Spanish investigating magistrate Baltasar Garzon has passed a 98-page complaint to prosecutors that accuses former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and five others violations of international law, including torture.
For months, many of us have been complaining about President Barack Obama’s blocking of any war crimes investigation despite the confirmation of a torture program under President Bush. While saying repeatedly that “no one is above the law,” Obama has acted in precisely the opposite way: guaranteeing that former President Bush and others are above the law. This seems to confirm reports (denied by Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder) that they promised various people before the start of the Administration that they would never allow a criminal investigation.
One of the issues raised by Obama’s refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to look into these well-documented allegations is that it leaves the United States open to international intervention. While there is an obligation for the United States to act under our treaties, a failure to act allows other countries to intervene to uphold international law. This puts the United States on the same moral plane as Serbia and other countries that shielded allegedly war criminals. This is precisely the problem that we have discussed in prior interviews.
The story here should not be the actions of the Spanish, but the lack of action by Obama. The United States will now be in a position of trying to block this inquiry while blocking any criminal investigation at home. That is how Obama is implicating himself in these violations and making himself an accomplice and accessory after the fact.
While Obama’s political advisers have told him that it is simply too politically risky to allow the enforcement of these laws, the moral response is obvious. This is simply not Obama’s decision. He should leave it to a special prosecutor to decide on the evidence if anyone can be charged. He can use the Spanish proceeding to say that the United States will conduct its own criminal investigation — not another meaningless commission but an investigation by a special prosecutor.
The Spanish complaint names Gonzales John C. Yoo, Douglas J. Feith, William J. Hayes II, Jay S. Bybee and David S. Addington. Bybee was put on the Ninth Circuit despite objections from civil libertarians of his role in the torture program. Once again, the democrats refused to use their power to block the nomination. He now has life tenure on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
For the full story, click here
EL JUEZ GARZÓN Y GUANTÁNAMO.
Rafael del Barco Carreras
Abril 2009. Para quien ha pasado TRES AÑOS en La Modelo de Barcelona, 1980-3, que un juez español investigue GUANTÁNAMO, ya no es que sea una ininteligible falacia, que merece profundos estudios psiquiátricos o sicológicos, a la par que sociales e históricos… por el olvido colectivo de una perversión propia de las peores cárceles del TERCER o ningún Mundo.
Garzón podría citar a todos los vecinos de unos 50 años de edad de alrededor del tétrico edificio que muchas noches, en masa, salieron al balcón gritando “asesinos, asesinos…” por los alaridos de los encadenados en LOS SÓTANOS DE LA QUINTA GALERÍA, perfectamente audibles. O consultar varios sumarios con “muertos”, verdaderos “asesinatos”, y como aun vivirán familiares y denunciantes… interrogar. !Qué ni han prescrito y sin alcanzarles la injusta Ley de “borrón y cuenta nueva”!
Él disfrutaría, porque en este sumario, no debería dictar un auto pidiendo la partida de defunción de FRANCO (habían pasado cinco años de su muerte), y aunque hayan muerto varios, el director CAMACHO (una verdadera bestia), viven de los que borrachos en sus guardias nocturnas se divertían torturando. Inmensas palizas…con muertos. En Barcelona eso lo saben todos los JUECES Y FISCALES de entonces, pero no buscan Guantánamos para montar numeritos… con olvidarse de lo sobreseído y archivado, basta. Preguntar al Presidente actual de la Audiencia, José Luis Barrera Cogollos, digno sucesor del de entonces Alfonso Hernández Pardo, con quien compartió Tribunal ESPECIAL (montado solo para ese caso “jueces contaminados”) en el Juicio por el Consorcio de la Zona Franca, donde se me condeno a esos tres años pasados en prisión.
Las imágenes que tanto se han difundido de las especiales prisiones americanas son “infantiles” comparadas con lo que he vivido y visto… en una prisión rodeada de una CIUDAD que ya había votado PROGRESISMO SOCIALISTA, y que poco le importaba si allí había inocentes (que por las habituales torturas y sistema judicial los había muchos) o terroristas con decenas de muertos. 2.600 hacinados, y ríanse del “Expreso del medianoche”.
En http://www.lagrancorrupcion.blogspot.com reproduzco las páginas de “Barcelona, 30 años de corrupción” para refrescar la memoria con el propio relato del primer juez de Vigilancia Penitenciaria en Barcelona, el otrora gran amigo de Garzón, Gómez de Liaño, preguntándose que fue de aquellas denuncias.
Mespo, thanks for the link to an interesting article.
Quotes from the link:
____________
“But prosecutors will also ask that Judge Garzón, an internationally known figure due to his management of the case against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and other high-profile cases, step aside”
“The Spanish prosecutors advised the Americans that they would suspend their investigation if at any point the United States were to undertake an investigation of its own into these matters. They pressed to know whether any such investigation was pending. These inquiries met with no answer from the U.S. side.”
“Spanish officials are highly conscious of the political context of the case and have measured the Obama administration’s low-key reaction attentively.”
“The reaction on American editorial pages is divided—some questioning sharply why the Obama administration is not conducting an investigation, which is implicitly the question raised by the Spanish prosecutors. Publications loyal to the Bush team argue that the Spanish investigation is an “intrusion” into American affairs, even when those affairs involve the torture of five Spaniards on Cuba.”
“Both Washington and Madrid appear determined not to allow the pending criminal investigation to get in the way of improved relations.” End Quotes.
_______________
That last one concerns me because ‘politics’ between nations is oftentimes antithetical to justice.
Bad day for the newly dubbed “Bush Six.” All to be indicted by Spanish Court on charges of war crimes. First no one will hire ’em now this.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/the-bush-six-to-be-indicted/
I ‘ll take Spanish justice when ours refuses to act. Yeehaw!!
Mike Spindell,
I do not sign many petitions but I just signed this one. Thanks for the link.
http://www.aclu.org
Robert,
This is an explanation from Constitutional law scholar David Cole.
“…any country has the right to prosecute certain war crimes and crimes against humanity, no matter where or by whom they were committed, so long as it observes the fundamental requirements of a fair trial…{there is also}
..the principle that universal jurisdiction should not be exercised as long as domestic remedies are available.”
David Cole also quoted from Eric Holder in the same article, written Jan. 15, 2009:
“Here’s what Eric Holder, whom Obama will nominate as attorney general, said several months ago:
Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution…. We owe the American people a reckoning.”
I’m afraid of the same things you are.
I am always amazed – no matter how clear I am or how clear I have been here, several of you still manage to get it ( and me) wrong.
The main thing I consistently advocate is to continue stating your expectations and making your requests to your elected representatives in the Congress and locally.
I am not emotionally or psychologically invested in protesting or staging a revolution against the present administration, and I don’t believe Barack Obama is just another slime-ball politician.
I wish Bush and Cheney had been impeached, while in office, but they weren’t.
I am weary of hearing people, like Jill, who are full of harangue and do nothing else but spew anger and disappointment wherever they go.
Specifically, it may make the blog-bitchers feel better, but it accomplishes nothing of significance in the end.
I experience it as toxic energy and nothing more…
Jill,
I agree with your writing. I am confused a litle though about Mr. Turley stating Obama is an accessory on the one hand but allowing an opening for an Int’l. court by not appointing a special look-see. I fear that duplicity will always reign and that the application of the law concerning these individuals will be lost-adrift permanently in a sea of words. It would be nice if we could reconstitute ourselves visa vis the law. And, this would be a good place to start. How else can we honestly even speak of going forward?
There are obviously advisers to the president who have cautioned that doing so would erode some of the political “capital” needed to ensure passage of his economic legislation. It is bad advice.
—
No, it isn’t!
Thanks for the info, Mike. I just signed.
Just signed the ACLU petition for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Bush/Cheney abuses. Try it:
http://www.aclu.org
I have previously acknowledged that Jill’s instincts have been more accurate than my own regarding the intentions of the Obama administration on the war crimes issue. I applaud the action of the Spanish courts. If we must be shamed into enforcing the same laws that we demand others honor, so be it. Spain’s efforts will create an apoplectic reaction on the part of the right-wing. After all, how dare any other country interfere with the internal affairs of the United States? Is this not a direct attack on our sovereignty? I could probably write scripts for Hannity, et al (somebody has to, after all). But it is bald-faced hypocrisy to pledge a restoration of our moral leadership in the world if we attempt to make an exception for the morals of our own leaders. It should not have come to this. Appointment of a special prosecutor as soon as possible following the inauguration would have been the right thing to do. There are obviously advisers to the president who have cautioned that doing so would erode some of the political “capital” needed to ensure passage of his economic legislation. It is bad advice.
If Judge Garzon was a double dipper and did not report income per Spain’s tax law, then he should pay the full taxes and the full penalties, unlike our own Treasury Secretary Geithner and some of our congresspersons who are triple dippers, or worse. However, his tax problems, if any and if corrected, should not affect his legal duties.
Gyges,
Thank you for what you said. I agree stongly with your statement to Patty. JT said Obama has made a deal to protect Cheney and Bush. I believe his analysis is correct, otherwise Cheney would not be on TV admitting to war crimes. Without this deal bush and cheney would have moved to a country that has no extradition treaty with the US and happily be enjoying their blood money much as other disgraced dictators do. Yet, they are still here, and Cheney, is quite vocal in his presence. This can only happen under the protection of Obama (as JT makes clear). Therefore, if there is to be any hope of prosecutions in the US, we must make it clear to Obama that his protection of war criminals is not only unacceptable, but truthfully, puts him in danger of charges concerning obstruction of justice (also as JT pointed out). Staying silent about this issue is not a option for me or any person of conscience. How one chooses to protest is a matter of personal choice. Remaining silent is complicity. I really do believe the statement that the best way for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Again, thank you for your kind support.
Jill,
I missed whatever comments started the out pouring of support for you, so can’t speak directly too them. I just wanted to add my 2 cents worth: I’ve met few people as willing to actually listen to those they disagree with than you. Your intellectual curiosity is something I aspire too.
Patty,
I wasn’t aware that informing those whose job it is to govern on my behalf that I expect them to play by the rules was being “negative.”
The Obama administration exists to serve the American people, not vice versa. I can think of few things more in the interest of the American people than an investigation into what are probably some of the most blatant and horrific crimes ever committed by those supposedly representing our will.
I know there are many things the administration has to handle, I also know that there is a special part of the administration whose sole job is the sort of investigation we’re calling for. That would be enough for most of us right now (assuming it was an actual investigation with actual negative consequences for those involved in the crime), to see the wheels of justice START to grind slow and fine…
I wasn’t willing to “agree or shut up” for the past 8 years, and I’m not willing to start now.
“There are no ’several people’ – it’s only me, Gyges, who has been asking people to contact their local elected representatives instead of doing what Jill has been proposing for months on end.”
Patty,
I wrote “how quickly they forget” as a humorous reminder to you that I have been pushing making phone calls for a long time and have reported calls I have made. So it’s not
only you that has been doing it. That though is neither here nor there if you think about it because I don’t feel that I am in a contest with anyone here to prove my “brilliance.” That isn’t what this blog is about in my opinion.
Secondly, your response to me brought Jill into the picture and implied I was afraid to disagree with her. You know that isn’t true because you even commented on an exchange I had with Jill a month ago and Jill and I frequently have disagreed viz-a-viz the President. That said, however, Jill was the first person to warmly welcome my comments, as was Mespo. Perhaps I never would have tarried were it not for her welcoming attitude.
I respect you and in some ways I believe that we share agreement on many issues. Certainly, although I don’t know your specialty you seem a Doctor I would want go to if I was in need. Considering my health history and some MD’s I’ve encountered, that is a high compliment if you can take it in. We all react to certain people negatively at first glance, or even after many encounters, but a steady diet of attack becomes wearisome.
For instance there are some here who are far more sanguine then I am regarding Israel, yet I find myself in agreement with them on other important issues. However, that’s true also of the friends I have socially. One of the best and longest I’ve had is a die-hard Bush Republican. When we communicate you can be sure it’s not about politics, yet this person has shown me considerable kindness and care in my life and I therefore treasure his friendship. We all don’t “hang out” together here and yet I feel I’ve made some valuable friendships, albeit in cyberspace. I’ve no doubt that dinner and drinks with many here would be a pleasurable experience. We seem to have become the “regulars” here and I like that, we will disagree on occasion, it would be nice though to agree to disagree rather than to continue personal animus.
FFLEO, Jonathan, mespo, CEJ and other people–thank you for defending my right to speak up on this blog free of personal attacks. I believe mespo is correct to say we are all on the same side, even though we may strongly disagree about Obama’s actions.
CEJ,
Thanks for the affirmative support. It means a great deal to me. The attacks were getting very ugly and they were harmful to me as a person.
Jill,
Under the theory that it is always nice to tell people you appreciate them and their work. I would just like to go on the record and tell you that I enjoy reading your comments. I believe your sincerity is genuine; you are fighting the good fight; and it is not in vain!
Also, as one who could at best be described as a “lurker” (albeit very a very regular one) as opposed to a “regular”
you are one (along with some of the others) for whom I have always found it easy to engage in shared rapport. I am grateful for your always welcoming/encouraging way with newcomers; and with those who may be some times reticent to participate.
Please don’t change!
First of all, my best wishes to Mr. Turley. I for one appreciate the first-rate work he has done on behalf of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, the Palestinian computer science professor who has been repeatedly and mercilessly harassed and jailed by our government’s overzealous prosecutors.
And second, with all due respect to tiller, the actions of Judge Garzon should be applauded and encouraged. The targets of his past investigations, including Augusto Pinochet & Henry Kissinger, are responsible for untold numbers of dead civilians and incidents of torture. Our treaty obligations are binding, but it seems that only a very few people (such as Baltazar Garzon) have the courage and integrity to step up to the plate and truly enforce the law.
By the way, the more we get to know Mr. Obama, the less courage and integrity he appears to have. He ought to have instructed his Attorney General, on the very day of his Senate confirmation, to appoint a special prosecutor with the mandate to uncover those very real crimes, war crimes and assaults on our constitution which have taken place since November 2000.
tiller:
If you can’t defend the actions of the accused I suppose the answer to the weaker mind is to attack the judge and his investigation. Let us know how that works out.