Eine dunkle Begierde |HD| German Trailer Shame 2011 Clip – Michael Fassbender Pacino: el mercader vuelve a Venecia Khaja_Moinuddin says: http://t.co/wDYju3I In the film, Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen play renowned psychiatrists Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and the plo
Continue reading …
Security cameras captured a middle-aged man knocking off chunks of the 350-year-old Moro Fountain in Rome’s famous Piazza Navona on Saturday and hitting part of the stonework ten times, knocking off two large chunks. (Sept. 5)
Continue reading …Sarah Palin’s hot-blooded barrages were loved by crowds in Iowa on Saturday, but despite the usual right-wing boilerplate solutions, the former Alaska governor’s attacks are coming dressed in uniquely left-wing language, notes David Sessions on the Daily Beast . “Crony capitalism,” “corporate welfare,” and “socialism for the very rich” were three…
Continue reading …Obama criticised for continuing civil rights ‘violations’ introduced by Bush
September 5, 2011 No Comment
Campaigners say US president became weak-kneed over closure of Guantánamo bay and that spying restrictions are gone The Obama administration has disappointed civil rights campaigners who had expected him to reverse most of the post-9/11 restrictions introduced by the Bush administration. On becoming president in January 2009, Obama promised to close Guantánamo Bay within a year. He did order an end to waterboarding but Guantánamo remains open and almost all the rest of the Bush era anti-terrorism apparatus, from the Patriot Act through to increased surveillance is still in place. Measures once considered only for emergency use are being consolidated. “I did not like it when the violations of rights were temporary but now, because of Obama going along with the changes, they are becoming a permanent fixture of our legal landscape,” said Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has been battling since the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s. Ratner, who was among the first, small group of lawyers to fight on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees, said Obama had the chance to close Guantánamo but became weak-kneed about it. “Indefinite detention, restrictions on habeas corpus, rendition, all these continue under Obama. We still have military commissions under Obama.” He added: “All the restrictions on government surveillance and spying that we fought for and won in the 1970s, are gone. We are back to square one. There are no restrictions on the FBI. None. They are targeting Muslims in particular. One’s religion has become a key criteria for surveillance.” Michelle Richardson, a lawyer specialising in national security at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed some of Ratner’s points. “We definitely think there has been quite a significant shift and there is much more government snooping. It started with the Patriot Act, which made it easier to spy on people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong.” There were fewer than 1,000 people being wiretapped before 9/11 for intelligence purposes and “now we don’t know how many”, she added. Richardson said the public is split between those who think the government is over-reacting and those who think the measures are justified. “The government has done a good job of keeping people in a state of emergency,” she said, adding that it was too soon to say whether the balance will change. The scales might tip if people begin to be denied benefits or jobs because they are on terrorist lists, she said. But Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in public law at the Brookings Institution, is less convinced that America is any less free today than it was before 9/11. Wittes said: “I am not convinced we are less free. If you talk to someone walking on the street – other than in Washington, where we feel more of the brunt because we are more of a target – I would be surprised if they felt less free.” He suggested three categories of freedom. The first affects large numbers of people; the only post-9/11 example of such is airport security; this, Wittes said, is not a constraint on freedom as it allows people to fly. The second category is people who are non-Americans and has zero affect on Americans walking round the streets. Guantánamo is in this category. The third category is surveillance. “There is no doubt there has been an increase in wiretapping. It is a substantial increase, not dramatic. It is not awesome. Most of it is public. The wild card in this is the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping and we do not know the volume of this.” What about waterboarding? “I agree that countries that engage in torture are less free than those who do it. If you accept it was torture, the question is still more complicated,” Wittes said. It is still a country that in a moment of crisis involved a small number of dangerous people and then stopped. Is that country less free? I think that is extravagant. I am more sympathetic to the CIA than most people.” The bottom line, for Wittes, is that waterboarding has stopped. Obama administration United States US politics Guantánamo Bay FBI September 11 2001 Human rights Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Obama criticised for continuing civil rights ‘violations’ introduced by Bush
September 5, 2011 No CommentCampaigners say US president became weak-kneed over closure of Guantánamo bay and that spying restrictions are gone The Obama administration has disappointed civil rights campaigners who had expected him to reverse most of the post-9/11 restrictions introduced by the Bush administration. On becoming president in January 2009, Obama promised to close Guantánamo Bay within a year. He did order an end to waterboarding but Guantánamo remains open and almost all the rest of the Bush era anti-terrorism apparatus, from the Patriot Act through to increased surveillance is still in place. Measures once considered only for emergency use are being consolidated. “I did not like it when the violations of rights were temporary but now, because of Obama going along with the changes, they are becoming a permanent fixture of our legal landscape,” said Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has been battling since the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s. Ratner, who was among the first, small group of lawyers to fight on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees, said Obama had the chance to close Guantánamo but became weak-kneed about it. “Indefinite detention, restrictions on habeas corpus, rendition, all these continue under Obama. We still have military commissions under Obama.” He added: “All the restrictions on government surveillance and spying that we fought for and won in the 1970s, are gone. We are back to square one. There are no restrictions on the FBI. None. They are targeting Muslims in particular. One’s religion has become a key criteria for surveillance.” Michelle Richardson, a lawyer specialising in national security at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed some of Ratner’s points. “We definitely think there has been quite a significant shift and there is much more government snooping. It started with the Patriot Act, which made it easier to spy on people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong.” There were fewer than 1,000 people being wiretapped before 9/11 for intelligence purposes and “now we don’t know how many”, she added. Richardson said the public is split between those who think the government is over-reacting and those who think the measures are justified. “The government has done a good job of keeping people in a state of emergency,” she said, adding that it was too soon to say whether the balance will change. The scales might tip if people begin to be denied benefits or jobs because they are on terrorist lists, she said. But Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in public law at the Brookings Institution, is less convinced that America is any less free today than it was before 9/11. Wittes said: “I am not convinced we are less free. If you talk to someone walking on the street – other than in Washington, where we feel more of the brunt because we are more of a target – I would be surprised if they felt less free.” He suggested three categories of freedom. The first affects large numbers of people; the only post-9/11 example of such is airport security; this, Wittes said, is not a constraint on freedom as it allows people to fly. The second category is people who are non-Americans and has zero affect on Americans walking round the streets. Guantánamo is in this category. The third category is surveillance. “There is no doubt there has been an increase in wiretapping. It is a substantial increase, not dramatic. It is not awesome. Most of it is public. The wild card in this is the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping and we do not know the volume of this.” What about waterboarding? “I agree that countries that engage in torture are less free than those who do it. If you accept it was torture, the question is still more complicated,” Wittes said. It is still a country that in a moment of crisis involved a small number of dangerous people and then stopped. Is that country less free? I think that is extravagant. I am more sympathetic to the CIA than most people.” The bottom line, for Wittes, is that waterboarding has stopped. Obama administration United States US politics Guantánamo Bay FBI September 11 2001 Human rights Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Obama criticised for continuing civil rights ‘violations’ introduced by Bush
September 5, 2011 No CommentCampaigners say US president became weak-kneed over closure of Guantánamo bay and that spying restrictions are gone The Obama administration has disappointed civil rights campaigners who had expected him to reverse most of the post-9/11 restrictions introduced by the Bush administration. On becoming president in January 2009, Obama promised to close Guantánamo Bay within a year. He did order an end to waterboarding but Guantánamo remains open and almost all the rest of the Bush era anti-terrorism apparatus, from the Patriot Act through to increased surveillance is still in place. Measures once considered only for emergency use are being consolidated. “I did not like it when the violations of rights were temporary but now, because of Obama going along with the changes, they are becoming a permanent fixture of our legal landscape,” said Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has been battling since the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s. Ratner, who was among the first, small group of lawyers to fight on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees, said Obama had the chance to close Guantánamo but became weak-kneed about it. “Indefinite detention, restrictions on habeas corpus, rendition, all these continue under Obama. We still have military commissions under Obama.” He added: “All the restrictions on government surveillance and spying that we fought for and won in the 1970s, are gone. We are back to square one. There are no restrictions on the FBI. None. They are targeting Muslims in particular. One’s religion has become a key criteria for surveillance.” Michelle Richardson, a lawyer specialising in national security at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed some of Ratner’s points. “We definitely think there has been quite a significant shift and there is much more government snooping. It started with the Patriot Act, which made it easier to spy on people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong.” There were fewer than 1,000 people being wiretapped before 9/11 for intelligence purposes and “now we don’t know how many”, she added. Richardson said the public is split between those who think the government is over-reacting and those who think the measures are justified. “The government has done a good job of keeping people in a state of emergency,” she said, adding that it was too soon to say whether the balance will change. The scales might tip if people begin to be denied benefits or jobs because they are on terrorist lists, she said. But Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in public law at the Brookings Institution, is less convinced that America is any less free today than it was before 9/11. Wittes said: “I am not convinced we are less free. If you talk to someone walking on the street – other than in Washington, where we feel more of the brunt because we are more of a target – I would be surprised if they felt less free.” He suggested three categories of freedom. The first affects large numbers of people; the only post-9/11 example of such is airport security; this, Wittes said, is not a constraint on freedom as it allows people to fly. The second category is people who are non-Americans and has zero affect on Americans walking round the streets. Guantánamo is in this category. The third category is surveillance. “There is no doubt there has been an increase in wiretapping. It is a substantial increase, not dramatic. It is not awesome. Most of it is public. The wild card in this is the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping and we do not know the volume of this.” What about waterboarding? “I agree that countries that engage in torture are less free than those who do it. If you accept it was torture, the question is still more complicated,” Wittes said. It is still a country that in a moment of crisis involved a small number of dangerous people and then stopped. Is that country less free? I think that is extravagant. I am more sympathetic to the CIA than most people.” The bottom line, for Wittes, is that waterboarding has stopped. Obama administration United States US politics Guantánamo Bay FBI September 11 2001 Human rights Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The prime minister is expected to use a speech on crime to announce plans to televise the sentencing of offenders Judges’ sentencing of offenders is to be televised under plans to be unveiled by the prime minister shortly, the Guardian has learned. David Cameron is expected to make his announcement in a long-awaited crime speech, expediting the agenda even though a Ministry of Justice consultation with the judiciary into the matter has not yet begun. It is not yet known how many courts will be televised. As part of his push for transparency in public services, Cameron will give the go-ahead to the televising of judicial verdicts but it is thought this will critically not include the process of the trial leading up to the verdict, protecting witnesses from exposure to publicity. The shift towards the televising of court proceedings has always been hampered by the spectre of OJ Simpson’s trial in the US which degenerated into prime-time entertainment. Television companies have been pressing for greater access to the highlights of court cases and a consultation on the shift was undertaken by the previous Labour government but was eventually discarded. Now the present government has revived the plans, believing a judicial pronouncement should become more of a moment of public reckoning. Officials believe transparency would aid public understanding of the court process and the idea has gained momentum in the aftermath of the riots. Number 10 has decided to strengthen its law and order agenda in the wake of the riots, but televising verdicts is something Cameron has been minded to do for some time. The decision to go ahead comes at the end of a consultation with judges on the issue. In May, the Ministry of Justice revealed that officials would be canvassing the opinion of judges on the matter. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are considering proposals put forward by broadcasters to allow limited recording and transmission from courts in specific circumstances. “However, before any firm proposals are developed, the lord chancellor will wish to consult on the principle of broadcasting from court with the senior judiciary.” There is a fair wind for the proposal with the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, suggesting in May when the consultation was announced that he would lend the move his support. He called for greater openness and transparency in the justice system. Then Starmer told a Society of Editors meeting: “In principle I would support a proposal that judgments, judges’ closing remarks and judicial sentencing in criminal cases could be televised. “There may be a case for going further, although I would obviously not want to promote anything that adversely affected the ability of victims or witnesses to give their best evidence to the court. “Therefore there would need to be appropriate safeguards, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals, and any requests to televise any part of the court process should be subject to the judge’s individual discretion.” When the country’s most senior court – the supreme court in Westminster – was opened in September 2009 it was fitted with cameras. As things stand it is the only court where footage is routinely available for broadcasters on request and has been televised live. It allows visitors to watch appeals and judgments on televisions around the building without sitting in the courtrooms, but it is seen to be a different case since supreme court hearings do not involve witnesses being cross-examined or juries. Cameras have been allowed in some Scottish courts under tight restrictions since 1992. The appeal of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing was televised in 2002. Writing in the Guardian in December, the head of Sky News, John Ryley, suggested the trials of six MPs who were accused of misusing their parliamentary expenses were prime examples of public interest trials that would have benefited from being televised. Labour launched a limited trial in the court of appeal in 2004. UK criminal justice David Cameron Television Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The prime minister is expected to use a speech on crime to announce plans to televise the sentencing of offenders Judges’ sentencing of offenders is to be televised under plans to be unveiled by the prime minister shortly, the Guardian has learned. David Cameron is expected to make his announcement in a long-awaited crime speech, expediting the agenda even though a Ministry of Justice consultation with the judiciary into the matter has not yet begun. It is not yet known how many courts will be televised. As part of his push for transparency in public services, Cameron will give the go-ahead to the televising of judicial verdicts but it is thought this will critically not include the process of the trial leading up to the verdict, protecting witnesses from exposure to publicity. The shift towards the televising of court proceedings has always been hampered by the spectre of OJ Simpson’s trial in the US which degenerated into prime-time entertainment. Television companies have been pressing for greater access to the highlights of court cases and a consultation on the shift was undertaken by the previous Labour government but was eventually discarded. Now the present government has revived the plans, believing a judicial pronouncement should become more of a moment of public reckoning. Officials believe transparency would aid public understanding of the court process and the idea has gained momentum in the aftermath of the riots. Number 10 has decided to strengthen its law and order agenda in the wake of the riots, but televising verdicts is something Cameron has been minded to do for some time. The decision to go ahead comes at the end of a consultation with judges on the issue. In May, the Ministry of Justice revealed that officials would be canvassing the opinion of judges on the matter. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are considering proposals put forward by broadcasters to allow limited recording and transmission from courts in specific circumstances. “However, before any firm proposals are developed, the lord chancellor will wish to consult on the principle of broadcasting from court with the senior judiciary.” There is a fair wind for the proposal with the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, suggesting in May when the consultation was announced that he would lend the move his support. He called for greater openness and transparency in the justice system. Then Starmer told a Society of Editors meeting: “In principle I would support a proposal that judgments, judges’ closing remarks and judicial sentencing in criminal cases could be televised. “There may be a case for going further, although I would obviously not want to promote anything that adversely affected the ability of victims or witnesses to give their best evidence to the court. “Therefore there would need to be appropriate safeguards, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals, and any requests to televise any part of the court process should be subject to the judge’s individual discretion.” When the country’s most senior court – the supreme court in Westminster – was opened in September 2009 it was fitted with cameras. As things stand it is the only court where footage is routinely available for broadcasters on request and has been televised live. It allows visitors to watch appeals and judgments on televisions around the building without sitting in the courtrooms, but it is seen to be a different case since supreme court hearings do not involve witnesses being cross-examined or juries. Cameras have been allowed in some Scottish courts under tight restrictions since 1992. The appeal of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing was televised in 2002. Writing in the Guardian in December, the head of Sky News, John Ryley, suggested the trials of six MPs who were accused of misusing their parliamentary expenses were prime examples of public interest trials that would have benefited from being televised. Labour launched a limited trial in the court of appeal in 2004. UK criminal justice David Cameron Television Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The prime minister is expected to use a speech on crime to announce plans to televise the sentencing of offenders Judges’ sentencing of offenders is to be televised under plans to be unveiled by the prime minister shortly, the Guardian has learned. David Cameron is expected to make his announcement in a long-awaited crime speech, expediting the agenda even though a Ministry of Justice consultation with the judiciary into the matter has not yet begun. It is not yet known how many courts will be televised. As part of his push for transparency in public services, Cameron will give the go-ahead to the televising of judicial verdicts but it is thought this will critically not include the process of the trial leading up to the verdict, protecting witnesses from exposure to publicity. The shift towards the televising of court proceedings has always been hampered by the spectre of OJ Simpson’s trial in the US which degenerated into prime-time entertainment. Television companies have been pressing for greater access to the highlights of court cases and a consultation on the shift was undertaken by the previous Labour government but was eventually discarded. Now the present government has revived the plans, believing a judicial pronouncement should become more of a moment of public reckoning. Officials believe transparency would aid public understanding of the court process and the idea has gained momentum in the aftermath of the riots. Number 10 has decided to strengthen its law and order agenda in the wake of the riots, but televising verdicts is something Cameron has been minded to do for some time. The decision to go ahead comes at the end of a consultation with judges on the issue. In May, the Ministry of Justice revealed that officials would be canvassing the opinion of judges on the matter. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are considering proposals put forward by broadcasters to allow limited recording and transmission from courts in specific circumstances. “However, before any firm proposals are developed, the lord chancellor will wish to consult on the principle of broadcasting from court with the senior judiciary.” There is a fair wind for the proposal with the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, suggesting in May when the consultation was announced that he would lend the move his support. He called for greater openness and transparency in the justice system. Then Starmer told a Society of Editors meeting: “In principle I would support a proposal that judgments, judges’ closing remarks and judicial sentencing in criminal cases could be televised. “There may be a case for going further, although I would obviously not want to promote anything that adversely affected the ability of victims or witnesses to give their best evidence to the court. “Therefore there would need to be appropriate safeguards, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals, and any requests to televise any part of the court process should be subject to the judge’s individual discretion.” When the country’s most senior court – the supreme court in Westminster – was opened in September 2009 it was fitted with cameras. As things stand it is the only court where footage is routinely available for broadcasters on request and has been televised live. It allows visitors to watch appeals and judgments on televisions around the building without sitting in the courtrooms, but it is seen to be a different case since supreme court hearings do not involve witnesses being cross-examined or juries. Cameras have been allowed in some Scottish courts under tight restrictions since 1992. The appeal of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing was televised in 2002. Writing in the Guardian in December, the head of Sky News, John Ryley, suggested the trials of six MPs who were accused of misusing their parliamentary expenses were prime examples of public interest trials that would have benefited from being televised. Labour launched a limited trial in the court of appeal in 2004. UK criminal justice David Cameron Television Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …