Slashdot Mirror
Spanish Superjudge To Represent Assange
First time accepted submitter ccguy writes "Spanish ex-judge Balsazar Garzón will represent wikileak's Julian Assange in his extradiction case. In the past 30 years Garzón has led the most important investigations in Spain: Against drug cartels, against terrorist groups (ETA), and against corruption. He's also famous for his attempt to extradite Chilean dictator Pinochet to Spain to judge him for crimes against humanity. In his last investigation Garzón ordered in-prison conversations between corrupt politicians and their lawyers to be monitored. This is legal in Spain if the goal is to prevent further crimes to be committed (such as the inmate telling his lawyer to destroy evidence, or offshore funds). This caused Garzón to be disbarred as a judge. The president of the Supreme Court that signed this disbarment (Carlos Dívar) was later on made to resign, after it was discovered that he used taxpayers' money for deluxe vacations."
Since he was removed from his judgeship, he'd be an ex-super-judge, no? Or perhaps a super-ex-judge?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Will our Talented Framed Swedish Honey-trap Victim and Hero escape? Tune into the next episode of Assange ...
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Superjudge
Superman
You be the... "judge".
Does this character even have any legal standing in England or Sweden? He certainly doesn't in Spain.
No way would this get me out of that embassy.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
In US, closest equivalent to Garzon would be Kenneth Starr or Spiro Agnew, or Lynne Stewart.
That doesn't speak very well of the US, does it?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
well, it is what it is. all of the above believed that 'the end justifies the means' without regard to justice.
Why would the courageous and honourable man like Baltazar Garzon associate with a megalomaniacal, showboating, mentally ill (not to mention, traitorous) freak like Julian Assange?
Who are you saying Julian Assange is a traitor to? The US? To which he is not a citizen?
Garzon has no credibility
What you mean is "Garzon didn't take a backhander from a corrupt legislature, so can no longer be a judge".
as he acted as political activist, not a judge
As any fool knows, an activist judge is someone who interprets the law in a way you do not like.
the best defense attorney for a mediawhore is another mediawhore
Well, it helps when the parties are celebrities. Your angry post proves this.
In US, closest equivalent to Garzon would be Kenneth Starr or Spiro Agnew, or Lynne Stewart.
I don't see why insulting the US is relevant.
I was thinking Gloria Allred. As soon as there is any case where there is even the chance of some media attention, she pops up 2 seconds later on every talk show that will let her on, claiming to represent the victim.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Curious what the /, groupthink thinks of his attempt to extradite a Chilean and try him for crimes in a separate country. We all know the opinion on the US doing it, but what about Spain?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
The paragraph of this news is manipulated and tries to disinform.
"This is legal in Spain if the goal is to prevent further crimes to be committed" FALSE. Allowed JUST in case of terrorism charges. Not applicable to the case he wiretapped. As this judge is politically compromised and the "separation of powers" is against his politics-truffled-past, always has friends ready to write in his favour.
Assange is doomed with this guy.
Traitorous to whom, exactly? If you're speaking of the US, he'd need to have been loyal to the US first. If an American started spilling North Korean state secrets, he wouldn't be a traitor to North Korea if he was never there and had never had loyalty.
Didn't he lose his case and all the appeals?
well, it is what it is. all of the above believed that 'the end justifies the means' without regard to justice.
Yes, without regard to justice, as in, they were not seeking justice, but pursuing a political agenda, whereas this "superjudge" was doing the opposite. Thanks for making my point for me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is becoming more and more media circus. Garzon has no credibility, as he acted as political activist, not a judge.
Could you elaborate?
Assange is trying not to be extradited to Sweden, not the US. If he is afraid of extradition to the US, he would have a much better chance in Sweden then the UK.
When you represent an organization which is acting against american interests, attention whoring is probably a matter of survival. And from my point of view Julian assange tries to get attention for the ideals of governmental openness and transparency. Which basically seems like a good thing to me.
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
I'm referring to Pinochet case, obviously.
I hope the irony isn't lost on /. crowd of the fact that Garzon attempted to extradite Pinochet asserting "universal jurisdiction" for crimes that weren't prosecuted in Pinochet's home country. It isn't all that much of a stretch from Pinochet to Kim Dotcom or Assange.
My point is, let's be consistent. If Pinochet case was a good precedent, then Dotcom and Assange are in trouble. Otherwise, Garzon is talking with both sides of his mouth.
Yeah, there's probably not a country on Earth who's cooperated more with the US on the whole secret-extradition thing than the UK. The UK even ran some of the operations. Sweden handed over two people who came to the country illegally (to apply for asylum). That's nothing compared to what the UK has done. And, under a european arrest warrant, to re-extradite him from Sweden would require the UK to approve the re-extradition request anyway.
"... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful,
Fun fact: under European extradition terms the country from which a suspect is originally extradited has to sign-off on any successive extraditions, so even if the Swedish were cosier with the US (which–-as you you point out-–isn't generally accepted to be the case) getting him there wouldn't make a US extradition any easier.
Baltasar Garzón
I'm not talking about a little stomach bug. I'm talking about the reason we have hospitals - serious stuff. Everyone ends up in the hospital sooner or later. We all hope for "later", but we can't control that. Is the Ecuadorian embassy supposed to transform itself into a surgical theatre and have a medical team waiting on standby for him?
"... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful,
Dayum it's on now! Da game is ON!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Lawyers talk from both sides of their mouth all the time, sometimes even at the same time. It is very common for people to switch from prosecution to defense in the life of ones law career. Defense generally pays better.
I see no duplicity in what he's doing:
* Pinochet was bad for humanity.
* The people trying to extradite Julian Assange are bad for humanity.
In both those cases he's fighting against the bad people.
No sig today...
Is he charged with rape?
You've been watching too much Fox News...
No sig today...
Not everybody ends up in hospital.
Doctors can go to the embassy, yes.
No sig today...
There's nothing to represent. Assanage has lost his case, and all appeals. He is to be deported. Hence why he jumped bail (which means he screwed all his supporters who posted it, they don't get their money back) and is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. This judge isn't going to accomplish shit. Either Ecuador will decide to grant him asylum or not, and if they do he'll either successfully get out of Britain or not. If the answer in either case is "not" he'll be deported to Sweden.
This judge is just pulling a stunt. Had he wanted to help fight extradition, that time was months ago. This guy is just trying to get his name in lights, something that it would seem he's succeeded at.
Will he be borrowing the cape and goggles from Cory Doctrow, for this latest exploit?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If he is afraid of extradition to the US, he would have a much better chance in Sweden then the UK.
Nope.
It's actually much easier for the US to get him if he's in Sweden: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
In Sweden all they need is a flimsy excuse and they can 'borrow' him for questioning. Want to bet if they'll give him back or not...?
No sig today...
You are wrong. Most countries have signed several agreements on human rights issues. Some of them state that crimes against humanity can not be signed away with some law that either the dictatorship or the new government, too afraid to question the military, made up to pardon crimes committed. And there might be another angle to it even though I'm not sure if it was used in this specific case: several Spaniards (and other Europeans and even Americans) were tortured and killed by the Pinochet regime.
Assange has already lost the extradition case and violated his bail conditions, there is nothing this guy can do.
For those who didn't get it right the first time.
You're probably too young to remember Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw, and Assange's work with Press TV and other agents of our enemies marks him out as the absolute worst of the worst.
Unless a lot of the /. readership is in their late 70's-early 80's or older, no one here is going to remember Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw-Haw, outside of historical references.
That aside, it's a specious comparison. Both Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw-Haw were propagandists working for specific governments in an attempt to demoralize soldiers and citizens. Assange is a free agent ostensibly working to create a method of exposure where governments and multi-national companies can no longer operate in the shadows. And really, "agents of our enemies?" In the words of Walt Kelly, "we have met the enemy and he is us."
How is he going to do that when Julian has fled his bail? Isn't Julian technically in another country right now since he is holed up in the embassy? Honestly, I think Julian has painted himself into a very small corner.
He is consistent. Universal jurisdiction does NOT apply to all crimes, only to a select few ones - and Pinochet has committed most of these crimes while Assange has not (and nobody accused him of doing so).
Real life is overrated.
It isn't all that much of a stretch from Pinochet to Kim Dotcom
Let's see: one is accused of copyrights infringement, the other of murdering thousands.
Yeah, not much of a stretch.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The UK never extradited Pinochet. He was released on health concerns or whatever...
If you think an embassy is equipped to save lives in remotely the same way as a hospital, you're sadly mistaken. And do you think doctors are just going to abandon a hospital and loot it's equipment to haul it down to the Ecuadorian embassy because some guy inside got sick? Even if a team of paramedics comes in - i.e., the best "mobile" medical care you can get - well, there's a reason paramedics take sick people to the hospital instead of trying to treat them themselves.
"... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful,
(i am a spaniard) Sorry for assange he better get more lawyers or at least ones with better work history. Garzon directly asked for money to the owner of the bank he was judging for his conferences in the US (http://diariorc.com/?p=6950)
This isn't true and has been disproven already.
Garzon is accused by one spanish counter terrorist (whichever trust this might have) of hiding the real person in charge of spanish inmoral and illegal war against terrorism
Uh? If you are referring to GAL, anyone who can prove anything can go to another judge. Saying that this particular judge, who discovered *the whole thing* decided to keep the GAL boss hidden is absurd.
, by this time he became for some time a politician affiliated to the political party who was accused of supporting this death squadron.
Get your facts straight. He was brought on board by PSOE to fight corruption, he wasn't allowed to apparently and he left quite quickly and went back to his judicial career. of course when he did this he became the enemy of many in PSOE (left wing party in Spain for those who don't know). He already had lots of enemies in PP (right wing party).
Garzon was accused of not investigating a possible crime commited by the army and police minister or someone close of aborting a terrorist raid agains them ....mmmm many things to make me wonder if this is the only lawyer assange should have.
Link?
Just as long as he's not a god damned toaster.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yeah, the USA always plays by the rules ... and there's been nothing corrupt about the process so far.
No sig today...
Scandinavians have never really felt the need to establish strong laws and maintaining them, the place is just to cosy 'I know you, you know me'.
And thus they would happily send Assange to the US because "they would just like us never do something bad to the man", forgetting that in the US lenient means 'no death penalty' and in Sweden it'd be an advise of 'don't do it again'.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
How do you become a traitor by exposing inconvenient facts?
If that's the case, arguably, the governments which had their dirty laundry exposes were the traitors, since they're "free" and as such are not supposed to be doing all those things.
Or are you seriously arguing that, say, Blackwater supplying preteen boys for sexual slaves to Afghan warlords is somehow in the interest of the West at large, and anyone who exposes that scheme or complains about it is a "traitor"?
It was a rape so subtle that it took the incredible acumen of Swedish police prosecutors to detect it: the women themselves went to police to find out how to contact Assange after learning they both had sex unprotected, and after listening to their story the police told them "hey, you know what ? you've been raped". The prosecutor on the case is a man-hating feminist that once had a article about how to get back at and ruin the life of your former boyfriend that dumped you.
I believe you mean *fracking* toaster, sir.
There's people in Guantanamo accused of the heinous crime of wearing the wrong sort of watch.
Decades of torture for...wearing a cheap Casio watch? Not just one or two people, either. Dozens of them.
No sig today...
There's a big difference between kidnapping very public people in developed countries and making it all seem legal.
No sig today...
What evidence do you have to support your rather strange claims about Scandinavian law? Your claims are not in line with books or scholars on the subject. What are your credentials?
As a Scandinavian lawyer I have to disagree with your frankly unfounded claims on the basis of our legal history. Our law is built on the foundations of both Roman (Code Civil) and German (BGB) law. If that's not solid and strong then nothing is! Most countries in the world have similar foundations - with the exception of the former British colonies and some Muslim countries (mixed).
In modern times our laws have absolutely been constantly maintained and expanded with new laws from both national, regional and European sources. You do realize all the Scandinavian countries are subject to both the Council of Europe and EU law (either directly or indirectly)? According to most ratings, reviews and analysis human rights are better protected in Scandinavia than in the UK or US.
You are either ignorant or lying when you claim that Sweden or any other Scandinavian country would extradite a person to the US more easily. The US has been denied their own citizens on the basis that even US prisons are not satisfactory in terms of human rights according to our courts! The threat of the death penalty means a whole lot more to civilized countries where it's already illegal. It's also illegal under our laws to extradite if there's even the slightest chance that he could receive capital punishment! I can refer you to countless cases and verdicts.
According to your idiotic statement, the Nazis were perfectly justified in their actions because they weren't in another country.
Sorry, but crimes against humanity (e.g. genocide) are prosecutable anywhere.
Or are you seriously arguing that, say, Blackwater supplying preteen boys for sexual slaves to Afghan warlords is somehow in the interest of the West at large, and anyone who exposes that scheme or complains about it is a "traitor"?
Yes, he is, and lots of Americans (most notably evangelical Christians) vocally believe this too.
You don't have to be against the idea of "nations" to believe Assange is not a traitor. To think he's a "traitor", you just have to be a stupid American who thinks US law and policy applies globally.
The hard facts are:
a) Extraditing Julian Assange from the UK is not necessarily easier than from Sweden. Sweden definitely has special agreements with the USA for 'temporary' transfer, with little paperwork or judicial process involved.
b) Julian Assange offered to go to Sweden if they would garantee he wouldn't be transferred to the USA. They said they wouldn't garantee that.
To me, point (b) pretty much means they will send him to the USA.
There's also the matter of Hillary Clinton's visit to Sweden a few days before Julian Assange was due to be extradited.
a) The first visit to Sweden by a US secretary of state in 30-something years
b) By somebody who's taking the whole Wikileaks/Julian Assange thing very personally
What's that all about...?
(Yeah, I know that's conspiracy-nut territory but, come on...that's one hell of a coincidence)
No sig today...
Why does the quoted part not appear in the linked Guardian article?