Spain Mulls Kidnapping former US Officials, Launching War Against America
Well, it's not being reported that way, but consider this ("Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials", by Marlise Simons, The New York Times):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?_r=3&hp
The case, against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, was sent to the prosecutor’s office for review by Baltasar Garzón, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was “highly probable” that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.
Now, consider the implications of these "arrest warrants." Such would essentially be threats to kidnap former US officials and "try" them for things they did in their capacity as American officials. If carried out, this threat would be an act of war -- and a moderately serious one.
How does this differ from the arrest and imprisonment of Augusto Pinochet? Chile was no longer under the same regime at the time of Pinochet's arrest that it was during his rule. But America is still under the same regime we were under Bush the Younger; indeed, we have been under the same regime since 1787 (when we adopted the Constitution).
In other words, grabbing former US officials for acts committed in their official capacity would challenge the authority of the United States of America and directly threaten its ability to perform government business. This would also apply to President Obama and the officials of his Administration, though I doubt liberals yet perceive this.
I wonder if Obama yet perceives this? As President he may have to order his people to do things of which other countries will disapprove. If this indictment is allowed to go forth and Obama lets it stand unchallenged, his own officials will have to worry what other countries may do to them personally for obedience to the President.
America needs to make it absolutely clear to Spain that any kidnapping of former American officials is an act of war and will be responded to as such. If Obama doesn't do this -- and frankly I doubt that he has the diplomatic acumen to grasp the implications of this Spanish act -- the Spanish will be emboldened, and go forth with this, and what could have been a minor flap in which a looney radical judge (*) exceeded his authority and was slapped down by his own government after a diplomatic protest, could escalate into a serious crisis affecting the stability of NATO itself.
And America could wind up losing more allies.
To some extent I blame Obama for this, because it is the perception of American weakness that is making the notoriously cowardly Spanish dare such a provocation. But Obama can set this right with a simple statement to the Spanish, even (especially?) a private commique.
It's time for Obama to act. Or at least speak. Will he?
===
(*) In particular, Garzón's immediate response to 9-11 was to claim that it was America's own fault.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?_r=3&hp
The case, against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, was sent to the prosecutor’s office for review by Baltasar Garzón, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was “highly probable” that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.
Now, consider the implications of these "arrest warrants." Such would essentially be threats to kidnap former US officials and "try" them for things they did in their capacity as American officials. If carried out, this threat would be an act of war -- and a moderately serious one.
How does this differ from the arrest and imprisonment of Augusto Pinochet? Chile was no longer under the same regime at the time of Pinochet's arrest that it was during his rule. But America is still under the same regime we were under Bush the Younger; indeed, we have been under the same regime since 1787 (when we adopted the Constitution).
In other words, grabbing former US officials for acts committed in their official capacity would challenge the authority of the United States of America and directly threaten its ability to perform government business. This would also apply to President Obama and the officials of his Administration, though I doubt liberals yet perceive this.
I wonder if Obama yet perceives this? As President he may have to order his people to do things of which other countries will disapprove. If this indictment is allowed to go forth and Obama lets it stand unchallenged, his own officials will have to worry what other countries may do to them personally for obedience to the President.
America needs to make it absolutely clear to Spain that any kidnapping of former American officials is an act of war and will be responded to as such. If Obama doesn't do this -- and frankly I doubt that he has the diplomatic acumen to grasp the implications of this Spanish act -- the Spanish will be emboldened, and go forth with this, and what could have been a minor flap in which a looney radical judge (*) exceeded his authority and was slapped down by his own government after a diplomatic protest, could escalate into a serious crisis affecting the stability of NATO itself.
And America could wind up losing more allies.
To some extent I blame Obama for this, because it is the perception of American weakness that is making the notoriously cowardly Spanish dare such a provocation. But Obama can set this right with a simple statement to the Spanish, even (especially?) a private commique.
It's time for Obama to act. Or at least speak. Will he?
===
(*) In particular, Garzón's immediate response to 9-11 was to claim that it was America's own fault.