Let’s connect the dots.
On the one hand we have the truly bizarre Spanish magistrate Balthasar Garzon recommending that Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith and other Bush administration officials be tried for advice they gave President Bush on detainee rights. This would presumably be part of a larger prosecution for torture allegedly suffered by the misunderstood innocents at Gitmo.
Mind you, Gonzales, Feith and the others are not accused of torture. Rather, they would be tried on the legal advice they allegedly gave President Bush. This would all be done under Garzon’s expansive notions of ‘universal jurisdiction’, by which a Spanish magistrate could assert jurisdiction over matters occurring in the U.S. and having nothing to do with Spain or Spanish citizens.
But even in Garzon’s Fantasy Island, if there’s no antecedent crime, there can presumably be no crime committed by Gonzales and company. The antecedent crime is, of course, the torture itself. And who’s determined what constitutes torture and whether it ever occurred? Naturally, we have the detainees’ allegations and those of their high-minded lawyers, gentlemen all. But that’s about it.
Until now, that is.
Fade to Strasbourg France on April 3. Our brilliant and popular president gave a ‘town hall’ speech before a crowd of enthusiastic Europeans. Part of the speech garnered wild applause:
Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In France: “Liberté” — (applause) — absolutely — “egalité, fraternité.” (Applause.) Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others.
And that’s why we can never sacrifice them for expedience’s sake. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) That’s why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture. (Applause.)
So our president – in his capacity as head of state – has stated that the U.S. ‘does not and will not torture’ because he’s ordered Guantanamo’s closure. So, presumably U.S. personnel were torturing prior to his order.
Does not his statement constitute a legal ‘admission’ that can be used against his own countrymen? In the law of evidence, an ‘admission’ is a voluntary acknowledgement that previously asserted facts are actually not true. At the very least, his statement could be viewed by the grandiose Garzon as confirmation of an antecedent crime.
Which leads me to a question that’s only partly rhetorical: why would he do such a foolish thing?
