What bias is in this?:

Many basques (I believe the majority) want to decide by themselves wether to separate from Spain or not.

The spanish state says (we'll see in the future) through the governments that have been until now, that that is not negociable, and that they won't even talk on this.

ETA kills, Guardia civil kills, ETA kidnaps, Guardia civil kidnaps (sends to jail), BUT ETA doesn't torture, unless you want to consider torture the bad living conditons of some kidnapped due to the difficulty of hiding them, Guardia civil does. Besides, ETA is a terrorist organisation, and you know they are going to use terrorist methods since they are outlaws, whereas one should think police should use other methods. Remember that it has been proves that the police paid for years mercenaries to murder terrorists? What kind of police is this? It's always worse the State terrorism, it's more coward because the do the same with more means and impunity.

By the way, the basque are NOT planting bombs. Only some are: ETA members. Not Batasuna, not Egin newspaper, not ikastolasa (basque schools), not basque ONGs who care for the imprisoned, not basque culture, not the basque, as the media are trying to show in this razzia agaist the basque culture and people.

Guardia Civil is a police force not a terriost organization they are their to serve the Spanish state they have duty and honor. They only kill when it is necesary the same cannot be said about ETA they are a terriost organization don't compare the leet Guardia Civil to ETA again.

I'll compare them as many times as I want.

Besides, may I remember you that General manager Roldán of the Guardia Civil robbed lots of money? or that recently a former major of the GC has killed the new commander of his quarter and another high officer and injured others because he was being relagated for uncovering corrution? Or that funds of the GC are involved with the Catholic Church in the GESCARTERA financial scandal? Or that minister Barrionuevo and other high members of government have been to jail because of taking the "reserved funds" that are said were used to pay the killers? Or that (although courts will never uncover it) newspapers and witnesses proved that in Intxaurrondo headquarters there was torture? And that GC general of Intxaurrondo was condecorated in spite of this?

And about Policia Nacional, ..., shall we speak about chief inspector Amedo and inspector Dominguez and the others who were found guilty of paying portuguese killers for ETA members (and some innocents by the way), which was uncovered only because he was fool enough to pay with his official Visa after eating with them in Portugal.

And so on...

Please, don't you try to make they look like angels, they are not, and among the police, the GC is much worse than any other.

Shawn, thanks for your support! Luckily Villalar battle was long, long ago and Carlos I passed away like more than 400 years ago, so I don't think they'll come after me... Viva Castilla!

Like it or not, San Sebastian born Fernando Sabater, with his ethic books, is one of the most important Spanish philosophers nowadays. His ideas may stink to many but that's not a reason to kill anyone, is it?. What's more, when Franco died he was one to stand for the legalization of the comunist party and also ETA surroundings. What has made him change his mind about the latter? It's quite obvious now that has been proved how mafia style and terror spreading Eta group is.

May I also remind that a terrorist is not only the one who pulls the trigger but also those who finance and order it? Then, for some it seems that sending those to jail a few years is unfair when in lots of other countries they could be sentenced to death or live in prison. So, sending a judged criminal to jail is equal to a kidnapping made by terrorist?. Of course, terrorist don't torture they're only trying to find a save place for the kidnapped... You know when Ortega Lara (who was kidnapped and kept in a less than 5 square meters place for more than a year) was liberated by the "evil" security forces terrorists said he had been taken care: he even had in his little room a poster of La Concha beach snowed...What a treat!!! What's next... Hitler was a great missunderstood???

The falangista from Fuerza Nueva here making some comments on the last posts:

1st) Egin was found guilty of financing ETA, as well as Egunkaria (which also was found guilty of acting as a post for ETA). Both newspapers were closed, and two new ones were opened as their successors (Gara and Berri). It seems the spanish fascists forgot to close them.

2nd) The highest judicial institution in Spain is the Judicial Power General Council (Consejo General del Poder Judicial), which is an autonomous institution whose members are designated by the Parlament (althought they don't answer to it). At least one of its members is proposed by PNV (while others are proposed by CiU - catalonian nationalists, IU - communists, or PSOE - socialists). Perhaps our fascist friends overlooked that...

3rd) So, to summarize Ignacio's opinion, ETA just torture a little bit, while the spanish state is a torturer for having killers in jail.




The man with his lost sight, as you perfectly know, is called Jose Antonio Ortega Lara. He was kept 532 days by ETA in a room of 2x3x2 meters underground. ETA alleged that he was a torturer for working on a prison in which there were ETA members.

4th) Let me condemn (as I always have done in this board) the horrible crimes commited by some members of Guardia Civil and the Government during the 80's. It was state's terrorism, and under the name of democracy, they killed and tortured not only ETA members but also civilians. They are as terrorists as ETA ones, and they deserve nothing but being in prison (as most of them are). The unique legitimate way to fight ETA is with the laws, not descending to their level.

Ignacio, by the way, I have never seen any similar condemn of ETA from you, just vague justifications of why they commit their crimes...

Fernando

Castiza:

Fernando Savater is just another philosopher, like thousands that come out of the universities every year. The fact that he is every other day in the TV is due to being one of the few basque "intelectuals" who support central power. After all, whose are the media in Spain?

Sure a terrorist is too the one who gives the command to kill. However it is not a terrorist that who is glad that somebody died or can't blame the killer for doing it. There is a difference. That's the difference the media have made the spanish blind to.

And, according to your definition (I agree), soldiers who kill and officers who give the orders, and even the president of countries who make wars are terrorists.

After all, isn't it all about killing by surprise or from the back or bomb somebody who cannot defend?

What is kidnapping?:

As I don't have an english dictionary so deep in definitions, I´ll translate spanish Real Academia definition of equivalent "secuestrar":

secuestrar.
(Del lat. sequestrāre).
1. tr. Retener indebidamente a una persona para exigir dinero por su rescate, o para otros fines.

1. Hold back unfairly a person to claim for money for his random or for other reasons.

The key word is unfairly , which is not illegally . It doesn't speak of Law but of Justice. The difference is important because for many basque people, the spanish government has as few legitimacy as ETA has.

So, if either side of the fighters in this war can send the others to jail, why some are kidnapping and the others are imprisoned? Sure ones have been trialled legally , but were they trialled fairly?

I was thinking about Ortega Lara when writing about ETA not torturing unless you count deficient conditions of imprisonment for the kidnapped. In fact, it could only be this case because this is the only case I know of such conditions.

I am not going to deny the responsability of ETA for what they did, but what I am saying is that they did this once and not as an specific torture but as a result of the difficulty of hiding the jail.

Fernando:

1- Gara and Berri have been re-created, but the State has taken the former newspapers money, their goods, and closed them, also leaving unemployed people and sending people to jail without consistent proofs (like in latinoamerica, after all, they are not so different, that's where they learnt their customs).

If you think that closing a newspaper, making it reduce its number of possible papers edited to the half or third, sending workers to jail, dispersing the rest, confiscating workshops, and so on without democratic garantees is OK, then go to Falange and sign their papers.

By the way, everyone is found here guilty of something evil, but, where are evidences? Anyway, it seems spanish higher courts don't need them.

- 2 A proof (in spanish) on the pacts for higher courts including also Poder Judicial. ..... Anotther example of this shame, this time in economy newspaper Expansión. Funny? but sad also. ..... Another .

As you can also see in this (spanish only, sorry), the composition in 2002 of the Poder Judicial were 20 judges, 11 PP, 7 PSOE, 1 IU, 1 CiU. That is, PP and PSOE have 18 out of 20, do you know how much is a majority? - The half plus one. They give out a couple of them in an attempt to make it look diverse, but they don't need to, because it's the party in the power in Congress and Senate the one who decides, and the only reason they give some important part to the other big spanish party (in this case PSOE) is because pacts that will give them the same when they are not in the power. Stinks! Smelly Poder Judicial

3- Please don't summarize nothing I say, specially if you are going to put words I didn't say in my mouth again.

I was not referring to jails as torture, as you very well know, although some could be, I am speaking of physical and psicologycal torture of the kind Banana Republics do their citizens (again, look at the photos I posted!, that's what I am talking about.

He has lost sight. OK. Have you also recorded the health problems ETA members and innocents charged with terrorism, who are imprisoned have acquired? They are persons too, you know?

4- first time we completely agree, Cheers!

You have never seen any condemn of mine? Well, you'll see it as soon as they keep on fighting after they are actually able to fight for their goals through pacific means. If they go on, then I will condemn them, not before. First real democracy (means "power of the people"), then there will be no other justified way than through "legal" means.

Here it comes the article, I think It will give some insights on this issue.
Crónica de una ilegalización anunciada

Hace aún pocos meses, cuando el borrador de la ley de Partidos hizo su aparición, el Gobierno y el PP proclamaron a los cuatro vientos que habían dado con la fórmula para ilegalizar de inmediato a HB. El que quisiera apuntarse, ahí estaba el documento; los que no, quedarían retratados, cuando menos, como débiles contra el terrorismo. El texto era un disparate jurídico, porque prescindía de las más elementales garantías establecidas en la Constitución.
Para el Gobierno y el PP el proyecto de ley era respetuoso con la Constitución y, en consecuencia, no iban a mover una coma del borrador. Sin embargo, tuvieron que enmendar el texto para adecentarlo y, de este modo, conseguir la aprobación de una gran parte de las Cortes. En realidad, se cambió la letra, pero la idea básica seguía fija en la intención de sus mentores: ilegalizar de inmediato Batasuna. El primer atentado sangriento de ETA fue suficiente para poner fecha a un escrito que ya estaba redactado antes de aprobarse la ley (recuerden que tanto Aznar como Arenas proclamaban que al día siguiente de aprobada la ley estamparían su firma en la demanda de ilegalización). Se aseguró en los debates de la ley, y así consta en su preámbulo, que no se pretendía ilegalizar ideas, sino exclusivamente desterrar actividades no democráticas hechas con reiteración. La no condena por dirigentes de HB del atentado se considera que encaja en esa actuación y se pone en marcha el procedimiento de ilegalización.
Como ya se ha dicho tantas veces, el no expresar la condena es a todas luces el ejercicio de la libertad de expresión que, en sentido negativo, comprende también el derecho a guardar silencio. Podrá ser esa actitud social y políticamente reprobable, pero aunque lo sea para el 99 por 100 de la población no deja de ser ejercicio de un derecho. Sancionar la actividad consistente en manifestar una idea u opinión es censurar lo que uno piensa, no lo que uno hace; más aún cuando lo que se sanciona es lo que no se hace, o sea, guardar un silencio interpretado como cómplice. Que HB pueda ser ilegalizada por «mala conducta» causa sonrojo; deducir de ello connivencia con el terrorismo es jurídicamente insostenible y políticamente peligroso. El PNV podría correr igual suerte si se interpretan con el mismo rigor las habituales declaraciones tremendistas de Arzallus, pero también el PSOE, que debería estar ilegalizado por pagar con sus fondos a los abogados de Vera y Barrionuevo, involucrados en el GAL y despedirlos como héroes a su entrada en prisión, y el propio PP, por negarse a condenar la guerra civil o por justificar Fraga la guerra sucia…
Se dirá con razón que no se puede meter a todos en el mismo saco y que las diferencias entre HB y los demás son abismales (aunque algunos dirigentes del PP dirán que no son tan abismales entre el PNV y Batasuna). Pero precisamente por ello, es un error querer suprimir una patología del sistema a través de una norma que en su ambigüedad puede convertir al adversario político en enemigo a eliminar, sobre todo cuando puede llegar a interpretarse que el nacionalismo soberanista (léase PNV, BNG, ERC e incluso CiU) es una patología del sistema. Para patologías como la ejemplificada por HB está el Código Penal. Y es que este grupo político hace tiempo que tenía que estar declarado asociación criminal y sus dirigentes condenados por delitos varios (apología del terrorismo, amenazas, desórdenes públicos, colaboración con banda armada, etcétera). La sentencia contra la Mesa de HB tenía que haber dado ese fruto e incomprensiblemente el TS no extrajo esa consecuencia, pues la decisión del TC no afectaba a esta conclusión. Ahora Garzón parece que ha puesto manos a la obra en serio y no con la frivolidad de la que muchas veces ha hecho gala instruyendo sumarios. Si HB forma parte del entramado de ETA, no será por no condenar los atentados o por llamar «presos políticos» a los etarras condenados, sino por una actividad delictiva judicialmente demostrable. Las últimas amenazas vertidas por Otegui no debieran ser el argumento número veinticuatro para aplicar la ley de Partidos, sino uno más para querellarse contra los dirigentes de HB y declarar delictiva a esta organización. Lo incomprensible y lacerante es que a estas alturas no se haya demostrado que Batasuna es una asociación criminal; lo ridículo es liquidar a HB porque no reza el rosario.
El camino emprendido con la ley de Partidos es contradictorio. De un lado se dice que instar a la ilegalización de un partido es una decisión de carácter político y que hay que valorar el momento y su conveniencia, y que ahora ha llegado ese momento. De otro, se afirma que hay una obligación jurídica de aplicar la ley, ya que Batasuna ha incurrido en alguno de los supuestos de ilegalización. Ahora bien, si es una decisión política, unos partidos del arco parlamentario están acordando cuándo prescindir de un adversario político. Si es una obligación jurídica de las Cortes demandar la ilegalización de HB, no se entiende por qué se somete a votación el cumplir o no la ley. De lo contradictorio se pasa a lo vergonzoso cuando para sumar adeptos a la causa el Gobierno chantajea al PNV con la negociación del traspaso de competencias que ya corresponden según el Estatuto al País Vasco. Es el mundo al revés: HB aparece como víctima, el PNV parece razonable y el Gobierno se muestra como un trilero.
Las contradicciones e incoherencias continúan. Por ejemplo, la ilegalización de HB no provocará el cese de los concejales y diputados elegidos en sus listas. La ley no lo prevé; así pues, seguirán representando políticamente a HB, los medios de comunicación seguirán refiriéndose al «concejal X de HB» y, por supuesto, continuarán dichos representantes sin condenar los atentados. Formalmente se va a ilegalizar HB sobre todo porque sus concejales en actos oficiales del Ayuntamiento no suscriben la condena de atentados; sin embargo, se estarán imputando al partido HB actos de unos concejales que jurídicamente no son realizados en representación del partido, sino como representantes del pueblo del municipio. (Debido a esta representación, los concejales no cesan por el hecho de que se ilegalice el partido que promovió su candidatura). Así, los concejales autores de la no condena de los atentados siguen en sus puestos, pero el partido al que pertenecen y al que se le imputan políticamente tales actos es ilegalizado.
Si las Cortes consideran que es contrario a los principios democráticos que un partido ­que es una asociación privada y no un órgano del Estado- no condene los atentados terroristas y que es por ello ilegalizable, con mayor razón habría que adoptar medidas semejantes con aquellos que son órganos del Estado. Esto no sólo comporta eliminar de un plumazo a todos los actuales concejales y diputados de HB y disolver aquellos ayuntamientos en los que son mayoría absoluta. También habría que aplicar iguales criterios a los funcionarios. Aquellos que no condenen los atentados o que simpaticen con HB, tendrían que ser inhabilitados. El juramento o promesa de la Constitución podrá así hallar una peligrosa continuidad en la obligación funcionarial de portar un lazo azul contra el terrorismo o de salir a la plaza a guardar un minuto de silencio tras un atentado.
La garantía de que democráticamente se hacen bien las cosas no está en contar con el respaldo del 90 por 100 de la población o del 98 por 100 de los grupos parlamentarios. Si así fuera, el linchamiento sería una decisión ultrademocrática. Batasuna debe ser ilegalizada penalmente porque sus actuaciones son desde hace ya bastante tiempo delictivas y es responsabilidad del Gobierno, del Ministerio Fiscal de él dependiente y de los propios jueces el que esta ilegalización aún no se haya producido. El Parlamento no debería actuar de fiscal, función que le reserva la Constitución sólo para acusar al Gobierno de alta traición o de delitos contra la seguridad del Estado. Si se ha optado por esta vía política es porque electoralmente es muy rentable y será usada para ponerse medallas el PP y alguna mención especial el PSOE, y para descalificar a los críticos como ambiguos o cómplices con el terrorismo. La vía penal al único que da protagonismo es a Garzón, un peligro si en un futuro decide asomar de nuevo la cabeza a la política.
Ilegalizada Batasuna por un procedimiento acorde con la Constitución, no cabe argumentar en contra que es una decisión antidemocrática porque se trata de un partido que representa al 10 por 100 de la población o porque el 60 por 100 del pueblo vasco esté en contra de la medida. De igual modo que el linchamiento a manos de una multitud no es una actuación democrática, tampoco cabe admitir en el juego democrático a un partido criminal por el hecho de que cuente directa o indirectamente con un apoyo social relevante. Sería tanto como justificar en nombre de la democracia la inevitabilidad de que haya víctimas para que no queden fuera de juego matones con proyecto político.
Francisco J. Bastida

Still lurking...and being entertained.

Two things: Quintos: Do your research. The Guardia Civil/Government has admitted to hiring mercenaries to hunt and kill ETA operants. I recently read and article that stated that other European goverments are looking at what the Spanish government did to ETA in the 80s [mercenary anti-terrorist terrorists] as a model of what not to do to combat terrorism.

Apparently sinking to that level doesn't serve you well if you intend to play the "moral high ground" card in the future [see present PP practice]. I believe the article was in the Guardian [UK].

And Shawn: Lleón Solo!

Thanks Cristobo.

A person or a party that does not condemn something has the right to deny doing it.

Prohibiting ideas is not precisely democratic.

Just because 99 people want to lynch the 100th person, that doesn't mean it's democratic. There are rights that no party should scrap no matter how many parlamentaries it has.

Civil servants should have to be compulsed to condemn something they don't want to or be fired?Doesn't this smell like the former communist countries where you had to publically be in favour of all the Party wanted ... or else? Lack of fredom, isn't it?

I am pointing these because, as there were only weak circumstancial (and probably false or irrelevant) proofs in most of those processes, the media have bombed again and again the spanish masses with the idea that political party Batasuna (now PNV also)= terrorists ETA, and because of this, people just didn't care of the obvious lack of fairness of the trials. They deserved it!- they seem to think.

Now, many others are beginning to be worried, beginnig by PNV (moderate nationalists). This razzia will never end until no nationalist can freely speak (else go to jail for ...they'll look for a suitable terrorist crime).

Hello Cali!

It seems that the only reason for the illegalization of Batasuna is their negative to condemn ETA (I will talk about it tomorrow) while you are deliberately concealing that it was illegalized for other, much graver reasons, as using public dependencies (such as Councils) to make homages to terrorists, giving public money to ETA jailed members or financing ETA.

Fernando