May 17, 2004

An unprecedented case that could stifle free speech and set the civil liberties back decades goes to trial today in federal district court in Miami, pitting the Bush administration against the nonviolent environmental activist group, Greenpeace.
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org

The case stems from a peaceful protest staged two years ago, when two Greenpeace activists boarded a commercial ship off the coast of Florida that was delivering 70 tons of illegally harvested mahogany from a Brazilian rainforest.

The activists were detained before they could unfurl a banner that read, "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging." The protest was part of an ongoing campaign -- in cooperation with the government of Brazil -- to bring international attention to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Shortly after the protest, a global treaty strengthening international protections for mahogany was signed.[1]

In keeping with a longstanding Greenpeace tradition, the two activists took responsibility for their actions by pleading guilty and serving time for the misdemeanor charges that stemmed from the ship-boarding incident.

But then, some 15 months after the protest, the Bush administration dredged up a long-forgotten 1872 "sailor-mongering" statute, enacted to prevent houses of ill repute from luring sailors off ships entering port, and brought charges against Greenpeace itself for authorizing the April 2002 protest.

"This is the first time in U.S. history that the Government has prosecuted an organization for the free speech-related activities of its supporters," wrote John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, in a letter to supporters. "The stakes are extremely high – not only for the continued viability of Greenpeace but also for all Americans who value our tradition of free speech, peaceful protest, and civil disobedience, from the Boston Tea Party to Martin Luther King and beyond."

If the U.S. Justice Department prevails, Greenpeace could be fined up to $20,000 and its tax-exempt status could be in jeopardy. The organization’s future activities could also be subjected to intense government scrutiny.[2]

"If John Ashcroft had done this in the 1960s, black Americans would not be voting today, eating at formerly all-white lunch counters or sitting on bus front seats," NAACP Chair Julian Bond told BushGreenwatch last December. "This is a government assault on time-honored nonviolent civil disobedience as practiced by Martin Luther King and thousands of other Americans."[3]

The last court decision stemming from the "sailor-mongering" law dates back to 1890. U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan, who will hear the case, granted a Greenpeace motion requesting a jury trial on the grounds that "the indictment is a rare – and maybe unprecedented – prosecution of an advocacy group" for exercising its right to free speech.[4]

Although the importation of illegally harvested mahogany violates both U.S. law and an international treaty, the Ashcroft Justice Department has taken no action against the company that imported the illegal mahogany.


TAKE ACTION
Tell Ashcroft to go after illegal loggers, not Greenpeace.
http://ga3.org/ct/Q71eOJs1KBQS/

SOURCES:
[1] Background memo from Greenpeace USA.
[2] Ibid.
[3] BushGreenwatch, Dec. 10, 2003.
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000005.php.
[4] Greenpeace memo, op. cit.


Source: http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000119.php

Where is the Resistance?
Posted on Sunday, May 16 @ 10:00:23 CDT
From: Harvey Rosetti

The most important part of government's role in a civilized society should be to ensure that everyone has an equal right to a decent life.

Where is the Resistance?
from a book by Valdas Anelaukas,
"Discovering America as It Is"

An answer to the problem of poverty in America would be to change the system or at minimum, regulate it, as has been done in Europe. But people here in America are afraid to do this, because as the U.S. Declaration of Independence itself said that people are "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

There are very few Americans who distribute political pamphlets or speak on street corners because most Americans work for capitalist employers. Most of those who have some understanding of the situation are also aware that to speak their full minds might result in losing their jobs. Others would argue that their resistance is directed through existing channels for changing the system, by impacting the electoral or legislative processes through lobbying, changes in party policy platforms, etc. We shall examine the effectiveness of this route, below.

But as for the credulous victims of American ideology - how can one hope to free the slave who believes his chains to be part of the natural order? Assuredly, not before that belief has been vanquished. As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe put it brilliantly many years ago: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Such is an ideological slavery...

Read further under:

http://g0lem.net/portal/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45


Informant: CHAI

We Must Be United in Struggle

"Today, the concentration of wealth and income in this country is not only greater than at any time since the 1920s, but it is far greater than in any other major country on Earth."

We Are the Majority
by Bernie Sanders

How do we build a political movement in this country that represents all of the people and not a handful of millionaires?

The middle class is collapsing, the people on top are making out like bandits, and the poorest people are struggling just to keep their heads above water.

Today, the concentration of wealth and income in this country is not only greater than at any time since the 1920s, but it is far greater than in any other major country on Earth.

It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.

That's not America...

Read further under:
http://g0lem.net/portal/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=8

Informant: CHAI

Sailor-mongering act rises from history as the feds try to cripple Greenpeace.

By Bill McKibben

Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, is
the author of many books on the environment, including "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age" (Times Books, 2003).
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mckibben14may14,1,1224810.story

May 14, 2004

In April of 2002, a cargo ship, the Jade, was steaming toward Miami
carrying a cargo of mahogany illegally cut from the Brazilian Amazon. Two Greenpeace activists tried to clamber aboard the ship and hang a banner that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." None of which is unusual.

The trees of the Amazon are logged day after day, year after year, despite a host of treaties and laws and despite the fact that scientists agree that an intact rain forest is essential for everything from conserving species to protecting the climate. And Greenpeace, day after day, tries to call attention to such crimes. It pesters rich, powerful interests about toxic dumping and outlaw whaling and a hundred other topics that those interests would rather not be pestered about. The Miami activists were arrested, spent a weekend in jail, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to time served. All in a day's work.

But here's where it starts getting weird: More than a year after the ship boarding, the Justice Department indicted Greenpeace itself. According to the group's attorneys, it's the first time an organization has been prosecuted for "the speech-related activities of its supporters."

How far did the government have to stretch to make its case? The law it cited against boarding ships about to enter ports was passed in 1872 and aimed at the proprietors of boardinghouses who used liquor and prostitutes to lure crews to their establishments. The last prosecution under the "sailor-mongering" act took place in 1890. The new case could be like something straight out of "Master and Commander."

The matter goes to trial next week in a federal district court in Miami, and if Greenpeace loses, the organization could be fined $20,000 and placed on probation. The money's no big deal; outraged supporters would probably turn such a verdict into a fundraising bonanza. But the probation would be. The group might well be prevented from engaging in any acts of civil disobedience for years to come. If it crossed the line, the group's officers might be jailed and its assets seized. Since civil disobedience is what Greenpeace does best, the Justice Department might in effect be shutting the group down.

That would be too bad, and not just for Greenpeace. The potential precedent here -- that the government can choke off protest by shutting down those who organize it -- undermines one of the most important safety valves of our political life.

During the civil rights era, Southern sheriffs used every law they could think of to jail protesters -- loitering was a favorite charge. Imagine some group being put on probation because it had helped organize sit-ins. But even J. Edgar Hoover didn't try to criminalize the NAACP.

As the veteran civil rights campaigner Julian Bond said recently, "If John Ashcroft had done this in the 1960s, black Americans would not be voting today, eating at formerly all-white lunch counters, or sitting on bus front seats."

As is the norm, this attack on political liberties is excused by the need for "port safety" in the wake of 9/11. But I've watched Greenpeace for years, and its members are the furthest thing from terrorists; according to the group, "no Greenpeace activist has ever harmed another individual," despite a record of direct action dating to its founding in 1971.

If port safety truly were the issue, the federal government would have made far more progress toward inspecting cargo arriving by sea. Confidence in the vigor of governmental scrutiny was not enhanced when it managed not to find the Jade's illegal mahogany and let it sail on from Miami. Two days later it unloaded 70 tons of the wood in Charleston, S.C.

The real threat Greenpeace represents is that its members tell the truth, and do it obnoxiously, out in public, where it can't be missed.

The Bush administration knows its environmental record is poor, and it knows that hanging banners matters. (That's why the White House printed up the "Mission Accomplished" flag for the president's May 1, 2003, aircraft carrier photo op). To spare itself embarrassment, the
administration is willing to endanger core political freedoms that go back to the very founding of the republic.

How far back? Dec. 16, 1773, at least, when a crew of patriots disguised as Mohawks illegally boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and dumped overboard all the cargo of tea. As the raiders paraded away from the docks, British Adm. John Montague shouted: "Well, boys, you have had a fine pleasant evening for your Indian caper, haven't you. But mind, you have got to pay the fiddler yet."

Now 230 years later, it's Atty. Gen. Ashcroft playing the part of the
British officer, and the words are just as chilling.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

Informant: Teresa Binstock

Yesterday Swiss eco-activist Marco Camenisch, who is serving 10 years imprisonment for using explosives to destroy nuclear power station pylons, went on trial accused of murder and attempted murder.

As ELP supporters will be aware, Marco was initially jailed for his anti-nuclear actions in Switzerland in 1980. However in 1981, along with other prisoners, Marco escaped from prison. During the escape there was a shoot out between some of the prisoners and the prison wardens during which one prison warden died and another was injured.

Following his escape, Marco then went on the run for over ten years, carrying out a number of anti-nuclear actions (mainly blowing up electricity pylons) before finally being arrested in Italy in 1992. However after he was arrested it was suggested by the media and police that Marco may have been responsible for a Swiss boarder police officer who was shot dead in 1989.

After his arrest in 1992 Marco was held on remand, by the Italian authorities, before eventually put on trial in 1993 where he was found guilty of carrying out a number of anti-nuclear actions in Italy and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.

That sentence came to an end in 2002 and he was immediately extradited to Switzerland to complete the remainder of his 10 year prison sentence.

However after Marco was returned to Switzerland there was a lot of speculation that he might be charged with the murder of the boarder guard in 1989.

Marco has always denied killing the Swiss boarder guard. He has also always denied killing or injuring the prison warders during his escape from prison. However despite his innocence, Marco has been charged with the death of the Swiss boarder guard and the attempted murder of the Swiss prison warder in 1981.

These new charges against Marco can be seen as yet another attempt by the authorities to try and break Marco's spirit and an attempt to damage his international support base.

After all the years in prison, Marco, who defines himself an ecological anarchist, has never let the authorities change his mind about his political convictions. Instead, whilst behind bars, he has remained a political activist and by means of writing letters, he has organized a far-reaching international network of political and personal contacts.

Don't be under any illusion. The authorities want to break Marco. They hate the fact he has remained steadfast to his political identity and they loath his continued refusal to cooperate with the judicial authority. It is therefore no surprise that he has had these new charges laid against him.

It is up to the international prisoner support movement to make sure Marco receives all the support he can get and to remind the authorities that the support for Marco is as strong as ever.

Show your support for Marco by sending letters of support (in either English, German, Italian, Spanish or French) to:

Marco Camenisch
Flughafengefangnis
ZURICH-FLUGHAFEN
Postfach 8058
Zurich
Switzerland

For more information on Marco and his history, check out his prisoner profile on http://www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk or check out the multi-lingual website http://www.freecamenisch.net


In the run up to the run up to the start of Switzerland's political trial against Marco Camenisch a large number of Marco's supporters have carried out various protests, in both Switzerland and Italy, in support of Marco.

According to the British media, the Swiss police alone have revealed that they have made 98 arrests of Marco's supporters, most of whom are eco-anarchists and anti-globalisation activists.

In Italy as a result of one demonstration four people where remanded into custody. Two of whom (both Italians) have now been released. However the other two remain held prisoner by the authorities. One of the two is a woman from Zurich, Switzerland, called Andi, who is believed to be held because she is a known eco-radical and the authorities don't like her politics. The exact charges against her are unknown but her imprisonment can be regarded as political. The identity of the second person is still as yet unknown but it is believed they may be German or French.

Although we don't yet know Andi's prison location, ELP pledges our support to Andi and all of Marco's supporters who have been arrested and we will bring you regular updates about what's going on as and when we receive them ourselves.

In the meantime, we urge everyone to check out the multi-lingual website http://www.freecamenisch.net This website has pages written in English, Italian, Spanish, German and French.

By Alexander G. Higgins
Associated press
May 10, 2004

GENEVA - Up to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested "by mistake," according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday. It also says U.S. officers mistreated inmates at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison by keeping them naked in dark, empty cells.

Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers was widespread and routine, the report finds -- contrary to President Bush's contention that the mistreatment "was the wrongdoing of a few."

While many detainees were quickly released, high-ranking officials in Saddam Hussein's government, including those listed on the U.S. military's deck of cards, were held for months in solitary confinement.

Red Cross delegates saw U.S. military intelligence officers mistreating prisoners under interrogation at Abu Ghraib and collected allegations of abuse at more than 10 other detention facilities, including the military intelligence section at Camp Cropper at Baghdad International Airport and the Tikrit holding area, according to the report.

The 24-page document cites abuses -- some "tantamount to torture" -- including brutality, hooding, humiliation and threats of "imminent
execution."

"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information and other forms of cooperation from persons who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an 'intelligence value.'"

High-ranking officials were singled out for special treatment, according to the report, which the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed as authentic after it was published by The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

"Since June 2003 over a hundred 'high value detainees' have been held for nearly 23 hours a day in strict solitary confinement in small concrete cells devoid of daylight," says the report. "Their continued internment several months after their arrest in strict solitary confinement constituted a serious violation of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions."

It did not say who the detainees were, but an official who discussed the report with the Red Cross told The Associated Press they include some of the 55 top officials in Saddam's regime named in the deck of cards given to troops.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said detainees held at Baghdad International Airport include many of the 44 "deck of cards" suspects already captured. It was not clear if Saddam was at the airport, but the Red Cross has said it visited him in coalition detention somewhere in Iraq last month.

The high-value detainees were deprived of any contact with other inmates, "guards, family members (except through Red Cross messages) and the rest of the outside world," the report says.

Those whose investigations were near an end were said to be allowed to exercise together outside the cells for 20 minutes twice a day.

The report says some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent" of the detainees in Iraq "had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."

The agency said arrests tended to follow a pattern.

"Authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report says.

"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it says. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."

It was unclear what the Red Cross meant by "mistake." However, many Iraqis have claimed U.S. forces arrested them because of misunderstandings, bogus claims by personal enemies, mistaken identity or simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

One former detainee who claims he was abused, Haider Sabbar Abed, said he was arrested in July when the driver of the car he was in was unable to produce proper papers at a U.S. checkpoint. He was not released until April 15.

In one operation, U.S. special operations troops detained nearly the entire male population of the village of Habbariyah, ranging in age from 81 to 13, apparently to prevent terrorists from slipping across the border from Saudi Arabia. The 79 men were held for weeks.

Language problems sometimes led to detainees'"being slapped, roughed up, pushed around or pushed to the ground," according to the Red Cross report. "A failure to understand or a misunderstanding of orders given in English was construed by guards as resistance or disobedience."

The report says that in coalition prisons "ICRC delegates directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation" of the inmates "with their interrogators." The delegates saw detainees kept "completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness."

"Upon witnessing such cases, the ICRC interrupted its visits and requested an explanation from the authorities," the report says. "The military intelligence officer in charge of the interrogation explained that this practice was 'part of the process.'"

This apparently meant detainees were progressively given clothing, bedding, lighting and other items in exchange for cooperation, it says.

The report says the Red Cross found evidence supporting prisoners' allegations of other forms of abuse during arrest, initial detention and interrogation -- including burns, bruises and other injuries.

Once detainees were moved to regular prison facilities, the abuses typically stopped, it says.

The report also cites widespread abuse of power and ill-treatment by Iraqi law enforcement officers under the coalition, including extorting money from people in their custody by threatening to hand them over to coalition authorities. Under the Geneva Conventions, the coalition is responsible for the Iraqi officers' behavior, the report says.

The Red Cross has emphasized that the report was only a summary of its repeated attempts in person and in writing from March to November 2003 to get U.S. officials to stop abuses. Those earlier interventions by the Red Cross far preceded the Pentagon's decision to investigate after a low-ranking U.S. soldier stepped forward in January.

The Geneva-based organization gave its report to coalition forces in February. The prisoner abuse erupted into an international scandal in recent days after the publication of disturbing photographs from Abu Ghraib.

The Red Cross said it wanted to keep the report confidential because it saw U.S. officials making progress in responding to their complaints. Still, the American reaction was far slower than that of British officials, according to the report.

It says the Red Cross informed the commander of British forces in April 2003 of "ill-treatment" by military intelligence personnel in interrogating Iraqis at Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. "This intervention had the immediate effect to stop the systematic use of hoods and flexi-cuffs in the interrogation section of Umm Qasr."


Informant: NHNE

Omega see also

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0510042icrc1.html

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Für die einen ist er ein «Öko-Terrorist» und ein Mörder, für die anderen ein Umweltaktivist, der einzige «politische Gefangene» der Schweiz oder gar ein moderner Tell. Marco Camenisch polarisiert, seit er vor 25 Jahren Strommasten sprengte. Und er mobilisiert.

Im ostpolnischen Bialystok demonstrieren Autonome für ihn, im norditalienischen Bergamo wird eine Credit- Suisse-Filiale mit Parolen für seine Freilassung voll gesprayt. Gleiches hatten bereits im Frühjahr 2003 Unbekannte gefordert, als sie im toskanischen Wintersportort Abetone eine Seilbahnstation und eine Mobilfunkantenne zerstörten. Wo immer der Schwarze Block in der Schweiz aufmarschiert, sei es in Zürich am 1. Mai oder zum Davoser Weltwirtschaftsforum, schreit er Parolen für Camenisch. In Palermo, Brüssel, Aarau oder gar in Argentinien finden Solidaritätskundgebungen für den international bekanntesten Schweizer Gefangenen statt. Und zum Zürcher Prozess reist eine Schar von Prozessbeobachtern aus der links-alternativen Szene Europas an. Für sie ist Marco Camenisch in den langen Jahren hinter Gitter zu einer Ikone des Widerstands geworden, sein Name zu einem Schlagwort im Protest gegen Kapitalismus und Globalisierung.

http://www.tagblatt.ch/hintergrund.cfm?pass_id=908003&liste=907859,908003,907860,907861,907862
(Auszug)

Der Rat verlangte gestern eine dritte Abstimmung im EU-Parlament über die Frage, ob europäisches Recht einfach so gebrochen werden kann. Sehr schön und geradewegs erz/demokratisch. Wie oft soll noch abgestimmt werden?

quintessenz-list Digest, Vol 14, Issue 3


Neuer Schlagabtausch im EU-Parlament
Parlament mit klarer Mehrheit gegen erneuten Antrag auf Unterzeichnung des Passagierdaten-Abkommens mit den USA | Rat droht, EU-Parlament zu übergehen | Entscheidung des EuGH soll nicht abgewartet werden

Das Europaparlament hat einen weiteren Vorstoß des Rats, das Abkommen zur Weitergabe von Passagierdaten an die USA, erneut abzustimmen, am Dienstag mit 343 zu 301 Stimmen bei 18 Enthaltungen abgelehnt.

Mit Verweis auf die Geschäftsordnung lehnte das Parlament es ab, sich erneut mit derselben Angelegenheit zu befassen, über die es bereits zwei Abstimmungen mit mehrheitlicher Ablehnung gegeben hatte.

"Die Mehrheit des Parlaments hat gezeigt, dass wir uns vom Rat nicht wie Marionetten behandeln lassen und so lange abstimmen, bis das Ergebnis genehm ist" sagte die Abgeordnete Mercedes Echerer nach der Abstimmung zur futurezone.

Man werde nicht mehr hinnehmen, dass lange erkämpfte, europäische Bürgerrechte wie Datenschutz auf dem Altar der transatlantischen Beziehungen geopfert würden.

Mehr mit Links
http://futurezone.orf.at/futurezone.orf?read=detail&id=230005

Welche Durchschlagskraft Bürgerbewegungen haben können, ist aktuell in Südkorea zu beobachten: Die bisherige politische Elite wird in einem erdrutschartigen Umschwung durch die Parlamentswahl entmachtet: die konservative Partei GNC, die bis jetzt den politischen Prozess im Land weitgehend kontrollierte, musste ihre Parlamentsmehrheit an die bisher marginal vertretene oppositionelle URI-Partei abgeben.

Angekündigt hatte sich die Erschütterung des politischen Systems bereits vor 2 Jahren. Damals trat Roh Moon Hyun als Außenseiterkandidat zur Präsidentschaftswahl an, ohne mit dieser Kandidatur ernstgenommen zu werden. Roh Moon Hyun war bekannt geworden als Menschenrechtsanwalt, der zur Zeit der Diktatur die juristische Vertretung von Oppositionellen übernahm und viele Studenten aus der Haft befreite.

Nach dem Ende der Diktatur hatte die aufgrund ihrer korrupten Praktiken des Machterhalts berüchtigte konservative Partei GNC ihr Erbe übernommen. Sie stellte auch zur Wahl 2002 den Kandidaten, dessen Machtübernahme vorprogrammiert schien.

Entgegen allen Erwartungen wurde stattdessen der Außenseiter Roh Moon Hyun gewählt und übernahm die Regierung. Er hatte vor allem Rückenwind durch die südkoreanische Buergerbewegung erhalten, die sich zur Wehr setzte gegenüber dem korrupten System der Konservativen.

Poltisches Ergebnis dieses Kurswechsels war insbesondere die Aufweichung der durch die USA bestimmten Frontstellung gegenüber Nordkorea und damit die ersten grenzüberschreitenden Kontakte zu Nordkorea seit dem Krieg.

Die Übernahme der Regierung des mit Unterstützung der koreanischen Bürgerbewegung gewählten Präsidenten Roh Moon Hyun wird konterkariert durch die Bemühungen des politischen Establishments ein Impeachment gegen ihn einzuleiten. Dies wurde auf einer der letzten Sitzungen des noch amtierenden konservativ dominierten Parlaments durchgesetzt: Roh Moon Hyun wurde aus dem Amt entfernt und ersetzt durch den Gegenkandidaten der GNC in der Präsidentschaftswahl vor 2 Jahren.

Den Vorwand lieferte eine Anklage wegen Korruption, deren Untersuchung zum Ergebnis hatte, dass Roh an illegalen Mitteln Beträge in Höhe von ca. 14% der vergleichbaren Summe des konservativen Kandidaten eingesetzt hätte.

In einem Artikel der Washington Post (s.u.) wird eingeräumt, dass es weniger um juristische Vorfälle geht, als darum, Ro Moo Hyun als Fremdkörper in der herrschenden Elite abzuservieren. Die politischen Vorwürfe der Konservativen, die seinen Sturz betrieben, bezogen sich darauf, dass er in seiner Politik Klassenkampf zugunsten der ärmeren Bevölkerung angezettelt hätte, der sich gegen die Reichen im Land richtete und dass er mit seiner Außenpolitik Südkorea gegenüber den USA entfremdete, indem er sich u.a. um bessere Beziehungen zu Nordkorea und zu China bemühte.

Auf die Absetzung Roh's reagierte die Bevölkerung mit Massendemonstrationen: Hunderttausende demonstrierten gegen den "Putsch von oben", eine große Mehrheit der Bevölkerung hielt das Impeachment für illegitim.

Mit dem aktuellen Wahlergebnis, mit dem die URI-Partei, die weitgehend die Positionen von Ex-Präsident Roh vertritt, nach bisherigen Meldungen eine absolute Mehrheit der Parlamentssitze erreichte, werden die Manipulationen der Konservativen zum Machterhalt wahrscheinlich hinfällig. Die bisherige Machtelite muss damit eine schwere Niederlage hinnehmen, die Bürgerbewegung kann für sich einen weiteren großen Erfolg verbuchen.

Abzuwarten bleibt was der oberste Strippenzieher und Kriegstreiber der "Führungsmacht" USA, Vizepräsident Cheney mit dem Noch-Präsidenten der Filz-Partei GNC Goh Kun aushecken wird: für beide ist das Ergebnis der Wahl beklagenswert, über die Gefolgschaft Südkoreas gegenüber Washington dürfte sich damit ein Schatten legen und es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass Südkorea sich nun dem spanischen Beispiel anschließen wird um aus der "Koalition der Willigen" im Irak auszusteigen.

Annette Hauschild und Helmut Lorscheid 02.04.2004

Weil Rot-Grün nicht handelte, haben Bürgerrechtsorganisationen und Journalistenverbände selbst einen Entwurf für ein IFG verfasst, der heute vorgelegt wird

Seit 1998 versprechen SPD und Bündnis 90/Die Grünen dem Wahlvolk ein Informationsfreiheitsgesetz - also das Recht, der Regierung und Bürokratie in die Akten schauen zu dürfen. Seit 1998 wird immer wieder erzählt, es würde bald kommen...

weiter unter: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/frei/17110/1.html