Newsgroup: it.politica.polo
Titolo: Zero Tolerance

Ai vari Albertini e fans assortiti della Zero Tolerance
del sindaco di NY Giuliani:
(Da Repubblica di ieri)
------------------------------------------
               Proprio da Manhattan, infatti, É venuta venerdÙ sera la
                 conferma delle tensioni che si nascondono sotto la
                 coperta calda e soffice del boom di Wall Street e
                 dell'economia. Ai funerali di Amadou Diallo,
                 l'immigrato del Ghana bucherellato "per sbaglio" dai
                 poliziotti della cittÈ, il sindaco Rudolph "Rudy"
                 Giuliani É stato contestato e insultato.
                 Ventiduenne, poliglotta, venditore ambulante di
                 videocassette di giorno, studente universitario di notte,
                 Diallo era stato ucciso la settimana scorsa con 41 colpi
                 di pistola. Gli agenti pensavano che volesse rispondere
                 con il fuoco a una loro intimazione, invece l'immigrato
                 era disarmato. Il caso ha riportato d'attualitÈ il tema
                 della violenza poliziesca e messo sotto accusa il
                 cosiddetto "metodo Giuliani": che ha avuto buoni
                 risultati nella lotta alla criminalitÈ, ma si É anche
                 tradotto in una serie di soprusi denunciati con
                 sistematicitÈ da Amnesty International. L'anno scorso,
                 ad esempio, gli agenti sodomizzarono con uno sturacessi
                 un haitiano nel bagno di un commissariato.
                 Giunte alla moschea sulla East side di Manhattan,
            duemila persone hanno ascoltato, l'altro ieri, le funzioni
                 religiose e le parole di rabbia dell'"ayatollah" dei neri
                 newyorkesi, Al Shapton. E quando Giuliani si É
                 presentato ai funerali, É stato accolto come un imputato.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/
       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

(Da La STAMPA di oggi) 
 
L'arma letale di Giuliani 
Il sindaco di New York risponde ai garantisti dotando gli agenti dei
micidiali proiettili 
Pallottole dum-dum ai poliziotti 
NEW YORK
NOSTRO SERVIZIO
I poliziotti di New York saranno presto dotati di nuove pallottole.
Vengono comunemente chiamate "dum dum" e la differenza con quelle
tradizionali è che non hanno punta, al suo posto c'è un buco, sicché
quando penetrano nel corpo si allargano, aumentano la loro capacità
distruttiva e quindi causano danni maggiori alla persona colpita. La
decisione di passare a questo nuovo modello l'amministrazione di New
York l'aveva già presa mesi fa, ma il sindaco Rudolph Giuliani ha
creduto bene di ricordarla perché adesso sta per cominciare la fase
"operativa". Il primo stock di nuove pallottole, infatti, arriverà a
giorni ed entro sei mesi tutti i 40.000 poliziotti di New York le
avranno nei loro caricatori. Ma è risultato a dir poco mal scelto il
momento dell'annuncio di Giuliani. New York è ancora scossa da quanto
è accaduto pochi giorni fa, quando un ragazzo nero di 22 anni, Amadou
Diallo, immigrato dalla Guinea e di professione venditore ambulante, è
stato abbattuto da quattro poliziotti che hanno sparato contro di lui
41 colpi. E' in corso l'inchiesta, naturalmente, ma quel numero
spropositato di pallottole e la circostanza che il ragazzo era
disarmato lasciano pochi dubbi su questo ennesimo caso di "eccesso di
uso della forza" da parte dei poliziotti di New York. 
L'altro giorno, ai funerali di Amadou Diallo ai quali oltre tutto era
arrivato in ritardo, Giuliani era stato duramente contestato dalla
folla. C'erano anche i genitori di Patrick Baily, un altro ragazzo
nero ammazzato un anno e mezzo fa a Brooklyn in circostanze analoghe.
Fra i poliziotti che scaricarono contro di lui le loro pistole c'era
Kenneth Ross, presente anche fra gli uccisori di Diallo. "Se allora si
fosse fatto qualcosa - ha detto la madre - ora questo altro ragazzo
sarebbe ancora vivo". Non si sa se con la "presentazione" delle nuove
pallottole il sindaco abbia voluto in qualche modo "rispondere" a
quelle contestazioni, ma quelli che ormai da tempo lo hanno
ribattezzato "Benito Giuliani" dicono che la cosa sarebbe
perfettamente in carattere con il personaggio. Al Sharpton, uno dei
leader della comunità nera, ha accusato il sindaco di "estrema
insensibilità" proprio per questa sorta di botta e risposta fra
l'uccisione di Diallo e l'annuncio delle nuove pallottole. 
E in fondo è stato lo stesso Giuliani, per bocca del suo capo della
polizia Howard Safir, a stabilire una specie di parallelo fra le due
cose. I "meriti" delle nuove pallottole, ha spiegato infatti Safir,
sono essenzialmente due. Uno è che per il fatto stesso che quando
penetrano nelle carni si allargano, il rischio che escano dal corpo
della persona colpita diminuisce e quindi ci sono meno possibilità che
vadano a colpire qualcuno che magari ha il solo torto di passare lì
per caso. L'altro è che visto che fanno danni molto maggiori delle
pallottole tradizionali, per ammazzare qualcuno servono meno colpi. In
sostanza, se l'altro giorno i poliziotti che hanno sparato a Diallo
avessero già avuto le pallottole "dum dum", avrebbero risparmiato un
po' dei 41 colpi sparati. Un ragionamento "tecnico" un po' da brividi
al quale Al Sharpton non ha certo risparmiato il suo sarcasmo. "E'
chiaro che il problema - ha detto - non è se il ragazzo poteva essere
ucciso più rapidamente ma se doveva essere ucciso e basta".
In questi giorni le voci contro questa specie di "luce verde" concessa
da Giuliani ai "suoi" poliziotti non si contano. L'altro giorno il
"New York Times" gli ha dedicato un editoriale durissimo e anche ieri
uno dei suoi maggiori commentatori, Bob Herbert, ha pubblicato un
lungo elenco di abusi piccoli e grandi commesi dagli uomini in divisa
di New York. Le uccisioni più o meno gratuite cominciano ormai ad
essere viste come una conseguenza estrema ma in un certo senso
"naturale" della mentalità che ormai sembra dominare fra loro e che
gli fa assumere atteggiamenti che in molti casi ricordano i bravi di
don Rodrigo, specie con le minoranze etniche. Se infatti ai bianchi
sono riservati comportamenti che non vanno oltre il fastidio (tanto
per dire: la loro abitudine di fermare le proprie automobili in mezzo
alla strada guardando con strafottenza il traffico che si blocca), per
i neri e gli ispanici sono all'ordine del giorno cose come la ragazza
che viene palpeggiata con la scusa di perquisirla, il ragazzo che
viene malmenato perché a un poliziotto (in borghese) che gli intima di
inginocchiarsi osa replicare "E chi sei, Dio?", fino a quelli che
vengono portati senza complimenti al commissariato perché "si
muovevano in modo sospetto".
Giuliani replica con le statistiche che mostrano una notevole
diminuzione della criminalità. Il sottinteso è più o meno "la
tranquillità dei cittadini val bene qualche abuso dei poliziotti" e
gli elettori newyorkesi (grati soprattutto per l'eliminazione dalle
strade di mendicanti e senzatetto, che con la loro miseria esibita
provocavano sensi di colpa) gli hanno dato ragione. Ma ora anche il
discorso delle statistiche comincia a fare un po' acqua. Dopo tutto la
diminuzione della criminalità non è un "fenomeno" di New York ma un
dato che riguarda tutte le città americane. E' benvenuto, ovviamente,
ma delle sue cause precise gli studiosi della materia sono ancora alla
ricerca e la pretesa di Giuliani di attribuirsene il merito sembra un
po' una "appropriazione indebita". 
Pallottole nuove o no, comunque, fra un po' il sindaco di New York
potrebbe ritrovarsi con una "autorità superiore" cui rispondere. Al
dipartimento della Giustizia dello Stato di New York è allo studio un
nuovo organismo che dovrebbe servire a "monitorare" il comportamento
dei poliziotti delle città e a tenere una sorta di banca dati con
tutte le denunce presentate contro di loro, in modo da individuare i
più recidivi.   [Franco Pantarelli ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  VIETATE DA UN SECOLO 
Per vietarli fu necessaria una conferenza internazionale, all'Aia nel
1899. I proiettili esplosivi dum-dum (la denominazione nasce dalle
sigle della fabbrica nell'India britannica che per prima li brevettò)
erano stati studiati per la caccia grossa. Garantiva un effetto più
sicuro e evitava che gli animali, soltanto feriti, continuassero a
costituire un pericolo. Ma durante le guerre coloniali quando piccole
unità delle potenze europee dovevano far fronte in campo aperto a
grandi masse di guerrieri indigeni dotati di grande coraggio e sprezzo
della morte fu largamente utilizzato dai reparti di tutte le grandi
potenze. Spesso erano gli stessi soldati che artigianalmente
provvedevano a tagliare la punta dei proiettili aumentandone la
potenza letale. Spesso i proiettili contenevano sostanze velenose che
infettavano la parte colpita.
Le polemiche scoppiarono quando furono impiegati durante la guerra
anglo-boera, quindi in scontri tra bianchi. Il divieto fu violato
anche nel corso della grande guerra dagli austriaci sia sul fronte
serbo che su quello italiano. E fu documentato dalle nostre autorità
mediche. La pallottola austriaca aveva un forma conica con un canale
di noce millimetri di profondità che agiva come un punzone, asportando
i tessuti incontrati sul percorso. 
In alcuni proiettili di questo tipo l'incamiciatura è solo parziale:
al momento dell'urto sul bersaglio si sforma e produce ferite
multiple. In altri è tagliuzzata longitudinalmente in modo che si
spacchi. In ogni caso le ferite prodotte sono pericolosissime perchè
dilaniano ossa e tessuti e favoriscono le emorragie.
 

------------------------------------------
POLIZIOTTI CHE MASSACRANO E UCCIDONO: 
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PARLA DELLA BRUTALITA' DEI POLIZIOTTI U.S.A.
Cops That Maim And Kill
Amnesty International Speaks Out On U.S. Police Brutality
Interview with Pierre Sane, Secretary General of Amnesty International
(10/12/98)
By Dennis Bernstein and Larry Everest
 
The following passage comes from a recent report by Amnesty
International's historic, 150-page report--United States of America:
Rights for All.
"There is a widespread and persistent problem of police
brutality....Thousands of individual complaints about police abuse are
reported each year....Police officers have beaten and shot unresisting
suspects; they have misused batons, chemical sprays and electro-shock
weapons....people have been beaten, kicked, punched, choked and shot
by police officers, even when they posed no threat. The majority of
victims have been members of racial or ethnic minorities. Many people
have died, many have been seriously injured, many have been deeply
traumatized."
This report was released on October 6 as part of Amnesty's first
worldwide campaign on the human rights situation in the U.S. It covers
police brutality, the unjust and racist use of the death penalty, the
U.S.'s increasingly brutal prison system, and the denial of immigrant
rights and political asylum. 
Pierre Sane, originally from Senegal, was appointed secretary general
of Amnesty International in 1992. He is responsible for Amnesty's
day-to-day management and serves as the organization's primary
spokesperson worldwide. 
 
BERNSTEIN/EVEREST: What motivated Amnesty to focus on the United
States? Was there an upsurge in violence? Why this report, and why
now?
PIERRE SANE: The human rights situation in the United States is bad,
and our research shows it is getting worse. It is getting worse
because there is a sort of warlike mentality in this country. There is
a war on crimes, there is a war on drugs, there is a war on illegal
immigrants, there is a war on terrorism. Law enforcement agencies are
given a lot of scope to deal with these issues, which are presented as
national threats. In a context like that, human rights are likely to
be a casualty.
We see police brutality on the increase from coast to coast. The
prisons are overflowing. There are now 1.7 million prisoners in the
U.S., one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. And the
death penalty is being used more and more frequently and with less and
less and less mercy. Asylum seekers are treated as criminals and
jailed, some in very bad conditions.
 
Amnesty's report paints a very troubling picture of official violence
by police and prison officials in this country. What is the scope and
nature of police brutality in the U.S.?
Police brutality extends from coast to coast and it is happening every
day. The primary focus of the police is on those that they have
profiled as being criminals--mainly young Black males, Asian
Americans, or Native Americans. But the problem is that unless the
brutality of the police is kept in check, then nobody is safe. That's
the risk, that it will continue to spread.
 
Is police brutality getting worse?
It is getting worse because of impunity. Many incidents of police
brutality are settled out of court. Settlement out of court, of
course, is not a recognition of liability. Police officers are not
prosecuted. It is getting worse because the police are using new
technologies such as electroshock, stun belts, stun guns, and tasers.
It will continue to get worse as long as the politicians are using the
insecurity created by the crime wave for political advantage and give
the police carte blanche to deal with crime. In a context where people
are told that this is a war against crime, human rights is likely to
be the casualty.
 
Was there anything that really shocked you in Amnesty's report on the
U.S., or were you pretty much expecting what you found?
There were a few things that I continue to find shocking. One is the
way women in prison are treated. There are 75,000 women in prison in
the U.S. today, which is a number that has quadrupled since 1980--not
because of violent offenses but mostly because of drug use, drug
abuse, and drug trafficking. What I find shocking is that the some
guards and medical staff themselves are committing sexual abuse. What
I find shocking is women being shackled when they are in labor. One
thousand pregnant women give birth every year in U.S. prisons. They
are shackled when they are pregnant, they are shackled when they are
taken to the hospital. They are shackled to their beds when they are
giving birth. 
 
What a terrible way to come into the world.
Clearly this country has moved away from looking at prisons as centers
for correction or rehabilitation, to look at prisons as a place where
people go to be further punished and further dehumanized. 
 
Was there anything else that stood out to you as particularly damning?
The treatment of mentally impaired people. There are many people who
end up in prison instead of being sent to mental institutions. Those
people are not criminally responsible. But some of them are executed.
For instance, Bill Clinton went back to Arkansas during his 1992
campaign to sign the death warrant for Ricky Ray Rector who was
totally mentally impaired. Actually, when he was taken from his cell
to be executed, he left his desert and said "I'll finish it later." He
had no idea what was going on. 
So people who are mentally impaired have been executed. People who are
mentally impaired are sent to these prisons. Of course they have
totally unpredictable attitudes, so they are being restrained. We have
a case of someone mentally impaired who was restrained on for 12
weeks. 
 
It seems that a new class of prisoners is being created in the United
States--children. One gets the feeling that pretty soon we are going
to start seeing high chairs being electrified and people being locked
up as soon as they are diaper trained. I'm being facetious here, but
this seems to be where we're going.
There are 3,500 children in prison with adults, and this is part of a
pattern in this country of practices moving away from established
national and international standards. That's why we want to ring the
alarm bell. Yes, it is true there is a constitution, there is a Bill
of Rights, freedoms are guaranteed, there is an independent justice
system, and you can sue officials--provided you have the means. But
all of this does not guarantee that rights will be adequately
protected. 
Take the State of Virginia. It is about to execute a juvenile
offender. The last juvenile that was executed in Virginia was in 1932.
So we are going back to the standards of 1932. We are moving forward
technologically, in terms of communications, and toward the 21st
century. But we are keeping forms of punishment from the 19th century.
Executing juveniles is also against International human rights law,
because those under 18 years old cannot and should not be executed
because they aren't really criminally responsible. The United States
has been one of the key actors in developing these standards. But
these international standards have moved beyond the standards that
obtain in the United States. The U.S. is a member of what I call the
G-6. There is the G-7, the powerful industrialized nations. Then you
have the G-6. The G-6 includes Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan,
Nigeria, and the United States of America. These are the only 6
countries in the world that continue to execute juveniles. 
 
You recently made a trip to the U.S.-- Mexico border. What prompted
your visit?
One of the wars the government has declared is the war on illegal
immigrants. Last May we issued a report looking at human rights
violations on the border between Mexico and the United States, and
what we wanted on the occasion of this trip through our discussion
with the human rights organizations, the immigrant organizations, is
to assess to what extent the plan of action that has been implemented
by the INS has led to significant changes and has reduced the level of
abuses by the border patrol, has improved the conditions of detention.
On the side of the INS and the border patrol, we are told that many of
the recommendations have been implemented and the level of abuses has
been reduced. But that is not the story that we are told by the human
rights organizations. Some immigrants have been assaulted, sexually,
including sexual assault, some are indefinitely detained, their rights
are stripped completely. They are dehumanized. They are considered as
the enemy where normally they should be offered protection and asylum.
 
What are you urging people to do to combat the problems you've
highlighted in your report?
This is going to be a 12-month campaign in which we will mobilize our
membership worldwide to disseminate this information and to pressure
the U.S. government to bring about the needed changes. We feel that
there is a need to raise awareness about the extent of the human
rights violations and the rapid deterioration of the human rights
situation, and we want to ensure that our membership in the U.S.
participates in the mobilization of civil society in America against
things like police brutality.
This report, of course, should be a contribution to the work that
various organizations are doing. Our actions internationally will
demonstrate our solidarity with the victims, but also with the
organizations on the ground who are struggling to hold the police
accountable. 
 
So would you be encouraging your members to unite and participate with
these various groups?
Yes, that's the strategy. We know that changes will only happen if we
can combine domestic pressure coming from below with international
pressure coming from outside. And that is really what is at the heart
of our strategy -þ going to the trade unions, to the church-based
groups, to women's organizations, to various social movements--to
bring this issue to the table and invite them to join.
 
Earlier you mentioned that many people from what you called "good
society"--and by that I understood you to mean the middle classes
broadly--feel a distance from the poor, the dispossessed, people of
color. How do you see Amnesty helping to bridge this gap? 
First, bridging the gap is really injecting the human rights discourse
and the human rights language into everyday life. Yes, people accept
that we are all born free and equal, that we have equal rights, etc,
etc. But the reality, the structures of injustice in society require
that beyond the acceptance of the equality and the rights, people
engage more in action to ensure that others will not be denied their
rights--be it socio- economic rights, or civil and political rights. 
Certainly history is a good reminder that unless the rights of all are
protected, our rights individually tomorrow can be confiscated.
Certain groups can be targeted today, which gives police officers a
sense of impunity, a sense of being above the law. And tomorrow it
would be members of good society who will fall victim to a police
force which will not be held accountable, and that is not being
sanctioned when abuses are being committed.
 
In your travels around the U.S. do you see a growing concern among, as
you put it, the members of "good society"? How do you read the mood of
intellectuals, the middle class, professional people, journalists, and
others?
I sense something. I'm not sure that I can talk about it expertly
because my visits are not that frequent. But I can judge something by
the enthusiasm of Amnesty members in joining this campaign. Amnesty is
a typical middle class organization. In the U.S. it is from the white
middle class, but made up of people who come with compassion, who want
to help others, mainly victims in other places. But these are people
who have enthusiastically joined this campaign in order to strengthen
human rights protection in their own country. 
I think that people are seeing through the propaganda effort of the
government to target and vilify certain groups. And they are not ready
anymore to accept certain abuses which are committed in the name of
good society. It is in order to protect good society from crime that
people are being executed and poisoned, that juvenile offenders are
being executed, that mentally ill people are being executed. It is in
the name of the well-being of good society that immigrants are treated
like criminals, that people in the prisons are treated with total,
total disrespect for their rights. 
So there comes a point where people weigh what is being put to them in
terms of what is needed in order to keep them in comfort, and the
price they are paying in terms of bearing responsibility for the
atrocities that are taking place behind the walls. I think it is
difficult to bear. We can see this in the religious movement. Last
weekend we organized a weekend of faith where we reached out to all
congregations in the U.S. to join in a weekend of prayer but also of
sermon regarding the death penalty. The response was enormous,
unexpected. 
I think there is a moral vacuum that the religious right and the
right-wing groups in the U.S. have tried to fill, but it's a fraud and
people are seeing through that. And I think what we need to bring back
at the center is the human rights package--the message of equality, of
dignity, of respect, of tolerance, brotherhood and sisterhood.
 
I'm interested in your comment that people are seeing through the
right-wing's crime agenda. An Amnesty press release states that your
report is coming out at a time when Congress is debating right and
wrong in regard to President Clinton's actions. Could you comment on
this?
Yes, I guess for us it is the whole hypocrisy of a political
establishment that has immersed itself in this soul searching exercise
on morality and politics, and about what is right and what is wrong.
At the same time it allows juvenile offenders to be executed; at the
same time it allows mentally ill people to be locked up behind bars
and be subjected to conditions of detention and of restraint which are
totally unacceptable. A political establishment that is extending the
use of the death penalty; a political establishment that legislates
three strikes and you're out; that undermines the international system
of protection for refugees, and which shapes the very society that the
police police. 
 
It is also a very positive development that many of the oppressed
themselves are organizing and speaking out, including the relatives of
victims of police abuse. For example, Amnesty's new report includes a
picture of the group Parents Against Police Brutality in New York. Is
this a development that you've noted as well?
Yes, we've seen it. As we publicize issues like police brutality, it
strengthens those organizations. It gives them more coverage of their
work. 
Our experience covering human rights abuses throughout the world is
that associations of families of victims, like the association of the
Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina, the mothers of the
disappeared in Turkey, in Mexico, in Lebanon, and so on, are really
the organizations that are the most successful in keeping alive the
issue, because those organizations will not disband until such time
that they have received justice. 
 
Mumia Abu-Jamal is a well-known prisoner on death row here in the U.S.
What's Amnesty's position on Mumia?
I visited Mumia last October. I went to Pennsylvania and I spend a
couple of hours with him. Amnesty's position is that the emergency now
is to keep Mumia alive, to prevent an execution. Many people are under
the impression that Mumia will never be executed because he is so
famous and because he has a very strong network of supporters. I
wouldn't be that confident after having been confronted with the
callousness of the criminal justice system in this country. They have
not succeeded in breaking his spirit. I think that even behind bars
he's able to contribute a lot to all those who are fighting for
respect for dignity, and I think he's certainly an inspiration for
many in the younger generation.
We think our best contribution to the support of Mumia is to mobilize
our membership world wide to work for a commutation of his
sentence--we have to get him off death row. We have to make sure that
he's not executed. 
 
Is there anything that you would like to add that we haven't covered?
PS: Maybe just in terms of the message that is sent to the activists
in the U.S. Our message is really that this campaign is a
manifestation of our solidarity with the groups that are fighting for
justice in this country, and that change will come from the groups in
this country. We can help from outside, but Amnesty cannot bring human
rights to the people in this country.
Amnesty can contribute in mobilizing public opinion in supporting the
struggles that go on, but if tomorrow people want their human rights
protected, they will have to fight for them, and they will have to
harness that tradition of fighting for civil rights and fighting for
union rights and move beyond litigation, which is what the U.S. civil
rights movement is now, to a certain extent, locked into. We need to
bring people into the streets. We need to educate and to mobilize. And
that will be for Americans to do. And for us it is important that
change come, because we know that when change comes to the U.S., then
changing the rest of the world will be much easier.
Dennis Bernstein is an associate editor at Pacific News Service and
the senior producer of Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio's KPFA in
Berkeley. Larry Everest is a correspondent for the Revolutionary
Worker and the author of Behind the Poison Cloud: Union Carbide's
Bhopal Massacre.
 

 del sindaco di NY Giuliani:
[ cut sulll'articolo della Repubblica]
Cerchiamo di non confondere una strategia di lotta al crimine, che ha dato i
suoi frutti, con errori ed abusi di singole unità delle forze dell'ordine
verso le quali bisognerebbe utilizzare "zero tolerance".
La zero tolerance comprende ben altri strumenti che la violenza: il
perseguimemto di ogni crimime, anche i minori, l'espulsione dal centro di
ambulanti, lavavetri, memdicanti...Tutte misure utili a prevenire i crimini
maggiori.
Io vi aggiungerei anche misure liberalizzatrici come quella della droga che
eliminerebbero lo spaccio.
Ciao Franco (Bruxelles)


 eliminerebbero lo spaccio.
Su questo concordo pienamente, anche se non mi sembra una misura da zero
tolerance, ma piuttosto da Full Tolerance, modello Amsterdam (a
proposito: è vero che le condizioni logistiche sono piuttosto
differenti, ma come mai a New York la polizia spara a go go e la
violenza è comunque imperante, mentre ad Amsterdam questo non avviene?)


 violenza è comunque imperante, mentre ad Amsterdam questo non avviene?)
In effetti la definizione più giusta è full tolerance se si guarda la
liberalizzazione dal punto di vista del drogato, ma se la si vede  come strumento
per ridurre la criminalità legata alla droga puo' benissimo essere considerata uno
strumento preventivo di zero tollerance.
Ciao Franco (Lussemburgo)




passi.JOINT
Ma cosa cazzo c'enra la raccolta di firme, fatta dai NaziLeghisti, per
il referendum contro la Napolitano con il decreto legge che
regolarizza i 250 mila ???
L'ignoranza di voi leghisti fa paura !!!!!!!!! Non sapete nemmeno per
cosa cazzo firmate !!!! Siete ridicoli !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ciaooo.
Bye .... Paolo Basaglia (
basa...@inrete.it
)
Hey Guy! I hate WinShit'95. I'm an OS/2 man!
I'm strongly against the Death Penalty!!! It's simply barbaric!!!
My home page is: 
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/1453/
     ***  Favourite Political party: PDS forever !!! ***
*** Favourite Operating system: OS/2 WARP (just the best!) ***
           *** Favourite Soccer team: AC Milan ***

A questo proposito
www.noclandestini.com