Tom I am not familiar with Garzon's political motivations... perhaps you could describe for me what axe he is attempting to grind and how that would negate international cooperation? I do believe the Bush government imprisoned and tortured several Spanish citizens/residents...does that not give them some interest and jurisdiction in the matter?
Here's a quote I found on CommonDreams about it:
"Spain since 2005 has assumed the principle of universal jurisdiction in alleged cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and terrorism. But it can only proceed when any such cases of the alleged crimes are not already subject to a legal procedure in the country involved."
So if nothing is done here, they will pursue it. I think it is that pressure on the Obama administration to follow the law that is a good thing. Why is it you object?
Here's the arcticle:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/29-6
Let me know what you think...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comment in 2 parts, due to length (1 of 2):
ReplyDeleteI object because, given Garzon's past vocal critiques of the Bush administration, it would call into question his objectivity in the case. I sympathize with the precedent he no doubt wishes to use this opportunity to establish - that no one is above universal law when it comes to human rights violations, not even the president of the United States - but he is attempting to do so without considering all factors involved. Ultimately, he will only hurt his cause, potentially even compromising its effectiveness in future applications.
Any questions whatsoever of his neutrality, however valid they may be, would compromise the integrity of entire process. Not only that, but it would jeapordize the principle of universal jurisdiction itself, which has taken a long time to progress to the potential it now has today, for monitoring human rights abuses worldwide. Aggressive application of this law is still very new and vulnerable to attack by those who would see it fail.
(2 of 2):
ReplyDeleteMoreover I object because this is an inappropriate application for legal reasons as well; the very principle is only to be used “when any such cases of the alleged crimes are not already subject to a legal procedure in the country involved.” Facing the dilemma of neither setting a precedent for allowing human rights violators to escape with impunity nor allowing the use of the law as a tool for pursuing a partisan agenda, Obama is in a difficult position. I don't agree with how he has approached it, but that is another matter. Garzon should be able to respect that. This is all still very recent and developments are still unfolding in the American political arena. No pardon has been granted as of yet and in no way has the issue at hand been resolved here. Not only would it be prudent for him to wait until it is readily apparent that legal procedures will definitively not be invoked in the United States before initiating a judicial inquiry on the part of Spain, but it is necessary that he does so according to the very letter of the law.
If Garzon was really trying to proceed in an impartial manner, he would not be threatening the use of this principle to put pressure on the American government while the decision is still under debate. That kind of activism is a serious breach of judicial protocol and causes me, who have up until now admired Garzon’s past efforts, to really question his true motives here as he begins to act more like a celebrity or demagogue than he does like a guardian for justice and equality.
You seem to be saying that Garzon would preside over the case if it ever came to trial (which I'm sure it won't). But as far as I know all he's doing is opening an investigation - which is a very different thing. Any one who opens an investigation has a bias and presumes the guilt of their subject, otherwise they wouldn't waste energy investigating. So no need for impartiality there. I assume if any Bush official were ever brought to trial they'd have a different judge presiding and one who is more likely to be impartial (perhaps this isn't the case, but I'd like someone to show me why it isn't).
ReplyDeleteWhether or not Garzon would be presiding over the trial is irrelevant at this point; the push he's making for an investigation on Spain's behalf - while the issue is still being hotly contested in the US - runs contrary to protocol and is way out of line.
ReplyDeleteWhy? I see nothing wrong with putting pressure on someone to do the right thing. Any friend would do the same.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see the correlation between friendship and international law. Universal jurisdiction already places pressure on nations to follow the Geneva Conventions; there's no extra need to wield the law like a weapon against another country already debating legal action.
ReplyDeleteOne country does not have the right to place pressure on another country's legal system in this manner; that's a basic violation of sovereignty and, again, could needlessly harm the prospects for this law's future use and development.
I meant no correlation between the law and friendship. I just fail to see how Spain is "wielding the law like a weapon" and have a difficult time taking the argument seriously. Spain seems well within their right to investigate crimes committed against their citizens - especially since few people in the U.S. seem too keen on looking into it. I need more evidence if you are to convince me that our sovereignty is at stake.
ReplyDeleteIan, you're both misstating facts and responding to an argument I never made.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, we're not talking about Spain. We're talking about a Spanish judge who's actions don't have the support of his own government and run contrary to the requests of Spanish prosecutors.
Second of all, Garzon is not investigating on behalf of Spanish citizens. Garzon is going off the statements of one Spaniard, a Moroccan, a Palestinian, and a Libyan. And the documents that we JUST released.
Third, and most important, Garzon isn't basing this off a "right to investigate crimes committed against [Spanish] citizens." He's claimed the principle of Universal Jurisdiction... and I've already given detailed explanations as to why that doesn't apply - which you have yet to respond to.
Fourth, my argument is not, and never was, that our sovereignty is at stake. My argument is that Garzon's brash actions put the future viability of the principle he is trying to use at stake.
It sounds like it may be for the best that this Principle of Universal Jurisdiction is compromised... this concept seems beyond the idea of international law by treaty.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I am wrong... the results of such prosecutions will not bring the guilty to jail, as no government will extradite its own citizens based upon a non-treaty lawsuit in an unrelated nation. It will, however, put pressure on the offending country, which means that we are in effect placing foreign policy decisions into the hands of what are (usually) unelected, individual, and possibly wacky judges.
How can this be a great idea?
Tom in prior posts, you said: "One country does not have the right to place pressure on another country's legal system in this manner; that's a basic violation of sovereignty..."
ReplyDeleteand
"there's no extra need to wield the law like a weapon against another country"
I took that to mean we were indeed talking about "another country," the country of Spain. Also, I am confused by statements like:
"the push he's making for an investigation on Spain's behalf..."
and
"Garzon is not investigating on behalf of Spanish citizens..."
Anywho, I agree whether the detainees were Spanish citizens or residents is not the point...
My point is, I can't see how Garzon is jeopardizing the principle of Universal Jurisdiction. As you mentioned, Universal Jurisdiction is to be applied: “when any such cases of the alleged crimes are not already subject to a legal procedure in the country involved...”
ReplyDeleteWell we've known about the torture of those particular detainees for several years now and I see no indication that a legal procedure is being carried out in this country with respect to them (or any of the other detainees). Nor do I think it's very likely. I'm sure Garzon probably agrees. So just exactly why is Garzon being too hasty here? Forgive me but I can't help thinking this argument sounds like the one Sal gave about waiting ten years...
I sincerely don't understand what you don't like about this. I feel I've addressed your point about impartiality and about the viability of the principle. Are those really the issues you have with it, or do you just think the timing is bad and object to foreign interference?
And Sal, I fail to see how "we are... placing foreign policy decisions into the hands of what are (usually) unelected, individual, and possibly wacky judges." Please elaborate sir.
ReplyDeleteIan,
ReplyDeleteI don't mean too much by the statement. When you consider the effects of an application of the Universal Jurisdiction principle, there is really only one: putting pressure on a foreign country. Nothing else can really come of an application of that law. That happens to be a matter of foreign policy, since Garzon is putting pressure on the US in the name of the Spanish state.
The "(usually) unelected, individual, and possibly wacky" part is just a depiction of an appointed official, but I'm sure you were not asking about that part.
Ian, absolutely I have an issue with the timing. Along with the questions I have of his impartiality (which you consider irrelevant - I do not) my entire problem with Garzon's actions lies with the timing since the very law he's acting on requires the claims are "not already subject to a legal procedure."
ReplyDeleteYou assert that there has been "no indication that a legal procedure is being carried out in this country." I don't understand how you can say that when the very debate you and I are having over prosecution reflects one that's taking place all over the country right now.
I suppose the point at issue here really comes down to what constitutes 'a legal procedure.' I would definitely characterize the process of declassifying relevant documents as legal procedure - which is still taking place. I'd also classify the current political debate taking place on the issue as part of the legal process - since this high in the government, such a debate will inevitably precede investigations. Therefore, by my definition, Garzon's actions are a flagrant violation of the principle he's trying to justify them with.