Ignacio Ramonets leder "Farewell liberty" fra Le
Monde Diplomatique hører neppe til den slags stoff
som Aslak Skancke leser. At han forsvinner fra
forumet her er bare fint, hans synspunkt vil enhver
kunne finne rikelig representert i 99 pst. av den
amerikanskkontrollerte
"verdensopinionen", f.eks. ved å låne VG på et eller
annet
bibliotek. Vi trenger ikke å lese det her i tillegg.
Svar på Skanckes flisespikkende forsvar for USAs
overgrep og brudd på menneskerettighetene er gitt
flere ganger, men han kan selvsagt ikke hverken lese
eller begripe det, av den enkle grunn at han ikke
vil. I dagens Aftenposten kommer Ebba Haslund med et
tilsvar til folk som står på linje med Skancke. Jeg
skal sitere det hvis og så snart det blir
tilgjengelig på nettet.
Karsten Johansen
Her er Ramonets leder:
"Everyone agrees that the events of 11 September 2001
began a new era. So perhaps we should look closely at
what historical cycles were ended by those events,
and the consequences of that. The era we are leaving
began with the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November
1989 and the subsequent end of the Soviet Union on 25
December 1991. This phase of history (which coincided
with the rise of free market liberalism) had three
much-hyped characteristics: the promotion of
democratic government, insistence on the idea of the
state based on law, and the glorification of human
rights. This modern trinity was an imperative in
domestic and foreign policy, repeatedly invoked by
commentators. It was not entirely free of ambiguities
— is liberal globalisation really compatible with
worldwide democracy? But it seemed likely that the
trinity would have the support of ordinary people,
who would see it as an advance of human rights and
law, and against barbarism.
Suddenly, in the name of a supposed "just war"
against terrorism, all this has been forgotten. To
pursue the war in Afghanistan, the United States has
had no hesitation in making alliances with regimes
until recently seen as undesirable: Pakistan's
general Pervez Musharraf, in office because of a
putsch, and the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam
Karimov. The voices of the legitimate president of
Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, and of those who defended
freedoms in Uzbekistan, failed to reach us from
behind their prison walls. Values that only yesterday
were regarded as fundamental mysteriously disappeared
from the political landscape, and democratic
countries took steps backwards in human rights and
international law.
A clear example is the whirlwind of anti-libertarian
measures in the US. Immediately after the attacks, a
system of emergency justice was installed.
Attorney-General John Ashcroft pushed through an
anti-terrorism law — the "patriot law" — that gives
the government powers to arrest suspects and detain
them almost indefinitely, deport them, hold them in
solitary confinement, open their mail, tap their
phones, monitor their email and search their homes
without a warrant. Some 1,200 foreigners have been
secretly arrested, and more than 600 are still in
prison, although no court has found them guilty. Many
have not been brought before a judge and they have
been denied access to lawyers (1). The US government
has also announced its intention to interrogate 5,000
men between 16 and 45, currently in the US on tourist
visas, who are regarded as suspect just because they
come from the Middle East (2).
Even though the US already has an adequate system of
ordinary courts (3), on 13 November President George
Bush announced the establishment of military
tribunals with special procedures, designed to try
foreigners accused of terrorism. Trials will be held
in secret; they can be held on ships or at military
bases; sentence will be passed by a board of military
officers; a full majority is not required to impose
the death sentence; there will be no appeal against
sentencing; conversations between defendants and
their lawyers can be monitored; the proceedings of
these tribunals will be covered by rules of
confidentiality and details will only be available to
the public decades later.
FBI officials have even gone so far as to suggest
that defendants be extradited to friendly countries
with dictatorial regimes, to be interrogated by
police with methods that are "crude but effective".
The use of torture has been openly called for in the
mainstream press (4). Speaking on CNN, Republican
commentator Tucker Carlson was explicit: torture was
not good, but terrorism was worse, so in certain
circumstances torture was the lesser evil. Steve
Chapman, writing in the Chicago Tribune, pointed out
that an apparently democratic state such as Israel
had no hesitation in using torture on 85% of its
Palestinian prisoners (5).
Reversing a 1974 decision banning the CIA from
assassinating foreign political leaders, Bush has now
given the agency a free hand to undertake any secret
operations necessary for the physical elimination of
the al-Qaida leadership. Ignoring the Geneva
Conventions, the war in Afghanistan has been
conducted in the same spirit: members of al-Qaida
were killed even where they had surrendered.
Rejecting suggestions of surrender or negotiated
settlement, Donald Rumsfeld favoured killing Arab
prisoners who had fought with the Taliban. More than
400 prisoners were massacred in the rising at the
Qala-i-Janghi fort near Mazar-i-Sharif and it is
likely that even more were killed in taking the Tora
Bora tunnel complex.
To prevent US military personnel being brought to
trial for operations conducted on foreign soil,
Washington has been hostile to the idea of an
International Criminal Court (ICC). In the same
spirit, the Senate has just approved a first draft of
the ASPA (American service-members' protection act),
which would enable the US to take extreme measures —
even invading a country — to recover any US citizen
likely to be brought before a future ICC.
As part of the "world war against terrorism", other
countries – including the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain
and France– have also introduced repressive
legislation. Defenders of civil rights have good
reason for alarm. What had seemed to be a general
movement in our societies towards a greater respect
for individuals and their liberties has been abruptly
put on hold. Everything suggests a police-state
future.
-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
(1) El Pais, 10 November 2001.
(2) Le Monde, 30 November 2001.
(3) International Herald Tribune, 1 December 2001.
(4) See Newsweek, 5 November 2001.
(5) Quoted in El Pais, 7 November 2001."
______________________________________________________________________________
ifrance.com, l'email gratuit le plus complet de l'Internet !
vos emails depuis un navigateur, en POP3, sur Minitel, sur le WAP...
http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/email.emailif
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST