No. That is not the case at all. Look, I understand your point and I appreciate it but while Argentina can decide to forgive and forget crimes committed against Argentinians they have no capacity or authority to forgive or condone crimes committed against Spaniards. If an Argentinian or an American kills or tortures a Spaniard I am sorry but a pardon from his government is not good in Spain just like an American or an Argentinian would not accept the reverse case. And you have to understand that too. That it is only fair that the criminals pay the price to others even if you can forgive their crimes to you.
None. Even if I don’t get your point, I said I didn’t know, so maybe now I do.
convention against torture It says the the number one venue is the country in which the crimes were comitted.
(just as an example) And if the Spanish Judge thinks the 10 or 15 or 35 years he got in Argentina are not enough he can try the criminal again? Double jeopardy should be set aside only in the gravest of circumstances. Much more if you do it by extending (even if legally) your jurisdisction everywhere.
Aside from Garzón obnoxiuos *I-am-he-who-shall-judge-and-be-the-world’s-moral-compass *attitude, the precedent is both interesting and dangerous.
It is interesting because it points to people not getting away with murder (literally or not). It is dangerous because it can mean “open season” for any guy I don’t like.
I really don’t like the ideas of infinte jurisdiction.
I couldn’t even find the word “venue” in the Convention.
What I think you’re trying to talk about is Article 5:
" 1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law."
When there are three listed ways to have “jurisdiction” (not venue, that’s different), I find it a bit disingenous to argue that the first listed is “the number one venue”. That comment makes it appear that that is the preferred, as opposed to the first listed, way to exercise jurisdiction. All three, as well as those exercised “in accordance with internal law”, are all proper. Your comment seemed to take great measure to downplay that.
I couldn’t find a Vermillion flycatcher in the convention either.
We’re fighting over the word venue?
Article 5 is about who can get in line to kick the tourturer in the balls. (You will find no reference to forced testicular injuries in the convention)
(Bolding and underscoring mine)
Article 6
-
Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
-
Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
-
Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph I of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides.
** -
When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.**
So, you first arrest the guy in the country where he is and then see where you send him; and I think Art. 5 puts the State in which the crimes were comitted first no by chance but because, as standard legal practice, it is there where crimes should normally be tried. I stand by my “#1 venue” point. I wasn’t trying to downplay anything, simply correcting the overplaying of other States’ jurisdiction.
I understand that torture is not a run-of-the-mill crime and has very special and specific rules. Still, the Convention makes no mention of a torturer being a legal piñata and every time he’s out of jail someone else take a whack (not that he doesn’t deserve it). I think you would need to prove gross negligence, and not simply dissatisfaction, to try or re-try a guy after he’s been cleared.
No. There are now “European” arrest warrants, but its very recent, only between some countries, and for a very limited set of crimes. In other cases, normal extradition rules apply.
If I understood correctly what I read previously on this board (*), double jeopardy doesn’t even apply within the USA, when several entities (states or federal) have jurisdiction for the same crime.
(*) correct me if I’m mistaken
And if the government of the country where the crimes were committed cannot or will not prosecute then other countries have jurisdiction, specially governments of countries whose citizens were victims.
This argument does not hold water. There is NO double jeopardy case here. Double jeopardy means they cannot be tried twice in Spain. You can be tried in America after having been tried in another country. Heck, you can be tried by the federal government and by a state government for the same crime. So this argument does not hold water.
That argument would have some credibility if it came from a country which has always been consistent in not intervening in the affairs of other countries, like, say, China. China has the opinion that what happens inside one country is the sole responsibility and interest of the government of that country and, on this basis, has always rejected outside criticism of what it considers internal affairs. But China is consistent and does not consider itself to have any capacity to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and has always declined to do so.
But when it is Americans or the American government saying other countries have no say in what happens in America the argument is laughable because it is totally inconsistent with American prior stances. It is America who claims the right more than anybody else to intervene around the world in order to right wrongs. It is America who claims more than anybody else universal jurisdiction over some crimes, specially human rights crimes. It is America who claims, more than anybody else, universal jurisdiction even over matters of trade (Helms Burton anybody?) and others where no other country would even dream of doing that. So America claiming now that universal jurisdiction over Human Rights violations should not exist is laughable. When America set up the Nuremberg tribunals they were the ones who claimed universal jurisdiction over such crimes. If there is one country who claims universal jurisdiction as a valid concept it is the USA. Of course, they would want to claim a right and deny it to everybody else.
You are correct. And, heck, the double jeopardy protections are more extensive in Spain than they are in America.
Is Bush getting away with crimes against humanity such as torture, after ruining our economy with his lies and incompetence so important that you have to post such brain dead things?
I’ll make it simple for you.
Bush= caused economic catastrophe through incompetently focusing on lying us into a fool war so he could torture and shit all over the Constitution.
FDR= ended the depression and over saw the US war effort against Imperial Japan and Hitler.
FDR said " the only thing we have to fear is fear it’s self" then inspired the country to bounce back with a serious of bold strategies that established things like social security, and the federal highway system.
Bush capitalized on 9/11 for his own political gain bullying the country with lies about WMD and spreading fear so he could piss away a trillion dollars in Iraq, and torture people.
Perspective indeed.
Bush supporters = complete tools
The fact that FDR was a great President doesn’t excuse him from any crimes he committed (if such crimes exist).
The fact that you think it does just proves that this whole affair is political, rather than legal.
We’ll have to disagree.
I believe that if the legally elected representatives of the people of a country, choose to pardon a criminal (for crimes committed in their country) the rest of the world has to abide to that decision.
In the case of Argentina the decision was to convict the leaders of the repression, and to forgive the rest. That, again, is much more than was ever done by Spain.
Also, you have to take into account that right now those criminals are being judged again in my country: the political institutions are now “stable” enough to face those trials.
And that is why I am changing my early opinion in this thread: we have to give the american people a chance to judge those that violated laws. I find it strange, though, that (to the best of my knowledge) no prosecutor has filed charges against Bush, Cheney and others.
Well, you are disagreeing with established international law and with the US government who has long maintained the validity of universal jurisdiction for certain crimes. In fact the USA have been the among the principal defenders of the idea.
Well, America certainly does not respect that so I cannot see how it can expect others to respect that. I could understand it if China said that because they act consistently with that notion but not America. Who, by the way, have kidnapped people in Europe and broken other laws here. So in my book they deserve as much respect as any other rogue nation doing the same thing.
And they have the right to pardon crimes commited against Argentinians but they have no right or ability to pardon crimes committed against Spanish citizens. They cannot give what is not theirs to give. And I’d like to see the USA saying the same thing: yeah country X decided to round up and torture and kill a few Americans but they were pardoned according to local laws so that’s all there is to it. Yeah. Right.
I will defend the right of Argentina or any other country to indict and prosecute any Spanish citizens who unlawfully killed or tortured any of their own citizens. Gimme the names of the torturers and the victims and I promise to support the case. See how easy it is to be consistent?
If that is the case then we all agree Argentinian courts have primary jurisdiction but it was not always the case.
You are dreaming if you think the US government will ever file charges against those criminals. Not in our lifetimes. And that is why someone else needs to do it, if only to make a point.
In that we agree.
Um, I think you are missing the point which is that FDR was a good president who did good things while Bush was a criminal who committed crimes. Surely you can see the difference?
Someone said that FDR (and other great presidents) also committed crimes, and thus should also be indicted by a Spanish court.** The Tao’s Revenge** stated that because FDR was a very good president, and Bush was a very bad one, the latter should be prosecuted and the former shouldn’t. My response was that the fact that the quality of their respective presidencies even came up indicates that this issue is fundamentally political, and not legal. All clear?
I missed that part. I cannot find that anywhere
I do not interpret his post like that at all. I interpret it to mean precisely that FDR did good things and Bush did criminal things. Can you explain to me exactly what words of Taos Revenge you interpret as an admission that FDR commited crimes but should not be prosecuted? Because I just can’t see it.
The whole thing is academic anyway because I believe FDR is still dead.
In my opinion, the fact that he didn’t even refer to FDR’s hypothetical crimes - even though they were the subject of the post he was responding to - implied that he shouldn’t have been prosecuted because he was a good president. YMMV.
A president can do criminal things (at least in some peoples’ opinion) and still be a great president. There’s no contradiction between the two.
deleted
mswas, post #78, what he said was FDR and other past presidents were as much of a criminal as Bush. Did not explicitly state equivalency of treatment, but in the general mood and direction of the discussion could be an expected inference.
My mileage indeed IS very different because I do not interpret Tao’s post the way you do. I think your interpretation is a long stretch.
Except that this is not what is being argued at all. Please do not shift the field. The question is not whether Bush was a “Great President” or not. Indeed I have not seen anyone here argue that he was so there is no need to maintain the opposite viewpoint.
The point is whether anyone should be allowed to get away with a crime. And my contention is that the law should apply to everybody equally. Equal before the law and all that jazz.
And I interpret Tao’s post as contradicting that loony post. Contradicting it clearly and forcefully. How anyone can interpret it otherwise is beyond me.
How this can be construed as admitting the premise is beyond me. So saying “you posted brain dead things” means " I agree with what you said"? Man, I really think someone needs a dose of reading comprehension.
Can someone explain to me in simple words how what Tao posted can be construed as admitting the premise that FDR committed crimes. Because I really do not see it.