Spanish Courts eye Prosecution of former GWB officials

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
lol. Bush will never be prosecuted for anything. You are an idiot if you believe otherwise.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

😉

 

[StageLeft]

Seems too much to hope for.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
That's great. You keep doing what you're doing Harvey, but it won't change the fact that Bush will never be brought to trial.

The first step to changing that is defeating self-fulfilling negative opinions on that like yours.

People didn't think there was a chance of doing anything aoout Nixon, either.
Nixon answered to the American people.
Nobody in there right mind is going to allow a former POTUS to be tried by another country or group of countries. That would set a very bad precedent.
Then again to be tried by the american legal system..well that would be OK!!


It's all too easy for people to forfeit their democratic power and take on that 'you can't fight city hall' approach, allowing corruption to thrive.

The heart of democracy is when people get beyond that.

You need some inspiration and education.

To provide some, watch the following video - the other of Bill Moyers' two guests last Friday, about what a healthier democratic spirit looks like.

Many would say they couldn't win their battle - and they did.

Link to story on poor workers beating Wal-Mart and the Chicago mayor, democratically.

 

[Lemon law]

Tell me again how some clever JOS reference to the Spanish Inquisition should cloud all men's mind's?

Lets see, Spain blew it once and can't ever be trusted, GWB&co blows ib a bunch of times and they therefore escape???????????

Oh Mr. Magoo JOS, you have done it again.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Tell me again how some clever JOS reference to the Spanish Inquisition should cloud all men's mind's?

Lets see, Spain blew it once and can't ever be trusted, GWB&co blows ib a bunch of times and they therefore escape???????????

Oh Mr. Magoo JOS, you have done it again.

It's a Monty Python joke...

I even provided a link...

For some people there is no help to be had, they are just that stupid and they will never get better...

 

[Lemon law]

Well if its a Monty Python joke, that must trump all.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Yep! It's more of the same tired old distraction, diversion and bullshit. First, the statement you quote says nothing about whether Gore or Clinton ever acted to carry out renditions or any other war crime, crime against humanity or act of torture, whereas Bush and Cheney have explicitly admitted that authorized criminal acts, including torture, and they did it more than once.

It is very well known that Clinton and Gore did in fact carry out these acts of rendition.

The entire policy of extrajudicial rendition started under Clinton/Gore. They took people and handed them over to Egypt where they were tortured and in a few cases killed. The entire reason the secret system of CIA prisons was created was due to what was happening to the people we handed over to Egypt.

This information is out there and easily available for the public to find and read if they wish.
Read this New Yorker piece that goes into details on how the program was created and why it was created.
Here is one for you:

A series of spectacular covert operations followed from this secret pact. On September 13, 1995, U.S. agents helped kidnap Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt?s most wanted terrorists, in Croatia. Qassem had fled to Europe after being linked by Egypt to the assassination of Sadat; he had been sentenced to death in absentia. Croatian police seized Qassem in Zagreb and handed him over to U.S. agents, who interrogated him aboard a ship cruising the Adriatic Sea and then took him back to Egypt. Once there, Qassem disappeared. There is no record that he was put on trial. Hossam el-Hamalawy, an Egyptian journalist who covers human-rights issues, said, ?We believe he was executed.?

If this story is true and Clinton authorized the program to capture and turn this guy over to the Egyptians then one could claim that Clinton is guilty of being part of his murder.

One could also claim that Clinton launched an illegal war against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war and try to have him arrested for murder there too. Or how about that factory in Sudan that Clinton had destroyed, killing the janitor, couldn't Sudan try charging Clinton with murder in that case since he ordered the attack?

Don't let your blind hatred of Bush make you think that he is the only President that people might want to go after legally.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I highly doubt anything will come of this.

And if it did you can expect the Obama team to oppose these efforts.

It is a very slippery slope when you start down this path. Don't forget that Bill Clinton and Al Gore knowingly broke international law as well during their efforts to combat terrorism. As did Jimmy Carter when he ordered that attempted hostage rescue way back in 1980.

Here is my favorite Al Gore quote of all time:

?Of course it?s a violation of international law, that?s why it?s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.?

All this outrage over Bush and yet not a peep over Gore and this quote?? Could it be that this push for 'justice' is more about politics than anything else?

I follow this forum, because I am learning so much from people the likes of Harvey and Craig(among others), things, I understand in thought fundamentally, but lack the linguistic ability to put across coherently- I try my best to let my fellow tradies (move the r in tradie and what do you get? tardies!) know about these problems in our democratic system- Australia's mirrors the Usa's in a lot of ways, mostly in the negative effects of corporate cohesion of our politically system.
I get some balance from these comments and can be reassured things could change for the better, I see it like a final seconds touchdown in football where our team(the working middle class) wins!

 

[fskimospy]

The US is never going to hand over high ranking officials to an international court. Period. This isn't because the officials aren't deserving of it in some cases, but because the US doesn't want other countries to have authority over us in that way. Even though it would appear that the Bush administration was one of the most lawless in American history (and certainly since Nixon), if it's going to be taken care of it will be the US itself that does it. (don't hold your breath)

 

[gingermeggs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qLYy6hiFQ

 

[Lemon law]

At the end of the day and as the OP on this thread, we can all speculate about the unknowable future, but its still a matter that time alone will tell.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

It is very well known that Clinton and Gore did in fact carry out these acts of rendition.

Start by proving it. "Very well known" doesn't prove jack shit, but as I said, assuming it's true, only a facistic, dictatorship loving Bushwhacko, sycophant like you would consider it an excuse for the even graver crimes committed by your EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents.

PJ -- You're pathetic, and you're hopeless. The only ones who don't believe we should try, convict and flush the Bushwhacko criminals into well deserved incarceration for their crimes are the turds who, given the chance would still want to use our once great, once honored, once respected Constitution to wipe their asses as though it were just so much toilet paper.

 

[mugs]

No way the US would extradite Americans to Spain for crimes that did not occur in Spain. The only effect this will have is that some people will no longer be able to travel freely in Spain.

It's entertaining to watch Harvey hope for it though.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Craig234
The first step to changing that is defeating self-fulfilling negative opinions on that like yours.

People didn't think there was a chance of doing anything aoout Nixon, either.

Nixon answered to the American people.
Nobody in there right mind if going to allow a former POTUS to be tried by another vountry or groups of countries. That would set a very bad precedent.
Then again to be tried by the american legal system..well that would be OK!!

That's actually what that post was referring to, some accountability in the American system.

It could apply to some international justice in principle, but there are barriers now.

The ICC has offered various concessions to the US, and at one point the US was working to resolve the remaining differences and be able to support it.

Here's an editorial excerpt from a former state department lawyer:

In 1998, most of the world's nations gathered in Rome for final negotiations on an ICC treaty. The Clinton administration -- knowing that it could only get Congress to ratify such an agreement with strict protections for national security interests -- pushed hard to immunize American officials from prosecution and to give the U.N. Security Council a significant role in determining situations the ICC should pursue.

In the end, although more than 90% of the court statute was acceptable, the U.S. was unable to secure the concessions it wanted, and it voted against the ICC's founding document, the Rome Statute. Although he was disappointed in the outcome, Clinton nonetheless authorized signing the document shortly before he left office, an act that allowed the U.S. to remain engaged with the court but did not require it to join.


The incoming Bush administration saw things differently. Soon after taking office, the new president ordered the Rome Statute "unsigned," and his administration embarked on an effort to undermine the ICC, encouraging other nations to promise not to hand over Americans to its jurisdiction under any circumstance.

Led by Jesse Helms, the late Republican senator from North Carolina, Congress imposed sanctions against governments that joined the court, even cutting off military assistance to some. Congress prohibited U.S. cooperation with the court and authorized the president to use any necessary means to rescue Americans who might be held by the court. Europeans, sensing the hostility, dubbed the law "The Hague Invasion Act."

The ICC started operation during the summer of 2002, after the 60th government joined. Today, 108 countries are members, including most of Western Europe, Latin America and Africa, as well as Canada, Mexico, Australia and Japan. But the U.S. hostility was slow to thaw. It wasn't until 2005, after Colin Powell defined the Darfur atrocities as genocide, that the first signs of a more pragmatic approach emerged. The United States went along with the U.N. Security Council's referral of Darfur to the ICC for investigation and possible prosecution. Under Condoleezza Rice, the United States quietly adopted a posture of wary realism, rhetorically supporting the Darfur investigation without engaging the ICC in a serious or official way.

The time has now come for the U.S. to become more engaged.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: mugs

It's entertaining to watch Harvey hope for it though.

If the Bushwhackos are indicted for their torture and other war crimes by the ICC, the U.S. will be treaty bound to extradite them for trial. The only U.S. government officials who have denied or defied their authority are the Bushwhacko criminals we just booted out.

Then, I'll be far more entertained than anything you find amusing when they bust their sorry asses and ship 'em out. Of course, we could be honorable about it and indict, try and convict them, here, for their gross violations of American laws.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

It's entertaining to watch Harvey hope for it though.

If the Bushwhackos are indicted for their torture and other war crimes by the ICC, the U.S. will be treaty bound to extradite them for trial. The only U.S. government officials who have denied or defied their authority are the Bushwhacko criminals we just booted out.

Then, I'll be far more entertained than anything you find amusing when they bust their sorry asses and ship 'em out. Of course, we could be honorable about it and indict, try and convict them, here, for their gross violations of American laws.

Again... would you support sending Clinton and Gore as well since they committed similar crimes during their time in office?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

It's entertaining to watch Harvey hope for it though.

If the Bushwhackos are indicted for their torture and other war crimes by the ICC, the U.S. will be treaty bound to extradite them for trial. The only U.S. government officials who have denied or defied their authority are the Bushwhacko criminals we just booted out.

Then, I'll be far more entertained than anything you find amusing when they bust their sorry asses and ship 'em out. Of course, we could be honorable about it and indict, try and convict them, here, for their gross violations of American laws.

Again... would you support sending Clinton and Gore as well since they committed similar crimes during their time in office?

No, he wouldn't.. because Harvey is nothing but a LIAR and a TRAITOR only interested in pushing his own hatred toward former President Bush. (Bold makes it the truth, Harvey taught me that.)

If Harvey had even a spec of honesty in his heart, he would also be calling for the trial of people like Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and Ahmadinejad.. hell, even people of more Western friendly countries like France's Chirac have been accused of some pretty bad things including selling arms to Iraq. What about Putin from Russia, think he is squeeky clean?

Fact is he doesn't condemn people like them, and therefore he is a DISHONEST LIAR.

 

[soccerballtux]

while they're at it get Obama for spending like mad. He's a DISHONEST LIAR too.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Again... would you support sending Clinton and Gore as well since they committed similar crimes during their time in office?

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You already asked that question, TWICE, and I already answered it TWICE, but since you're more concerned with spreading distractions and general FUD than reading anything anyone says to you, here it is again. The first exchange:

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn[/i]

It is a very slippery slope when you start down this path. Don't forget that Bill Clinton and Al Gore knowingly broke international law as well during their efforts to combat terrorism. As did Jimmy Carter when he ordered that attempted hostage rescue way back in 1980.

You're still the same pathetic, sycophantic Bushwhacko apologist, and you're still as consistantly and absolutely wrong as ever.

Here is my favorite Al Gore quote of all time:

?Of course it?s a violation of international law, that?s why it?s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.?

All this outrage over Bush and yet not a peep over Gore and this quote?? Could it be that this push for 'justice' is more about politics than anything else?

Yep! It's more of the same tired old distraction, diversion and bullshit. First, the statement you quote says nothing about whether Gore or Clinton ever acted to carry out renditions or any other war crime, crime against humanity or act of torture, whereas Bush and Cheney have explicitly admitted that authorized criminal acts, including torture, and they did it more than once.

Second, assuming, for the sake of argument, that Gore or Clinton actually committed the crime of authorizing torture or any other war crime or crime against humanity, any real American who supports our Constitution and our laws would demand that they be held to account for those crimes. Instead, as usual, you again prove your utter lack of humanity by trying to use the alleged crimes of others as an excuse for the documented crimes committed by your wanna be führer, the thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents. :|

That's what a REAL American would do. In fact, it's what any civil, ethical, moral, honorable human being would do... but NOT YOU. Some things never change. :roll:

You could simply have said that, if Gore or Clinton could be proven guilty, they should be charged and convicted, as should the Bushwhackos... but you didn't. You just kept trying to spread the FUD that the crimes you allege but have yet to prove were committed by Clinton or Gore somehow excuse the crimes Bush and Cheney have publicly admitted. Here's the second exchange:

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

It is very well known that Clinton and Gore did in fact carry out these acts of rendition.

Start by proving it. "Very well known" doesn't prove jack shit, but as I said, assuming it's true, only a facistic, dictatorship loving Bushwhacko, sycophant like you would consider it an excuse for the even graver crimes committed by your EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents.

PJ -- You're pathetic, and you're hopeless. The only ones who don't believe we should try, convict and flush the Bushwhacko criminals into well deserved incarceration for their crimes are the turds who, given the chance would still want to use our once great, once honored, once respected Constitution to wipe their asses as though it were just so much toilet paper.

If you still don't understand, here's the short version... If they're indicted, ship 'em off for trial. The answer won't change if you ask the same question again so if you ask, you must be insane.

Your turn. Do you have the balls to agree to do the same for your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents? :Q

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

No, he wouldn't.. because Harvey is nothing but a LIAR and a TRAITOR only interested in pushing his own hatred toward former President Bush. (Bold makes it the truth, Harvey taught me that.)

If Harvey had even a spec of honesty in his heart, he would also be calling for the trial of people like Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and Ahmadinejad.. hell, even people of more Western friendly countries like France's Chirac have been accused of some pretty bad things including selling arms to Iraq. What about Putin from Russia, think he is squeeky clean?

Fact is he doesn't condemn people like them, and therefore he is a DISHONEST LIAR.

Now that's interesting. No one has said anything about Chavez, Kim Jong-il or Ahmadinejad, and I've certainly never said anything in support of them, and I have no idea what Chirac or Putin have to do with this discussion, but since treason is a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime in itself constitutes libel, either prove it, or :lips: my (_!_).

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

while they're at it get Obama for spending like mad. He's a DISHONEST LIAR too.

Obama's spending is consistant with the plans he's formed to try to repair the damage and resolve the problems done by the Bushwhackos. I've been posting for years that their war of LIES in Iraq would leave us trillions of dollard in debt, and their irresponsible total abandonment of all oversight over their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors doubled the damage to more trillions.

You're welcome to disagree with his plans, but we were already on the hook for the cost long before Obama took office.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: mugs
No way the US would extradite Americans to Spain for crimes that did not occur in Spain. The only effect this will have is that some people will no longer be able to travel freely in Spain.

It's entertaining to watch Harvey hope for it though.

I'm still waiting for his rant about Obama being a traitor for not charging GWB and Cheney.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: mugs

No way the US would extradite Americans to Spain for crimes that did not occur in Spain. The only effect this will have is that some people will no longer be able to travel freely in Spain.

It's entertaining to watch Harvey hope for it though.

I'm still waiting for his rant about Obama being a traitor for not charging GWB and Cheney.

What is it with all you reading challenged jive asses? Here... I'll quote another of my earlier posts in this thread:

Obama has stated publicly that if crimes are proven, that nobody is above the law.

Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

• What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
  
  So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

Unless Obama betrays that pledge, you'll be waiting a long time for my "rant about Obama being a traitor for not charging GWB and Cheney." 😎

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Another definition is trying to engage you in an intelligent conversation when it comes to Bush.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Another definition is trying to engage you in an intelligent conversation when it comes to Bush.

So that's why you haven't made any attempt to have a decent discussion on Bush.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I can tell you why i believe in fighting here in Afghanistan, it's because i know we are right and they are wrong. If i can't justify it by us doing the right thing then i wouldn't be here.

Afghanistan was completely justified, and America, along with our allies, had the full support of the international community...I think you simply missed the point of my post...had we limited the WoT to Afghanistan, focused entirely on Al Quaida and the Taliban, this would be a non-issue...similarly, if our special forces and CIA operatives, in that scope, broke a few international laws to gain intelligence from those enemies alone, no one would probably look twice.

By invading Iraq, and drawing negative negative international scrutiny on our actions, operations in the entire region were suddenly brought into question.

 

[LTC8K6]

Some country is bound to want to do the same thing to Obama or Obama's officials for something or other.

Obama cannot allow the precedent to be set, imo.