ACLU Files First-Ever Challenge to USA PATRIOT Act, Citing Radical Expansion of FBI Powers
July 30, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DETROIT – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed the first legal challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, taking aim at a section of the controversial law that vastly expands the power of FBI agents to secretly obtain records and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States, including citizens and permanent residents.
“Ordinary Americans should not have to worry that the FBI is rifling through their medical records, seizing their personal papers, or forcing charities and advocacy groups to divulge membership lists,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU and the lead attorney in the lawsuit.
“We know from our clients that the FBI is once again targeting ethnic, religious, and political minority communities disproportionately,” she added. “Investing the FBI with unchecked authority to monitor the activities of innocent people is an invitation to abuse, a waste of resources, and is certainly not making any of us any safer.”
As the ACLU described in a report released today, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as the rights to freedom of speech and association. The report, Unpatriotic Acts: The FBI’s Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You, describes how the law:
Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the FBI to search and seize records or personal belongings without a warrant, without showing probable cause -- and without ever notifying even innocent people of the searches;
Violates the First Amendment because it allows the FBI to easily obtain information about a person’s reading habits, religious affiliations, Internet surfing and other expressive activities that would be “chilled” by the threat of investigation;
Violates the First Amendment by imposing a “gag order” that prohibits those served with Section 215 orders from telling anyone -- ever -- that the FBI demanded information, even if the information is not tied to a particular suspect and poses no risk to national security.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in federal court here today on behalf of six advocacy and community groups from across the country whose members and clients believe they are currently the targets of investigations because of their ethnicity, religion and political associations. The lawsuit names Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller as the defendants.
The groups participating in the lawsuit are: Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA), which operates a mosque and school in Ann Arbor, MI; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a national civil rights organization based in Washington, DC; Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), a human services organization based in Dearborn, MI that operates a medical clinic as well as a center for refugees and torture victims; Bridge Refugee and Sponsorship Services (“Bridge”), based in Knoxville, TN; Council on American-Islamic Relations, a grassroots membership organization based in Washington, DC; and The Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber, which operates a mosque and school, based in Portland, OR.
Mary Lieberman, executive director of Bridge, was approached twice by FBI agents seeking information about Iraqi refugees. The second time, the FBI served Bridge with a subpoena for all records relating to its Iraqi clients.
“Many of our Iraqi clients were granted asylum here because they helped the American military during Desert Storm and were then persecuted by Saddam Hussein,” Lieberman said. “It is unacceptable that the United States government is now treating them like criminals and terrorists.”
Because the FBI subpoena served on Bridge was not issued under the PATRIOT Act, Bridge was able to fight it in court. However, Lieberman said she is concerned that the FBI could return with a PATRIOT Act order that she and her staff could not challenge or even discuss publicly.
Nazih Hassan, president of MCA of Ann Arbor, said that the leadership of his local mosque has been vocal in its criticism of the wide net that has been cast over the Muslim community. “We are very concerned that the FBI is investigating us because of our political activities even though we have done nothing wrong,” he said.
In addition to litigation, the ACLU is supporting coalitions around the country that are working to adopt community resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act. To date, 143 communities in 27 states have passed such resolutions and dozens more are preparing to do so.
Lawmakers of all political stripes have finally begun to reconsider controversial portions of the PATRIOT Act. Just last week, an overwhelming majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to bar the Department of Justice from executing “sneak and peek” searches in criminal investigations. That particular PATRIOT Act provision allowed the government to secretly search people’s homes or offices without telling them until weeks later.
Significantly, the launch of the ACLU’s suit coincides with a Justice Department public forum set for tonight at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit. The event appears to be a strategy by the Justice Department to ease rising public concern about its use of the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 anti-civil liberties measures.
As at similar events around the country, protesters are expected at the forum. The ACLU will also hold a media availability outside the forum venue featuring one of the litigators in the PATRIOT lawsuit and members of the state affiliate. Michigan Rep. John Conyers (D) -- one of the main opponents of the Justice Department’s expanded surveillance and enforcement powers -- is expected to attend.
In addition to Beeson, attorneys in the case are Jameel Jaffer of the national ACLU and Michael Steinberg, Noel Saleh and Kary Moss of the ACLU of Michigan.
Fondé au XIXe siècle par des colons afro-américains encouragés par des sociétés philantropiques, le Liberia fut la première république indépendante d'Afrique noire, mais les antagonismes entre immigrés et autochtones sont encore plus violents qu'en Sierra Leone. Les premières installations, financées par la Société américaine de colonisation, commencèrent en 1822 et les colonies côtières fédérées dans un Commonwealth du Liberia (sauf le Maryland) s'octroyèrent le monopole du commerce extérieur. En 1847, lors de l'indépendance, tout opposait déjà la minorité américano-libérienne aux autres groupes écartés du pouvoir et de l'accès aux richesses.
Thèmes associés
En 1980, lorsqu'un coup d'État militaire fit tomber la caste régnante, environ 300 familles dominant 80 000 descendants d'immigrants, la minorité enrichie laissait un pays totalement soumis aux États-Unis, y compris dans ses représentations symboliques (nom de la capitale, drapeau), sa monnaie et ses institutions. Le régime militaire et le Conseil populaire de rédemption qui avaient succédé, en 1980, au pouvoir afro-américain du président Tolbert ont disparu dans la tourmente d'une sanglante guerre civile déclenchée en 1990 entre plusieurs factions rebelles, organisées sur des bases culturelles et régionales, et un gouvernement intérimaire.
Internationalisés à l'échelle ouest-africaine, les affrontements ont provoqué l'intervention des "casques blancs" de la Force ouest africaine d'interposition (ECOMOG), 7 000 hommes mandatés par la Communauté économique des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest (CEDEAO) pour empêcher les massacres, mais ces derniers n'ont pu être évités et, jusqu'en 1993, les habitants de Monrovia n'ont survécu qu'avec l'aide alimentaire de l'ONU. Selon l'accord de paix du 25 juillet 1993, des institutions de transition devaient préparer des élections prévues pour 1994. Une série d'accords mort-nés n'a pu empêcher la reprise des combats et en 1996, Monrovia, capitale d'un pays ruiné et livré au pillage, était de nouveau en état de siège.
E' il simbolo indiscusso dell’America, con un celebre logo e un sapore inconfondibile. Ma la Coca Cola adesso è accusata di crimini di lesa umanità, per i quali pende un processo penale a suo carico. Ed è il bersaglio di una campagna di boicottaggio internazionale che parte il 22 luglio, con manifestazioni un po’ ovunque in giro per il mondo.
La multinazionale americana produttrice della bevanda analcolica più famosa del mondo è stata denunciata nel luglio 2002 dal sindacato colombiano Sinaltrainal, che presento' presso la Corte del Distretto Sud della Florida una denuncia formale per chiederne l'incriminazione, facendo leva su una vecchia legge del Congresso del 1789, chiamata Acta (Alien Torts Claim Acts), che formalmente serviva a tutelare l'immagine della nuova democrazia nascente da eventuali crimini commessi dai suoi cittadini all'estero. Oggi la battaglia penale contro la Coca Cola è in corso: il 31 Marzo 2003 il giudice della Corte Federale di Atlanta, Josè E. Martinez, ha deciso che il procedimento penale per violazione dei diritti umani puo' andare avanti.
Essere responsabile e mandante delle persecuzioni compiute in Colombia materialmente dai gruppi paramilitari e che negli ultimi dieci anni hanno prodotto svariati morti, oltre a decine di sindacalisti rapiti e torturati: è questa l'accusa grave e pesante che incombe sulla Coca Cola. In particolare, il Sinaltrainal ha denunciato solo nel 2002 l’assassinio di 65 sindacalisti, il sequestro e la sparizione di 75 persone, 39 attentati. Queste azioni continue, portate avanti con la complicità delle forze armate e dei corpi di sicurezza dello Stato - sostiene il sindacato colombiano -, servirebbero alla multinazionale e alla sua filiale colombiana per far pressione illegalmente sui dirigenti sindacali, obbligare i lavoratori a lasciare l'organizzazione che difende i loro diritti, rinunciare ai loro contratti di lavoro, per imporre cos? salari più bassi ai nuovi assunti.
La situazione dei sindacati nelle imprese colombiane della Coca-Cola si inserisce in un contesto ancora più drammatico di vera e propria guerra e sterminio: la Colombia è diventata un modello per l'uso estremo della violenza usata per imporre i modelli neoliberali. Indigeni, contadini, operai vengono assassinati perché si oppongono alle pretese degli investitori.
Ma i crimini della Coca Cola - dicono i promotori della campagna di boicottaggio internazionale - non si limitano alla sola Colombia: anche in altri paesi – come Guatemala, Filippine, Pakistan, India, Israele, Venezuela - il movimento sociale ha accusato la multinazionale di utilizzare, direttamente o attraverso le sue filiali, l'assassinio, la violenza, la corruzione, la violazione delle leggi sul lavoro, per raggiungere i suoi fini economici. Discriminazione razziale, attentati contro la salute pubblica, danni ambientali, contaminazione genetica e inquinamento dell'acqua sono i crimini che vengono attribuiti alla Coca Cola.
Il boicottaggio internazionale, lanciato anch’esso dal Sinaitrainal, si inserisce nel quadro della Campagna Internazionale “Contro l'impunità Colombia Esige Giustizia”. Le iniziative vanno dal non consumare prodotti della multinazionale (non solo Coca Cola ma anche Fanta, Sprite, Nestea, Bonaqua, Kinley, Beverly, Minute Maid), al ritiro dei conti correnti dalle banche dove questa è presente, dalle iniziativa di mobilitazione e protesta a tutte quelle azioni che costringano la Coca Cola a riparare integralmente i danni causati fino a modificare la sua politica verso il rispetto dei diritti umani dei lavoratori e della popolazione.
Intanto, è possibile sottoscrivere un appello inviando una mail a: no_cocacola_it@yahoo.it
Cos’è un corpo?
Quali parole per definirlo?
Forse è nel campo della materia biologica che dovremmo cercarle?
O forse praticare quei territori ameni della mente, dell’inconscio, dell’anima?
Se volessimo stare dalla parte delle parole, potremmo certo chiedere significati alle numerose scienze o religioni, alla psicanalisi o alla psichiatria, alla storia o alla letteratura, tutte “muse della certezza” con in tasca il loro Significante Supremo in luogo del nostro… corpo.
Ma non è questo che cerchiamo.
Se non fosse per una certa stanchezza all’ascolto delle solite “preghiere”, forse ci potremmo accontentare di conoscere senza sapere, di guardare senza vedere, di ascoltare senza sentire.
Diciamo allora che è in questo Senso che va prima delle parole, della loro organizzazione in teorie che tengano conto solo e sempre del principio d’identità e non contraddizione, che sta la ragione (o la follia?) di questa rivista: luoghicorporei.org è un luogo appunto, una maniera di partire piuttosto che un traguardo, un occasione perché le cose e le persone s’incontrino a prescindere, una possibilità di attraversamento, di azioni e relazioni in luogo di de-finizioni.
Il corpo che cerchiamo è stanco di essere rinchiuso nella prigione del Significante Supremo!
Luoghicorporei.org offre allora al corpo stanco la possibilità di esprimere un nuovo Senso che lo riguardi e che sia appena dopo il biologico e appena prima della natura di tutto il resto; nello spazio libero del corpo privo di Significato, c’è il suo Senso che si pone tra l’umano e l’extraumano, l’Io e il mondo circostante come un’interfaccia, un doppio specchio tra l’anatomia degli organi e l’architettura delle cose.
In luoghicorporei.org cessa ogni tentativo di chiusura del cerchio: la rivista è luogo aperto ed in-Significante, luogo d’incontri e relazioni corporee perché finalmente cessi ogni tentativo di creazione di Logo.
La redazione di luoghicorporei.org è in rete, fluida, mutante, aperta a contributi che non abbiano la pretesa di esserlo e tanto meno di diventarlo.
La rivista completa è in rete ma esistono delle possibilità cartacee territoriali assolutamente autonome perché così si da quando ci si voglia tenere ben distanti dal potere del Significante Supremo: nessun copyright, nessun diritto di proprietà per le idee che circolano, nessuna autorizzazione ai pensieri ed alle azioni possibili ma spazi per l’espressione corporea, per la ricerca di ciò che avviene al di là delle parole nel tentativo di seminare, nelle pratiche che si adottano, il germe della Moltitudine e del Movimento.
Il discorso di Blair, quando si dice la faccia tosta
Full text
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Blair's speech to the US Congress
Friday July 18, 2003
Thank you. Mr Speaker and Mr Vice-President, honorable members of Congress, I'm deeply touched by that warm and generous welcome. That's more than I deserve and more than I'm used to, quite frankly.
And let me begin by thanking you most sincerely for voting to award me the Congressional Gold Medal. But you, like me, know who the real heroes are: those brave service men and women, yours and ours, who fought the war and risk their lives still. And our tribute to them should be measured in this way, by showing them and their families that they did not strive or die in vain, but that through their sacrifice future generations can live in greater peace, prosperity and hope.
Let me also express my gratitude to President Bush. Through the troubled times since September the 11th changed our world, we have been allies and friends. Thank you, Mr President, for your leadership.
Mr Speaker, sir, my thrill on receiving this award was only a little diminished on being told that the first Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to George Washington for what Congress called his 'wise and spirited conduct' in getting rid of the British out of Boston. On our way down here, Senator Frist was kind enough to show me the fireplace where, in 1814, the British had burnt the Congress Library. I know this is kind of late, but sorry.
Actually, you know, my middle son was studying 18th century history and the American War of Independence, and he said to me the other day, 'You know Lord North Dad? He was the British prime minister who lost us America. So just think, however many mistakes you'll make, you'll never make one that bad.'
Members of Congress, I feel a most urgent sense of mission about today's world. September the 11th was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it's over.
There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood, or when, except in the most general sense, a study of history provides so little instruction for our present day.
We were all reared on battles between great warriors, between great nations, between powerful forces and ideologies that dominated entire continents. And these were struggles for conquest, for land, or money, and the wars were fought by massed armies. And the leaders were openly acknowledged, the outcomes decisive.
Today, none of us expect our soldiers to fight a war on our own territory. The immediate threat is not conflict between the world's most powerful nations. And why? Because we all have too much to lose. Because technology, communication, trade and travel are bringing us ever closer together. Because in the last 50 years, countries like yours and mine have tripled their growth and standard of living. Because even those powers like Russia or China or India can see the horizon, the future wealth, clearly and know they are on a steady road toward it. And because all nations that are free value that freedom, will defend it absolutely, but have no wish to trample on the freedom of others.
We are bound together as never before. And this coming together provides us with unprecedented opportunity but also makes us uniquely vulnerable. And the threat comes because in another part of our globe there is shadow and darkness, where not all the world is free, where many millions suffer under brutal dictatorship, where a third of our planet lives in a poverty beyond anything even the poorest in our societies can imagine, and where a fanatical strain of religious extremism has arisen, that is a mutation of the true and peaceful faith of Islam.
And because in the combination of these afflictions a new and deadly virus has emerged. The virus is terrorism whose intent to inflict destruction is unconstrained by human feeling and whose capacity to inflict it is enlarged by technology.
This is a battle that can't be fought or won only by armies. We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists, yet even in all our might, we are taught humility. In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.
There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior.
Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty. We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, 'Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.' And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.
"In some cases where our security is under direct threat, we will have recourse to arms. In others, it will be by force of reason. But in all cases, to the same end: that the liberty we seek is not for some but for all, for that is the only true path to victory in this struggle. But first we must explain the danger.
Our new world rests on order. The danger is disorder. And in today's world, it can now spread like contagion. The terrorists and the states that support them don't have large armies or precision weapons; they don't need them. Their weapon is chaos.
The purpose of terrorism is not the single act of wanton destruction. It is the reaction it seeks to provoke: economic collapse, the backlash, the hatred, the division, the elimination of tolerance, until societies cease to reconcile their differences and become defined by them. Kashmir, the Middle East, Chechnya, Indonesia, Africa - barely a continent or nation is unscathed.
The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, 'That risk is fanciful,' I say we know the Taliban supported al-Qaeda. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment.
Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.
This isn't fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now. Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.
But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.
But precisely because the threat is new, it isn't obvious. It turns upside-down our concepts of how we should act and when, and it crosses the frontiers of many nations. So just as it redefines our notions of security, so it must refine our notions of diplomacy.
There is no more dangerous theory in international politics than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitive powers; different poles around which nations gather.
Such a theory may have made sense in 19th-century Europe. It was perforce the position in the Cold War. Today, it is an anachronism to be discarded like traditional theories of security. And it is dangerous because it is not rivalry but partnership we need; a common will and a shared purpose in the face of a common threat.
And I believe any alliance must start with America and Europe. If Europe and America are together, the others will work with us. If we split, the rest will play around, play us off and nothing but mischief will be the result of it.
You may think after recent disagreements it can't be done, but the debate in Europe is open. Iraq showed that when, never forget, many European nations supported our action.
And it shows it still when those that didn't agreed Resolution 1483 in the United Nations for Iraq's reconstruction. Today, German soldiers lead in Afghanistan, French soldiers lead in the Congo where they stand between peace and a return to genocide.
So we should not minimize the differences, but we should not let them confound us either. You know, people ask me after the past months when, let's say, things were a trifle strained in Europe, 'Why do you persist in wanting Britain at the center of Europe?' And I say, 'Well, maybe if the UK were a group of islands 20 miles off Manhattan, I might feel differently. But actually, we're 20 miles off Calais and joined by a tunnel.'
We are part of Europe, and we want to be. But we also want to be part of changing Europe. Europe has one potential for weakness. For reasons that are obvious, we spent roughly a thousand years killing each other in large numbers.
The political culture of Europe is inevitably rightly based on compromise. Compromise is a fine thing except when based on an illusion. And I don't believe you can compromise with this new form of terrorism.
But Europe has a strength. It is a formidable political achievement. Think of the past and think of the unity today. Think of it preparing to reach out even to Turkey - a nation of vastly different culture, tradition, religion - and welcome it in. But my real point is this: now Europe is at the point of transformation. Next year, 10 new countries will join. Romania and Bulgaria will follow. Why will these new European members transform Europe? Because their scars are recent, their memories strong, their relationship with freedom still one of passion, not comfortable familiarity.
They believe in the trans-Atlantic alliance. They support economic reform. They want a Europe of nations, not a super state. They are our allies and they are yours. So don't give up on Europe. Work with it.
To be a serious partner, Europe must take on and defeat the anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for its political discourse. And what America must do is show that this is a partnership built on persuasion, not command. Then the other great nations of our world and the small will gather around in one place, not many. And our understanding of this threat will become theirs. And the United Nations can then become what it should be: an instrument of action as well as debate.
The Security Council should be reformed. We need a new international regime on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And we need to say clearly to United Nations members: 'If you engage in the systematic and gross abuse of human rights in defiance of the UN charter, you cannot expect to enjoy the same privileges as those that conform to it.'
I agree. It is not the coalition that determines the mission, but the mission the coalition. But let us start preferring a coalition and acting alone if we have to, not the other way around. True, winning wars is not easier that way, but winning the peace is.
And we have to win both. And you have an extraordinary record of doing so. Who helped Japan renew, or Germany reconstruct, or Europe get back on its feet after World War Two? America. So when we invade Afghanistan or Iraq, our responsibility does not end with military victory. Finishing the fighting is not finishing the job.
So if Afghanistan needs more troops from the international community to police outside Kabul, our duty is to get them. Let us help them eradicate their dependency on the poppy, the crop whose wicked residue turns up on the streets of Britain as heroin to destroy young British lives, as much as their harvest warps the lives of Afghans.
We promised Iraq democratic government. We will deliver it. We promised them the chance to use their oil wealth to build prosperity for all their citizens, not a corrupt elite, and we will do so. We will stay with these people so in need of our help until the job is done.
And then reflect on this: how hollow would the charges of American imperialism be when these failed countries are and are seen to be transformed from states of terror to nations of prosperity, from governments of dictatorship to examples of democracy, from sources of instability to beacons of calm.
And how risible would be the claims that these were wars on Muslims if the world could see these Muslim nations still Muslim, but with some hope for the future, not shackled by brutal regimes whose principal victims were the very Muslims they pretended to protect?
It would be the most richly observed advertisement for the values of freedom we can imagine. When we removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, this was not imperialism. For these oppressed people, it was their liberation. And why can the terrorists even mount an argument in the Muslim world that it isn't? Because there is one cause terrorism rides upon, a cause they have no belief in but can manipulate.
I want to be very plain: this terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Here it is that the poison is incubated. Here it is that the extremist is able to confuse in the mind of a frighteningly large number of people the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel, and to translate this moreover into a battle between East and West, Muslim, Jew and Christian.
May this never compromise the security of the state of Israel. The state of Israel should be recognized by the entire Arab world, and the vile propaganda used to indoctrinate children, not just against Israel but against Jews, must cease.
You cannot teach people hate and then ask them to practice peace. But neither can you teach people peace except by according them dignity and granting them hope. Innocent Israelis suffer. So do innocent Palestinians.
The ending of Saddam's regime in Iraq must be the starting point of a new dispensation for the Middle East: Iraq, free and stable; Iran and Syria, who give succor to the rejectionist men of violence, made to realize that the world will no longer countenance it, that the hand of friendship can only be offered them if they resile completely from this malice, but that if they do, that hand will be there for them and their people; the whole of region helped toward democracy. And to symbolize it all, the creation of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian state side by side with the state of Israel.
What the president is doing in the Middle East is tough but right. And let me at this point thank the president for his support, and that of President Clinton before him, and the support of members of this Congress, for our attempts to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
You know, one thing I've learned about peace processes: they're always frustrating, they're often agonizing, and occasionally they seem hopeless. But for all that, having a peace process is better than not having one.
And why has a resolution of Palestine such a powerful appeal across the world? Because it embodies an even-handed approach to justice, just as when this president recommended and this Congress supported a $15 billion increase in spending on the world's poorest nations to combat HIV/AIDS. It was a statement of concern that echoed rightly around the world.
There can be no freedom for Africa without justice and no justice without declaring war on Africa's poverty, disease and famine with as much vehemence as we removed the tyrant and the terrorists.
In Mexico in September, the world should unite and give us a trade round that opens up our markets. I'm for free trade, and I'll tell you why: because we can't say to the poorest people in the world, 'We want you to be free, but just don't try to sell your goods in our market.'
And because ever since the world started to open up, it has prospered. And that prosperity has to be environmentally sustainable, too. You know, I remember at one of our earliest international meetings, a European prime minister telling President Bush that the solution was quite simple: just double the tax on American gasoline. Your president gave him a most eloquent look.
It reminded me of the first leader of my party, Keir Hardie, in the early part of the 20th century. He was a man who used to correspond with the Pankhursts, the great campaigners for women's votes. And shortly before the election, June 1913, one of the Pankhurst sisters wrote to Hardie saying she had been studying Britain carefully and there was a worrying rise in sexual immorality linked to heavy drinking. So she suggested he fight the election on the platform of votes for women, chastity for men and prohibition for all.
He replied saying, 'Thank you for your advice, yhe electoral benefits of which are not immediately discernible.' We all get that kind of advice, don't we?
But frankly, we need to go beyond even Kyoto, and science and technology is the way. Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable nations first and ultimately all nations. So we must show the world that we are willing to step up to these challenges around the world and in our own backyards.
Members of Congress, if this seems a long way from the threat of terror and weapons of mass destruction, it is only to say again that the world security cannot be protected without the world's heart being one. So America must listen as well as lead. But, members of Congress, don't ever apologize for your values.
Tell the world why you're proud of America. Tell them when the Star-Spangled Banner starts, Americans get to their feet, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, Central Europeans, East Europeans, Jews, Muslims, white, Asian, black, those who go back to the early settlers and those whose English is the same as some New York cab drivers I've dealt with, but whose sons and daughters could run for this Congress.
Tell them why Americans, one and all, stand upright and respectful. Not because some state official told them to, but because whatever race, color, class or creed they are, being American means being free. That's why they're proud.
As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind? And what you can bequeath to this anxious world is the light of liberty.
That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds.
And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage. We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind - black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different - to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we're fighting for. And it's a battle worth fighting.
And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go. I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why me? And why us? And why America?'
And the only answer is, 'Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.'
And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you. You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.
Who is cleared, corrected and criticised in today's foreign affairs committee report? Matthew Tempest explains
Monday July 7, 2003
Did the committee clear Alastair Campbell of wrongdoing?
Yes - with a proviso. Its report clears Downing Street's communications director of the charges made against him on the BBC Today programme - that he "sexed up" the September dossier and insisted on the inclusion of the claim that Iraq could unleash weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 45 minutes. But committee members were split evenly and the verdict came down to the casting vote of committee chairman and Labour MP Donald Anderson. The MPs' report states that Mr Campbell did not "exert or seek to exert improper influence on the drafting of the September dossier" and that he "did not play any role in the inclusion of the 45-minutes claim". But it does criticise him for chairing intelligence committee meetings, saying no special adviser should be in such a position.
Does it clear the government?
Not really - it's more of a very big wait and see. The report says, repeatedly, that the "jury is still out" on the decision to go to war, since the survey group in the field has yet to discover meaningful evidence of WMD. It also heavily criticised the February dossier on Iraq's security infrastructure; calling it "wholly counterproductive", and adds that the PM "misrepresented it status" to MPs by describing it as the work of the intelligence services. The committee challenges the government to say whether it still stands behind the September dossier's accuracy, whose language was " more assertive than that traditionally used in intelligence documents". It also criticises the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, for failing, two weeks after it was requested, to inform the committee of when the UK first became aware that the CIA was declaring the Niger uranium documents forged.
How does the BBC fare?
Not so well. The report states boldly that "allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established". But it does not state a view on whether the Today programme should have run the allegations or not. Tory member of the committee Sir John Stanley was also keen to point out that the programme's defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan was correct on two counts: that the 45-minute allegation was based on only one source, and that it had been added to the dossier at a later date. The committee recommends that Mr Gilligan's "alleged contacts be thoroughly investigated", although it does not say by who, or how they expect a journalist to reveal his sources.
Is that the end of the matter?
Far from it. The Tories, Liberal Democrats and many Labour MPs, including the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, are still calling for an independent, judicial inquiry. Both the main opposition parties are also insisting that the PM should now come to the Commons to apologise, or at least explain, for what the report calls a "misrepresenting of the status" of the so-called "dodgy dossier" from February. Tomorrow, Mr Blair is sure to be asked about those matters when he appears before the chairs of all the parliamentary select committees. These close cross-examinings of the prime minister usually last up to three hours. The intelligence and security committee is also set to present its own report into the government's build-up to the war in Iraq in the autumn - just in time for the party conference season. Further questions will of course be asked if no WMD are found in Iraq.
Dicesi traffico di uranio... ecco la grande performance di George T. Tenet su smercio di uranio e affini
Direttamente dal sito ufficiale delle CIA , una recita degna del miglior Fantozzi (e il buon Tenet non avrà nemmeno il coraggio di dichiarare "questo film è una cagata pazzesca!") sul perché e per come il Presidente Bush legga qualunque cazzata gli passi la CIA. Almeno cosi' vuole far crederci. In che mani...
STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.
For perspective, a little history is in order.
There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.
Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.
In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.
Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.
In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.
In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.
But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq’s significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began “vigorously trying to procure” more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure “uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake.” The Estimate also states: “We do not know the status of this arrangement.” With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.” Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: “Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”
An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State’s United Nations presentation in early 2003.
The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.
Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
Con i «progressisti» di Londra, il presidente del Brasile riscopre che non tutto è «paz e amor». E attacca Usa (ed Europa) in nome di America latina e paesi poveri. «Gli americani devono aver paura del loro governo »
Finalmene un Lula da trasferta sembra tornato il vecchio Lula. Il Lula che sembra avere dismesso, almeno per un giorno, le vesti del «Lulinha paz e amor» in cui tutti sono buoni (a cominciare da Bush), con nessuno che deve pagare il conto. Invitato a Londra per il summit mondiale «dei progressisti» Lula si è calato fino in fondo, domenica e ieri, nella sua parte di guastatore. Il pessimo Tony Blair, alla ricerca della perduta (e mai trovata) terza via, siedeva al suo fianco - e all'altro fianco stava il sudafricano Thabo Mbeki che non è neanche la controfigura di Nelson Mandela ma che non ha potuto perdere la battuta - mentre Lula infiammava la pur selezionatissima platea dei «progressisti» mondiali con le parole che ne hanno (avevano?) fatto la speranza non solo del Brasile. Ha cominciato il suo intervento che sembrava Marco Antonio al funerale di Giulio Cesare. «Se c'è una cosa che ammiro negli Stati uniti è che loro pensano primo a se stessi, secondo a se stessi e terzo a se stessi. Ma anche noi dobbiamo imparare a essere duri», «Che aspettiamo a eliminare i sussidi all'agricolutra dei paesi occidentali? Qui si parla molto di free trade ma non si fa nulla», «Contro il terrorismo non servono le soluzioni militari» (il mio caro Blair), «Bisognava che Tony Blair avesse invitato qui Bush perché gli Stati uniti devono partecipare di più agli incontri internazionali se non voglio essere vittime della loro grandezza», la guerra all'Iraq (il mio caro Blair) è stato un «errore» e «un gruppo di paesi avrebbe dovuto convincere Bush che tornare indietro non era niente di straordinario», «Gli Stati uniti si isolano dai dibattiti internazionali forti della loro supremazia, per evitare di essere richiamati alle loro responsabilità rispetto ai paesi poveri», «Come i francesi non rinunciano ai sussidi agricoli per ragioni politiche, gli Stati uniti non rinunciano al blocco di Cuba: non è una questione economica, è una questione politica» (come quella con il Venezuela di Chavez), «Il mio predecessore Cardoso» - una stella caduta del firmamento «socialdemocratico» - «era molto amico di Clinton» (altra stella caduta del summit di Londra, però se n'era già andato) e «dormiva a Camp David, tutti i giorni si telefonava con Clinton ma nei suoi otto anni non c'è stato un solo gesto politico o economico che aiutasse il Brasile: io non voglio avere un rapporto di amicizia con Bush ma solo un rapporto da Stato a Stato». E dopo il penoso intervento a supporto di Bush dell'ex comunista polacco, il presidente Kwasniewski, degno esponente della «New Europe», Lula è intervenuto di nuovo per ricordargli «che la gente deve finirla di rapportarsi in forma subalterna agli Stati uniti».
E ieri, in una intervista alla Bbc, Lula ha rincarato la dose. «Gli americani non devono avere paura di un governo di sinistra in Brasile, ma piuttosto del loro governo», i negoziati per l'Alca - l'Accordo di libero commercio delle Americhe - «non sono di proprietà degli Stati uniti», i paesi del Mercosud e dell'America latina «devono unirsi perché tutti noi abbiamo interessi comuni», «se voi paesi ricchi volete combattere il narco-traffico, il crimine organizzato e il terrorismo, la cosa migliore da fare è sostenere politiche sociali nei paesi più poveri», che ne dite signori di «un fondo internazionale per lo sviluppo» fuori dalla Banca mondiale e dal Fondo monetario, ormai «obsoleti»?
Ieri mattina, dopo una colazione di lavoro fra Lula, Kirchner e Lagos, i presidenti di Brasile, Argentina e Cile hanno diffuso un comunicato congiunto in cui si impegnano a «rafforzare e ampliare il Mercosud con l'obiettivo di farne un blocco solido» in grado di negoziare «da pari a pari» con Stati uniti e Unione europea già a partire dal prossimo round del Wto, in settembre a Cancun. L'argentino Kirchner che non aveva preso bene l'eccessiva arrendevolezza di Lula con Bush in occasione della visita a Washington del 20 giugno, avrà tirato un sospiro di sollievo. Forse meno entusiasta il cileno Lagos (il Cile ha appena firmato il suo sospirato accordo di libero scambio con gli Usa). Avranno respirato anche il Sudafrica e l'India, i cui ministri degli esteri si sono riuniti ai primi di giugno a Brasilia nel tentativo di creare una sorta di G-3 dei più forti (con la Cina) dei poveri.
Certo, almeno in parte quella di Lula a Londra è stata una mossa ad effetto, forte del suo carisma ancora intatto nonostante problemi e critiche dei suoi primi sei mesi di governo in Brasile. I rapporti di forza sono quelli che sono, non c'è da farsi illusioni. Ma chissà che Lula, vedendo cos'è la socialdemocrazia XXI secolo, non sia tornato Lula.
Mayateatro festival, terza edizione di arti e culture "fuorimercato" ed in-Movimento
Teatro, video, musiche, istallazioni, workshop, mostre fotografiche.
Incessantemente, instancabilmente ed inesorabilmente per quattro giorni.
Mayateatro festival, arte e cultura sociale.
Grazie alle ultime buffonate dei nostri uomini al Governo (da Berlusconi ai leghisti in cravatta verde) è scoppiata una delle più allegre risse nazionalistiche mai avvenute negli ultimi anni tra Germania e Italia. Molti hanno affermato di vergognarsi di essere italiani, alcuni altri si sono detti fieri di avere finalmente qualche gallo che canta le virtù italiche contro i barbarismi germanici.
Credo sia giusto mettersi in fuori gioco rispetto al discorso in maniera completa: la scelta non deve essere tra gli offesi e gli esaltati. Chi sente di vergognarsi lo fa pur sempre rispetto ad un concetto di nazionalità abbastanza ideologico ed in ogni caso reazionario.
Lasciamo pure combattere gli altri su questo terreno, riscoprendo l'oltre-nazionalismo (ovvero fuori dagli schemi nazionalistici) dei nostri corpi e delle nostre macchine desideranti.
posted by brv3 7/10/2003 05:57:00 PM
US NAVY Assalto alla Maddalena. La base Usa vuole altro spazio
Nel progetto dei militari 50 mila metri cubi di strutture. Sì del comune. No dei civili. Deciderà Berlusconi
UMBERTO COCCO da Il Manifesto LA MADDALENA (Sassari)
Berlusconi potrà fare all'amministrazione Bush un altro regalo, autorizzando la marina Usa a trasformare il sito di Santo Stefano in un munitissimo presidio militare. I sardi hanno detto no, nelle loro componenti civili, avant'ieri sera nel Comitato regionale paritetico per le servitù militari. Quattro voti contrari, d'accordo solo i militari, e un componente di An. Quanto basta a fare considerare negativo il parere (consultivo) di questo organismo. Ora scatta laprocedura che mette la decisione nelle mani del governo, come previsto dagli accordi rimasti sempre segreti fra l'amministrazone americana e il governo Andreotti, nel 1972. Dice il sindaco di Teulada, Salvatore Mocci: «Ma Berlusconisi assumerà così le sue responsabilità, senza alibi, e contro ilparere dei sardi».
Il progetto presentato l'inverno scorso dalla Us Navy prevede la costruzione di oltre 50mila metri cubi fra edifici e strutture di cemento armato a nord dell'isoletta, proprio di fronte alla Maddalena. Edifici alti anche 14 metri, un lungo molo, al posto delle casematte sbrecciate di un vecchio insediamento militare, e del pontile di legno. Anche così dimesso, è l'approdo della nave appoggio per i sommergibili nucleari d'attacco della classe Los Angeles, appartenenti al X Squadrone della 69a task force della sesta flotta americana. Ma gli americani lo hanno chiamato sempre «sito», o «area portuale», o «supporto navale», nei documenti ufficiali indirizzati alle autoritàitaliane.
Non basta più alle loro esigenze. Nella documentazione presentata al Comitato regionale paritetico per le servitù militari, scrivono di volere migliorare le condizioni della truppa, di vita e di lavoro dei militari in servizio. Fanno tintinnare i soldi davanti ai maddalenini, parlano di 37 milioni di dollari di investimento, una cinquantina alla fine dei conti. Ma intanto an-che nei bollettini il sito diventa base di supporto navale, letteralmente. Ed è la prima volta che viene usata questa espressione: è la rottura di un atteggiamento di prudenza, la fine di un certo understatement dei comandi militari della sesta flotta.
Il progetto, preparato dalla Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz Inc, prevede, tra l'altro, la costruzione di palazzine per servizi portuali, manutenzione di unità navali operative e unità navali leggere, amministrazione, sala conferenze, uno spazio dedicato alle operazioni di sicurezza, laboratori di informatica, uno di analisi chimiche e una sala addestrativa. E poi un centro benessere, un campo di pallacanestro, un magazzino di stoccaggio per materiali/rifiuti speciali, barili e serbatoi di gas. Un'altra palazzina ospiterà 24 unità abitative; una terza la sala mensa, cucina e magazzino, teatro, sala da ballo, sala biliardo, area snack e agenzia di viaggi. Infine la banchina di ormeggio: 185 metri per 24 unità di naviglio leggero.
Nella città, che si prepara all'assalto dei turisti, l'amministrazione comunale è assai disponibile, sul progetto. Il sindaco è di An, il presidente del parco nazionale dell'arcipelago di An. L'opposizione di sinistra è debole, i Ds sconfitti alle elezioni comunali dell'altr'anno. Impotenti, queste forze assistono all'acquisizione graduale, a piccolipassi, di pezzi del patrimonio immenso della marina italiana, che lascia l'isola, smantella pian piano l'arsenale, e c'è sempre un'opzione dell'Us Na-vy.
Gli americani sono ormai quasi 4000, un terzo della popolazione dell'isola. Stanno nei loro villaggi, hanno i loro negozi, non si mischiano. Portano soldi, è l'opinione diffusa. Così, l'arcipelago è insieme il luogo più pericoloso del Mediterraneo e uno dei poli più importanti di attrazione turistica e ambientale.
