And with that, the tattered shreds of your credibility exploded into thin air.
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.
Concerned that the case was largely about politics, Spain's Attorney-General indicated that Spanish prosecutors would recommend dropping the case. MSNBC reported:
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.
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.
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.
That's all you need to do in this political climate.
.
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.)
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.
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.