And that contradicts what Rune said how, exactly? He didn’t say the Spanish people accepted the GAL’s activities.
I’m sorry. I was under the impression that Rune was using Spain as an example of a country which allowed killings without due process of law. If Rune is saying Israel should do what Spain did and try Sharon for crimes then I misunderstood him.
sailor, allegations against the Government went all the way to the top levels and even those which could not be proven were deemed credible by the judge who oversaw the case. I think you’re being a bit disingenuous to portray this as a case of a few rogue Government elements acting of their own accord.
Obviously if you equate “Spain” with “the Spanish voters” you are correct to deny that Spain is a country where extrajudicial killings have been allowed but if you equate “Spain” with “the Spanish government” of the time I think it’s a quite different picture.
I have not the faintest clue as to what your point may be. All I am saying is that Spain cannot be used as an example of a country which allows extrajudicial killings. That’s all.
The law is clear in this respect: It is illegal in Spain.
Some government officials broke the law and when discovered they were prosecuted and punished. High officials were sentenced to (and served) jail time. This included the minister of the interior Barrionuevo and the secretary for security, Rafael Vera.
Spain does not in any way allow or condone extrajudicial killings by the government. That’s my only point: Spain cannot be used as an example of a country which allows extrajudicial killings like Israel allows.
Rune maybe can find other examples but Spain is not one of them.
But Rune never said that in the first place. He made a very simple statement - that Spain had assassinated ETA members. Which it did. The fact that SOME of the government members involved in this policy were punished for it does not change that fact.
No, you are being disingenuous. Rune’s point was that
He was using that fact to support that assertion but that assertion is NOT supported by that fact. Rather Spanish policy supports the notion that extrajudicial killings are not acceptable and, therefore, the condemnation of Israel is consistent with Spanish policy and not inconsistent as Rune wants to imply.
Let us stop playing silly games.
You’re the one being silly. Rune stated that he remembered Spanish assassinations and you replied that he remembered incorrectly. He didn’t - whatever his underlying point about them was.
What do you mean “whatever his underlying point”? WTF? He cited the Spanish case as support for his argument and the Spanish case does NOT support his argument, it contradicts his argument. He was clearly trying to mislead those who may not be familiar with the case. Spain does not allow or condone extrajudicial assassinations and has all the right to condemn Israel for doing so which is the point Rune was contradicting. In that point Rune is wrong.
I can see that I’m arguing based upon Rune’s statement at face value whereas you’re arguing based upon what you think it actually means.
Rune can defend himself on the latter point. I’ll not bother repeating myself on the former.
So you have no opinion on what you think he means but you are willing to argue anyway? WTF? So why don’t you let him speak for himself? It is clear to me that he was using Spain as an example of a country which allowed or condoned extrajudicial killings. Maybe I am missing something but that is the only way I can interpret that post.
So he is saying Spain allows extrajudicial killings and I am explaining it is just not so. And you are arguing with me but you are not saying I am wrong and you are arguing for his side but you won’t support what he is implying and you just say “he can defend himself”. WTF? I have never seen such incoherence.
Rune implied Spain allowed extrajudicial killings and I am saying that is not true and the facts support me.
That article has a good point about obligations to respect the dead, but calling the killing of Uday and Qusay a “targeted assasination” is a complete and total joke.
That article completely ignores a six hour firefight before those two were killed. If the US military had simply fired a missile at them while they were unawares, that would be an assasination, IMHO. But US armed forces shooting back against an armed enemy holed up in a house is called legitimate self defense during a military operation.
I also note that the author of that legal piece on assassinations has condemned the US war in Afghanistan (the war “is illegal and must be stopped”), written that US interest in the Balkans is all about an oil pipeline, and said that the 9-11 attacks were actually just attacks on US foreign policy, not American people.
I’m just gonna say that law school professors can be cranks, too. I don’t think for a second that her opinion represents a dispassionate interpretation of the law.
A number of things: I still don’t understand this concept that an enemy is exempt from being a legitimate target. Missles are fired all the time in a war. If you fired at a building that you suspect contains enemies, that certainly wouldn’t be an assasination attempt. If you suspected that a certain general in the enemies army was in that building and you specifically targeted him to disrupt the chain of command, is that an assasination? Why? Why would it be different then to target the head of the country who directly controls the military?
What kind of law says that you can shoot anonymous combatants at will, but the people who may have been responsible for the situation in the first place are exempt?
sigh You really need to take some Valium, sailor.
What was clear to me was that Rune was using Spain as an example of a country in which a recent Government (or, at least, very high ranking members thereof) committed extrajudicial killings. In this, he is correct and that is why I was arguing “for his side” when you said that he was remembering incorrectly.
It is not at all clear to me that he meant this to demonstrate that extrajudicial killings are therefore hunky-dory in Spain, to either the Spanish people or to the Spanish political system in general.
He was “remembering incorrectly” when he implied those acts were condoned or allowed in Spain. They are not.
Now you are trying to argue that his post does not imply Spain allowed or condoned those acts but that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
In the USA kidnapping and raping a woman is an illegal act and those who do it and are caught are severely punished but it does happen in the USA from time to time. Does that disqualify the USA from condemning the government of another country which did this? You seem to think so but I don’t.
Your defense of Rune’s post makes no sense to me. None. And I will not Rune is not explaining it either.
Again, maybe I am missing something. Can somebody else who understands ruadh’s point and believes I am missing something explain it to me? Because I just don’t get it. It makes no sense to me.
Sailor is arguing that the representatives of the panish government who were involved in the assassinations of ETA members acted illegally and against the Spanish governments policy of assissination.
Ruadh is pointing out that, policy or no policy, the Spanish Government still carried out Assassinations. the people involved may not have had the approval of their government, but the government should still accept the responsibility of the actions of its members. which it did (the trials and convictions of those responsible, and the resulting loss in the next election).
In my mind, you both have valid points, and the difference here is caused by the ambiguity of Runes post.
So you’d be happy saying that the Irish government tried to import guns for the IRA then would you?
Member/s of the government did try to do it after all.
TwistofFate, I interpret Rune’s post to mean the government of Spain is disqualified from condemning Israel on this account. Do you interpret it that way? If you do interpret it that way, do you believe the Spanish government is disqualified for that reason? Yes or no? If so, why so?
If you interpret Rune’s post differently, please explain your interpretation.
Petard ahoy!
This is a poor analogy. If high-ranking members of the US government had kidnapped and raped women, then yes, there would be valid questions about the US government’s right to condemn other countries doing the same.