A Sad Day For All Cristina Supporters...de Vido Detained

[Bajo_cero2]

Ben, i understood but the automatic corrector betrayed me.

As usual you do not understand the difference between having already Immunity against arrest and to do not meet the requirements to obtain it.

You cannot vote to send someone to jail unless there is no independecy between the branches of the State. The whole idea of justice is to be anti democratic. Simple enough for your understanding?


"You didn't reply my question: are you from Cuba?"

 

[julian63]

I agree with Bajo Cero.

In fact what I find interesting in this forum is how we expats, who mostly hail from the "developed" world, and could be expected to be well-versed in civic society values such as, for example, the separation of the powers, the presumption of innocence, the concept of 'sub judice' etc., seem quite happy to abandon them and 'go native' in our analysis of our adopted society.

Nobody seems to have any interest in discussing the merits or the facts of the cases. Instead, just like our Argentine neighbours, we get caught up in the whipped-up excitement of a photo of a handcuffed politician in a bullet-proof jacket and tin hat. Echoes of a 19th century Paris mob, or a Stalinist show trial.

The "cases?" Isn't this thread about the one case of De Vido? What other cases are you generalizing about in your condemnation of this expat readership's fact-ignoring, bloodthirsty quest for mob justice? In fact, I'm interested in discussing the merits of the De Vido case.

As pointed out above, the Congress voted (176 -0) to remove immunity from De Vido so he became subject to arrest. He was then arrested on charges of corruption. When there is a risk of flight, bail may be denied as it apparently has been in this case. The case will now proceed as any other criminal case. Am I missing something? Please give me the facts upon which you base your claim that support for De Vido's arrest is a case of a mob gone wild.

 

[julian63]

Ben, i understood but the automatic corrector betrayed me.

As usual you do not understand the difference between having already Immunity against arrest and to do not meet the requirements to obtain it.

You cannot vote to send someone to jail unless there is no independecy between the branches of the State. The whole idea of justice is to be anti democratic. Simple enough for your understanding?


"You didn't reply my question: are you from Cuba?"

You asked me if I were from Cuba. I don't see where you asked that of Ben. I am not from Cuba. Why would think that relevant ? Is there some point about justice in Cuba you think obvious? What is it?

I'm sorry, Bajo, your English is so poorly structured that it is confusing and therefor hard to comprehend what you mean. For example, what do you intend to mean with this phrase: "you do not understand the difference between having already Immunity against arrest and to do not meet the requirements to obtain it." How is the difference between "already having immunity and not meeting the requirements to obtain it" relevant to the De Vido case?

The Congress did not vote to send De Vido to jail. It voted to remove his immunity. A three judge panel ordered his arrest after he was stripped of immunity. What is it about that process that you find anti-democratic or unjust?

 

[julian63]

People must be arrested when they are sentenced. Where are you from? Cuba?

Wrong. You do not know the meaning of the word "arrest." To arrest is to take someone into custody, i.e., to limit their freedom. Persons suspected of a crime are first arrested and then appear before a judge to ascertain if bail is required or not. In certain cases bail is denied. The risk of flight is a circumstance for which bail may be denied. The suspect is therefor denied freedom pending his case coming to trial. Suspects in such cases have the right to a speedy trial, that is, a trial within a short time.

 

[notebook.fix]

Of what moral character must one be to be publicly supporting & defending a known criminal? ...oh I forgot, you're a lawyer.
At what point does one stop standing up for the morally reprehensible acts of a bunch of high profile criminals in suits?

We are talking major theft of public resources funneled out through a well planned & organised criminal enterprise ...what's there to protect Bajo?
Are you well connected enough to the inner circle ? Do you know something we don't?

 

[ben]

Of what moral character must one be to be publicly supporting & defending a known criminal? ...oh I forgot, you're a lawyer.
At what point does one stop morally defending the morally indefensible ?

We are talking major theft of public resources funneled out through a well planned criminal enterprise ...what's there to protect Bajo?

I have no objection to proper criminal procedure being followed, and insisted upon, even (and specifically) regarding known criminals. That is what sets apart, at least in theory, the justice system from a lynch mob. You can deride lawyers all you want, but this is why society insists on having lawyers. Otherwise presumption of innocence etc becomes an empty platitude.

To the extent that bajo is saying anything more than "K good, Macri bad/scary/rules Arg with iron fist", he is... wait, I'm not even sure what he is saying. As julian notes, the congress did not vote to jail De Vido, they couldn't do that even if they wanted to. They voted to strip him of immunity (a step which, say in the US would not even be necessary - in the US, congressional immunity is limited to very nearly nothing). With an ample majority, including members of his own party. He was then exposed to the normal justice process.

Is bajo objecting to the fact that judges can order the arrest an elected deputy? Is he objecting to the fact that judges can request that Congress strip a member of immunity? Is he simply saying that nothing will be fair in court so long as Macri is president (which, if said in court, could expose him to sanctions)? Which is it? How does bajo propose to deal with allegation of wrongdoing by a lawmaker? Just do nothing?

 

[Mitch]

Of what moral character must one be to be publicly supporting & defending a known criminal? ...oh I forgot, you're a lawyer.
At what point does one stop standing up for the morally reprehensible acts of a bunch of high profile criminals in suits?

We are talking major theft of public resources funneled out through a well planned & organised criminal enterprise ...what's there to protect Bajo?
Are you well connected enough to the inner circle ? Do you know something we don't?

I more than like this one. If we lose a certain poster we will know. Or can you post from jail?

 

[julian63]

In the US criminal justice system (with which I am passingly familiar) a person may be held in contempt of court for willful nondisclosure of information known to him relevant to the commission of a crime by others. He may be given immunity for certain related crimes if need be to avoid the right against self-incrimination. Incarceration for continued contempt of court is allowable...forever, if need be under the right (egregious) circumstances.

De Vido, whether or not liable for a separate crime himself, should be made to disclose what he knows about the K's and others corruption even if it means he gets immunity or partial immunity for all or some of his own related crimes. It is not unusual for the first partner in crime to be caught to be the first to turn on his other partners in order to get the best shot at leniency. Subsequently arrested partners in crime may not be so lucky. The decisions about immunity and leniency are discretionary with the state's prosecuting attorneys.

 

[julian63]

You can deride lawyers all you want, but this is why society insists on having lawyers. Otherwise presumption of innocence etc becomes an empty platitude.

True. Not only presumption of innocence, but the exercise/maintenance of civil and often human rights as well. Everyone likes to make fun of lawyers until they need one. Bajo may do laudable work for his clients and even for society in general (as he earlier alluded to working to limit human trafficking). I don't criticize him because he is a lawyer. I criticize his comments here because they at so often absurd.
p.s. Q: Why are there so few lawyers at the beach? A: Because the cats keeping trying to cover them up with sand.

 

[notebook.fix]

A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl’s grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked, “Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?”
“Of course not, dear,” replied the mother, “Why would you think that?”
“The tombstone back there said… ‘Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.'”