Spanish Court Considers Criminal Case Against Ex-Bush Officials

TextMADRID - A Spanish court has agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay, a lawyer in the case said Saturday.

Human rights lawyers brought the case before leading anti-terror judge Baltasar Garzon, who agreed to send it on to prosecutors to decide whether it had merit, Gonzalo Boye, one of the lawyers who brought the charges, told The Associated Press.

www.foxnews.com...
Should the US be held to the same standard they hold other countries to.?
Did the Neocons revised the definitions of torture?
Should Spain be the country to try members of a past administration or should
that trial be held in the US?
Should these questions of torture even be addressed?
I think the issue of torture by Americans on foreign lands needs to be explored if America is to once again regain status lost by it's alledged treatment of foreign nationals.



[edit on 14-4-2009 by whaaa]

this is bs

where was spain when saddam gased the kurds?
where was spain when the genocide took place is bosnia?
where was spain during tiananmen square?
where was spain during the tibet massacre?

i dont recall spain trying to prosecute any chinese officals or iraqi there am i wrong?

why didnt spain go after johnson
why didnt spain go after reagan
why didnt spain go after clinton
why didnt spain go after bush 1 for gulf war 1

for the record alot of people died and yeah some were "tortured" under those presidents as well as bush 2 to cry foul now is as wrong as what this guy and spain is trying to do.

that spanish guy is far left as they get. what i dont get spain itself has one of the bloodiest historys in europe.

if anything comes of this when a foreign court can charge any us citizen for whatever they deem to be " illegal" is major bs

[edit on 15-4-2009 by neo67]

Yeah Spain! They're on the right track. When Bush went to Canada in March, some of the people in Calgary tried to get Bush arrested, which is not only their right... it's a law in Canada to arrest anybody on Canadian soil who is even "suspected" of a war crime. If the Canadian government had the cojones of the Canadian people, Bush would be in jail right now in the great white north.

let me get this straight a war deserter is welcome in canada but a sitting president who was authorized by congress to act with the approval of the un as well is suppose to be in jail..

glad someone straightened me out on that.

Originally posted by neo67
let me get this straight a war deserter is welcome in canada but a sitting president who was authorized by congress to act with the approval of the un as well is suppose to be in jail..

glad someone straightened me out on that.

No, let me set you straight. While Bush was a sitting president, he was immune to Canada's laws. But after his presidency was over, he was eligible. And yes, a war deserter is welcome in Canada. You might want to keep that in mind when they announce the next draft.

And just one more note... "with the approval of the UN" doesn't mean a damned thing. The UN is run by the same bastards who run the FED, so what makes you think anything approved by the FED would be legal, or moral for that matter?

Originally posted by Albertarocks

Originally posted by neo67
let me get this straight a war deserter is welcome in canada but a sitting president who was authorized by congress to act with the approval of the un as well is suppose to be in jail..

glad someone straightened me out on that.

No, let me set you straight. While Bush was a sitting president, he was immune to Canada's laws. But after his presidency was over, he was eligible. And yes, a war deserter is welcome in Canada. You might want to keep that in mind when they announce the next draft.

And just one more note... "with the approval of the UN" doesn't mean a damned thing. The UN is run by the same bastards who run the FED, so what makes you think anything approved by the FED would be legal, or moral for that matter?

guess its my turn to set you straight....

here we have the 3 branches of government legislative,excutive and judicial - checks and balances so no 1 branch can act alone our presidency doesnt have the power people seem to think it does

having said that congress authorized the executive branch ie bush to act. so if you say bush is a criminal then congress is criminal by allowing bush to act in a manner that you dont see fit to.

but wait we only want to put bush in jail ? why not go after the 500 members of congress?

and the judicial branch or the legislative branch didnt try to stop bush now did they??????

reply to post by neo67


I'm not talking about law within the boundaries of the USA. I'm talking about laws according to the Geneva Convention of which the USA is a signatory. These deal with laws against humanity and in case you didn't know, the USA also follows those laws just like Canada and most other countries in the world do. Why else do you think Saddam was hunted down and hung? And who did that? The USA did.

So your argument is silly and defensive. In fact, I'm not even sure I know what you're arguing about. Do you even know what you're arguing about? What is it that you don't like about foreign governments arresting criminals? You seem to have the attitude that no foreign government has the right to arrest any American criminal. Surely, you're brighter than that?

iraq and afghanistan never signed the geneva conventions and you spout off international law

where was your international law or geneva conventions when iraqi beheaded and burned americans
where was your internal law or geneva conventions when afghani suicide bombers killed americans in afghanistan.
where was your international law when 3 planes flew into the world trade center and the pentagon.

my major problem is labeling a us citizen for whatever offense they deem "crminal" and then tries to prosecute

i know what the hell i am talking about it seems your the one who doesnt have a clue.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by neo67]

reply to post by neo67


You're simply not making any sense. So what if Afghanistan didn't sign off on any Geneva convention rulings? What the hell does that have to do with this discussion. You're going on twenty different directions at once. I can't make a whole lot of sense out of your arguments. You're just being belligerent for some purpose of your own. I don't care to talk nice with you anymore because I'm just wasting my time. If you wanted to discuss, great... but you appear to only want to hear your own voice for some reason.