HeyBub wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'll grant you the Bush administration was arrogant - they all are
(see "Jane's Law"). But corrupt? Hardly. In the entire eight years
of the Bush administration, ONE person was convicted of impropriety,
and that for testimony about a crime that never happened.

So far. The Spanish are considering war crimes charges against six
senior Bush administration officials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...orture-inquiry

This is being done under the 1984 UN Convention against Torture,
signed and ratified by the US. This has the same legal basis as the
arrest of Chili's General Pinochet in Britain in 1998. He died before
going to trial.

I believe the US has tried and convicted nationals of other countries
under this treaty, so the precedent is solid. -- Doug

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the
U.S. constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Secondly, there's a jurisdictional problem:

"The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent
torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to
their home country if there is reason to believe they will be
tortured."

Any acts taken by the U.S. did not take place within the U.S. border,
so this part of the treaty doesn't apply.

Thirdly, Spain hasn't done anything yet. If they do, they'll regret
it. The U.S. doesn't take kindly to foreign states meddling in our
internal affairs. Nothing happened on Spanish soil, to Spanish
citizens, or involving anybody that could even SPEAK Spanish.

Fourthly, a US official doing things to Spaniards that the Spanish
government doesn't like is hardly evidence of _corruption_.