Mindless Propoganda at the Washington Post

This Op-ed, by John R. Bolton, appeared today in the editorial section of the Washington Post. Mr. Bolton is concerned that President Obama is allowing the Spanish Magistrate Baltasar Garzón's investigation to become Obama's proxy prosecution of Bush administration officials. Bolton argues that this is a dangerous precedent - allowing foriegn governments to pass judgment on American officials acting in a time of war. Bolton further argues that, unless Obama exerts pressure on Spanish officials to shut down Garzon's investigation, and unless Obama unequivocally affirms the principle that our constitution reserves jurisdiction over our leaders to American law enforcement officials, he may find himself "hauled before the bar of some mini state" that subsequently decides civilian casualties in Afghanistan constitute a war crime.

You can tell that Bush era officials are desperate to avoid any legal determination that their actions were criminal. I can understand why they spew forth propoganda. But it is severe journalistic malfeasance for Fred Hiatt, the editorial editor of the Washington Post, to allow Mr. Bolton to intentionally misinform the country about what the law requires.

First, we are signatories to the Convention on Torture. The Convention was ratified by the United States Senate in 1988. The Convention grants U.S. officials, and subjects the same officials to, universal jurisdiction for prosecution of torture related crimes. Absolutely nothing in our constitution prohibits our government from committing our leaders to a scheme of universal jurisdiction under international law. Nothing!

Second, Garzón's investigation is not a rogue investigation. It is mandatory under the Convention if U.S. officials refuse to investigate and/or prosecute - as is the case here. It would be lawless for Spain not to investigate and/or prosecute our officials. Our government, and the governments of the other signatories to the Convention, are acting lawlessly in refusing to prosecute. Spain's government, by and through Magistrate Baltasar Garzón, is the only government living up to its treaty obligations.

Third, Bolton may be correct in warning that it sets a dangerous precedent to allow Spain to take the lead. Although Bolton's "mini-state" comment reveals his contempt for the rest of the world, Bolton's point is well taken. By allowing and perhaps encouraging the Spanish investigation, Obama is creating a precedent that might make it more difficult for future leaders to defend the country.

Unfortunately, Bolton wants no one to take the lead, because he wants no prosecutions at all - he says its wrong to "criminalize policy differences." Bolton instead wants Obama to lean on the Spanish to find a away to shut down Magistrate Garzón's investigation.

So, let me get this straight. A former ambassador to the United Nations pens an op-ed that: (1) misinterprets our constitution; (2) ignores and omits well documented provisions of international law while suggesting that Spain is acting improperly(when Spain is the only nation acting properly); and (3)recommends that our President exert pressure on Spanish officials to unlawfully stop Magistrate Garzón's investigation.

Okay, fine. Bolton's propaganda serves a purpose. Not a noble purpose, but an understandable one.

But Fred Hiatt, who is well aware of our laws and responsibilities, allows this op-ed to be published in the Washington Post without any comment or response whatsoever. What purpose could that serve? How can he keep his job?

And for the last time, can someone call these people out on the "criminalize policy differences" argument. Certain actions constitute crimes. Criminally prohibited actions (like torture) are not legitimate policy choices. That's what "criminal" means. Congress criminalized torture a long time ago. Bush administration officials instituted torture as a policy. They chose to make criminal conduct their policy.


Imagine if our government instituted a policy of grabbing Iraqi toddlers and hurling them off over-passes onto crowded freeways (something that actually happened in our State last year). Would you, for one second, take them seriously when they, facing prosecution, claimed "you're criminalizing policy differences." Of course not, even they had a plausible reason to believe that such actions made America safer.

Enough already with the nonsense. I know its tough to defend the indefensible, but please!


Joe H.