« Quote of the Day: Romney’s “Severely Conservative” Self-Label Raises New Doubts
Raids on Offices of American NGOs Reveal Scheme to ‘Partition’ Egypt (Al Ahram, Egypt) »
UPDATE — The Prosecution of Judge Baltasar Garzón: Spain’s “Lo Pasado, Pasado Está” Attempt
Feb 11th, 2012 | 16 responses
UPDATE:
A wave of unusually severe cold is gripping Europe. But the weather is not the only thing that is chilling over there. Under the headline “A Chilling Verdict in Spain,” the New York Times reports that “The enemies of Judge Baltasar Garzón have finally gotten their way” as Spain’s Supreme Court has found Judge Garzón guilty of misapplying the country’s wiretap law and suspended him from the courts for 11 years.
The 7-0 ruling flowed out of a 2008 corruption case in which the judge ordered wiretaps of conversations between lawyers and their clients.
According to the Times:
Judge Garzón was not alone in ordering those wiretaps, but he alone was prosecuted, even while the public prosecutor argued that there were no grounds for a criminal proceeding. Convicting a jurist over a court ruling is an appalling attack on judicial independence. Two other cases against him are pending — one involving his inquiry into mass killings during the civil war and the Franco dictatorship, and another concerning allegations of conflict of interest in a tax fraud case.
Judge Garzón is far from perfect, but the decision by the Spanish Supreme Court to remove him from the bench is enormously damaging to the prospects of fair and impartial justice. What investigating magistrate would not now hesitate before pursuing politically sensitive cases? Will the Franco-era crimes that scarred Spain for two generations remain forever uninvestigated?
Apparently, Judge Garzón cannot appeal this decision in the Spanish court system, but he could challenge it in Spain’s Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
Mr. Garzón has already accepted a consulting position at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Perhaps he can continue his pursuit of justice from there.
Read more here.
====
Back in March 2009, a Spanish court took the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The case was sent to the prosecutor’s office for review by none other than Judge Baltasar Garzón, Europe’s best-known counter-terrorism magistrate, renowned for his determination and his abilities to bring suspects to justice, no matter how powerful or where they may be—and especially for terrorism and human rights abuses.
His targets have included the al-Qaeda 9/11 and Madrid bombings perpetrators, the infamous Chilean General Pinochet, ETA and related Basque terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organizations operating in the Maghreb region, including Spanish enclaves in Morocco, Argentine ex-naval officer Adolfo Scilingo who was convicted of crimes against humanity and others.
I don’t know where the case against Bush administration officials stands right now and, for the sake of letting bygones be bygones, I will not pursue that at the moment — especially since mine would be the proverbial voice in the wilderness.
However, the present government in Spain, by no means a voice in the wilderness, apparently does believe in letting bygones be bygones or, as they say in Spain “lo pasado, pasado está” as, according to the New York Times:
… Judge Garzón is now himself under legal attack for confronting Spain’s own dark history. He is on trial this week before the Spanish Supreme Court for daring to investigate crimes committed during the Spanish Civil War and the nearly four-decade dictatorship of Gen. Francisco Franco. The case against him is fueled by domestic political vendettas rather than substantive legal arguments and it could dramatically set back international efforts to hold human-rights violators accountable for their crimes.
The case stems from Judge Garzón’s edict, in October 2008, ordering the exhumation of 19 mass graves and charging Franco and his accomplices posthumously with the murder and disappearance of more than 114,000 people.
The edict, however, was challenged by Spain’s chief prosecutor, Javier Zaragoza, and ruled against by an appellate court — “and the case appeared to be resolved. But several months after the ruling, two tiny far-right groups sued Judge Garzón for ‘prevarication’ — knowingly overstepping his authority — in violating the amnesty law.”
The Times continues:
Criminally charging judges for prevarication is extremely rare in Spain, and a conviction would disbar Judge Garzón for 20 years — effectively ending his career. The Supreme Court’s zeal to try him has little legal basis; rather, it reflects Spanish elites’ widespread unease with applying international legal principles to Spain’s conflicted history and a deep-seated animosity toward Judge Garzón that is as much personal as political.
The prosecution of Judge Garzón is having a “chilling effect” on other international efforts to hold human-rights violators accountable, and a conviction would be interpreted as an even stronger warning sign, the Times says, and “[M]ore disturbingly, due to Judge Garzón’s legal woes, the case brought by Franco’s victims and their families is now languishing. (The only exception is in Argentina, where a prominent human-rights lawyer, using universal jurisdiction, recently filed suit charging Franco with crimes against humanity.)”
The Times concludes:
In his 2005 memoir, Judge Garzón wrote, “A system built on the corpses of those who are still awaiting justice so they can rest in peace is an illegitimate system and one that is condemned to eventually suffer the same fate.”
It would send a tragic and telling message to those victims — and others like them around the world — if the one person convicted for Franco’s crimes is the judge who dared to investigate them.
There are some bygones that just cannot be forgotten or swept under the rug of political expedience. Lo pasado, no siempre está pasado.
Read more of the Times’ article here
Image: Shutterstock.com
16 Responses to “UPDATE — The Prosecution of Judge Baltasar Garzón: Spain’s “Lo Pasado, Pasado Está” Attempt”
Sounds like the Judge pushed it too far in his home country. He probably should be at the ICC anyway. Though the U.S. has signed the Rome Statute, it hasn’t ratified it – and probably won’t – although Obama is apparently more amenable than the Bush administration.
Thanks for your comments, Ohioan.
It all depends on whether one believes that “daring to investigate” suspected mass crimes against humanity committed several decades ago is “pushing it too far.”
Hopefully, whether the US ratifies the Rome Statute of the ICC or not, Garzón will be able to do some good there.
Dorian
Yep. All reformers and rebels make those in authority nervous and they often overreact. This really only gives Garzon more credibility at the ICC. He’s shown he is willing to go further and make more waves than most.
Too bad we don’t live in a world where truth and justice are more universally admired.
Too bad we don’t live in a
worldcountry where truth and justice are more universally admired.Good point Steve. We’ve been doing some back-sliding.
Obviously the Spanish legal system is different from ours but looking at the accusations who wouldn’t think he went to far. Garzón ordered police to record conversations between suspects held in prison and their attorneys. Now maybe it’s no big deal in Spain but in the US such a thing would extreme to say the lest. His sentence? He can’t practice law for 11 years. He F’ed up and can’t practice law which he ignored when he felt like it. Now I understand that judges in Spain have violated this law before and those cases were thrown out but the judges were just reprimanded or disciplined not prosecuted. But Garzón loves the spotlight and is strongly involved in politics and, as in the wiretap case, seems to focus on the opposition for investigation. He often crossed the line even admitting that he took liberties with the law but he believed his popularity and celebrity would let him get away with it. In this case he may have just made himself a bigger target.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Not being mentioned is a law that expressly prohibits judges from opening such an investigation. Instead of getting the law overturned or declared non binding due to being crimes against humanity he just ignored the law, many saying it was purely for the press.
Four years back, Judge gets overzealous in a corruption/bribery case. Nothing happens to Judge.
Judge starts investigating serious crimes against humanity that the government would rather leave alone — “makes himself a bigger target” for the government…
Suddenly Judge is charged and convicted for infraction that in that country are are “not a big deal.”
Yes, “the Spanish legal system is different from ours,” or is it?
‘Nough said
The man may be a saint, or then again. I’m not that knowledgeable but there seems to be another side to the story that I thought should be stated for those who think it’s clear cut. It isn’t.
His human rights violations, which is not something his position is allowed to investigate, are and where part of the civil war and fascist dictatorship that ended in the mid 70′s. Because of the conflict and turmoil caused the Govt gave a blanket amnesty to all political crimes, including murder, and that no judge is allowed to investigate. He started investigating, which was mainly speaking to the press and then quietly dropped it after the headlines went away.
Well yes, at the least his position would be more like a US attorney than a judge.
Yes, “the Spanish legal system is different from ours,” or is it?
Saddam Hussein (or his successor) issues an edict that none of his mass murders of his own people will “be allowed” to be investigated…
The Iranian Parliament passes a law that human rights abuses committed by the Iranian government will not “be allowed” to be investigated or prosecuted …
General Augusto Pinochet (or his successor)issues a referendum that the systematic persecution of dissidents and the fate of Los Desaparecidos will “not be allowed” to be investigated or prosecuted…
Barack Obama issues an executive order that torture and other Constitutional violations under the Bush administration will not “be allowed” to be investigated or prosecuted…
The perpetrators of the Holocaust will not be allowed to be prosecuted…
All “because of the conflict and turmoil caused”
Todo porque “Lo pasado, pasado está”
Dorian I’m not trying to state with certainty anything about the situation, rather point out the other side. I will say that your response is BS. Comparing decrees from administrations to prevent investigation into their own behaviors to a succeedings govt laws to prevent unrest? An agreement made to end hostilities which is what happened. A law was passed to end violence and unrest. Latter after achieving peace that agreement should be breached and the law disregarded all for what? Crimes that happened 70 years ago who’s perpetrators are dead. So a judge can maybe score some points against a rival political party? Investigations into the era could bring down the govt. Juan Carlos the King of Spain who oversaw the transition to a constitutional was a member of Franco’s Movimiento Nacional, took part in official state functions standing alongside Franco. Now should he be investigated for supporting Franco’s regime? Many were very angry at the time with his involvement and with the best intentions and good will could have know and been involved in activities that would now be considered illegal. Now due to the Kings popularity there is no real chance but ignoring that investigations into the past in Spain might open a huge can of worms that may cause more grief, hurt, and turmoil that may very well eclipse any possible good that could come out of it. That one judge should be allowed to decide on his own ignoring any and everyone else in the Govt, the legislature, court system, etc, and just decide he knows best.
Like him, believe in him, think what he did was right, but don’t ignore that there are always at least 2 sides to the story and this is damn sure the case here too.
You are entitled to your opinions — and that’s all they are, and thank you for them — I firmly stand by mine.
And let me add that “your response is BS” — in my opinion.
But let me also add and ask:
“Crimes that happened 70 years ago who’s [sic] perpetrators are dead.”
The Holocaust happened 70 years ago. What is your statute of limitations?
When everyone would be dead before you could possibly get a conviction.
By the way thank you for continuing to ask questions while you ignore all of mine and pretend I have made no points or brought up any issues at all.
What are your opinions? All I get is canned crap that the judge’s publicist, and we both know he has one, could of put out. I don’t object to your opinion so much as your refusal to discus or even acknowledge that the situation could be anything but what you wrote. Never mind that all you focus on when his borderline behavior is “crimes against humanity” as if that could be the only factor possible that could play any role at all and that nothing else had any effect and that he was doing anything but poising for the press and could of cared less but for the publicity it gave him.
You say in reply to my question “The Holocaust happened 70 years ago. What is your statute of limitations?”:
“When everyone would be dead before you could possibly get a conviction.”
Even if all of the perpetrators are dead, justice can still be served. The survivors of the victims, perhaps would like to see the Spanish Justice system reaffirm that what was done during the Franco era were crimes against humanity — crimes that must never be tolerated again.
The Times:
“In his 2005 memoir, Judge Garzón wrote, “A system built on the corpses of those who are still awaiting justice so they can rest in peace is an illegitimate system and one that is condemned to eventually suffer the same fate.”
It would send a tragic and telling message to those victims — and others like them around the world — if the one person convicted for Franco’s crimes is the judge who dared to investigate them.”
“What are your opinions?”
I have stated my opinion in the basic post and its update and in all my comments, including these ones.
Please read again, and I stand by them and I categorically reject your counterarguments as nothing but political “BS” and “canned crap” (Oops, where did I read this before?)
BTW, who is “the judge’s publicist’? Name please.
What is your proof that judge Garzon is “poising [sic] for the press”? Sources, please, or is it just your opinion. (My opinion is that he is not)
What is the judge’s “borderline behavior”?
As the Times says:
“Judge Garzón is far from perfect, but the decision by the Spanish Supreme Court to remove him from the bench is enormously damaging to the prospects of fair and impartial justice.
What investigating magistrate would not now hesitate before pursuing politically sensitive cases? Will the Franco-era crimes that scarred Spain for two generations remain forever uninvestigated?”
I do have to admit that the Judge may have made plenty of enemies here in the US when back in 2009 he took the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.