Spanish Superjudge To Represent Assange 196
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."
Re:mediawhoring (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:mediawhoring (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
On extradition (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Nice stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the wikipedia article on him [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:On extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange is accused of rape and espionage. Pinochet was accused and convicted of ordering the torture of over 40,000 people and murder of over 3000 (not even counting his violent overthrow of a democratically elected government). Assange's crimes, whatever they may be, are in no way equivalent to Pinochet's crimes against humanity [wikipedia.org].
Re:On extradition (Score:3, Insightful)
Your mass murderer is someone else's freedom fighter. Certainly a number of countries would feel that way about George Washington for example.
There's no global morality. Chile certainly disagreed about morality of extraditing Pinochet - that makes it not "global". What's the rule for "global" then, 50%? 75%? What if all Islamic countries decide that since usury is *very* clearly immoral, all US bankers should be extradited there for a trial?
Re:Nice stunt (Score:0, Insightful)
Why do you frame it as if he was a 'political victim of the Right' when he admits himself he broke the rules?
Re:On extradition (Score:1, Insightful)
Assange is accused of rape and espionage.
Assange is accused of what is known as Swedish rape: This means sex with a willing woman but with a damaged/broken condom.
Re:Nice stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:On extradition (Score:3, Insightful)
Assange is accused of what is known as Swedish rape: This means sex with a willing woman but with a damaged/broken condom.
Also known as sex with an unwilling woman, if he knew her consent was conditional on use of a functional condom. Or rape. There's also the matter of sex with an unconscious woman. Also potential rape.
Having read the accusations presented in the English court judgments, he is definitely accused of rape under English law (don't know about other jurisdictions). Whether or not his is guilty of that is a matter for a trial (involving evidence, witnesses and so on) if he ever gets one.
Can we stop pretending that what he is accused of isn't rape and thus helping spread the notion that that sort of behaviour is acceptable or legal?
Re:needs more prefixes (Score:5, Insightful)
Turn in YOUR geek card now. Three sea shells was from Demolition Man.
Re:mediawhoring (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:On extradition (Score:2, Insightful)
"Can we stop pretending that what he is accused of isn't rape"
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped, beaten, and dumped in an alleyway.
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped after being drugged, and who were accused of making it up because they were not beaten and dumped in an alleyway.
Re:Garzon (Score:4, Insightful)
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.