Meldungen (Feeds)

Griechenland: Polizei räumt Flüchtlingslager in Idomeni

Hintergrund.de - Mar, 24/05/2016 - 17:49

Die katastrophalen Zustände in dem Grenzort waren zum Sinnbild für die Flüchtlingskrise und das Versagen europäischer Politik geworden –

Von REDAKTION, 24. Mai 2016 –

Die griechische Polizei hat am Dienstag damit begonnen, das berüchtigte Flüchtlingslager Idomeni zu räumen. Ein großes Aufgebot an Polizei-Spezialkräften begleitete die bereits vorher angekündigte Aktion. Nach Angaben von Beobachtern verlief sie bislang reibungslos und friedlich. Die Flüchtlinge packten ihre wenigen Sachen und bestiegen dafür bereitstehende Busse. Diese brachten sie zu neuen offiziellen Flüchtlingslagern, die die griechische Regierung in den vergangenen Wochen vor allem auf dem Gelände nicht mehr benötigter Armeekasernen und Industrieflächen errichtet hatte. Insgesamt stehen dafür

Weiterlesen...

Peru ruft wegen Quecksilber-Verschmutzung Notstand aus

Hintergrund.de - Mar, 24/05/2016 - 17:49

(24.05.2016/hg/dpa)

Die peruanische Regierung hat wegen einer Quecksilber-Verschmutzung den Notstand für ein 85 000 Quadratkilometer großes Gebiet ausgerufen. Zum Vergleich: Bayern hat als größtes deutsches Bundesland etwa 70 550 Quadratkilometer. Rund 40 Prozent der 110 000 Einwohner des östlichen Departements Madre de Dios seien von der vom illegalen Bergbau verursachten Verseuchung betroffen, erklärte Umweltminister Manuel Pulgar Vidal am Montag.

"Die Folgen des illegalen Bergbaus in Madre de Dios werden uns über die kommenden 80 Jahre begleiten", sagte der Minister unter Berufung auf einen Bericht der Katastrophenschutzbehörde Indeci. Die Verseuchung der Flüsse führe etwa zu einem hohen Quecksilber-Vorkommen bei Fischen, der Hauptnahrung der

Weiterlesen...

Steuer-Razzia bei Google in Paris

Hintergrund.de - Mar, 24/05/2016 - 17:49

(24.05.2016/hg/dpa) 

Französische Ermittler haben wegen des Verdachts auf Steuerbetrug Büros des US-Internetkonzerns Google in Paris durchsucht. Das Vorermittlungsverfahren sei bereits im vergangenen Juni infolge einer Klage der französischen Finanzverwaltung eröffnet worden, teilte die nationale Finanz-Staatsanwaltschaft am Dienstag mit. An der Durchsuchung seien Finanz-Ermittler der Polizei und 25 Informatik-Experten beteiligt gewesen.

Es gehe darum, zu klären, ob Google Ireland Ltd. eine feste Niederlassung in Frankreich hat und ob das Unternehmen gegen Steuer-Vorschriften verstoßen habe, indem es einen Teil seiner Aktivitäten in Frankreich nicht dort angegeben habe. Google erklärte dazu: "Wir halten uns an französisches Recht und kooperieren umfänglich mit den Behörden, um ihre

Weiterlesen...

Brother of Guantánamo Diary Author Barred from Entering U.S.

The Intercept - Engl. - Mar, 24/05/2016 - 02:32

The brother of a prominent Guantánamo Bay prisoner was denied entry to the United States this weekend as he attempted a trip to advocate for his brother’s release.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi is one of the most famous of the 80 men left at Guantánamo. Last year, Guantánamo Diary, his brutal memoir of imprisonment and torture by the United States and its counterterrorism allies became a bestseller. Held in Guantánamo for nearly 14 years without being charged with a crime, Slahi is scheduled to go before the prison’s Periodic Review Board on June 2. The interagency panel will review his case and could possibly recommend his release.

Mohamedou’s younger brother, Yahdih Ould Slahi, lives in Düsseldorf, Germany, and has been trying to secure his brother’s freedom for years. He was planning to come to the United States to meet with journalists and for a series of public events ahead of the review board hearing.

Yet when Yahdih, a German citizen, arrived at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York on Saturday, May 21, he was immediately taken into custody by Customs and Border Patrol. He was held overnight, questioned for hours, and then sent back to Germany on Sunday evening.

“He was asked questions about his family, his brother, and what he knew about why his brother was in Guantánamo,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It was a harrowing, stressful, and exhausting experience.”

(Disclosure: I am moderating a panel discussion with Yahdih in Washington D.C. this week, at the invitation of the ACLU.)

Asked by The Intercept about the decision to refuse Yahdih entry, the CBP sent a boilerplate statement about its broad authority to control admission to the United States.

Now 45, Mohamedou Slahi was picked up in his native Mauritania in 2002 and held in Jordan and Afghanistan before being brought to Guantánamo later that year. In his memoir, Slahi describes being held in isolation, beaten, exposed to freezing temperatures, and being subjected to sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and threats against his family. Much of his account has been substantiated by government investigations into detainee abuse.

Slahi has admitted that he went to fight in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda against the communist government in 1990, but he maintains that he has had no connection to the group since 1992. One military official refused to participate in a prosecution of Slahi after learning about his torture, and a former prosecutor has said he could not find anything with which to charge him. A federal judge ordered his release in 2010, but the decision was vacated on appeal and the case has stalled.

“Yahdih wanted this chance to speak in person to Americans, to thank his brother’s American supporters, and to talk about the impact of his brother’s detention on his family and why they want him released,” said Shamsi, of the ACLU. “Yahdih’s perspective is one that Americans rarely get to hear.”

The Periodic Review Board that will evaluate Slahi’s case in June is a critical part of the Obama administration’s attempt to move as many people as possible out of Guantánamo before the end of this year, even as it looks increasingly unlikely that Obama will fulfill his longtime pledge to close the facility entirely.

Congress has barred detainees from being brought to the United States, even for continued detention, and restricted the countries to which they can be sent. The Guardian reported Monday that the administration had secured deals with about six countries to accept about two-dozen men by the end of July.

If those transfers occur, it would leave only a handful of the men who have so far been cleared for release. Seven prisoners currently face charges in front of the military commissions, 21 have been referred for prosecution, and another 21, including Slahi, fall into the category of so-called “forever prisoners:” those the administration has determined they can’t charge with a crime, but who they still believe could pose a threat to the United States if released. Both the men referred for charges and the forever prisoners could have their cases reexamined by the review boards.

Photo: Yahdih Ould Slahi holds a picture of his brother, Guantánamo detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Via ACLU.

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post Brother of Guantánamo Diary Author Barred from Entering U.S. appeared first on The Intercept.

Operationsstützpunkt Türkei

German Foreign Policy - Mar, 24/05/2016 - 00:00
(Eigener Bericht) - Deutsche Außenpolitik-Experten messen der Kooperation mit der Türkei, die Bundeskanzlerin Merkel gestern in Ankara zu bewahren suchte, weitreichende strategische Bedeutung bei. Dies geht aus aktuellen Analysen hervor, die die CDU-nahe Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung veröffentlicht. Demnach können nicht nur deutsche Unternehmen langfristig auf exklusive Geschäfte in der Türkei hoffen. Vor allem sei das Land geostrategisch als Brücke in die nah- und mittelöstlichen Ressourcengebiete sowie als Stützpunkt für deutsch-europäische Einflussmaßnahmen in der Region unverzichtbar, erklärt der außenpolitische Sprecher der CDU/CSU-Fraktion im Bundestag. Tatsächlich baut die Bundeswehr ein dauerhaft befestigtes deutsches Flugfeld inklusive Gefechtsstand auf der Luftwaffenbasis im türkischen Incirlik; Berlin bemüht sich um einen langfristigen Stationierungsvertrag. Die Bundesregierung arbeitet schon seit Jahren auf eine strategisch angelegte Kooperation mit Ankara hin. Dies erfolgt trotz der weltweit scharf kritisierten Umwandlung der Türkei in einen autoritär geführten Präsidialstaat. Dessen ungeachtet ist es Ankara gelungen, ein Hauptmotiv der staatlichen deutschen "Willkommenskultur" offenzulegen - mit der Erteilung von Reisegenehmigungen für schwer kranke Kriegsflüchtlinge aus Syrien.

Second Freddie Gray Trial Ends in Acquittal, Surprises No One

The Intercept - Engl. - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 21:11

Officer Edward Nero, one of six Baltimore police officers facing charges over the arrest and death of Freddie Gray last year, was acquitted of all charges on Monday. It was the first verdict to be handed down in the case, after the trial of another officer ended in a hung jury last year.

Today’s verdict, delivered by Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams, was hardly a surprise to those who have followed the case. Prosecutors had sought to prove that Gray’s arrest was not only illegal, but that Nero’s role in it amounted to assault — a bold legal move that experts said stood little chance of convincing a judge.

“You’re saying here in this court that if there’s an arrest and there isn’t probable cause, it is a crime?” Judge Williams asked during prosecutors’ final arguments, according to The Guardian.

Nero was one of three officers on bike patrol who chased Gray on April 27 last year, before arresting him and loading him unrestrained into a police van, sending him off on a ride that left him with a severed spine. Nero was charged with second degree assault and misconduct in office, but his defense attorneys argued that he played a marginal role in the arrest. Another officer, Garrett Miller, testified that he alone arrested Gray.

The indictment of Nero and his colleagues came last year as protests over Gray’s death raged in West Baltimore. But while the indictments were hailed as a sign that justice is possible and helped ease tensions on the streets, many question whether we can really expect police officers to be held accountable in court.

“There’s a lot of skepticism or distrust that the criminal justice system as it exists in our country is really capable of holding police officers who break the law accountable for their crimes,” said Darius Charney, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The evidence is pretty strong the other way; it almost never happens.”

Charney listed the closeness of prosecutors to police officers they normally work with as a main structural problem, but also a predisposition by the courts to trust officers.

“Police officers are no more or no less honest than the vast majority of witnesses that testify in court, but there’s this unofficial presumption that they are more honest and that their testimony should be believed more,” Charney said. “Part of it is because they are the police, the good guys, and part of it is that they are trained on how to testify. All of these things make it very difficult to get a conviction.”

Even when a police stop is determined to be unlawful — and proving that is not easy — arguing that police misconduct is criminal is virtually impossible, he added. That’s because the law, particularly with regard to “stop and frisk” practices, gives officers ample discretion.

Reasonable Suspicion

Much of the debate in Nero’s trial revolved around the question of whether Gray’s stop and arrest were legal, thus reopening a long debate about the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and the principle of the “Terry stop.” Terry v. Ohio, a 1968 Supreme Court decision, lowered the standards for a legal police stop from “probable cause” that the person in question had been involved in a crime to “reasonable suspicion” that he was.

“What Terry really did is it injected this very malleable idea of suspicion,” said Ezekiel Edwards, director of the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “They’ll say things like, someone looked like a lookout, they were nervous, they were sweating, they were fidgety, their hands were in their pockets, they walked away when we looked at them, they were in a high-crime neighborhood. It’s very easy to stop a lot of folks if those are your criteria.”

A vast majority of Terry stops end without arrest or incident — though a series of lawsuits in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago has emphasized the damaging impact of such encounters on those stopped without cause. Pat downs for weapons often turn into much more invasive — and illegal — searches. On occasion, stops lacking probable cause have escalated into violent confrontations, arrests, and death, as was the case for Gray.

Edwards and others believe that Terry should be revisited, and the Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case concerning the use of incriminating evidence found during illegal police stops. But whether or not Terry is an appropriate standard for protecting constitutional rights, the implications of Gray’s case go far beyond legal technicalities and interpretations.

“We need stronger Fourth Amendment protections, but those are only going to go so far if the culture of police departments and the relationship they have with communities of color remain as toxic as they are now,” Edwards said. “There’s a much bigger question about the complete breakdown of relationships between police and those communities.”

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post Second Freddie Gray Trial Ends in Acquittal, Surprises No One appeared first on The Intercept.

Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal

The Intercept - Engl. - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 20:36

Back in April, just before the New York primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign aired a commercial on upstate television stations touting her work as secretary of state forcing “China, India, some of the world’s worst polluters” to make “real change.” She promised to “stand firm with New Yorkers opposing fracking, giving communities the right to say ‘no.'”

The television spot, which was not announced and does not appear on the official campaign YouTube page with most of Clinton’s other ads, implied a history of opposition to fracking, here and abroad. But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world.

Far from challenging fossil fuel companies, the emails obtained by The Intercept show that State Department officials worked closely with private sector oil and gas companies, pressed other agencies within the Obama administration to commit federal government resources including technical assistance for locating shale reserves, and distributed agreements with partner nations pledging to help secure investments for new fracking projects.

The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether US success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.

The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.

In 2014, Mother Jones reporter Mariah Blake used diplomatic cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and other records to uncover how Clinton “sold fracking to the world.” The emails obtained by The Intercept through a separate Freedom of Information Act request provide a new layer of detail.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment. During the April 15 Democratic debate in Brooklyn, New York, Clinton insisted there was no inconsistency between her positions:

Q: OK. Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. Fracking, of course, a way of extracting natural gas. Now as a candidate for president, you say that by the time you’re done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country. Why have you changed your view on fracking?
CLINTON: No, well, I don’t think I’ve changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas. And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.

Industry-Backed Launch

The Global Shale Gas Initiative, Clinton’s program for promoting fracking, was announced on April 7, 2010, by David Goldwyn, the State Department’s special envoy for energy affairs, at the United States Energy Association (USEA), whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Shell.

In a widely covered event in Krakow three months later, Clinton announced that “Poland will be part of the Global Shale Gas Initiative,” and that the State Department would “provide technical and other assistance.”

Goldwyn, who did not respond to multiple requests for comment, spoke to National Journal last month, explaining that, “[Clinton’s] instruction to me was that it was OK to talk about helping other countries get access to their own resources, as long as the focus of our engagement was how they could do it safely and efficiently, and that’s why the program had almost an entirely regulatory focus.” Goldwyn emphasized that the shale gas initiative was not designed to help the private sector and instead should be seen as “a really very modest government-to-government.”

But the emails show an aggressive effort to engage private energy companies and use Poland as part of a larger campaign to sell fracking throughout the region.

An email dated December 3, 2010, shows that the State Department had Poland firmly in its bull’s-eye and that companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Canadian firm BNK Petroleum and Italian energy company Eni expressed interest in tapping into Polish shale. One official suggested “enlisting Eni” to help organize the pro-fracking campaign in Poland, as well as bringing in U.S. companies. Earlier that year, in April, Poland’s then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski also took a trip to Texas to visit a fracking production site.

“I think we should be open to working with the Poles to spread knowledge and understanding of Poland’s (and Europe’s) shale gas potential,” wrote the State Department’s Chuck Ashley, who now works in the Office of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.

“Poland,” Ashley wrote, “is a laboratory for testing whether US success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country, with different shales, and a different regulatory environment.” Ashley also noted that “popular and political support is strong now, but this could change when shale gas wells come to their backyards.”

In fact, that did change. As drilling rigs transformed from prospect to reality, Polish citizens attempted — as it turns out, successfully — to fend off companies interested in fracking in Poland, including Chevron. A group called Occupy Chevron formed in reaction to the potential for shale drilling in Poland and Chevron filed a lawsuit against the occupiers. Facing the backlash and low global oil prices, in January 2015, Chevron announced it would halt operations in Poland.

Public-Private Partnerships

Despite Goldwyn’s recent assertion that the fracking campaign was a modest effort, the emails show what Goldwyn referred to as a “whole of government” approach that included deploying assistance from a range of agencies. At least 13 different government agencies were part of the effort.

Take Morocco, for example. A joint program with Clinton’s Global Shale Gas Initiative and the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) event for visiting Moroccans involved several U.S. government federal agencies in the proceedings. That included the EPA, National Security Council, USTDA, USGS, BLM, FERC and the Commercial Law Development Program.

After signing the agreement, Moroccan officials visited the U.S. for a series of meetings with the National Security Council, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Bureau of Land Management, along with meetings with the American Gas Association and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a lobbying group for the largest American fracking companies.

The emails reveal that the NSC had a “biweekly shale gas call” in which it offered the State Department its input on Global Shale Gas Initiative priority countries.

Moving Forward

The Global Shale Gas Initiative eventually became enveloped in the broader and still-existing Bureau of Energy Resources, a special wing within the Department of State devoted to the geopolitics of energy. “You can’t talk about our economy or foreign policy without talking about energy,” Clinton said, announcing the new bureau in 2011.

The office, staffed by 85 people, focuses on a range of energy development, but with a special focus on unconventional gas development and infrastructure, such as fracking and liquefied natural gas terminals, to support the development of the international gas market.

Now called the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program, the Global Shale Gas Initiative lives on under Secretary of State John Kerry (though they’ve taken down the website) but with the prospect of a commercial-scale global shale gas boom greatly reduced. Only the U.S., Canada, Argentina and China have commercialized the controversial horizontal drilling technique.

The pause in fracking, however, might be momentary. A number of energy companies that worked closely with the State Department now employ lobbyists that are fundraising furiously for Clinton’s campaign. ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist, as well as lobbyists for liquefied natural gas terminals designed to connect the U.S. to the global gas market, are among the most prolific fundraisers.

Goldwyn, too, is still actively promoting similar policies in the private sector through his consulting company Goldwyn Global Strategies, as counsel to the energy lobbying firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and through his association with the Atlantic Council, a think tank that promotes fossil fuel development.

The State Department’s shale gas initiative “was clearly driven by the promotion of Big Oil’s expansion,” Charlie Cray, senior researcher at Greenpeace USA, told The Intercept. “That it was one of State’s highest priorities undermines their credibility as leaders in the global effort to prevent the calamitous threats of climate change.”

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal appeared first on The Intercept.

Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga

The Intercept - Engl. - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 19:31

The Guardian published a stunning new chapter in the saga of NSA whistleblowers on Sunday, revealing a new key player: John Crane, a former assistant inspector general at the Pentagon who was responsible for protecting whistleblowers, then forced to become one himself when the process failed.

An article by Mark Hertsgaard, adapted from his new book, Bravehearts: Whistle Blowing in the Age of Snowden, describes how former NSA official Thomas Drake went through proper channels in his attempt to expose civil-liberties violations at the NSA — and was punished for it. The article vindicates open-government activists who have long argued that whistleblower protections aren’t sufficient in the national security realm.

It vindicates NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden who, well aware of what happened to Drake, gave up his attempts to go through traditional whistleblower channels – and instead handed over his trove of classified documents directly to journalists.

And it adds to the vindication for Drake, who was already a hero in the whistleblower’s pantheon for having endured a four-year persecution by the Justice Department that a judge called “unconscionable.”

The case against Drake, who was initially charged with 10 felony counts of espionage, famously disintegrated before trial – but not before he was professionally and financially ruined. And now it turns out that going through official channels may have actually set off the chain of events that led to his prosecution.

Drake initially took his concerns about wasteful, illegal and unconstitutional actions by the NSA to high-ranking NSA officials, then to appropriate staff and members of Congress. When that didn’t work, he signed onto a whistleblower complaint to the Pentagon inspector general made by some recently retired NSA staffers. But because he was still working at the NSA, he asked the office to keep his participation anonymous.

Now, Hertsgaard writes that Crane alleges that his former colleagues in the inspector general’s office “revealed Drake’s identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge.”

Crane’s growing concerns about his office’s conduct pushed him to his breaking point, according to Hertsgaard. But his supervisors ignored his concerns, gave him the silent treatment, and finally forced him to resign in January 2013.

Due to Crane’s continued efforts, however, the Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the Department of Defense for its treatment of whistleblowers, and Hertsgaard tells The Intercept that a public report on the results of the investigation is expected next year.

Crane brings unprecedented evidence from inside the system that ostensibly protects whistleblowers that the system isn’t working. And defenders of the system can’t accuse him of having an outside agenda. Crane has never taken a position for or against the NSA’s programs, or made contact with Drake during the investigation.

“Crane kind of made it a point not to know him,” Hertsgaard told the Intercept on Monday. “He didn’t want it to become something personal.”

For him, it was about whistleblowing, Hertsgaard explained, and the principal that “anonymity must be absolutely sacred.”

Snowden told the Guardian that Drake’s persecution was very much on his mind when he decided to go outside normal channels. And he told the Guardian that colleagues and supervisors warned him about raising his concerns, telling him “you’re playing with fire.”

In his Guardian interview, Snowden called for changes.

“We need iron-clad, enforceable protections for whistleblowers, and we need a public record of success stories,” he said. “Protect the people who go to members of Congress with oversight roles, and if their efforts lead to a positive change in policy – recognize them for their efforts. There are no incentives for people to stand up against an agency on the wrong side of the law today, and that’s got to change.”

U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, have insisted that Snowden should and could have gone through channels – and would have been heard.

“When people look at Edward Snowden, he’s the most famous,” Hertsgaard told The Intercept. “What they don’t realize is just how exceptional he is. He actually got his message out and he lived to tell the tale….that is highly unusual. In most cases, whistleblowers pay with their lives to save ours.”

Hertsgaard writes in his book about many other whistleblowers whose stories are slightly less dramatic, but no less important. “I’m hoping campaign reporters will press Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on this,” he said.

Top photo: Screengrab from Guardian interview with Crane.

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga appeared first on The Intercept.

Das G7-Camp – ein juristischer, demokratischer Meilenstein

Stop G7 - Elmau 2015 - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 18:40

Wir erinnern uns – die Vorbereitungen der Proteste beim G7-Gipfel in Elmau waren auch stark geprägt durch die Auseinandersetzungen um die Suche nach einem Campgelände. Letztlich musste die Genehmigung vor Gericht erkämpft werden, und dieser Erfolg erscheint auch jetzt noch als eine bemerkenswerte Sternstunde, die es lohnt, nochmal extra ins Bewusstsein gerufen zu werden. Die Presseinformation vom Verwaltungsgericht sagt nicht alles, wenn es dort nur heißt: „Anti-G7-Camp“ darf errichtet werden.

Im Stop-G7-Elmau Aktionsbündnis, dem Träger der Proteste rund um Elmau, gab es die „Camp-AG“, die für alle Angelegenheiten des Camps aufkam, und deren Vertreter im folgenden aktiv waren.

Zur Dokumentation stellen wir als PDFs hier zur Verfügung
(private Informationen jeweils entfernt):

Zum Beschluss des Verwaltungsgerichts

Das Wesentliche und Neue an der Entscheidung besteht darin, dass das Camp selbst in das Demonstrationsrecht einbezogen wurde!

Zitat: „Auch die [vorher im Text] beschriebenen Vorraussetzungen für eine ausnahmsweise zulässige Vorwegnahme der Hauptsacheentscheidung sind gegeben, da von derVeranstaltung Rechtsschutz  im Wege des Hauptsacheverfahrens nicht zu erlangen ist, so dass das Vorhaben des Antragstellers ohne Gewährung vorläufigen Rechtsschutz scheitern müsste.  Angesichts des in der freiheitlichen Demokratie des Grundgesetzes fundamentalen Rechts der Meinungsäußerung nach Art. 5 GG und der Versammlungs- und Demonstrationsfreiheit nach Art. 8 GG, zu deren Wahrnehmung in Gestallt der angemeldeten Demonstrationen das geplante Protestcamp in einem infrastrukturellen und organisatorischen Kontext steht, ist ein solches Ergebnis rechtsstaatlich nicht hinnehmbar.“

Mehr weiter unten.

Zu den Einzeltexten

Die Suche im Vorfeld:

Die rhetorischen Mobilmachungen gegen die Proteste sind ja mittlerweile vertraut. Bei der Suche der Camp-AG nach geeigneten Flächen im Herbst schlug von den drei Gemeindeverwaltungen von Anfang unverhohlene Ablehnung entgegen. Innenminister Joachim Herrmann betonte erneut Anfang Mai 2015 im Landtag, er wolle vor und während des G7-Gipfels 2015 auf Schloss Elmau „die Bildung solcher Camps so weit wie möglich verhindern“.

Die drei von der Lage in Frage kommenden Gemeinden Klais, Garmisch-Partenkirchen und Mittenwald wurden im November ausdrücklich schriftlich nach geeigneten Flächen angefragt, darüber hinaus auch Forstverwaltungen – überall Absagen ohne jede erkennbare Kooperationsbereitschaft (Dok 1, 2).

Immerhin konnte die Flächensuche über die Medien vermittelt werden, und es gab auch solidarische Bürgermeister, allerdings in Gemeinden die zu weit entfernt waren, um ein Camp dort zu errichten. Sie machten aber öffentlich, wie die bayerische Staatsregierung die Gemeinden gegenüber dem Aktionsbündnis mobilisierte, um auch jegliche private Flächenvermietung zu erschweren, und wie sie versuchte den Aktivistinnen möglichst viele Knüppel zwischen die Beine zu werfen.

(Das intensive Bemühen der Camporganisation um eine kooperative Lösung und die politisch feindselige Gegenkampagne der bayerischen Staatsregierung fanden auch Eingang in den Gerichtsbeschluss, s.u.)

Das Grundstück:

Umso verschnupfter war die Bürgermeisterin von Garmisch-Partenkirchen, als es tatsächlich gerade noch rechtzeitig gelang, einen privaten Mietvertrag für ein passendes (wenn auch etwas knapp dimensioniertes) Grundstück abzuschließen, dank eines motivierten Grundstückbesitzers. (Dessen Courage wird inzwischen auch extra anerkannt- s.u.)

Ein Camp („mehr als 3 Zelte“) bedarf einer behördlichen Genehmigung, folglich wurde ein entsprechender Antrag eingereicht (Dok. 3). Die Bürgermeisterin äußerte sich zwar unmittelbar öffentlich heftig ablehnend – der Bescheid ließ aber auf sich warten.

Ihre Erklärungen machten von Anfang an deutlich: Es muss ein Verbot geben, egal wie die Vorwände dafür zusammengesucht werden …

Im Aktionsbündnis gab es ungläubiges Kopfschütteln,  als zum ersten Mal die Hochwasserproblematik als Vorwand für eine Ablehnung kam: Das ist doch offensichtlich unabhängig von einem Bescheid, dass ein Camp bei Hochwassergefahr weichen müsste.

Der Bescheid:

Eine Zeitungsredaktion wußte als erstes am Pfingstmontag vom Verbot und meldete „der Bescheid liegt der Redaktion vor“ – nur das Aktionsbündnis hatte  noch nichts davon in der Hand!

Als dann dieser Bescheid tatsächlich auf dem Tisch lag (Dok. 4), war das schon ein heftiger Schlag: Wohl im Wissen, dass die einzelnen Punkte für sich genommen eigentlich kaum ausreichten, wurde nach Art einer Fleißarbeit alle möglichen Punkte eingesammelt, die man gegen das Camp „unter Umständen“ anführen könnte. Alle möglichen Stellen und Behörden wurden zitiert von Polizei bis Feuerwehr usw. Die Stellungnahmen wurden dann natürlich jeweils zum Nachteil des Camps schlimmst-möglich interpretiert – tatsächliche Handlungsspielräume der Organisation kamen nicht vor. Das war andererseits auch keine Überraschung, schließlich war die Verbissenheit des politischen Establishments längst offenkundig. Besonders würdelos erscheint das Ganze allerdings dann, wenn zur Begründung für ein längst festgelegtes Verbot scheinheilig mit der Sicherheit der Campteilnehmerinnen bei Hochwasser oder anderen Katastrophen argumentiert wird.

Auch bei noch so viel Überzeugung, dass die Punkte willkürlich negativ dargestellt sind, hilft es nichts: Sie müssen für den gerichtlichen Weg diszipliniert, vollständig und „wasserdicht“ abgearbeitet werden, nur so kann es zum Gericht gehen. Vor dieser Aufgabe stand vor allem der Anwalt Dirk Asche in der entscheidenden Woche.

Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung:

Trotz des Zeitdrucks konnte der Antrag sich keine Schwächen erlauben – nicht zuletzt lastete auch auf dem Gericht der politische Druck, es war ein schmaler Grat, der ohne Absturz zu bewältigen war!

Gleichzeitig war es sinnvoll, im Text grundlegende Erläuterungen zu demokratischen Grundrechten anzuführen, die dann auch das Gericht überzeugten – der ganze Antrag lohnt auch deshalb nach wie vor für eine ernsthafte Lektüre!

Die juristische Form erst mal beiseite, wurden folgende Punkte abgehandelt (Dok. 5):

  • Die Notwendigkeit des Camps selbst
  • Die angeführten Argumente für ein Verbot lassen sich durch Auflagen als „milderem Mittel“ beheben.

Dazu wurden einige eigentlich selbstverständliche Aufgaben einer Camporganisation für diesen Antrag noch extra in einer eidesstattlichen Erklärung aufgeführt!

Im Einzelnen:

  1. Überschwemmungsgefahr: Umfangreiche Recherchen auf den öffentlich betriebenen Hochwasserinformationsdiensten widerlegen eine „ernste Bedrohung“, Handlungsmöglichkeiten werden aufgezeigt.
  2. Katastrophenfall/Evakuierung: Im Bescheid wurde behauptet, dass eine evtl. nötige Evakuierung im Katastrophenfall nicht möglich sei – wurde ausführlich widerlegt.
  3. Gefahr für Eigentum Dritter

Besonders drastisch: Im Verbotsbescheid wurde geschrieben, dass sich Anlieger schriftlich zum geplanten Zeltlager geäußert hätten – eine frei erfundene Behauptung!

Alle weiteren Behauptungen im Bescheid sind abstrakte Vermutungen (bzw. Unterstellungen) ohne konkrete Belegbarkeit!

Zitat im Antrag: „Der Bürger hat nach diesem Verständnis seine ständige Überwachung durch Staatsorgane zu ermöglichen, will er in den Genuss des Rechts kommen, mit anderen Bürgern zusammenzukommen. Diese Sichtweise ist so haltlos wie widerwärtig, da sie das Recht auf Zusammenkunft von Personen von deren Überwachung abhängig macht“.

Eine Beschädigung von Nachbargrundstücken wird schon von der Camporganisation im Eigeninteresse entgegengewirkt (so war ein extra Zaun bereits beschafft, dessen Einsatz dann originellerweise per Auflage ausgeschlossen wurde).

Im Antrag wird der vorliegende Bescheid insgesamt so gewertet:

„Die Argumentation des Antragsgegners legt nahe, dass es ihm in erster Linie um eine Verhinderung der Errichtung des Zeltlagers geht, nicht zuletzt durch die späte Zustellung des Bescheids und die damit einhergehende Einschränkung der Rechtsschutzmöglichkeiten hiergegen. So wurde der Bescheid bereits am 22.5.2015 fertiggestellt. Die Zustellung erfolgte erst an 27.5.2015, was eine gerichtliche Abhilfe durch einstweiligen Rechtsschutz noch vor 1.6.2016 geradezu unmöglich macht.“

Der Verbotsbescheid zeichnet sich auch durch viele innere Widersprüche aus.

Fazit: „Jedenfalls sind sämtliche vom Antragsgegner angeführten Befürchtungen durch die Erteilung von Auflagen zu beseitigen und als milderes Mittel zu einer völligen Versagung der Erlaubnis vorzuziehen“

  1. Im Antrag wird richtig festgestellt „Regelrecht zynisch wird es, wenn der Antragsgegner den Antragsteller darauf verweist, das Zeltlager könne auf anderen, besser geeigneten Flächen errichtet werden. Eine solche Fläche zu suchen sei dem Antragsteller zumutbar.
    Dies ist eine Verhöhnung sämtlicher im Vorfeld der vorliegenden Zeltlageranmeldung erfolgten Anstrengungen des Antragstellers.“

Weitere Zitate:

„Völlig unberücksichtigt in den Überlegungen des Antragsgegners bleibt weiterhin die Bedeutung von Art. 8 GG. Zwar ist die Errichtung eines Zeltlagers nicht unmittelbar vom Grundrecht der Versammlungsfreiheit umfasst, jedoch ist vorliegend zu berücksichtigen, dass die an den vor Ort angemeldeten Versammlungen gegen den G7-Gipfel interessierten Personen, ohne die Unterbringung in angemessener Nähe zu den Versammlungen, faktisch daran gehindert wären an den Versammlungen teilzunehmen.

und: „Obwohl der Antragsgegener dies erkannt hat – er spricht auf S. 7 explizit davon – hat er sich damit nicht auseinandergesetzt“.

.. Denn hier geht es nicht um ein Lager zum Genuss der Naturschönheiten des Werdenfelser Landes, sondern um die Ermöglichung der Wahrung elementarer Grundrechte.“

 Der Gerichtsentscheid:

Die Entscheidung (Dok. 6) erreichte das Aktionsbündnis Dienstag, 2.6. nachmittag – der Aufbaubeginn u.a. mit der Anlieferung der Mobiltoiletten war für Montag, 1.6. vorgesehen….

In dieser Phase lief noch ein makabrer Eiertanz mit den bestellten Mobiltoiletten, mit ausgiebiger Medienbeteiligung: Außer der Campwiese hatte das Aktionsbündnis diverse befestigte Plätze für Dauerkundgebungen mit Verpflegungsmöglichkeiten und Toiletten angemeldet. Diese wurden mit Auflagen „ohne Übernachtungen“ – aber auch durchgehend zu spät – beschieden. Selbst dort wurde zunächst polizeilich gegen die Toilettenaufstellung vorgegangen, obwohl wenigstens für diese „Dauerkundgebungen“ mündlich bereits ein Genehmigungsbescheid angekündigt und die Vorgehensweise abgesprochen war …

Also waren alle Beteiligten zum Äußersten gespannt, die angereisten Volksküchen, die Großzelte vom MC Kuhle Wampe, die Sanitäter parkten alle erst mal irgendwo ohne etwas auspacken zu können.

Umso sensationeller wurde dann der Gerichtsbeschluss aufgenommen – die gemietete Wiese wurde tatsächliche erst zu diesem Zeitpunkt für das Camp eingerichtet, und das rasant! Dienstag Abend gab es für die  Aktiven auf der Wiese bereits das erste Pasta-Gericht!

Der Beschluss, Kernsatz: „Der Antragsgegner wird imWege der einstweiligen Anordnung verpflichtet, die Errichtung und den Betrieb des Schreiben des Antragstellers vom 1. Mai 2015 beantragten Anti-G7-Camps (Zeltlagers) auf dem Grundstück .. ab sofort bis 11. Juni 2015 mit bis zu ca. 1000 Teilnehmern zu dulden“.

Im Text würdigt das Gericht zunächst ausdrücklich die langwierigen Bemühungen um Campflächen – und ebenso die gezielten Gegenaktivitäten der Behörden!

Die Stellungnahmen vom Wasserwirtschaftsamt und Polizei werden betrachtet, ergänzender Schriftverkehr wird angeführt, dann heißt es: „Der Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung … ist zulässig und hat ganz überwiegend Erfolg.“

Ebenso wie der Anwaltstext muss sich das Gericht mit den Hochwasserargumenten („HQ100 – einmal in 100 Jahren“) auseinandersetzen, usw.

Die eidesstattliche Erklärung für die Camporganisation wird ausdrücklich herangezogen.

In der Auseinandersetzung um die politischen Aktionsankündigungen und denkbare rechtswidrige Vorfälle bestätigt das Gericht: “Die rechtstaatliche sicherheitsrechtliche Reaktion darauf kann aber nur im absoluten Ausnahmefall im repressiven Totalverbot des Camps bestehen“. .. „Das Camp steht wie erwähnt im infrastrukturellen und organisatorischen Kontext zur Ausübung der Meinungs- und Demonstrationsfreiheit. Mangels konkreter Hinweise kann nicht unterstellt werden, dass alle oder im Wesentlichen alle Teilnehmer des Camps gewaltorientierte oder gewaltbereite Personen sein werden.“

Also ein erfreulich klares Ergebnis. Es sind im Verfahren noch weitere schwierige Vorgänge zum Zufahrtsrecht etc. und den weiteren Auflagen enthalten, alles war nötig – bitte selber nachlesen!

Die Camp-AG wie das ganze Bündnis sind der Kanzlei Wächter und natürlich insbesondere Dirk Asche zu großem Dank verpflichtet!

Dieser Erfolg wurde durch den Campverlauf die folgenden Tage aufs prächtigste unterstrichen: Es gab neben dem ungebrochenen Medieninteresse auch regen Besucherverkehr der örtlichen Bevölkerung, für die auch eigens Camp-Führungen liefen neben vielen sonstigen höchst positiven Kontakten. Die Zusammenarbeit mit städtischen Einrichtungen wg. Wasser/Abwasser/Abfall war von Anfang an ok,  selbst die Bürgermeisterin arrangierte sich nach dem Gerichtsentscheid mit dem Camp. So war sogar die Camp-Erweiterung um eine Nachbarwiese in letzter Minute möglich – wenige Tage vorher unvorstellbar, aber gleichzeitig auch Ergebnis einer gelungenen „Nachbarschaftspflege“ für das Camp.

Das bewährte sich auch bei der heftigsten Belastungsprobe – als gleichzeitig ein Wolkenbruch die Campwiese überschwemmte (nein, kein Hochwasser – die Loisach blieb unten!) und die Blitzgefahr im Gewitter tatsächlich dramatisch eskalierte bis zur Beinahe-Evakuierung. Die Hilfsbereitschaft im Ort war eindrucksvoll und half, den Stress gemeinsam zu bewältigen.

Nachtrag:

Auch passend zum Jahrestag der Ereignisse hat  die Humanistische Union die fabelhafte Idee – sie hat eine besondere Auszeichnung zu vergeben, den „Preis für den Aufrechten Gang“. Für dieses Jahr geht dieser Preis an Bernhard Raubal, den Vermieter der Camp-Wiese – wunderbar!

Novo Abalo Político no Brasil: é Hora da Mídia Começar a Dizer “Golpe”?

The Intercept - Engl. - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 17:50

(To read the English version of this article, click here.)

O país acordou hoje com a notícia das secretas e chocantes conversas envolvendo um importante ministro do recém-instalado governo brasileiro, que acendem uma luz a respeito dos reais motivos e agentes do impeachment da presidente democraticamente eleita, Dilma Rousseff. As transcrições foram publicadas pelo maior jornal do país, a Folha de São Paulo, e revelam conversas privadas que aconteceram em março, apenas semanas antes da votação do impeachment na Câmara. Elas mostram explícita conspiração entre o novo Ministro do Planejamento, Romero Jucá, e o antigo executivo de petróleo Sergio Machado – ambos investigados pela Lava Jato – a medida em que concordam que remover Dilma é o único meio para acabar com a investigação sobre a corrupção. As conversas também tratam do importante papel desempenhado pelas mais poderosas instituições nacionais no impeachment de Dilma, incluindo líderes militares do país.

As transcrições estão cheias de declarações fortemente incriminadoras sobre os reais objetivos do impeachment e quem está por trás dele. O ponto chave da conspiração é o que Jucá chama de “um pacto nacional” – envolvendo as instituições mais poderosas do Brasil – para empossar Michel Temer como presidente (apesar de seus múltiplos escândalos de corrupção) e terminar com as investigações uma vez que Dilma fosse removida. Segundo a Folha, Jucá diz que o Impeachment levaria ao “fim da pressão da imprensa e de outros setores pela continuidade das investigações da Lava Jato.”

Não está claro quem é o responsável pela gravação e pelo vazamento da conversa de 75 minutos, mas a Folha reportou que elas estão atualmente nas mãos do Procurador Geral da República. Jucá é líder do PMDB, partido do presidente interino Michel Temer, e um de seus três homens de confiança. Novas revelações serão provavelmente divulgadas nos próximos dias, tornando mais claras as implicações e significados destas transcrições.

As transcrições contêm duas revelações extraordinárias que podem levar toda a imprensa a considerar seriamente chamar o que aconteceu no pais de “golpe”: um termo que Dilma e seus apoiadores vem usando por meses. Quando discutia a conspiração para remover Dilma como um meio de finalizar a Lava Jato, Jucá disse que as forças armadas do Brasil apoiam a conspiração: “Estou conversando com os generais, comandantes militares. Está tudo tranquilo, os caras dizem que vão garantir.” Ele disse ainda que os militares “estão monitorando o MST,” o movimento rural de trabalhadores que apoia os esforços do PT pela reforma agrária e redução da desigualdade, e que liderou protestos contra o impeachment. 

A segunda revelação – e talvez mais significante – é a declaração de Jucá de que assegurou o envolvimento de juízes na Suprema Corte do Brasil, a instituição apontada pelos defensores do impeachment como salvaguarda da credibilidade do processo e utilizada para negar a teoria do golpe. Jucá afirmou que “tem poucos caras [no STF]” a quem ele não tem acesso. O único ministro da Suprema Corte que ele alega não ter contato é Teori Zavascki, que foi apontado por Dilma e de quem – notavelmente – seria impossível obter apoio para barrar a investigação (a ironia do impeachment é que Dilma protegeu a investigação da Lava Jato da interferência daqueles que querem impedi-la). As transcrições também mostram ele dizendo que “a imprensa quer tirar ela,” e que “essa porra não vai parar nunca” – falando sobre as investigações – até que ela saia.

As transcrições fornecem provas para quase todas as suspeitas e acusações expressas há tempos pelos oponentes do impeachment a respeito daqueles que conspiram para remover Dilma do poder. Durante meses, os apoiadores da democracia brasileira defenderam dois argumentos sobre a tentativa de remoção da presidente democraticamente eleita: (1) o propósito principal do impeachment de Dilma não era acabar com a corrupção ou punir os corruptos, mas justamente o oposto: proteger os verdadeiros corruptos dando-lhes poder com a saída de Dilma e, logo, permitindo que terminassem com as investigações da Lava Jato; (2) os defensores do impeachment (liderados pela oligarquia midiática nacional) não têm qualquer interesse em limpar o governo, mas tomar o poder que jamais conquistariam democraticamente, para então impor uma agenda de direita e a serviço das oligarquias, que a população brasileira não aceitaria.

As duas primeiras semanas do recém-instalado governo de Temer mostram grandes evidências para ambos os argumentos. Ele nomeou vários ministros diretamente envolvidos em escândalos de corrupção. Um importante aliado que vai liderar a coalização de seu governo na Câmara dos Deputados – André Moura – é um dos políticos mais corruptos do país, alvo de múltiplas investigações criminais, não só por corrupção mas também por tentativa de homicídio. O próprio Temer está profundamente implicado em casos de corrupção (ele enfrenta a possibilidade de se tornar inelegível pelos próximos oitos anos), e está correndo para implementar uma série de mudanças de direita e orientadas para as oligarquias do país, que o Brasil jamais permitiria democraticamente, inclusive medidas, como detalhado pelo Guardian, para “suavizar a definição de escravidão, reverter a demarcação de terras indígenas, cortar programas de construção de casas populares e vender ativos estatais em aeroportos, serviços públicos e os correios”.

Mas, ao contrário dos acontecimentos das últimas semanas, essas transcrições não são meras evidências. Elas são provas: provas de que as principais forças por trás da remoção da Presidente entenderam que removê-la era o único meio de se salvarem e de evitarem que sejam responsabilizados por sua própria corrupção; provas de que os militares brasileiros, as principais organizações de mídia, e sua Suprema Corte foram conspiradores ativos na remoção da presidente democraticamente eleita; provas de que os agentes do impeachment viam a presença de Dilma em Brasília como garantia de que as investigações da Lava Jato continuariam; provas de que nada daquilo tinha a ver com a preservação da democracia brasileira, mas com sua destruição.

Por sua parte, Jucá admite que essas transcrições são autênticas mas insiste que foi tudo um mal-entendido e que seus comentários foram retirados do contexto, chamando isso “also banal.” “Aquela conversa não é um pacto sobre a Lava Jato. É um pacto sobre a economia […] É um pacto para se tirar o Brasil da crise,” disse ele em uma entrevista, nesta manhã, ao blogger de política do UOL Fernando Rodrigues. A explicação não é minimamente razoável à luz do que ele disse na gravação, bem como da explícita natureza conspirativa da conversa, na qual Jucá insiste numa série de encontros particulares, em detrimento de encontros em grupo, para evitar suspeitas. Líderes políticos já estão pedindo seu afastamento do governo.

Desde a instalação de Temer como presidente, o Brasil tem visto intensos e crescentes protestos contra ele. A mídia brasileira – que vem tentando desesperadamente glorifica-lo – tem evitado a publicação de pesquisas por algumas semanas, mas os últimos dados mostrar que Temer tem apenas 2% de apoio e que 60% da população querem seu impeachment. A única pesquisa recentemente publicada mostrou que 66% dos brasileiros acreditam que os legisladores votaram pelo impeachment em benefício próprio – uma crença reforçada pelas transcrições – enquanto apenas 23% acreditam que foi em prol do país. Ontem, em São Paulo, a polícia colocou barricadas na rua onde fica a residência de Temer por conta de milhares de manifestantes que se dirigiam ao local; a polícia usou mangueiras e gás lacrimogêneo para dispersar os protestos. O anúncio do fechamento do Ministério da Cultura levou artistas e simpatizantes a ocupar secretarias de cultura em todo o país em protesto, o que forçou Temer a reverter a decisão.

Photo: Andre Penner/AP

Até agora, o The Intercept, como a maioria da mídia internacional, se absteve de usar a palavra “golpe” apesar de ter sido (como muitas outros meios de comunicação) profundamente crítico da remoção antidemocrática de Dilma. Estas transcrições compelem a um reexame desta decisão editorial, particularmente se não surgem evidências para pôr em questão a razoabilidade do significado das declarações de Jucá ou seu nível de conhecimento. Um golpe parece, soa e cheia exatamente como esta recém revelada conspiração: assegurando a cooperação dos militares e das instituições mais poderosas para remover uma presidente democraticamente eleita por motivos egoístas, corruptos e ilegais, para então impor uma agenda a serviço das oligarquias e rejeitada pela população.

Se o impeachment de Dilma conitnua inevitável, como muitos acreditam, essas transcrições tornarão muito difícil a permanência de Temer. Pesquisas recentes mostrar que 62% dos brasileiros querem novas eleições para eleger seu presidente. Esta opção – a opção democrática – é a solução mais temida pelas elites do Brasil, porque elas estão apavoradas (com bons motivos) com a possibilidade de que Lula ou outro candidato que as desagrade (Marina Silva) possam ganhar. Mas essa é a questão: se, de fato, é a democracia que está sendo combatida e aniquilada no Brasil, é hora de começar a usar a linguagem apropriada para descrever isso. Estas transcrições tornam cada vez mais difícil para as organizações de mídia evitarem fazê-lo.

Outros artigos recentes do Intercept sobre o Brasil:

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post Novo Abalo Político no Brasil: é Hora da Mídia Começar a Dizer “Golpe”? appeared first on The Intercept.

Gespräch zwischen AfD und Muslimen endet im Eklat

Hintergrund.de - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 16:35

(23.05.2016/hg/dpa) Mit einem Eklat hat das mit Spannung erwartete Streitgespräch zwischen dem Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland (ZMD) und der islamkritischen AfD geendet. Die Parteivorsitzende Frauke Petry und ihre Begleiter verließen am Montag nach knapp einer Stunde den Saal in einem Berliner Hotel. Petry sagte, die Vertreter des Zentralrats hätten die Alternative für Deutschland in die Nähe des Dritten Reichs gerückt. Das sei inakzeptabel. Deshalb habe man das Gespräch abgebrochen.

Der ZMD-Vorsitzende Aiman Mazyek sagte, die AfD habe sich geweigert, Passagen aus ihrem Parteiprogramm zu streichen, die sich gegen die Muslime richteten. „Man hat von uns verlangt, ein demokratisch beschlossenes Parteiprogramm

Weiterlesen...

US-Präsident bestätigt Tod des Talibanchefs

Hintergrund.de - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 16:35

(23.05.2016/hg/dpa) US-Präsident Barack Obama hat den Tod des Talibanchefs Mullah Achtar Mansur bestätigt. US-Drohnen hatten dessen Wagen am Samstag in der pakistanischen Provinz Baluchistan mit Raketen beschossen. Am Montag sprach Obama in einer vom Weißen Haus veröffentlichten Erklärung von einem „wichtigen Meilenstein in unseren Anstrengungen, Frieden nach Afghanistan zu bringen.“ Er rief die Islamisten zu Verhandlungen mit der afghanischen Regierung auf. Die USA stünden weiter an der Seite von Präsident Aschraf Ghani.

Nato-Generalsekretär Jens Stoltenberg sagte am Montag, unter Mansurs Führung hätten die Taliban „brutale Angriffe verübt, die zu Tod und Leiden unzähliger afghanischer Zivilisten und Sicherheitskräfte“ geführt hätten. Er habe

Weiterlesen...

New Political Earthquake in Brazil: is it Now Time for Media Outlets to Call this a “Coup”?

The Intercept - Engl. - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 16:31

(Uma versão deste artigo em português será publicada em breve)

Brazil today awoke to stunning news of secret, genuinely shocking conversations involving a key minister in Brazil’s newly installed government, which shine a bright light on the actual motives and participants driving the impeachment of the country’s democratically elected president, Dilma Rousseff. The transcripts were published by the country’s largest newspaperFolha, and reveal secret conversations that took place in March, just weeks before the impeachment vote in the lower House took place. They show explicit plotting between the new Planning Minister (then-Senator) Romero Jucá and former oil executive Sergio Machado – both of whom are formal targets of the “Car Wash” corruption investigation – as they agree that removing Dilma is the only means for ending the corruption investigation. The conversations also include discussions of the important role played in Dilma’s removal by the most powerful national institutions, including – most importantly – Brazil’s military leaders.

The transcripts are filled with profoundly incriminating statements about the real goals of impeachment and who was behind it. The crux of this plot is what Jucá calls “a national pact” – involving all of Brazil’s most powerful institutions – to leave Michel Temer in place as President (notwithstanding his multiple corruption scandals) and to kill the corruption investigation once Dilma is removed. In the words of Folha, Jucá made clear that impeachment will “end the pressure from the media and other sectors to continue the Car Wash investigation.” It is unclear who is responsible for recording and leaking the 75-minute conversation, but Folha reports that they are currently in the hand of the Prosecutor General. The next few hours and days will likely see new revelations that will shed additional light on the implications and meaning of these transcripts.

The transcripts contain two extraordinary revelations that should lead all media outlets to seriously consider whether they should call what took place in Brazil a “coup”: a term Dilma and her supporters have used for months. When discussing the plot to remove Dilma as a means of ending the Car Wash investigation, Jucá said the Brazilian military is supporting the plot: “I am talking to the generals, the military commanders. They are fine with this, they said they will guarantee it.” He also said the military is “monitoring the Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST)),” the social movement of rural workers who support PT’s efforts of land reform and inequality reduction and have led the protests against impeachment.

The second blockbuster revelation – perhaps even more significant – is Jucá’s statement that he spoke with and secured the involvement of numerous justices on Brazil’s Supreme Court, the institution that impeachment defenders have repeatedly pointed to as vesting the process with legitimacy and to deny that Dilma’s removal is a coup. Jucá claimed “there are only a small number” of Court justices to which he had not obtained access (the only justice he said he ultimately could not get to is Teori Zavascki, who was appointed by Dilma and who – notably – Jucá viewed as uncorruptable in obtaining his help to kill the investigation (a central irony of impeachment is that Dilma has protected the Car War investigation from interference by those who want to impeach her)). The transcripts also show him saying that “the press wants to take her [Dilma] out,” so “this shit will never stop” – meaning the corruption investigations – until she’s gone.

The transcripts provide proof for virtually every suspicion and accusation impeachment opponents have long expressed about those plotting to remove Dilma from office. For months, supporters of Brazil’s democracy have made two arguments about the attempt to remove the country’s democratically elected president: (1) the core purpose of Dilma’s impeachment is not to stop corruption or punish lawbreaking, but rather the exact opposite: to protect the actual thieves by empowering them with Dilma’s exit, thus enabling them to kill the “Car Wash” investigation; (2) the impeachment advocates (led by the country’s oligarchical media) have zero interest in clean government, but only in seizing power that they could never obtain democratically, in order to impose a right-wing, oligarch-serving agenda that the Brazilian population would never accept.

Photo: Andre Dusek/AP

The first two weeks of Temer’s newly installed government provided abundant evidence for both of these claims. He appointed multiple ministers directly implicated in corruption scandals. A key ally in the lower House who will lead his government’s coalition there -André Moura – is one of the most corrupt politicians in the country, the target of multiple, active criminal probes not only for corruption but also attempted homicide. Temer himself is deeply enmeshed in corruption (he faces an 8-year bar on running for office), and is rushing to implement a series of radical right-wing changes that Brazilians would never democratically allow, including measures, as the Guardian detailed, “to soften the definition of slavery, roll back the demarcation of indigenous land, trim housebuilding programs and sell off state assets in airports, utilities and the post office.”

But, unlike the events of the last two weeks, these transcripts are not merely clues or signs. They are proof: proof that the prime forces behind the removal of the president understood that taking her out was the only way to save themselves and shield their own extreme corruption from accountability; proof that Brazil’s military, its dominant media outlets, and its Supreme Court were colluding in secret to ensure the removal of the democratically elected president; proof that the perpetrators of impeachment viewed Dilma’s continued presence in Brasilia as the guarantor that the Car Wash investigations would continue; proof that this had nothing to do with preserving Brazilian democracy and everything to do with destroying it.

For his part, Jucá admits that these transcripts are authentic but insists it was all just a misunderstanding with his comments taken out of context. “That conversation is not about a pact for Car Wash. It’s about the economy, to extricate Brazil from the crisis,” he claimed in an interview this morning UOL political blogger Fernando Rodrigues. That explanation is entirely implausible given what he actually said, as well as the explicitly conspiratorial nature of the conversations, in which Jucá insists on a series of one-on-one encounters, rather than meeting in a group, all to avoid provoking suspicions. Political leaders are already calling for his resignation from the government.

Ever since Temer’s installation as president, Brazil has seen intense, and growing, protests against him. Brazilian media outlets – which have been desperately trying to glorify him – have suspiciously refrained from publishing polling data for many weeks, but the last polls show him with only 2% support and 60% wanting him impeached. The only recent published polling data showed that 66% of Brazilians believe legislators voted for impeachment only out of self-interest – a belief these transcripts validate – while only 23% believe they did so for the good of the country. Last night in São Paulo, police were forced to barricade the street where Temer’s house is located due to thousands of protesters heading there; they eventually used fire houses and tear gas. An announcement to close the Ministry of Culture led to artists and others occupying offices around the country in protest, which forced Temer to reverse the decision.

Until now, The Intercept, like most international media outlets, has refrained from using the word “coup” even as it (along with most outlets) has been deeply critical of Dilma’s removal as anti-democratic. These transcripts compel a re-examination of that editorial decision, particularly if no evidence emerges calling into question either the most reasonable meaning of Jucá’s statements or his level of knowledge. This newly revealed plotting is exactly what a coup looks, sounds and smells like: securing the cooperation of the military and most powerful institutions to remove a democratically elected leader for self-interested, corrupt and lawless motives, in order to then impose an oligarch-serving agenda that the population despises.

If Dilma’s impeachment remains inevitable, as many believe, these transcripts will make it much more difficult to leave Temer in place. Recent polling data shows that 62% of Brazilians want new elections to select their president. That option – the democratic one – is the one Brazil’s elites fear most, because they are petrified (with good reason) that Lula or another candidate they dislike (Marina Silva) will win. But that’s the point: if what is being avoided and smashed in Brazil is democracy, then it’s time to start using the proper language to describe this. These transcripts make it increasingly difficult for media outlets to avoid doing so.

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post New Political Earthquake in Brazil: is it Now Time for Media Outlets to Call this a “Coup”? appeared first on The Intercept.

SPD - verräterischer Eiertanz bei CETA

Amazonas-Box/Frieden-etc. - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 12:49

Nochmal CETA.

Norbert Häring berichtet, "wie die SPD denBundestag bei CTA außen vor hält", und wie die LINKE sich abstrampelt, damit der Bundestag bei so Fragen überhaupt gefragt wird, und die Grünen eigentlich der Linken recht geben, und dann doch nicht mit ihnen stimmen ...

Es ist einfach ätzend zu lesen, aber gut dass Häring den Finger in die Wunde legt. So wollen EU-Institutionen CATA vorläufig anwenden, und die SPDler unternehmen alles, um Fakten ohne Bundestag schaffen zu lassen, mit einem makabren Strauss von Pseudoargumenten - bitte selbst nachlesen.

Die LINKE monierte in ihrem aktuellen Antrag, eine vorläufige Anwendung würde Fakten schaffen die kaum oder gar nicht mehr rückgängig gemacht werden könnten und würden so das Mitbestimmungsrecht des Parlaments aushöhlen. Deshalb solle der Bundestag die Regierung auffordern, einer vorläufigen Inkraftsetzung nicht zuzustimmen. - richtig, ist doch logisch, oder?

Da ist die SPD vor, nur ein Beispiel: "und fügte hinzu, man solle deshalb noch kein Augenmerk auf die vorläufige Anwendung richten. Schließlich wisse man ja noch gar nicht, was da vorläufig angewendet werden solle. Normal begabte Menschen würden sagen, wenn man kurz vor einer Entscheidung der Exektive noch nicht weiß, worüber genau diese beschließen wird, dann ist das für ein Parlament, das seinen Namen verdient, ein Grund, "stopp!" zu rufen, bis das geklärt ist."

Seufz, wie merkbefreit sind die SPD-Mitglieder inzwischen eigentlich?

-->

Merkel zum Kotau nach Ankara

Rationalgalerie - Lun, 23/05/2016 - 02:00
Appeasement-Politik gegenüber Erdoğan : Da flog sie hin die Kanzler-Darstellerin: Nach Ankara. Gerade erst hatte sich das türkische Parlament – unter dem Druck von Feme, Gefängnis und auch eigener Dummheit – selbst kastriert und die Immunität von Abgeordneten aufgehoben. Doch Angela Merkel belohnt...

Pagine

Subscribe to sicherheitskonferenz.de  |  security-conference.de aggregatore