Return to Transcripts main page

INSIGHT

Spanish Magistrate Indicts Osama bin Laden

Aired November 27, 2003 - 17:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BALTASAR GARZON, SPANISH MAGISTRATE (through translator): It is always better if crimes can be tried in the country where they occurred. But if that's not possible for there is no judicial activity, impunity is not the answer.

MONTIA RAJPAL, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Spanish Investigating Magistrate Baltasar Garzon, he charged former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet with human rights violations and he has indicted Osama bin Laden. Judge Garzon, a man with political ambitions or a real commitment to international justice?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Hello and welcome. I'm Montia Rajpal.

On our program today, the pursuit of justice. Is international law a credible means of prosecuting people who violate it, or should individual states take matters into their own hands when war crimes or crimes against humanity are committed?

On INSIGHT today, a man with a mission. Baltasar Garzon, from humble beginnings to challenging the most dangerous men in the world.

CNN's Al Goodman begins our coverage with a profile of Spain's crusading judge.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AL GOODMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Judge Baltasar Garzon enjoys wearing No. 1. He's proud to have taken on some of the toughest guys on the planet, like Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Still, the judge has time to play in a charity football match against drugs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Garzon is the only (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of Spain. Not only Spain, but all the world.

GOODMAN: Which is why this TV host invited Garzon to appear on his show. This is a judge who works the crowd like a celebrity.

Garzon plays on a team of famous personalities and everyone wants to get in a word with his honor. He also muses that maybe football is fairer than the law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there justice on the football field?

GARZON (through translator): Well, there's a referee helped by two linesmen, which is more than when you are by yourself and you must enforce the law.

GOODMAN: Off the field, Garzon often walks his own way and acts alone. He doesn't try cases, but he's like a hammer, an investigating magistrate at Spain's National Court, preparing cases against organized crime and terrorist organizations like al Qaeda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is one of two sheriffs that really are defending the European homeland against al Qaeda, against terrorism.

GOODMAN: The other sheriff, says this terrorism specialist, is French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere.

Judge Garzon recently indicted Osama bin Laden. Critics scoff that there is no hope of bringing bin Laden before Spanish justice and accuse Garzon of grandstanding, a charge he denies.

GARZON (through translator): The investigation of a complex terrorism group like al Qaeda is not done in a day, but years of coordinated investigations with police from Spain and many nations abroad.

GOODMAN: It's an effort Washington appreciates. The U.S. homeland security chief was in Madrid just last month.

TOM RIDGE, U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY SECY.: Within the last two years Spain's law enforcement officials have arrested many suspected terrorists, including some allegedly instrumental in the September 11 attack.

GOODMAN: At the end of 2001, Garzon ordered the arrest of this man, Imam Emmon Baracat Yarcas (ph), as the alleged leader of al Qaeda in Spain, suspected of a role in the 9-11 attacks. But his lawyer says Yarcas (ph) is innocent and that Garzon gets a lot of things wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Garzon has his shadows. He's more a man of actions than ideas. And sometimes he forgets he's dealing with people and he has caused a lot of pain to many people.

GOODMAN: But even as he arrests al Qaeda suspects in Spain, Garzon criticizes the U.S. treatment of al Qaeda suspects and other prisoners held without trial and without access to defense lawyers.

GARZON (through translator): Perhaps the clearest example is Guantanamo, where some 660 people are still deprived, each and every one, of their fundamental rights of any human being who is under arrest.

GOODMAN: Garzon shot to international fame when seeking the extradition of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. It was 1998. Pinochet was in a London hospital. Garzon's charge: that Pinochet was responsible for the murder of Spanish citizens in Chile as well as crimes of genocide. Garzon was testing the legal concept of universal jurisdiction.

GARZON (through translator): It is always better if crimes can be tried in the country where they occurred, but if that's not possible for there is no judicial activity, impunity is not the answer.

Any nation has the obligation to undertake the investigation so as not to commit impunity.

GOODMAN: Britain eventually sent Pinochet home to Chile, deciding he was unfit to stand trial in Spain. But Garzon was gratified that Chilean judges have since launched investigations into abuses during Pinochet's rule.

Even his critics concede that Baltasar Garzon is a workhorse and he reportedly can get by on just a few hours of sleep a night.

Born to a humble farm family among the olive groves of southern Spain, he studied law in Seville, working at a gas station to help pay the bills.

Garzon cut his teeth pursuing the Basque separatist group ETA and its supporters. ETA is blamed for more than 800 deaths in a long fight for Basque independence.

(on camera): Judge Garzon started working at the national court here when he was just 32. At the time, the youngest investigating magistrate ever to join the court. But that was nearly 16 years ago, and after all this time handling the tough cases -- terrorism, human rights abuses and drug trafficking -- many are wondering what his next move will be.

(voice-over): He's already flirted with politics. In 1993, Garzon ran for parliament on the Socialist Party ticket, rubbing shoulders with then-Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales. But before long, he was back in court helping to convict former Socialist officials tied to a shadowy counter- terrorism squad that killed ETA suspects.

He goes everywhere with bodyguards, but he continues to make many public appearances, speaking out about war crimes and human rights.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that he is hated by all of those who want to perpetrate terrorism, who would like to really committee atrocities, and he is hated and wanted in many quarters.

GARZON (through translator): No terrorist organization will ever force me to give in in the face of pressure or coercion. It's a philosophy of life. I think this is the right decision for my service to the citizens.

GOODMAN: Some here speculate that Garzon wants to serve on the International Criminal Court. He denies that. But whatever the future holds, Judge Garzon likes to win and things to go right for him most of the time.

Al Goodman, CNN, Madrid.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJPAL: When INSIGHT returns, Al Goodman's interview with Spain's Judge Garzon.

Stay with us for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJPAL: Welcome back.

Judge Baltasar Garzon is no stranger to the headlines. He has called the war in Iraq illegal and has said the United States' treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is a violation of human rights. So it's no surprise then that his ideals of universal justice are raising eyebrows in Washington.

Once again, here's CNN's Al Goodman with this exclusive interview with Judge Garzon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GOODMAN: Judge Garzon, thanks so much for joining us.

You recently indicted Osama bin Laden, but your critics say this was just to grab headlines, that you would never have a chance to try him because the Americans would get him if he's ever caught. Why spend time investigating and indicting him?

GARZON (through translator): At the present time, if I recall correctly, there are only two judicial orders against bin Laden, one by Libya and the other by the United States itself, in relation to the terrorist attacks of 1998, but one is in relation to the terrorist attacks of September 11, which is the judicial order issued by Spain.

Therefore, the Spanish decision is the logical consequence of the investigations that have been carried out since 1995.

GOODMAN: So it is not just to look for headlines?

GARZON (through translator): I think that's a little absurd, don't you? I have been among the numerous judicial authorities who have been involved over various years, as I said, since 1995, in the investigation of this man and his terrorist network. So it would be a bit flippant to say the decision was taken lightly.

To the contrary, it was made after extensive intense and deep reflection.

GOODMAN: What is your assessment of the threat of al Qaeda terrorist attacks now in Europe?

GARZON (through translator): I think that without being excessively alarmist about immediate actions or immediate fears of the terrorist network that we know as al Qaeda, it is true that the possibility of terrorist actions is immediate.

One of the characteristics of this organization, or this network of organizations which might be a more correct way to identify it, is that it can act at any time, without the need for excessive sophisticated means or precise orders.

The orders could have been given years ago and carried out much later.

GOODMAN: You have been outspoken about the treatment of al Qaeda suspects and other prisoners held at the American navy base at Guantanamo, Cuba. What is wrong there, in your opinion?

GARZON (through translator): It seems to me an aberration of justice, what is happening there, and it is not the best way, nor even the most adequate way, to fight terrorism.

Against terrorism, you have to respect the limits of legality. The legitimacy under the state of law for the institutions to fight terrorism comes precisely from the respect for the law, and the law requires respect for the fundamental rights of people. There in Guantanamo, there should be a due process for people who are deprived of freedom, of access to defense council and of access to their families.

The human and humanitarian conditions in which they are placed should be minimally acceptable, and Guantanamo gives none of that. Therefore, that situation doesn't lead anywhere.

GOODMAN: And the U.S.-led war in Iraq, has that helped the investigation into global terrorism, into al Qaeda, and was that a legal war under international law?

GARZON (through translator): No. Absolutely not. The war on Iraq has not benefited in any way the investigation of terrorism. I think it has hurt the investigation. It was an illegal war, from my point of view, clearly illegal, that flew in the face of international law and the very decisions of the U.N. Security Council.

In a way, it gave an objective justification to terrorism as we are seeing now, unfortunately. And you can also see that it was not efficient at all against terrorist organizations, which are now taking action on a much broader scale in that part of the world.

Therefore, I have far more than reasonable and rationale doubts about the efficiency of the so-called war on terrorism.

GOODMAN: In the cases of the former military governments in Argentina and Chile, aren't those two countries doing enough now to determine justice for the thousands of people killed or disappeared? Why does a Spanish judge need to get involved, to stir up the past there?

GARZON (through translator): It's true that at the current time, and in some way related to the Spanish judicial action, I might add, there has been an important change. In Argentina, they have overturned the laws on due obedience and false stop. In Chile, they are decisively investigating the events and the specific responsibilities of the dictatorship.

The Spanish action was based, as I said, on the principle of universal criminal justice and as a complimentary action with the essential aim that we do not allow impunity.

GOODMAN: Was the human rights case against the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet the toughest one you've ever had in terms of sheer workload or the pressures that were brought upon you because of it?

GARZON (through translator): No. I would have to say no. It was not the most complex and certainly not in terms of pressures, which there could have been, as there are in any complex investigation, and especially in this type of investigation.

It was very interesting from the point of view of applying the standards of international law. They had been there already, but they had never been applied before, and that was new. It was the starting point for international jurisdiction in criminal law.

GOODMAN: One of your critics, a lawyer, says your real aim is to preside the International Criminal Court. Is that true? And would you serve on that court if you were asked?

GARZON (through translator): No, that is not correct. And besides, it's absurd.

The International Criminal Court already has filled all of its positions, with its chief justice and other judges and prosecutors and the assistants, and therefore it's not true.

What is true is that I am a passionate defender of the International Criminal Court as a system for international justice.

GOODMAN: You grew up in a humble farm family, took studies that could have led to the priesthood. You pumped gas at a gas station to help pay for your college education. Is all of that background still a part of your daily life, in your decision-making, as a judge?

GARZON (through translator): I was raised on some basic principles of respect and responsibility. They are the principles and the philosophy of life that my parents instilled in me. Also, my character was formed in the places where I studied and worked.

Yes, you could say that I have a vocation which essentially is to serve others.

GOODMAN: Judge Garzon, thank you very much for being with us.

I'm Al Goodman, CNN, Madrid.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJPAL: When we come back, how realistic is the concept of universal justice and how effective can the International Criminal Court really be when the most powerful nation in the world won't support it?

Stay with us for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJPAL: Hello again.

The International Criminal Court was established to ensure that war crimes and crimes against humanity don't go unpunished.

David Scheffer was the head of the U.S. delegation negotiating the International Criminal Court treaty during the Clinton administration.

We spoke to him just a few moments ago, and we began by asking him, if the Bush administration, which doesn't support the International Criminal Court, has the right to lay claims to two of the most wanted men in the world.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RAJPAL: So what should happen if Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, say, were captured? Who has the right to extradite and who has the right to prosecute?

DAVID SCHEFFER, FMR. U.S. DELEGATE TO ICC TREATY NEGOTIATIONS: Well, that's a very good question, because some of these crimes, which one might describe as having substantively a universal jurisdiction to them, you then have to ask, procedurally, which jurisdictions in the world can actually pursue these crimes, which can prepare indictments and seek custody of these individuals, and in the case of international terrorism, there can be a number of jurisdictions that can claim custody.

That has to be worked out as a matter of comity between nations --- we call it comity in international law, which is basically a diplomatic exchange as to who can actually ultimately prosecute these individuals. But as well, things like extradition treaties will also come into play, as well as the anti-terrorism conventions, which have a basic principle, which is prosecute or extradite.

If you have custody of an individual of this character and then you have the jurisdiction to actually prosecute them for the crime, you should prosecute them. But if you are not prepared to prosecute them, you should at least extradite them to a jurisdiction that is prepared to prosecute them.

RAJPAL: Now some of these principles, the United States does not abide by. If we take a look at the International Criminal Court, the United States has extricated itself from the Rome Treaty.

So when the most powerful nation in the world extricates itself from this treaty, which protects international law and holds people accountable for violating that law, how credible and how effective can this law actually be?

SCHEFFER: Well, your question raises a very, very important dilemma, particularly for the United States.

I think it's extremely important for the United States to be fully engaged in these international criminal law endeavors, such as the International Criminal Court. The United States was very, very deeply engaged with the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal, other forms of international criminal law, and the United States has led in the preparation of these anti-terrorism conventions.

So it's extremely important now, I think, for the United States to actually demonstrate the integrity of its allegiance and commitment to these principles of international law by having what I would describe at least as constructive engagement with a court such as the International Criminal Court.

The issue of becoming a party to the treaty is probably many, many years distant for the United States simply because it's the United States and it's the United States Senate and that's the reality of our system. But the idea of constructively engaging, of cooperating with this new court, I think is extremely important for the integrity of the U.S. position internationally.

RAJPAL: The U.S.'s defense on this issue, or this belief of not being a part of the ICC has been that it would cause Americans to be held before a body that does not respect U.S. constitutional protections. Now this is what I found at the NewsMax.com Web site. They said that it is also a concern that President Clinton had raised, even when he did sign the treaty.

SCHEFFER: Right, but there is a difference of night and day between the Clinton administration approach and the Bush administration approach.

The Clinton administration was very supportive of the entire concept of the court and was very engaged in the drafting of the treaty for the court. It did have some lingering concerns which, when we signed the treaty we said we want to continue to negotiate and work out those concerns, and part of it was this issue of would there be unwarranted politically motivated prosecutions against our many hundreds of thousands of soldiers who are deployed overseas.

We felt in the Clinton administration that those were workable, manageable issues that could be ironed out and that being part of the process, constructively engaging in it, would be far more beneficial, both for the United States and for international justice, then the course that the current administration is taking, which is to withdraw from it, to oppose it, and to seek to undermine.

That, I think, is a really serious issue in terms of, in the end, even protecting American national interests, but even as equally important, advancing the cause of international justice.

RAJPAL: When it comes to prosecuting those leaders who have been accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, there doesn't seem to be one specific policy that the international law, international bodies, actually focus on or abide by.

I mean, look at former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, whose currently under trial at the Hague. On the other hand, you have someone like former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who is enjoying asylum in Nigeria.

What does one do? What does one follow when we're looking at trying to try someone who has been accused of international war crimes?

SCHEFFER: Well, we have come a long way in the last 10 years on this issue of how to hold accountable the leaders of countries or militia movements, insurgency movements, who are actually implicated in the commission of these atrocity crimes. And while it could have been possible maybe 10 years ago to talk about the issue of asylum for one of these individuals, I don't think that's a plausible argument anymore.

We've simply come too far in the international system, whereby individuals of this character, particularly Charles Taylor, who has been indicted by the special court for Sierra Leone, a court supported by the United Nations, supported by countries around the world. It's extremely important that someone like Charles Taylor never ever contemplate that they will enjoy impunity for the crimes that they are alleged to have committed.

He needs to stand trial before the special court in Freetown, and frankly the integrity of the state of Nigeria, which is granting him asylum even though it was blessed by many countries, including the Bush administration, that has to be recognized as a limited grant of asylum for the purpose of ultimately achieving justice.

Otherwise, even the integrity of Nigeria will be called into serious question for years to come.

RAJPAL: All right, Mr. Scheffer, thank you very much for your time.

SCHEFFER: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJPAL: And that is it for this edition of INSIGHT. I'm Montia Rajpal.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com