No, Chris, it's not about Spanish law

On the April 14th edition of MSNBC's "Hardball" program, as a cliff-hanger before cutting to a commercial break, host Chris Matthews asked: "Should Americans be subject to Spanish law?"

He was referring to the fact that a Spanish court is likely to indict Alberto Gonzales and five other high-ranking Bush administration officials for sanctioning torture at Guantanamo.

But, while Matthews' question is certainly dramatic, it is not based on fact.

It's not about Spanish law, it's about international law. Specifically, it's about the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Amnesty International describes universal jurisdiction as follows:

Universal jurisdiction is the principle that every country has an interest in bringing to justice the perpetrators of grave crimes, no matter where the crime was committed, and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or their victims. It was most famously utilized in the 1998 arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on torture charges in London at the request of a Spanish court.

The principle of universal jurisdiction is rooted in the belief that certain crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, “disappearance” and extrajudicial executions, are so serious that they amount to an offence against the whole of humanity and therefore all states have a responsibility to bring those responsible to justice.

To fulfill this responsibility, more than three-fifths of all states have enacted universal jurisdiction laws to ensure that their national courts are able to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of committing these crimes, and to ensure that their country is not used as a “safe haven” to evade justice.

So if any of the "Bush Six" were to set foot in a cooperating foreign country, he could be arrested, tried, and punished if found guilty.

And why? Because the U.S. is apparently too timid to prosecute them ourselves.

I can only dream of extraditing all six of them to Madrid straightaway.