Which can be translated : The US can create whatever f…g court they want. As for the extradition, it will have to be made according to the Spanish law.
And I certainly expect it will be be worked up that way. Contrarily to the DP, I don’t think there’s any treaty which states exactly what rules must be respected by a foreign court for an extradition to take place, but I would be extremely pissed off by any EU government which would extradite anyone facing a trial by some funny secret military court. If the US have decided that their new model in matter of law and rights is the PRC, that’s fine. But we aren’t obliged to follow this enlightened move toward modernity.
By the way, for the british poster who complained about France being reticent to extradite some people to the UK, may I remind him that the UK still didn’t extradite the person who is accused of having organized the terrorist bombing in Paris subway several years ago?
This brings up a couple of interesting points. One is what would happen if Ben Laden falls into the hands of British soldiers. It might make for an interesting situation if the UK refused to turn him over and the USA decide the UK was a country who was “sheltering terrorists”. I can imagine plans for an invasion of London are already being considered _
Another interesting point is that it seems the US is in the habit of playing the trick of demanding extradition on some minor crime to which Europe has no objection and then, once they have the guy, charging him with something else and seeking the death penalty, which, obviously, is a way of circumventing the agreement. In light of this the European Union would be very justified in denying any and all extraditions to the USA which can not be trusted to keep its side of a bargain.
I know the US government is not responsible for what the media says but it shows well the state of mind in the country. Like many or most in the American media, the [url=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13047-2001Nov25.html”] never refers to ETA as a terrorist group but as “separatist” or “independentist”. This of a group that has killed close to 1000 persons and routinely sets bombs. I guess the Spanish would be justified in not labeling al-Qaeda as “terrorist” but as “Islamic”. I wonder how Americans would appreciate that.
Just a couple days ago ETA killed two members of the basque police. One of them was a young mother. The killer was also a young woman. I can only wonder what would make a young woman shoot another young woman in cold blood. Only a very warped mind could do that.
My apologies for not previewing. Let me try again.
I know the US government is not responsible for what the media says but it shows well the state of mind in the country. Like many or most in the American media, the Washington Postnever refers to ETA as a terrorist group but as “separatist” or “independentist”. This of a group that has killed close to 1000 persons and routinely sets bombs. I guess the Spanish would be justified in not labeling al-Qaeda as “terrorist” but as “Islamic”. I wonder how Americans would appreciate that.
Just a couple days ago ETA killed two members of the basque police. One of them was a young mother. The killer was also a young woman. I can only wonder what would make a young woman shoot another young woman in cold blood. Only a very warped mind could do that.
Many Americans consider European law enforcement to be barbaric. E.g, consider the German man who tried to kill American tennis star Monica Seles by stabbing her in the back. At the time, Monica had replaced the German Steffi Graf as the top woman tennis player in the world. After Monica’s serious injury, Steffi was number one for several years. The perpetrator received *no prison time at all. *
Many Americans felt that the German handling encouraged attacks on American citizens. This encourages murder in the street, like organized crime.
You say our system resembles the PRC. I can say your system resemble the Mafia. Should we just call each other names? No. We should be tolerant of each other. Although European justice is barbaric by American standards, it’s far superior to much of the world. I think America should cooperate with Europe and hope that they fix their flawed system over time.
I wish Europe would take the same view of the American justice system.
december, could you please, please, expound on that please? Please? An explanation as to why “European justice is barbaric by American standards”?
Somebody did not get the penalty you thought they deserved? Guess what? Most Americans think criminals in America do not get the penalty they deserve.
You see the Monica Seles case as an invitation to attack Americans? Would you also say then that the O.J. Simpson case is an invitation for blacks to kill whites?
so, in your estimation, because of a stuff up in the german court system, all EU law is “flawed”?
Gunther Parche never served a day in prison because of an error in german law, not in EU law. if you cannot tell the difference, then I commiserate the time wasted by people who tried to educate you.
Would you like me to search for loop holes and mistrials in the American system?
A problem is that not only these military courts are sub-standard from an european point of view, but that they’re also under the american standards themselves. So, they’re extremely difficult to support, IMO.
I am so excited in anticipation of december explaining to us all his view that “European justice is barbaric by American standards” and “America should cooperate with Europe and hope that they fix their flawed system over time” as I have no doubt his explanation is going to be most enlightning. december, please, don’t keep us waiting like this. I can hardly bear it.
My view is that the US ought to extradite criminals and terrorists wanted by European countries, even if we disagree with some aspects of their criminal justice system. And vice versa.
clairobscur, it’s understandable that you’ve received this impression, given that you’re far away. Actually, only a relatively small number of Americans, some on the left, some on the libertarial right, vehemently opose these military courts. They have gotten disproportionate publicity.
Most Americans support these terror courts. We don’t see them as below American standards. On the contrary, we see them as following appropriate standards, given the current situation.
The issue of whether legislation or an executive order is “below American standards” does not depend merely (or even primarily) on how the majority of Americans personally feel about it. It depends on whether it’s constitutionally irreconcilable with our basic civil liberties.
december, I am beginning to think your level of comprehension is not too high. Military tribunals can be approved by everybody and below American standards. Both things are totally unrelated. I am not going to get into that debate here but you are welcome to join me in Military Tribunlas where I just said the ignorant masses are easily stirred into supporting this kind of thing but it is meeting a lot of opposition in Congress where they know better.
I asked to to clarify your statements that “European justice is barbaric by American standards” and “America should cooperate with Europe and hope that they fix their flawed system over time” and your response is
So, to you, that is the meaning of “barbaric” and “flawed”? No wonder your level of comprehension is so reduced. I will have you know I looked them up in the dictionary and the definition is not “things with which december disagrees with” or even “things with which the American government disagrees with”. In fact, one of the definitions given by Websters for “barbarian” is “having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality” which I think would much more properly apply to you than to the judicial system of any European country. Or shall we have a poll here?
sailor, whether or not tribunals meet certain standards is a subjective concept. There’s no way to prove it mathematically. Most Americans think the military tribunals meet our standards. We ought to know; they’re our standards. (BTW for evidence of what Americans think, see Washington Post, “Most Americans Back U.S. Tactics Poll Finds Little Worry Over Rights” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30704-2001Nov28.html
Thankls for the invitation. I acknowledge the Congressional stirring, but I bet it goes nowhere, because, as you said, Congress knows better.
A dictionary won’t tell what American standards are. You must know that a majority of Americans believe in the death penalty.
clairboscur, operating in a second language, understood that my use of the word “barbaric” was hyperbole, just as his/hers was. You’re a native English speaker with a very highly superior level of understanding and comprehension, so I assume that you also got that point, but you feigned confusion for some rhetorical purpose.
I stand by my main point: The US should cooperate with Europe without imposing our standards on them, and they should do the same for us.
I think the idea that was trying to be expressed, is that these “terror courts”, are below the standards of what “America” means, whether a majority of Americans support them or not. As an analogy, the majority of Americans at one time supported slavery, but that was incompatable with the values of freedom and equality that our country was based on. The majority of Americans supported segregation, but that was incompatable with our values. A thing can be wrong even if it’s popular.
Yes, bad things are sometimes popular. I agree with that general principle.
However, we’re left with the question: If we reject democracy, how then do we decide whether something is right or wrong? Kimstu suggests
Unfortunately, Constitutionality is an imperfect guide. [ul][li]Bad things can be Constitutional. E.g., slavery was Constitutional for many decades. It’s hard to know for sure whether these military tribunals are Constitutional. [/ul] But, wait. Kimstu didn’t say “constitutional.” She said “constitutionally irreconcilable with our basic civil liberties.” This reminds of words from a Statement by Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office [/li][quote]
… the President’s decision is further evidence that the Administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy.
[/quote] http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n111401b.html
Note that Murphy did not say that the tribunals are illegal or that they’re un-constitutional. She’s applying a more subjective test of “checks and balances central to our democracy.” I suspect that Kimstu also means something more subjective than constitutionality. I believe that Kimstu, Captain Amazing and Laura Murphy would oppose these tribunals even if the SCOTUS found them to be Constitutional.
Then, if we’re going to take the subjective rules propounded by Kimstu, Murphy and Captain Amazing, how can we decide if they apply to these tribunals? If we rule out democracy, what’s left?
