And I never cease to be amazed by the stupidity and ignorance of those members of the SDMB who are always right, because they said so! Look, right there, a few posts back!
Linking to your own post(s) to make an arguement, indeed. Are you going for the Collounsbury Award for Most Arrogant Know-it-All?
And your point is? Of course it would take negotiations, no one here is proposing commando raids in Madrid, but why is it not a goal worthy of pursuing?
Perhaps more immediately relevant, what about the foreign Taliban that are being captured in Konduz as we speak? Intially the NA said they would be tried there under Islamic law. Now, Rabbini is saying they should be turned over to the U.N., and let the U.N. deal with 'em. Say that’s what happens, they’re turned over to the U.N. What should happen then? Should they be tried in a neutral location, under American law? Remember, the Libyans were tried under Scottish law, so there is precedent for this, under U.N. auspices. If not, why not? Or do you have a separate agenda, involving the Death Penalty. Just wondering.
I’d be happy to debate the UN on another thread. Those of us who want an effective UN approved of the US withholding dues. This was an effort to fix that tragically ineffective organization, and it did have some degree of beneficial effect. In any event, the UN isn’t paying anything towards the War On Terrorism, because it’s not under their aegis.
Spain’s ability to arrest them so quickly is why I suspect they had knowledge they weren’t acting on. From what I’ve read, credit for discovering the terror network goes primarily to Jordan.
They sure can. However, a friend should look for a way to help, rather than seek a reason not to help.
sailor, are you saying the US puts hurdles in the way of extradition to Spain? Do you have a cite?
The Americans have had special forces fighting with the Northern Alliance. There have been American casualties.
sailor, this quote sums up our difference in POV. As I see it, the thousands killed on 9/11 are nothing compared with the number that will be killed if the Al Qaida network isn’t broken up. I guess you don’t agree.
Anyhow it was a cheap shot on my part. Every sane culture feels morally superior, because they believe in their own culture.
I’m sure his understanding dwarfs mine and I agree that he’s doing a good job. Still, with dozens of non-allies to deal with, it’s a shame that he needs to spend his precious time on Spain.
That’s very interesting. Do you have details and cites? Has the US resisted extraditing any of these Basque terrorists?
This is where judgment comes in. Spain could have sought a reason to cooperate with the extradition. They could have decided that the 9/11 and continuing war on terrorism is different from the types of crime covered by the EU agreement. They could have sought to modify the EU agreement. The could have decided that the military trials were good enough to comply with the EU agreement. But, they didn’t look for a way to help; just the reverse.
I relied on the report of the NY Times and Wall St. Journal.
spooge, thank you for your support. Your posts were cogent and convincing.
december, you are accusing Spain of not agreeing to an extradition which has not been requested which is just plain ridiculous. I think the rest of the thread shows pretty well that Spain is cooperating effectively in this war effort. If and when the extradition is requested, Spain will do what it can within the law but the government of Spain, like the government of the USA is bound by the law and you do not ask friends to break the law. I told you in the other thread that the military tribunals might bring problems. I am not wasting any more time with this. Like the Washington Post says: “if you don’t get it, you don’t get it”.
The choice for those foreigners who went to Afghanistan should be limited only to being tried by Afghan courts, I wonder how Afghanis feel about having foreigners fighting for a regime that supressed them for so long, or to be tried in their passport nation as traitors.
One might argue that some couhtries would not wish to do this, I’m thinking of Pakistan and Uzbekistan here but international approbrium, and the need to disrupt what conesion Al-Qaeda and it’s political networks whihc threaten such governments might well be incentive enough.
Sailor
You will note of course that the case of the extradition of Pinochet to Spain is a most unusual case.
Pinochet is not believed to have commited any offences against Britons in British jurisidiction, the fact that he was detained at all by the UK was hailed as a change to the world order since the case broke new ground.
In Spain asking for extradition for a person who commited crimes against individuals outside its jurisdiction when his own country has a perfectly acceptable legal system, sets a pecedent, since there was the issue of the internationally accepted immunity for visiting heads of state to deal with.
Yes you can argue that Chile has had some difficulty dealing with the crimes of Pinochet in Chile but when a country has come through so much division and the nascent democracy there might be toppled on the whim of a military commander, there had to be an awful lot of pragmatism on both sides.
I would be interested in seeing a cite on how the UK has preferred to make extradition of criminals from Spain difficult for itself, all I know is that this issue has been a hindrance to British justice for forty years.
casdave,the fact that “Pinochet is not believed to have commited any offences against Britons in British jurisidiction” is quite irrelevant, isn’t it? He was accused of crimes against Spanish nationals and Spain was demanding extradition. This is not the thread either to get into a discussion of the particulars of that case. I just wanted to point out the fact that when one country demands an extradition, the other country has its own “cumbersome” legal process to follow. I mentioned that one because it was so notorious.
You provide no cites either. You just have a general feeling that “this issue has been a hindrance to British justice for forty years” which you get from reading the news. Of course in the UK “Spain hinders yet another extradition UK bad guy now living the good life in the Costa del Sol” is news while “The lord justice has ruled Spain did not present all the necessary paperwork for the extradition of some guy no one here knows” is not news. But if you read the news in Spain you would get exactly the opposite picture. The fact is extradition has been a bureacratic hassle from both sides. Another point is that both the UK and France, just like the USA, have traditionally refused extradition for crimes if the motive was “political” which covered terrorist killings. Those countries had a mistaken sense of nobleness attached to things which were politically motivated. Spain has long pushed to remove this exception but, in the meanwhile, it would not even ask for certain people to be extradited , knowing the request would be refused as not covered in the treaty. But it was Spain trying to ease and simplify the extradition process and the UK, France, the USA who did not want. This is notorious and, as RedFury has pointed out, it is in the current news. Frankly, I am not about to embark on a search for cites because I spent some time doing the same with the USA and all I got was some dates for the treaties in force and little else. I am not disputing the impression you get from reading your press is that “Spain puts hurdles to extradition” but if you lived in Spain you’d get to see the other side of the coin. I have a vague recollection of some rich financier who escaped to London some years ago and he was there for quite a while making fun of the Spanish authorities trying to grab him. I do not know how it ended though.
Every story has at least two sides to it. Clinton thinks its OK to receive Gerry Adams in the White house and I can see how the UK has a different view.
You also have to realise Spain is not thrilled to have all these international bad guys living there but its not like they can just kick them out. They create untold problems locally but the authorites in many cases have their hands tied by laws which are hurdles in themselves but are just part of a system that gives people certain guarantees. I will also note that those undesirables living in the Costa del Crime are most often using Gibraltar as a base for their money laundering so it’s not like the UK is blameless. The bad guys take advantage of the situation. Different jurisdictions work in their favor and they just use what is there. If Gibraltar was returned to Spain tomorrow, the Costa del Sol would lose a lot of attraction for the bad guys. Spain has been in the forefront of reform to facilitate extradition and unify and standardise the process. It is a complex problem.
The point is that I think it has been shown definitively that the OP is baseless and all wrong. The other issues would deserve separate threads. This has turned into GD so we are in the wrong forum and I do not think this thread really deserves the second page we are approaching.
I guess the point is that it is too easy to fall into the “us vs. them” trap. Anywhere in Europe or the US you will hear people complain how criminals are known to the police but they go free because of due process technicalities and difficulties. When this happens in our own community we just live with it but when it is another group who does the same thing to us, we immediately feel they are doing it because they are not us and they don’t care. This is universally human and we need to make an effort to understand the other side.
OJ Simpson went free and it is recognised that is a result of having a certain system of laws. If what was being judged was not his guilt but his extradition to another country and the extradition would have been refused, the people in the other country would have felt it was a direct insult to them, they would not have appreciated it is just how the system works or does not work, regardless of whether its “us” or “them”.
People continually take things as directly meant to offend them when, if they looked around, they could see it is the way things normally are and are not directed at them. We are all somewhat paranoid in thinking that other groups are out to get “my” group. The problem is that when you confront the “other” group with that they just don’t see it. Many Chinese people are convinced America has nothing better to do than hate them all day long and find in that an explanation to anything America does. I have a hard time trying to convince them that most Americans are just too busy making ends meet to care much about China one way or another. Ditto for many Muslim extremists. Blacks often feel they get mistreated because they are blacks without seeing that it is very possible that whites get the same treatment. It is human nature to identify with a group and close ranks. It is easy for politicians to exploit this but in the long run it is harmful. It is better to try to understand the other side.
The OP is a good sample of this. What would Americans say if another country asked them to break their own laws and extradite someone without respecting him his rights under American law? They would feel insulted, and rightly so. Now, why would you ask from your friend what you would take as an insult if he asked it from you?
Yeah. I get that. I just got frustrated because I wanted these fucks to pay(assuming, of course, they are the right fucks) I disagree with EU about the DP, but I see their point.
Something about having to take the DP off the table seems like them getting off easy. If they were caught and tried here, and a jury convicted and didn’t give them the DP, I probably wouldn’t bat an eye about it. All about perspective, I quess.
Faced with a demand for supported facts, sailor responded,
sailor, once more, would you kindly back up your anti-American slurs with cites. Or, please admit the lack of symmetry: Spain is putting conditions on extraditions to the US, even though the US has not put conditions on extraditions to Spain.
I already explained this further up. <sigh> The extradition treaty between the US and Spain specifically excluded terrorist acts and so, Spain could not claim and the US would not extradite Spanish terrorists who found refuge in America. What part do you not understand? After Spain had been trying to change this for many years, finally President Bush the senior in 1992, agreed to exclude terrorist crimes from the exceptions. Spain-United States Second Supplementary Treaty on Extradition March 3, 1992
The first extradition of a terrorist took place in 1999 (after something like 3 years legal process after it was requested.
In summary, until 1992, the US legally refused to extradite terrorists back to Spain. You have a problem with that? You find that troubling? I do too and so did Spain. The USA has sheltered terrorists whenever it was in its own interests. You call that a slur? I call it the truth.
So, the US does put conditions and they are spelled out in the extradition treaties I cited. Before the 1992 amendment any crime which was politically motivated was specifically excluded. Terrorists who committed in Spain a crime similar to the WTC could have found refuge in the USA and the USA would not extradite them because the crime had political motives. Get it now?
I am not going to do any more homework for you but I am sure the situation is similar with many other countries as I have heard complaints from the UK about Irish terrorists being shelterd in America, not to mention president Clinton inviting Gerry Adams to the White House, and I am quite sure terrorists from other countries in central America and other parts of the world have been offered refuge in America. Except America calls them “freedom fighters” to make it look more acceptable.
I am not going to study every extradition treaty America has. You can do it if you like and report back to us.
Just as Federal Law takes precedence over State Law in the US, Spain is bound by the laws of the European Union which is where the obstacle to the extradition may lie. There is nothing Spain can do short of secede from Europe (and they will not do this as they are afraid Germany and other northern states would send General Shermann to burn the Alhambra). If you have a gripe over this, you have it with the European Union, not with Spain. Please adjust your rants accordingly.
The USA routinely gives political asylum to people who are persecuted in their home countries and in the view of the USA the process there does not give them enough guarantees. This cuts both ways and America should admit that other countries do the same.
It is not only the European Union who object to military tribunals with secret proceedings, insufficient defense protection for the accused and no possibility of appeal; many Americans do too. I hope you will admit those Americans who oppose them are no less entitled to their view and are in no way supporting the terrorists. The military tribunals are the very opposite of what America is supposed to represent. They are the exact representation of the types of trials held in China and which America has criticised, and rightly so, for years. They are a shame on America and everything it represents. I told you in the other thread those special tribunals are just indefensible in any nation that calls itself civilized and (IMHO) the European Union is doing the right thing in shielding anyone from being subject to them.
I do not know how many times I have to repeat this: America has NOT formally requested the extradition and, so, no extradition has been denied. december, you are barking up the wrong fucking tree.
I meant by this that our goals in life seem to match - you are destined for great things, sailor. We, at the HFS, chase down and assassinate testosterone-charged idiots. Want a job? We have a job for you. You have now been dubbed my very own Chief Idjit Assassin & Director of Public Relations.
I just read in the news Spain has offered 13 transport planes for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Afghanistan. Of course, the cynics will say they made the number 13 knowing it represents bad luck and expecting they would not be accepted.
I also saw in the news president Aznar has arrived in Washington and president Bush has said he is going to “explain” to Aznar the military tribunals. I can imagine the explanation might go something like “What don’t you understand about the military tribunals you moron? You better watch out because you’re pissing me off and last one to piss me off was the Taliban and look what happened… comprende amigo? Ok, now let’s go outside and you smile at the cameras and tell them you have undertood my explanation”
Elenfair, I am highly pleased and honored by your recognition but you made my heart jump for a moment there when my first glimpse of your post saw the word “squad” and I thought the enemy were already out to get me and demand my extradition
I just wish more women would appreciate my fine qualities. I am sure I can be very useful to you as not only do I immensely enjoy fighting idjits (although being a person with a kind heart I do not roast them past medium-rare) but I can also cook a couple of dishes and I can… well I can’t think of anything else I can do but I am eager to learn and to please.
Huh. And the news today had a sound-bite of Bush publicly thanking Spain for having captured the suspected terrorists and for providing information about them to US investigators.
Fair enough comment, sailor. Your statement indicates that the US did indeed resist extrading suspected terrorists back to Spain. I sincerely appreciate the information. I retract my implication that the US hadn’t done such a thing. Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right…
I read that W was to meet today with some representative of Spain to explain how the military tribunals would work. My cynical side tells me that the US will provide some benefit to Spain (possibly secretly) and they will drop the objection to the military tribunal. We shall see.
Bush also met U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to discuss the humanitarian aid
crisis in Afghanistan worsened by the U.S.-led war. They vowed to ensure a steady
supply of relief aid for the Afghan people despite an insecure situation in many
war-ravaged areas there.
As many as 7.5 million Afghans are suffering from the cumulative effect of more than
two decades of war, three years of severe drought and a collapsed economy.
Bush said he was convinced “we can do a very good job” of getting food, clothing
and medicine to Afghans displaced by the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, which has
routed the Taliban from control of most of the country in the campaign to bring bin
Laden and his al Qaeda followers to justice for the Sept. 11 attacks.
The United States has voiced concern about lawlessness in Afghanistan and warned
the U.S. military faces a difficult fight even in towns and cities seized by Taliban
opponents.
“The degree of difficulty is high. There’s no question we have a large task ahead of
ourselves. We’ve got ample money. … We’ve got the food. The fundamental
question is, in an environment that is not very secure, how do we get the food in to
people. And that’s what we’re working on,” Bush said after the meeting.
Annan, seated at Bush’s side in the White House Roosevelt Room, said the
U.N.-led relief effort was able to get in as much food as needed “but because of the
insecurity, we have difficulties reaching the needy and the people, and we are
working on that.”
“And I hope the situation will clarify in the not-too-distant future to allow us to reach
all those in need,” Annan said.
