Spain's Judge Garzon Says U.S. Secretly Working to Have Wikileaks Founder Tried There
Source: Associated Press
Spain's Judge Garzon says United States secretly working to have Wikileaks founder tried there
BY CIARAN GILES, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, AUGUST 1, 2012
MADRID - A controversial Spanish judge criticized the U.S. investigation into WikiLeaks on Wednesday, saying that the grand jury process which could lead to charges being filed against the secret-spilling site's founder is undemocratic.
Baltasar Garzon, a human rights lawyer best known for indicting former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, recently agreed to act as an international co-ordinator for Julian Assange, the embattled WikiLeaks founder.
"A democratic country can't operate with its back to a person who is suspected of very serious crimes that could deprive him of liberty for a long time," Garzon told reporters. "The United States should make it known what it is doing so that Mr. Assange can stand up for his rights. We don't know what we are facing."
A Virginia grand jury is studying evidence that might lead to charges being filed against Assange for WikiLeaks' mass disclosure of hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. documents — including a quarter of a million State Department cables whose publication rocked Washington. The grand jury has been investigating the matter for more than a year and could continue for months or even years longer. Witnesses have been called, though the identities of most are unknown.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/news/story.html?id=7024384
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hlthe2b
(102,247 posts)My kneejerk response is to stop this craziness. I don't see how we can condone doing this.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)when he's staring at the business end of a Predator drone closing at 400 mph.
No judicial permission necessary! None! Zero!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)knows is so out of style. A drone would probably be the best way to settle this. I don't think even the 'left' would have a problem with it these days!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to prosecute journalists for publishing NEWS. That silly 1st Amendment is a problem I suppose, but not to Joe Lieberman who thinks the NYT should also be prosecuted for publishing the same material Wikileaks published.
The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution must be rolling over in their graves. We are becoming the laughing stock of the world with our claims to be 'spreading democracy' around the world.
Someone needs to explain what these 'freedoms' we sent so many troops to die for, were all about.
This is so embarrassing for this country.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Assuming Garzón was speaking Spanish, he probably said "de espaldas", which, rather than "with its back to a person" would probably be better translated as "behind a person's back".
Secret "judicial" process. Why the secrecy?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)find one, just to teach anyone else who gets the idea that they can publish actual news without permission. And we wonder why the MSM is so trite. This could happen to them. Joe Lieberman is advocating prosecuting the NYT. That has to have a chilling effect on journalists, and every journalist watching what is happening to Assange knows that they better be careful now and not get any ideas.
The article says this GJ may take years?? Years? This is pure intimidation and just plain wrong. If a crime was committed, then say what it was.
They have no crime, but they want to silence, not just him, but others also. After Lieberman's threat, it's doubtful the NYT will take any chances should a whistle-blower provide them with any info.
This is a sad time in the history of this democracy. And so few are willing to condemn any of this.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)
midnight
(26,624 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Stalin is having a giggle.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)"The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution must be rolling over in their graves."
What Founding Fathers would those be, Sabrina?
The ones who voted in the Grand Jury clause in the 5th amendment of the United States Constitution?
Madison, who famously offered the Grand Jury clause in his slate of amendments on June 8, 1789?
Can you name a single Anti-Federalist without looking them up?
Which "Founding Father?"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)GJs were not meant to be used to search for crimes to apply to journalists, were they? Show me one statement from one FF that advocated using GJs for political purposes, or better yet, attempting to use the GJ, for YEARS, to try to find a crime that turns Journalism into 'espionage'. The Founding Fathers intentions were the exact opposite of that.
It seems that the use of the GJ today often resembles the way Kings used and abused it rather than the way it worked during the time preceding the Revolution, when it did work in favor of the people against abusive prosecutions by the King. And that is what influenced the Founding Fathers to view it as a protection for ordinary people against an agent of the Government who might have personal or political reasons for going after someone without any checks.
But I doubt the way GJs are often used today would get the approval of the FFs, considering what their intentions were.
What crime is the Government bringing to this GJ? Does anyone know? And since there is normally a limited amount of time for a GJ to sit, why is the Government claiming GJ will likely be seated for YEARS? The normal limit is 18 months, sometimes extended but since no one knows what crime is implied here, other than Lieberman's outrageous claims of sedition and spying, not only by Wikileaks but by Assange AND the NY Times and the Washington Post, people have a right to know on what basis this GJ was convened and why it should kept for years.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)impending raid to a terrorist organization.
Patrick Fitzgerald kept the GJ on that one open for years, and pursued her in court. Was he wrong? Was he wrong to jail her in the Libby case? Being a self-described journalist does not shield you from criminality.
The GJ in Manning's case will probably not end anythime soon because Manning is still in plea talks to accept a criminal deal and testify. I suspect that when his Article 113 hearing goes south, he's going to make a deal and sit in front of the grand jury. Until then, it stays open, completely in keeping with the system the Founding Fathers put in place.
Personally, I think you just didn't know that the 5th Amendment calls for a grand jury....and I also think you are ignorant of the fact that the grand jury remains, to this day, one of the few venues where citizens can bring a criminal action when the state refuses to.
Scooter Libby was charged and convicted of lying to the Grand Jury....on a question formulated and posed by a grand juror. The Grand Jury is a tool of the people. And in this case, the people are gonna investigate Mr. Assange.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I am very familiar with the history of the GJ provisions. You make way too many assumptions, which is why I have a lot of problems with your comments many times. This is a perfect example. You deduct from my questioning of the GJ in this case that I know nothing about the purpose of the GJ.
My questioning of this GJ has nothing to do with the premise but with the abuse of that premise which would not be first time there have been questions about how GJs are used by Prosecutors. I suppose I could accuse you of knowing nothing about the controversies and questions about some Prosecutors' use of GJs but then I have no idea what you know or do not know so that would be an assumption.
I asked what is the crime that is presented to this GJ. If they are waiting for Manning to provide them with a crime, then that means they have no crime, doesn't it?
And again, no one has ever claimed that a journalist cannot commit a crime, everyone, including prosecutors and lawyers and even members of GJs can commit crimes.
Judith Miller is not the topic of this conversation. We know what she did. We do not know what Assange is supposed to have done.
And the fact that Sweden still has not filed charges in that case, and have refused to interview him once again, doesn't make any of those politically persecuting him look good and definitely raises questions among fair-minded people without an agenda.
If he has committed a crime, two years appears to be a reasonable amount of time to let the world know what that crime is.
We're still waiting. And we're wondering why Sweden refuses to interview him and have failed to file any charges. If you think this is justice, then we are miles apart on what constitutes justice.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)for a year now.
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/06/Ltr.House_.pdf
We won't know until the GJ closes what bills are brought. Nor will we know the targets. I'm okay with that constitutional protection.
Second, Sweden has refused to interview Mr. Assange without the jurisdiction. This is standard when one flees a jurisdiction; courtesies are generally not extended to persons who flee a country the day before they are scheduled to give a police interview and a DNA sample. I refer you to the findings of the Belmarsh court, who determined, based on Assange's lawyer's testimony, that Mr. Assange did in fact flee the jurisdiction.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
My suggestion is that you read these documents for their legal siginifigance.
One cannot murder one's parents and then claim orphanhood...nor can one flee the jurisdiction and whine about not being charged in due course.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He remained in Sweden for weeks once told about the case making himself available to talk to the police. He was told there was no reason for him to stay any longer after several weeks and he was free to go.
Everything that happened after that was a political set-up and driven by some seriously questionable characters which is why there have been no charges. They have no case and I hope one day all of them will be prosecuted for abusing the legal process, (which btw was supposed to happen re the press in Sweden which violated, (far more clearly than the allegations against Assange) Swedens own laws in the Assange case. Any idea what happened to that investigation?
Again, if the GJ was seated to get an indictment of Assange and/or Wikileaks, then it's way past time to state that or deny it. There is not a hint of Wikileaks or Assange as editor and publisher of that organization, committing any crime, unless publishing news becomes a crime.
It is pure intimidation to refuse to answer any questions about the purpose of this GJ especially in a case that the entire world is interested in and overwhelmingly opposes any prosecution, with the current information available, of Wikileaks.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Regardless of what you feel happened, the Belmarsh court listened to the testimony of Assange's lawyer, Mr. Hurtig, and came to the conclusion that Assange left the jurisdiction on September 27, after being advised that his scheduled police interview (on the 28th) would include the collection of a DNA sample. (Link below, pages 5 and 6.)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
As for the GJ, well, the wheel of justice grinds slowly. Mr. Assange is free to file a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(E) but I think him too chickenshit to do so.
midnight
(26,624 posts)"He sought and received permission to leave Sweden, which makes a nonsense of the claim that he has avoided questioning. The prosecutor who has since pursued him has refused to give any explanation about why she will not use standard procedures, which Sweden and the UK have signed up to."http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4043974.html
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And that's why, in court, Mr. Assange was unable to produce proof of this permission, AND why his attorney, Mr. Hurtig, testified that Assange had an interview on Sept. 28th.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
He fled. Criminals do that. And then, they tell lies to cover it up.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How easily we discard due process even here on DU.
The liars are in Sweden, but then again, with Karl Rove in the picture, would anyone expect anything BUT lies.
Here's the problem, if he was wanted, all they had to do was make sure he didn't leave the country. He was told he could go, there is not a shred of evidence to contradict that. The burden of proof, which any lawyer should know, is on the prosecution. To try to place it on HIM, is laughable.
Where is the proof that he was told to stay? I followed this from the time it began and read every news report. His movements were well known. Odd that they did not stop him from leaving. But even MORE odd that they refuse to talk to him for nearly two years and refuse to file charges. Very odd, very suspicious.
S once again, why won't they file charges?? And why have they refused to talk to him for nearly two years now? He has always been available. I think the world knows why.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)No one can make you read the testimony of Mr. Assange's attorney.
No one can make you accept evidence.
But yeah--Assange is a criminal.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and then convicted. I read all of what you linked to long ago. As I said, I followed the case from the beginning. So far there is not a single charge filed against this 'criminal'. I like our system of justice which, in theory anyhow, does not convict people without letting them know what exactly they are charged with.
I also read the CIA memo sent to Wikileaks discussing how to 'get him' which they published on their website months before this began. The CIA memo discussed smearing his reputation in order to discredit him. Fortunately although this plan appears to have been put in motion, it has not worked. Assange in the last polls taken, is more popular than the leaders of any of the countries involved in this sham.
Some things are just obvious.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Assange was an editor and publisher of an award-winning International News Organization whose purpose was to publish news and especially facts that exposed corrupt leaders who were responsible for Human Rights abuses, such as torture and other War Crimes.
And you compare them?
One orders the deaths of other human beings, the other tries to stop such people from causing so much death and destruction the old-fashioned way, with a Free and Independent Press.
That is such an outrageous statement that I can only assume you are joking.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)We both agree Bush is one.
I happen to think Assange is one, too.
midnight
(26,624 posts)"The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policy makers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal."http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/10/white_house_proposes_retroactive_war_crimes_protection/
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)Spanish judge hits out at US over Assange
August 2, 2012 - 5:39AM
Ciaran Giles
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/spanish-judge-hits-out-at-us-over-assange-20120802-23g8g.html
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)WikiLeaks-CCR Analysis of Cable 09MADRID440
Cable 09MADRID440
View and download this entire cable here
09MADRID440 “Garzón Opens Second Investigation Into Alleged U.S. Torture of Terrorism Detainees.”
Date of cable: May 5, 2009
Origin: U.S. Embassy in Madrid
Classification: Unclassified/For Official Use Only
This cable details a meeting between Spain’s Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza and a U.S. Embassy official to discuss the investigation started by Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón into the U.S. torture program, and exposes Zaragoza discussing various ways he could “embarrass” Judge Garzón into dropping the case. It cites Zaragoza as saying there is a need for “a strategy to force … (Judge Garzón’s) hand,” and demonstrates U.S. concern that “forcing him” to drop the case “could take months.”
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/09/spain-judge-baltasar-garzon-suspended?cat=world&type=article
Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch said: "It looks like Garzón's enemies got what they wanted … the criminal prosecution of a judge for his judicial actions undermines the independence of the judiciary. The accumulation of charges against him raise the appearance that they have been brought in revenge for his handling of cases involving vested interests."
That he should be banned for investigating the sort of corruption that brought the country's indignados, or indignant ones, on to the streets in protest last year only added insult to the injury felt by some. The guilty verdict against Garzón, they pointed out, made him one of the first people to be punished in the long-running Gürtel case involving corruption in the PP regional governments of Valencia and Madrid.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You wanna defend that?
Can't wait to read it.
AlphaCentauri
(6,460 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)heart of the case. He was advised by a prosecutor to wire-tap their conversations. One of the attorneys was later indicted. A second prosecutor upheld his decision to wire tap them and another judge also upheld that decision.
This was a political prosecution. None of the others who agreed with the wire taps were prosecuted.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the Franco regime? Or the Bush regime? Or Henry Kissenger?
Garzon's prosecution is widely viewed as retaliation for his pursuit of war criminals, such as Pinochet, who he had the guts to go after. And his interest in pursuing an investigation into Henry Kissinger and the Bush Torturers. Wikileaks cables revealed plans to 'influence' him into dropping plans to go after war criminals.
Many people give the case against him as much credibility as the case against Siegelman here and he remains a respected figure committed to human rights, NOT among the far right of course, who are convinced that anyone who dares to prosecute real war criminals, needs to be taught a lesson.
Spains laws permit the wire-tapping of 'terrorists' and Spain's laws on wire-tapping in this case are considered 'vague' and had he not been a diligent pursuer of war criminals, this case most likely never would have happened.
His investigation into death squads was criticized because of an amnesty given to the perps, but he and many other Human Rights proponents claim there is no amnesty for Crimes Against Humanity.
Assange was very smart to hire him, he is one of the most popular Human Rights judges, regardless of the political prosecutions against him. In the court of public opinion he was silenced and that does not go down well with anyone other than war criminals and their supporters.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Garzon was investigating financial crimes....and the 7-0 decsion of the judges ought to indicate to you that Spanish law is apparently NOT vague.
Are you really defending wiretapping of clients and attorneys?
FYI--upthread I asked you about your constitutional claims. Still waiting for an answer.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)here, although it's possible you have. Spain also allows it, for 'terrorists' which kind of covers just about everyone these days since we are all being spied on and are all 'suspects'. Garvon did nothing that would have sparked prosecution in that case, considering the that the lawyers themselves were suspected of being involved in the corruption, had he not been going after War Criminals. The Prosecution itself was opposed by people whose opinions I respect way more than those who pushed it, iow, Franco supporters and Right Wingers who support War Criminals.
But their mission was accomplished as far as Garvon himself was concerned, that doesn't mean they will continue to be able to protect the Death Squads perps and their supporters forever. There will be more Garvons so long as justice has not been served for the victims, and the reputations of War Criminals still need to adjusted in the historical record. He is a very courageous man, and has paid a price, as many brave Human Rights protectors often do. But history will treat him well regardless of the success of this political prosecution.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And your claim that the 'lawyers themselves were suspected of being involved' is laughable....
You know why? Because Garzon signed the wiretap order before the lawyers were named. Any counsel was therefore subject to it, as opposed to a showing that a particular attorney could or would be involved.
And that's why he got the smackdown, 7-0 from the Spanish tribunal. I suggest you read the el Pais coverage of the case.
He and Assange are well-matched.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and death squads, because he was going after them.
And Assange who is not a stupid man, understands that, despite the efforts to discredit him, it is only the far right and war criminals who supported going after him. Having him on his team is a huge PR coup for Assange.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)They were listed, with biographies, in el Pais.
So was the 69-page decision.
Garzon put a colleague and friend under wiretap simply because he could. Are you suggesting that Mr. Pelaez was supporting war criminals when he complained about his rights being violated?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)or you about Spain's judiciary have explained what happened to Garvon.
From Democracy Now, from one such individual, of whom there are many:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/10/spanish_judge_baltasar_garzn_disbarred_in|
Spanish Judge Garzón Disbarred in Trial Seen as Retaliation for Trailblazing Human Rights Work
Well, to talk more about the ruling against Judge Garzón, we’re joined by Reed Brody, counsel and spokesperson for Human Rights Watch in Brussels. He was observing Garzón’s trial in Madrid, is now with us in New York.
Can you just tell us what happened?
REED BRODY: Sure. Well, as you said, there were three cases against Garzón. I mean, this was a concerted effort by his enemies within the conservative Spanish judiciary essentially to get rid of him. And the first case, accusing him of failing to apply Spain’s amnesty law, got such a bad reaction internationally, but other cases were leapfrogged in front of that.
And in this case, he ordered that the alleged ringleaders of a massive corruption scandal—over 120 million euros, $180 million, involving payoffs within the now-ruling Popular Party—he ordered that the defendants be wiretapped, because, allegedly, the lawyers, who were in conversation with them, were laundering the money. And in fact, one of the lawyers was actually indicted for money laundering. He ordered the wiretaps on the recommendation of a prosecutor. When the case was moved to another jurisdiction, the new prosecutor recommended the wiretaps, and the new judge continued the wiretaps. And despite the fact that one of the lawyers was in fact indicted for laundering the proceeds of this scandal, the wiretaps were quashed. That’s OK. What then happened, though, is that he was actually prosecuted by the defendants. And the conservative judiciary accepted the case, and he has now been convicted of having abused his authority by ordering these wiretaps.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I mean, it almost seems that as long as he was willing to deal with cases internationally, that it was OK by the Spanish judiciary. But as soon as he began to look at the Franco regime, the atrocities of the Franco regime, or begin to zero in on possible corruption within his own government, suddenly they went out to get him.
REED BRODY: Well, he has made a lot of enemies, particularly in the Popular Party. But also, let’s not forget that he had—his actions resulted in the indictment of a Socialist Interior Ministry for supporting death squads in the Basque country. So he had made enemies on both sides of the spectrum. And this was really a concerted effort to cut him down to size, which—a massive attack on the independence of the judiciary and on a very brave judge.
So tell me, why were the two Prosecutors, the one whose advice Garzon followed and the one who upheld the wire-taps not prosecuted? Apparently considering the involvement of the lawyers in the corruption, those wire-taps were legal. It was the fact that they were implicated, that Garzon and two others approved of the wire-taps.
A clear case of the Far Right going after a courageous Judge who would not stop exposing and prosecuting War Criminals.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Defendant. A 7-0 guilty verdict.
He was, however, aquitted in his second trial with regards to his Franco prosecutions, and I agree with that. (Verdict 6-1)
It seems to me that if people were 'out to get him' then he would have been found guilty in all of his trials (including the Santander corruption trial), and he would be in jail.
Maybe, like Assange, his personal hubris gets him into trouble.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Their decision is not respected. He was targeted. The other prosecutors and the judge who upheld that decision, were not prosecuted. Why not? If it was a crime, then all of them should have been prosecuted. But only he was because he is a threat to war criminals everywhere.
He is a courageous man, as is Assange, and this is not the first time in history that those with the guts to stand up for human rights against authoritarians and war criminals, found themselves in this position. It's an old story, going back throughout history. I do not expect those with the courage to do what is right to be perfect, I am just glad they come along every once in a while. Obviously their presence on this planet make all the right people very uncomfortable and so they become targets, at least they are both still alive, for now.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Judge Garzon suffers from the same thing Mr. Assange does: hubris. They are well-matched.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'why did they not prosecute the other two prosecutors and the judge who committed the same 'crime'?
He went after Pinochet. That took guts. He went after Torturers. That too took guts. And he paid a price. The message is 'leave our War Criminals alone'!
Why was he not convicted on the other charge? It wasn't necessary. The goal was to remove him from circulation, that only required one conviction. No need for 'overkill'. The Wikileaks Cables on the intended prosecution of the Bush Six are enlightening. You should read them sometime.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sign the order? Garzon is responsible for protecting the rights of the defendant, and he was held to account.
When a cop pulls over one speeder on a highway full of them, do you think "But I wasn't the only one breaking the law" is an effective defense?
As for the second judge, he didn't do what Garzon did. Garzon signed the wiretap order before attorneys were even announced, and in their decision, the SPanish court said that signing before indicated a premeditation to wiretap any attorney as opposed to an action taken pursuant to evidence against a particular attorney. He also was stupid enough to wiretap a colleague, apparently. That went over poorly in court.
Sabrina, would I find you okay with the wiretapping of Lynne Stewart?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The judge and prosecutor who upheld the wire-tapping, are equally responsible. They had the power to end it, but did not.
The fact that it has now been proven that at least one of the lawyers was guilty, explains why two prosecutors and two judges felt it was important to do what they did.
He was put out of action because they knew he would not stop going after war criminals. And as I said, the Wikileaks cables revealed that he was on the radar of the US Government, that the US Government contacted Spain asking that they stop the prosecution of the Bush Six. Why would the US Government interfere in Spain's judicial procedures? Spain had jurisdiction over the Bush torture crimes.
And Spain's far right Pinochet supporters obliged the US Government. Garzon was stopped, the Bush Six Torture case was put on hold, and torture supporters everywhere, were happy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)judge? In the opinion of many people who have earned respect around the world, it appears so.
And the conspiracy to do so was outlined in the Wikileaks revelations which showed how forcing him to drop his plans to prosecute the Bush six was of paramount importance to some very powerful people.
Mission accomplished, for now unfortunately for all the victims.