Baltasar Garzon goes around the bend and off the deep end, once again

[struggle4progress]

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will appeal to the International Court of Justice if Britain blocks his exit to Ecuador, renowned Spanish rights lawyer Baltasar Garzon says.

Garzon, who is helping Assange's defence, told Spanish newspaper El Pais that Britain had a legal obligation to allow his client to leave the country once Ecuador granted him diplomatic asylum.

'What the United Kingdom must do is apply the diplomatic obligations of the Refugee Convention and let him leave, giving him safe conduct,' the former judge said.

'Otherwise, we will go to the International Court of Justice' ...

ICJ for Assange if Britain blocks exit
Friday, August 17, 2012 » 03:40am
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/08/17/ICJ_for_Assange_if_Britain_blocks_exit_784617.html

[lightcameron]

1. Ha! Good luck with that, Balty!

[The Magistrate]

2. You Are A Little Unclear On what Lawyers Do, Sir, It Seems

He is engaged in strenuous advocacy for his client. That is what he is supposed to do.

[xchrom]

3. +1

[struggle4progress]

4. I think I'll go with "Baltasar wistfully remembers the footlights" for $100, Alex

[The Magistrate]

5. You Might First, Sir, Try Reading the Document Referenced

His interpretation is a bit of a stretch, but not nearly so much of one as you and the O.P. seem to believe. It would turn on whether by applying for and gaining asylum, Mr. Assange then comes into the standing of a stateless refugee ( I have no idea whether he has given up Australia nationality ). If he does, there are some pretty explicitly worded articles of the convention to which appeal could be made within the bounds of reason.

[struggle4progress]

6. Oh, I did. Article 1 Section F

... The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that :.. (b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge ...

[The Magistrate]

7. You Need To Wade All the Way Through It, Sir: There Is a Good Deal More

And also to appreciate what 'serious reasons' might mean: it is quite likely that the state of play regarding Mr. assange falls well short of that threshold., since he is wanted only for questioning, without charges being filed, let alone an indictment in place.

It is not my contention the good Spaniard is correct, mind, but only that his position is one that is well within bounds of reasonable interpretation, and could certainly be argued with a straight face.

[struggle4progress]

8. Assange and Refugees: A Quick Guide

[The Magistrate]

9. Your Confession Of Ignorance Regarding The Law Is Accepted, Sir

It is obvious you have nothing but a hope of emotional manipulation to carry your side of this. It is so far short of what is necessary there is little point, and less sport, in continuing to engage you.

[struggle4progress]

10. ... "Julian Assange is an Australian citizen ... if he wants consular support, it's offered,

it's available," Mr Burke told the Seven Network on Friday.

"The offer of consular assistance is still there."

Mr Burke said Mr Assange had not contacted Australian diplomatic officials ...

Consular help available to Assange: govt
From: AAP
August 17, 2012 8:28AM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/consular-help-available-to-assange-govt/story-e6freono-1226452285430

Assange as a poor stateless refugee won't fly any better anywhere than any of his other hallucinatory theories

[The Magistrate]

11. That, Sir, Is Not The Test: By Calling The Claim 'Hallucinatory' You Discredit Only Yourself

Again, it is not my view Sr. Garzon is necessarily correct, only that his argument is not without some footing and reasonableness, when the actual document referenced is consulted. When you have read the treaty, sufficiently to be able to point out articles on which he is probably basing this contention, you may be able to make a comment worth answering to.

[Puregonzo1188]

12. Off the deep end? Again? Do you know anything about Baltasar Garzon?

He is one of the most courageous crusaders for human rights and international law in sometime, having gone after the Bush regime for torture, and finally after the crimes of the Franco Regime (which have been dubbed by one of the world's leading historians on the subject a Holocaust FYI).

Ecuador has granted Assange asylum status and the British are threatening to storm the embassy--something that has never been done before.

And yet it's Garzon whose off the deep end?

[struggle4progress]

13. I admired Garzon in his heyday, without knowing very much about him. Sadly,

his recent blather about Assange does not suggest that Garzon is currently a competent jurist: it rather suggests that he is something of a blowhard, eager for the limelight

[Puregonzo1188]

14. You don't think he's motivated by a genuine humanitarian concern? What about Assange's other lawyer

like Michael Ratner and the Center for Constitutional Rights which led the way on defending the rights of Gitmo prisoners when no one else would?

You're going to have to dismiss a lot of people.

[backscatter712]

15. You sound just like a teabagger.

Are you sure you're on the right web site?

I thought only right-wing authoritarian types made these kinds of attacks against civil-rights lawyers. Perhaps tomorrow, you're going to go rant against the ACLU?

[struggle4progress]

16. What you are trying to say, I think, is that I do not agree with you, and you do not like that

It's really just shameful sophistry for Garzon to suggest that Assange is covered by the convention on refugees: that convention is intended to protect actual refugees, not wealthy playboys who simply enjoy thumbing their noses at people

I had thought better of Garzon. I am disappointed

[sabrina 1]

17. No, it is not. And frankly I will take Garzon's opinion over someone who has demonstrated

such a lack of knowledge of the law and of human rights issues, any day.

The Australian Government has aligned itself with those in the US Government who have called Assange a 'terrorist'. Gillard has been exposed as a puppet of the US Government and has been condemned for her comments regarding this case to the point where she has been forced to try to extricate her enormous foot from her own mouth.

She has made a return to Australia, or to its embassy impossible for Assange by her own stupid words. Every legal entity in Australia has condemned her comments in this case. She has made it clear that Assange cannot trust his own government, and just about everyone with any knowledge of the law understands this.

Gaston is a brilliant legal mind. He obviously is far more informed about these matters than you are. And I believe he may be correct. He has of course been smeared by the far right for his courage in trying to bring US War Criminals to justice, and of course he is still hated by Pinochet's far right minions. But from the pov of normal people, the man is a hero and extremely well informed on legal matters, particularly in the area of human rights.

You really are trying too hard and sabotaging your own 'case' as anyone paying attention would have realized by now.

[struggle4progress]

18. Assange refused offer of assistance from Australia

Updated 18 August 2012, 14:46 AEST

The Australian Government has confirmed it has had contact with Julian Assange while he has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Foreign Minister Bob Carr's office says consular officials have spoken with the WikiLeak's founder on eight occasions.

The last conversation was less than two days ago, just before Ecuador granted him asylum.

A spokesman for Senator Carr says Mr Assange was offered consular assistance, but he thanked them and declined the offer ...

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-08-18/assange-refused-offer-of-assistance-from-australia/1001616

[sabrina 1]

19. Some of Australia's

own elected officials have slammed the current puppet government for its treatment of Assange, so sorry, Assange has every reason not to trust Gillard and her government, after her shameful remarks at the beginning of the case.

Australia has provided no assistance to him. Chatting with some people in an embassy about the weather, in order to help the disastrous Australian Govt save face, or put up a pretense to appease their many, many critics, does not constitute assistance.

The remarks made by Gillard are all that is needed to show what side she is on, and it is definitely not this Australian Citizen. She and her government have been widely condemned around the world for their betrayal of one of their own citizens, but then she is a puppet after all, nothing surprising about a puppet dancing on its strings for his Corporate masters.