Many on the right have downplayed the recent Spanish court inquiry into filing charges against former Bush administration lawyers, quickly dismissing it as just another example of BDS, not to be taken seriously. But Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online has an outstanding article up about the whole situation. I'm going to highlight a few of his points. With regard to the Geneva Conventions
Controversies about compliance were never meant to be fodder for lawsuits, much less to be legal weapons in the arsenal of lawless barbarians. Had our diplomats had any inkling, when the conventions were adopted in 1949, that they were surrendering national-security decisions to politically unaccountable federal judges, let alone to foreign tribunals whose strings are pulled by perfervid anti-Americans, the conventions would never have been signed.
Exactly. But for some reason, many seem to think the conventions are supposed to protect non-state terrorists who haven't signed them, and don't abide by them. Treaties designed to assure civilized treatment between warring states have been perverted to grant terrorists "rights." And now they are being used to attack not just American policymakers, but the lawyers who advised them.
McCarthy also has some interesting information about Gonzalo Boye, the lawyer who filed the case in Spanish Court. Just who is he anyway? Guess what? He's a former terrorist. Somehow that information didn't make it into the New York Times.
Boye, a Chilean, was a member of the terrorist Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR) when, in collusion with the ETA, Spain’s Marxist-Leninist Basque terrorist outfit, he participated in the abduction of a Spanish businessman, Emiliano Revilla.
Apparently he's also rabidly anti-Israel, and has served as a legal advisor for Hamas. That's a big surprise. Who would have thought a radical leftist would attack the U.S. & Israel, while assisting Hamas?
And finally, McCarthy reinforces a point I made in an earlier post
Even if the very notion of pursuing charges against good-faith legal advisers at the behest of an anti-American radical drawn directly from the swamps of terrorism did not make the whole exercise a farce, Spain’s maneuvering would still be provocative. Were it not camouflaged as legal process, it would properly be regarded as a hostile actIt is definitely a hostile act, yet our useful idiot left is busy cheering it on.
The question is: Do we have a president who is on our side, or on the side of terror’s enablers?That's an excellent question. I think Obama would like the entire issue to just go away. I don't see him taking a strong stand either way.