Comments:Spanish court considering torture criminal case against former U.S. officials

Am I the only one that wonder why the Terrorist can get away with mass murder but when a Democracy dos something they get a shit storm on them. For real we spray water on a group of hardcore individuals (only 3) who are willing to die for Allah and virgins and got them to talk and save lives. And we are bring charges against the same people that saved lives. This idiotically is the core. --KDP3 (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because a Democracy is a Democracy, and not a Tyranny. Because you have to set an example, and "bad guys do it too" is no excuse. Because freedom from torture means that, and not "freedom except where we think it's really really needed". Because being right is harder than being wrong. 131.107.0.105 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What I want from articles like this is a history lesson. Yes, it is breaking news, but without any knowledge of precedent it is just trivia to me. I cannot think the situation out or form an opinion, I simply don't have the information. I do not expect the information to be in the articles, just to be referenced in, or linked to, the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.191.187 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article cites a precedent - Pinochet. The key assertion is that the accused were instrumental in legally nitpicking at the definition of torture until waterboarding fell outside the addendums and qualifiers they twisted around it. Because of the position of the USA in the world, this starts to get tricky fast. I'd guess part of the context/history lesson you'd need is looking up Nazi Germany, reading about the downfall, and looking at the trials that followed. The stark difference there is that most of the world really wanted to see these people prosecuted, and Germany had been totally overrun. The Nazi example is fairly extreme compared to what ended up happening in Guantanamo, but the axiom is - The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. From my perspective, I'd say it is pretty important that people are held to account if they engage in torture, an example must be set that this is not acceptable in a civil society. Unfortunately, the only justice those who may be charged likely face is never being able to leave the USA again. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Day by day it seem the Terrorist have more rights then us.--66.229.11.230 09:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not true at all. You want a grudge match where anybody you don't like has no rights and can be tortured and/or killed without any investigations? Go back to your pulp novels and shit TV. Real, professional, war is subject to the rule of law. 66.20.190.10 16:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the context issue - I'm just guessing, but I think the person asking for it was referring to the torture developments in the US, rather than how "similiar" cases play out - may be mistaken though. For similiar cases you don't need to look so far though: it's been just a few weeks since Sudans president has been put up for arrest by the International court - which differs in obvious manners but the Spanish legislations seems to allow for the same kind of thing (according to the background info). I thought the article was quite well written and interesting by the way! (Of course some background on Waterboarding in the US would have been nice - but somebody has to write it...guess copying from old stories on that issue might be the way to go). Sean Heron (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)