Spanish court sentences Imad Yarkas

[Charity Case]

Seems like take part in the planning and collecting money for a terrorist attack isn't the same as actually killing people.

It is in the US. 

It does look like Spain is being aggressive in prosecuting known terrorists to the fullest extent of their laws and that is a good thing.

[Graciela]

Our law system is different than America's. We, for one, don't support death penalty and don't have lifetime penalties. The longest penalty for any criminal is 30 years. So it doesn't really matter if the prosecutor seeks sentences of 74,000 years when they will get 30 max. I know, I'm not particulary too happy with our system, but then again, legal systems aren't flawless.

Sorry but technically, that is not true. The sentence can be as long at the judge wants it to be, but you will only spend a maximun of 30 years in prison. Let me give you an example: A well known ETA terrorist was sentenced to more than 3000 years in prison for 25 murders. He was due for release in August 2005 after just 18 years served. Outrageous, I know. This caused quite a political storm in Spain. In the end the Prosecutor had to charge him with something else to avoid his release.

But the point here are the charges this guy was convicted for. The Prosecutor failed to prove a direct link between him and the 9/11 attacks, so the Court could not convict him for the murders.

Don't you think we are happy in Spain about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1800494,00.html

...but I too think the the title of the thread was a really poor choice of words...

[Ignatius]

Our law system is different than America's. We, for one, don't support death penalty and don't have lifetime penalties. The longest penalty for any criminal is 30 years. So it doesn't really matter if the prosecutor seeks sentences of 74,000 years when they will get 30 max. I know, I'm not particulary too happy with our system, but then again, legal systems aren't flawless.

Sorry but technically, that is not true. The sentence can be as long at the judge wants it to be, but you will only spend a maximun of 30 years in prison. Let me give you an example: A well known ETA terrorist was sentenced to more than 3000 years in prison for 25 murders. He was due for release in August 2005 after just 18 years served. Outrageous, I know. This caused quite a political storm in Spain. In the end the Prosecutor had to charge him with something else to avoid his release.

But the point here are the charges this guy was convicted for. The Prosecutor fail to prove a direct link between him and the 9/11 attacks, so the Court could not convict him for the murders.

Don't you think we are happy in Spain about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1800494,00.html

...but I too think the the title of the thread was a really poor choice of words...

Not to backpedal, but I meant the longest a criminal can be in jail is 30 years. Max. I was actually gonna supply a lin but i guess i don't need to anymore.

[SLCPUNK]

Other threads I have asked why you aren't mad at Bush for continuing the search for Osama, yet turning his attention to Iraq.

How have I changed the topic?  You brought it up.  I simply stated that we are most definately still aggressive looking for him.  Will capturing him end terror? 

You did change the subject. Because I stated that you two contradict yourselves. And you ramble on that we are still looking for Osama. That, my dear boy, is changing the subject....

Will sentencing this guy in Spain to a death end terror?

See your doublespeak now?

Or wanna change the subject again?

[Surfrider]

Our law system is different than America's. We, for one, don't support death penalty and don't have lifetime penalties. The longest penalty for any criminal is 30 years. So it doesn't really matter if the prosecutor seeks sentences of 74,000 years when they will get 30 max. I know, I'm not particulary too happy with our system, but then again, legal systems aren't flawless.

Sorry but technically, that is not true. The sentence can be as long at the judge wants it to be, but you will only spend a maximun of 30 years in prison. Let me give you an example: A well known ETA terrorist was sentenced to more than 3000 years in prison for 25 murders. He was due for release in August 2005 after just 18 years served. Outrageous, I know. This caused quite a political storm in Spain. In the end the Prosecutor had to charge him with something else to avoid his release.

Well that is one place where the Spanish laws are probably stronger than the US.  In the US you would run into double jeopardy problems by charging them later.

[jarmo]

This reminds me. I think we have similar system in Sweden. A life sentence doesn't automatically mean that you'll spend the rest of your life in jail. It means you'll spend at least 18 years in jail. 18 years is currently the longest time limited sentence here.

I think you can get released earlier if you get pardoned by the goverment.




/jarmo

[POPmetal]

I'm not gonna quote every line Popmetal typed cause it'll be impossible to reply then...

It's funny how pretty much everybody else found the original title of the thread offensive but you two (GNA and popmetal).

Anyway, I don't know where you get your sources Popmetal, but though I could give you mine. On March 13th 2004 a note was sent to one of the most important newspapars in Spain, such note suggested in order to find evidence on who was behind the bombs that went off in Madrid, there was a video tape hidden in a trash can in - let's call it -"X" street located in the corner "Y". Such Videotape had just been recorded and it showed a member of Al-Qaida (Morrocon branch more accurately) confirming the acts. This was done right before our presidential elections by the way. The voice said? "these attacks are a consequence of your support to the US in the war against Iraq". Full Stop.

There is no other? reason why we were attacked, same as London a few months ago. So don't be saying you know somthing else we don't. Our governments made the decission to stick by the US regardless the opinion of 95% of the people in Spain who disagreed with such decission. I'm not blaming the US for what happened, I'm blaming our government to stick by a decission our people was totally against.

Another thing, what's the big deal with 27 or 30 years? Yes the prosecutor asked for 74,000 but he knew he was gonna get 30 max anyway. And as I already mentioned, this guy was arrested by our authoirties because he planned in Spanish soil. Hadn't had been for us, many terrorists linked to the 911 attacks wouldn't have been arrested. So consider yourself happy we have been efficient enough to put many of the responsibles behind bars, otherwise they could be planning another attack to your country or any other country.

The plan is to stop terror, not to discuss whether a criminal gets 27 or 30 years in jail. Sure you want lifetime penalties, but unfortunately for you, that option is not available here as you already know. Why 27 insteasd of 30? well, I'm no a lawyer and I don't know the laws regarding conspirancy and planning to kill, but I guess the judge didn't find him as responsible as Mohammed Atta who was one of the pilots.? Like I said, I don't know how the conspiracy laws work in Spain, but I do know you get 30 years max if you kill someone. Yarkas was responsible of the terrible crime of planning to kill so many innocent lives, but as you were talking about it earlier, the keyword there is planning. He did not kill personally those 3,000 people. That is my interpretation.

By the way, this is not an anti-american cruzade. Some of you tend to think we are all here to critize America. I can speak for myself and say that I haven't been involved in any political thread involving America. I don't hate America, actually I really like it there. I lived there 4 years and met amazing people with whom I keep contact very often. So don't aim your "anti-american" bigotry on me or people like Jarmo or IQ cause it's far away from the truth. You, on the other hand, insulted me by typing that kind of title to start your thread. I felt ofended and didn't like it. You had no reason to say that other than your ignorance and frustration cause one of the guys responsible for the planning of the 911 attacks got only 27 years. It's ok, you didn't know the max in this country is 30. I forgive you.

One more thing, the same applies to all the terrorists link to the 311 attacks in Madrid. The judge is gonna aplly the same criteria to sentence anyone involved in such an attrocity. Max they are gonna get is 30 years as well. I do feel like terrorists should get lifetime penalties, but it's not gonna happen for the time being. Yes, I don't like things from our system either, but hey, so far our authorities haven't been that bad arresting so many terrorists link to both attacks.

I love the irony of this. The real outrage here is not that an al Qaeda cell leader involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack will be free in 27 years, but that I used incendiary language to describe the Spanish Court's decision

Why am I surprised? What else can you expect from people like you who take al Qaeda's rhetoric at face value?!?!?!

Keep displaying your true colors.

[POPmetal]

You're offended by anti-America posts so you feel you have to start one about another country?

How many times are people gonna have to tell you that this thread isn't against any country Only a chauvinist who can't take any criticism towards anything related to his country, or a fellow EU member nation, would see this as attack on Spain. It is not!

I didn't criticize Spain! I don't say anything against its people! In fact I would guess there's a good amount of Spaniards who feel the same way I do about this decision. It doesn't mean the legal system does not deserve criticism. And I stand by what I said: it was a slap in the face of the victims and their families. The least they could have done was given this monster the 30 years they consider maximum.

And I still wanna know how you feel about the attacks being used as an excuse to attack Iraq and the fact that the leader who's the main enemy is still out there.

Puts things into perspective for me at least.

Iraq was not invaded in response to 9/11. It was invaded for violating UN resolutions. Also, it factors into the war on terror because Iraq was a terrorist sponsoring nation, which openly funded and encouraged terrorist attacks. Just because it didn't attack the US, doesn't mean it wasn't involved in terrorism.

As for bin Laden still being out there, obviously I don't feel good about it. Unfortunately the US armed forces don't have a magical genie that can find out where he is and fetch him. It's a huge planet, and it's difficult to find one cockroach with so many nests all over the place. When it is found, I'm sure it will be exterminated.

[POPmetal]

You guys really take the cake don't ya?

You claim the sentence is a slap in the face of the victims?

Other threads I have asked why you aren't mad at Bush for continuing the search for Osama, yet turning his attention to Iraq. And you would reply "do you really think that capturing Osama is going to stop the terror movement? He is really just a figurehead." Just about every right wing poster that I can recall, has made statements similar to that. Especially when it came time to defend the Iraq invasion. The capture of Osama, you claimed, was merely a trophy of sorts and would not change a thing.

So in the same vein, is that not a "slap in the face" to the families? To waive off the capture of Osama as unimportant in the war on terror? Also, by your own reasoning,? this man being sentenced? "isn't going to stop the terror movement" so why do you care about the low amount in years? He is just a figurehead right? Or is it different now when you want to make a point? At least he has been captured and sentenced, more than I can say for Osama.

So who is the hypocrite again? Who is contradicting themselves again?

You can't have it both ways.

That's a blatant LIE, I never asked anyone if they really think that capturing Osama is going to stop the terror movement. He might be a figurehead but it's very important to catch that figurehead. So NO contradictions here.

And why are you (and Jarmo since he first raised this issue) incapable of comprehending the distinction between not being able to incapacitate a terrorist because you can't find him and not incapacitating permanently a terrorist you already have in custody? You appear to be intelligent educated people. Why can't you see that glaring difference?

[POPmetal]

Other threads I have asked why you aren't mad at Bush for continuing the search for Osama, yet turning his attention to Iraq.

How have I changed the topic?? You brought it up.? I simply stated that we are most definately still aggressive looking for him.? Will capturing him end terror??

You did change the subject. Because I stated that you two contradict yourselves. And you ramble on that we are still looking for Osama. That, my dear boy, is changing the subject....

Will sentencing this guy in Spain to a death end terror?

See your doublespeak now?

Or wanna change the subject again?

Who two? Be clear when you make accusations like that! It sure seems like I'm one of the two you're referring to and I never said that and I'm not contradicting myself. So STOP lying or implying lies!

[jarmo]

How many times are people gonna have to tell you that this thread isn't against any country Only a chauvinist who can't take any criticism towards anything related to his country, or a fellow EU member nation, would see this as attack on Spain. It is not!

And yet people think you choose a bad phrase to display your outrage....

Iraq was not invaded in response to 9/11. It was invaded for violating UN resolutions. Also, it factors into the war on terror because Iraq was a terrorist sponsoring nation, which openly funded and encouraged terrorist attacks. Just because it didn't attack the US, doesn't mean it wasn't involved in terrorism.

Ok, if you believe that, fine.

I don't buy it and I think there are other countries who are more into sponsoring terrorism and helping terrorists.

Also, don't you think people in USA associate the war on terrorism with 9/11? So it kinda automatically becomes about 9/11.

As for bin Laden still being out there, obviously I don't feel good about it. Unfortunately the US armed forces don't have a magical genie that can find out where he is and fetch him. It's a huge planet, and it's difficult to find one cockroach with so many nests all over the place. When it is found, I'm sure it will be exterminated.

Would you use the phrase "spit in the face of the victims' families" to describe your outrage that he hasn't been caught in four years?

So, Spain is actually sentencing people involved in terrorism while USA went after Saddam and made him the big enemy because they failed to capture the real enemy.

I just happen to think that it's amusing how somebody who supports the war in Iraq (supposed to be a war on terror) and then posts how an actual sentence is a "spit in the face". In my opinion, you're supporting a war based on lies and then attacking Spain for sentencing terrorists. That's what my "problem" is.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Because:

A - They're at war
B - They have big cars
C - They call football soccer and a lift an elevator

Pick one.

/jarmo

I'm going with C.  It always pisses people off when we're talking Football on an elevator.  If looks could kill!!!!

[Charity Case]

How has this reverted to this type of arguement?  All popmetal was indicating in his original post is that he thinks sentencing a murderer (and yes planning the eventual deaths of 3,000 people is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as murder), to a 27 year sentence is a joke.  And let's be clear, it is in fact a injustice.  I commend Spain for being proactive in this war on terror and for prosecuting known terrorists to the fullest extend of their laws.  The problem that popmetal, and for that matter anyone with a morsel of brains, has with Spain is their legal system is obviously way way too liberal.  There is a difference between being anti-spain and being anti-spain's legal system.  He may have chosen wording you guys don't like, and you are all liberals who probabaly feel criminals should be given second chance, so you see the arguement through a different lense.  Point of fact, giving a known conspirator in the murder of 3,000 innocent lives a 27 year sentence is fucking ludicrous. 

[jarmo]

How has this reverted to this type of arguement?? All popmetal was indicating in his original post is that he thinks sentencing a murderer (and yes planning the eventual deaths of 3,000 people is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as murder), to a 27 year sentence is a joke.? And let's be clear, it is in fact a injustice.?

It is sad, but as far as I know they couldn't prove some of the things he was accused of.

You can't just convict people without proper proof...

and you are all liberals who probabaly feel criminals should be given second chance

I guess it depends on the case, extremists are extremists and they should be put away.


But I guess even a conservative like yourself thinks people should be given a second chance. I mean, you begged me to let you come back to this board. 



/jarmo

[pilferk]

Other threads I have asked why you aren't mad at Bush for continuing the search for Osama, yet turning his attention to Iraq.

How have I changed the topic? ?You brought it up. ?I simply stated that we are most definately still aggressive looking for him. ?Will capturing him end terror? ?No. ?You know we can look for him AND fight a war in Iraq. ?One is not exclusive of the other in any remote way. ?

First, I'd like to see some proof that we're still making a concerted (ie: as vigorous as we were prior to the Iraqi invasion) effort to hunt down Osama. ?You've made the assertion...I'd like to see some proof. ?I've read, both in the media and from military reports that efforts have been EXTREMELY curtailed, since resources in Afghanistan are so scarce. ?I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary.

Second, while you're right....Iraq and the hunt for Osama are NOT mutually exclusive, in the sense that they could, feasibly, occur at the same time, both operations pull from the same resource pool. ? I think the "problem" is obvious, in that.

Are you going to continue with the name calling? ?If so, I can resort to that if necessary. ?I really don't want to, but I also don't need to be called a 'boy' by an extremeist liberal. ?Remember, most liberals eventually grow up, buy a house, have kids and become good republicans. ?There is still hope for you...BOY!

I love seeing that assertion...that "most liberals eventually grow up, buy a house, have kids and become good republicans". ?It's a good urban legend. ?Statistically, though, I've seen evidence that completely minimizes your assertion. ?If you've seen otherwise (something other than anecdotal information, by the way) I'd really like to see it.

Just for reference purposes, here was the 2004 election voting breakdown by age:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Bush ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Kerry
18-29 (17%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 45% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?54%
30 - 44 (29% ? ? ? ? ? ? ?53% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46%
45 - 59 (30%) ? ? ? ? ? ? 51% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48%
60+ ? (24%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?54% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46%

And then for the 2000 elections:
http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Bush ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Gore
18-29 ?(17%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 48% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46%
30 - 44 (33%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?49%
45 - 59 (28%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?49%
60+ ? ? ?(22%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?51% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?47%


I don't see much significant "slippage", over that 4 years, on either side. ?And comparing candidate votes for EITHER election shows that, while there is a difference in ideology (apparently) in '04 in the younger sect, it's not very significant. ?And, in the 2000 elections, it's nonexistant.

[Charity Case]

But I guess even a conservative like yourself thinks people should be given a second chance. I mean, you begged me to let you come back to this board.?

Touchee.  But let's make 1 thing clear.  I did not beg you to allow me to come back to this board.  I had already returned to the board under a different name/IP/email address (I operate this same SMF 1.0.5 board of my own in my gaming community and there isn't much that can be done to permanently ban someone).  What I did do was request of you to allow me to continue posting under my old name (TyRod Tulip) whereas I had over 1,500 posts I think.  Which, of course, you denied.  So, in the same vein as your comment above, I guess you're liberal with what you allow some posters to say and not with others (this is obvious anyway).  Like I said earlier, we all have biases and I would probably treat liberals differently than conservatives if I adminned this board.

And all kidding aside, I was under the impression they found this guy guilty on a bunch of conspiracy charges.  So it appears they had proof that he was involved in the planning of the 911 attack.  At least that was my understanding.  The problem is not with Spain, it's with a legal system that won't people people like this away forever or put them to death.

[Charity Case]

pilferk, I did not state that with evidence it hand.  It was, as you state, anecdotal in nature.  It stands to reason that the young are more liberal.  In general, they don't have kids, assets or interests to speak of, and they are either in school or closely removed from school where the overwhelming majority of teachers that influence on them are liberals (some say mostly because they lack real word experience and only have knowldge of things based on theory - I am not necessarily saying this).  So it stands to reason that the older one gets, the further he/she moves away from the liberal influence of teachers and the more assets they acquire.  It also stands to reason that most will have kids and that their ideology changes from a selfish one to one where they now have to put the safety and interest of their kids first.  Those things combined often lead to a change in political views.  I am not making this up.  I do not have the "proof" in front of me.  I do not have proof in front of me that Jupiter exists either, but I think I can safely say that it does.

Also, using voting results to indicate whether someone is a liberal or a conservative is very misleading and not proof of anything.  I am a card carrying member of the conservative party.  I have stated before that I have voted for both democrats and independents for the presidency.  For example, in 2000 I voted for Gore.  So I am speaking of one's politic ideologies and not theor voting record.

I do find it very interesting that the number of 18-29 year olders that voted democratic went from 46% to 54% between 2000 and 2004.  That is significant to say the least, but it doesn't speak at all t the point being made here by you or by me.

[SLCPUNK]

You guys really take the cake don't ya?

You claim the sentence is a slap in the face of the victims?

Other threads I have asked why you aren't mad at Bush for continuing the search for Osama, yet turning his attention to Iraq. And you would reply "do you really think that capturing Osama is going to stop the terror movement? He is really just a figurehead." Just about every right wing poster that I can recall, has made statements similar to that. Especially when it came time to defend the Iraq invasion. The capture of Osama, you claimed, was merely a trophy of sorts and would not change a thing.

So in the same vein, is that not a "slap in the face" to the families? To waive off the capture of Osama as unimportant in the war on terror? Also, by your own reasoning,  this man being sentenced  "isn't going to stop the terror movement" so why do you care about the low amount in years? He is just a figurehead right? Or is it different now when you want to make a point? At least he has been captured and sentenced, more than I can say for Osama.

So who is the hypocrite again? Who is contradicting themselves again?

You can't have it both ways.

That's a blatant LIE, I never asked anyone if they really think that capturing Osama is going to stop the terror movement. He might be a figurehead but it's very important to catch that figurehead. So NO contradictions here.

And why are you (and Jarmo since he first raised this issue) incapable of comprehending the distinction between not being able to incapacitate a terrorist because you can't find him and not incapacitating permanently a terrorist you already have in custody? You appear to be intelligent educated people. Why can't you see that glaring difference?

I said "you guys" meaning, you neocons on this board who constantly back Iraq by claiming the capture of Bin Laden really would not stop terror at this point.

And I ask AGAIN what is the difference from what your camp says and what you are crying about here?

Why are you incapable of comprehending the question asked instead of trying to change the argument? The argument is that because we went into Iraq, we took focus on finding Osama. Is that not a slap in the face to the victims families?

Stop twisting it around.

Your doublespeak is amazing really.

It's ok to go into Iraq and divert attention away from finding Osama (by your very words we are there to start democracy and "free" these people). Right? After the lack of WMD, lack of ties to AQ, we now are there to free these people, correct?

But what about Osama? Wasn't it a slap in the face of the victims of 9-11 to go nation building instead of capturing the man who attacked us on 9-11?

Or are you going to contradict yourself again and claim it is not?

Doublespeak!!!

[pilferk]

pilferk, I did not state that with evidence it hand.? It was, as you state, anecdotal in nature.? It stands to reason that the young are more liberal.? In general, they don't have kids, assets or interests to speak of, and they are either in school or closely removed from school where the overwhelming majority of teachers that influence on them are liberals (some say mostly because they lack real word experience and only have knowldge of things based on theory - I am not necessarily saying this).? So it stands to reason that the older one gets, the further he/she moves away from the liberal influence of teachers and the more assets they acquire.? It also stands to reason that most will have kids and that their ideology changes from a selfish one to one where they now have to put the safety and interest of their kids first.? Those things combined often lead to a change in political views.? I am not making this up.? I do not have the "proof" in front of me.? I do not have proof in front of me that Jupiter exists either, but I think I can safely say that it does.

Also, using voting results to indicate whether someone is a liberal or a conservative is very misleading and not proof of anything.? I am a card carrying member of the conservative party.? I have stated before that I have voted for both democrats and independents for the presidency.? For example, in 2000 I voted for Gore.? So I am speaking of one's politic ideologies and not theor voting record.

I do find it very interesting that the number of 18-29 year olders that voted democratic went from 46% to 54% between 2000 and 2004.? That is significant to say the least, but it doesn't speak at all t the point being made here by you or by me.

So it was speculative opinion based on flawed logic and no proof.

That's pretty much as I suspected.

The term "most" would indicate a majority.  It's obviously not true that "most" people grow up, buy a house, have kids, and become republicans.  What statistical data exists shows that not to be true.  If you'd like to provide some evidence to bolster your case...please, fell free.  What evidence I've seen directly contradicts it, so....

[SLCPUNK]

pilferk, I did not state that with evidence it hand.  It was, as you state, anecdotal in nature.  It stands to reason that the young are more liberal.  In general, they don't have kids, assets or interests to speak of, and they are either in school or closely removed from school where the overwhelming majority of teachers that influence on them are liberals (some say mostly because they lack real word experience and only have knowldge of things based on theory - I am not necessarily saying this).  So it stands to reason that the older one gets, the further he/she moves away from the liberal influence of teachers and the more assets they acquire.  It also stands to reason that most will have kids and that their ideology changes from a selfish one to one where they now have to put the safety and interest of their kids first.  Those things combined often lead to a change in political views.  I am not making this up.  I do not have the "proof" in front of me.  I do not have proof in front of me that Jupiter exists either, but I think I can safely say that it does.

Also, using voting results to indicate whether someone is a liberal or a conservative is very misleading and not proof of anything.  I am a card carrying member of the conservative party.  I have stated before that I have voted for both democrats and independents for the presidency.  For example, in 2000 I voted for Gore.  So I am speaking of one's politic ideologies and not theor voting record.

I do find it very interesting that the number of 18-29 year olders that voted democratic went from 46% to 54% between 2000 and 2004.  That is significant to say the least, but it doesn't speak at all t the point being made here by you or by me.

  What evidence I've seen directly contradicts it, so....

Watch out...they don't like the "C" word...