Relevant article:
At least I think it makes a point if these people are indicted in Europe and cannot travel there. And the American government will look bad by protecting them. So maybe the solution will be a sham investigation where they are all cleared of any wrongdoing.
I’ve been busy with school and forgot about this thread. If you’re still up for it.
Hmm. What exactly was bad? I’m not saying bad stuff didn’t happen in the Civil war. I’d just like some clarity.
Not really. Did I say their positive actions justified their negatives? I merely pointed out why comparing the two wasn’t a good comparison.
Put differently say a man murders someone in a gang war but then goes off to volunteer for the Peace Corps and dies pushing a woman and her baby out of the way of a bus.
Would people feel he was a good person over all? If he survived would he still deserve to stand trial for his crime? Could you compare him with other murders and say “see all murders are okay people!”?
Because that’s what you’re doing here, trying to justify the brutal crimes of that tyrant worm expresident by comparing him to some people who actually acted with the best interests of the country at heart, not their lust to sell out the country to Haliburtan and kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Ironic you cling to that label when you’re the one doing it. You try to say bush is okay because other presidents people consider okay did bad things sometimes. Sorry don’t fly. A war criminal traitorous lying murdering scumbag is a war criminal traitorous lying murdering scumbag, and so are the fools and traitors who supported him.
He sent innocent people off to be tortured. What kind evil sociopathic monster would be feel good about what happened to Maher Arar? How many other innocent people were tortured? Beaton with cords? Electroshock tortured and worse on Bush’s behalf?
It’s political to say war criminals deserve justice?
And we’ll all get ponies? Tell me what happens in Iraq if you’re not a member of the dominate religion. Please explain how that could likely change.
Good. If it means future presidents will fear running the country into the ground and understand they’re under the law just like everyone else.
Under what circumstance would you consider a presidential crime worthy of punishment? Since brutally torturing innocents and shitting all over the Constitution the president is sworn to protect doesn’t count.
Were people Arar just “oops”? The cries of the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq (both servicemen and women, as well as Iraqi) were just water under the bridge?
Lincoln presided over the war that freed the slaves. FDR, Great Depression and WW2. They faced a much greater threat, and much greater evil.
Now you can tell me what purpose exactly the Iraq war served? Keep in mind it provided a good distraction so Osama (Bush’s buddy when you consider how much Osama’s actions helped Bush) could get away. Also it meant we had to pull forces out of Afghanistan so the Taliban, the people responsible for sheltering the group that killed 3,000+ Americans at 9/11, could get another foot hold. Also it drained and damaged our economy so we’d be good and sore for the housing bubble the fool ignored.
Tell me what was accomplished in Iraq that was worth throwing another country to the dogs and letting Osama escape. What is the justification for torturing innocents?
Bush was reelected; then he was let out of office without punishment. We made our willingness to tolerate what he and his minions did clear. I see no reason to think that we are going to do anything more than slap a few minions on the wrist and agree to pretend it never happened. And, probably, keep on torturing while making sure to keep it out of the public eye.
As sailor says; when Americans act as a whole, it becomes reasonable to speak of them as a whole even when a minority disagrees. “It’s just a few rotten apples” doesn’t work as an excuse when most of the barrel is rotten.
I seriously doubt that.
Interesting post. I doubt Ferdinand VII (our last king) would agree with it 
Perhaps the Austrias where less absolute than the Bourbons?
Definitely. The Bourbons brought with them from France a centralist mentality. First thing Philip V did was unite the separate kingdoms of Spain into one united kingdom with the Decretos de Nueva Planta.
And also, in every country in Europe, as the machinery and bureaucracy of the state developed, the state become more powerful and intrusive and controlling. In the 15th and 16th century the control was nominal more than actual but as the state developed it became more real. And many people saw that as a good thing. Socialism, communism, fascism, nazism were all the culmination of this long process of giving the state more and more power which was happening all over Europe, even in the UK even if to a lesser extent.
In any case, I am not an expert on Ferdinand VII but those were years of upheaval and he was at the mercy of events and forces much bigger than himself. Ferdinand tried at times to govern with absolute powers but he was prevented by military coups. Nothing lasted long and things changed all the time. The French invasion brought crumbling down what had been the structure of the state but which was by now crumbling. The French invasion destroyed what was left and started a century of instability, coups, etc. A mess of affairs which lasted until the end of the civil war in 1940.
Then Estilicon was right about Ferdinand VII, also IIRC, Ferdinand resisted several attempts to turn Spain into a Constitutional Monarchy.
Which supports my point that absolute monarchy was seen as something not in line with Spanish tradition and was resisted. Again, all of Europe went through a process where governments and their power grew but it was never the case (or very exceptionally) that the King had absolute power without being seriously challenged. More than one European monarch lost his life in trying to rule with abolute powers.
Oops! Poor Sailor! Nobody’s going to a Spanish prison after all!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_us_torture
¡QUE LASTIMA!
(snicker.)
Shocking! I know this is coming as a complete surprise to me…
-XT
I suppose you like to gloat when criminals get away with their crimes. I am not like that. I would have liked that it be America who punished their own criminals and failing that I would have seen Europe make a statement by indicting them and keeping them away from European soil.
Instead of that what I see is that so-called “civilized” countries make a mockery of their own laws which they use to punish others when it is convenients and which they do not apply to themselves when it suits them.
The facts are clear: if you are an enemy of America you would be judged and punished for this behavior but if you are on the side of America you will go free and be praised.
It is hypocritical and undermines any claims we may issue for the high moral ground. We are torturers and protectors of torturers. That is what we are no matter what else we may claim.
That whole ‘presumed innocent until proven guilty’ thingy just is SO outmoded these days…
I feel your pain.
-XT
Perusing some of the more asinine posts in this thread all I can say is the best thing about Obama having been elected is it will soothe most of these people’s liberal guilt enough that their Bush-bashing nonsense will finally lose its satisfaction.
Waterboarding, waterboarding, waterboarding… How can I put this? Grow the hell up. The world is a dangerous place full of selfish, evil people who would kill you for no rational reason. If waterboarding them gets your panties in a tizzy, well, stay home and play your Wii because its quite obvious that you’re not going to be able to handle the real world outside US borders. Things much, much worse go on everyday in the rest of the world. And not in govt interrogation rooms, in police drunk tanks.
But all this is moot, because, wait for it…
Waterboarding is not torture. Period. Torture is the direct infliction of pain. Waterboarding is a (only semi-) aggressive interrogation method which induces a brief but effective sense of panic. Not something you or I will ever encounter in everyday life, because we’re decent, law-abiding human beings. Once you choose terrorism you negate your claim to all of those, you become nothing more than a vessel of information that should be extracted by almost any means, including things a lot worse than WB’ing if neccesary. Why? Because they don’t value our lives even that much.
Waterboarding works, and like it or not although it may no longer be used routinely it will still get used if neccesary. Behind closed doors even Obama knows this.
In regards to the OP, if any country, Spain included, made the slightest attempt to apprehend any of the US officials listed:
[ol][li]They would never even get close due to the amount of security these people have while abroad.[/li][li]If they were aggressive enough to subdue said security it would amount to an act of war and we would respond as such.[/li][li]Spain is merely trying to look tough to compensate for their complete appeasement, surrender, and downright complicity in their response to their 9/11 (the Madrid train bombings).[/li][/ol]
Indeed it is. Sometimes they are evil because they are purposefully malicious. And other times merely because they are deeply ignorant.
What “liberal guilt” ?
Assuming that is true, those police should be stripped of their position, and either executed or tossed in prison for life without parole. And if they flee the country they should be hunted down. As for people who want to kill us for no rational reason, torture IS a rational reason to want to kill someone. As is attacking their country.
Utter garbage. Waterboarding is torture; we even call it torture when someone else does it.
So were a great many of our victims. It didn’t stop us from torturing and/or murdering them.
Our victims weren’t all, or even mostly terrorists. And what we have done is far worse than what THEY have done, so by your “logic” anything they do to us is justified. But let me guess; it doesn’t work the other way around.
Garbage again; it fails miserably, as torture tends to. Torture is for getting what you want to hear out of people, not the truth. And for entertainment.
And again; if it is used for any reason, life in prison without parole or death should be the penalty.
[quote=“Hail_Ants, post:153, topic:491440”]
In regards to the OP, if any country, Spain included, made the slightest attempt to apprehend any of the US officials listed:
[ol][li]They would never even get close due to the amount of security these people have while abroad.[/li][/quote]
Tanks > security, including the Secret Service.
[quote=“Hail_Ants, post:153, topic:491440”]
[li]If they were aggressive enough to subdue said security it would amount to an act of war and we would respond as such.[/li][/quote]
EU countries have nukes; they could shoot these people out of hand and we wouldn’t go to war over it.
[quote=“Hail_Ants, post:153, topic:491440”]
[li]Spain is merely trying to look tough to compensate for their complete appeasement, surrender, and downright complicity in their response to their 9/11 (the Madrid train bombings).[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
Garbage yet again. The government lied to them about who did it, and the majority of the Spanish public were NEVER willingly going along with us. Nor should they have. They, like the majority of the human race outside of America, knew we were lying and opposed the war.
Well, you could just as well affirm that the extermination of the Jewish race is not a crime. Period. The only problem with both affirmations is that the entire civilized world, including the US Government, disagree with you. So that affirmation just serves to point out the fact that your position is totally outside that of all civilized countries. Which comes as no surprise to those of us who have read your posts here.
[quote=“Hail_Ants, post:153, topic:491440”]
In regards to the OP, if any country, Spain included, made the slightest attempt to apprehend any of the US officials listed:
[li]They would never even get close due to the amount of security these people have while abroad.[/li][/quote]
Good one. What security? Tell any of those guys to come to Spain. Even with the indictment stopped. See if they have the guts to come here on vacation. They don’t. They cannot bring any amount of security and even if they did it would not matter. I bet you these guys will not be visiting Spain any time soon.
[quote=“Hail_Ants, post:153, topic:491440”]
[li]If they were aggressive enough to subdue said security it would amount to an act of war and we would respond as such.[/li][/quote]
Gimme a break with this childish “act of war” nonsense. It is just stupid. Americans get arrested in Spain all the time just like Spaniards get arrested in America all the time. At least Americans arrested in Spain know they can count on Spain abiding by their treaty commitments and allowing consular assistance which cannot be said about America where foreign detainees some times are not allowed consular assistance in contravention of the Vienna Convention. In Spain they take the concept of “rule of law” rather seriously.
[quote=“Hail_Ants, post:153, topic:491440”]
[li]Spain is merely trying to look tough to compensate for their complete appeasement, surrender, and downright complicity in their response to their 9/11 (the Madrid train bombings).[/li][/QUOTE]
This is just stupid. Spain arrested, tried and convicted those responsible. I would have thought this is what advanced, civilized societies were supposed to do. But it seems illegal torture in back rooms is the thing to do. I suppose this puts America right there in the civilized league of some African and Asian countries who do this kind of thing.
I am extremely proud that the Spanish people respected the rule of law and did not panic and go apeshit like America did. Being tough is keeping your calm while things look difficult. Going apeshit and throwing furniture out the window is not bravery, its panic. And panic is what America went through with Bush. Of course, it was Bush more than the terrorist attacks who fomented this panic for his own ends. But the fact is that the American people panicked after a terrorist attack and the Spanish people did not.
El Pais, a left-leaning (but respected nonetheless 
) newspaper, says:
Translation:
After all, they need some sort of circus going on to distract the populace from the 17.4% jobless rate.
At 17.4%, I would think they have more important things needing attention.
And in what way does this affect their jobless rate ? Or distract from any efforts to deal with it ? Criminal prosecution and economic polices don’t involve the same people, normally.
And if they have an obligation to care about joblessness, surely they have an even larger one to care about their citizens being tortured? You are indulging in the standard right wing practice of accusing other people of “playing wag the dog” - when in fact, that’s exactly what you are doing yourself.
The stupidity of this post is comparable to people who say “why did the cop give me a ticket for speeding when they should be catching real criminals?”. I say comparable in a loose sense because trying to excuse speeding by comparing it to worse crimes and trying to excuse torture by comparing it to no crime at all are not even close. Come to think about it they are so far apart in stupidity that you would really need a logarithmic scale of comparison.
And it seems to me the USA has plenty of internal problems of its own it can try to fix before it goes out there trying to fix the world by torturing and killing people.