The Spanish court trying the remaining suspects in the deadly Madrid bombings convicted the actual perpetrators today, sentencing them to gaudy terms that wind up being no more than 40 years each. The man who planned the attacks, and whose voice could be heard on wiretaps bragging about it, won an acquittal:
One of the accused masterminds of the 2004 Madrid terror bombings was acquitted of all charges today by a Spanish court in the culmination to a politically divisive trial over Europe’s worst Islamic militant terror attack.
Rabei Osman, a 35-year-old Egyptian, allegedly bragged during a wiretapped phone conversation that the attacks, which killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800, were his idea. Twenty-eight people were charged in the attacks.
Four lead defendants in the bombings were found guilty of murder and other charges, each handed sentences that stretched into the thousands of years in the day of carnage etched in Spain’s collective memory and known simply as 11-M, much like the term 9-11 in the U.S.
Fourteen other people were found guilty of lesser charges such as belonging to a terrorist group. Seven other lesser suspects were acquitted on all charges.
The other lead defendants got sentenced to almost 40,000 years in prison each, the consequence of killing 191 people in the 11-M attacks. However, thanks to Spanish law, no one can serve more than 40 years, as AFP reports. That works out to 76 days per victim, a detestable result.
Even more detestable, Osman walks away from any responsibility for the Madrid attack. Apparently the Spanish court didn’t take Osman’s own word for his leadership in attacking Spanish civilians with bombs on 11-M. The lack of a conviction in this case will certainly do nothing to deter future attacks in Spain, especially for those who style themselves as terrorist leaders. Even wiretaps won’t bother such people in the future, since the courts don’t put any stock into the taped conversations captured by intel and law-enforcement agents.
Once again, this shows the limitations in treating acts of war as common criminal acts. Civil court systems do not have the capacity to deal with foreign groups that conduct acts of sabotage and terror, because they were not designed for those purposes. Nations build military forces to handle such acts. Spain has forgotten this, as has most of Europe. Perhaps Osman’s acquittal will remind them.
Captain,
You touched something very important: Acts of war can not be treated as regular shoplifting, or B&E, something witch most of the Liberals miss completely.
Not that long ago, these men would have been hanging from their necks.
What a farce.
Actually, if it really was simply an act of war, they would simply be POWs until the war was over, no? So, I’m going to guess that you believe it was a war crime, and that it should be tried in the military justice system, rather than the civilian justice system.
What about McVeigh in the OKC bombings? Should that also have been treated as a war crime?
Anon:
AQ operatives are unlawful combatants are not covered by existing conventions. Unlawful combatants may be summarily executed under international law. However, the Untied States Military Law (UCMJ) does not allow this to happen. However, during the Second World War there were numerous incidents of German “Werewolves” being summarily executed by US Forces. The bottom line on unlawful combatants is that they can be treated anyway their captures want.
If they are lawful combatants then it is a war crime to try them in civilian courts for their conduct during the war. They may be tried in a civil or military court for offenses they commit while being held prisoner. (Article 84). War crimes prosecutions are not permitted until the termination of the conflict. Members of the 11-M cell were not prosecuted for war crimes. They were tried on civilian murder charges.
The Timothy McVeigh case is different all together. Unless the US government can establish a relationship with foreign entities (treason), McVeigh’s actions fall under the criminal code. He could have considered an American citizen in rebellion against the United States government which is a criminal offense under the US code or he could have been tried under murder statutes. The government made minimal attempt to find a foreign connection so there no cause to charge him with treason. They chose the murder statute instead.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 10/31/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Geneva Convention (III, Part 1, Article 4)
Terrorists aways fail 2-d, almost always fail 2-b and 2-c, and sometimes fail 2-a.
Jerry is right, and the fact that lawful combatants cannot be tried under civilian law for their conduct during war, makes those who advocate treating as lawful combatants and trying them in civil courts advocates for violating international law. Another detail that most “liberals” miss completely.
Have you ever looked at the ‘terrorism’ laws in the US? About 904 sections to it, each with sub-sections and some with tertiary sections. When one writes law like that, it is apparent that the writers do not know what they are saying. The concept of those that are not nations waging war as illegitimate is ancient to the West, and the basis of the Nation State is to protect not just one Nation but *all* Nations from those doing such. Such illegitimate or predatory war on the seas is called piracy. They used terrorist tactics, also, in shelling towns, sending crews ashore for days or weeks to operate on land as illegitimate land forces.
Take the entirety of the Piracy code and compare that to the ‘terrorism’ laws, and you will find 10 Federal Statutes, most just one sentence long. Apparently the Nation knew, then, how to accurately define illegitimate war on the high seas, but also recognized the actors of that also operated on land. When National warships were sent to eradicate pirates, do you think they would *not* bombard land bases and ports operated by or for pirates? And as piracy is a subset of the larger form of illegitimate or predatory or personal warfare that is anathema to Nations, why not draft the exact same law for ‘terrorists’ as for pirates using the same citation that is Constitutional having had many SCOTUS cases ruling on them? Congress is given the right to do that via the Constitution.
The reason for having a civil realm in addition to the military, are for those that are mis-charged with the crime to be able to come forward and voluntarily give themselves up for ruling. Captain Morgan proved that out – doing something that was, indeed, piracy, but without knowledge of the peace treaty recently signed. He returned to get his name *cleared* to demonstrate he could not know and operated under the authority given to him at the time. For those willing to turn away from such things a hard, fast and simple law must be in place so that atonement can be found or demonstration of innocence be had. For an entire organization, however, there is no second chance, and members are liable to the justice against them. Flee from the organization and seek civil justice, because military justice is swift to put an end to such predators.
That is the way Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt viewed such things. It is the right of society to defend itself against predators and the mercy of the law is available for those seeking justice or atonement for crimes. That is civilized by any and all meaning of the term, any attempt to justify those waging such war is decadent. When Kings and Nations offered a one time chance at clemency those that turned from it faced a life on the run until the end of their days. It is unfortunate that soft decadence is so alluring, and offers only an end to comfort and to the return of the law of nature, red of tooth and claw. The Hague and Geneva Conventions offered nothing for these predators as they are based on the Law of Nations.
Perhaps this fine upstanding can join OJ Simpson in the search for the real killers.
AQ operatives are unlawful combatants are not covered by existing conventions. Unlawful combatants may be summarily executed under international law.
Actually, it seems to me that we really need to start considering this. By attempting to give terrorists the best of both the civilian criminal and POW system as the left is intent on doing only encourages terrorists to continue to violate the norms of warfare.
While many Islamists aren’t afraid to die, the certainty of death upon capture might motivate some to stop targeting civilians, and perhaps just as importantly send the message to other, more rational, potential foes that there consequences to such activities…
“The lack of a conviction in this case will certainly do nothing to deter future attacks in Spain”
I don’t think deterance works on suicidal terrorists nor on jihadi masterminds. That whole 72 virgins thing. If only we could actually get them some virgins they would see how little they are missing.
Verdict mills. Nothing more.
I second the motion of this as substituting an OJ Simpson system of junk justice where a military tribunal is clearly indicated.
Central to the Nuremberg Trials was a realization that a conventional trial by jury of Goering, or Himmler or Jodl etc. by their own peers would mean easy acquittal. Thankfully, any “just following orders” or “for the Fatherland” excuses didn’t wash at the Nuremberg proceedings.
Similar to the OJ trial the sordid combination of Ito-esque sycophant-politician-judge(s), ignorant, indifferent or activist jurors, and by design, incompetent or lackadaisacal prosecution could have enabled Adolf himself to walk then spend the rest of his days golfing and hawking, shall we say, his memorabilia.
Our Civil system, too, like Spain’s, is NEVER going to work on this! Do you know how much money the Saud’s have! How easy it is for them to buy “justice?”
One part of the problem is in the selection of juries. But even there, if you fix that. It would be hit-or-miss.
Up ahead? I think we’ll see how we fight wars, change.
I think lots of people, around the world, respect Israel. (Even if they’re trained to hate Jews.)
At least, Jews are no longer defenseless.
Nor does Israel buy into the wholesale slaughter of arabs.
One of the things I’ve rescognized is that Israel isn’t too worried about how the arabs “organize” … as long as they don’t “organize” underfoot.
ANd, then, of course, there’s the Mossad.
How do they work?
How the hell should I know? (Maybe, half the Israeli public belongs to the Mossad? And, the recent “events” in syria? Maybe, when the country heard the syrians were under “blackout” … a lot of Israelis put on costumes. And, wandered into the syrian desert? Okay. I am also kidding.)
I found, however, Olmert’s “apology” to the turks, very similar to a Jackie Mason routine. It went like this:
We didn’t fly over. It never happened. But if it did, we apologize for “invading” air space. We apologize from head to foot. From floor to ceiling. From earth to sky.”
But why not just believe Assad? He says nothing happened. And, he’s still in charge of whatever it is he gets to lead from his palace. In Damascus.
As far as Olmert is concerned, though? It’s better than that rat, King Ab-dull-ah. Who has the whole Bush family in his pocket!
I bet James Baker goes around the White HOuse kicking furniture! I bet he’s more pissed off than Rummy. Who is retired. And, who can shrug.
How will we handle these terrorists down the road? Ease-dropping. (And, this can be done from helicopters. The lessons learned in Vietnam remain, to this day, very, very effective.)
I’m much less impressed with what’s going on inIrak. I don’t consider Beauchamp a winnah. Or a hero. And, I think Maliki hates the guts of all our troops! He thinks what we’re doing with the surge is poison to his Shi’a. (Ain’t that the truth?)
And, when we leave, the “mother of all battles,” begins. With the locals being fodder.
Ah, how easy it would’a been, back in 1991, if Bush #41, didn’t prevent Saddam from pushing out the Saud’s, from their saudi arabian perch. There you have it! The true stinkers. Richer than Midas.
And, Saddam? A head on a $3-trillion-dollar stick. Whoopee.
Notice this. The Israelis do what they have to do; and they go home. It’s not an invitation to party. The troops learn to handle the terrorists. Without threatening to cause WW3. Or is it “4” by now?
Hey, maybe if the Spanish judges are really, really nice to the Muslim terrorists, the Muslim terrorists will leave them, and the rest of Spain, alone!
They could always give their “reconquista” territories back to the Muslims, I guess, to buy peace. 😉
My question about McVeigh is not really about the law, but really about his case impacts the argument being used here. First, let me say that I don’t really have a strong opinion about the overall question of what courts to use for various unsavory types.
However, the argument put forth by Ed is that somehow, outcomes in the Madrid case that seem too light (which I agree are too light) imply that the civil system cannot deal with terrorists. That argument seems weak (or at least simplistic). McVeigh was tried in the civilian system and was executed.
“What about McVeigh in the OKC bombings? Should that also have been treated as a war crime?”
As you point out. McVeigh was executed for his actions so any question of whether he should have been tried as a war criminal is moot.
You should use another analogy, like the people who perpetrated the FIRST World Trade Center bombings. Where any of them executed? No. Where they even considered war criminals and tried as such? No. They were treated just like a common criminals, similar to how Spain is treating those who committed the Madrid bombings.
Anon:
I don’t remember McVeigh’s act having huge numbers of fans worldwide.
More to the point, nor do I remember any significant numbers of Americans claiming that his act was somehow “understandable” (though reprehensible) due to the actions of the American government.
Or did I miss something?
Anon:
Go back and read my original post. McVeigh cannot make war on the United on his own. He can be charged with insurrecyion which is a crime not an acy of war. He could take up arms against the United States in support of a forgein which is called Treason, a crime defined in the Constitution. He could take up arms as a Pirate but at the point he has forfeited his citizenship.
I hope this clarifies Mcveighs legal situation for you.
Captain, someone I showed this to responds,
“Why should anyone assume the aquitted ringleader was guilty? If you read the whole AP article, it explains that a) two separate translations of the wiretapped “confession” revealed it to be less damning than previously supposed, and that b) the 7 known ringleaders blew themselves up when cornered by Spanish police.
“Information and procedure are the cornerstones of justice, not zeal and ignorance.”
You and many above seem to be arguing that summary military justice, applicable to foreign pirates, saboteurs, and spies, should have been applied, and the perpetrators hanged or shot without further ado. I am sympathetic to that approach (better than Guantanamo, especially for terrorist combatants caught in the field), but there is the question of whether someone might be caught up in such a net who in fact is not guilty.
Seems to me a military tribunal might have come to the same conclusion re “the ringleader,” if there was no evidence beyond taped braggadocio.
/Mr Lynn
Everyone, including Ed, takes this as self-evident that the guys who were acquitted were in fact really guilty/involved, that the were found innocent on some kind of technicality, and that they should all be shot through the neck post haste.
Has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that the guys who were found not guilty… are actually not guilty?
How the heck do any of you all know who was involved and who was not involved?
In the America I grew up in, accusation is not equal to guilt. Anytime that system is changed, things get out of hand real fast.