• Terroristin Rasmea Odeh : Sprengsatz des Antisemitismus in Berlin - Reportageseite - Tagesspiegel
    https://www.tagesspiegel.de/themen/reportage/terroristin-rasmea-odeh-sprengsatz-des-antisemitismus-in-berlin/24105198.html

    Voilà, on savait déjà que le combat contre l’impérialisme étatsunien et son porte-avion en Palestine sont la continuation du génocide nazi à Auschwitz. Cette vue des choses constitue la raison d’être de l’état allemand qui a pourtant négligé l’introduction de lois de censure assez efficaces pour faire taire toute opinion divergeante.

    Résultat : Une femme haïe par tous (à croire la totalité de la presse berlinoise d’aujourd’hui) nous expliquera des choses sur le combat des femmes palestiniennes. C’est une occasion de rencontrer et d’écouter une combattante du front populaire de libération de la Palestine afin de se faire une impression différente de la pensée unique dispersée par les médias bourgeois.

    Ce soir, 18:00 heures, Waterloo-Ufer 5 -7, 10961 Berlin–Kreuzberg

    Ihr Attentat riss vor 50 Jahren zwei Menschen in den Tod. Rasmea Odeh kämpft immer noch gegen Israel, jetzt spricht die Terroristin in Berlin. Die Politik ist entsetzt – aber hilflos.

    Ah bon. Voici la position de ses amis aux USA.

    Justice For Rasmea !
    http://justice4rasmea.org/about

    Rasmea Odeh is a leading member of Chicago’s Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim communities, and her decade of service in Chicago has changed the lives of thousands of people, particularly disenfranchised Arab women and their families. She has been with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) since 2004, and is responsible for the management of day-to-day operations and the coordination of its Arab Women’s Committee, which has a membership of nearly 600 and leads the organization’s work in the areas of defending civil liberties and immigrants’ rights. She is a mentor to hundreds of immigrant women, as well as many members of the AAAN’s staff and board, and is a well-known and respected organizer throughout Chicagoland, the U.S. and the world.

    In 2013, Rasmea received the Outstanding Community Leader Award from the Chicago Cultural Alliance, which described her as a woman who has “dedicated over 40 years of her life to the empowerment of Arab women, first in her homes of Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon, where she was an activist and practicing attorney, and then the past 10 years in Chicago.”

    Rasmea is a community icon who overcame vicious torture by Israeli authorities while imprisoned in Palestine in the 1970s, and an example for the millions of Palestinians who have not given up organizing for their rights of liberation, equality, and return.

    Voici quelques sources supplémentaires.

    Alle hassen Rasmea Odeh:

    Bild-Zeitunhg
    http://lili.de/u/ix98n

    B.Z. Berlin
    http://lili.de/u/kj1m4

    Tagesspiegel
    http://lili.de/u/7ld1j

    Der Wikipedia Artikel zu Rasmea Odeh sagt viel über ihren Prozeß in den
    USA aber nicht über ihre politische Arbeit. Man muß also hingehen, um
    darüber etwas zu erfahren.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmea_Odeh

    Relevante Infos gibt es auf den Seiten der elektronischen Intifada
    https://electronicintifada.net/tags/rasmea-yousef-odeh

    Diese Soliseite stammt aus der Zeit Ihres Kampfe sgegen die Ausweisung
    aus den USA
    http://justice4rasmea.org

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Habash
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Khaled

    Infos über die Geschichte des Veranstaltungsorts, die ehemalige
    Passierscheinstelle für Westberliner, die Tagesvisa für Ostberlin
    benötigten.

    Berliner Zeitung
    http://lili.de/u/ra1ip

    TAZ
    http://www.taz.de/!5110318

    Adresse auf berlin.de
    http://lili.de/u/gado7

    Dersim Kulturgemeinde Berlin
    Waterloo-Ufer 5 -7
    10961 Berlin–Kreuzberg
    Telefon 030-61283113

    Homepage des Vereins
    https://dersim-cemaati-berlin.de.tl

    #Allemagne #Berlin #Palestine #Terrorisme #FPLP



  • #Terrorisme, raison d’État (1/2) | ARTE
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/064376-000-A/terrorisme-raison-d-etat-1-2

    Avant le 11-Septembre, quelque quatre cents personnes avaient prêté allégeance à #Al-Qaida. Seize ans plus tard, on compte des dizaines de milliers de militants djihadistes répartis sur plusieurs continents. Les attaques terroristes se sont multipliées à travers le monde, entraînant en Occident une tension des relations avec les minorités et les pays musulmans. En violant les valeurs démocratiques qu’elle prétendait défendre, la « guerre contre la terreur » lancée par l’administration Bush au lendemain du 11-Septembre a eu l’effet d’"un coup de marteau dans une fiole de mercure" : elle a fragmenté une menace autrefois circonscrite, et s’est muée en un conflit mondial et permanent, formidable terrain pour le recrutement djihadiste, mais aussi pour les groupes #xénophobes qui montent en puissance, en #Europe comme aux #États-Unis. Tel est le sombre bilan qu’établissent, face au réalisateur Ilan Ziv (#Capitalisme), des dirigeants politiques, des responsables de la sécurité et des généraux américains, britanniques, français et israéliens qui ont vécu les événements de l’intérieur et au plus haut niveau.

    Qu’ils restent fidèles à leurs actes passés, comme le #néoconservateur Richard Perle, ou qu’ils s’avouent hantés par la culpabilité, comme l’ancien bras droit de Colin Powell au secrétariat d’État, Lawrence Wilkerson, ils permettent de comprendre pourquoi cette #guerre qui a ravagé le #Moyen-Orient et causé des centaines de milliers de #morts constitue une impasse dont il est difficile de sortir. Du #mensonge délibéré qui a déclenché l’invasion de l’Irak aux « sites noirs » où les États-Unis ont pratiqué la #torture, Ilan Ziv décrypte les faits à l’aune du présent, pour montrer combien les concepts forgés par une administration pourtant discréditée restent plus que jamais agissants.


  • Un projet de f#ichage géant des citoyens non membres de l’#UE prend forme en #Europe

    Un accord provisoire a été signé le 5 février entre la présidence du Conseil européen et le Parlement européen pour renforcer les contrôles aux frontières de l’Union. Il va consolider la mise en commun de fichiers de données personnelles. Les défenseurs des libertés individuelles s’alarment.

    Des appareils portables équipés de lecteurs d’#empreintes_digitales et d’#images_faciales, pour permettre aux policiers de traquer des terroristes : ce n’est plus de la science-fiction, mais un projet européen en train de devenir réalité. Le 5 février 2019, un accord préliminaire sur l’#interopérabilité des #systèmes_d'information au niveau du continent a ainsi été signé.

    Il doit permettre l’unification de six #registres avec des données d’#identification_alphanumériques et biométriques (empreintes digitales et images faciales) de citoyens non membres de l’UE. En dépit des nombreuses réserves émises par les Cnil européennes.

    Giovanni Buttarelli, contrôleur européen de la protection des données, a qualifié cette proposition de « point de non-retour » dans le système de base de données européen. En substance, les registres des demandeurs d’asile (#Eurodac), des demandeurs de visa pour l’Union européenne (#Visa) et des demandeurs (système d’information #Schengen) seront joints à trois nouvelles bases de données mises en place ces derniers mois, toutes concernant des citoyens non membres de l’UE.

    Pourront ainsi accéder à la nouvelle base de données les forces de police des États membres, mais aussi les responsables d’#Interpol, d’#Europol et, dans de nombreux cas, même les #gardes-frontières de l’agence européenne #Frontex. Ils pourront rechercher des personnes par nom, mais également par empreinte digitale ou faciale, et croiser les informations de plusieurs bases de données sur une personne.

    « L’interopérabilité peut consister en un seul registre avec des données isolées les unes des autres ou dans une base de données centralisée. Cette dernière hypothèse peut comporter des risques graves de perte d’informations sensibles, explique Buttarelli. Le choix entre les deux options est un détail fondamental qui sera clarifié au moment de la mise en œuvre. »

    Le Parlement européen et le Conseil doivent encore approuver officiellement l’accord, avant qu’il ne devienne législation.

    Les #risques de la méga base de données

    « J’ai voté contre l’interopérabilité parce que c’est une usine à gaz qui n’est pas conforme aux principes de proportionnalité, de nécessité et de finalité que l’on met en avant dès lors qu’il peut être question d’atteintes aux droits fondamentaux et aux libertés publiques, assure Marie-Christine Vergiat, députée européenne, membre de la commission des libertés civiles. On mélange tout : les autorités de contrôle aux #frontières et les autorités répressives par exemple, alors que ce ne sont pas les mêmes finalités. »

    La proposition de règlement, élaborée par un groupe d’experts de haut niveau d’institutions européennes et d’États membres, dont les noms n’ont pas été révélés, avait été présentée par la Commission en décembre 2017, dans le but de prévenir les attaques terroristes et de promouvoir le contrôle aux frontières.

    Les institutions de l’UE sont pourtant divisées quant à son impact sur la sécurité des citoyens : d’un côté, Krum Garkov, directeur de #Eu-Lisa – l’agence européenne chargée de la gestion de l’immense registre de données –, estime qu’elle va aider à prévenir les attaques et les terroristes en identifiant des criminels sous de fausses identités. De l’autre côté, Giovanni Buttarelli met en garde contre une base de données centralisée, qui risque davantage d’être visée par des cyberattaques. « Nous ne devons pas penser aux simples pirates, a-t-il déclaré. Il y a des puissances étrangères très intéressées par la vulnérabilité de ces systèmes. »

    L’utilité pour l’antiterrorisme : les doutes des experts

    L’idée de l’interopérabilité des systèmes d’information est née après le 11-Septembre. Elle s’est développée en Europe dans le contexte de la crise migratoire et des attentats de 2015, et a été élaborée dans le cadre d’une relation de collaboration étroite entre les institutions européennes chargées du contrôle des frontières et l’industrie qui développe les technologies pour le mettre en œuvre.

    « L’objectif de lutte contre le terrorisme a disparu : on parle maintenant de “#fraude_à_l'identité”, et l’on mélange de plus en plus lutte contre la #criminalité et lutte contre l’immigration dite irrégulière, ajoute Vergiat. J’ai participé à la commission spéciale du Parlement européen sur la #lutte_contre_le_terrorisme ; je sais donc que le lien entre #terrorisme et #immigration dite irrégulière est infinitésimal. On compte les cas de ressortissants de pays tiers arrêtés pour faits de terrorisme sur les doigts d’une main. »

    Dans la future base de données, « un référentiel d’identité unique collectera les données personnelles des systèmes d’information des différents pays, tandis qu’un détecteur d’identités multiples reliera les différentes identités d’un même individu », a déclaré le directeur d’Eu-Lisa, lors de la conférence annuelle de l’#Association_européenne_de_biométrie (#European_Association_for_Biometrics#EAB) qui réunit des représentants des fabricants des technologies de #reconnaissance_numérique nécessaires à la mise en œuvre du système.

    « Lors de l’attaque de Berlin, perpétrée par le terroriste Anis Amri, nous avons constaté que cet individu avait 14 identités dans l’Union européenne, a-t-il expliqué. Il est possible que, s’il y avait eu une base de données interopérable, il aurait été arrêté auparavant. »

    Cependant, Reinhard Kreissl, directeur du Vienna Centre for Societal Security (Vicesse) et expert en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme, souligne que, dans les attentats terroristes perpétrés en Europe ces dix dernières années, « les auteurs étaient souvent des citoyens européens, et ne figuraient donc pas dans des bases de données qui devaient être unifiées. Et tous étaient déjà dans les radars des forces de police ».

    « Tout agent des services de renseignement sérieux admettra qu’il dispose d’une liste de 1 000 à 1 500 individus dangereux, mais qu’il ne peut pas les suivre tous, ajoute Kreissl. Un trop-plein de données n’aide pas la police. »

    « L’interopérabilité coûte des milliards de dollars et l’intégration de différents systèmes n’est pas aussi facile qu’il y paraît », déclare Sandro Gaycken, directeur du Digital Society Institute à l’Esmt de Berlin. « Il est préférable d’investir dans l’intelligence des gens, dit l’expert en cyberintelligence, afin d’assurer plus de #sécurité de manière moins intrusive pour la vie privée. »

    Le #budget frontière de l’UE augmente de 197 %

    La course aux marchés publics pour la mise en place de la nouvelle base de données est sur le point de commencer : dans le chapitre consacré aux dépenses « Migration et contrôle des frontières » du budget proposé par la Commission pour la période 2021-2027, le fonds de gestion des frontières a connu une augmentation de 197 %, tandis que la part consacrée aux politiques de migration et d’asile n’a augmenté, en comparaison, que de 36 %.

    En 2020, le système #Entry_Exit (#Ees, ou #SEE, l’une des trois nouvelles bases de données centralisées avec interopérabilité) entrera en vigueur. Il oblige chaque État membre à collecter les empreintes digitales et les images de visages de tous les citoyens non européens entrant et sortant de l’Union, et d’alerter lorsque les permis de résidence expirent.

    Cela signifie que chaque frontière, aéroportuaire, portuaire ou terrestre, doit être équipée de lecteurs d’empreintes digitales et d’images faciales. La Commission a estimé que ce SEE coûterait 480 millions d’euros pour les quatre premières années. Malgré l’énorme investissement de l’Union, de nombreuses dépenses resteront à la charge des États membres.

    Ce sera ensuite au tour d’#Etias (#Système_européen_d’information_de_voyage_et_d’autorisation), le nouveau registre qui établit un examen préventif des demandes d’entrée, même pour les citoyens de pays étrangers qui n’ont pas besoin de visa pour entrer dans l’UE. Cette dernière a estimé son coût à 212,1 millions d’euros, mais le règlement, en plus de prévoir des coûts supplémentaires pour les États, mentionne des « ressources supplémentaires » à garantir aux agences de l’UE responsables de son fonctionnement, en particulier pour les gardes-côtes et les gardes-frontières de Frontex.

    C’est probablement la raison pour laquelle le #budget proposé pour Frontex a plus que triplé pour les sept prochaines années, pour atteindre 12 milliards d’euros. Le tout dans une ambiance de conflits d’intérêts entre l’agence européenne et l’industrie de la biométrie.

    Un membre de l’unité recherche et innovation de Frontex siège ainsi au conseil d’administration de l’#Association_européenne_de_biométrie (#EAB), qui regroupe les principales organisations de recherche et industrielles du secteur de l’identification numérique, et fait aussi du lobbying. La conférence annuelle de l’association a été parrainée par le géant biométrique français #Idemia et la #Security_Identity_Alliance.

    L’agente de recherche de Frontex et membre du conseil d’EAB Rasa Karbauskaite a ainsi suggéré à l’auditoire de représentants de l’industrie de participer à la conférence organisée par Frontex avec les États membres : « L’occasion de montrer les dernières technologies développées. » Un représentant de l’industrie a également demandé à Karbauskaite d’utiliser son rôle institutionnel pour faire pression sur l’Icao, l’agence des Nations unies chargée de la législation des passeports, afin de rendre les technologies de sécurité des données biométriques obligatoires pour le monde entier.

    La justification est toujours de « protéger les citoyens européens du terrorisme international », mais il n’existe toujours aucune donnée ou étude sur la manière dont les nouveaux registres de données biométriques et leur interconnexion peuvent contribuer à cet objectif.

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/250219/un-projet-de-fichage-geant-de-citoyens-prend-forme-en-europe
    #surveillance_de_masse #surveillance #étrangers #EU #anti-terrorisme #big-data #biométrie #complexe_militaro-industriel #business


  • EN DIRECT - Attaque de deux surveillants par un détenu radicalisé : « Le caractère terroriste ne fait aucun doute » - LCI
    https://www.lci.fr/police/en-direct-video-orne-conde-sur-sarthe-un-detenu-radicalise-attaque-deux-surveill

    « Le caractère terroriste de cette attaque ne fait aucun doute », a expliqué Nicole Belloubet, Garde des Sceaux.

    Les tirs de LBD40 ne font toujours pas l’objet de discussions au gouvernement, et il reste hors de question de nommer la doctrine informelle en cours consistant à blesser les manifestants sur les zones sensibles du corps (entrejambe, poitrine, visage...). Cependant, quand un détraqué pète un câble dans ce qui sert de Prison* en France c’est évidemment du terrorisme.

    * prisons qui sont de notoriété internationale plus proches de l’Asile d’Arkham que de maisons privatives de liberté mais respectueuses de la dignité


  • Blanchiment : une majorité de pays de l’UE s’oppose à une nouvelle liste noire
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2019/02/28/97001-20190228FILWWW00292-blanchiment-une-majorite-de-pays-de-l-ue-s-oppose

    Une majorité « très large » d’Etats membres de l’UE s’est opposée aujourd’hui à une « liste noire » contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme qui ajoutait 7 pays, dont l’Arabie saoudite, sur proposition de la Commission, a indiqué une source au Conseil.

    Dans la presse arabe, cette info se traduit « l’Europe cède aux pressions saoudiennes et retire le Royaume de sa liste noire » (الاتحاد الأوروبي يرضخ لضغوط السعودية ويُنقذها من « القائمة السوداء » https://raseef22.com/politics/2019/03/01/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%aa%d8%ad%d8%a7%d8%af-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d9%88%d8%b1%)

    Je rappelle aussi que les Britanniques n’ont pas eu autant de problèmes de conscience pour condamner le Hezbollah comme organisation terroriste (La décision britannique est « une insulte au peuple libanais », selon le Hezbollah : https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1159639/la-decision-britannique-est-une-insulte-au-peuple-libanais-selon-le-h)

    #terrorisme à dimension variable


  • #Shamima_Begum: Isis Briton faces move to revoke citizenship

    The Guardian understands the home secretary thinks section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives him the power to strip Begum of her UK citizenship.

    He wrote to her family informing them he had made such an order, believing the fact her parents are of Bangladeshi heritage means she can apply for citizenship of that country – though Begum says she has never visited it.

    This is crucial because, while the law bars him from making a person stateless, it allows him to remove citizenship if he can show Begum has behaved “in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK” and he has “reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the UK, to become a national of such a country or territory”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/19/isis-briton-shamima-begum-to-have-uk-citizenship-revoked?CMP=Share_Andr
    #citoyenneté #UK #Angleterre #apatridie #révocation #terrorisme #ISIS #EI #Etat_islamique #nationalité #déchéance_de_nationalité

    • What do we know about citizenship stripping?

      The Bureau began investigating the Government’s powers to deprive individuals of their British citizenship two years ago.

      The project has involved countless hours spent in court, deep and detailed use of the freedom of information act and the input of respected academics, lawyers and politicians.

      The Counter-Terrorism Bill was presented to Parliament two weeks ago. New powers to remove passports from terror suspects and temporarily exclude suspected jihadists from the UK have focused attention on the Government’s citizenship stripping powers, which have been part of the government’s counter-terrorism tools for nearly a decade.

      A deprivation order can be made where the home secretary believes that it is ‘not conducive’ to the public good for the individual to remain in the country, or where citizenship is believed to have been obtained fraudulently. The Bureau focuses on cases based on ‘not conducive’ grounds, which are related to national security and suspected terrorist activity.

      Until earlier this year, the Government was only able to remove the citizenship of British nationals where doing so wouldn’t leave them stateless. However, in July an amendment to the British Nationality Act (BNA) came into force and powers to deprive a person of their citizenship were expanded. Foreign-born, naturalised individuals can now be stripped of their UK citizenship on national security grounds even if it renders them stateless, a practice described by a former director of public prosecutions as being “beloved of the world’s worst regimes during the 20th century”.

      So what do we know about how these powers are used?
      The numbers

      53 people have been stripped of their British citizenship since 2002 – this includes both people who were considered to have gained their citizenship fraudulently, as well as those who have lost it for national security reasons.
      48 of these were under the Coalition government.
      Since 2006, 27 people have lost their citizenship on national security grounds; 24 of these were under the current Coalition government.
      In 2013, home secretary Theresa May stripped 20 individuals of their British citizenship – more than in all the preceding years of the Coalition put together.
      The Bureau has identified 18 of the 53 cases, 17 of which were deprived of their citizenship on national security grounds.
      15 of the individuals identified by the Bureau who lost their citizenship on national security grounds were abroad at the time of the deprivation order.
      At least five of those who have lost their nationality were born in the UK.
      The previous Labour government used deprivation orders just five times in four years.
      Hilal Al-Jedda was the first individual whose deprivation of citizenship case made it to the Supreme Court. The home secretary lost her appeal as the Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled her deprivation order against Al-Jedda had made him illegally stateless. Instead of returning his passport, just three weeks later the home secretary issued a second deprivation order against him.
      This was one of two deprivation of citizenship cases to have made it to the Supreme Court, Britain’s uppermost court, to date.
      In November 2014 deprivation of citizenship case number two reached the Supreme Court, with the appellant, Minh Pham, also arguing that the deprivation order against him made him unlawfully stateless.
      Two of those stripped of their British citizenship by Theresa May in 2010, London-born Mohamed Sakr and his childhood friend Bilal al Berjawi, were later killed by US drone strikes in Somalia.
      One of the individuals identified by the Bureau, Mahdi Hashi, was the subject of rendition to the US, where he was held in secret for over a month and now faces terror charges.
      Only one individual, Iraqi-born Hilal al-Jedda, is currently known to have been stripped of his British citizenship twice.
      Number of Bureau Q&As on deprivation of citizenship: one.

      https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-12-10/what-do-we-know-about-citizenship-stripping
      #statistiques #chiffres

    • ‘My British citizenship was everything to me. Now I am nobody’ – A former British citizen speaks out

      When a British man took a holiday to visit relatives in Pakistan in January 2012 he had every reason to look forward to returning home. He worked full time at the mobile phone shop beneath his flat in southeast London, he had a busy social life and preparations for his family’s visit to the UK were in full flow.

      Two years later, the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is stranded in Pakistan, and claims he is under threat from the Taliban and unable to find work to support his wife and three children.

      He is one of 27 British nationals since 2006 who have had their citizenship removed under secretive government orders on the grounds that their presence in the UK is ‘not conducive to the public good’. He is the first to speak publicly about his ordeal.

      ‘My British citizenship was everything to me. I could travel around the world freely,’ he told the Bureau. ‘That was my identity but now I am nobody.’

      Under current legislation, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has the power to strip dual nationals of their British citizenship if she deems their presence in the UK ‘not conducive to the public good’, or if their nationality was gained on fraudulent grounds. May recently won a Commons vote paving the way to allow her to strip the citizenship of foreign-born or naturalised UK nationals even if it rendered them stateless. Amendments to the Immigration Bill – including the controversial Article 60 concerning statelessness – are being tabled this week in the House of Lords.

      A Bureau investigation in December 2013 revealed 20 British nationals were stripped of their citizenship last year – more than in all previous years under the Coalition combined. Twelve of these were later revealed to have been cases where an individual had gained citizenship by fraud; the remaining eight are on ‘conducive’ grounds.

      Since 2006 when the current laws entered force, 27 orders have been made on ‘conducive’ grounds, issued in practice against individuals suspected of involvement in extremist activities. The Home Secretary often makes her decision when the individual concerned is outside the UK, and, in at least one case, deliberately waited for a British national to go on holiday before revoking his citizenship.

      The only legal recourse to these decisions, which are taken without judicial approval, is for the individual affected to submit a formal appeal to the Special Immigration and Asylum Committee (Siac), where evidence can be heard in secret, within 28 days of the order being given. These appeals can take years to conclude, leaving individuals – the vast majority of whom have never been charged with an offence – stranded abroad.

      The process has been compared to ‘medieval exile’ by leading human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce.

      The man, who is referred to in court documents as E2, was born in Afghanistan and still holds Afghan citizenship. He claimed asylum in Britain in 1999 after fleeing the Taliban regime in Kabul, and was granted indefinite leave to remain. In 2009 he became a British citizen.

      While his immediate family remained in Pakistan, E2 came to London, where he worked and integrated in the local community. Although this interview was conducted in his native Pashto, E2 can speak some English.

      ‘I worked and I learned English,’ he says. ‘Even now I see myself as a British. If anyone asks me, I tell them that I am British.’

      But, as of March 28 2012, E2 is no longer a British citizen. After E2 boarded a flight to Kabul in January 2012 to visit relatives in Afghanistan and his wife and children in Pakistan, a letter containing May’s signature was sent to his southeast London address from the UK Border Agency, stating he had been deprived of his British nationality. In evidence that remains secret even from him, E2 was accused of involvement in ‘Islamist extremism’ and deemed a national security threat. He denies the allegation and says he has never participated in extremist activity.

      In the letter the Home Secretary wrote: ‘My decision has been taken in part reliance on information which, in my opinion should not be made public in the interest of national security and because disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.’

      E2 says he had no way of knowing his citizenship had been removed and that the first he heard of the decision was when he was met by a British embassy official at Dubai airport on May 25 2012, when he was on his way back to the UK and well after his appeal window shut.

      E2’s lawyer appealed anyway, and submitted to Siac that: ‘Save for written correspondence to the Appellant’s last known address in the UK expressly stating that he has 28 days to appeal, i.e. acknowledging that he was not in the UK, no steps were taken to contact the Appellant by email, telephone or in person until an official from the British Embassy met him at Dubai airport and took his passport from him.’

      The submission noted that ‘it is clear from this [decision] that the [Home Secretary] knew that the Appellant [E2] is out of the country as the deadline referred to is 28 days.’

      The Home Office disputed that E2 was unaware of the order against him, and a judge ruled that he was satisfied ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that E2 did know about the removal of his citizenship. ‘[W]e do not believe his statement,’ the judge added.

      His British passport was confiscated and, after spending 18 hours in an airport cell, E2 was made to board a flight back to Kabul. He has remained in Afghanistan and Pakistan ever since. It is from Pakistan that he agreed to speak to the Bureau last month.

      Daniel Carey, who is representing E2 in a fresh appeal to Siac, says: ‘The practice of waiting until a citizen leaves the UK before depriving them of citizenship, and then opposing them when they appeal out of time, is an intentional attack on citizens’ due process rights.

      ‘By bending an unfair system to its will the government is getting worryingly close to a system of citizenship by executive fiat.’

      While rules governing hearings at Siac mean some evidence against E2 cannot be disclosed on grounds of national security, the Bureau has been able to corroborate key aspects of E2’s version of events, including his best guess as to why his citizenship was stripped. His story revolves around an incident that occurred thousands of miles away from his London home and several years before he saw it for the last time.

      In November 2008, Afghan national Zia ul-Haq Ahadi was kidnapped as he left the home of his infirmed mother in Peshawar, Pakistan. The event might have gone unnoticed were he not the brother of Afghanistan’s then finance minister and former presidential hopeful Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi. Anwar intervened, and after 13 months of tortuous negotiations with the kidnappers, a ransom was paid and Zia was released. E2 claims to have been the man who drove a key negotiator to Zia’s kidnappers.

      While the Bureau has not yet been able to confirm whether E2 had played the role he claimed in the release, a source with detailed knowledge of the kidnapping told the Bureau he was ‘willing to give [E2] some benefit of the doubt because there are elements of truth [in his version of events].’

      The source confirmed a man matching E2’s description was involved in the negotiations.

      ‘We didn’t know officially who the group was, but they were the kidnappers. I didn’t know whether they were with the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban,’ E2 says. ‘After releasing the abducted person I came back to London.’

      E2 guesses – since not even his lawyers have seen specific evidence against him – that it was this activity that brought him to the attention of British intelligence services. After this point, he was repeatedly stopped as he travelled to and from London and Afghanistan and Pakistan to visit relatives four times between the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2012.

      ‘MI5 questioned me for three or four hours each time I came to London at Heathrow airport,’ he says. ‘They said people like me [Pashtun Afghans] go to Waziristan and from there you start fighting with British and US soldiers.

      ‘The very last time [I was questioned] was years after the [kidnapping]. I was asked to a Metropolitan Police station in London. They showed me pictures of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [former Afghan prime minister and militant with links to the Pakistani Taliban (TTP)] along with other leaders and Taliban commanders. They said: ‘You know these guys.’

      He claims he was shown a photo of his wife – a highly intrusive action in conservative Pashtun culture – as well as one of someone he was told was Sirajuddin Haqqani, commander of the Haqqani Network, one of the most lethal TTP-allied groups.

      ‘They said I met him, that I was talking to him and I have connections with him. I said that’s wrong. I told [my interrogator] that you can call [Anwar al-Ahady] and he will explain that he sent me to Waziristan and that I found and released his brother,’ E2 says.

      ‘I don’t know Sirajuddin Haqqani and I didn’t meet him.’

      The Haqqani Network, which operates in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas and across the border in Afghanistan, was designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States in September 2012. It has claimed responsibility for a score of attacks against Afghan, Pakistani and NATO security forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The UN accuses Sirajuddin Haqqani of being ‘actively involved in the planning and execution of attacks targeting International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), Afghan officials and civilians.’

      E2 says he has no idea whether Haqqani was involved in Zia’s kidnapping, but he believes the security services may have started investigating him when he met the imam of a mosque he visited in North Waziristan.

      ‘The imam had lunch with us and he was with me while I was waiting for my father-in-law. I didn’t take his number but I gave him mine. That imam often called me on my shop’s BT telephone line [in London]. These calls put me in trouble,’ he says.

      If E2’s version of events is accurate, it would mean he gained his British citizenship while he was negotiating Zia’s release. He lost it less than three years later.

      The Home Office offered a boilerplate response to the Bureau’s questions: ‘The Home Secretary will remove British citizenship from individuals where she feels it is conducive to the public good to do so.’

      When challenged specifically on allegations made by E2, the spokesman said the Home Office does not comment on individual cases.

      E2 says he now lives in fear for his safety in Pakistan. Since word has spread that he lost his UK nationality, locals assume he is guilty, which he says puts him at risk of attack from the Pakistani security forces. In addition, he says his family has received threats from the Taliban for his interaction with MI5.

      ‘People back in Afghanistan know that my British passport was revoked because I was accused of working with the Taliban. I can’t visit my relatives and I am an easy target to others,’ he said. ‘Without the British passport here, whether [by] the government or Taliban, we can be executed easily.’

      E2 is not alone in fearing for his life after being exiled from Britain. Two British nationals stripped of their citizenship in 2010 were killed a year later by a US drone strike in Somalia. A third Briton, Mahdi Hashi, disappeared from east Africa after having his citizenship revoked in June 2012 only to appear in a US court after being rendered from Djibouti.

      E2 says if the government was so certain of his involvement in extremism they should allow him to stand trial in a criminal court.

      ‘When somebody’s citizenship is revoked if he is criminal he should be put in jail, otherwise he should be free and should have his passport returned,’ he says.

      ‘My message [to Theresa May] is that my citizenship was revoked illegally. It’s wrong that only by sending a letter that your citizenship is revoked. What kind of democracy is it that?’

      https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-03-17/my-british-citizenship-was-everything-to-me-now-i-am-nobody-a



  • La bonne blague de la nuit
    (nop !)
    Une info signalée par Sylvain Ernault sur twitter : "Deux policiers nantais n’ont pas pu se constituer parties civiles car ils voulaient rester anonymes. Pour leur avocate, il s’agissait d’éviter que leur nom apparaisse sur « des sites très engagés dans la lutte armée » comme @Nantes_Revoltee ou Indymedia."
    https://twitter.com/SylvainErnault/status/1095807777660915712

    L’info provient d’un article du Télégramme : Nantes. Le jeune de Plounérin avait jeté des bouteilles sur les policiers depuis son balcon : https://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/nantes-le-jeune-de-plounerin-avait-jete-des-bouteilles-sur-les-policier

    Le procès a d’ailleurs fait l’objet d’une nouvelle passe d’armes entre les deux parties sur les constitutions de partie civile des policiers : deux d’entre eux, sur les trois, l’ont fait sous couvert d’anonymat. Cette disposition légale, imaginée pour les policiers infiltrés dans les réseaux terroristes, permet aux fonctionnaires de se prémunir de potentielles « représailles ».

    « C’est la première fois en France que des fonctionnaires sont amenés à faire des dépositions sous couvert d’anonymat dans de telles circonstances », a redit mercredi à l’audience leur avocate, Me Annie Hupé. « Depuis 2016, on voit en effet toujours les mêmes personnes dans la salle d’audience : elles relatent les condamnations, mais aussi les noms et prénoms des policiers, sur des sites très engagés dans la lutte armée comme Nantes Révoltée ou Indymedia. »

    « Chasse aux sorcieres »

    L’avocate s’était donc opposée à la levée de leur anonymat pour protéger ces fonctionnaires qui font l’objet d’une « véritable chasse aux sorcières ». Elle a rappelé qu’un couple de policiers avait été assassiné par un djihadiste sous les yeux de son fils de 3 ans à Magnanville (Yvelines) en 2016.

    Vendredi dernier, une demande de dommages et intérêts avait toutefois été jugée irrecevable par le même tribunal correctionnel pour « défaut d’identification » de fonctionnaires qui avaient déposé sous leur seul numéro de matricule.

    Bon sur le moment ça m’a fait marrer : https://twitter.com/ValKphotos/status/1095826082702544896 et https://nantes.indymedia.org/articles/44517#comment-299661 mais en fait, comme le dit une personne qui me répond, "C’est révélateur de leur état d’esprit quand même. Ils sont en guerre les gus."
    J’veux dire, outre le fait de présenter "indymedia" et "nantes revoltée" comme sites "de lutte armée" (du coup pour les seconds, c’est facebook et twitter les sites en question, ce qui rejoint ce dont parlait @arno https://seenthis.net/messages/759955 ) y’a une attitude complètement puérile à ne pas assumer un secret de polichinelle : toute personne qui assiste ne serait-ce qu’à deux aprèms (c’est mon cas) de procès liés aux manifs à Nantes peut faire le même constat : ce sont souvent les mêmes qui reviennent.... (comme le dit un dicton local : "ça crève les yeux") Entre la #zad, la #loi_travail et les dizaines d’autres mouvements sociaux, y’en a pourtant eut des centaines de procès... C’est tellement flagrant qu’un tableau avait été fait lors d’un des rassemblements estivaux de l’ACIPA (sans doute par la legal team)
    Donc les flics en sont au stade de réclamer de pouvoir toucher de l’argent anonymement ... et craignent que ça se sache ! Et le dénoncer serait participer à la lutte armée djihadiste ?!
    Il va falloir qu’ils fassent un stage auprès de la #CNIL qui leur expliquera le rendu du procès gagné contre l’#OCLCTIC sur le sujet : https://seenthis.net/messages/757648 et le communiqué de @indymedianantes : https://seenthis.net/messages/759682 :

    "l’existence d’une entreprise terroriste ne peut être déduite de la seule expression d’idées radicales au moyen de « communication au public par voie électronique »"

    #internet et #liberté #repression #terrorisme #1984


  • Terrorismo, l’Ue punta centinaia di milioni sulla biometria. Tra pressioni delle #lobby e dubbi degli esperti

    L’inchiesta integrale su #Fq_MillenniuM: una giornalista ha seguito passo dopo passo le attività dell’Associazione europea per il biometrico, scoprendo conflitti d’interesse e manovre per convincere il Parlamento ad approvare il progetto. Si prevedono fra l’altro algoritmi in grado di «leggere» i movimenti del volto, stile macchine della verità, per controllare gli extracomunitari in ingresso nell’Unione. Lo scetticismo degli addetti ai lavori. Giannini (Antiterrorismo): «Rischiamo di essere sommersi di dati inutili»


    https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2018/12/22/terrorismo-lue-punta-centinaia-di-milioni-sulla-biometria-tra-pressioni-delle-lobby-e-dubbi-degli-esperti/4851028
    #terrorisme #surveillance #biométrie #technologie #UE #EU #Europe #algorithmes #surveillance_de_masse #anti-terrorisme
    ping @fil



  • Débat : « L’emmurement du monde disloque de l’intérieur les #sociétés »
    http://theconversation.com/debat-lemmurement-du-monde-disloque-de-linterieur-les-societes-1103

    ... la #murophilie actuelle revêt trois #dangers inédits. Elle introduit une disjonction potentiellement explosive entre, d’une part, une intégration forcenée de la planète dans les domaines de la #finance, du commerce, de la technologie, du sport, des loisirs, de la culture matérielle ou spirituelle, et, d’autre part, le #cloisonnement de plus en plus coercitif, voire militarisé, du marché international de la force de #travail et de la circulation des personnes.

    S’imaginer que la majorité de l’humanité va rester sur le seuil du magasin de la #globalisation, qu’on lui interdit de franchir, sans défoncer sa porte et faire voler en éclat sa vitrine relève de l’irénisme.

    En deuxième lieu, l’#endiguement des #barbares corrompt de l’intérieur la #cité qu’il prétend protéger. Il implique des régimes juridiques dérogatoires au détriment des étrangers, assimilés à des #ennemis. Ces législations progressivement s’étendent aux #citoyens eux-mêmes, instaurent des états d’exception qui deviennent des États d’exception, et banalisent une abjection d’État, laquelle s’institutionnalise en États d’#abjection.

    Au nom de la lutte contre le #terrorisme et l’#immigration clandestine, les #libertés publiques sont de plus en plus menacées dans les pays occidentaux ; le #droit d’asile et le droit de la mer sont bafoués ; la #politique de refoulement de l’#Union_européenne provoque chaque année plus de morts en #Méditerranée et dans le #Sahara que trois décennies de guerre civile en Irlande du Nord ; les #États-Unis séparent les enfants de leurs parents en attendant la construction de la barrière anti-latinos sur leur frontière avec le #Mexique ; #Israël a perdu toute mesure dans le containment des Palestiniens ou l’expulsion des Africains. Or, cet État d’abjection reçoit l’onction du suffrage universel et peut se réclamer d’une #légitimité démocratique. Avec et derrière les #murs prospère la « #servitude_volontaire ».

    Enfin, l’emmurement du monde disloque de l’intérieur les sociétés. Il privatise l’espace public et la ville elle-même. Il externalise les frontières des États les plus puissants au sein d’autres États dépendants, à l’instar de l’Union européenne au Sahel, et éventre leur #souveraineté.

    Il recourt à la #biométrie qui le rend invisible, et son immatérialité segmente à l’infini la cité. Dans la Chine orwellienne d’aujourd’hui, par rapport à laquelle le totalitarisme maoïste prend des airs de passoire, chaque escalier mécanique, chaque carrefour, chaque place, surveillé électroniquement, est un mur qui reconnaît en vous le bon ou le mauvais citoyen, et peut vous empêcher de monter dans l’avion ou le train. Il est à craindre que les marchands de #peur et de biométrie n’appliquent vite la recette aux #démocraties libérales. Murs de tous les pays, unissez-vous !


  • Lille : 4 membres de l’ultra droite en garde à vue après la diffusion d’un reportage Yohan Blavignat - 29 Janvier 2019 - Le figaro
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2019/01/29/01016-20190129ARTFIG00245-lille-4-membres-de-l-ultra-droite-en-garde-a-vue-

    La chaîne Al Jazeera a diffusé mi-décembre un reportage réalisé en caméra cachée sur le bar « La Citadelle », dont le président affirme être le représentant régional de Génération Identitaire, et dans lequel des clients tiennent des propos racistes.


    Soupçonnés notamment de violences, d’incitation à la haine et d’apologie du terrorisme, quatre membres de la mouvance d’ultra droite ont été placés en garde à vue ce mardi à Lille, dans le cadre d’une enquête préliminaire ouverte après la diffusion d’un reportage d’Al Jazeera sur le bar privé « La Citadelle », a indiqué le parquet. Mi-décembre, une enquête avait été ouverte quelques jours après la diffusion de ce reportage en deux parties, intitulé « Generation Hate ».

    Filmés en caméra cachée, des clients y tiennent des propos racistes, notamment dans les locaux de ce bar situé en plein cœur de Lille et dont le président affirme être le représentant régional du groupuscule d’ultra droite Génération Identitaire. Plusieurs personnes fréquentant cet établissement se vantent de ratonnades contre des personnes d’origine arabe et des images montrent même l’attaque d’une jeune femme qu’ils désignent comme maghrébine. On les voit aussi trinquer au « Troisième Reich » avant cette agression. L’enquête de la sûreté urbaine porte sur des « faits de violence, propos racistes, incitation à la haine et apologie du terrorisme », selon une source policière.

    Le président de « La Citadelle », Aurélien Verhassel, ne fait pas partie des quatre personnes interpellées mardi matin à leur domicile, des hommes âgés de 18 à 30 ans et habitant dans la métropole lilloise. Lors d’une conférence de presse le 17 janvier, Aurélien Verhassel, 34 ans, avait condamné ces deux « pseudo-reportages » de la chaîne qatarie, faits de « montages trompeurs » et « fallacieux ». Selon lui, il n’existe « aucun lien juridique ou structurel entre l’organisation Citadelle - c’est une association - et Génération identitaire ». « Ce sont deux entités différentes », avait insisté Aurélien Verhassel, qui se dit également représentant de Génération identitaire en Flandres, Artois et Nord. Selon lui, les personnes tenant des propos racistes dans le reportage étaient « de passage » et « pas des militants actifs ».

    « Pseudo-reportages »
    Le local privé - qui n’a pas pignon sur rue, se trouvant dans une cour - a été ouvert en 2016 à l’initiative de membres de Génération identitaire et revendique 1200 adhérents. Cette « maison de l’identité » se veut également permanence juridique, salle de boxe ou encore ciné-club. Dénonçant les « propos insupportables » tenus dans le documentaire, la maire socialiste de Lille, Martine Aubry, avait réclamé la fermeture de « La Citadelle » et saisi le parquet avec le préfet du Nord, Michel Lalande. Quelque 300 personnes avaient également manifesté en décembre pour réclamer la fermeture du bar « qui participe à répandre des idées fascistes ».

    Dans le premier volet de ce documentaire choc d’Al Jazeera, on voit une jeune femme désignée comme maghrébine poussée par un homme au visage découvert puis frappée à coup de poings par un autre, de nuit, dans un autre quartier animé de Lille. « Il n’y a jamais eu de plainte ou de main courante de cette jeune fille », a déclaré une source policière. « On ne l’a pas retrouvée, mais peut-être qu’elle va se manifester. » Quant aux agresseurs, « peu importe leur appartenance à un groupe particulier, ils ont été interpellés parce que dans le reportage ils commettent des infractions, on les voit, on les a identifiés », poursuit cette source.

    Selon Aurélien Verhassel, joint par Le Figaro, deux des membres qui tenaient des propos racistes dans le reportage ont été « exclus de la Citadelle » après sa diffusion, mais n’ont « jamais été membres de Génération identitaire. » « Je suis le seul représentant officiel qui apparaît dans ce reportage, et même après six mois de tournage en caméra cachée, je n’ai jamais été contacté par la police », affirme-t-il.

    Par ailleurs, plusieurs membres de Génération identitaire ont également été placés en garde à vue mardi à Lyon, en lien avec leurs patrouilles anti-migrants menées dans les Alpes au printemps 2018.

    #génération_identitaire #fascisme #lille #la_citadelle #extrême_droite #Al-Jazeera #Canal_de_la_Deûle #France #skinheads #Troisième_voie #identitaires #armes #police #extrême_droite_radicale #la_citadelle #agressions_&_violences #trafic_d'armes #terrorisme #collusion#génération_identitaire Al_Jazeera
    @marty @albertocampiphoto


  • Financement du #terrorisme : la Commission européenne ajoute l’Arabie sur sa liste noire - L’Orient-Le Jour
    https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1154426/financement-du-terrorisme-la-commission-europeenne-ajoute-larabie-sur

    La Commission européenne a ajouté l’#Arabie_saoudite sur sa liste ["qui reste jusqu’à présent confidentielle"] de pays représentant une menace pour l’UE en raison de ses contrôles jugés trop laxistes dans la lutte contre le financement du terrorisme et le blanchiment d’argent, a-t-on rapporté de sources concordantes à l’agence Reuters.

    #ue #europe


  • Report: Palestinian education increasingly a target of the Israeli #occupation – Mondoweiss
    https://mondoweiss.net/2019/01/palestinian-increasingly-occupation

    The tear gas and sound grenades were fired into residential areas including seven schools affecting more than 3,000 students. The report documents that these recent acts of aggression were arbitrary, unprovoked, and especially intended to target Palestinian school children, their schools and their neighborhoods.

    #Palestine #sionisme #terrorisme


  • Brésil : L’exécutif veut durcir la répression face aux paysans « sans terres »
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2019/01/14/97001-20190114FILWWW00348-bresil-l-executif-veut-durcir-la-repression-face-

    Le nouveau gouvernement brésilien souhaite modifier le droit pour que les envahissements de terrains agricoles par des paysans « sans terres » soient considérés comme du terrorisme, a déclaré aujourd’hui un responsable du ministère de l’Agriculture.

    #ignominie #sans_terre #terrorisme

    Ah ça... c’est pas chez nous qu’on va dire que c’est pas bien. Y-a pas de telex sur le sujet reçu de la part de la CIA avec un article pré-rédigé contenant tous les éléments de langage à régurgiter...


  • Schutz vor Terroranschlägen: Linke blockiert neues Polizeigesetz für Berlin - Berlin - Tagesspiegel
    https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/schutz-vor-terroranschlaegen-linke-blockiert-neues-polizeigesetz-fuer-berlin/23852096.html

    Berlins Polizeigesetz soll novelliert werden – doch die Linke macht dicht. Auch die Videoüberwachung kommt nicht voran. Ulrich Zawatka-Gerlach

    Berliner Linke lehnt mehr Videoüberwachung strikt ab – B.Z. Berlin
    https://www.bz-berlin.de/berlin/berliner-linke-lehnt-mehr-videoueberwachung-strikt-ab

    In einem einstimmig gefassten Beschluss erteilte die Linken-Parteispitze einer von der SPD geplanten Ausweitung der Videoüberwachung eine klare Absage. Gleichzeitig stellte der Landesvorstand klar, dass die Linke darüber hinaus auch jede weitere Verschärfung des Polizeigesetzes mit mehr Befugnissen für die Beamten ablehnt.

    „Berlin darf nicht dem Beispiel anderer Länder folgen und sein Polizeigesetz mit sinnlosen, neuen Grundrechtseingriffe verschärfen“, heißt es in dem jetzt veröffentlichten Beschluss vom Dienstag. Die Koalition müsse dem „angstgetriebenen Sicherheitsdiskurs in der Bundesrepublik“ widerstehen. Innenpolitik müsse durch einen größtmöglichen Schutz von Freiheitsrechten geleitet werden.

    #Allemagne #Berlin #politique #gauche #surveillance #terrorisme


  • Deux interviews un peu longue de Jérémy Ferrari après sa tournée « Vends 2 pièces à Beyrouth » sur la guerre et le terrorisme.

    Une chez Thinkerview :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6zzV4b3nDU

    Une chez Sud Radio, cette radio qui a l’air bien facho, avec des chroniqueurs rédac à Valeurs actuelles, qui invite Asselineau, Chouard, Papacito, etc, « parce que c’est des rebelles » en gros. Questions pas super, mais comme ça durait quand même 1h, ça a laissé à Jérémy Ferrari le temps de dire des choses quand même, et notamment pourquoi il avait pas à répondre quand il n’avait pas d’avis.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVVphJk4XnM

    #Jérémy_Ferrari #interview #humour #éducation_populaire #politique (quoi qu’il en dise) #guerre #terrorisme

    • @mad_meg antiféminisme carrément ? Je suis en train de la regarder de nouveau en accéléré du coup, là j’en suis à la moitié et rien. Et même plutôt l’inverse puisque vers 45min il dit clairement : « si t’as des gens qui pensent qu’une femme parce qu’elle est une femme, ou une personne de par sa sexualité, elle peut peut pas avoir les mêmes droits que les autres, comment veux-tu que ces gens soient humanistes et ouverts d’esprit sur d’autres sujets ensuite ? »
      Autrement dit il pose comme condition qu’il faut déjà pas être sexiste ni homophobe pour être ouvert sur d’autres sujets comme les migrants ou autre.

      On peut pas vraiment appeler ça un propos antiféministe :D

    • Il me semble qu’il y a une partie dans laquelle il parle des féministes mais je me sent pas de réécouté pour te dire ou c’est, dans mon souvenir il parle de féministes contre-productives ou féministes qui vont trop loin. Bon c’etait peut être à propos de Schiappa qu’il disait ca, mais je pense pas. C’est peut être #mansplanning que j’aurais du écrire, mais l’antiféminisme c’est plutot pour le mec qui fait les entretiens qui fait souvent des remarques pourris sur les femmes, les féministes et n’invite presque aucune femme.
      Pour Jeremy Ferrari, j’avais pas apprécié non plus ce qu’il disait sur L’Aquarius.

    • Bé j’ai tout ré-écouté tout à l’heure, et je ne me rappelle pas de passage sur Schiappa, et je crois même pas avoir entendu le mot féminisme ni lui ni l’interviewer, mais j’ai encore peut-être loupé un truc ! (C’est possible hein) T’es sûre que tu confonds pas entre deux interviews ?

      Pour l’Aquarius, c’est dans le morceau où ils discutent des ONG (car son spectacle critique plusieurs grosses ONG qu’il a étudié), et le seul truc qu’il dit (ça dure 3s) c’est qu’il ne connait pas le sujet, et que donc il n’a rien à dire (comme plusieurs sujets, et partout où il est interviewé, dès qu’il ne connait pas un sujet, il refuse de répondre).


  • Douai Claude Hermant de nouveau jugé en appel pour trafic d’armes de guerre Lakhdar Belaïd - 10 Janvier 2019 - la voix du nord
    http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/518810/article/2019-01-10/claude-hermant-de-nouveau-juge-en-appel-pour-trafic-d-armes-de-guerre

    Jusqu’à ce jeudi soir, et depuis hier, la cour d’appel de Douai revient sur le trafic d’armes de guerre imputé à Claude Hermant, ancienne figure de l’ultradroite lilloise. Certaines ont fini entre les mains du terroriste Amedy Coulibaly, le tueur de l’Hyper Cacher parisien. Ce jeudi matin, le parquet a réclamé une confirmation de peine, soit sept ans de prison.

    En septembre 2017, à Lille, le premier procès de Claude Hermant et de cinq autres prévenus s’était ouvert sous très haute surveillance.

    En octobre 2017, Claude Hermant, 55 ans aujourd’hui, écope d’une peine de sept ans de prison. Aurore Joly, sa femme, est, elle, condamnée à cinq ans, dont trois avec sursis. Samir Ladjali, présenté comme un intermédiaire à destination de clients dans la pègre, se voit infliger une peine de cinq ans. Sébastien L., douanier dont Hermant a été un temps l’indicateur, se voit infliger huit mois de prison avec sursis. D’autres condamnés n’ont pas fait appel. Ce jeudi matin, l’avocat-général Bernard Beffy a globalement réclamé une confirmation de ces peines.

    Dans ce dossier, il est question de près de « 470 armes commandées » de 2013 à 2015, relève le magistrat. « Il s’agit d’armes à blanc », rappelle Claude Hermant, à la barre. Comprendre : elles ont été démilitarisées avant leur importation de Slovaquie. « Foutaises ! », contre-attaque le représentant du parquet. Pas seulement parce qu’Hermant est accusé de les avoir remises en service. « Foutaises », à propos de toute la stratégie de Claude Hermant, fondateur de l’ex-Maison flamande, lieu de vie identitaire à Lambersart. Ce dernier se présente comme spécialiste de l’infiltration. Il aurait acquis et vendu des armes à des caïds au profit des services de sécurité. « Sur ces 470 armes, 43 ont été retrouvées, dont les cinq en possession d’Amedy Coulibaly, rappelle Bernard Beffy. M. Hermant, vous vous présentez en homme d’honneur. Vous dites : « J’ai rendu service à mon pays. » Je suis choqué ! »

    L’une des originalités de ce procès concerne Samir Ladjali. À la différence de Claude Hermant, ce Roubaisien comparait désormais libre. Défendu par Cherifa Benmouffok, Ladjali est soupçonné d’être l’homme par qui des armes du réseau Hermant ont pu parvenir à Amedy Coulibaly, le tueur de l’Hyper Cacher de Paris. En décembre dernier, le parquet de Paris, dans le cadre du dossier des attentats terroristes parisiens de janvier 2015, a finalement rendu des réquisitions de non-lieu en faveur de Ladjali. À la juge d’instruction de trancher désormais. Ladjali doit cependant faire face à un article du site Mediapart assurant que l’enquête parisienne néglige des éléments le concernant. Condamné à quatre ans de prison à l’issue du procès lillois de 2017, n’ayant pas fait appel, un ancien proche de Hermant, surnommé Tof, aurait approché de très prêt la mouvance Coulibaly, assure également Mediapart, précisant que cet homme ne sera pas mis en examen dans le dossier parisien. Pour l’avocat général Beffy, il reste à charge contre Ladjali 170 armes ayant pu être « injectées dans la délinquance ou dans le terrorisme ». « Pour Paris, ce n’est pas lui, c’est un autre autre », contre-attaque aussitôt Me Benmouffok, soutenant bien entendu le non-lieu escompté. Délibéré le 7 février.

     #claude_hermant #lille #amedy_coulibaly #identitaires #extrême_droite #attentats #troisième_voie #charlie_hebdo #france #armes #police #extrême_droite_radicale  #la_citadelle #agressions_&_violences #trafic_d'armes #terrorisme #collusion #génération_identitaire


  • Pan Am Flight 103 : Robert Mueller’s 30-Year Search for Justice | WIRED
    https://www.wired.com/story/robert-muellers-search-for-justice-for-pan-am-103

    Cet article décrit le rôle de Robert Mueller dans l’enquête historique qui a permis de dissimuler ou de justifier la plupart des batailles de la guerre non déclarée des États Unis contre l’OLP et les pays arabes qui soutenaient la lutte pour un état palestinien.

    Aux États-Unis, en Allemagne et en France le grand public ignore les actes de guerre commis par les États Unis dans cette guerre. Vu dans ce contexte on ne peut que classer le récit de cet article dans la catégorie idéologie et propagande même si les intentions et faits qu’on y apprend sont bien documentés et plausibles.

    Cette perspective transforme le contenu de cet article d’une variation sur un thème connu dans un reportage sur l’état d’âme des dirigeants étatsuniens moins fanatiques que l’équipe du président actuel.

    THIRTY YEARS AGO last Friday, on the darkest day of the year, 31,000 feet above one of the most remote parts of Europe, America suffered its first major terror attack.

    TEN YEARS AGO last Friday, then FBI director Robert Mueller bundled himself in his tan trench coat against the cold December air in Washington, his scarf wrapped tightly around his neck. Sitting on a small stage at Arlington National Cemetery, he scanned the faces arrayed before him—the victims he’d come to know over years, relatives and friends of husbands and wives who would never grow old, college students who would never graduate, business travelers and flight attendants who would never come home.

    Burned into Mueller’s memory were the small items those victims had left behind, items that he’d seen on the shelves of a small wooden warehouse outside Lockerbie, Scotland, a visit he would never forget: A teenager’s single white sneaker, an unworn Syracuse University sweatshirt, the wrapped Christmas gifts that would never be opened, a lonely teddy bear.

    A decade before the attacks of 9/11—attacks that came during Mueller’s second week as FBI director, and that awoke the rest of America to the threats of terrorism—the bombing of Pan Am 103 had impressed upon Mueller a new global threat.

    It had taught him the complexity of responding to international terror attacks, how unprepared the government was to respond to the needs of victims’ families, and how on the global stage justice would always be intertwined with geopolitics. In the intervening years, he had never lost sight of the Lockerbie bombing—known to the FBI by the codename Scotbom—and he had watched the orphaned children from the bombing grow up over the years.

    Nearby in the cemetery stood a memorial cairn made of pink sandstone—a single brick representing each of the victims, the stone mined from a Scottish quarry that the doomed flight passed over just seconds before the bomb ripped its baggage hold apart. The crowd that day had gathered near the cairn in the cold to mark the 20th anniversary of the bombing.

    For a man with an affinity for speaking in prose, not poetry, a man whose staff was accustomed to orders given in crisp sentences as if they were Marines on the battlefield or under cross-examination from a prosecutor in a courtroom, Mueller’s remarks that day soared in a way unlike almost any other speech he’d deliver.

    “There are those who say that time heals all wounds. But you know that not to be true. At its best, time may dull the deepest wounds; it cannot make them disappear,” Mueller told the assembled mourners. “Yet out of the darkness of this day comes a ray of light. The light of unity, of friendship, and of comfort from those who once were strangers and who are now bonded together by a terrible moment in time. The light of shared memories that bring smiles instead of sadness. And the light of hope for better days to come.”

    He talked of Robert Frost’s poem “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” and of inspiration drawn from Lockerbie’s town crest, with its simple motto, “Forward.” He spoke of what was then a two-decade-long quest for justice, of how on windswept Scottish mores and frigid lochs a generation of FBI agents, investigators, and prosecutors had redoubled their dedication to fighting terrorism.

    Mueller closed with a promise: “Today, as we stand here together on this, the darkest of days, we renew that bond. We remember the light these individuals brought to each of you here today. We renew our efforts to bring justice down on those who seek to harm us. We renew our efforts to keep our people safe, and to rid the world of terrorism. We will continue to move forward. But we will never forget.”

    Hand bells tolled for each of the victims as their names were read aloud, 270 names, 270 sets of bells.

    The investigation, though, was not yet closed. Mueller, although he didn’t know it then, wasn’t done with Pan Am 103. Just months after that speech, the case would test his innate sense of justice and morality in a way that few other cases in his career ever have.

    ROBERT S. MUELLER III had returned from a combat tour in Vietnam in the late 1960s and eventually headed to law school at the University of Virginia, part of a path that he hoped would lead him to being an FBI agent. Unable after graduation to get a job in government, he entered private practice in San Francisco, where he found he loved being a lawyer—just not a defense attorney.

    Then—as his wife Ann, a teacher, recounted to me years ago—one morning at their small home, while the two of them made the bed, Mueller complained, “Don’t I deserve to be doing something that makes me happy?” He finally landed a job as an assistant US attorney in San Francisco and stood, for the first time, in court and announced, “Good morning your Honor, I am Robert Mueller appearing on behalf of the United States of America.” It is a moment that young prosecutors often practice beforehand, and for Mueller those words carried enormous weight. He had found the thing that made him happy.

    His family remembers that time in San Francisco as some of their happiest years; the Muellers’ two daughters were young, they loved the Bay Area—and have returned there on annual vacations almost every year since relocating to the East Coast—and Mueller found himself at home as a prosecutor.

    On Friday nights, their routine was that Ann and the two girls would pick Mueller up at Harrington’s Bar & Grill, the city’s oldest Irish pub, not far from the Ferry Building in the Financial District, where he hung out each week with a group of prosecutors, defense attorneys, cops, and agents. (One Christmas, his daughter Cynthia gave him a model of the bar made out of Popsicle sticks.) He balanced that family time against weekends and trainings with the Marines Corps Reserves, where he served for more than a decade, until 1980, eventually rising to be a captain.

    Over the next 15 years, he rose through the ranks of the San Francisco US attorney’s office—an office he would return to lead during the Clinton administration—and then decamped to Massachusetts to work for US attorney William Weld in the 1980s. There, too, he shined and eventually became acting US attorney when Weld departed at the end of the Reagan administration. “You cannot get the words straight arrow out of your head,” Weld told me, speaking of Mueller a decade ago. “The agencies loved him because he knew his stuff. He didn’t try to be elegant or fancy, he just put the cards on the table.”

    In 1989, an old high school classmate, Robert Ross, who was chief of staff to then attorney general Richard Thornburgh, asked Mueller to come down to Washington to help advise Thornburgh. The offer intrigued Mueller. Ann protested the move—their younger daughter Melissa wanted to finish high school in Massachusetts. Ann told her husband, “We can’t possibly do this.” He replied, his eyes twinkling, “You’re right, it’s a terrible time. Well, why don’t we just go down and look at a few houses?” As she told me, “When he wants to do something, he just revisits it again and again.”

    For his first two years at so-called Main Justice in Washington, working under President George H.W. Bush, the family commuted back and forth from Boston to Washington, alternating weekends in each city, to allow Melissa to finish school.

    Washington gave Mueller his first exposure to national politics and cases with geopolitical implications; in September 1990, President Bush nominated him to be assistant attorney general, overseeing the Justice Department’s entire criminal division, which at that time handled all the nation’s terrorism cases as well. Mueller would oversee the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, mob boss John Gotti, and the controversial investigation into a vast money laundering scheme run through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, known as the Bank of Crooks and Criminals

    None of his cases in Washington, though, would affect him as much as the bombing of Pan Am 103.

    THE TIME ON the clocks in Lockerbie, Scotland, read 7:04 pm, on December 21, 1988, when the first emergency call came into the local fire brigade, reporting what sounded like a massive boiler explosion. It was technically early evening, but it had been dark for hours already; that far north, on the shortest day of the year, daylight barely stretched to eight hours.

    Soon it became clear something much worse than a boiler explosion had unfolded: Fiery debris pounded the landscape, plunging from the sky and killing 11 Lockerbie residents. As Mike Carnahan told a local TV reporter, “The whole sky was lit up with flames. It was actually raining, liquid fire. You could see several houses on the skyline with the roofs totally off and all you could see was flaming timbers.”

    At 8:45 pm, a farmer found in his field the cockpit of Pan Am 103, a Boeing 747 known as Clipper Maid of the Seas, lying on its side, 15 of its crew dead inside, just some of the 259 passengers and crew killed when a bomb had exploded inside the plane’s cargo hold. The scheduled London to New York flight never even made it out of the UK.

    It had taken just three seconds for the plane to disintegrate in the air, though the wreckage took three long minutes to fall the five miles from the sky to the earth; court testimony later would examine how passengers had still been alive as they fell. Nearly 200 of the passengers were American, including 35 students from Syracuse University returning home from a semester abroad. The attack horrified America, which until then had seen terror touch its shores only occasionally as a hijacking went awry; while the US had weathered the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, attacks almost never targeted civilians.

    The Pan Am 103 bombing seemed squarely aimed at the US, hitting one of its most iconic brands. Pan Am then represented America’s global reach in a way few companies did; the world’s most powerful airline shuttled 19 million passengers a year to more than 160 countries and had ferried the Beatles to their US tour and James Bond around the globe on his cinematic missions. In a moment of hubris a generation before Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the airline had even opened a “waiting list” for the first tourists to travel to outer space. Its New York headquarters, the Pan Am building, was the world’s largest commercial building and its terminal at JFK Airport the biggest in the world.

    The investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103 began immediately, as police and investigators streamed north from London by the hundreds; chief constable John Boyd, the head of the local police, arrived at the Lockerbie police station by 8:15 pm, and within an hour the first victim had been brought in: A farmer arrived in town with the body of a baby girl who had fallen from the sky. He’d carefully placed her in the front seat of his pickup truck.

    An FBI agent posted in London had raced north too, with the US ambassador, aboard a special US Air Force flight, and at 2 am, when Boyd convened his first senior leadership meeting, he announced, “The FBI is here, and they are fully operational.” By that point, FBI explosives experts were already en route to Scotland aboard an FAA plane; agents would install special secure communications equipment in Lockerbie and remain on site for months.

    Although it quickly became clear that a bomb had targeted Pan Am 103—wreckage showed signs of an explosion and tested positive for PETN and RDX, two key ingredients of the explosive Semtex—the investigation proceeded with frustrating slowness. Pan Am’s records were incomplete, and it took days to even determine the full list of passengers. At the same time, it was the largest crime scene ever investigated—a fact that remains true today.

    Investigators walked 845 square miles, an area 12 times the size of Washington, DC, and searched so thoroughly that they recovered more than 70 packages of airline crackers and ultimately could reconstruct about 85 percent of the fuselage. (Today, the wreckage remains in an English scrapyard.) Constable Boyd, at his first press conference, told the media, “This is a mammoth inquiry.”

    On Christmas Eve, a searcher found a piece of a luggage pallet with signs of obvious scorching, which would indicate the bomb had been in the luggage compartment below the passenger cabin. The evidence was rushed to a special British military lab—one originally created to investigate the Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605.

    When the explosive tests came back a day later, the British government called the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for combating terrorism, L. Paul Bremer III (who would go on to be President George W. Bush’s viceroy in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion of Iraq), and officially delivered the news that everyone had anticipated: Pan Am 103 had been downed by a bomb.

    Meanwhile, FBI agents fanned out across the country. In New York, special agent Neil Herman—who would later lead the FBI’s counterterrorism office in New York in the run up to 9/11—was tasked with interviewing some of the victims’ families; many of the Syracuse students on board had been from the New York region. One of the mothers he interviewed hadn’t heard from the government in the 10 days since the attack. “It really struck me how ill-equipped we were to deal with this,” Herman told me, years later. “Multiply her by 270 victims and families.” The bombing underscored that the FBI and the US government had a lot to learn in responding and aiding victims in a terror attack.

    INVESTIGATORS MOVED TOWARD piecing together how a bomb could have been placed on board; years before the 9/11 attack, they discounted the idea of a suicide bomber aboard—there had never been a suicide attack on civil aviation at that point—and so focused on one of two theories: The possibility of a “mule,” an innocent passenger duped into carrying a bomb aboard, or an “inside man,” a trusted airport or airline employee who had smuggled the fatal cargo aboard. The initial suspect list stretched to 1,200 names.

    Yet even reconstructing what was on board took an eternity: Evidence pointed to a Japanese manufactured Toshiba cassette recorder as the likely delivery device for the bomb, and then, by the end of January, investigators located pieces of the suitcase that had held the bomb. After determining that it was a Samsonite bag, police and the FBI flew to the company’s headquarters in the United States and narrowed the search further: The bag, they found, was a System 4 Silhouette 4000 model, color “antique-copper,” a case and color made for only three years, 1985 to 1988, and sold only in the Middle East. There were a total of 3,500 such suitcases in circulation.

    By late spring, investigators had identified 14 pieces of luggage inside the target cargo container, known as AVE4041; each bore tell-tale signs of the explosion. Through careful retracing of how luggage moved through the London airport, investigators determined that the bags on the container’s bottom row came from passengers transferring in London. The bags on the second and third row of AVE4041 had been the last bags loaded onto the leg of the flight that began in Frankfurt, before the plane took off for London. None of the baggage had been X-rayed or matched with passengers on board.

    The British lab traced clothing fragments from the wreckage that bore signs of the explosion and thus likely originated in the bomb-carrying suitcase. It was an odd mix: Two herring-bone skirts, men’s pajamas, tartan trousers, and so on. The most promising fragment was a blue infant’s onesie that, after fiber analysis, was conclusively determined to have been inside the explosive case, and had a label saying “Malta Trading Company.” In March, two detectives took off for Malta, where the manufacturer told them that 500 such articles of clothing had been made and most sent to Ireland, while the rest went locally to Maltese outlets and others to continental Europe.

    As they dug deeper, they focused on bag B8849, which appeared to have come off Air Malta Flight 180—Malta to Frankfurt—on December 21, even though there was no record of one of that flight’s 47 passengers transferring to Pan Am 103.

    Investigators located the store in Malta where the suspect clothing had been sold; the British inspector later recorded in his statement, “[Store owner] Anthony Gauci interjected and stated that he could recall selling a pair of the checked trousers, size 34, and three pairs of the pajamas to a male person.” The investigators snapped to attention—after nine months did they finally have a suspect in their sights? “[Gauci] informed me that the man had also purchased the following items: one imitation Harris Tweed jacket; one woolen cardigan; one black umbrella; one blue colored ‘Baby Gro’ with a motif described by the witness as a ‘sheep’s face’ on the front; and one pair of gents’ brown herring-bone material trousers, size 36.”

    Game, set, match. Gauci had perfectly described the clothing fragments found by RARDE technicians to contain traces of explosive. The purchase, Gauci went on to explain, stood out in his mind because the customer—whom Gauci tellingly identified as speaking the “Libyan language”—had entered the store on November 23, 1988, and gathered items without seeming to care about the size, gender, or color of any of it.

    As the investigation painstakingly proceeded into 1989 and 1990, Robert Mueller arrived at Main Justice; the final objects of the Lockerbie search wouldn’t be found until the spring of 1990, just months before Mueller took over as assistant attorney general of the criminal division in September.

    The Justice Department that year was undergoing a series of leadership changes; the deputy attorney general, William Barr, became acting attorney general midyear as Richard Thornburgh stepped down to run for Senate back in his native Pennsylvania. President Bush then nominated Barr to take over as attorney general officially. (Earlier this month Barr was nominated by President Trump to become attorney general once again.)

    The bombing soon became one of the top cases on Mueller’s desk. He met regularly with Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent heading Scotbom. For Mueller, the case became personal; he met with victims’ families and toured the Lockerbie crash site and the investigation’s headquarters. He traveled repeatedly to the United Kingdom for meetings and walked the fields of Lockerbie himself. “The Scots just did a phenomenal job with the crime scene,” he told me, years ago.

    Mueller pushed the investigators forward constantly, getting involved in the investigation at a level that a high-ranking Justice Department official almost never does. Marquise turned to him in one meeting, after yet another set of directions, and sighed, “Geez, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you want to be FBI director.”

    The investigation gradually, carefully, zeroed in on Libya. Agents traced a circuit board used in the bomb to a similar device seized in Africa a couple of years earlier used by Libyan intelligence. An FBI-created database of Maltese immigration records even showed that a man using the same alias as one of those Libyan intelligence officers had departed from Malta on October 19, 1988—just two months before the bombing.

    The circuit board also helped makes sense of an important aspect of the bombing: It controlled a timer, meaning that the bomb was not set off by a barometric trigger that registers altitude. This, in turn, explained why the explosive baggage had lain peacefully in the jet’s hold as it took off and landed repeatedly.

    Tiny letters on the suspect timer said “MEBO.” What was MEBO? In the days before Google, searching for something called “Mebo” required going country to country, company to company. There were no shortcuts. The FBI, MI5, and CIA were, after months of work, able to trace MEBO back to a Swiss company, Meister et Bollier, adding a fifth country to the ever-expanding investigative circle.

    From Meister et Bollier, they learned that the company had provided 20 prototype timers to the Libyan government and the company helped ID their contact as a Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who looked like the sketch of the Maltese clothing shopper. Then, when the FBI looked at its database of Maltese immigration records, they found that Al Megrahi had been present in Malta the day the clothing was purchased.

    Marquise sat down with Robert Mueller and the rest of the prosecutorial team and laid out the latest evidence. Mueller’s orders were clear—he wanted specific suspects and he wanted to bring charges. As he said, “Proceed toward indictment.” Let’s get this case moving.

    IN NOVEMBER 1990, Marquise was placed in charge of all aspects of the investigation and assigned on special duty to the Washington Field Office and moved to a new Scotbom task force. The field offce was located far from the Hoover building, in a run-down neighborhood known by the thoroughly unromantic moniker of Buzzard Point.

    The Scotbom task force had been allotted three tiny windowless rooms with dark wood paneling, which were soon covered floor-to-ceiling with 747 diagrams, crime scene photographs, maps, and other clues. By the door of the office, the team kept two photographs to remind themselves of the stakes: One, a tiny baby shoe recovered from the fields of Lockerbie; the other, a picture of the American flag on the tail of Pan Am 103. This was the first major attack on the US and its civilians. Whoever was responsible couldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

    With representatives from a half-dozen countries—the US, Britain, Scotland, Sweden, Germany, France, and Malta—now sitting around the table, putting together a case that met everyone’s evidentiary standards was difficult. “We talked through everything, and everything was always done to the higher standard,” Marquise says. In the US, for instance, the legal standard for a photo array was six photos; in Scotland, though, it was 12. So every photo array in the investigation had 12 photos to ensure that the IDs could be used in a British court.

    The trail of evidence so far was pretty clear, and it all pointed toward Libya. Yet there was still much work to do prior to an indictment. A solid hunch was one thing. Having evidence that would stand up in court and under cross-examination was something else entirely.

    As the case neared an indictment, the international investigators and prosecutors found themselves focusing at their gatherings on the fine print of their respective legal code and engaging in deep, philosophical-seeming debates: “What does murder mean in your statute? Huh? I know what murder means: I kill you. Well, then you start going through the details and the standards are just a little different. It may entail five factors in one country, three in another. Was Megrahi guilty of murder? Depends on the country.”

    At every meeting, the international team danced around the question of where a prosecution would ultimately take place. “Jurisdiction was an eggshell problem,” Marquise says. “It was always there, but no one wanted to talk about it. It was always the elephant in the room.”

    Mueller tried to deflect the debate for as long as possible, arguing there was more investigation to do first. Eventually, though, he argued forcefully that the case should be tried in the US. “I recognize that Scotland has significant equities which support trial of the case in your country,” he said in one meeting. “However, the primary target of this act of terrorism was the United States. The majority of the victims were Americans, and the Pan American aircraft was targeted precisely because it was of United States registry.”

    After one meeting, where the Scots and Americans debated jurisdiction for more than two hours, the group migrated over to the Peasant, a restaurant near the Justice Department, where, in an attempt to foster good spirits, it paid for the visiting Scots. Mueller and the other American officials each had to pay for their own meals.

    Mueller was getting ready to move forward; the federal grand jury would begin work in early September. Prosecutors and other investigators were already preparing background, readying evidence, and piecing together information like the names and nationalities of all the Lockerbie victims so that they could be included in the forthcoming indictment.

    There had never been any doubt in the US that the Pan Am 103 bombing would be handled as a criminal matter, but the case was still closely monitored by the White House and the National Security Council.

    The Reagan administration had been surprised in February 1988 by the indictment on drug charges of its close ally Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, and a rule of thumb had been developed: Give the White House a heads up anytime you’re going to indict a foreign agent. “If you tag Libya with Pan Am 103, that’s fair to say it’s going to disrupt our relationship with Libya,” Mueller deadpans. So Mueller would head up to the Cabinet Room at the White House, charts and pictures in hand, to explain to President Bush and his team what Justice had in mind.

    To Mueller, the investigation underscored why such complex investigations needed a law enforcement eye. A few months after the attack, he sat through a CIA briefing pointing toward Syria as the culprit behind the attack. “That’s always struck with me as a lesson in the difference between intelligence and evidence. I always try to remember that,” he told me, back when he was FBI director. “It’s a very good object lesson about hasty action based on intelligence. What if we had gone and attacked Syria based on that initial intelligence? Then, after the attack, it came out that Libya had been behind it? What could we have done?”

    Marquise was the last witness for the federal grand jury on Friday, November 8, 1991. Only in the days leading up to that testimony had prosecutors zeroed in on Megrahi and another Libyan officer, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah; as late as the week of the testimony, they had hoped to pursue additional indictments, yet the evidence wasn’t there to get to a conviction.

    Mueller traveled to London to meet with the Peter Fraser, the lord advocate—Scotland’s top prosecutor—and they agreed to announce indictments simultaneously on November 15, 1991. Who got their hands on the suspects first, well, that was a question for later. The joint indictment, Mueller believed, would benefit both countries. “It adds credibility to both our investigations,” he says.

    That coordinated joint, multi-nation statement and indictment would become a model that the US would deploy more regularly in the years to come, as the US and other western nations have tried to coordinate cyber investigations and indictments against hackers from countries like North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

    To make the stunning announcement against Libya, Mueller joined FBI director William Sessions, DC US attorney Jay Stephens, and attorney general William Barr.

    “We charge that two Libyan officials, acting as operatives of the Libyan intelligence agency, along with other co-conspirators, planted and detonated the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103,” Barr said. “I have just telephoned some of the families of those murdered on Pan Am 103 to inform them and the organizations of the survivors that this indictment has been returned. Their loss has been ever present in our minds.”

    At the same time, in Scotland, investigators there were announcing the same indictments.

    At the press conference, Barr listed a long set of names to thank—the first one he singled out was Mueller’s. Then, he continued, “This investigation is by no means over. It continues unabated. We will not rest until all those responsible are brought to justice. We have no higher priority.”

    From there, the case would drag on for years. ABC News interviewed the two suspects in Libya later that month; both denied any responsibility for the bombing. Marquise was reassigned within six months; the other investigators moved along too.

    Mueller himself left the administration when Bill Clinton became president, spending an unhappy year in private practice before rejoining the Justice Department to work as a junior homicide prosecutor in DC under then US attorney Eric Holder; Mueller, who had led the nation’s entire criminal division was now working side by side with prosecutors just a few years out of law school, the equivalent of a three-star military general retiring and reenlisting as a second lieutenant. Clinton eventually named Mueller the US attorney in San Francisco, the office where he’d worked as a young attorney in the 1970s.

    THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY of the bombing came and went without any justice. Then, in April 1999, prolonged international negotiations led to Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi turning over the two suspects; the international economic sanctions imposed on Libya in the wake of the bombing were taking a toll on his country, and the leader wanted to put the incident behind him.

    The final negotiated agreement said that the two men would be tried by a Scottish court, under Scottish law, in The Hague in the Netherlands. Distinct from the international court there, the three-judge Scottish court would ensure that the men faced justice under the laws of the country where their accused crime had been committed.

    Allowing the Scots to move forward meant some concessions by the US. The big one was taking the death penalty, prohibited in Scotland, off the table. Mueller badly wanted the death penalty. Mueller, like many prosecutors and law enforcement officials, is a strong proponent of capital punishment, but he believes it should be reserved for only egregious crimes. “It has to be especially heinous, and you have to be 100 percent sure he’s guilty,” he says. This case met that criteria. “There’s never closure. If there can’t be closure, there should be justice—both for the victims as well as the society at large,” he says.

    An old US military facility, Kamp Van Zeist, was converted to an elaborate jail and courtroom in The Hague, and the Dutch formally surrendered the two Libyans to Scottish police. The trial began in May 2000. For nine months, the court heard testimony from around the world. In what many observers saw as a political verdict, Al Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah was found not guilty.

    With barely 24 hours notice, Marquise and victim family members raced from the United States to be in the courtroom to hear the verdict. The morning of the verdict in 2001, Mueller was just days into his tenure as acting deputy US attorney general—filling in for the start of the George W. Bush administration in the department’s No. 2 role as attorney general John Ashcroft got himself situated.

    That day, Mueller awoke early and joined with victims’ families and other officials in Washington, who watched the verdict announcement via a satellite hookup. To him, it was a chance for some closure—but the investigation would go on. As he told the media, “The United States remains vigilant in its pursuit to bring to justice any other individuals who may have been involved in the conspiracy to bring down Pan Am Flight 103.”

    The Scotbom case would leave a deep imprint on Mueller; one of his first actions as FBI director was to recruit Kathryn Turman, who had served as the liaison to the Pan Am 103 victim families during the trial, to head the FBI’s Victim Services Division, helping to elevate the role and responsibility of the FBI in dealing with crime victims.

    JUST MONTHS AFTER that 20th anniversary ceremony with Mueller at Arlington National Cemetery, in the summer of 2009, Scotland released a terminally ill Megrahi from prison after a lengthy appeals process, and sent him back to Libya. The decision was made, the Scottish minister of justice reported, on “compassionate grounds.” Few involved on the US side believed the terrorist deserved compassion. Megrahi was greeted as a hero on the tarmac in Libya—rose petals, cheering crowds. The US consensus remained that he should rot in prison.

    The idea that Megrahi could walk out of prison on “compassionate” ground made a mockery of everything that Mueller had dedicated his life to fighting and doing. Amid a series of tepid official condemnations—President Obama labeled it “highly objectionable”—Mueller fired off a letter to Scottish minister Kenny MacAskill that stood out for its raw pain, anger, and deep sorrow.

    “Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision,” Mueller began. “Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of ‘compassion.’”

    That nine months after the 20th anniversary of the bombing, the only person behind bars for the bombing would walk back onto Libyan soil a free man and be greeted with rose petals left Mueller seething.

    “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world,” Mueller wrote. “You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution. You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification—the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.”

    For Mueller, walking the fields of Lockerbie had been walking on hallowed ground. The Scottish decision pained him especially deeply, because of the mission and dedication he and his Scottish counterparts had shared 20 years before. “If all civilized nations join together to apply the rules of law to international terrorists, certainly we will be successful in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism,” he had written in a perhaps too hopeful private note to the Scottish Lord Advocate in 1990.

    Some 20 years later, in an era when counterterrorism would be a massive, multibillion dollar industry and a buzzword for politicians everywhere, Mueller—betrayed—concluded his letter with a decidedly un-Mueller-like plea, shouted plaintively and hopelessly across the Atlantic: “Where, I ask, is the justice?”

    #USA #Libye #impérialisme #terrorisme #histoire #CIA #idéologie #propagande


  • #Allemagne : le suspect des attaques racistes incarcéré pour tentatives de meurtres
    https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_allemagne-le-suspect-des-attaques-racistes-incarcere-pour-tentatives-de-

    le conducteur de la voiture, qui souffrirait de troubles mentaux, « avait clairement l’intention de tuer des étrangers ».

    #terrorisme



  • Skandal ohne Konsequenzen seitens der Bundesregierung | Telepolis
    https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Skandal-ohne-Konsequenzen-seitens-der-Bundesregierung-4257576.html


    Le député de gauche Andrej Hunko et l’ancien chancelier Gerhard Schröder figurent sur une liste de mort qui est apparemment coproduite par les services secrètes ukrainiens. Pour les journalistes et autre personnes de la liste se trouvant sur le territoire ukrainien c’est un arrêt de mort effectif. Le gouvernement allemand ne fait rien contre parce qu’il juge plus important ses relations au sein de l’OTAN.

    Die ukrainische Webseite Mirotworez listet seit Jahren persönliche Informationen zu angeblichen Feinden der Ukraine. Für die Betroffenen kann das Lebensgefahr bedeuten - Gastkommentar

    Unmittelbar nach der Veröffentlichung der Daten eines ukrainischen Journalisten und eines oppositionellen Abgeordneten wurden diese im April 2015 vor ihren jeweiligen Wohnhäusern niedergeschossen. Mittlerweile sind auch tausende deutsche Staatsbürger, überwiegend Journalistinnen und Journalisten, auf dieser Webseite gelistet und damit gefährdet. Kürzlich wurde bekannt, dass auch der deutsche Ex-Kanzler Gerhard Schröder dort aufgeführt ist (Siehe dazu von Jörg Tauss, der ebenfalls aus der Liste steht: Die Bundesregierung und die 5.400 Staatsfeinde der Ukraine).

    Formal wird Mirotworez von einer „Nichtregierungsorganisation“ betrieben, dennoch gibt es Hinweise darauf, dass es enge Verbindungen zum Inlandsgeheimdienst SBU und zum ukrainischen Innenministerium gibt. Nach Selbstdarstellung von Mirotworez sollen „Informationen für Strafverfolgungsbehörden und spezielle Dienste“ bereitgestellt werden. Der Server liegt nicht in der Ukraine, sondern vermutlich in Kanada, zufällig dem Land, in der der „Weltkongress der Ukrainer“, eine international einflussreiche rechte Lobbyorganisation, ihren Sitz hat.

    Anzeige
    Als ebenfalls Betroffener habe ich die Bundesregierung 2017 dazu befragt. In der Antwort hat der Staatsminister Roth einerseits die Listung von tausenden auch deutschen Staatsbürger scharf verurteilt, andererseits aber die Machtlosigkeit sowohl der Bundesregierung, als auch der ukrainischen Regierung betont, da Mirotworez aus seiner Sicht keine staatliche Webseite sei. Nach meinem Eindruck handelt es sich jedoch um eine für ukrainische Verhältnisse charakteristische Arbeitsteilung zwischen legalen staatlichen und rechtsradikalen para-staatlichen Strukturen, die außerhalb von Legalität und internationalen Konventionen ungestört agieren können.

    Die glaubwürdige Verurteilung von Staatsminister Roth („völlig inakzeptabel“) kollidiert mit dem übergeordneten geopolitischen Kurs der Bundesregierung im Verbund mit NATO und EU, der im Zweifel den Schulterschluss mit der ukrainischen Regierung suchen lässt. Dieser führt dazu, dass trotz katastrophaler innenpolitischer Entwicklungen das gegenwärtige Regime gerade im Vorfeld des Wahljahres 2019 mit immer neuen Milliardenkrediten gestützt wird. Diese Unterstützung angesichts solch skandalöser Vorgänge wie Mirotworez in Frage zu stellen, wäre jedoch der Hebel um diese schnell zu beenden. Man darf gespannt sein, ob die Listung eines ehemaligen Kanzlers Bewegung in die Sache bringt. (Andrej Hunko)

    #Europe #Ukraine #terrorisme_d_état


  • #Graffitis vus à #Trento 22-24.11.2018

    Meno consumismo, più banditismo


    #consumérisme

    Meno fascisti più autostoppisti


    #fascisme #autostop

    Basta fogli di via. Banditi dappertutto

    No fogli di via:

    Leghisti carogne


    #Ligue_du_nord #Lega_Nord

    Lega servi dei ricchi

    Roma ladrona, ma è comoda la poltrona

    No alla sorveglianza sociale


    #surveillance #surveillance_sociale

    No al #DASPO urbano

    Fuoco alle galere


    #prisons

    Sabotiamo la guerra


    #sabotage #guerre

    I giorni passano, i #lager restano. No #CPR


    #détention_administrative #CRA #rétention

    Attacchiamo i padroni


    #patrons #patronnat

    #Refugees_welcome


    #réfugiés

    #No_TAV


    #TAV

    #ENI assassina

    Non nominare cubetto invano

    I fascisti accoltellano, ora basta

    Basta frontiere


    #frontières

    Terrorista è lo Stato


    #Etat #Etat-nation #terrorisme

    Io imbratto, egli imbratta, voi blatte. Fanculo al daspo urbano

    Ordine. Disciplina. Quello che mi serve è un po’ di benzina


    #ordre #discipline

    Verità per #Giulio_Regeni

    Nel carcere di #Spini le guardie pestano

    Fuoco a galere e #CIE

    No border nation, stop deportation


    #renvois #expulsions

    Università per tutti. Tagli per nessuno


    #université #accès_à_l'éducation

    Le parole sono importanti. Chi parla male pensa male


    #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie

    Morte al fascio

    + sbirri morti


    #police
    #Trente #Italie #art_de_rue #street-art