MANUEL ANTONIO NORIEga,nPanama’s crater-faced ex-dictator,nmay or may not wind up in a gringoncalaboose for the rest of his life. Afternthe first blush of the US victory overnGen. Noriega’s Panamanian DefensenForce began to wear a bit gray, legalnauthorities in the United States suddenlynrealized they might not havenmuch of a case against the caudillonafter all. Nevertheless, the general’sntrial could set a precedent for thenglobalization of US law enforcementnand ultimately endanger American nationalnsovereignty as well as the rightsnand security of American citizensnagainst other countries’ policemen.nLast summer there surfaced in thennation’s press reports word of a secretnJustice Department memorandumnthat argued the case for the legality ofnUS law enforcement agencies fetchingnhome fugitives, even if they’ve gone tonground on foreign shores. “Fugitives”nmeans not only American criminalsnwho have fled abroad but also foreignnnationals who aren’t American citizensnand who didn’t commit their offensesnon US territory. Like, for example, anmoney launderer in Luxembourg whonviolates US tax and reporting statutes.nOr like Gen. Noriega and his colleaguesnin the multinational corporationsnthat constitute the Latin Americanndrug cartel.nThe memorandum remains secretnto this day, but Justice Departmentnspokesman David Runkel confirmed tonthe press that the ruling acknowledgesnthe President’s authority to order thenFBI to seize fugitives abroad withoutnthe consent of the government shelteringnthe crooks. President Bush deniednknowing anything about the memorandum,nand Secretary of State JamesnBaker and all the munchkins of FoggynBottom began to back away from whatnJustice was proposing.nMr. Baker said that the Justice proposaln”did not take into consideration,nas I understand it, international law nornthe President’s constitutional responsibilitynto conduct the foreign policy ofnthe United States.” In other words,nAmerica’s cooky-pusher-in-chiefn6/CHRONICLESnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSndoesn’t want the legal hounds down atnJustice barking at him and his fellownmunchkins about how to take care ofnthe world. That’s understandable, atnleast from State’s perspective. But thenDepartment’s legal adviser AbrahamnSofaer had already expressed somenmore salient objections to Justice’snnewfound powers.nTestifying in 1985 before a Senatensubcommittee, Mr. Sofaer noted thatn”seizure by US agents of terrorist suspectsnabroad might constitute a seriousnbreach of the territorial sovereignty of anforeign state and could violate localnkidnapping laws.” Further, he warned,n”How would we feel if some foreignnnation . . . came over here and seizednsome terrorist suspect . . . because wenrefused … to extradite that individual?”nA memorandum of the State Department’snOffice of Legal Policy, writtennwith regard to the possible seizurenof fugitive Robert Vesco (supposedly innCuba), reached conclusions directlynopposed to those of last summer’snJustice paper. “US agents,” State’snmemo argued, “have no law enforcementnauthority in another nation unlessnit is the product of that nation’snconsent,” and arrests by American lawmennon foreign soil without the government’snpermission are “regarded asnan impermissible invasion of the territorialnintegrity of another state.”nBut whatever the legal flaws of thenJustice Department position and whatevernback-dancing State and the WhitenHouse may have performed last summer,nby December the Justice conceptnof globe-trotting G-men had becomenone of the main arguments Mr. Bushnwas deploying to justify the expeditionnagainst Gen. Noriega. The Panamanshooting party was not complete untilnthe general was dragged back to thenUnited States like a conquered barbariannking marching in a Roman triumph.nSo far we don’t know whether,nlike Julius Caesar’s foe, Gallic kingnVercingetorix, he will be strangled in ancellar when his captors have no morenuse for him.nBut what we can predict, as lawyernnnSofaer suggested in 1985, is that oncenthe United States publicly asserts thenright to dispatch policemen into forrneign countries without the permissionnof their governments, those countriesncan just as easily send their own copsnhere. If American religious groupsnsmuggle Bibles into Cuba, for instance,nwhy can’t Mr. Castro send agents intonthe United States, without permissionnfrom Washington or the states, tonround up the American culprits whoninsult the majesty of Cuba litre’s ownnlaws? There’s no reason, and there’snnothing Washington could do to stopnthem short of physically throwing themnout if it can catch them.nAbout a month before Mr. Bush’snmuscle-flexing in Panama, liberalnDemocratic Congressman Don Edwardsnraised this point to AssistantnAttorney General William P. Barr,nauthor of the secret departmentalnmemorandum. “How can we expectnother nations to respect our laws if wendon’t respect theirs?” Mr. Edwardsnasked. Mr. Barr’s rather flaccid responsenwas to say, “I reject any notionnof moral equivalency between thenUnited States and outlaw countries.”nMaybe so, but the point is (a) “outlawncountries” (whatever they are) don’tnreject such equivalency, and (b) undernthe Justice Department doctrine, notnonly pariah states like Cuba but alsonany foreign government — that ofnFrance, Great Britain, Canada, Mexico—nhas just as much right to playnDick Tracy within our borders as we donwithin theirs. The legal, diplomahc,nand political implications for the safetynof law-abiding US citizens, who may ornmay not feel like obeying foreign lawsnto which they have never consented,nare frightening.nOne practical test of the effectivensovereignty of a government is its abilitynto enforce law within its own territory.nIf the United States claims thenpower to enforce its laws in otherncountries’ territories, it comes dangerouslynclose to asserting sovereigntynover them. The old-fashioned word fornthat is “imperialism,” but today’s empiresnare marching under the label ofn