MM: Ittode on the Ejavu De...

Fernando: ¿En qué trabajas? You sure have a lot of time to post things, especially with the "government watching you"...please stop taking everything as a personal attack on Spain...remember, the fact we're on this board means we LOVE SPAIN!!!

Wolf: I know you're retired, and I know that Wisconsin is currently buried under 12 inches of "white cloud cheese"...so I can understand your posts...

Carole: The answer of whether it's right to kill another person or not should be discussed at my new website: www.isitrighttokillanotherhumanbeing.org. Log on and express your feelings.

CaliBasco: Stop jumping into forums where terrorism is discussed...nobody ever agrees, and you just end up making people upset at you.

Have a great day everyone...and let's bring back the Inquisition!

CaliBasco [who will shortly be changing his handle to CaliQuemada]

Fernando,

You're absolutely right about the fact that there is no evidence that indicates that the Spanish secret police knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance. It's all rhetoric spouted by the press. I don't believe for a minute Spain would not have warned us.

The problem is, most of what you read in Spain, and what we read here in the U.S., is biased press. Since your concerns were directly from the press, I thought I'd use the same approach to counter what you said. In both cases, neither of us should rely on the press, but consider only valid statements made by people within government, who are considered spokesmen for their respective positions.

Also, I'm very much aware of the fact that the Spanish courts no longer try ETA members in their Military courts. But since you dug up the fact that the U.S. granted political asylum to ETA members back in the days of Franco, I could do the same thing, when Franco had ETA members tryed by the Military wing of justice. In fact, after Spain changed to a democratic nation, the U.S. has taken the stance that requests for extradition of ETA members is a legitimate request.

The point is this. We cannot accept what the press says as being the gospel. They bend stories in such a way that it becomes more interesting, and volatile. They could care less about the ramifications, when it comes to the public. Their job is to incite people enough to watch, or read their presentations, because they get paid by advertisers, to make their presence in front of the public.

Cali... Maybe I'm the one who should post less. I'm afraid I've become a bit too involved. Actually each post takes less than five minutes, but that's not the point. Maybe it's time for me to walk away from these issues. It's difficult, especially when I see people taking pot shots at the U.S., which I proudly served, in harms way.

As of now, the Wolf is on vacation.

Wolf

Calibasco,

You are so diplomatic and pleasant. Way to break the ice!

Hey, agreed, Fernando, don't take things so personally, we all love Spain or we wouldn't be on this board, and as you expressed earlier, "we should all be able to discuss anything..."

SO BE IT! It's just a discussion and everyone has views and opinions! Frankly, I enjoy reading your posts.

Now I'm on the attack, Carole, look out ... HA!

Your statement, "put them away for life" is kind of a double-standard in my opinion. By "locking someone up" you are in a sense taking their life, their sanity, their social capacity and their freedom. There really is no difference. By locking someone up for life, or even for very long periods of time you are taking a life, and yet WE are paying to "torture" these people, even if on a phsychological level.

As you will see in my previous posts, I've always been mixed on this issue. I've always been somewhere in the middle, but the costs, the inconvenience, the burdens, etc., aren't worth it. Also, when I recently found out how much we were paying in taxes and how low the success rate is for the "rehabilitated", AND, knowing that many criminals, including Bin-Laden's gang commit crimes knowing there's no capital punishment (their incentive for doing so), perhaps it's time for a MAJOR change.

If someone knowingly, with malice and forethought commits murder, then THEY KNOW what they are doing and are accountable for the consequences. Thus, if you know you will die for your actions and you do it anyway, your choice, your freedom, your consequence.

Bye for now.

edr

Calibasco,

I tried to access your web link to check out your site and it issues an error "Page cannot be displayed."

Just letting you know. Perhaps it's a problem on my end, or perhaps the URL you provided is bad?

Have a good one.

edr

Basta ya!

Now that everyone's said "goodbye," does that mean that this thread is officially "retired"? Ojalá que sí!

Tara

taravb, I hope you're right.

edr, CaliBasco is NOTORIOUS for posting eroneous or.. umm.. hehehe.. tongue-in-cheek URLs where the value is in the URL text itself and not in the dead end to which they usually lead.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: MadridMan ]

Not quite retired, yet, considering I set off this whole discussion. And this is a dialog that needs to be heard. The US news is dominated by events in Afghanistan and anthrax threats now, but if the situation with Spain & extradition continues, it will make most Americans VERY upset. So lets talk about it now. Free speech never hurt anyone.

In reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that some people think we are dealing with some petty theives, rather than international murders intent on sparking world war. 9/11 was an act of war as well as a monsterous crime. Military tribunals, established and maintained under constitutional prescedent, and administered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (enacted by the US congress) are entirely appropriate. As Wolf noted, civil courts simply cannot be expected to cope with the types of threats that such defendants would engender. Also, unlike Nuremberg, were are still faced with the prospect of enemy action from the organizations and states which launched these attacks. We cannot present in open court the names and methods of our intelligence assets used in gathering evidence without possibly weakening our defenses against our enemies. Also, simple criminal concepts,such as the exclusionary rule, are wholely innapropriate for this situation.

If we're really talking about justice here, it should be a noose over the nearest lamp post when we find bin Laden, Mullah Omar, et. al. They raised the Black Flag, not us.

Is this vengence? Damn right. It is the defense of our people and a message to our enemies, real and potential, that this is what awaits you if you choose to make war upon the United Sates. And it was their choice, make no mistake about that.

MM: Thanks for the education on "tongue-in-cheek" URL's via Calabasico. HA!

Sir Kurt,

You kept this one alive. Alright then!

I agree with everthing you've stated. You summed it up quite nicely and are very articulate in your presentation.

Still, my only concern is the military tribunal - from the aspect that it has different standards than a "typical" court of law (at least from my knowledge of typical American Juris Prudence applications). Yes, we should protect our intelligence. Yes, we should protect the prosecutors, jurrors and judges!

However, the burden of proof, at least with respect to American military tribunals is less than a "typical" court, and thus causes grave concern as to why it should be different.

Naturally, when a "procedure" is given "grace" in a "secretive" fashion, such as a military tribunal, it strongly suggests that values are sacrificed in order to acheve the final outcome - guilty verdict - which seems unfairly and intentionally weighted.

Therefore, if so much information can be hidden from the public, and there are less requirements with respect to the "burden" and the jury only needs 3/4 to impose the death penalty and "we" as citizens aren't privy to the trial specifics, we already know what the ouctome will be - guilty! This, is not fair! It appears "secretive", it is "secretive" and was only created for that reason.

Granted, there are many advantages to military tribunals (as Wolf pointed out to me), we can protect sensitive information, conduct a trial in any country, without extradition and protect the jurrors and judges. Yes, many advantages and it's within the laws of war! Agreed!

Nevertheless, why can't mility tribunals conduct trials without having "less" standards, with respect to the burden of proof? And, why are military tribunals awarded with the "grace" of not having a 100% jury vote that require the death penalty?

Why can't military tribunals keep sensitive itelligence information private while having the same burden of proof and the same death penalty requirements that the supreme court upholds?

Those are my issues, or should I say questions. I may be missing some key points, but I'm basing my assumptions on common sense logic. If we have one standard with Juris Prudence, with respect to "law abiding", it shouldn't change whether it's war or not. Yes, war can limit the information provided to the public, and yes, war can allow a warn tribunal to bypass extradition. Great! But what about a global standard with respect to "evidence" and "burden" ???

Que Tenga Mui Buenos Noches!

edr

I have resisted enetring this very contentious thread, but feel obliged to do so now.

Firstly, Fernando your insights, ideas, and recipes have been invaluable. I would miss your participation in this board. Please do not view attacks on your opinions as ad hominenem ones. It takes a lot of courage to express alternative view points in a public forum, and then have to defend them. It is all the more courageous to attempt this in a foriegn language, kudos to those who are so bold.

While it is true that most Americans support the death penalty, and that most have acquieced to President Bush's plan for military tribunals; although, there are many Americans who oppose both. It may seem impossible to believe, based on the postings, but there is such a voice in the United States who has grave concerns over the extra-constitutional previsions that the Bush addministration has advanced.

The United States is wrought with anger for the barbarism of 11th of September. Regretably, the public cry of bringing the miscreants "to justice", is a thinly veiled plea for vengence. The nation's blood has seethed for 10 weeks, and it is this bloodlust that has clouded our collective sensibilties. One can hope that this rage can be tempered over time by reason and patience.

I commend President Aznar's cooperation in apprehending the accused cohorts of those savage assassins. Mr. Bush promised the world that justice would be rendered, not summary execution. Mr. Aznar is the democraticly elected voice of his nation, and it is quite reasonable that he would seek the counsel of his constituents who oppose both Mr. Bush's newfangled judicial body and the "justice" it may mete out. Americans should respect this reality, and stop their criticism of Spain.

Military tribunals debase the American justice system. These rarely used kangaroo-courts are admistered by senior level military officers who by defenition are accountable to the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush. The president is able to elect who will be subject to a tribunal, and those who determine guilt report to the president. "Alice in Wonderland" like justice results from such contrivance. The United States is much too strong of a country to rely upon a capricious judicial body.

The most heinous and unpopular defendants have been afforded criminal trials open to the scrutiny of the press and the public so should the accused in this case. Daily, criminal courts deal with cases involving street gang mambers who are clearly domestic terrroists. Law enforcement is compelled to provide a full array of information in open court regarding their methodology and procedures. Theses daily revelations have not prevented law enforcement from using the same practises to subdue other gang members. Those who fear that national security will be jepoardized by a rigourous criminal defense, could lead us down a slippery path where urban terroists(e.g. Crips and Bloods) would be denied due process as well. The United States must shine the disinfecting light of justice for the world to see, not the dangerous one of expediency.

Cheers!

Man, I knew this would happen, so much!
I tried to convey in an earlier post how you couldn't possibly find a touchier topic for us Spaniards than terrorism.

Imagine living with the fear, anguish, rage, frustration, anger, sadness, etc....you've been experiencing almost three months now(and that we share with you BTW), for thirty years(almost)! Or in Fernando's and my case, for as long as you can remember. It's too painful!!!

The worst part for me(please understand that this this VERY personal) is the fight you must mantain within yourself once in a while when you're for instance, watching the news of another one of those MAL NACIDOS' terrible murders and you're not even listening to it!, it's almost as if you didn't care anymore!, because we're too used to those news!!!, so you become so angry at yourself for having such an insensitive reaction to the total horror that spells E T A. (MMan I'd need a crying Graemlin here)

Do you know what the difference is in my opinion?; nobody can/should live craving for vengeance all their lives because that's no way to live!!! Instead, Spanish people choose to cope yearning for JUSTICE!, which is healthier and a much more positive feeling.

Somebody has asked if there's a difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty. And there is; ending some criminals' lives is doing the very same thing you acuse them of doing.
And we're talking about human lives, like or not, like Carole Chiaro points out; surely NOT about MONEY.

Fernando,

I wouldn't take Wolf's posts as personal offenses, right Wolf ? I'm SURE he doesn't mean them that way. But I understand your hurt. Please relax, and choose to ignore this topic if you must as I've been doing lately and will continue to do from this moment on. Because yes, everything can be discussed, but not everywhere; and maybe this isn't the right forum for these critical issues.

BTW, thanks Shawn

Saludos!

paloma

President Aznar is interviewed by Larry King on Friday. That'd be interesting to watch.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: pim ]