I found this quote, from one of the mourning relatives, very interesting:
QUOTE
"There are far too few guilty verdicts for such a horrible crime."
One can certainly understand the overwhelming emotions of those who have suffered such a great loss. However, the justice system must not be based on emotion. The above quote makes no logical sense. In what way does the undeniable horror of the crime determine how many suspects should be found guilty?
Such things happen all too often in trials dealing with violent crimes. The prosecution keeps hammering at the fact that the crime was horrible. This may very well be true, but what does it have to do with whether the suspect should be found guilty or not?
Are these sentences appropriate?They seem proper, under Spanish law.
Has justice been served?This is a much harder question to answer. Did someone who caused great injury to others go free? Possibly. Was someone who is innocent convicted? Possibly, although this seems less likely. It is important for the justice system to try to avoid both situations. However, when choices must be made, it is better to err on the side of letting the guilty go free in order to ensure that the innocent are not punished.
Does this court case, and the whole legal approach to international terrorism invalidate the notion of military action (WoT)?I would not say that it invalidates it. No doubt there are situations where the response to organized terrorism requires military action. (If the terrorists are supported and kept from justice by a particular government, for example.) However, it does show that it is at least possible to treat terrorist actions as crimes rather than as acts of war. (This does not make them any less horrible, of course.)