Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spanish Superjudge To Represent Assange

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the special-uniforms-all-around dept.

The Courts 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."

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

needs more prefixes (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776447)

Since he was removed from his judgeship, he'd be an ex-super-judge, no? Or perhaps a super-ex-judge?

Re:needs more prefixes (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776533)

Superjudge Returns.

Re:needs more prefixes (1)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776763)

Maybe this means that the UK will have assange tried by Judge Dredd [imdb.com]

Re:needs more prefixes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777559)

Turn in your geek card now.

You should have linked to the original Comic [wikimedia.org] or at least the Stallone movie. [imdb.com]

mmmm.... three sea shells....

SUPERJUDGE! (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777771)

Will he be borrowing the cape and goggles from Cory Doctrow, for this latest exploit?

Re:needs more prefixes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40778005)

Turn in YOUR geek card now. Three sea shells was from Demolition Man.

Re:needs more prefixes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776967)

Superjudge Returns.

Super Judge begins

Super Judge Begins - reboot

Superjudge Returns -Reboot

Etc ....

I like it!

Actually, it would be nice to have a super hero that relies on brains, cunning, and negotiation as opposed to brute force, cynicism, and guns and more guns.

The closest I can think of is Doctor Who and Sherlock. But wouldn't it be wonderful for a judge super hero that fights the bad guys on his spare time using brains and cunning to make them defeat themselves? His Super suit being made by Brooks Brothers?

Nah. It won't sell.

Blam! Blam! Blam! is all that the general public wants.

Re:needs more prefixes (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777007)

Superjudge just so happens to be my lucha libre name.

Don Garzon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776495)

I'm picturing a spanish dude with a bull-ship and a gavel...

Meta Judge (5, Funny)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776515)

Will our Talented Framed Swedish Honey-trap Victim and Hero escape? Tune into the next episode of Assange ...

Re:Meta Judge (1)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776857)

Oh, I don't know [youtube.com]

Slashdot (-1, Flamebait)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776531)

We will bring you last week's news next week!

Superjudge = Superman? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776535)

Superjudge [wikimedia.org]

Superman [blogspot.com]

You be the... "judge".

Re:Superjudge = Superman? (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776811)

You be the... "judge".

And you're the man!

Re:Superjudge = Superman? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776817)

He IS the law... only more so.

It's spelled wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776537)

It's Baltazar Garzón.

Still spelled wrong (1)

InsectOverlord (1758006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777257)

Baltasar Garzón

Nice stunt (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776571)

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.

Re:Nice stunt (5, Interesting)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776657)

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.

Re:Nice stunt (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776805)

illegal wiretaps, though?

he should apply for US citizenship!

Re:Nice stunt (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776807)

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:Nice stunt (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777293)

Why do you frame it as if he was a 'political victim of the Right' when he admits himself he broke the rules?

Re:Nice stunt (5, Informative)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776865)

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.

Re:Nice stunt (-1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777525)

"We really owe a lot to this guy, even if the end it seems like the bad guys are getting their way."

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.

Re:Nice stunt (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777863)

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:Nice stunt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40778183)

"But still, this man has the ego the size of a medieval castle ..."

You need that if you want to attack the 1%.

Re:Nice stunt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777585)

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.

Then, as you were the submitter, I must ask why the summary (apparently incorrectly) states that he was disbarred. If what you say in parent is true, he wasn't "disbarred," he was "removed from the bench." That's not a little difference.

Re:Nice stunt (5, Interesting)

pjabardo (977600) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777617)

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.

Re:Nice stunt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776873)

As the summary sums: These wiretaps were not illegal.

Re:Nice stunt (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777393)

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.

Re:Nice stunt (0)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777609)

Â"These wiretaps were not illegal."

It's only they *were* illegal. Even GarzÃn himself recognized that (hits defense was the fiscal agreed and it was common practice anyways -both things being true).

Sorry for your decision Julian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777405)

(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)
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 , by this time he became for some time a politician affiliated to the political party who was accused of supporting this death squadron.
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.

Re:Nice stunt (3, Informative)

jbssm (961115) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777483)

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.

Name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776575)

I think his name is Baltazar, not Balsazar.

legal in Spain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776589)

"... 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"

Is that so? Could you link to some proof of this assertion? We all have internet, you know.

mediawhoring (0, Troll)

apilosov (1810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776593)

This is becoming more and more media circus. Garzon has no credibility, as he acted as political activist, not a judge. But, perhaps, the best defense attorney for a mediawhore is another mediawhore - see also, fighting bullshit with bullshit, Michael Moore style.

In US, closest equivalent to Garzon would be Kenneth Starr or Spiro Agnew, or Lynne Stewart.

Re:mediawhoring (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776613)

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 (1)

apilosov (1810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776655)

well, it is what it is. all of the above believed that 'the end justifies the means' without regard to justice.

Re:mediawhoring (1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776861)

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.

Re:mediawhoring (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776685)

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.

Re:mediawhoring (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776691)

I was thinking Gloria Allred [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Re:mediawhoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777053)

Behold the genius of the Allred. /not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvxlyGE_9A

Re:mediawhoring (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776899)

This is becoming more and more media circus. Garzon has no credibility, as he acted as political activist, not a judge.

Could you elaborate?

Re:mediawhoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777041)

Garzon made intepretations of the law (as required of him by his position) that apilosov (a lowly peon of society) disagreed with. Thus Garzon is an evil politically corrupt activist. Shuuuuun Garzon!

Re:mediawhoring (2, Interesting)

apilosov (1810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777079)

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.

Re:mediawhoring (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777539)

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.

Re:mediawhoring (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777589)

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.

Re:mediawhoring (2)

pjabardo (977600) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777915)

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.

Re:mediawhoring (2)

dabadab (126782) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778455)

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).

Did I miss something? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776611)

I live in Spain and they used to call him the "star judge", because he was always on the media, without getting nothing done, actually.

He made it again!

Garzon (-1, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776619)

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?

Re:Garzon (0)

LittleImp (1020687) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776651)

Because he is a megalomaniacal attention whore as well.

Re:Garzon (2)

ACE209 (1067276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776975)

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.

Re:Garzon (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776661)

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?

Re:Garzon (0)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776881)

Certainly to Australia and her friends, as well as the West at large.

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.

I would never do anything to him personally, but the rate he's going, he'd better pray that the Americans get to him before somebody takes matters into their own hands.

He's a goddamned traitor and war criminal, and deserves to be necklaced in public for his crimes.

Re:Garzon (0)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777027)

I take precisely the opposite anti-Assange stance as you. I support his work with Wikileaks and think it's as a whole been a good thing, and think if he was tried in the US, that'd be a major abuse of process. But I also think he shouldn't get a free pass on rape charges, and that the argument that a high-profile extradition to Sweden (wherein a second extradition would require a UK signature) is somehow more dangerous than simply being in the UK (the US's lapdog on foreign policy issues) is patently absurd.

Either way, he's got serious problems if he plans to spend the rest of his life in an embassy. Even assuming Ecuador approves his request, there's nor realistic way for him to get from the embassy to the country. And there's several legal options being explored to force the embassy to eject him. And the very least, sooner or later, he's going to get sick.

Re:Garzon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777135)

So what if he gets sick? I'm sure many people have been sick and still be fine recovering where they live.

Re:Garzon (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777333)

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?

Re:Garzon (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777673)

Not everybody ends up in hospital.

Doctors can go to the embassy, yes.

Re:Garzon (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777647)

Is he charged with rape?

You've been watching too much Fox News...

Australia aren't part of the USA Gov. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777127)

You're probably too old to think, though.

Re:Garzon (1)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778139)

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."

Re:Garzon (1)

Quince alPillan (677281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776769)

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.

On extradition (3, Insightful)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776707)

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:On extradition (4, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776793)

Spain claims worldwide jurisdiction over certain crimes, though I think they only try to enforce it in the Spanish-speaking portion of the world. The War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague claims worldwide jurisdiction over certain crimes as well.

Both are fine with me, as long as they use legal means to attempt extradition, and stick to prosecuting mass murderer, genocide, etc., against people who would never be tried in their home countries. Some morality has to be global, and any reasonable person can differentiate between basic, fundamental morality and things that reasonably vary from culture to culture. Slippery-slope arguments to the contrary are fallacious.

Re:On extradition (2, Insightful)

apilosov (1810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777153)

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:On extradition (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777657)

The US has evidently declared internet gambling immoral and will find a way to get you here to throw your ass in jail, so the thought of other countries trying what you say isn't out of the question, it's just the US has a rather big stick to beat the world with at this time. Just wait till China gets to use theirs.

I'm pretty sure the UK does still feel that way about Washington based on what I read on internet forums.

Re:On extradition (2)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778435)

I'm pretty sure very, very, few people in the UK give a flying fuck about George Washington. What forums are you reading?

Or are you taking jokes about "the colonials" a little too literally?

Re:On extradition (2)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776993)

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?

The grounds for the extradition request where that he killed and tortured Spanish citizens.

Re:On extradition (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777181)

And, in addition, he wasn't tried in Chili for those crimes. The previous standard for international jurisdiction used to be that it was secondary, only to be used when the national jurisdiction failed. However, in Libya's case the ICC disagrees, and wants to preempt national proceedings against Khadafi's son. Very bad idea. As the Bosnians already noticed, being "punished" by the ICC hardly is a punishment.

Re:On extradition (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777001)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777323)

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:On extradition (2, Insightful)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777895)

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:On extradition (3, Informative)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778079)

Waking up woman with foreplay is not the same a fucking a passed out drunk woman.

These women only screamed rape when they found out about each other.

It's kind of like the old joke "I'm sorry miss, this $20 bill is counterfeit. Oh my god, I've been raped."

Re:On extradition (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778347)

"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. And didn't throw parties next day to celebrate. Or tweet about how cool their rapist was. And certainly didn't get international police hunts organized to find/extradite their rapists.

The last thing I read, Julian Assange was accused of "Surprise Sex", punishable by a 750 Euro fine. Maybe the girl's stories have got more elaborate since then. Why wouldn't they? With no evidence it's just his word against theirs.

Re:On extradition (1)

tucuxi (1146347) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777367)

You seem not to have RTFA - Garzon is to be Assange's defendant, not his prosecutor or judge. In the Pinochet case, he was to be the judge. Two very different roles.

Re:On extradition (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778195)

The point was that GP was not so subtly accusing most Slashdotters of hypocracy by supporting a guy who extradited Pinochet and opposing the people who want to extradite Assange, implying that those two positions were inconsistent. My argument was simply that the two situations are vastly different, and thus treating them differently is in no way inconsistent (and in fact would be in keeping with international law).

Re:On extradition (4, Informative)

jbssm (961115) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777605)

Assange is accused of rape and espionage.

First, Assange is certainly not being extradited, accused of espionage nowhere in Sweden or in the UK... obviously. That is just some USA wet dream.

Second, the only dumb enough people to use the term "rape" for what he did, are the Swedish. He had sex, by mutual consent with a woman, and she found out the condom broke. Assage claims he didn't know (may be true or not, but it happened to me before and I can tell you, it's not very easy to know the exact conditions of a condom around your penis when you are inside a woman), strange enough she continued having intimate relations with Assage for some time after that, as did the other "victim" clamming the same. It was only when the two lucky girls found out we was not faithful to them, that they decided to press charges... talk about a moral high ground here.

Re:On extradition (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777753)

"Assange is accused of rape"

No he isn't.

Re:On extradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40777089)

/, is not a real sight. Please try again, you moron.

Re:On extradition (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777625)

Next time wear glasses.

Re:On extradition (2)

orzetto (545509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777193)

Pinochet was indicted for crimes against Spanish citizens. Just because you have a certain citizenship does not mean you cannot be prosecuted in other countries. Spain is not the only country that claims universal jurisdiction for some crimes; Italy, for example, prosecutes child molestation by its citizens in any country, and Norway prohibits buying sexual services anywhere in the world.

Also, "the opinion on the US doing it" is mostly influenced by kidnapping and torture by the CIA and other parts of the US government, not legal action from the judiciary with which I for one have no issue with. Garzón operated with legal means only, even though a US-style rendition of Pinochet would have been a poetic justice of sorts.

Re:On extradition (1)

jelizondo (183861) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777275)

Except that Spanish citizens allegedly had been tortured and/or killed by Pinochet's regime..

Get some information before commenting on "group think"

Nice try (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776757)

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.

It's just a stunt anyhow (1, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777721)

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.

Name is not correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776767)

Actually, it's Baltasar, neither Balsazar, nor Baltazar... (just like the 3rd King Mage that travelled with Melchor and Gaspar to meet Jesuschrist in the Holy Bible... :-))))

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40776789)

I hope he can prevent Assange from being extradited to the united states. The united states government, which has offcourse 'nothing to hide' and is pro 'democracy', would like to 'have a word' with mr. Assange.

Re:Good (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776935)

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.

Re:Good (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777081)

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.

Re:Good (1)

trnk (1887028) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777199)

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.

Re:Good (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777837)

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 [justice4assange.com]

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...?

What case? (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40776847)

Didn't he lose his case and all the appeals?

Re:What case? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777457)

Didn't he lose his case and all the appeals?

Didn't SCO lose all of theirs as well, and we are still hearing about new SCO court rulings . . . ?

The judicial universe is kinda sorta like the real universe . . . it expands into itself.

Re:What case? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778161)

That is at least partly to punish SCO's shysters. They agreed to represent SCO to the bitter end for some stock. Making it cost them lots and lots of money is a good thing, especially if you have staff Nazgul. The job isn't done until all the partners of this law firm are destitute.

Awww sheeit (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777521)

Dayum it's on now! Da game is ON!

Garzon speaks Spanish? (0)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777595)

Cool! He'll make a great cellmate for Assange at Gitmo.

Too late (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40777933)

Assange has already lost the extradition case and violated his bail conditions, there is nothing this guy can do.

Re:Too late (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778407)

Yes there is. He can try to stop the USA from grabbing him if he goes to Sweden...

Extradiction (1)

olborro (1684086) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778041)

For those who didn't get it right the first time.

How is he going to do that? (1)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40778165)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>