Dealing with Terrorists
By Katie Llanos-Small, March 4th, 2007
If a terrorist tries to kill himself, should you stop him? A mass murderer of the ETA variety came close to comatose recently, after spending months on a hunger strike in protest against his latest conviction. Yesterday the government agreed to let him serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest in order to make him eat. “The difference between us democrats and those terrorists is that we care about life,” says the Minister of Internal Affairs, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba.
This is a complicated case, “a lotta ins, a lotta outs”. But at the crux of it is the use of violence as a negotiating tool, in this case violence against oneself. And it worked.
Iñaki de Juana Chaos has been in prison since 1987, when he was convicted of killing 12 police officers and wounding another 58 people. He was subsequently trialled for other attacks, and in total has been found guilty of the deaths of 25 people. In accordance with the laws of the time, de Juana served 18 years in jail for his crimes.
Just before he was due to be released in 2005, de Juana was charged with threatening terrorism and belonging to ETA. He remained in jail until these new charges were brought to trial: in November last year the Audencia Nacional (High Court) sentenced him to twelve years in prison. The following day he began the hunger strike which lasted until last Thursday.
While his writings did constitute a threat, a 12 year sentence for threatening writings seems harsh when one considers that he served just 18 years for the deaths of 25 people. The charges weren’t exactly trumped up – the essence of one of his articles was that Spain should get its dirty hands out of the Basque region, or else it wouldn’t have hands – but the sentence did seem to be pumped up.
The case went to the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), which last month upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years. De Juana, in hospital, upped the ante by removing the tubes from his nose that had been used to feed him.
So what was the government to do? De Juana is one of the bloodiest terrorists of a group that is roundly detested in Spain, and he has shown not a skerrick of remorse for his killings: many would have been more than happy to see him waste away entirely, and, surprise surprise, the government’s intervention is not proving particularly popular.
Some sources gave de Juana just a few weeks left to live. (Others talked about the sandwiches he must have been eating on the sly at night). The government would have been seen to be partly at fault if it hadn’t stepped in and de Juana had died. Yet the hunger strike describes ETA’s modus operandi: it uses violence in an attempt to get what it wants. And unfortunately here it has worked.
On the other hand, de Juana has served his sentence for the murders, in accordance with the law. Perhaps it’s the laws, that let a mass murderer go free after just 18 years, that should be scrutinised. It doesn’t seem fair that a person can put themselves in a grave state of health and consequently see their punishment lightened – but the initial twelve year sentence certainly seemed unfair too.
In general it just makes me angry that someone who killed 25 people, and who will no doubt try to kill again, can skip out of jail after 21 years. I’m not an eye-for-an-eye advocate, and to be honest I don’t really know what I would consider an appropriate sentence. But the thought that he’ll be back on the streets in a year is actually quite a scary idea.
Other posts by Katie Llanos-Small
March 4th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Hi Katie
Well, talk about the tough questions. At least with suicide bombers they’re prepared to suffer the same fate that they inflict on others which conveniently overcomes the capital punishment issue. Of course, this begs the question of what to do with the people who incite such actions e.g. radical muslim clerics, Osama bin Laden etc.
On the other hand, I think that maybe we shouldn’t be too scared of his release as, no doubt, the authorities will be watching him like a hawk and hopefully he will be stopped before he kills anymore in future. And as above, maybe he will be more dangerous inciting violence than actually perpetrating it.
Personally, I think if someone wants to kill themselves through hunger, they should be allowed to do so. After all, it is their choice.
Just call me a hardarse. As you say there are alotta ins and alotta outs and probably no right and wrong answers.
Cheers
Lynne
March 4th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
ok, ok. I suppose this is what we have to expect in the way of ‘ask the audience’ questions if we’re going to read your blog Katie. We’re never going to get some difficult but basically random question, like precisely how will SA screw up in this particular cricket world cup? Oh no. Deep stuff is required here…
So here are the only two situations I can think of that would make the official reaction rational. First, the govt might think that the voters will think (a) that 12 years is excessive, and therefore (b) senor de Juana has a legitimate gripe, so that (c) if he did starve himself to death they (the govt) would be punished at the polls for forcing an otherwise normal and honourable person to commit suicide. Pretty unlikely I think. The only other thing I can think of is that the govt is anticipating the reaction of ETA, rather than voters. This might make their conduct rational. eg, if they think that ETA would create such havoc in the aftermath of senor de Juana’s demise as to severely diminish their re-election chances.
So my conclusion is that ETA has shown itself to have a reasonable amount of bargaining power with the government.
Harrumph. How about an easier question next time?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Interesting one eh…
You´re right, Lynne, he will no doubt be watched intensely. But still, surely so are all other known etarras.
As for the big ´why´… The 12 year sentence was deemed excessive, the Supreme Court cut it down to 3 years, but de Juana kept on refusing to eat - it wasn´t till the government reduced it to house arrest that he started eating again.
The government is really defensive at the moment: yesterday they were going on about how this wasn´t a decision made out of fear, but rather a decision that shows the value they hold for the life of a human being, no matter how detestable that human being may be, and no matter how much that human being may not appreciate or understand the rationale behind the decision.
Sounds all very nice, but the more they deny that the decision was made out of fear, the more it seems like the decision WAS made in fear of the consequences of his death.
I haven´t heard a single voice in support of the decision - although expressing such an opinion wouldn´t go down too well in most circles - and local elections are coming up. This wasn´t a decision to get votes directly.