The Buenos Aires bungle
While exactly what happened to Alberto Nisman is still a mystery, it looks less and less as if the present government was involved in his death, and more and more like the “plots” are all in the mind of the opposition and the U.S. media (and those that believe them):
Graciela Mochkofsky, in Jewish Daily Forward (via Portside):
I don’t know of anyone in Argentina who considered Nisman a hero before he was found dead in his apartment on January 18…
In 1997, when he first became involved in the case — known in Argentina by the JCC’s acronym, AMIA — Nisman was a young and ambitious prosecutor making a career in the newly inaugurated system of open trials.
His task was to make presentable the fabrication concocted by Judge Juan José Galeano. With forged evidence, Galeano and other authorities had accused a ring of corrupt police officers of being the “local connection” in the bombing.
The open trial began in 2001 and ended in disaster in 2004. The forgery was so apparent that it didn’t survive scrutiny. The policemen were exonerated. The judge, the prosecutors, the head of the intelligence service, a high-ranking police officer, former president Carlos Menem and the leader of the main political Jewish organization were eventually indicted for the cover-up (and are going to trial in a few months). Nisman somehow survived…
… according to numerous testimonies, he feared the government was going to remove him from his post, as part of a larger judicial reform. (Several of those reforms were introduced December 31, and that same day, Nisman changed his return ticket from Spain.)
The first judge who received Nisman’s accusation rejected it as baseless. The Jewish leadership refused to stand by him in parliament (they started supporting him post-mortem). The victim’s relatives’ associations rejected not only the accusation, but also Nisman himself: They had been asking for his removal from the case all along.
Several of the country’s most prominent jurists agreed that there was no evidence to prove that a crime of any kind had been committed. But with demonstrators in the streets paying homage to Nisman, federal prosecutor Gerardo Pollicita picked up the case and filed the accusation again.
On February 26, [Judge Daniel] Rafecas demolished it.
His 63-page dismissal is devastating: Not only was there “not even circumstantial evidence” of the alleged cover-up or obstruction of justice in Nisman’s last document, the judge wrote, but the evidence gathered by Nisman himself openly contradicted his accusations.
I believe the entire incident has been blown out of proportion, and the “internationalization” of the story has less to do with the murder mystery aspects than the more obvious motive that birds of a feather flock together… corporate media organizations and “vulture fund” managers being in the same flock, and the present Argentine administration … whatever its other faults, has been too aggressive in fighting against the assumption that it should take on debts run up by discredited previous regimes, and should be left to get its own economic house in order, than Wall Street would like.
With Cristina a “lame duck” president, and the possibility (which is probably remote) of a more corporate-compliant president to follow, it seems the U.S. (and its corporate media) has less incentive to create an image of a nation on the brink of collapse (as they did with Honduras before the coup, or Bolivia before the attempted “media luna” coup, or Paraguay before its “constitutional” coup… or…) and any domestic dispute will do.