The Reign in Spain is Mainly Giving me a Pain

The BBQ Pit
21

>> It’s no time to play games over some ally’s use of a particular penalty or the specific type of trial they use.

december, you really are a jerk. America has not demanded the extradition and so you are getting all worked up about some Spanish official saying to some FBI guy “look, if you were to ask for extradition we may have a problem due to regulations of the European Union”. Probably letting him know so the US could take that into account if and when they prepare a formal request.

If you just want to get all worked up about something I’ll let you know the Pakistani ambassador to the UN tightens his belt one hole too tight and it makes him look fatter than he really is. You can now dedicate all your energies to being pissed off about that.

Let me explain something to you. It may come as a surprise to you but the USA does not own the world. Other countries have their own laws and those are the laws of those lands. American laws have NO force there just as foreign laws are not what are in force in the US. America gives political asylum to thousands every year so they can evade punishment in other countries.

The laws of California have no force in West Virginia which allows the people of West Virginia to pollute more than Californians would allow. Maybe this should be corrected and have California immediately impose their laws on West Virginia? Or should West Virginia impose their laws on California? Who decides which are superior?

What you are saying is that another country should forget they have any laws at all and just do what the FBI tells them? Ignorant jerks like you make America look bad abroad and hinder the task of furthering American interests. If you want to do your country a favor I would recommend you shut the fuck up. Your country will be grateful.

Yep, just like if a Saudi woman wants to avoid being beheaded for commiting adultery all she has to do is “get her ass to America”.

spooje, in Europe, European laws are not only “above” American laws, they are the only laws. US laws have zero force in Europe. How does that rub you? Do you feel this is something that needs to be corrected? You want to make a case for the US to invade Europe and impose American laws there?

Thanks to those who sided with me but this is just too easy; shooting fish in a barrel is a difficult task compared to this.

22

Beheaded for adultry. Sentenced to die after a fair trial for carrying out grisley murder. Are those the same thing?

If Spain has an extradition treaty, that is a law. If the U.S. agreed to a 'we won’t send ‘em without assurances’ clause in a treaty, then my beef would be with our government for entering into it. If there is no such clause in our treaty with them, well then…

I ask again, because I do not know. Anyone know what our treaty with Spain says?

23

I have not heard anyone accuse Spain of not abiding by whatever the extradition treaties provide but the USA not too many years ago, allowed Virginia to execute an alien who had not been allowed consular protection according to international law and to treaties the US has signed. So the USA is not in a very good position to demand other countries abide by similar treaties. Madelaine Albright at the time very wisely pointed out this would cause untold problems for American citizens seeking consular protection abroad.

Treaties are a bargain where both sides get something they want, it’s not like the USA can go around imposing whatever they want in exchange for nothing. Whatever the treaty provides it is probably the best treaty the US could get (unless you are accusing them of incompetence). The alternative would be no extradition treaty which would be even better for the criminals.

homework:

24

>> Beheaded for adultry. Sentenced to die after a fair trial for carrying out grisley murder. Are those the same thing?

They are not the same thing and I see you missed my point entirely so I will try to make it clear to you. My point is that different cultures and different nations have different standards as to what crimes deserve what punishment and what judicial process is needed to impose the punishment. The USA is not the supreme judge of what is good and what is bad. Only within its borders can the US impose its laws and other countries do the same inside their own. The USA thinks (a) beheading for adultery is too harsh a punishment and (b) the judicial system in Arabia does not have enough guarantees for the accused so therefore © the may refuse extradition or grant it if Arabia agrees to certain guarantees. Now, the European Union has laws that say (a) death is too harsh a penalty for any crime, including killing Americans, and (b) the military tribunals the USA has established to judge these crimes do not have enough guarantees for the accused so, therefore, © Europe may refuse extradition or grant it if the USA agrees to certain guarantees. Do you see a parallel here? Why is American law to prevail over any other law? Just because you like it better?

25

Because it was our law that was broken, dammit.
Yes, I see your point.

I just don’t like it.

26

I have not been able to find the entire text of the treaties and addendums, which OTOH is not really that important since nobody is accusing Spain or the European Union of not abiding by them. At any rate, the impression I get (and please correct me if I am wrong) is the original extradition treaty was signed in 1970 and, at that time, ths US was not so concerned with terrorism so crimes determined to have political motives, even murder and terrorism, were excluded. For the next twenty years this allowed some ETA terrorists to seek refuge in the USA. Not many did this because, for language reasons I would assume, they preferred Spanish-speaking countries. But the fact is that the US offered a safe haven to terrorists because their motives were political. So, the US has harbored terrorists when it had no interest in extraditing them.

But the US was beginning to fear terrorism at home and in 1992, a supplement to the treaty was ratified which excluded a list of crimes, including murder etc from the exceptions, even if they were politically motivated. The first ETA terrorist was extradited from the US to Spain in 1999.

27

I’m a bit ambivalent about this report from Spain.

Spain has formally signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is this that prevents any EU nation from extraditing a person to face a possible death penalty.

OTOH Spain has long been a safe haven for serious criminals, especially those from the UK to the extent that these people have been tried and sentenced, some have even escaped custody and they live quite openly in Southern Spain, which has resulted in certain places being known to UK folk as the ‘Costa del Crime’

You might think that living it up out of reach of UK law such folk would try not to offend their hosts, but in fact they still operate serious frauds, usually real estate ones such as timeshare to the tune of £100mills, this is big league stuff.

For some time Spain has been able to respond to extradition requests from the UK and one or two criminals have been returned to us but even so the legal obsticles placed in the way make the process cumbersome and, for the most part, makes extradition impossible.

Spain has had a dispute with the UK over Gibraltar, but all the UK has said is that it is up to the people of that island to vote how they wish to be governed, Spain has generally demanded the return of Gibraltar without such a condition. This is largely what has led to Spain attitude to British criminals.
Once Spain realised that it wanted to join up in the European single market its attitude changed dramatically and it now says that it will allow Gibraltarians their right to self-determination, which is one part of that EU Convention on Human rights.
Recently Spain agreed to find ways to make the extradition of convicted and wanted UK criminals far easier, and the UK has agreed a timetable for the Gibraltar referendum.

Spain has found it frustrating when trying to deal with its own terrorist problem since many ETA operatives use France as a safe haven, but since Spain has traditionally made life difficult for the extradition of criminals back to many other EU nations it should not be surprised at this reaction.

The US is not blameless in the extradition issue.

We in the UK have known the identities and whereabouts of many IRA operatives but the US has made extradition of these convicted murderers from US soil so difficult as to be pretty much impossible, in fact the US has hardly been sympathetic over years to other nations trying to deal with their terrorist problems.

We in the UK have a goodly number of people who are associated with terrorist organisations, and they live and work quite openly, France has plenty, Belgium is notorious for being a palce where the arms deals are done without too many questions.

There is plenty enough blame to go around

28

I’ve got no problem with agreeing to the provisions of the extradition treaty. Give the terrorists life sentences in a federal prision.

They’ll be real popular once the other inmates find out who they are.

29

Casdave, the USA has NOT requested the extradition and Spain has not rejected the request so the entire thing is moot.

Well, there you have it. The UK would be in the same position as Spain and would, presumably, do the same thing.

Well, we are opening up another front here but here we go. The extradition treaties between Spain and the UK have always had many hurdles at the request of the UK. Only recently are they being simplified. I do not think you can accuse Spain of not abiding by the treaties in force. At the same time there have been quite a few fugitives from Spanish law living in the UK so it does cut both ways. I understand the prime ministers of both countries have signed in the last few days a protocol making extradition much easier.

The UK have their own cumbersome processes. You may recall the Spanish petition to extradite Pinochet which dragged on forever and was ultimately denied. It seems what one considers “due process” in one’s country becomes “unnecessary, cumbersome impediments” when another country does it.

I missed the news where Gibraltar became an island. I do not think this is the place to discuss in detail the ongoing negotiations between the UK and Spain but I believe you misrepresent the issue. Gibraltar has long been a safehaven and a base for criminal activity. It is used as a base for drug and tobacco sumuggling into Spain and Spanish police boats cannot chase the criminals into UK waters and the authorities of Gibraltar refuse to cooperate as this is an important part of the economy. Gibraltar is also an important offshore banking center used for money laundering by drug dealers and terrorists. It and other offshore fiscal paradises under UK jurisdiction have been denounced by the USA and other countries. It seems it is only in light of recent events that the UK is begining to do something about this.

This is quite wrong. Spain over the years has always sought to simplify extradition treaties and it was France and the UK who objected doing it finally only when it was in their own interest. In fact, France has traditionally been a refuge of ETA terrorists. Now France has an extradition treaty which it signed because it wanted the consideration but it is not abiding by it. In the last ten days a man whose extradition has been requested by Spain has appeared twice in public meetings in France and French authorities have failed to arrest him and extradite him only because they fear the terrorist will start acting there.

We agree. Things are not so simple and there are many sides to every issue.

30

Just a couple of notes on this issue.

-Spain has been at the forefront of European reform with regard to a united penal code for EU nations. In fact, just two weeks ago the fifteen nations that make up the Union signed a pre-agreement/draft to establish a new ‘eurorder’ making it possible to detain criminals in any European nation without the need to invoke extradition treaties. Included in this draft is a list of thirty applicable offenses. Spain assumes the presidency of the EU in January and Aznar has made it clear that approving this resolution is one of his main priorities.

The next logical step in Europe is the creation of a unified penal code to go along with the single currency (coming in January) and passports. Spain assumes the presidency of the EU in January and Aznar has made it clear this is one of his priorities.

-At the recently finished 21 first Ibero-American council of nation in Lima, Peru, Spain led the way for the 21 nations present to agree to yet another resolution to standardize extradition laws across the borders of all those present. As sailor mentioned, this was a specially sticky point due to the number of ETA criminals seeking refuge overseas. As it stands now, Venezuela harbors a number of them and has repeatedly refused Spanish claims for extradition. Noticeably absent from this council, was none other than Fidel Castro – who was well aware of Spain’s the agenda.
-Prime-Minister Aznar is due in Washington this coming Tuesday, where he’s scheduled to meet with Bush and other high-ranking officials. Presumably, the topic of the detained terrorists is on the agenda and any/all differences between the US and Spain negotiated. Aznar is actually one of the very few conservative leaders in power in Europe and has been known to back many of Bush’s initiatives. He was also amongst the first EU leaders to express his condemnation of the attacks and offer military aid and was recently elected president of the International association of Christian Democratic, Conservative and People’s parties. Significant, because outside of the Republican Party this is the largest coalition of conservative parties in the world. For anyone interested, he’s expected to be on Larry King, Thursday or Friday, where I’m sure the topic of the possible extraditions will come up.

-Gibraltar. Definately still firmly attached to Spanish soil :wink:

31

Very interesting post RedFury. I have learnt a lot from it. Some more loose ends and disjoined thoughts:

The USA has military bases in Spain which are being used in these military operations.

The Spanish prime minister, Jose-Maria Aznar, has also – alone in Europe - endorsed Bush’s plans for new missile defence systems.

The yahoos who call for isolationism and not cooperating with other countries are the ones who complain the most when other countries don’t do exactly what America would like. If you want to have friends when you need them, you have to make friends of them beforehand.

There are a lot of anti-american yahoos in Europe just as there are a lot of nationalist yahoos in the USA. It is just as well that the leaders of all those countries know better.

Gibraltar deserves a separate thread of its own in which I would gladly participate as I followed the handover of Hong Kong with great interest and there are many similarities.

32

I’m sorry about your friends.

BUT…that does NOT give you the right to keep exploiting this just to push your own agenda. Quit using your tragedy as an excuse for spewing your ignorance everywhere.

:mad:

As usual, you’re an ass.

What about all the criminals who were allowed into the US?
People who were members of the death squads down in Latin America. Oh, but wait-they were fighting against communism.

Get bent.

33

sailor,

My apologies for the poor editing in my prior post. I was in a bit of a hurry earlier and only noticed it now.

I also forgot to add the following link that I thought spooje would find useful as it explains in some detail the EU stand on the DP:EU Policy & Action On The Death Penalty

BTW, of less importance but of relevance at present time is the nature of the US/Morocco/Spain relations. Although the kingdom of Morocco is one of the most moderate Muslim regimes, we (Spain) haven’t always been able to see eye to eye with them. Issues of past colonialism, the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla and the rash of illegal immigration come to mind. King Mohammed VI had close ties with the Clinton administration and at times, Spaniards felt American foreign policy wasn’t consistent with the stated goals of said administration – providing the Moroccan defense forces extremely benign deals raised more than a few eyebrows in Spain.

Note. I am not saying Spain was always right in their dealings with Morocco, but pointing out that dealing with allies is not always the smooth sailing we’d like it to be.

34

Let’s look at an earlier act of terrorism, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. IIRC, two or three Libyan terrorists were tried in some neutral location (the Hague maybe) but under Scottish law. Why can’t or shouldn’t the same be done in this case?

I don’t care where the physical trial is held, but if the arrestees are suspected of conspiracy to commit murder in the U.S., why shouldn’t they be tried under American law, including receiving whatever legal punishment American law allows, including the DP if warranted? After all, the planes crashed in NY, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

35

>> if the arrestees are suspected of conspiracy to commit murder in the U.S., why shouldn’t they be tried under American law, including receiving whatever legal punishment American law allows, including the DP if warranted?

milroyj, you might want to read this thread where it is well explained.

36

Um, sailor, was that supposed to be funny? Ha Ha :rolleyes:

Look, I realize this is the Pit, so the rules of debate as in GD do not apply, but anyone care to answer the question?

In the Lockerbie case, the only connection between the terrorists and Scotland is that’s where the plane crashed. AFAIK, there was’t a bunch of Scottish nationals killed, and the terrorism wasn’t directed at Scotland per se. Yet the terrorists were tried under Scottish law.

In the case of 9/11, thousands of Americans were killed, and the terrorism was directed at America. Disregarding that, we still have the fact that the planes crashed here. So, given the Lockerbie precedent, why shouldn’t the terrorists be tried according to American law?

37

milroyj, you must be pretty daft if after reading this thread you still don’t get it. Let’s see… For America to try and punish those guys, first it has to have them in custody. Those guys are in the hands of other countries who do not automatically do whatever the FBI says. The USA therefore may have only limited choices: (A) forget about prosecuting the guys, (B) agree to whatever conditions the extraditing countries set or © invade the country holding the guys and take them by force. This has been explained in detail a few posts up. What part don’t you understand?

I never cease to be amazed by the stupidity and ignorance of those Americans who think America is somehow the yardstick by which the rest of the world is measured.

38

Milroy,

You also failed to recognize the fact that Scotland does not have the death penalty either.

39

and that it took many years of negotiations and UN sanctions to get Lybia to surrender the guys. In the end the US had to agree to certain conditions in order to get them or they would not have got them at all.

So, the US has two ways of getting their hands on these guys: (a) saying pretty please and agreeing to whatever conditions the state having custody sets or (b) invade the country and try to grab the guys. While (b) has been the preferred option when dealing with Afghanistan, I doubt the US would try to invade Europe in order to grab the bad guys…

I can already hear the yahoos whispering “why don’t we just nuke 'em?”

40

Any terrorists that America gets a hold of will be tried under American law. Since the people we are talking about are currently in Spain, the US will have to get them extradicted to the US for them to be tried here. Since Spain is a sovereign nation completely and totally independent of the US, it has no obligation to turn the suspected terrorists over under any terms other than its own and what it is obliged to by treaty. If the US asks for an unconditional extradiction, I suppose that would probably shed more light on what treaties may be involved, and what the parties are obliged to do.