We let torturers who’ve committed crimes against humanity go free. Our legal system is incompetent, our flag is smeared in the shit of villians as long as Bush and his henchmen go free.
America, and horrid people who support letting torturers go free are immoral and reprehensible.
I say this with much anger at a country as an American I was raised to be proud of. I’d like to be proud of it again some day.
Spain is doing the right thing.
He also was one of the few politicians who refused to endorse the Malvina’s (Falkands) invasion.
Vaya con Dios Sr. Presidente.
You mean like “Ley de Obediencia Debida” (Law of Due Obedience) which exonerated everyone under the rank of Coronel of any wrongdoing during the “Guerra Sucia” just after the “carapintada” uprisal?
Yeah, the right thing
And seconding Nava’s thought it’d be nice for Supergarzón to accuse some Al Qaeda big guy.
What an asinine comment. It’s not war Garzon is declaring – he has no judisdiction over military matters, never mind the backing of the majority of Spaniards – he is simply applying certain chapters of international law that he feels warrant the inquiry.
And he is right in that even if it won’t go anywhere – as in a military confrontation between a minion and a Hyperpower.
Not like Spain’s force-projection is anywhere near Israel’s and we know Israel won’t tough the topic with a ten-foot pole. Not as if you could effectively do much either in terms of raiding the US for war-criminals.
It’s simply a moral stance.
Whose moral stance?
Garzón’s?
Spain’s? (How does he know?)
The world’s? (How does he know?)
It’s grandstanding
None of the above. Simply a judge acting on common sense based on factual events that contravene the GC.
Epic Fail, Mr. Gallina.
When come back, bring argument.
…but it was you who said “Moral Stance” and not “Legal Stance”. If it’s moral one, the law is secondary because you are nor punishing a crime you are punsishing a sin.
Now you change your mind and say it’s a Geneva thing. If it is Geneva, OK, but I just can’t find the article that says that Spanish courts are the ones in charge of prosecuting cases as they see fit.
You’re right on one count though: It’s impossible to bring an argument against a guy who doesn’t know his own.
It’s not no much about whether those guys actually broke international law or not, my objection is the precedent of potentially 200 Garzones (one per country) issuing writs all over the place asking for extraditions and detentions so that when , say, Felipe Gonzales goes to Nicaragua a Paraguayan court demands his arrest and extradition (on GAL-related charges) and the treaty between both countries allows it to proceed.
The Junta and the top militar commanders were tried, condemned, stripped of their rank and imrprisioned (life sentences). This, you’ll have to agree, is pretty uncommon.
When the army rebelled, democracy was endangered. He was the president and he had to make a decission. We’ll never know what would have happened if he hadn’t done that. It was no out of cowardice: Alfonsin was a prominent human rights advocate and lawyer during the dictatorship.
Anyway, the way Argentina dealt with crimes against humanity comitted by it’s former leaders isn’t perfect. We are always criticized, specially by Europe. That shows you that countries, like people, are all hypocrites.
It makes me wonder about Panama. The U.S. invaded that country and took away its president for drug dealing, didn’t it?
Let me guess. You think it should be an American court, which of course will cheerfully let our American torturers off the hook.
Was Felipe Gonzales torturing people from Paraguay ? And was Paraguay refusing to do anything about it ?
This is ridiculous. We cheerfully torture and kill people on merely the unsubstantiated claims that they might hypothetically pose a danger to us, and then we get all offended at the concept that someone else might want to merely arrest and put on trial some of the Americans who did that to some of his people.
Ah, but you see, we are Americans so that makes it OK. It’s heroic and noble when we kill thousands to get one guy, but horrible and evil when someone else asks for the arrest of one of our people without killing anyone.
I do not know why you say this because I think Alfonsin is appreciated as having done everything that was in his hand to bring to justice those responsible for human rights crimes. And he went right to the top, unlike America which (1) covers up or, if forced to by circumstances, (2) punishes a few lower minions to nominal sentences while clearing the higher ups who are really responsible. Alfonsin’s and Argentina’s actions were much more courageous. And, again, the crimes of the military dictatorship were carried out with the encouragement and support of the USA so it is not like it was strictly an Argentinian thing. Argentina has admitted what it did wrong. America has yet to do so.
The big difference is that Spain DID investigate the GAL änd DID punish those responsible and did not cover up. The Spanish people had no benevolence for those who broke the law, even if it was with bullshit “patriotic” excuses. Not to mention that they were accused of illegal police work, not of torture or other much more heinous crimes.
But if any Spanish official has been torturing people and the Spanish people did not prosecute him then I would be glad to see that person tried in The Hague or where ever. But the Spanish people, contrary to the American people, are (1) more than willing to prosecute those crimes and (2) more than willing to submit them to the International Courts.
And that is why I, who have lived many years abroad and never really felt Spanish, lately have come to appreciate that the Spanish people now have some great qualities about them and I feel proud to be one of them (even if there are many things I dislike).
**Estilicon **was responding to Ají de Gallina’s apparent impugnation of the notion that Alfonsin did “the right thing”, due to that particular practical solution to an issue. So if we’re going to adopt an absolutist moral view of things, yeah, sure, everyone is a “hypocrite”, but it’s no source of shame. Yes, it would be nice to BOTH reestablish democracy AND punish harshly every last person who did wrong. But sometimes you can’t get both right away.
Agreed that Alfonsín did the right thing. However many of the actual torturers, the guys with the cattleprods, were left off the hook. It was definitely a tough choice.
“Democracy was endangered” is the usual excuse for many things and showed that Alfonsín could not go all the way.
(numbering mine)
Isn’t that the regular way? I do not know the judges that cold try Mr. Bush and/or his guys but I’m sure there are plenty who would have no problem indicting him/them.
Let’s say Gonzels had been tried and sentenced and served time in Spain for those crimes. The (hypothetical) Paraguayan judge could say, “nah, we’d like him to visit OUR facilities now” saying Paraguay demanded Paraguayan justice. Having or not done anything in the past wouldn’t change the core position of “my judges can try your guys when we want”.
I see, two wrong make a right.
That line may work in your country but doesn’t fly much where I come from. Spare me the *my-country-teh-suxxor * lines if you would
I repsect that you have views different from mine.
That’s it, in a nutshell. It’s the old double standard.
The critical moment was easter of 1987. At that moment the army rebelled in Buenos Aires and in many other cities. At the same moment crowds gathered in Plaza de Mayo to support the goverment. Alfonsin, for a second, thought of leading the crowd to the rebellion but, for obvious reasons, went by himself. He managed to to stop the rebellion but at the cost of promising two laws that favoured those that comitted crimes.
A few years later, when Carlos Menem was president, he pardoned everyone involved (militars and guerrillas).
Were they right or wrong to do that? History will judge but I think that at some point you can’t continue looking back: in Europe for the most part war criminals evaded justice. 60 years later they are judging corporals or lieutenants, the true mass murderers died in their beds (Nurenberg excepted.).
What I don’t like about Garzon is that Argentina tried and condemned it’s war criminals, afterwards our democratic elected leaders decided to leave all that behind and then comes this guy, from a country that never tried it`s own war criminals, and decides that he is a better judge than us about what’s right or not.
Fuck Spain.
Bush is nowhere near even half the war criminal that Lincoln, FDR, or Truman is. Some perspective please!
Garzon, could you please top me off, my Grapa is getting low. Gracias.
Thank you for your contributions, mswas and others. Your grasp of the issues involved is eclipsed only by your eloquence.
From the Times article:
So what’s the problem?