Forums | MacLife

Exactly. It was all in the country of Europe and totally conducted by the country of Europe.

The last thing the world needs is some world (kangaroo) court system - and I would be OK with bombing the crap out of any such court system just for the principle of it.

Your passion is disturbing.

radarman wrote:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Spanish_criminal_probe_targets_Bush_torture_0328.html

Six Bush-era officials responsible for crafting the legal justifications permitting the military prison at Guantanamo Bay are the subject of a potential Spanish criminal probe which could place the men under serious risk of arrest if they travel outside the United States.

"[Spanish newspaper] Público identifies the targets as University of California law professor John Yoo, former Department of Defense general counsel William J. Haynes II (now a lawyer working for Chevron), former vice presidential chief-of-staff David Addington, former attorney general and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, now a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith," noted Scott Horton at Harper's.

He called them Bush's "torture lawyers."

While I would love to see this collection of scum rotting in prison, they should be rotting in an American prison. Someone needs to remind the Spanish that they don't have jurisdiction over Americans, and to mind their own business. Of course, if you read further, you realize this is probably a political stunt by this judge, but it makes you wonder.

I wish I knew where Europe thinks they get off prosecuting non-Europeans for crimes that didn't occur in Europe, or even have anything to do with Europe. Don't they have enough local criminals committing crimes locally? Sheesh.

Basing it upon the terrorist attacks in Spain that were caused  by the extreme Bush policies. It's a stretch.

Wait! do you think they will resort to renditions, ala Bush?

Onthebeach wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

link

This year for the first time, the United States used a law that allows for the prosecution in the United States of torture in other countries. On Jan. 10, a Miami court sentenced Chuckie Taylor, the son of the former Liberian president, to 97 years in a federal prison for torture, even though the crimes were committed in Liberia. Last October, when the Miami court handed down the conviction, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey applauded the ruling and said: “This is the first case in the United States to charge an individual with criminal torture. I hope this case will serve as a model to future prosecutions of this type.”

radarman seems to have missed this so I think it's should be repeated.

Also, from the article in the link:

Spain operates under the principle of "universal jurisdiction," a doctrine that allows courts to reach beyond national borders in cases of torture, terrorism or war crimes.

and:

Garzon (the investigating magistrate) accepted the complaint under Spanish law because there were several Spaniards at Guantanamo who allegedly suffered torture.

If U.S. government officials do not wish to be tried in foreign courts then perhaps they should think twice about setting up places like Guantanamo Bay and torturing foreign nationals there.

I didn't miss it, I disagree with it. "Universal Jurisdiction" is a load of crap no matter what country is spouting it, and it should be flushed where ever it plops down. Another word for it is 'meddling'. Yes, the US meddles quite a bit in the affairs of other nations, and we should stop it. I don't support my own governments attempts to do this crap anymore than I support Spain's.

As for the Kangaroo Court comment, I brought that up because it looks pretty clear that this 'case' was probably brought to bolster the political position of a certain judge - and because his jurisdictional arguments are crap IMHO.

See, what those dratted Spaniards need to learn is the American way of justice. Invade a country and arrest its leaders, and then put 'em on trial.

No, put them to the Question, and let them die with a clean soul.

radarman wrote:

jerwin wrote:

The regimes that practice torture are unlikely to prosecute torturers. They forgive too easily. They waffle, saying "mistakes were made". Universal jurisdiction corrects for this.

It's still unwarranted meddling, particularly when it has nothing to do with the nation holding the trial. Who cares if they forgive too easily, when it's none of your business?

Maybe Manuel Noriega should be released, eh?

sturner wrote:

No, put them to the Question, and let them die with a clean soul.

Last edited by daemon (2009-03-30 8:45 pm)

Onthebeach wrote:

radarman wrote:

...Another word for it is 'meddling'.

Ah, "meddling". Protecting your citizens abroad who suffer at the hands of iffy legal systems is now meddling? To me it sounds like a government and it's various offices actually doing the job my taxes pay them to do.
By extention if that extended jurisdiction applies to those tradionally exempt ie. the Kissingers and Mugabes of this world, then I am all for it. If some thug thinks before he is about to throw some poor soul off a roof "Oh, if I do this I may not be able to get my teeth fixed in Florida!" then I think that makes the world just a little safer for those without power and influence. So meddle away.

Um, no. Spain could have used diplomatic means to handle the situation. They likely didn't work too hard because they knew that their citizens were, in fact, terrorist scum.

This is not that.

jerwin wrote:

Nonsense. Spain knows very little. The United States knows very little. The two of them may suspect a great deal, but ultimately, theses suspicions must be reviewed in a court of law. If such suspicions are proven correct, then we may say that "we know this man is a terrorist, and can be punished as a terrorist."

But to say that such men deserve to be imprisoned or otherwise punished based on mere suppositions is to put the cart before the horse.

Furthermore, your suggestion that diplomatic means substitute for justice shows a real contempt for the Judiciary. Let those who are suspected of terrorism enjoy a fair trial. Let those who are suspected of torture enjoy a fair trial. And by the verdicts shall we know them.

I don't have contempt for the judiciary, unless it attempts to operate outside of its jurisdiction. If US courts try and sentence these scum-sucking lawyers, I would have no problem at all with it - because it is a US problem. Spain, as far as I know, respects the rule of law, so if a Spanish court were to try a Spaniard, in Spain, I would support them. Where I have problems is when courts try people who aren't citizens of their nation, and whose alleged crimes weren't even in the country in question.

Imagine if it weren't a Spanish judge trying US lawyers, but a Taliban judge trying US pastors for heresy, and you see where I'm coming from. Or, how about a British judge trying a US news reporter for libel for a story filed in the US.

We have diplomats whose purpose it is to work out international disputes - we don't need courts to add their $0.02. This judge needs to sit down, calm down, and STFU.

ScifiterX wrote:

I think there is at least one difference between your examples and reality. While neither the crime nor perpetrators were Spanish, some of the victims were. (A situation where one could argue jurisdictional relevance.)

Not so. The Taliban would argue Sharia law makes all Muslims victims, and the British case could involve a British citizen. Lets say the Wall Street Journal write a disparaging article about Mr. Brown, and he encourages a British judge to try the reporter for libel in Britain, even though she lives in New York, and has never even visited  Britain.

The fact that some alleged victims were Spanish is reason to take it up through diplomatic channels.

ScifiterX wrote:

You must have been typing when I posed my edit. I agree with the diplomatic channels end but I can see the line of reason where a violent act against one of your citizen would elicit feeling the the need to try the perpetrator at home.

Don't misread my dislike of international courts as sympathy for Bush and his band of thugs. I think the whole lot of them should be sitting in Federal PMITA prison. These scum-sucking lawyers did things in our name that make me sick, and Guantanamo bay is just the most obvious symbol of their wrong doing.

I just don't want 'internationalist' using it as an excuse to build support for international court systems. We do well having nations with different laws, and systems of justice. If you are oppressed in one, it is likely you can find another nation where you fit in. International courts would make that impossible.