Spanish prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo, several reliable sources close to the investigation have told The Daily Beast. Their decision is expected to be announced on Tuesday before the Spanish central criminal court, the Audencia Nacional, in Madrid.
[…]
Spanish prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo
[…]
The reaction on American editorial pages is divided—some questioning sharply why the Obama administration is not conducting an investigation, which is implicitly the question raised by the Spanish prosecutors. Publications loyal to the Bush team argue that the Spanish investigation is an “intrusion” into American affairs, even when those affairs involve the torture of five Spaniards on Cuba.The Bush Six labored at length to create a legal black hole in which they could implement their policies safe from the scrutiny of American courts and the American media. Perhaps they achieved much of their objective, but the law of unintended consequences has kicked in. If U.S. courts and prosecutors will not address the matter because of a lack of jurisdiction, foreign courts appear only too happy to step in.
In a vaguely related topic, PETA wants Obama to stop the military’s torture. Of animals, that is.
Oh, my feeling are hurt.
Down to name calling, are we?
So you agree that the Dems were cowards? Sounds like it.
I know it hurts your sensibilities to have the truth shown to you, that the Dems were in this all along, but that’s the facts. Don’t blame the messenger, the Washington Post, just tell them they are wrong.
Ps. I’m sorry that – according to you – the Democratic party is the party of wusses.
Or maybe, just possibly, you can grow up for a moment and realize that both the Republicans and Democrats thought that Enhanced Interrogation, the Patriot Act, Iran, Afghanistan, and so on were in America’s best interest. That the were jointly concerned for our safety and thought this the best way to assure it.
Naw, forget it. That would require maturity.
# 34 Ah_Yea said, “Down to name calling, are we?”
Hallmark of the truly & thoroughly owned…
LOL!!
If Obama starts swinging the ax he is going to have to take on the leaders of the House and Senate in his own party.
That isn’t going to happen.
The Spanish are acting because they are safe doing so and some of their citizens got roughed up. They are standing tall and gaining local cred by taking on the American monster. The rest is BS.
#34 So you agree that the Dems were cowards? Sounds like it.
That is exactly what I am saying. The Republicans did some stupid and criminal things, and the Democrats were too cowardly to call them on it. All through the Bush administration they truly were the party of wusses. And they acquiesced to the criminal and stupid and criminally stupid things the Bush administration did. For that, they deserve blame.
But the ones who started it were the Republicans. There wouldn’t be any criminal behavior to go along with if the REPUBLICANS HADN’T DONE IT, you ninny. So the Republicans deserve the majority of the blame. That’s why the perp gets the heavier sentence than the accomplice, capiche?
#39 Do you even went to third grade? Can you read? Nobody is defending Gonzales!
No, you aren’t now, now that it’s been proven what a scumbag he was. But back in the day, you wingnuts were slavishly defending him, because you slavishly adored everything Bush and his cronies did.
It’s sad to see all these wingnuts pretending that they opposed Bush. Guys, I’m embarrassed for you. Be a man, admit you made a mistake. Don’t lie, it makes you look small.
# 40 Phydeau said, “But back in the day, you wingnuts were slavishly defending him, because you slavishly adored everything Bush and his cronies did.”
Sounds like the Obama-bots today.
LOL
#41 I know you’re just a troll, Paddy O’Troll, but the wingnuts really don’t understand anything but black and white. You guys worshiped Bush, you hate Obama with a passion, and that’s all you understand.
So it’s completely out of the wingnut’s realm of understanding to comprehend that there are people who voted for Obama, like him in general, but don’t like some things about him. Sure, there probably are a few people who worship Obama, but the vast majority of us don’t. The people criticizing Obama for continuing Bush’s policies of secrecy are people who actually voted for Obama. That’s something a wingnut just can’t comprehend… if a wingnut votes for a guy, he support him slavishly, no matter what… until he doesn’t, and then he denies he ever did. A lot of that going on around here. 🙂
Black and white vs shades of gray, childish thinking vs maturity.
But y’all do make useful dupes for scumbag politicians. Slavish unthinking followers are always in demand. 🙂
#35–Ah Yea–Gee, if the Republican AND Democratic Congressional LEADERSHIP both thought that torture was a good idea, then why didn’t they go public with their reasons and have the laws changed so that torture would be legal?
The Republicans are GUILTY (most likely) of violations of American Law, International Law, Natural Law, and good anti-terrorist global positioning in the long term well throught through interests of the USA. If the Dem’s are likewise equally or even more guilty of the same thing, that does NOT ABSOLVE the Repugs, it only makes the Dems guilty as well.
SOVEREIGNTY IS THE ISSUE!!! What is sovereign==the law, or the men who make the laws?
#42 I didn’t vote for Bush. Owned once again. Are you a masochist?
#44 Paddy O’Troll, your assertions of rugged independence are worth the electrons they’re displayed with. Your unrelenting Obama bashing is indistinguishable from the countless number of mindless Republican Obama bashers.
If it waddles, swims, and quacks like a duck…
#42 well said. A common response from the wingdings is total denial. Its a freudian response to preserve a sense of self respect. I Simply consider this as a (good) sign on an unraveling right wingnut organizan that is increasingly unpopular with the mainstream every day.
Just today we were discussing at work why the wingnut energy plan of ‘dig dig dig for oil’ is almost nonexitant now. Why? Because it was a short sighted hairball idea that nobody wants to associate themselves with. Denial. A similar mindset now with the Gonzalez situation now.
Hey Pedro, us liberals are criticizing Obama publicly because we disagree with his policies continuing Bush’s executive privilege bullsh*t. No worship going on here. You’re probably just remembering your days worshiping the ground Bush walked on, until you realized what a disaster he was, and then you pretended you never supported him. That’s OK, happens to a lot of wingnuts. 🙂
>why didn’t they go public with their reasons and have the laws changed so that torture would be legal?
Because it’s not needed with the law as is.
Still hard to believe that there are Americans, wingnut Americans, but still Americans, who are in favor of torturing people. How far we have fallen in a few short years. Our forefathers and our grandparents who fought in WWII would be ashamed of us. 🙁
# 50 Phydeau said, “Our forefathers and our grandparents who fought in WWII would be ashamed of us.”
Why? In WW2 we stuck U.S. women & children into concentration camps because of the fold of skin over their eyes…
#51, #52 Thanks for illustrating how wingnuts justify government-sponsored torture.
#53–Phydeau==I don’t support torture as a way for prison guards to pass away their idle hours – “but” – I do think it would be sound public policy to use it in very limited “for real” ticking bomb type situations.
Are you a purist, or a realist?
#53 So, Fido. Would you have supported handing over FDR, RFK, McNamara, etc., to Spain for prosecution.
For once, a straight answer…
#54 Bobbo, the ticking time bomb scenario is so far-fetched and unlikely to happen that to make policy decisions based on it is nonsensical. From what I’ve read, the consensus in the military intelligence community is that torture doesn’t work. In fact, befriending and being kind to captives produces more actionable intelligence than torture. Torture just gets them to say something, anything, to stop the pain. Civilized countries have survived without resorting to torture. Keep that in mind when you talk about responding to terrorism. European countries have had to deal with terrorism for quite a while now, and they do just fine without torturing.
Having an official policy of torturing people would put us into some pretty scummy company. The negative effect it would have on our stature in the world community would outweigh any slight possibility that torture might help in some one-in-a-million scenario.
Not to mention that it’s just flat-out morally wrong. Who Would Jesus Torture? What kind of corrosive effect would it have on our national soul to know that was as a country endorse torturing people? It would make me feel shame as an American.
#56–Phydeau==so, if you are actually answering my question rather than the “sounds modified” nature of your answer, you are a purest.
Thats ok. I just don’t believe you. I think you are mouthing platitudes and you would act like anyone else in the real world if the real issue was in front of you.
Did you actually answer from the perspective of “very limited” as I stated? REAL ticking bombs, not excuses.
You set them up, I’ll knock them down:
Not to mention that it’s just flat-out morally wrong. /// Morally wrong is irrelevant in the affairs of nations. What is in our best interest is what matters. That would remain “debateable” even as I phrase the issued.
Who Would Jesus Torture? /// Everyone who wants to be left alone. Worse than the terrorists in that way.
What kind of corrosive effect would it have on our national soul to know that was as a country endorse torturing people? /// Less than doing it and lying about it.
It would make me feel shame as an American. /// And shamed you should be.
#57 Bobbo, sounds like you have a dismal view of human nature, that underneath we’re all scumbags no matter what we say. Which is fine, lots of people have that viewpoint. I don’t, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Morally wrong is irrelevant in the affairs of nations.
I disagree. If we as Americans want to set ourselves up as the number one country in the world, the one that other countries should follow and treat with deference, we can’t be doing sleazy things like torture. Appearances and saving face have a lot to do with relations between countries, it’s called diplomacy. We’ve seen the limits of hard force in the world… we have the world’s biggest military and we got our asses kicked by scruffy militants with box cutters and plastic explosives.
My comment about WWJT is not about the smug self-righteous fundies, it’s about following religion as a way to appeal to the better nature in ourselves. Seriously, lots of people claim to follow the teachings of Jesus. Does anyone really think that the guy who said “blessed are the meek” and “turn the other cheek” would condone torture? So why do people who call themselves Christian condone it?
I’m not a purist, I’m looking at all the pros and cons, the biggest of which is that the military intelligence people say it just doesn’t work.
Remember, Jack Bauer doesn’t exist, and all the stuff he does is fiction.
#58–Phydeau==I’ll take it by paragraphs:
1. Why the ad hominem analysis? You only lose credibility trying to gain points by discrediting me. I don’t think commenting on the objective reality of international affairs says much about “human” nature.
2. If we as Americans want to set ourselves up as the number one country in the world /// So you think there is a Number One int he world and that nations can elect this status? Naive. Or wish fulfillment==if we lie to the rest of the world, we can have their deference? Why would Number One seek deference from any other nation, or in doing so, what in the world does being Number one, or seeking that status, even mean? Failure by ambiguity.
3. it’s about following religion as a way to appeal to the better nature in ourselves /// When has THAT ever happened? Again, you confuse the personal with the geopolitical real politic. The phrase is “Nations don’t have friends, they have interests.” I was hoping for some pragmatism along those lines rather than a christian foreign policy and gaging our competitors by gazing into their souls. hah, hah.
Doesn’t Jesus punish non believers “forever” for mere transitory insults? Don’t be fooled just because he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Or in your cafeteria plan, does everyone go to heaven?
Most people, most religionists, most Christians are hypocrites. It explains a lot of whats wrong with the world.
I’m not a purist, I’m looking at all the pros and cons, the biggest of which is that the military intelligence people say it just doesn’t work. /// It doesn’t work when the victims don’t know anything. But under torture, people will say anything to get the torture to stop–including what you want to know. Again, the torture of innocents by louts should not be confused with the very restricted use of torture in ticking bomb scenarios.
Remember, Jack Bauer doesn’t exist, and all the stuff he does is fiction. /// Great. Then the ticking bomb scenario will never arise and torture would never be appropriate.
#59 Bobbo, I don’t consider it an insult to say that I think someone has a dismal view of human nature. Some people do, some people don’t. Some are pessimists, some are optimists. I didn’t mean it as an insult.
America has set itself up to the the number one nation, the winner of the cold war, etc. Not thru any overt election of course, it’s psychological to a huge extent. That’s why psychological factors like whether we torture or not are so important.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Christian. I’m just amazed that so many so-called Christians support torture.
Regarding whether it works, I trust the professionals over your ad hoc analysis.
In a sense torture seems to me like capital punishment. You have to be one hundred percent sure that you’re doing it right in order for it to work. Otherwise you’ve killed or tortured an innocent person. And we can’t be 100% sure, so we shouldn’t use either.
And actually the quote from Lord Palmerston is “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” I think it’s in our permanent interests to not be seen by other nations as sleazy torturers. We never know when we might temporarily need their help.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’re only debating something as reprehensible as torture in the years after 9/11. Terrorists can’t actually destroy a country, they don’t have enough resources. However, they can scare a country into destroying itself. All of the illegal spying and wiretapping and torturing and all the other stuff harmful to our country was done, supposedly, to save the country. Let’s hope we don’t have to destroy the country in order to save it. If we turn the U.S. into a police state, give up our precious freedoms because of a couple terrorist attacks, then the terrorists truly have won.
#60–Phydeau==you are not following any issue logically–you are waffling all over the place.
Regarding ad hominem attack==I SAID it affected YOUR CREDIBILITY. I was not insulted, how could I be? Just very sloppy thinking/arguing on your part.
Also very sloppy to continue to mix general purpose torture with limited ticking bomb scenarios. You said you were looking at all the pro’s and con’s but all you mention are the con’s. More defective thinking/arguing.
Without considering the pro’s of torture you have no balance in approaching the issue.
The coincidence of discussing torture after 911 is also just plain silly. Any subject we might discuss will be discussed AFTER 911. You see, it is now 2009 which is after 2001 (?). Do you think torture was never discussed by anyone in America prior to 911? Is that your position? Any even “if true” what difference would it make? Silly from every perspective.
I’m sure you are familiar with Dershowitz’s (sp?) suggestion of the terror warrant. Its an effort to be honest and to limit the use of torture to when it makes sense. Idiot Purists who can’t track a given subject and hypothetical outnumber the pessimists of the world, so governments will continue to lie to their own people so they can imagine they are on Jeebesus’s Number One Team.
Its near my bed time and my attention is waning. I’ll come back later should you have any residual interest. Try to be direct and on point?
#61 Good post.
#64–Phydeau==you say: “bobbo, your obsession with far-fetched “ticking time bomb” scenarios is perplexing.” /// How so? By rather direct implication YOU and I agree that torture should not be the policy of the USA (or anyone else) in 99.999% of cases. It should not be “perplexing” that the discussion focuses on that remaining .001% of cases being labeled “the ticking bomb scenario.” It would only be perplexing to repetitively agree with one another on how inhumane and ineffective “general” torture is. I think what IS PERPLEXING is how you, and your reference to the Dershowitz link, can’t limit your understanding of a rational discussion to true, VALID, very rare, ticking bomb scenario’s.
You say: ““I love my country but fear my government” would be reluctant to give the power to torture to their government” /// Thats one key notion of the “torture warrant.” All governments right now do “look the other way” in cases of prisoner mistreatment. We don’t know how much because it is sub rosa. Admitting to the simple truth would do more to limit its use than continuing the lie. At least, since all reasonable people are against torture, thats one of the goals.
#65 bobbo, in order to fulfill your “ticking time bomb” scenario, the police would have to be one hundred percent sure there was a ticking time bomb out there, and one hundred percent sure they had the guy who knew exactly where it was. That is so far-fetched, so far out of the realm of possibility, that it’s pointless to debate what we would do if it happened. We might as well debate what would happen if a meteor shower destroyed Washington, or lightning struck all of our soldiers in Iraq at the same time, or some other outlandish scenario.
What I get out of this discussion is that you really, really, want to be able to have torture be legal. I think that says more about you than it does about the issue.
I’m done discussing this subject with you. My last word: torture happens occasionally, we have to work hard to try to stop it, but never, never make it official policy.
#66–Phydeau==hah, hah. So the pro’s and con’s come down to all con’s and no pro’s huh? Laughable.
Denial and refusal to deal with a subject. Sad. Its our governments position on so many issues. You must be proud to be a citizen of such a moral nation.
Hypotheticals are meant to expand and limber up one’s thought process. Inability to deal with a hypothetical reveals the end point of decay.
But you did hit on the inportant consideration in issuing a torture warrant: the level of certainty involved. 100%/absolute?==No.
How about a wild hunch based on a random draw from anyone who looks funny and one catholic priest agreeing?