For generations in Western culture, legal jurisdiction over
people and events within a nation’s borders rested only with that
nation’s government. In recent years, however, human rights
activists have pushed the concept of “universal jurisdiction,” by
which judges in one country can assert authority to prosecute any
offense regardless of where it took place.
The zealots have found their champion in one Baltasar Garzon, a
judge on the Spanish National Court. A socialist activist as a
college student, Garzon at age 32 became the youngest magistrate
on the court. Now 53, he has spent many of the intervening years
practicing what can only be called judicial megalomania.
Thriving on publicity, Judge Garzon has, at various times, gone
after former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Italian Prime
Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the late former Chilean strongman
Augusto Pinochet, 98 former Argentine military members (despite
an amnesty enacted after the end of that country’s “dirty war”).
In 2003 he even indicted Osama bin Laden and 34 other alleged
terrorists, a few of whom were in Spanish custody. He charged
them with being members of a terrorist gang and for being
involved in the 9/11 attacks, rather than any terrorist acts in
Spain. The proper jurisdiction for anything involving 9/11 would
have been the United States. As desirable as it would have been
to capture and try bin Laden, only 18 of the defendants were
convicted of having terrorist links and none with 9/11.
Late last year, Judge Garzon reopened the Spanish Civil War of
the 1930s, by accusing the late Generalissimo Franco (dead 33
years) and 44 of his army and Falange Party officials of war
crimes. Inasmuch as a 1977 amnesty sought to put that war to rest
through national reconciliation, cooler heads prevailed. On the
eve of a National Court ruling that he had no jurisdiction, the
publicity-seeking Garzon dropped his probe.
Last year, Judge Garzon found a new, much larger target: alleged
polluters of the atmosphere He said he would fight global warming
by bringing them to justice wherever they were. He hasn’t yet
turned this plan into action. Instead, his most recent judicial
escapade involves two Russian citizens, one of whom has lived
peacefully on the Spanish island of Majorca for a decade.
Last June he initiated the arrest of Gennady Petrov. The Guardia
Civil, with helicopters overhead and tipped off media outlets
present, surrounded Petrov’s house, grilled him and his wife for
four hours, carted off jewelry and other valuables, took two
automobiles and threw Petrov in jail. Two days later he was
charged with money laundering, falsification of documents and
violations of tax law. Ironically, Petrov had moved to Spain to
escape being a possible target of Russian mafiosi. He had no
criminal record in Spain or Russia. His lawyer contends that the
court has produced insufficient evidence to substantiate its
indictment and shows no inclination to bring Petrov to trial
(under Spanish law, he may be held for up to four years before
being tried).
In October, Judge Garzon stretched “universal jurisdiction” once
again. He issued a summons to appear for questioning for
Vladislav Reznik, a member of the Russian State Duma
(legislature), for alleged connections to organized crime. Reznik
lives in Russia, but has a vacation home, purchased from Petrov,
on Majorca. This residence was raided and some contents seized.
Reznik chairs the Duma’s Financial Markets Committee and is a
reputable citizen. Viktor Pleskachevsky, chairman of another Duma
committee, said of the raid, “As the search [of Reznik’s Majorca
house] was conducted within the framework of a criminal case
unknown to us, in the attendance of the media, and Judge Garzon
is well known for hearing political cases, we have grounds to
suspect that it is a politically motivated action.”
For the moment, Judge Garzon is distracted. He took a sabbatical
in 2005-06 to teach at New York University and was paid $200,000
in addition to his judge’s salary. Spain’s judicial oversight
board claims he did not advise its members of his double-dipping
arrangement, something that is required by law. The board’s
investigators must decide by mid-April whether to drop the case
or penalize Garzon.
If it is dropped, the world can expect this judicial megalomaniac
to look for other tempting targets, such as U.S. military leaders
or government officials, past or present, who carry out policies
he considers “war crimes.”
(Mr. Hannaford is a member of the Committee on the
Present Danger.)
