
Jun 13th, 2011 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess I should put you straight for the benefit of the other reader and in the interests of truth.
Jun 13th, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The bench of judges *decided not to judge*.
They used the rationale that it should be a political decision to be made by the President.
It was absolutely patently *a matter of law*, and therefore the remit of judges. The sight of these quivering, vacillating high-and-mightys too afraid to judge has done much to destroy - even more - the reputation of the Brasilian legal system.
The intervention of the President - on his last day of *official* office - was nothing more than him 'kicking the ball at the referee, sticking two fingers in the air and saying “stuff you, and what you gonna do about it!”'
Probably the most disasterously CRASS piece of international diplomacy in the eight years of pompous, self-important crassness.
. . . .
And as for your starements about Dilma - they just beggar belief!
You know very well the dilma/dilemma - SHE WAS ONE OF THEM HERSELF!!
And as for your statement that she cannot overrule the decision because the court said it was a 'final one' - well, words fail me!
If countries can have amnesties, then de-amnesties, then amnesties, and then de-amnesties, is anything in this mad, mad, South American continent final.
For God's sake!
Or are you just winding me up?
Are you OK, Geoff? You seem a little bitter.
Jun 14th, 2011 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0And again: Battisti had been given refugee status by the Minister of Justice. I guess that was Tarso Genro at that time. As for the STF decision passing the final ruling on Battisti's status, it is a very recent one. It is preceded by many years by Battisti's presence in the country as a political refugee. At any event, Battisti had been enjoying such status far before Lula's “intervention” last December.
Whether Lula's decision was really stupid, we can't say yet. I call a decision 'stupid' when it brings about bad consequences. So far, however, that can't be said of the STF's decision. All I've seen so far is that Italy has been throwing temper tantrums. It seems there isn't much else the carcamanos can do. And as I said before, BR would perhaps be more sympathetic towards IT had they deported the rascal Cacciola when we asked them to. Do you also believe IT's ruling concerning Cacciola tarnishes the repution of its judiciary? or will you only bitch about “your” country?
“You know very well the dilma/dilemma - SHE WAS ONE OF THEM HERSELF!!”
One of them? You mean a terrorist? She fought against a military dictatorship that illegally hijacked the political system - yeah, that makes her a terrorist. The members of the tiers état that brought down the French Monarcy in the XVIII century - also terrorists. By the same logic, the Egyptians who protested the Mubarak rule should also be considered as thugs - at any event, they acted illegally in calling for the “long term president's” resignation. Well, I guess that, from anyone of such a petty bourgeois mindset as yourself, I couldn't really expect a more nuanced worldview. You should know, however, that Battisti also enjoyed refugee status in France under the so-called Mitterrand Doctrine. What now? Is it possible that François Mitterand had also been a terrorist in his shady past? Ever thought about it, Geoff?
Many times, both historically and in present times, also globally and under many governances. The evolution of social man is full of paradoxes and dilemmas,
Jun 14th, 2011 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0but Dilma's dilemma is real, now, and rooted in her political past inasmuch as it influences her political present.
She was an *international terrorist* during the years of networked international terrorism - the same as Battisti.
Her activities were globally-anarchistic rather than anti-military government. (Killing the US Army Colonel because he had fought in Vietnam was not a Brasilian anti-government action.)
She has accepted a bad political/trading relationship with Italy, hoping that it doesn't sour the larger relation with the EU Bloc.
She has accepted that Brasil is seen as in a lower judicial league, and
she is able to adopt this 'under-developed' stance because she realises that UNSC status is defenestrated by Lula.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!