| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Rubira seeks 74,000 year sentences for Spanish al-Qaeda |
| 2005-02-15 |
| A prosecutor said Monday he will seek prison terms of more than 74,000 years for each of three suspected al-Qaida members charged with using Spain as a staging ground for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. A trial is expected to start in mid-March, the National Court said. Spain will be only the second country worldwide to put Sept. 11 suspects on trial, after Germany. Prosecutor Pedro Rubira said that for each suspect, he will seek 25 years in prison for each of the 2,973 people killed in the suicide airliner attacks, for a possible sentence of more than 74,000 years. Under Spanish law, however, the maximum prison term someone can actually serve in a terrorism case is 40 years; the country has no death penalty or life imprisonment. Rubira also said he wants the defendants to pay a total of $1.16 billion in damages to victims' families. Imad Yarkas is accused of leading a Spain-based al-Qaida cell; accused as accomplices are Driss Chebli and Ghasoub al-Abrash Ghalyoun. Chebli is Moroccan while the other two are of Syrian origin. Another 21 suspected al-Qaida members in Spain accused of belonging to a terrorist organization and other offenses - not with helping plan the attacks - are expected to stand trial along with the three facing more serious charges. The other defendants include Al-Jazeera journalist Tayssir Alouny, for whom the prosecutor is seeking nine years in prison, and Yusuf Galan, a Spanish convert to Islam who faces a sentence of 18 years. The case stems from an indictment issued in September 2003 by Spain's leading anti-terrorism judge, Baltasar Garzon, against 35 people, later broadened to 40. Garzon charged that Yarkas, a used-car salesman, provided financing and logistics for key Sept. 11 plotters. In the indictment, Garzon wrote that "it has become crystal clear" that Yarkas "had links to some of the perpetrators of the massacre." In a 200-page writ, Rubira said his evidence includes more than 100 wiretapped conversations among suspected cell members. He also wants to call as a witness Jamal Zougam, a jailed Moroccan suspect the Madrid train bombings last March. Zougam, accused of placing some of the 10 backpack bombs that killed 191 people in Madrid, was a close follower of Yarkas, according to court records. Investigators on both sides of the Atlantic say that Spain - along with Germany - was a key staging ground for Sept. 11. In July 2001, Mohamed Atta - believed to have piloted one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center - attended a meeting in the northeastern Tarragona region of Spain that Garzon said was used to plan last-minute details such as the date of the attack. The 24 who will stand trial are in Spanish custody. The rest of those indicted by Garzon are either fugitives, such as Osama bin Laden himself, or in custody in other countries. Such is the case of Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni suspected of being a key contact person with bin Laden's terror network for an al-Qaida cell based in Hamburg, Germany. He was arrested on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in Pakistan and is now in secret U.S. custody. Those not in Spanish custody cannot be tried in absentia because the charge is terrorism. In Spain, such trials are held only for lesser offenses. Many of those in custody in Spain were arrested in November 2001. Germany is retrying the first person to be convicted in a Sept. 11 case. Mounir el Motassadeq, a Moroccan, was convicted in 2003 of aiding the Hamburg al-Qaida cell that included Atta and two other hijackers. A federal court overturned el Motassadeq's original conviction and 15-year prison sentence, ruling that he had been unfairly denied testimony by key al-Qaida suspects in U.S. custody. The only person charged publicly in the United States over Sept. 11 is Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen accused of conspiracy to commit terrorism. No trial date has been set. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #39 Aris, I think Rantburg had a discussion on the subject of crime and punishment a while back. (One of you clever computer types can find the link for me). The problem had to be broken down into several parts before we could even begin discussing it properly: 1. Crimes are defined and reported differently in the States and in various parts of the EU, so direct comparison of statistics is very difficult. For example, until recently the local French police/gendarmes/whatever generally refused to record attacks against Jewish persons or property, especially not recording the attack as being antisemitic. Crimes committed in the French suburbs are not recorded at all, despite being among the most violent places in all of Europe. Rape also is defined differently in the different societies; and job discrimination considered criminal on this side of the pond is considered not only normal but prudent elsewhere (I had an American friend who'd gotten her JD law degree (magna cum laude) from a German university, and was told outright that she would not be offered more than half of what her male classmates with lower scores would get, because after all she would be quitting in no time to have babies, and not even to think about being offered a partnership. Over here such a statement could get the law firm shut down.) 2. In part because of long prison sentences, and in part because of the increase in the average age of the population in the U.S. reducing the number and percentage of problem-prone late teen-aged males, criminal activity has gone down across the country and across the range of criminal activities, except for cyber crime and extreme gang-related violence. 3. At the same time, in part because of the antisocial immigrant population in many of the EU nations, and in part because of very short sentences for convicted criminals, criminal activity has gone up for much of Europe (I read recently that now England has a higher per capita violent crime rate than the U.S). The problems that get Rantburgers so exercised about Britain, where the householder who defends himself against a burglar is likely to be imprisoned for violating the criminal's civil rights, is unfortunately symptomatic of social values across much of the continent. So, before we continue this discussion, Aris, you may want to do a little research on the issues involved, so that the discussion can take place based on real numbers rather than delightfully but uselessly airy concepts. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-02-15 6:02:41 PM |
| #38 Aris, I think Rantburg had a discussion on the subject of crime and punishment a while back. (One of you clever computer types can find the link for me). The problem had to be broken down into several parts before we could even begin discussing it properly: 1. Crimes are defined and reported differently in the States and in various parts of the EU, so direct comparison of statistics is very difficult. For example, until recently the local French police/gendarmes/whatever generally refused to record attacks against Jewish persons or property, especially not recording the attack as being antisemitic. Crimes committed in the French suburbs are not recorded at all, despite being among the most violent places in all of Europe. Rape also is defined differently in the different societies; and job discrimination considered criminal on this side of the pond is considered not only normal but prudent elsewhere (I had an American friend who'd gotten her JD law degree (magna cum laude) from a German university, and was told outright that she would not be offered more than half of what her male classmates with lower scores would get, because after all she would be quitting in no time to have babies, and not even to think about being offered a partnership. Over here such a statement could get the law firm shut down.) 2. In part because of long prison sentences, and in part because of the increase in the average age of the population in the U.S. reducing the number and percentage of problem-prone late teen-aged males, criminal activity has gone down across the country and across the range of criminal activities, except for cyber crime and extreme gang-related violence. 3. At the same time, in part because of the antisocial immigrant population in many of the EU nations, and in part because of very short sentences for convicted criminals, criminal activity has gone up for much of Europe (I read recently that now England has a higher per capita violent crime rate than the U.S). The problems that get Rantburgers so exercised about Britain, where the householder who defends himself against a burglar is likely to be imprisoned for violating the criminal's civil rights, is unfortunately symptomatic of social values across much of the continent. So, before we continue this discussion, Aris, you may want to do a little research on the issues involved, so that the discussion can take place based on real numbers rather than delightfully but uselessly airy concepts. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-02-15 6:02:41 PM |
| #37 Aris For murders just publicly HANG THEM HIGH! Then there is no worry about future crimes the might commit in hell. Oh and I think the US has not shown the proper decorum when returning Gitmo prisoners. They should be ejected from a transport at 30,000 feet over their home nation without a parachute. A cam should be attached so all can enjoy their splat. Now you can mumble on about 7 year vacations... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-02-15 10:15:49 PM |
| #36 There is a big difference between adultery and what Jules and Mark E. is talking about e.g (mass murder). And yet Jesus never said that a person *should* be executed. It's probably coincidence that we know of his comments is stopping an execution, but there's never a passage of him encouraging one, hmm? And btw, it's not just *my* twisted version of the Bible. Roman Catholics are abolitionists, Eastern Orthodox are abolitionists, Methodists are abolitionists, Presbyterians are abolitionists, Episcopalians are abolitionist, Quakers are abolitionist. Just to show you that there are hundreds millions of your "fellow" Christians with different opinions and what sweet Jesus would like us to do. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 8:21:51 PM |
| #35 Actually, I don't mind hearing your twisted version of the Bible. Unlike the EUtopians, I love free speech. He who is without sin cast the.........(adultery) There is a big difference between adultery and what Jules and Mark E. is talking about e.g (mass murder). Laws in the U.S. are based on the Judean/Christian principles. If you truly understood the Bible you would clearly see that Jesus doesn't have any issues with capital punishment. The problem is not Jesus, the problem is that certain people want to kill people, but they themselves want to stay alive. I don't get it. On the other hand, terrorism is a crime, e.g Jihad, that wants to destroy whole civilizations. These people must be, at all costs, be destroyed, after being found guilty in a court. The only caveat is that if they are openly fighting in the battlefield, no need for a court, a JDAM will suffice. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-02-15 7:18:09 PM |
| #34 I could mention to you what Jesus said in a well-known case of a capital crime brought to his attention, but you would probably not like to be reminded of such pesky details, Poison Reverse. Christ's words are a nuisance for such a variety of "Christianity" as you hold dear. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 6:25:38 PM |
| #33 I hate it when I get my remote stuck on the Aris Trollavision channel. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-02-15 6:15:53 PM |
| #32 Death sentences are abolished throughout Europe and Israel (not just the EU) -- for a very long time. I couldn't name a single death sentence carried out the last 20 years, though some seem to have happened in the 1990s in Eastern Europe before it was abolished there as well. (Here's a listing of the dates of the last executions, and the abolition dates) As for me I'm all in favour of imprisoning people for life. Anyone who's murdered more than once, and I'd even throw rapists in there as well. I just *do* happen to understand the arguments to the contrary as well. And as I said: since the system is not broken in Europe, there's no urgent need to fix it. That's why you'll see many people supporting death penalty on a hypothetical basis here, but people are never passionate enough about it to change the status quo back or make it an election topic. Many "EU friends" of mine, would like to see not only true life imprisonment but death penalties as well. Ofcourse half of the political spectrum would probably most want to see death penalties for drug dealers, and the other half would want to see drugs legalized, but there you have it. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 6:05:01 PM |
| #31 So provide a few typical ones, as I suggested in 24. Also, for the sake of the argument, name a death sentence carried out for any crime in any of the EU states in the last 3-5 years, or name the most extreme sentence you recall being handed down in an EU state in that same period of time. Is there any crime you or your fellow EU friends would consider as too horrific to allow the release of the perpetrator at some point in his life, according to the current thinking about criminal justice in Europe? |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-15 5:47:49 PM |
| #30 Jules, I understand your argument as worthwhile in this respect: not in promoting "justice", as a value by itself, but rather the usefulness of revenge as helping to alleviate the suffering of the victims by comforting them. That's something worth considering. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 5:47:26 PM |
| #29 what's the next best thing, throw up our hands and say no justice will be adequately served, so the sentence doesn't matter? The 8 1/2 years IIRC were in a case where the murdered "victim" had actually asked for his murder, and the murderer (and cannibal) obliged him. Two crazy people helping each other out, one by desiring to eat someone, the other by desiring to be eaten. Is this typical of German or European law? Once again I profess ignorance. I do know that the *maximum* sentences can be lot higher than 8 years. And I do think that the cannibal case is far from typical, in order to be used as an example. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 5:38:54 PM |
| #28 Your instances may be true justice, but those outcomes are beyond the power of human beings. Your instances would require divine intervention, which we are unlikely to see here on earth. So, what's the next best thing, throw up our hands and say no justice will be adequately served, so the sentence doesn't matter? No. If I were raped, or if my arms were amputated, or my mother or father were murdered, and the criminal were only to serve a "European length" sentence (for example, 8 1/2 years for premeditated murder and cannibalization), I would feel a hell of a lot more justice was done by dealing them the death penalty or an adequate sentence than I would be by a society that throws up its arms and gives up, figuring that since there can be no divine intervention and the crime cannot be reversed, there's no sense in attempting to deliver justice at all. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-15 5:30:13 PM |
| #27 I say from a moral perspective, evil does exist in the human heart, and our squeamishness about lengthy sentences or passionate judgments should not overrule our human obligation to bring justice for the victim's sake Justice is for the murdered innocent to live again, justice is for the raped to have never experienced their ordeal, justice is for that little girl to have her hands back. Justice is an impossibility in these cases. Justice can only be served in the cases of theft, when returning to people their rightful property -- but justice is an utter utter illusion in cases of murder or rape or mutilation. At that point we project some sort of eye-for-an-eye mentality and call it "justice", regarded if the one-eyed victim would rather have his own eye back in its socket, instead of his foe's eye in his hand. This may seem too philosophical or general for you, but nonetheless it's part of by moral belief system. I agree with you that absurdly small short sentences don't protect the innocents. But unless I have statistics to make some sort of educated guesses, I can't even begin to estimate what's the ideal sentence for such crimes, the ideal that'd protect the most people in the best possible way. And even with statistics, it'd be difficult to make more than a generalized guess. So, we're all blundering along with the best guesses possible. The murder rates in Europe are still low compared to most the rest of the world, so there's no urgent need to fix a system that's not broken. Europeans are "conservative" in this fashion :-) The murder rates in USA are on the other hand still *high* compared to most of the rest of the world, so I think it falls on the USA to see whether its whole crime-and-punishment or societal system has flaws in it. Let me know if you ever come up with something. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 5:20:08 PM |
| #26 Mark E :) |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-15 5:19:57 PM |
| #25 "Can't we all just get along?" No. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 5:06:55 PM |
| #24 Aris-Absurdly short sentences do not protect the innocent. You say From a liberal and moral perspective I find it difficult to justify any action of the state not meant to prevent harm to innocents. I say from a moral perspective, evil does exist in the human heart, and our squeamishness about lengthy sentences or passionate judgments should not overrule our human obligation to bring justice for the victim's sake. We are talking in generalities, which makes this a surface argument. Take a few extreme cases and tell me how you would sentence the individuals. Here's one from the US: A guy in CA (who is out now, BTW) chopped off a little girl's arms and served, if I recall correctly, 12 years for it; she is now alive and handicapped. He is free. Is she (the innocent) protected? Was the judgment fair? |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-15 5:06:06 PM |
| #23 "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." |
| Posted by: W. Shakespeare 2005-02-15 5:04:56 PM |
| #22 Can't we all just get along? |
| Posted by: Rodney King 2005-02-15 5:02:59 PM |
| #21 "You would have it so that all sentences have at their root rehabilitation. " Now, see? That's some of the stupid and totally wrong assumptions that make me contemptuous. No, *sir*. I would have it that all sentences have at their root the protection of the innocent. If I'm ignorant when I speak about the USA, what are you when you speak about what I believe in? And if I failed to answer *any* of your questions, even as you failed to answer (or even read) all of my points, please pinpoint it to me, sir, your luxuriousness. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 5:02:54 PM |
| #20 Sir, you are a liar that pretended to be interested in discussing a topic. Not caring to answer any of the points I made, you simply attacked me with ad hominems, called me ignorant and then pronounced it the end of the discussion. My philosophy offends you, as does the fact that you can't pinhole me in the "rehabilitation" crowd, given how I don't believe in rehabilitation. But the fact my existence offends you is not my concern at all. I was an honest debater, and you were an ad hominem troll. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 4:58:50 PM |
| #19 "So. Cut. The. Huge. Pile. Of. Crap. Thank you." Sir, you are a crank about many things, and all over this board. You know very little to nothing about the matters upon which you so often speak. You have no real knowledge of any of the topics you write about, whether criminal law and theory, the UN, the military, or anything else. You know as much about the US as a virgin does about sex. You simply make rank assertions, one after the other, not based on any evidence or logic. You refuse to answer simple questions which you previously revealed that you understood, then feign ignorance. I am sorry I have wasted my time with you; it won't happen again. And don't thank me before I do something for you. Jerk. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-02-15 4:50:10 PM |
| #18 This makes it difficult for them to justify long-term punishment for crimes. From a liberal and moral perspective I find it difficult to justify any action of the state not meant to prevent harm to innocents. Punishment is not a goal by itself, regardless how evil the one to be punished is. Read some "Lord of the Rings". That some people deserve to die, doesn't mean that it's rightful to kill them for vengeance's sake. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 4:38:59 PM |
| #17 Justice, retribution, deterrence, or something else? What are your goals? State them simply The protection of the innocent. Geez, when I said "I'm interested only in what does the most good to the innocent", I thought that was indeed a simple statement of my goals. Therefore, inprisoning murderers from a deterrence perspective is useless That's a non-sequitur. So they're not recidivist, meaning (I did look it up) that most of them don't relapse. How the hell does that mean that deterring via imprisonment is useless? Do you know what "deterrence" means? Do you know that it also means that e.g. preventing crimes through fear of punishment? Aka people who've *not* murdered, but may be tempted to do so, WON'T do it, for fear of being punished? And what about those that do relapse, like serial killers? You are telling not to be jerk all the while using stupid arguments that you yourself don't believe in. I may be an arrogant ass, but I'm never a dishonest debater. It's you who uses the sophistry, when I stated simply what I believe the arguments of the case to be. "Since they tend to commit their crimes only once, there is little risk of them doing it again. Therefore, release em all. That's what follows from your argument." You didn't read my argument at all. If there was no punishment for murder, many people who would normally not murder would be tempted to. And like it or not, many murderers are indeed repeat offenders. So. Cut. The. Huge. Pile. Of. Crap. Thank you. And as a sidenote I didn't speak a single time about "rehabilitation", I spoke only about protecting the innocent. If you didn't bother to read even my first sentence, then there's no point in pretending to discuss further. The problem as you see it is that many people in the US believe that murder by it's very nature DESERVES a punishment greater than imprisonment, The problem as I see it is that many people in the US think that the state's job is to give people what they "deserve", ignoring the fact that this is impossible. I'd very much rather if the state only cared about protecting the innocent to the best of its abilities, rather than play the vengeance game as a goal by itself. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 4:35:10 PM |
| #16 Jules-> Indeed. I set the ball so you can spike it. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-02-15 4:29:32 PM |
| #15 Mark E-True, but 70's-style rehab is the still the fashion in Europe. This is a BIIIIIIIG difference between us and them--they are very uncomfortable at calling any crime an act of evil. This makes it difficult for them to justify long-term punishment for crimes. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-15 4:07:53 PM |
| #14 I dismiss no arguments out of hand, unless they have internal contradictions which render them useless. Um. Ok, so you say you are looking for the "best" solution. What is best? Justice, retribution, deterrence, or something else? What are your goals? State them simply. Again, your argument ignores the FACT that as a whole murderers are not recidivist (look up the word if you need to; I can be at least as condecending as you, and probably a lot more.) Therefore, inprisoning murderers from a deterrence perspective is useless. Since they tend to commit their crimes only once, there is little risk of them doing it again. Therefore, release em all. That's what follows from your argument. Damn, man. It's called logic; Use it. And don't be a jerk. Also, leave the sophistry to professionals; you aren't very good at it. The problem as you see it is that many people in the US believe that murder by it's very nature DESERVES a punishment greater than imprisonment, and not designed as some sort of behavior modification. You would have it so that all sentences have at their root rehabilitation. We tried that in the 70s. Didn't work. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-02-15 3:52:20 PM |
| #13 Mark E> Do you contend that a murder should only get 7 years? I'm interested only in what does the most good to the innocent. If automatic life imprisonment for the murderers was proven the best solution I'd be all for it. If death penalty had proved the best deterrent, I'd be in favour of it also. What murderers "should" get, in a justice-be-done-via-revenge point of view doesn't much concern me. I think that the state should hurt the guilty only when that leads to the protection of the innocents, not from a sadistic desire. should we execute thieves and let murderers go free? It would undoubtedly lower the amount of thefts. It might lower the amounts of thefts, and then again it might increase enormously the amount of murders, since every thief would rather kill than let himself be caught. That's the whole argument against Draco. (of Ancient Greek, NOT Harry Potter fame :-) I mean, since low or high sentences do not affect the murder rate, why punish it at all? Is this a rhetorical question or do you expect an answer to that? If a murderer plans to benefit from his murder, then he doesn't expect to be caught at all, because any capture would lead to him losing all such benefits, whether the punishment is 7 or 10 or 20 years or life imprisonment. So from *some* point on, the punishment for rape may indeed become irrelevant. That doesn't mean murderers don't need to be punished at all. You falling into the fallacy of "if some punishment is good, then more punishment is even better". From some point on, punishment may even be *counterproductive*. Imagine a person who's killed another, whether in a fit of rage or through premeditation. If this murder automatically gives him a death penalty or life imprisonment, then he may have no reason not to kill again and again and again to avoid getting caught. He has nothing to lose. But if he knows that each murder adds another ten years to his sentence, he may stop at just one death. As Sobiesky says, without hard stats, this is all speculation. But it's speculation you should give a thought to, I think, and not dismiss out of hand. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 3:31:27 PM |
| #12 "Even if it's true that the average sentencing in the EU for premeditated murder is as low as that, this low sentencing doesn't seem to have caused a higher murder rate than that of nations with much stricter and higher sentences, including the death penalty." So what are you saying? Do you contend that a murder should only get 7 years? Is the only point of punishment to convince those inclined to commit crime not to do so? Since generally speaking, murderers are not recidivists and thieves are, should we execute thieves and let murderers go free? It would undoubtedly lower the amount of thefts. I mean, since low or high sentences do not affect the murder rate, why punish it at all? |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-02-15 2:57:28 PM |
| #11 OK, Aris, thanks for clarification. "Seem" is the keyword here. Without hard data stats, we may just speculate till sun goes nova. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-02-15 12:14:38 PM |
| #10 I thought I had made myself clear but let me rephrase: "Even if it's true that the average sentencing in the EU for premeditated murder is as low as that, this low sentencing doesn't seem to have caused a higher murder rate than that of nations with much stricter and higher sentences, including the death penalty." |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 12:06:25 PM |
| #9 "7 years on average. Even if true (don't have the statistics), it doesn't seem to have significantly increased European murder rates. Aris, the point should be to decrease them. If you release the perps in 7 years, or course the rates would stay about where they are. (Not all perps would be repeated offenders, but some would. If someone was involved twice in a premeditated murder, the chances are it won't stop) |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-02-15 12:01:45 PM |
| #8 Any higher sentence will be appealed to the EU Human Rights Court. The term for premeditated murder in the EU is 7 years on average. Even if true (don't have the statistics), it doesn't seem to have significantly increased European murder rates. Btw, the EU doesn't have a human rights court. You are thinking of the European Court of Human Rights instead, which is connected to the Council of Europe (not the EU). And which AFAIK has no objections to life imprisonment. But feel free to correct me if I have my facts wrong. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-15 11:51:58 AM |
| #7 I have a solution that is cheap, quick and permanate Jackal. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-15 8:37:20 AM |
| #6 That would be cruel and unusual, SPoD. They need social interaction and religious services. In fact, they can teach religious services. That will help their rehabilitation. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-02-15 8:32:36 AM |
| #5 They will be planning, recruting and, converting while they are in prison. That is why you must keep them in segregation from the general prison population one to a cell. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-15 6:59:54 AM |
| #4 ...in seven years they will be planning attacks once again. Why would they wait? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-15 6:56:22 AM |
| #3 SPoD- This is what shows the short-sightedness of thought for those whoadvocate no death penalty. If these member of the RoP are also members of Al-Qaida then in seven years they will be planning attacks once again. Execute them and get the blood out of the way. They would even welcome execution as it will get them their 72 ho's that much faster. |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2005-02-15 6:49:09 AM |
| #2 They will be lucky to serve a 7 year sentence. Any higher sentence will be appealed to the EU Human Rights Court. The term for premeditated murder in the EU is 7 years on average. Life means a maximum of 15 years. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-15 3:25:34 AM |
| #1 Don't be over-enthousiastic: Spanish constitution doesn't allow for people serving terms longer than thirty years in jail, from these thiry years there can still be reductions for good conduct or for joing a teaching institution (no need of passing the exam). |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-02-15 2:08:08 AM |