Us poso l'editorial del WSJ d'avui (i del que resta de Setmana Santa). La trobo molt més important que la imatge en portada de la setmana passada de la manifestació a Madrid; va molt més enllà.
Judge Baltasar Garzón, an ambitious Spanish jurist, last month ordered prosecutors to investigate six men who served in the Bush Administration on criminal charges related to "torture." None of the prospective defendants are accused of torturing or ordering the torture of anyone -- only of arguing for legal positions of which Judge Garzón disapproves. He asserts that the principle of "universal jurisdiction" gives him the authority to try U.S. officials for alleged violations of international law.
At a State Department briefing last week, a reporter asked Gordon Duguid, the acting deputy department spokesman, for the Obama Administration's position. His reply: "I'm not aware of any contact with the Spanish Foreign Ministry on this. It's a matter in the Spanish courts, as I'm given to understand. I don't have a comment for you on it at this time. The Obama Administration's position on the matters that are under discussion, I think are quite clear."
This is about as unclear a response as one can imagine. Far from being a mere "matter in the Spanish courts," Judge Garzón's action is an assault on American sovereignty and the integrity of the U.S. legal system. And while some in the Obama Administration may be tempted to cheer him on for partisan reasons, they risk helping to set a precedent that could easily come back to hurt them.
While President Obama has politically repudiated many of his predecessor's antiterror policies, his Justice Department has stood by many Bush legal arguments in national security cases. If former officials can be investigated -- and, at least in theory, indicted, arrested and tried -- on Judge Garzón's say-so, what is to stop him or some other freelancing foreign judge from one day putting current officials in the dock for reaching supposedly faulty legal conclusions?
Even if the principle of national sovereignty leaves Mr. Obama and his appointees cold, the imperative of self-preservation ought to concentrate their minds and make clear that Judge Garzón's meddling in American policy is unacceptable
At a State Department briefing last week, a reporter asked Gordon Duguid, the acting deputy department spokesman, for the Obama Administration's position. His reply: "I'm not aware of any contact with the Spanish Foreign Ministry on this. It's a matter in the Spanish courts, as I'm given to understand. I don't have a comment for you on it at this time. The Obama Administration's position on the matters that are under discussion, I think are quite clear."
This is about as unclear a response as one can imagine. Far from being a mere "matter in the Spanish courts," Judge Garzón's action is an assault on American sovereignty and the integrity of the U.S. legal system. And while some in the Obama Administration may be tempted to cheer him on for partisan reasons, they risk helping to set a precedent that could easily come back to hurt them.
While President Obama has politically repudiated many of his predecessor's antiterror policies, his Justice Department has stood by many Bush legal arguments in national security cases. If former officials can be investigated -- and, at least in theory, indicted, arrested and tried -- on Judge Garzón's say-so, what is to stop him or some other freelancing foreign judge from one day putting current officials in the dock for reaching supposedly faulty legal conclusions?
Even if the principle of national sovereignty leaves Mr. Obama and his appointees cold, the imperative of self-preservation ought to concentrate their minds and make clear that Judge Garzón's meddling in American policy is unacceptable
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada