Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Cdl Vi ricordate di Calipari ? No ? in UK si .

 
http://meionline.com/features/385.shtml
The perils of colonial justice
From Ashraf Fahim in New York
July 21st, 2005 -- Among its more vociferous opponents the American project 
in Iraq is characterized as a classic colonial adventure, indistinguishable 
in nature or intent from the darkest chapters in Northern oppression of the 
South. Proponents, on the other hand, argue the inherent benevolence of 
American empire - the export of US democracy and egalitarianism in contrast 
to the transparent racist imperialism of yore.
One way to arbitrate this dispute is perhaps to observe the dispensation of 
justice with regards to United States servicemen accused of the "unlawful 
killing" of Iraqi civilians. In this area, as with the infamous cases of 
abuse at Abu Ghurayb Prison and elsewhere, impunity is the rule of thumb for 
both the rank-and-file and their superiors. In the overwhelming majority of 
cases since the occupation began no prosecutions have taken place; and if 
courts martial have occurred, there have been acquittals or token sentences 
dispensed.
No matter how profound the inequities of US military justice, the 
transitional Iraqi government of Ibrahim Ja'fari has no means to challenge 
them. The trend towards impunity, therefore, appears to validate the 
grievances of opponents of the occupation by demonstrating the uneven 
distribution of power that defines relations between the US and the 
transit-ional Iraqi government.
Array of charges
It is difficult to determine the precise number of US servicemen accused of 
unlawful killings in Iraq. According to Associated Press, "at least ten US 
military personnel have been convicted of a wide array of charges stemming 
from the deaths of Iraqi civilians. But only one sentence has exceed-ed 
three years." Those ten convictions do not reflect the dozens of 
investigations that have not produced courts martial, nor the large number 
of prosecutions that have led to acquittals.
The case of Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano is typical of the way the scales of 
justice tip in occupied Iraq. Pantano was accused of killing two Iraqi 
captives, Hamaday Karim and Taha Ahmad Hanjil, in April 2004, after the 
platoon he commanded captured them as they left a house the Marines had just 
raided. The two non-commissioned officers with Pantano at the time allege 
that he ordered the captives' handcuffs removed, had them assume defensive 
positions, instructed his soldiers to look away, then shot both of them in 
the back, emptying two magazines.
One of the NCOs, Sgt. Daniel Coburn, said Pantano became agitated when 
weapons were discovered in the suspected hideout and apparently wanted to 
"teach them a lesson".
Pantano's defence, which has been successful in similar cases (such as the 
execution of a wounded insurgent in a Falluja mosque famously captured by a 
TV camera) was that the unarmed Iraqis moved suddenly, leading him to fear 
they were about to carry out an attack. Pantano faced the death penalty on 
charges of premeditated murder but was cleared in a pretrial hearing in late 
May. He has resigned his com-mission.
Cherif Bassiouni, professor of inter-national law at Depaul University in 
Chicago, is the director of a project to reform Iraq's legal system, as well 
as of a project to aid the transitional government's drafting of a permanent 
constitution. As the UN's independent human rights expert in Afghanistan in 
2004, Bassiouni was apparently a little too effective, as his mandate was 
not renewed after heavy US pressure.
There is nothing unusual in American soldiers being judged under US 
jurisdiction (and by their peers, as they are in the military justice 
system) rather than the Iraqi courts, Bassiouni says. Such matters are 
usually covered by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that defines 
relations between US forces and their host country, as between the US and 
the other NATO countries. "In the SOFA the US has the primary jurisdiction 
to prosecute," Bassiouni told MEI. But if it fails to do so, the host 
country gets the opportunity. "The Bush Administration has refused to sign a 
SOFA with either Iraq or Afghanistan," Bassiouni notes. This affords 
American soldiers total impunity in Iraqi or Afghan courts.
The issue surfaced when Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visited the White 
House on 15 June. "He said we need a SOFA, you have no right to detain 
Afghan citizens in Afghanistan," says Bassiouni. "And Bush says absolutely 
not." Instead, a "memorandum of understanding" for a long-term security 
"partnership" was signed, offering only joint 'consultation' on military 
operations.
Michael Ratner, who heads the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New 
York, has tackled the issue of impunity. CCR is currently trying to 
prosecute US Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld and the former military commander 
in Iraq, Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, for their roles in the Abu Ghurayb scandal. 
Ratner says the policy of giving US servicemen and high officials impunity 
to carry out torture or killings is no accident. "The military is saying, in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, if you mess with us you're going to die and no one is 
going to be held accountable." The motivation is twofold, he believes. "Part 
of it is terrorizing the population and part of it is they want our army to 
be killers. They're frightened that if they discipline or prosecute them, 
they'll hold back."
If the intention is to terrorize the population, ordinary Iraqis seem to be 
getting the message. Reports indicate that Iraqis stay as far away as 
possible from American troops, who are a prime target of insurgent attacks. 
But the use of excessive force and concomitant impunity is also poisoning 
what little remains in the well of Iraqi goodwill towards America.
"What we are doing politically through the non-punishment of people, through 
the policy of plausible deniability for all our officers," says Bassiouni, 
"is reinforcing the popular perception of anti-Americanism and that's the 
strongest support we're giving to the resistance."
The lonesome death of Zaydun Hassun
The demise of Zaidun Hassun in the River Tigris on 3 January 2004 is surely 
one of the Americans' most arbitrary recent killings in Iraq. After Hassun 
and his cousin Marwan Fadel were detained at a checkpoint by American troops 
near a bridge in Samarra for breaking curfew, Sgt. Tracy Perkins ordered his 
men to throw them into the river, apparently to teach them a lesson. Hassun 
drowned, but Fadel survived. There was a subsequent investigation and then a 
court martial that cleared Perkins and his men of involuntary manslaughter. 
Perkins was found guilty of assault and obstruction of justice, however, 
charges that held a maximum penalty of 11 years' imprisonment. He got 45 
days.
One reason for Perkins' exoneration on the manslaughter charge was that his 
defence argued that Hassun might not really be dead, since no US doctor had 
examined his body. The photographic evidence of his corpse provided by his 
family, as well as Fadel's testimony, held little weight among the soldiers 
sitting in judgment of their colleague. When soldiers judge soldiers, says 
Ratner, a slanted outcome is always a risk. "The theory of military 
tribunals is that military officers understand the combat situation best," 
he says. "So first, they're sympathetic already, and second, they probably 
see themselves in that situation."
The Hassun case illustrates the hierarchies of race that corrupt the 
dispensation of US military justice and indeed the wider Iraqi-US 
relationship. As such, the US is reproducing the kind of colonial justice 
practiced by the British in India, the French in Algeria or the Israelis in 
occupied Palestine.
Overt racism is rife in the military's internal investigations, says Ratner. 
The army's Criminal Investigations Division "never believe the victim or the 
witnesses who were Iraqi," he says. US soldiers "have been taught that 
Muslims are terrorists, so it doesn't take a big leap to say 'I'm not going 
to believe their testimony'."
It is not only Iraqis who feel hard done by Bush-era US military justice. 
When Italian special forces agent Nicola Calipari was shot dead by American 
soldiers on 4 March while attempting to deliver Italian journalist Giuliana 
Sgrena to Baghdad airport (after apparently freeing her from her insurgent 
kidnappers) many assumed America's relations with an ally would ensure due 
diligence. But despite evidence that little warning was given before US 
soldiers fired on the Italian convoy, a joint US-Italian investigation - the 
conclusions of which the Italians refused to co-sign - found no US soldier 
at fault.
The Calipari case shows that the US is willing to go to great lengths to 
hold its soldiers above the law, says Ratner. "The Bush Administration is 
not about to prosecute anybody for any crime in a serious way. Even with 
someone who politically they had to get along with, like the Italians, it 
didn't make any difference to their bigger aim, which is to protect their 
soldiers and basically have them be looked at as a killing force that's just 
not accountable."
The high cost of impunity
That American soldiers are perceived by Iraqis to be above the law has 
serious implications for the US-Iraqi relationship. It feeds Iraqi cynicism 
about the legitimacy of the transitional government and reinforces 
assumptions that Americans are the ultimate arbiters of Iraq's purported 
sovereignty.
Iraqis "have absolutely no illusions that the present government has much 
ability to exercise sovereignty", says Bassiouni. "Thirty years under Saddam's 
regime brought people a certain type of realism. Power, control, 
corruption - Saddam controlled absolutely, now the Americans are controlling 
absolutely."
While the Ja'fari government is amenable to the US presence at the moment, 
that writ is not eternal. Ja'fari's administration generally follows the 
views of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. "Sistani's basic position has been made 
very clear," notes Bassiouni. "He wants a government to be in place, an 
orderly transition made and the Americans out. The US has to leave, period." 
Once the constitution is in place, elections are held and the word 
"transitional" erased from government stationary, the colonial relationship 
could begin to chafe unbearably. And sovereign Iraq's rulers may not be as 
patient in demanding jurisdiction over foreign forces as the ever genial 
Hamid Karzai. Sooner rather than later, Iraqis will tire of US soldiers 
hurling their young men into the Tigris and getting off scot-free.

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:VB7Fe.6554$fm.7...@news4.tin.it...
Tsk......dirty communists....
clas 

Ralph Barker wrote:
Calipari? Calipari chi? Ah, l'eroe!
No, guarda, se si tratta di ricordarlo come tale, allora va benissimo. 
Se si tratta di parlare dell'inchiesta che doveva far emergere la 
verita'... insomma, non ti accontenti di sapere che l'intento era quello?
Saluti tristi
	GC

 
http://meionline.com/features/385.shtml
Per capire di che sito si tratta, basta vedere sulla home page come
chiamano gli assassani iracheni......
Insurgents in Iraq.....
http://meionline.com/index.shtml
Clas

 Clas
Quando si tratta di leggere negli occhi di una donna, la maggior parte degli
uomini è analfabeta
(Heidelinde Weis)
Quando si tratta di leggere nella mente di Clas, la maggior parte degli
uomini non trova niente da leggere.