Is The New York Times in favor of Guantanamo?

 (¿Es el New York Times partidario de Guantánamo?)

 

The campaign of this prestigious media against the Spanish Supreme Court, the proceedings against Baltasar Garzon and subsequent conviction, leads us to wonder whether, in cases of infringement of the rights of defense in Guantanamo Bay, this newspaper has defended the U.S. government. If this has been, also understand that defends the actions of the Spanish judge accused.

But the impression is that the NYT supports prisoners the American camp in Cuba to defend themselves in court, with full guarantees. And one of those guarantees is that their lawyers can communicate with them without being spied on by judges and prosecutors. Why then deny that right to Spanish citizens, be they politicians or are not?

I do not know if ignorance is the mother of all evils, but in the case of the medium above, and others that the world is, does a great disservice to truth and justice. The judgment is available on the Web and presumably foreign newspapers have who understands Spanish. If so in the case of the NYT, could see how the judge deliberately spied accused defense lawyers without legal reason for it.

Page 54 of the judgment, it shows how the defendant's conduct, characterized by the complete lack of evidence against the lawyers, as has been stated and proven, could never have been covered in these rules. Rules that allow tracks when the lawyer is involved in the plot investigated.

Baltasar Garzon defender argued that such eavesdropping had occurred in other processes, to which the Supreme Court found on page 57, that it should be noted that the jurisprudence of this Court do not see a similar case in which, without any evidence against the lawyers, they have been for the judge to hear and record communications between them and their clients in the prison in which they are deprived of their liberty. No, therefore, a valid term of comparison. And we can not draw conclusions from other possible scenarios put forward, as they have not been considered by this Court, that has not been pronounced, and factual elements are unknown. Neither the defendant has provided another case in which you come to this practice, though it is marked his speech in the preliminary investigation of complex cases, over an extended period of time.

Finally, the Supreme Court on this page and the next, rejected the judge's action is an accidental mistake: This is not, therefore, of an accidental access to the content of communications with defense counsel produced in the framework of a general intervention, but a court order, concrete and specific, directly aimed at those involved precise communications, in the absence of other data would cover how it exercised the right of defense. This is not only the wording of the first of the resolutions, but also the attitude of the defendant, that the check had been involved communications between each prisoner and his defense counsel, whether appointed lawyers after the agreement and unknown the case until then, far to revoke its decision or qualify it in some way, agreed to extend it to maintain the same terms as the first. It argues that no telephone communications involved lawyers. True, but what such a thing shows is that there was no evidence against them. In spite of this, communication between the prisoners and their advocates, were operated.

The New York Times should realize that from this judgment of our Supreme Court, the judges will think long before spy on the conversations of the accused with defense lawyers. If some offenders are released by the disastrous instruction of Judge Baltasar Garzon, is a lesser evil, and also may not be the first time this has happened in his court. Another thing is that this American newspaper does not want to know the truth. As an old Spanish proverb: there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Pepe de Brantuas. February 2012, in Spain.