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".
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.'"
He is banned from practicing law in Spain but can still practice anywhere else in Europe. The reason he was unseated in Spain was for issuing illegal wiretaps on member of the government that were suspected of corruption. Kind of like if you pointed out some serious flaws in your supervisor's business plan and were then fired for it.
I got here through a series of tubes
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.
illegal wiretaps, though?
he should apply for US citizenship!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Well, the wikipedia article on him makes it sound a lot more complicated than that, in that "Under Spanish law, such wiretaps are only expressly permitted for terrorism cases and the legality of their use in other cases is more vague". There were a number of other charges too.
From the sound of it, he was a very popular judge among the left because he went hard after members of the former Franco government for crimes against humanity. But he sounds like he at the very least "bent the rules" to do so, and the right in Spain was more than willing to take him down for it.
"... Sean Hannity, whose surgery to remove those bolts from his neck was apparently successful,
He is banned from practicing law in Spain
He isn't banned from practicing law. He's banning for the judicial career, but he has a law degree (obviously) and he can work as a lawyer.
Keep in mind that this guy has worked with lots of international agencies, and apparently he's found the people with the largest balls in each. Otherwise Pinochet wouldn't have spent almost a year in London, for example.
The reason he was unseated in Spain was for issuing illegal wiretaps on member of the government that were suspected of corruption.
Suspected as in jail no less. He ordered a wiretapping indeed, and everyone else in the process agreed, to make sure that the people in jail wouldn't use their lawyers to continue to commit crimes. In fact, the tapes proved that they were doing so.
To be honest the reason I submitted the story (one date late indeed, but I expected an Assange story to appear rather quickly) is to bring a bit of awareness on Garzon's story as well as the blatant corruption going on over here (Spain).
We really owe a lot to this guy, even if the end it seems like the bad guys are getting their way.
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.
Not illegal, which is why he wasn't prosecuted, but subject to significant constraints on when a judge's discretion to use these extraordinary powers is justified. Since, after all, eavesdropping on conversations between a client and his lawyer is not normally permitted, not even in serious cases. He was found to have abused that discretion.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Does this character even have any legal standing in England or Sweden? He certainly doesn't in Spain.
Think before you write. Baltasar Garzon had to give up being a judge in Spain... not a lawyer. And, he is acting as Assange's lawyer, not as its judge, obviously.
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...
It is incredible that even after almost 40 years, the judicial system in Spain still looks pretty much the same as in Franco's time. By the way things are going, every mobster should get a law degree. This way they can argue that every conversation they have should be protected by attorney/client privilege. As I understand the case, that's how they got rid of Garzón.
Is he charged with rape?
You've been watching too much Fox News...
No sig today...
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..."
We certainly do. But still, this man has the ego the size of a medieval castle and thought he was above the law. He himself lent the bad guys the weapons they used to destroy him. A pity, but a self inflicted pity.
Are we talking about Assange or Garzon here?
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.
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.
There's nothing to represent. Assanage has lost his case, and all appeals. He is to be deported.
He can represent him in Sweden and represent him against the USA when they try to grab him once he sets foot on Swedish soil.
No sig today...
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.
(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?
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"?
He consciously did something ILEGAL
No, he did not.
Dilbert RSS feed
I believe you mean *fracking* toaster, sir.
You must be new here. Slashdot summaries are always misleading, and frequently outright incorrect.
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.
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.