Nisman Dead!

[Bajo_cero2]

I hate to say this but I am going to. I have lost all respect for Argentina you deserve the hell you live in. Thank God we expats can just walk away when we need to.

Jajajaja, Presidents cannot be arrested nowhere...are you planning to move on to the califato? They do not have Presidents there but you can lose your head on tv.

 

[rrptownley]

Some of the foreign articles published today state how a sitting Argentine president can be impeached under approval from a judge, but they did not add any details:

WSJ

A request for the arrest of a sitting president, which would have required approval from a judge, would have been unprecedented in modern Argentina. Prosecutors said on Tuesday it was unlikely a judge would have approved the request.

The Guardian

Nisman lacked the power to order her arrest himself, but he planned to petition Judge Ariel Lijo to order the president’s detention once she was impeached by Congress – as he expected would occur once his charges became public.

Bajo_cero2, could you link to the legislature about impeachment in Argentina?

 

[ben]

I do think the part about arresting a sitting president is legal sophistry.

It may well be true that a sitting president cannot be arrested, but that hardly means that abuses of power are irrelevant, and therefore - it is implied - need not, or must not be looked into.

Surely there is a process for impeachment. And assuming that the abuses in question are both true and scandalous enough to warrant impeachment, or a public outcry large enough to force political change, there is a strong argument to be made for the imperative, moral if not legal, to bring these to light.

To keep the conversation limited to remedies and/or penalties, or lack thereof, is to give no regard to the societal and moral underpinnings of the legal system. Legal loopholes are more forgivable or even appropriate when defending a common crook, less so when discussing those who hold the highest office and power in the land, and the abuse thereof.

 

[nicoenarg]

Some of the foreign articles published today state how a sitting Argentine president can be impeached under approval from a judge, but they did not add any details:

WSJ

The Guardian


Bajo_cero2, could you link to the legislature about impeachment in Argentina?

Perhaps the following articles from the Constitution are relevant:

Artículo 53.- Sólo ella ejerce el derecho de acusar ante el Senado al presidente, vicepresidente, al jefe de gabinete de ministros, a los ministros y a los miembros de la Corte Suprema, en las causas de responsabilidad que se intenten contra ellos, por mal desempeño o por delito en el ejercicio de sus funciones; o por crímenes comunes, después de haber conocido de ellos y declarado haber lugar a la formación de causa por la mayoría de dos terceras partes de sus miembros presentes.

Artículo 59.- Al Senado corresponde juzgar en juicio público a los acusados por la Cámara de Diputados, debiendo sus miembros prestar juramento para este acto. Cuando el acusado sea el presidente de la Nación, el Senado será presidido por el presidente de la Corte Suprema. Ninguno será declarado culpable sino a mayoría de los dos tercios de los miembros presentes.

Artículo 60.- Su fallo no tendrá más efecto que destituir al acusado, y aún declararle incapaz de ocupar ningún empleo de honor, de confianza o a sueldo en la Nación. Pero la parte condenada quedará, no obstante, sujeta a acusación, juicio y castigo conforme a las leyes ante los tribunales ordinarios.

Artículo 69.- Ningún senador o diputado, desde el día de su elección hasta el de su cese, puede ser arrestado; excepto el caso de ser sorprendido in fraganti en la ejecución de algún crimen que merezca pena de muerte, infamante, u otra aflictiva; de lo que se dará cuenta a la Cámara respectiva con la información sumaria del hecho.

Artículo 70.- Cuando se forme querella por escrito ante las justicias ordinarias contra cualquier senador o diputado, examinado el mérito del sumario en juicio público, podrá cada Cámara, con dos tercios de votos, suspender en sus funciones al acusado, y ponerlo a disposición del juez competente para su juzgamiento.

Its misleading to say the President just can't be arrested but Bajo_cero2 is correct in that while the President is acting as President, he or she is immune, so is everyone else from the executive branch (that's why there was a move to impeach Boudou last year, which obviously failed). Once they're impeached however, following the process laid out in the Constitution (if I understand it correctly), then they can be charged and tried and arrested just like any other ordinary citizen.

Immunity for Presidents or heads of state is normal. It has nothing to do with corruption or abuse of power. Imagine a scenario where they are not immune, any Joe who's not happy with the President or their party can bring charges against them and keep dragging them to court. It would be a mess and no one would be able to run the country (whether you like how they run it or not is a different matter).

Anyway, Nisman didn't blindly say "I wanna arrest the president right NOW!". His thought process was in line with the Constitution where he knew and outlined the impeachment process that he hoped was going to take place after which the President (or ex President at that time) could be arrested. He references the relevant articles of the Constitution in his paper. The government and pro government outlets, on the other hand, are trying to make it sound like he (or according to them, whoever wrote the documents) had no idea that the President can't be arrested, which obviously is not the case but like in so many other things, even in this case whoever is the loudest is the one being heard, facts be damned.

Anyway, with all that said, this is obviously just my opinion, I am no lawyer so I could be interpreting this incorrectly.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

I hate to say this but I am going to. I have lost all respect for Argentina you deserve the hell you live in. Thank God we expats can just walk away when we need to.

Spoken like a true PermaTourist! Please wipe your feet next time before entering Argentina. You're tracking sh*t all over!

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

One man's hell...

 

[ElQueso]

Jajajaja, Presidents cannot be arrested nowhere...are you planning to move on to the califato? They do not have Presidents there but you can lose your head on tv.

Weeellll...not quite true. I don't know about other countries, but the president in the US can be arrested. That office has no immunity from criminal charges as he is known and acknowledged to be a person like every other in the country. There are rules about who can arrest him and how, and the reality may be different if the president were to actually do something illegal enough for someone to go after him with criminal charges, but the president (nor congressmen, nor court members at any level) has no immunity and can indeed be arrested.

This was something that really surprised me when I learned that politicians here (and other countries in South America, at least) have immunity at least while in office. At the very least, makes it easier to do their looting and skip town at the end of their term if need be...maybe if they were concerned about being arrested while in office there'd be at least a little less corruption?

 

[Matt84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_immunity#France

 

[sesamosinsal]

We shouldn't be asking whether CFK could be arrested, but rather what evidence would justify her arrest.

Of course, that wouldn't exactly allow the media to push its agenda because so far there is no evidence.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Some of the foreign articles published today state how a sitting Argentine president can be impeached under approval from a judge, but they did not add any details:

WSJ

The Guardian


Bajo_cero2, could you link to the legislature about impeachment in Argentina?

http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/cecap/reglamento/adicion.htm

They need 2/3 of the votes for a juicio politico. It is pure smoke.