New York, 14 novembre – “Se fossi io l’avvocato difensore io direi, ‘tutte le prove sono state ottenute con le torture’ e chiederei che non vengano ammesse”.
Così Steven Wax, avvocato dell’Oregon che difende sette detenuti di Guantanamo, sintetizza con il New York Times l’incognita e la sfida principale che dovrà affrontare il dipartimento di Giustizia processando in una corte federale di New York Khalid Shaik Mohammed, l’uomo ritenuto l’architetto degli attentati dell’11 settembre. E che dal momento della sua cattura in Pakistan nel 2003 ha subito, come ha ammesso lo stesso governo, per 183 volte il waterboarding, la tortura del semi annegamento.
(Adnkronos)
Giustizia?!?
novembre 14, 2009 di byebyeunclesam
5 Risposte
Lascia un Commento
Proclama Italia
-
Post più letti
- Dietro le quinte di Hollywood
- Lotta Continua e la "pratica" Feltrinelli&Calabresi
- Il ministro Brunetta nel mirino di Al Qaeda
- La sovranità europea finisce a Cipro
- Niscemi, il MUOS e l'egemonia globale statunitense
- Missione di Pace
- Gli "effetti" Lince in Afghanistan
- Biglietto da visita - About this blog
- Il Piano Marshall e la "NATO culturale"
- John Hopkins University, Bologna: studiare, e non solo
-
Commenti recenti
Categorie
- ENGLISH CORNER (6)
- e/afghanistan (1)
- e/italia (2)
- e/nato-amerika (3)
- VERSIONE ITALIANA (998)
- abu omar (9)
- afghanistan (96)
- africa (36)
- ags sigonella (10)
- amarcord (5)
- asia centrale (3)
- balcani (31)
- camorrista nato (5)
- casi d'intelligence (48)
- caucaso (10)
- dal molin vicenza (41)
- difesa/offesa (6)
- estremo oriente (10)
- europa-eurasia (36)
- f-35 (20)
- guantanamo & co. (13)
- hollywood (10)
- italia (239)
- italiani pericolosi (8)
- muos niscemi (17)
- nato-amerika (220)
- pesc-pesd (19)
- russia (11)
- scudo antimissile (10)
- Uncategorized (5)
- vicino e medio oriente (63)
- video (18)
- ENGLISH CORNER (6)
Tag
Archivi
- maggio 2012 (8)
- aprile 2012 (8)
- marzo 2012 (18)
- febbraio 2012 (15)
- gennaio 2012 (12)
- dicembre 2011 (10)
- novembre 2011 (13)
- ottobre 2011 (22)
- settembre 2011 (22)
- agosto 2011 (16)
- luglio 2011 (18)
- giugno 2011 (23)
- maggio 2011 (19)
- aprile 2011 (17)
- marzo 2011 (18)
- febbraio 2011 (17)
- gennaio 2011 (18)
- dicembre 2010 (20)
- novembre 2010 (20)
- ottobre 2010 (21)
- settembre 2010 (18)
- agosto 2010 (15)
- luglio 2010 (21)
- giugno 2010 (23)
- maggio 2010 (21)
- aprile 2010 (19)
- marzo 2010 (17)
- febbraio 2010 (20)
- gennaio 2010 (25)
- dicembre 2009 (26)
- novembre 2009 (30)
- ottobre 2009 (24)
- settembre 2009 (17)
- agosto 2009 (17)
- luglio 2009 (14)
- giugno 2009 (19)
- maggio 2009 (15)
- aprile 2009 (24)
- marzo 2009 (25)
- febbraio 2009 (24)
- gennaio 2009 (20)
- dicembre 2008 (22)
- novembre 2008 (20)
- ottobre 2008 (26)
- settembre 2008 (20)
- agosto 2008 (17)
- luglio 2008 (26)
- giugno 2008 (25)
- maggio 2008 (24)
- aprile 2008 (23)
- marzo 2008 (31)
- febbraio 2008 (1)
E-mail
Il metodo
Il metodo 2°
Gli Spiriti Guida
Avvertenza
Attestazioni di stima
D’accordo con Steven Wax.
un milione a soldato
(AGI) – New York, 14 nov. – A rallentare la scelta di Barack Obama su quanti soldati inviare di rinforzo in Afghanistan incide anche il fattore costi. Secondo quanto rivela il New York Times, citando fonti dell’amministrazione, il ‘surge’ chiesto dal generale Stanley McChrystal (40.000 militari in piu’) e’ stimato in 40-54 miliardi di dollari l’anno in piu’, basandosi sul calcolo che ogni soldato in zona di guerra costa complessivamente un milione di dollari l’anno.
non chiude Guantanamo,
non interrompe le extraordinary renditions,
non mette sotto processo i responsabili delle torture praticate in Iraq ed Afghanistan,
ed ora promulga anche una legge che consente al Pentagono di impedire – a sua incondizionata discrezione – la diffusione delle immagini fotografiche (oltre 2.000, secondo alcune fonti) delle torture stesse:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has used powers granted to him by a controversial new law to block the court-ordered release of numerous photos of detainee abuse, government lawyers revealed in a court filing [PDF] Friday evening.
Gates’ new authority comes from a law, signed by President Barack Obama last month, that gives the Secretary of Defense the power to rule that photos of detainees are exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. Gates’ action on Friday was the first use of the new FOIA exemption since it passed Congress last month. The photos in question are the subject of a years-long legal fight by the American Civil Liberties Union, which first filed a FOIA request for records pertaining to detainee treatment, rendition, and death in May of 2005. The case is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
(…)
The new exemption’s requirements are stunningly lax. In order to withhold the photos, Gates simply had to certify, as he did in the court filing, that “public disclosure of these photographs would endanger citizens of the United States, members of the United States Armed Forces, or employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States.” In other words, their release had to endanger someone, somewhere. And in the unlikely event that Gates had to stretch the truth to make that certification, it wouldn’t matter, since there’s no provision in the law that allows any court to review Gates’ determination or rule on whether it was truthful.
(…)
The new FOIA exemption that the Obama White House sought and obtained has one obvious result: shielding evidence of government lawbreaking, abuse, and torture under the Bush administration from public scrutiny. So much for Obama’s claim that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” There’s a name for what the Obama administration did on Friday. It’s called a coverup.
Gates Bars Torture Photos’ Release,
di Nick Baumann
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/gates-bars-torture-photos-release
Il processo al reo confesso che annegava sei volte al giorno,
di Pino Cabras
http://www.megachipdue.info/component/content/article/42-in-evidenza/1190-il-processo-al-reo-confesso-che-annegava-sei-volte-al-giorno.html
Liberals have not done enough public wrestling with Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf’s Time article on the ouster of White House counsel Gregory Craig. Perhaps that’s because they don’t want to deal with the article’s troubling implications. As Kevin explains, Craig was “the White House lawyer tasked with dismantling Bush-era interrogation and detention policies. At first, Obama was on board with Craig’s plans. Then, reality set in.”
By “reality,” Kevin presumably means “political reality.” Time says that as soon as Obama’s positions on Bush era torture—releasing the torture photos, for example—became politically difficult, the president jettisoned them. He did this despite the fact that he had been “prepared to accept — and had even okayed” those same positions “just weeks earlier”:
First to go was the release of the pictures of detainee abuse. Days later, Obama sided against Craig again, ending the suspension of Bush’s extrajudicial military commissions. The following week, Obama pre-empted an ongoing debate among his national-security team and embraced one of the most controversial of Bush’s positions: the holding of detainees without charges or trial, something he had promised during the campaign to reject.
But perhaps the most damning part of the Time piece is this sentence, near the beginning, that summarizes exactly what has happened in Obama’s White House:
[Obama] quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right.
Take a minute to think about how the left would respond to this if Obama was a Republican president. Obama delegated the responsibility for determining what to do about detainees to his political advisers. If George W. Bush had charged his political advisers, including Karl Rove, with crafting such policy, the entire blogosphere would have melted down from outrage overload.
Obama’s actions here are deeply at odds with the public image he cultivated during his campaign—idealist, civil libertarian, constitutional law professor, someone who rose above politics. You can claim that the president is a “pragmatist,” and always has been, but Obama draped himself in idealism and principle during the campaign. The left always complained that Bush let politics drive his policy decisions. But in this instance, couldn’t Obama be accused of the same thing?
Gitmo Politics in Obama’s White House,
di Nick Baumann
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/detainee-politics-obama-white-house?