• Démission de Salam Fayyad, premier ministre démissionnaire de l’Autorité palestinienne (suite et pas fin)

    Classique malentendu/ manipulation entre la presse et un politique qui va convaincre les convaincus que Salam Fayyad servait davantage les intérêts des Israéliens et des Américains que ceux des Palestiniens. Le premier article est le démenti de ses propos publié par l’agence de presse officielle palestinienne (WAFA), le second article, du New York Times, est l’article incriminé.

    Article 1
    Fayyad denies statements in the New York Times article
    http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=22289

    “RAMALLAH, May 4, 2013 (WAFA) – Outgoing Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s office Saturday denied statements slamming the Palestinian leadership which were attributed to Fayyad in an interview with the New York Times.

    Fayyad’s office said in a statement, “The statements in the article are just journalist Roger Cohen’s personal impressions, and certainly not the words of Fayyad, who did not make any statements or conduct interviews for the New York Times or any other newspaper or agency since his resignation.”

    The New York Times published on May 3 an article titled “Fayyad Steps Down, Not Out” by Cohen, in which Fayyad allegedly described the Palestinian leadership as “failed”.

    Cohen quoted Fayyad saying “It is incredible that the fate of the Palestinian people has been in the hands of leaders so entirely casual, so guided by spur-of-the-moment decisions, without seriousness. We don’t strategize, we cut deals in a tactical way and we hold ourselves hostage to our own rhetoric.”

    Cohen’s article caused an uproar among Palestinians while Fayyad’s office said that this article must not be published as an interview with Fayyad.”

    Article 2
    Op-Ed Columnist
    Fayyad Steps Down, Not Out
    By Roger Cohen
    Published: May 3, 2013

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/opinion/global/Roger-Cohen-Fayyad-Steps-Down-Not-Out.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    « (…) Yet the Fatah old guard with their sweet deals wants Fayyad gone; Hamas hates him as a supposed American stooge, and Abbas has tired of this U.S.-educated “turbulent priest.” So the president hesitates. He mumbles about a “unity government” with Hamas. He does little. And Fayyad is at his desk when he might be eating sweet pastries with his family.

    “Our story is a story of failed leadership, from way early on,” Fayyad tells me. “It is incredible that the fate of the Palestinian people has been in the hands of leaders so entirely casual, so guided by spur-of-the-moment decisions, without seriousness. We don’t strategize, we cut deals in a tactical way and we hold ourselves hostage to our own rhetoric.” (…) “This party, Fatah, is going to break down, there is so much disenchantment,” Fayyad predicts. “Students have lost 35 days this year through strikes. We are broke. The status quo is not sustainable.”

  • Les noirs ne sont pas assez contrôlés, selon le chef de la police de New York | Slate
    http://www.slate.fr/lien/71961/police-new-york-noirs-controle-stop-frisk

    Selon Raymond Kelly, les Afro-américains sont à l’origine de 70% à 73% des délits violents (braquages, fusillades...) à New York. Dans son intervention télévisée, il a mis en regard cette statistique avec le pourcentage de contrôles pratiqués sur les personnes afro-américaines. Ils s’élèveraient à 53% du total des « stop-and-frisks » effectués par la police. Une proportion de contrôles qu’il juge insuffisante, d’un point de vue démographique, « par rapport au pourcentage de personnes décrites comme les auteurs de délits violents ».

    Depuis que Michael Bloomberg est maire de New York, la police new-yorkaise a effectué plus de cinq millions de contrôles. Les statistiques de l’Union américaine pour les libertés viciles (ACLU) soulignent que plus de 86% de ces contrôles sont pratiqués sur des personnes noires ou d’origine hispanique, les « latinos ». La même analyse révèle que 88% de ces contrôles ne débouchent pas sur des arrestations ou des assignation à comparaître devant un tribunal. Dans un communiqué en avril 2013, l’Union pour les libertés civiles de New York (NYCLU) dénonçait déjà la méthodologie du système de contrôle :

    « Sous l’égide de l’administration Bloomberg, les résidents de la ville de New York ont été arrêtés et contrôlés plus de cinq millions de fois. Les New-Yorkais ont été espionnés à cause de leur religion ou de leurs origines. »

    En mars 2013, la politique de « stop-and-frisk » avait été dénoncée par des policiers de la NYPD. Certains ont accepté de témoigner pour révéler un système de quotas dans les contrôles à effectuer que l’administration a démenti. Un rapport de l’Union pour les libertés civiles de New York publié en 2011 évoquait un chiffre choc, toujours à propos de la politique du « stop-and-frisk ». Statistiquement parlant, tous les jeunes afro-américains ont été contrôlés au moins une fois dans l’année 2011.

    Un véritable mouvement s’est formé pour protester contre le système de contrôle que certains décrivent comme un contrôle au faciès. Le Centre pour les droits constitutionnels a créé une carte de New York délimitant les zones où la proportion de « stop-and-frisk » est la plus importante. Le NYCLU de son côté à mis sur pied une application, « Stop-and-Frisk Wactch », destinée aux citoyens permettant de reporter les contrôles, de les filmer et de les enregistrer.

    • Mayor Bloomberg on Stop-and-Frisk - NYTimes.com
      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/opinion/mayor-bloomberg-on-stop-and-frisk.html?hp

      Mr. Bloomberg denied that police officers stop people based on race, adding that members of minority groups were more likely to be stopped because minorities committed most of the crimes. But court documents in the three federal lawsuits that are moving through the judicial system tell another story entirely.

      The data in the case of Floyd v. City of New York, a class action being heard in federal court in Manhattan, show that in tens of thousands of cases, officers reported stopping people based on “furtive movement,” a meaningless term that cannot be legally used to justify a stop. Officers also reported that they had made stops in “high crime areas,” when, in fact, some of those areas were not. In many cases, officers said that they had stopped people based on a “suspicious bulge” — suggesting a gun — in their clothing. Yet, according to court documents, officers found only one gun for every 69 stops in which they cited a “bulge.” And guns were seized in only 0.15 percent of all stops.

      In addition, only 5.4 percent of all stops resulted in an arrest, and about 6 percent led to a summons. This means that in nearly 90 percent of cases, the citizens who were stopped were doing nothing illegal. In some cases, prosecutors declined to automatically prosecute arrests made in connection with the program because they knew that the stops were illegal.

      Mr. Bloomberg’s suggestion that the program has been responsible for historic drops in crime is also implausible. Crime has declined all over the country, including in places that have not used New York’s aggressively invasive techniques. Besides, if crime rates and street stops had a strong correlation, the murder rate would have gone up in 2012, when stops declined by about 20 percent. In fact, the murder rate fell in 2012 to an all-time low.

      Mr. Bloomberg’s implication that the program’s critics are more interested in vexing City Hall than in keeping the streets clear of murderers was especially reprehensible. No one is opposed to using effective, constitutional means of fighting crime. The problem is that over the last decade the Police Department has shown utter contempt for Fourth Amendment guarantees of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. And worse, these tactics have been used largely against young black and Hispanic men.