Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: La Cia gestisce prigioni segrete "per terroristi" nell'Europa dell'Est

La Cia gestisce prigioni segrete "per terroristi" nell'Europa dell'Est
La Cia custodisce e interroga prigionieri di al Qaeda in un edificio
segreto nell'Europa orientale, nell'ambito di un sistema di prigioni sotto
copertura istituito dopo gli attentati dell'11 settembre 2001. Lo scrive
oggi il Washington Post. Il complesso, che risale all'epoca sovietica, fa
parte di una rete che comprende siti in otto diversi paesi, tra cui la
Thailandia e l'Afghanistan, scrive il giornale, citando funzionari
statunitensi e stranieri a conoscenza della vicenda.Il giornale afferma
che l'esistenza e la collocazione degli edifici è nota solo a pochissimi
funzionari negli Usa e, di solito, soltanto al capo di Stato e a pochi
importanti funzionari dell'intelligence di ogni paese ospitante. La Cia
non ha ammesso l'esistenza di una rete di prigioni segrete, scrive il
Post. Un portavoce dell'agenzia per l'intelligence Usa non ha risposto per
il momento alla richiesta di commentare la notizia.Le prigioni vengono
indicate come "siti neri" in documenti statunitensi coperti da segreto e
di fatto non si sa nulla sull'identità dei detenuti, su come vengono
interrogati o delle decisioni sul tempo di detenzione, scrive il
giornale.Circa una trentina di principali sospettati di terrorismo sono
stati detenuti nei "black sites", mentre una settantina di altri
prigionieri, considerati meno importanti, sono stati consegnati a servizi
segreti stranieri secondo una procedura nota come "traduzione", scrive il
quotidiano, citando fonti d'intelligence Usa e straniere.I più importanti
30 prigionieri di al Qaeda sono isolati dal mondo esterno, non gli sono
stati riconosciuti diritti legali e a nessuno, a parte la Cia, è
consentito vederli o parlare con loro, hanno detto le fonti. Il giornale,
che cita numerosi attuali ed ex agenti dei servizi segreti e altri
funzionari governativi Usa, dice che la Cia ha usato centri di detenzione
all'estero perché negli Stati Uniti è illegale tenere i prigionieri in
tali condizioni di isolamento. Il Washington Post afferma di non aver
pubblicato i nomi dei paesi dell'Est europeo coinvolti nel programma sotto
copertura su richiesta di alti funzionari statunitensi. Secondo questi
ultimi, fornire queste informazioni potrebbe danneggiare gli sforzi
dell'antiterrorismo o trasformare i Paesi in bersagli per la rappresaglia,
dice il giornale. Il sistema di detenzione segreto era stato concepito
dopo gli attacchi dell'11 settembre 2001 contro New York e Washington,
nell'ipotesi che un altro attentato fosse imminente, dice il Post.
(Reuters) 
-- 
 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 oggi il Washington Post. Il complesso, che risale all'epoca sovietica,
Traduzione per i non-addetti ai lavori.
E' un'ex-Gulag.
Per "fortuna" i "liberatori" sanno fare buon uso di questo tipo di
edifici, siano le ex-galere di Saddam (che pero' bisogna espandere per
mancanza di posti,
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/27/us_building_new_jails_to_ease_crowding?mode=PF
) o Gulag di Stalin.    Magari quel campo  vicino Oswecim potrebbe
tornare utile nella "guerra per la liberta'"?
Ciao da Trento
GT

Questo e' proprio mitico
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/01/wviet01.xml
One of America's spy agencies faked key intelligence used to justify
its intervention in the Vietnam War, it was disclosed yesterday.
But the revelation was kept secret by the National Security Agency,
partly because of fears that it would boost criticism of the
intelligence services over the war in Iraq.
According to material uncovered by the NSA's own historian, Robert
Hanyok, middle-ranking officers altered material relating to the Gulf
of Tonkin incident.
Two US destroyers, Maddox and Turner Joy, were attacked by North
Vietnamese craft in the gulf on Aug 2 1964.
Two days later, amid bad weather and considerable confusion in the US
chain of command, Maddox reported that she had been fired on a second
time.
Although its commander soon cast doubt on the reports, signals
intelligence reported that the North Vietnamese admitted "we sacrificed
two ships".
In revenge President Lyndon Johnson ordered air raids against North
Vietnamese naval facilities and Congress authorised "all necessary
steps including the use of armed force" to defend South Vietnam.
But Mr Hanyok found that timings on key intelligence intercepts had
been changed and the "two ships" probably referred to the loss of two
sailors in the first attack.
He blamed middle-ranking staff who realised the NSA's mistakes almost
immediately but covered them up, not for political reasons, but to hide
the original mistakes.
At the time, senior administration officials cited the faked paperwork
in testimony before Congress.
It has even been suggested that President Johnson was so keen to deploy
troops that he fabricated the whole episode. More than 58,000 Americans
and a million Vietnamese died in the ensuing conflict.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1104-03.htm
Can you imagine one of the leaders at the G8 summit slipping out
between sessions, through the security cordon, to join in a street
demonstration of bearded anoraks against the summit's most powerful
participant, George Bush?
Something similar looks like happening today when Mr Bush attends a
summit of 34 western hemisphere leaders - the Venezuelan President,
Hugo Chavez, has said he will leave the summit in between sessions to
take part in an alternative "People's Summit" and lead, along with the
former Argentinian football star Diego Maradona, a protest march
against Mr Bush.
It's a nightmare for the 7,500 police and troops that Argentina has
drafted into the Atlantic resort for the Americas Summit on Friday and
Saturday. Already, US and Venezuelan security agents, armed but in
plain clothes, are mingling with the resort's population.
South America's media are billing it as a Wild West showdown between
the world's would-be Wyatt Earp - President Bush - and the Billy the
Kid-style figure of Mr Chavez. The US President was apparently
considering staying away from the summit until Mr Chavez implied that
Mr Bush was afraid to face him.

 and a million Vietnamese died in the ensuing conflict.


Un'articolo interessante a 10 anni dal suo omicidio.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/641694.html
Broken bones and broken hopes
By Amira Hass
For Palestinians, Yitzhak Rabin is remembered first of all as someone
who instructed soldiers to break their arms and legs, when they began
their popular uprising against the Israeli occupation in 1987.
Before the handshake on the White House lawn, before the Nobel Prize
and before the murder, when Palestinians were asked about Rabin, this
is what they remember: One thinks of his hands, scarred by soldiers'
beatings; another remembers a friend who flitted between life and death
in the hospital for 12 days, after he was beaten by soldiers who caught
him drawing a slogan on a wall during a curfew. Yet another remembers
the Al-Am?ari refugee camp; during the first intifada, all its young
men were hopping on crutches or were in casts because they had thrown
stones at soldiers, who in turn chased after them and carried out
Rabin's order.
Jamal, Bilal, Nadim and Said: All are in their 40s, and all have been
jailed for various periods for popular activity during the first
intifada. They are from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. They are all
university graduates; two are doctoral students, in mathematics and in
history, while the third is completing a master's degree in political
science and the fourth is an artist and an amateur DJ. They are not
activists in any organization, and they don't pretend to represent any
group, only to answer the question, "Who is Rabin for you." The
question surprised them, because they don't think about him a lot, and
they did not recall that this was the 10th anniversary of his
assassination.
Bilal ?(the DJ?), who is from a village in the northern West Bank and
lives in Ramallah, says: "I don?t tend to make political analyses, but
I have never been convinced by Arafat's comments about Yitzhak Rabin as
a true partner for peace, and I don't accept the thesis that if Rabin
hadn't been murdered, 'there would already have been peace.'"
He thinks the change in Rabin was a shrewd maneuver, not a principled
transformation. "In the two years between when he signed the
declaration of principles and when he was murdered, we did not feel any
genuine change in our lives," says Bilal. "I saw meetings on
television, conversations around the table, smiles, but in the field,
we remained under Israeli occupation and Rabin continued to represent
the occupation for us: settlements and land appropriation and a Civil
Administration that gives or doesn't give a permit to move."
Rabin's murder was not much of a surprise for Bilal. "Politicians are
always exposed to this kind of thing, and I always thought that Israeli
society isn't different from other societies, that the Israelis are
like us."
'In the first moment, I felt joy'
Nadim, the history student, admits that he felt happy when he first
heard Rabin had been assassinated. "In the first moment, once I heard
he had been murdered, I felt joy," says Nadim. "A man who ordered that
bones be broken - how should I feel toward him?" He says not many
people think about Rabin. "Now that you ask, I remember that he didn't
honor the agreement, rejected a few of its clauses. 'There are no
sacred times,' he said."
As a Gazan, Nadim remembers that before Oslo, when he was first
released from jail in 1991, he worked in Israel. But after the Oslo
Accords, he says, "Israel closed in on us more and more, and I was
trapped in Gaza, without hope, like most people."
Said, the political science student from Nablus, sees Rabin as a strong
leader who initiated a "political process," but was still interested in
maintaining the settlements. "Rabin is a person who had the strength
and determination to go from a public directive to break the
Palestinians' hands and legs to a political process, when he felt the
change in the international mood," says Said. "I'm not saying 'peace
process,' because it wasn't peace. He had the strength to break taboos
in Israeli society when he agreed to talk with the [Palestine
Liberation Organization] and to recognize the PLO. And, at the same
time, he knew how to preserve the colonial achievements of Israel.
After all, he did not remove a single
settlement. He was a good representative of a generation of Israelis
who wanted to put an end to the image of Israel as an occupying state,
and at the same time searched for a way to assure Israel's territorial
expansion."
'If only we had a leader like Rabin'
Unlike Nadim, Said is convinced the Palestinians remember Rabin. Some
people curse Rabin for bringing "the group from Tunis here," he says,
referring to Arafat and other PLO leaders who had been exiled there.
"And some are convinced that if Rabin had not been murdered, we would
not be in the lousy situation we're in today."
Said says Rabin understood that Palestinian society had become weakened
at the end of the first intifada. "We were in a situation similar to
today: political chaos, hooligans who ruled the street, apathy. He
understood that it was a good time to make a deal, when we were in a
position of weakness. That's why some among us say: 'If only we had a
leader like Rabin.'"
Besides the broken bones Rabin ordered, "which jump into my head when
you say Rabin," Said also remembers the disgust with which Rabin shook
Arafat's hand. "He broadcast a feeling of superiority - a common
disease of the Israelis, from which the Israelis have not recovered."
Jamal, who is working on his doctorate in mathematics, is struck by the
contrast "between the boorish, racist and fascist order to break bones,
and [Rabin's] ability to swim against the stream, to make a courageous
decision and sign an agreement with the PLO."
Jamal is a Gazan "jailed" in Ramallah; since the Oslo Accords were
signed, Israel has not allowed many of the Gazans living in the West
Bank to change their addresses, and considers them to be ?illegals? in
the West Bank. Jamal does not leave Ramallah, where he has lived since
1987, because he does not want to be caught and sent to Gaza.
Nonetheless, when asked about Rabin, Jamal does not mention that he is
trapped, but rather the comments his friend made when the Oslo Accords
were signed: "We don't want anything besides Gaza, the West Bank and
[East] Jerusalem." In other words, says Jamal, people were full of
hope, a hope he says surged since the first intifada. Inspired by this
spirit of hope, he says, people believed Rabin had changed.
"I can't call him a dove, but he underwent a process of liberation from
previous patterns," says Jamal. "The order he gave to break bones
brought out wild craziness in the Israeli soldiers. But the decision to
hold a dialogue released in Israeli society other, positive moods, and
among us also, there were positive moods. Such that Yigal Amir won. The
murder halted the chance there was to move forward."

 
Grande ..... figura di merda che fara' :)
-Stefano

 s.
it.cultura.sovietica ? Be' se tu leggessi La Repubblica lo avresti 
trovato ieri in italiano.
Am.

La comunita' Ebraica Italiana ha co-organizzato a una fiaccolata per
delle dichiarazioni che (malgrado la loro discutibilita') riguardano
uno stato _straniero_ e non hanno nessunissima attinenza con la _vita
Ebraica Italiana_.
Chi non partecipa a una manifestazione a difesa del siffatto paese
straniero (che fra l'altro non ha certo un'atteggiamento rispettoso
vero l'Italia, vedi Vanunu e Argo 16) viene dichiarato dal capetto di
turno "nemico".
Quando, invece, un deputato del piu grande partito del governo (fra
l'altro sostenuto dal Foglio, organizzatore della fiaccolata) fa
dichiarazioni sfacciatamente Antisemite sulle "banche in mano
all'Ebraismo internazionale", la fiaccolata non c'e stata.
Perche?  
Grazie.