Talk:Filiberto Ojeda Ríos/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wells Fargo Money

Can we please have a citation on the money going to fund the independece moevement and Cuba? It should also be mentioned they used the funds to buy toys for inner-city children:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22wells+fargo%22+macheteros+toys+children&btnG=Google+Search

  • That the money went to Cuba (at least $2 million of it) has been documented in several sources, in great detail. One of them, in Spanish, makes for highly interesting reading --Flybd5 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC):
 http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/wells-fargo.htm

El 27 de septiembre de 1983, Segarra manejó una casa rodante Superior Motor Home de 1973 con paredes dobles, piso falso y un compartimiento capáz de ocultar a dos personas, trasladando a Gerena y dos millones de dólares a la Embajada cubana en México. Ojeda, apodado "El G-2 cubano" por ser un agente de inteligencia de Cuba desde 1961, respondía servilmente a los intereses de Fidel Castro. El vehículo fue manejado por Juan Segarra, quien volvió a salir de México con la casa rodante el 12 de octubre de 1983, según demuestran los records de Inmigración. Ese día Segarra hizo una llamada con cargo revertido a su residencia desde un teléfono público de la ciudad fronteriza de Laredo, Texas.

Ultra-minority?

I have a trouble with the POV of this statement. While I'm not saying it is untrue, what is an example of not an "ultra-minority" group? Must we go on every wikipedia page and label all loby groups "ultra-minority"? What are the particulars of ultra-minority? In other words when do you become an ultra-minority? Is when you are less than 5%? Or is it numerical, like less than 10,000? I mean, I think while technically correct, it sounds completely politically charged. Could I say that the the wealthy in the US are an ultra-minority, or the media is an an ultra-minority, or those serving in the US armed forces are an ultra-minority? I'm just asking for some clarification.--128.59.143.41 06:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is false to say that only pro-Independence people viewed his death in mourning. You can argue it was small, but it was clear that many different segments of the populace viewed this as an outrage, not just one.--128.59.143.41 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I added the statement that Los Macheteros is an ultra-minority organization. Less than a dozen members are known and none of the operations for which they have allegedly claimed responsibility required any more than a few people to achieve. There are plenty of clowns that talk about Los Macheteros as if they were related to the organization, but the fact remains that it has never been proven to contain more than a handful of actual operatives. --Flybd5 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"which historically has been shown to represent some 4% of the total electorate, have called the operation a "political assassination"." Wrong again, "historically" the number have fluctuated greatly. The Nationalists in the 30s, and 40s were much larger in percentage. The main reason why the numbers were somewhat deflated was because the Nationalist Party used the Natioal flag as their party flag, which made it easy for many of the populace who were illiterate at the time. However, on the eve of the elction a law was quickly pased to say that the Nationalist Party was not allowed to use that falg. Radio stations, who were mostly owned by segments not in favor of independence, refused them any airtime to annouce the change in party flags. If you want to say that in "recent history", fine, but "historically" is too large, and then that statement is wrong, because the Nationalists have had periods with much higher numbers than 4%.--128.59.143.41 06:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You'll have to do better than that to contend that the independence movement has ever amounted to more than 3-4% of the population. They didn't even achieve the 3% total this past election and damn near were disenfranchised as a political party. --Flybd5 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Friend, you are summing up over 100 years of history based on what? The latter half of the 20th century? Plently of parties in the first half supported eventual independence. In fact, Munoz Marin and his party originally supported indepence, after it was economically viable.--24.152.251.248 06:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • None of this points to any facts supporting an assertion that more than 3-4% of the total population has supported the "nationalists" or an independence movement. And as you said, Muñoz Marín originally supported independence. So do most of the Che-wannabes at the UPR.--Flybd5 04:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Death

Editors, please, let's try to put only confirmed info. As of right now, the FBI still hasn't confirmed his death, but the government of Puerto Rico has.

Let's keep in mind NPOV. We can't call this an assasination. I prefer the term "apparent" o "alelged" assasination. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 03:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It was confirmed by official sources to the Police of Puerto Rico that Ojeda Rios was dead (See endi.com). The time of death was around 5:00p.

A further report here: [1]. Audio at the top of the page. It's an account by Juan-Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua, Puerto Rican "political analyst and radio host", "a Harvard-educated attorney and independent political analyst in Puerto Rico" [2] He seems to have been quoted by the Washington Post as an independent commentator [3]. The article should include his account (attributed, obviously) Mr. Jones 09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Charges against him

This is not neutrally stated. "he was involved in the efforts of the revolutionary Cuba intelligence in that city to promote independent sentiment in that city, and after that, he came back to Puerto Rico and founded what was known as the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros, the clandestine sector of the nationalist movement in Puerto Rico that was responsible, as you know, for several successful attacks, including the blowing up of several airplanes in the military base in San Juan for $45 million, and later for the assault of a truck, a brinks truck in Hartford, Connecticut, also successful, again, in the course of independence.

He was tried for those events in a federal court in Puerto Rico, and he was absolved unanimously by a Puerto Rican jury. I had the chance of interviewing him on television that day, and we remained friends from that day on. And he obviously was very proud of the fact that the Puerto Rican jury had absolved him of all crimes and had decided -- and this is the official decision of the jury -- that he had acted in legitimate defense against the forces of the United States." So charges were brought, but many of them were dropped. That is highly significant. Mr. Jones 09:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


In absentia

The article says Ojeda Ríos was convicted in absentia. I thought such trials were unconstitutional in the US, but apparently I was mistaken. Can anyone shed light on this issue? Thanks. Wmahan. 00:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Apparently not. Maybe in the link at the bottom of the article, regarding the FBI's take on him you can find some info.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the laws drawn up to combat organised crime in the 1920s, for instance, were used against Osama bin Laden in 1998 to convict him in abstentia. That's one of the first uses of the term "Al Quaeda" to refer to an organisation, probably because they needed evidence of a organisation to secure a conviction. Mr. Jones 09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would they be unconstitional? The Constitution requires that the defendant have notice of his arrest and trial; if he thereafter flees, his loss of his rights to cross-examination accusers, etc. are lost by his own misdeed. These trials are not unconstitutional. That said, many states, in the interest of fairness, grant an automatic retrial upon arrest of one convicted in absentia. Xoloz 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting. I was thinking of the Sixth Amendment right to confront one's accusers. I guess if he fled during the US trial (which I didn't see mentioned in the article), that would explain why this was an unusual case. Thanks. Wmahan. 05:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On this talk page below, the FBI statement reads, "While free on bond awaiting trial on these original charges, Ojeda-Rios fled and became a fugitive from justice. In his absence, Ojeda-Rios was convicted and sentenced to 55 years in prison." I was working on that assumption. Not allowing an imprisoned or (if bailed) appearing defendant to attend his own trial would be grossly unconstitutional. Defendants, however, flee often enough, so trials in absentia are not uncommon. Xoloz 09:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I created the article in absentia based on my limited knowledge of the subject. Wmahan. 06:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Do not tolerate vandalism on this page. Questions of his political beliefs and methods must be handled with care.......keep an eye on neutral point of view. Also, let's try to provide links in the article.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral point of view is one thing, putting this story into proper perspective is another. The way this article is written implies that the people of Puerto Rico viewed Ojeda Rios with fondness as a folk hero. That is far, far from the truth, and the fact that only a very, very small fraction of the people have protested shows this. The media has made this issue much bigger than it is. The reality is that he was a famous criminal, but a criminal nonetheless. The other reality is that the vast, vast majority of Puertoricans believe that the island is much better off without people like Ojeda Rios on the loose.--Flybd5 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Federal Arrest Warrant

Execution of the Federal arrest warrant

Luis S. Fraticelli, Special Agent in Charge, San Juan Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI, is providing the following information regarding the attempted capture of Filiberto Ojeda-Rios (Ojeda-Rios):

On August 30, 1985 , a federal grand jury indicted Ojeda-Rios, the proclaimed leader of the Ejercito Popular Boricua-Macheteros. Ojeda-Rios and several other members of Los Macheteros were indicted for robbery and transportation of stolen money stemming from the September 12, 1983 robbery of approximately $7 million from Wells Fargo Armored Services Corporation , in West Hartford, Connecticut .

While free on bond awaiting trial on these original charges, Ojeda-Rios fled and became a fugitive from justice. In his absence, Ojeda-Rios was convicted and sentenced to 55 years in prison.

On September 25, 1990 , an arrest warrant was issued by the United States District Court of Connecticut charging Ojeda-Rios with having violated Title 18, United States Code (USC), Section 3148 (Bond Default).

On September 20, 2005 , the FBI developed information regarding the whereabouts of Ojeda-Rios. On that same day, the FBI began conducting surveillance and a tactical operation in the Hormigueros area of Puerto Rico in an effort to confirm the exact whereabouts of Ojeda-Rios. Subsequently, it was determined that Ojeda-Rios was present at a Hormigueros residence/farm house.

On September 23, 2005 , FBI agents were conducting surveillance of the Hormigueros farm house when it was determined that their presence had been detected. Because the operation potentially had been compromised, the FBI agents decided to go ahead and execute the warrant for the arrest of Ojeda-Rios. As the FBI agents approached the front of the farm house at approximately 4:28 p.m., Ojeda-Rios opened the front door to the residence and opened fire on the FBI agents. As a result, one FBI agent was shot and severely wounded. Two other FBI agents were shot, although they were not wounded because of their protective equipment.

In response to the gunfire from Ojeda-Rios, the FBI returned fire and established a defensive perimeter in order to contain the environment.

At three separate points in time, gunfire was fired at the FBI agents from the direction of the residence. Because of the ongoing gunfire, FBI decided not to enter the residence. The FBI also was aware that Ojeda-Rios and Los Macheteros both have a history of possessing explosives. For safety reasons, the FBI then requested additional agents, police dogs, and specialized equipment, as well as an FBI tactical team based in the United States.

At one point in the encounter, Ojeda-Rios' wife, Elma Beatriz Rosado Barbosa, safely exited the residence. She was not injured by gunfire at any point in time. Although she was initially detained, she has been released from federal custody.

On September 24, 2005 , an FBI tactical team from the United States entered the residence and discovered that Ojeda-Rios was deceased. So far, one weapon has been discovered inside of the residence. The investigation is on-going. [4]

  • I removed the section on the Federal Arrest Warrant. Resons for this were:
  1. It is redundant; the information on that section was already in the section of Crime Scene (which by the way, will be renamed.....Crime Scene goes against the neutral point of view policy..it will be renamed Scene of the Operation).
  2. Some parts of it were speculation.
  3. The picture of the federal agent with the word 'Asesino..(assasin) in it is a serious violation of NPOV. It was removed.

Vandalisms to this article will not be tolerated.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


'found him deceased'...heh. Some of these points have already been found to be incorrect. He began shooting at the FBI after they had initially opened fire on him. Rios was killed by a single bullet to the neck from a sniper. The FBI then refused to enter the premises for 12 hours as the man bled to death.

Yes, indeed, found him deceased is quite correct. He had the opportunity to come out and surrender, and did not. He began shooting instead and found himself the target of a barrage of lead. No one in their right mind would have gone into that house knowing full well that this was a dangerous terrorist who could have very well wired the house with explosives in order to go out in a blaze of fury. There was more than enough evidence and history to support this scenario. Those FBI agents are also sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers. Many of them are proud Puertoricans, who like the vast majority of us believe that people who want to further their political interests through the merits of explosives rather than the merits of democracry should be squashed. I for one am glad to see this common criminal six feet under ground. He lived by the sword and died by the sword, that was his choice, now let him enjoy the consequences of rotting for all eternity...

"who like the vast majority of us believe that people who want to further their political interests through the merits of explosives rather than the merits of democracry should be squashed." Yeah how's that going? Did it work when the FBI came and assasinated all the others int eh islands history? How about the Ponce Massacre? What "democracy" are you talking about? The one that subjects Puerto Ricans to the US congress denies Puerto Ricans the vote in the body of "representatives"? That drafts them in wars which they didn't pick? Where they can't vote for the adminstration who makes the policies? You are right, most Puerto Ricans do respect democracy, and the nationalists have taken their pleas to the Supreme Court, the US Congress and the United Nations (who ruled in thier favor), but it doesn't seem to me the US gov't has any respect for any of that. Obviously, I don't agree with the FALN, becasue I haven't chosen that path myself, but statements that are so one-side as to damn them as villians are stupid. Any conflict has at least two sides, and at least two parties fighting. It was after the FBI violence that killed this man. The FBI wasn't being too democratic about achieving thier goals.--128.59.143.41 05:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's working just fine, thank you. Democracy has no place for explosives, and those who use them can only expect that they will be used against them to prevent them from thinking that such actions will advance their goals. Hysterical people who think that just because they're not getting their way, they are entitled to throw tantrums and use whatever means are necessary to achieve their goals are wrong, period. As to denying votes, no one is denying ANY Puerto Ricans anything. The fact is very simple -- Puertoricans agreed, and so did Congress, to be a commonwealth. That means Puertorican residents don't pay federal taxes, and we don't get votes in Congress or the Senate. We are not denied the right to vote for president, there simply are no federal presidential elections held outside the 50 states and incorporated territories. It's that simple, period. And the fact remains that more than 50% of the voters in Puerto Rico have voted again and again and again to keep it that way. As far as I am concerned, anyone who mindlessly kills a father of two children on their birthday to make a political statement does not deserve any mercy, period. Filiberto Ojeda deserves to be where he is right this very minute, rotting away six feet underground. I'm just sorry it wasn't done earlier. --Flybd5 01:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • "Democracy has no place for explosives." Unless of course the draft you to be in war, right? "Puertoricans agreed, and so did Congress, to be a commonwealth" United Nations clearly states any vote with another nation occuping it with military forces is illegitamte and therefor null and void, hence why Puerto Rico is back on the colony list. How could you in good conscience call this a legitamate election? Fact is, the US does not respect international law, until it benifits them, in 1989 the UN held a vote to end colonialism by 2000. The vote, 189 to 1. Not even the Israel backed the US on this one. The next issue is that Puerto Ricans did not make the ballot, the US Congress did. Number two why it isn't a legitamate expression of popular mandate. It's like saying, "you free to choose whatever you want, so long as they are one of the options I let you choose from." That is not democratic. "Hysterical people who think that just because they're not getting their way, they are entitled to throw tantrums and use whatever means are necessary to achieve their goals are wrong, period." Like what, "no taxation without represenatation?" Come on now, Nationalists have tried arguing that the Treaty of Paris was against the US 13th amendement inside the US system, tried and suceed in getting the UN to say the US was in non-compliance with the Declaration of Human rights. You don't think if an idealogical segment has exhausted national and international methods of change, it would not be logical for them to consider violent resistance? I'm not saying to agree with it, but be consistant, if it was OK for the American revolutionaries, who were not more numerous than American loyalist by the way, then it's ok for any other group who has reached the same conclusion. Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, any government that purposefully waits until the aniversry of the most important day of Puerto Rican strugle for independence, and without contacting the local government, to assassinate a man is doing so only to remind a nation of thier lowly status. Tasteless. Just because someone is a criminal, doesn't mean you have to out do him.--24.152.251.248 07:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • "Unless of course the draft you to be in war, right?" That is what the English language refers to as a red herring. The Commonwealth was not formed under threat of occupation. That's a product of an overactive imagination. The simple fact is that 97% of Puertoricans want nothing to do with independence. Period. You need to learn to deal with that. As to the date Ojeda was killed, the terrorist coward chose that date himself, by words and deeds, and now he's rotting for his mistake. Good riddance. I'd like to see you try to explain your bizarre arguments to the children of the people he murdered.--Flybd5 04:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Scene

Filiberto Ojeda Rios was shot by two bullets, one on the right clavicle and other in the back, while in a shootout with the FBI. He probably died of an hemorrhage.

At the time of death, the revolutionary leader and a terrorist to others, had on a bulletproof vest, and was dressed on camouflaged pants and hat, said the government officials.

Ojeda Rios body was found lying face down, just in front of the door of the rural residence where he was hiding. At his right side, a pistol was found by the forensic investigators. More than 20 bullet casings where found at the crime scene, including some AR-15 shells.

The investigators observed two bullet holes that came from the outside of the residence, both to the side of the main entrance door. Only on the back of the residence another bullet hole was found, this one facing to the outside.

It has been told that FBI agents are still on the scene of the events investigating a series of documents that where left burning on cement wall that simulates a [fogón].

Local authorities have been aloud inside the residence after more than 22 hours of the beginning of this operative. "More than enough time to contaminate or arrange the crime scene", said Ojeda's followers.

The FBI claims that it was after one of there agents got shot that they open fire against the 72 year old Ojeda. He was with his wife at the time. After that a perimeter was established by the local police, and no person was allowed to enter the area. Not by land or air. Attempts of a local news crew of getting closer with a chopper were unsuccessful after being threaten that they were trespassing federal airspace and they will be handle with deadly force if needed.

During the operative to capture Ojeda, his wife was arrested an a federal agent received a wound to the stomach, says the FBI. Elma Beatriz Rosado, Ojeda's widow, was released from federal custody.

As a Puertorrican, I am astonished on how slanted and one-sided this article is. First of all, Filiberto Ojeda Rios was a terrorist. Second of all, "El grito de Lares" is not an important date for me or the majorty of Puertorricans. Third, the pro-independence party in Puerto Rico did not even receive enough votes to maintain it's political identity. Please do not "throw" all Puertorricans in a slanted, ridiculous article that mis-represents the views of the majority.

  • Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy. I do not find this article to be one-sided. However, you seem to point out POLITICAL themes in the article. The fact that the independence party did not receive votes to maintain their identity is irrelevant in this article. I am a Puerto Rican and I do cosider the grito de lares to be importante, even though I do not support independnce for the island. However, this article deals with the available information, so, do you expect this article to name him a terrorist and claim no repercutions happened after his death when there are media images of the thousands of people which were at his funeral?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but who appointed you the arbiter of what is or isn't irrelevant to this story? The fact that Ojeda supported a cause which only draws less than 4% of the vote in elections or referendums IS relevant, because it puts it into perspective by pointing that he was allegedly fighting for a cause that few people on this island defend or support. The historical inability of the political party that represented the alleged ideal Filiberto was fighting for to draw support from the general population IS relevant, as it shows that the slanted viewpoint you are trying to present is not representative of the majority of Puertoricans. You have no right, in ANY venue, to present the information of the death of this terrorist in any other way, if you indeed claim to want to present it in a neutral point of view. --Flybd5 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Actually in recent polls the majority of Puerto Ricans said they thought memembers of the Independence Party were more trust-worthy than the Statehood or Commonwealth parties. Why is that? Food for thought. Fact is, in the last plebicite, both Statehood and Commonwealth lost to "None of the Above" which won a majority. More food for thought. Lastly, lack of support for the Nationalist Party, is not the same as lack of support for Nationalism, and take in to consideration that many Nationalists don't believe any plebicite that ultimately is subject to the US Congress decision and not the people's isn't democratic or legitamate, so what's the point of voting in it anyway. Of course, I'm taking this side in response to harline position of our friend here. Sociological data, like voting patterns, polls, and so on and their implications are up for debate, always, so long as soudn theories can explain them. It all depneds on how you look at them and present them. I could say that George W. Bush won half of the vote, or I could say that 75% of the eligable populace didn't even vote for him. Half empty, half full. May I suggest that perhaps a "neutral" view may be less relavant as to presenting different sides and interpritations.--128.59.143.41 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually in recent polls the majority of Puerto Ricans said they thought memembers of the Independence Party were more trust-worthy than the Statehood or Commonwealth parties.--- More "trustworthy? Trustworthy to do what? This is BS. Who took the poll, Claridad? Please. Spare me. As to the "None of the above." you should also note that independence lost too, remember? Independentistas, nacionalistas, whatever you want to call them, in the long run they remain as irrelevant as Pedro Rosselló. The fact that independentistas would risk disenfrachising their own party to vote their TRUE conscience on what's right for Puerto Rico and send Rosselló packing with a "¡No te vistas, que no vas!" statement speaks for itself. --Flybd5 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me try this again, you think that the 4% in an election is so definative. Would it be NPOV for me to say the following: "The US military swears alliangce George W Bush as Commander-in-Chief, despite the fact that over 75% of the elegible voting populace did not vote for him."--24.152.251.248 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • See red herring. On the one hand, apples. On the other, oranges. Never the twain shall meet.--Flybd5 04:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

It seems very soon after his death to be protecting this article. I hope it will only be for a few hours not a few days, SqueakBox 03:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


A temp. protection was put into effect due to all the vandlism and POV posted. The article became a total mess, out of control. It will be unprotected soon, however we must let the passions cool down a bit. We shouldn't dishonor this person's memory with a disorganized article unworthy of wikipedia standards. Tony the Marine 17:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think given he only died 4 days ago, and that noone requested that this article be protected, that it should be unprotected asap to allow necessary editing while the interest in him remains, and there are good editors frustrated at not being able to edit, because of one or possibly more vandals. The protection overnight should have frightened the baddies off. I have put a request to this effect at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection, SqueakBox 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody protected this at around 0300 UTC today "for cooling off" and I tagged it, but forgot to check back. There was a reminder on WP:RFPP so I've come back and unprotected. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If vandals under the guise of editors are not going to allow other documented and properly footnoted viewpoints to be expressed here because they don't want people to know the truth about this terrorist, then it's time to ask for this article to be deleted. flybd5 15 Oct 2005

Minor Edits Needed

I feel partly responsible for the vandalism that has been going on. I posted a link to the Filiberto Ojeda Rios page on a comment to a blog post, here's a link to the blog:

http://www.endi.com/blogs/?p=33

My username on this blog is JULIOEM, my comment is dated Septiembre 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm

It is a reputable blog, established by the Director of "El Nuevo Dia". However, spirits are high right now in Puerto Rico and it might be best to keep Ojeda's page locked for a few days.

I took the time to look over the Preface and Bigraphy sections to Ojeda's page and found some minor corrections that should be made:

Preface section:

"His death has caused mourning and protests among the Puerto Rican Independence movement. [1]"

Inproper link format "[1]" and it links to an ouside news source that is not proper to the context of the Preface.

Recommend deletion of link.

Biography section:

second paragraph:

General Intelligence Directorate (GDI) links to Wikepedia "edit this page" tab of "General Intelligence Directorate (GDI) instead of article tab.

Recommend link be changed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Intelligence_Directorate

third paragraph:

In 1967 he founded and led the very first of Puerto Rico's new militant political groups, the Armed Revolutionary Independence Movement (MIRA).

The link to "Armed Revolutionary Independence Movement (MIRA)" links to the "edit this page" tab for this Wikipedia entry and the following message:

"Wikipedia does not yet have a page called Armed Revolutionary Independence Movement"

Recommend this link be deleted.

He subsequently skipped bail and moved to New York, organizing the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN)

Same problem as the (MIRA) link, links to edit tab of a page wikepedia does not yet have

Recommend this link be deleted.

Fourth Paragraph:

In 1976, Ojeda Ríos renamed the FALN to the Boricua Popular Army —or Ejército Popular Boricua

The link to "Ejercito Popular Boricua" links to the edit tab of a page wikepedia does not have yet, however, the link to "Boricua Popular Army" will work here.

Recomend link to "Ejercito Popular Boricua" be changed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boricua_Popular_Army

I'll continue proof reading the article tomorrow and include my findings with corrections.

Thanks in advance

JULIO 04:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)