This weekend, Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish judge who ordered the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, received the ALBA/Puffin Award for Human Rights Activism in New York. My roughly two-hour interview with Garzón before his receiving the award proved quite newsworthy with Garzón discussing subjects ranging from the charges that he is facing in Spain to current issues of human rights violations by the United States to the threats to assassinate him. Most notably, Garzón criticized the Obama Administration for rolling back on the Nuremberg principles and violating international obligations to prosecute individuals for torture and war crimes.
Here are some highlights of the interview:
• Garzón discussed the main charge against him that he exceeded his authority by opening an investigation in the disappearance of as many as 200,000 people during the brutal dictatorship of Francesco Franco. Victims of the killings had come to his court and Garzón ruled that the amnesty passed two years after Franco’s death was invalid as a matter of international law. This is not a radical view. Courts in Chile, for example, came to the same conclusion and many international law experts agree that a country cannot simply give amnesty for war crimes. Such laws would gut international legal standards since any country could simply excuse its own war criminals. Indeed, President Obama and Congress have effectively granted immunity to our own accused violators both by announcing that no CIA employee will be prosecuted as well as passing legislation affirming such protection for Americans involved in the torture program. Garzón was quite clear that the position of the Obama Administration is clearly in violation with international law.
• Garzón stated that the Obama Administration’s use of the “just following orders” defense as well as the protection of lawyers involved in the torture program violated the Nuremberg principles and precedent.
• Garzón questioned the legality of the U.S. killing of Bin Laden given the lack of approval by Pakistan and the appearance of a mission to assassinate rather than capture the terrorist. He not only stated his view that such an operation would presumptively violate international law but lost a golden opportunity to interrogate the leader. Garzón previously successfully oversaw the prosecution of 18 Al Qaeda members and is viewed as a tough anti-terror judge, including his investigation of ETA.
• Garzón discussed how the charges against him were brought by a far right party with connections to the Franco regime. I was particularly concerned about the second accusation that he ordered the eavesdropping on communications between attorneys and their clients in the corruption investigation of one of Spain’s conservative parties. He has filed objections under the European Convention on Human Rights. I remain troubled by such orders, though we have seen such surveillance in limited cases in the United States. Garzón insisted that he placed protections on the use of the information and that the judge that replaced him continued the surveillance. He also noted that prosecutors supported the legality of the order and that there was compelling evidence to suggest that the lawyers were being used to funnel money illegally. I am still not fully versed in the underlying facts of that case and this may be a point of disagreement between us. However, Garzón gave a far more detailed defense of his order this weekend and raised serious concerns over the lack of consistency in pursuing him for such an order when the practice has been reportedly followed by other judges and prosecutors..
• Garzón gave unqiue insights into his legendary effort to bring Pinochet to justice and the effort by both the Bush and Obama Administration to pressure the Spanish government into blocking his efforts to prosecute Bush officials.
In my interview, Garzón himself acknowledged that people can disagree on such rulings However, one can disagree with Garzón’s interpretations on some of these legal questions ranging from the use of universal jurisdiction to the scope of surveillance to the validity of immunity laws, what should be clear is that it is an abuse of judicial independence to charge a judge over such disputes. His is charged with prevaricación (or malfeasance), which allows judges to be prosecuted for “unjust” judgments — a highly controversial practice.
This is particularly worrisome over the question of the validity of the amnesty law. There is ample support for such a view and Spain has layers of appellate courts to address whether such an interpretation has merit. Even if Garzón failed to follow binding precedent, this process seems at odds with basic notions of judicial process and the rule of law. Likewise, I have serious difficulty with the surveillance of attorney-client communications, but it appears that such surveillance has been allowed under Spanish law. This raises a legitimate question of a double standard being applied with Judge Garzón.
For those who have accused Garzón of targeting just conservative groups, they may find it interesting to see his criticism of the Obama Administration and to hear about his record in fighting terrorist and drug operations. Human rights advocates and civil libertarians in the United States will be particularly interested to see Garzón’s discussion of our own unfolding violations of international law. Waterboarding may have originated in the West in Spain during the Inquisition. It was therefore fascinating to hear Garzón’s view of our embrace of the torture technique. He said that it was unquestionably a form of torture and a war crime.
Below is the taped interview.
Jonathan Turley
Here is the press release for the event: ALBA-Press-Release-on-Event-May-14
Highly energetic article, I loved that a lot.
Will there be a part 2?
Gene H.,
It’s very discouraging. I hope that he challenges the decision and is successful…
Holy crap, anon nurse.
It is a bad day for Spain and for justice in general.
Thanks for the update.
It’s short — here’s the entire editorial:
A Chilling Verdict in Spain
Published: February 10, 2012
The enemies of Judge Baltasar Garzón have finally gotten their way. Spain’s Supreme Court this week found the judge guilty of misapplying the country’s wiretap law and suspended him from the courts for 11 years.
Related News
Judge Garzón has played an important role in Spain’s transition to democracy, as a scourge of corrupt politicians left and right and a powerful champion of international human rights law. His efforts to prosecute the former Chilean dictator, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and investigate the horrors of the Spanish Civil War era, though unsuccessful, advanced the principle that there can be neither amnesty nor impunity for crimes against humanity.
Thursday’s ruling stemmed from prison wiretaps of conversations between lawyers and their clients that the judge ordered in a 2008 case involving bribes allegedly paid to local officials of the now-ruling Popular Party. 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?
Judge Garzón cannot appeal in the Spanish court system. But he can challenge this decision in Spain’s Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. We hope he does. As this week’s miscarriage of justice plainly demonstrates, Spain still needs his help in keeping its judiciary fearless and independent. (end of editorial)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/opinion/a-chilling-verdict-in-spain.html?src=recg
Editorial
A Chilling Verdict in Spain
Published: February 10, 2012
Excerpt:
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?
Judge Garzón cannot appeal in the Spanish court system. But he can challenge this decision in Spain’s Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. We hope he does. As this week’s miscarriage of justice plainly demonstrates, Spain still needs his help in keeping its judiciary fearless and independent. (end of excerpt)
From the following interview:
REED BRODY: As well. He was the one who opened the investigation into Guantánamo. That investigation remains open, but the fact that the judge who opened the investigation is now being cast aside is a warning that Spain will tolerate only subservient judges.
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
(Video via above link.)
Spain’s most famous judge, Baltasar Garzón, has been disbarred for 11 years after being found guilty of ordering illegal monitoring. Garzón is known for taking on global human rights cases under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, with actions including ordering the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, indicting Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, and probing the abuse of U.S. prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. Garzón cannot appeal his disbarment, which effectively ends his career as a judge. We speak to Human Rights Watch’s Reed Brody, who observed Garzón’s trial in Madrid. Brody says the case marks “a massive attack on the independence of the judiciary and on a very brave judge.”
JUAN GONZALEZ: Spain’s most famous judge, Baltasar Garzón, known for ordering the arrest of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, was himself found guilty yesterday of authorizing illegal recordings between clients and their lawyers in a corruption case involving the Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s People’s Party. Spain’s Supreme Court has banned Garzón from the legal profession for 11 years, effectively ending his career as a judge. The court also said he could not appeal the ruling.
Some Madrid residents expressed disappointment at the outcome of the case.
PATRICIA: [translated] I think Garzón has done the best he can, and what he did, I think, is right. He didn’t do anything wrong. And whether he did or he didn’t, he is the only one to have ever done something for this country. So I think the decision is incorrect.
AMY GOODMAN: In addition to ordering Pinochet’s arrest, Judge Garzón used the doctrine of universal jurisdiction to investigate war crimes and torture across national lines, famously indicting Osama bin Laden and others of al-Qaeda in 2003, and opening an investigation into the potential criminal liability of Bush administration officials for acts of torture at Guantánamo.
Garzón still has two other cases pending against him, including allegedly exceeding his authority by investigating atrocities committed by supporters of the dictator Francisco Franco. The human rights crimes came during Franco’s reign from ’36 to 1975. More than 100,000 opponents of the regime were executed or disappeared. While prosecutors reportedly disagreed with the charges that Garzón had exceeded his authority, Spanish law allows civilians to lodge criminal charges.
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.
AMY GOODMAN: So what can’t he do right now? And we have less than a minute.
REED BRODY: Well, he can’t serve as a judge in Spain. And this is really—for him, that’s not—it’s not he who will suffer. It’s Spain. It’s all of those of us who look to the Spanish judiciary to take on the tough cases, to investigate Guantánamo, the Salvadoran and Argentinian and Chilean victims who went to the Spanish judiciary because there was a judge there willing to apply the law. And now that judge is being—
AMY GOODMAN: Bush administration officials being investigated for torture at Guantánamo?
REED BRODY: As well. He was the one who opened the investigation into Guantánamo. That investigation remains open, but the fact that the judge who opened the investigation is now being cast aside is a warning that Spain will tolerate only subservient judges.
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll leave it there. Reed Brody, we thank you very much for being with us, counsel and spokesperson for Human Rights Watch in Brussels, has been observing the trial of Judge Baltasar Garzón in Spain. Judge Baltasar Garzón has been convicted.
Garzón has definitely brought some very interesting points to light, however some comments may be a little off. Thank you for the article!
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
Torture crimes officially, permanently shielded
{Quote:
All of those efforts, culminating in yesterday’s entirely unsurprising announcement, means that the U.S. Government has effectively shielded itself from even minimal accountability for its vast torture crimes of the last decade. Without a doubt, that will be one of the most significant, enduring and consequential legacies of the Obama presidency.
End Quote}
Professor Turley,
By any chance, is there a transcript? (You’ve been gracious enough to provide the video, so I hate to ask…)
Refresh: Video is now posted.
Thanks for saying it so well, Gyges.
Like others, eagerly awaiting the interview…
Like FFLEO, I’m waiting with bated breath for the interview.
With all our talk about how few are paying attention to the wholesale ignoring of the rule of law in our country (and humanity as a whole, I think we should remember and thank those who are actively and passionately fighting that trend.
Looking forward to viewing the video.
Here’s a link to the judge’s interview on Democracy Now!
Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón on Holding Torturers Accountable, Why He Opposes the Killing of Osama bin Laden, and His Threatened Ouster from the Bench
(May 12, 2011)
Citing the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón has used the Spanish courts to investigate cases of torture, war crimes and other offenses around the world. In 1998, he ordered the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, a move that led to Pinochet’s arrest and detention in Britain. In 2003, Garzón indicted Osama bin Laden and dozens of other members of al-Qaeda. Garzón later attempted to indict six high-ranking members of the Bush administration for their role in authorizing torture at the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay and overseas, before the case was eventually dropped under U.S. pressure. While Garzón has long been one of the world’s most feared judges, he is now facing his own legal battle. Last year he was indicted for exceeding his authority for launching an investigation into the disappearance of more than 100,000 civilians at the hands of supporters of Gen. Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Garzón was suspended as a judge in May 2010 and is facing three separate trials.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/12/spanish_judge_baltasar_garzn_on_bin
A man with principles….lets see if he can put those principals in action…