• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Spain may open torture probe of six Bush officials

At least Bill O'Rielly wont be coming to Spain any time soon.. seems he is boycotting Spain.. time for a party! :mrgreen:
 
Concerned that the case was largely about politics, Spain's Attorney-General indicated that Spanish prosecutors would recommend dropping the case. MSNBC reported:

Candido Conde-Pumpido said the case against the high-ranking U.S. officials — including former U.S. Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales — was without merit because the men were not present when the alleged torture took place.

"If one is dealing with a crime of mistreatment of prisoners of war, the complaint should go against those who physically carried it out," Conde-Pumpido said in a breakfast meeting with journalists. He said a trial of the men would have turned Spain's National Court "into a plaything" to be used for political ends.

Spain rules out torture probe of U.S. officials - Guantanamo- msnbc.com
 
If you'd like to see an example of how universal jurisdiction has played out in practice when individuals try to use it to do things that are not politically palatable, read up on Belgium's experience.

They have no choice, it is the law. Its called Universal Jurisdiction.

Guess there was a choice after all.
 
How is "universal jurisdiction" not simply a form of imperialism?

Granted, there are some things which by custom are triable in the courts of any nation -- such as piracy -- but those are pretty much all things which happen outside the jurisdiction of any state.

Claiming for your own country's courts the ability to try anyone, anywhere, for "crimes" of your choosing committed nowhere near your own jurisdiction but within the jurisdiction of another state . . . well, that's just "legal" conquest.

(Cue all the usual suspects screeching about "hypocrisy" here.)
 
link

Spain has no jurisdiction here. It was not on their soil and Spain's rights are not being violated here. This is a matter for international courts, not a foreign municipal one. Nice try though, Spain.

I hope they press on with this, forcefully... and force Obama to make a public repudiation of the Spaniards... and in the same motion... defend Bush.

If we don't hear anything further he'll have rightly killed it behind the scenes, and if he does... hats off to him. He'd have done the right thing.

If not, Obama's in a corner... he'll have to call up Le Teleprompteur for help to get himself out.

.
 
link





Spain has no jurisdiction here. It was not on their soil and Spain's rights are not being violated here. This is a matter for international courts, not a foreign municipal one. Nice try though, Spain.

The international courts have no sovereignty, they can piss off too. I'm not saying things shouldn't be looked at, I think there is definitely enough to warrant investigation. But it needs to be done by us.
 
The international courts have no sovereignty, they can piss off too. I'm not saying things shouldn't be looked at, I think there is definitely enough to warrant investigation. But it needs to be done by us.

Agree with the first.

The second...
Bring it on.

That's all you need to do in this political climate.

.
 
That's all you need to do in this political climate.

.

What we need to do in this political climate is get back control over the god damned government and politicians. One way to do that is to demand more investigations into reported abuses and hold ALL of them responsible for their actions. This is getting out of control, and we'd better watch it cause loosing control of the govenrment never ends anywhere fun.
 
I think what's most telling about these folks determined to press for charges against the former administration is that they've waited till now to start doing anything more than yapping...

Democrats in Congress could have held a 'Truth Committee' any time during the past few years. They could have pushed for impeachment, if they saw fit.

But they didn't.

If any foreign court felt it was warranted to prosecute U.S. government officials for their actions, they could and should have done so before January 20, 2009. They could have formed a 'coalition of the willing' and demanded that George Bush leave office... or else.

But they didn't.

It strikes me as more than a bit cowardly to wait until your opponent is out of office before pursuing investigations and witch hunts. I suppose if they believe it's that important, they might begin by trying Ronald Reagan posthumously for crimes against humanity. That is, after all, what this is all about... politics.

:2wave:
 
Guess there was a choice after all.

No there was not.

The accusers brought it in front of the judge who then agreed to forward it to the justice department for investigation and merit. That is "they got no choice". Under the law the judge had no reason not to forward it, but it is still up to the justice department to peruse the case if it has merit. In this case they choose not to.
 
How is "universal jurisdiction" not simply a form of imperialism?

Granted, there are some things which by custom are triable in the courts of any nation -- such as piracy -- but those are pretty much all things which happen outside the jurisdiction of any state.

Claiming for your own country's courts the ability to try anyone, anywhere, for "crimes" of your choosing committed nowhere near your own jurisdiction but within the jurisdiction of another state . . . well, that's just "legal" conquest.

(Cue all the usual suspects screeching about "hypocrisy" here.)

Universal jurisdiction has been used by many nations including the US. It does have some merit in certain situations like piracy, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What these men tried to do was to use the "war crimes" principle to go after the Bush administration people. They failed.. for now. I would wager that if they could get some names of the men who carried out the torture it self, then they might try again.

As for Universal jurisdiction being a form of "imperialism via the law". It is some what, especially when countries use the principle in situations outside those mentioned. The classic misuse is Eichmann trial. Israel kidnapped him from another country, put him on trial and executed him. While I dont disagree with the execution part, I do disagree with the kidnapping and trial. Israel was not even around when the crimes were committed so how can they put someone on trial for said crimes? But there have been other misuses by countries over time, including France and the US.
 
No there was not.

The accusers brought it in front of the judge who then agreed to forward it to the justice department for investigation and merit. That is "they got no choice". Under the law the judge had no reason not to forward it, but it is still up to the justice department to peruse the case if it has merit. In this case they choose not to.

My reference to the Belgium example was simply noting that Universal Jurisdiction is always significantly limited by political considerations. While the judge may have been legally required to pass it along, the fact that the justice department was going to sink this was a foregone conclusion.
 
Universal jurisdiction has been used by many nations including the US. It does have some merit in certain situations like piracy, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Yup. I said that.

What these men tried to do was to use the "war crimes" principle to go after the Bush administration people. They failed.. for now. I would wager that if they could get some names of the men who carried out the torture it self, then they might try again.

As for Universal jurisdiction being a form of "imperialism via the law". It is some what, especially when countries use the principle in situations outside those mentioned. The classic misuse is Eichmann trial. Israel kidnapped him from another country, put him on trial and executed him. While I dont disagree with the execution part, I do disagree with the kidnapping and trial. Israel was not even around when the crimes were committed so how can they put someone on trial for said crimes? But there have been other misuses by countries over time, including France and the US.

Then we generally agree. How about that?
 
Back
Top Bottom