Arquivo da Categoria: Gibel

Albert Camus # Budapeste 1956



Je ne suis pas de ceux qui souhaitent que le peuple hongrois prenne à nouveau les armes dans une insurrection vouée à l’écrasement, sous les yeux d’une société interntionale qui ne lui ménagera ni applaudissements, ni larmes vertueuses, mais qui retournera ensuite à ses pantoufles comme font les sportifs de gradins, le dimanche soir, après un match de coupe.

Il y a déjà trop de morts dans le stade et nous ne pouvons être généreux que de notre propre sang. Le sang hongrois s’est relevé trop précieux à l’Europe et à la liberté pour que nous n’en soyons pas avares jusqu’à la moindre goutte.

Mais je ne suis pas de ceux qui pensent qu’il peut y avoir un accommodement, même résigné, même provisoire, avec un régime de terreur qui a autant de droit à s’appeler socialiste que les bourreaux de l’Inquisition en avaient à s’appeler chrétiens.

Continuar a lerAlbert Camus # Budapeste 1956

Momento de lucidez?


Ghazi Hamad é um dos líderes de topo do Hamas. Em artigo publicado recentemente no diário palestiniano al-Ayyam, Hamad condena a violência interna nos territórios palestinianos e questiona se esta não se tornou uma doença:

“Has violence become a culture implanted in our bodies and our flesh?”
“We have surrendered to it until it has become the master and is obeyed everywhere — in the house, the neighborhood, the family, the clan, the faction and the university.”
“(Violence) has taken away the language of brotherhood and replaced it with arms … It has stolen our unity and divided us into two camps, or three, or ten”
“Shouldn’t we be ashamed of this ugly behavior which scandalizes us before our people and before the world?”
“Are we all responsible? Yes. Do we all participate in this great sin? Yes,” wrote Hamad. “All of us have the desire not to see arms in the streets except with policemen”

Hôtel Costes (9) e um Aniversário


Stéphane Pompougnac, o DJ neo-aristocrático urbano (juro! é o que lhe chamam alguns críticos e eu não vou desmentir), regressa com a nona série da sua selecção Hôtel Costes, de melhor música lounge e deep house. Gostei especialmente da versão de Emotional Rescue, de Mick Jagger, de Diferente, dos Gotan Project (porque gosto sempre de Gotan!) e sobretudo da Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, de Ennio Morricone, na voz de Linda Lee Hopkins. Como o melhor Blogue feminino nacional completa o primeiro aniversário, a dita balada vai todinha dedicada às meninas da SOCA.

Deixem lá o Leo Strauss em Paz


Não concordo com o Prof. Pedro Arroja. Não foi o brilhantismo de Leo Strauss (Ena tanta gente a ler Leo Strauss por essa blogosfera afora e a conferir com o check-list de lugares-comuns da cartilha já decorada!) que inspirou o neo-conservadorismo, nem sequer leio o straussianismo dessa forma. O neo-conservadorismo da trindade de incapazes que governa a Casa Branca, com o mais que declarado desprezo da elite norte-americana, só pode pretender emular mentes mais simples e prosaicas: as conduzidas pelo timoneiro Edmund Blackadder, teorizador da estratégia “como-é-que-a-malta-se-safa-por-hoje-até-ser-hora-de-jantar” e que de forma singela alinhavou o mais explícito discurso neo-con anti-deterrence:

Baldrick: No, the thing is: The way I see it, these days there’s a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn’t a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

Edmund: Do you mean “How did the war start?”

Baldrick: Yeah.

George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.

Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. (aside, to Baldick) Mad as a bicycle!

Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich ‘cause he was hungry.

Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.

Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort *not* to have a war.

George: By God this is interesting; I always loved history — The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives, all that.

Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other’s deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn’t it, sir?

Edmund: Yes, that’s right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Edmund: It was bollocks.

Algum Físico Nuclear na plateia?


Segundo Jeffrey Lewis, no blogue Arms Control Wonk, o teste nuclear Norte-Coreano não terá sido coisa impressionante. Nos comentários, há quem discorde e até aponte notícias que referem a eventualidade de um segundo teste em breve.

No New York Times: Blast may be only a partial success, experts say.

Michele Alliot-Marie (Ministra da Defesa da França): “it was an explosion with a force of about half a kiloton, which is not an extremely powerful explosion, or it shows that there could have been a failure.”

E o que vem a ser a diplomacia?

Why won’t the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country’s good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends — a huge mistake.

Donald Gregg (National Security Advisor na Presidência de Reagan)

Quando o Direito se adapta às circunstâncias

What is the world to make of the fact that the United States relies on artifice and technicality to avoid the plain meaning and import of the Geneva Conventions, and therefore appears willing to countenance situations like this one?

Prosecutor: Did you know that what you were doing to the detainee would cause him severe physical pain?
Defendant: Yes sir.

Prosecutor: Did you know it would permanently disfigure him?
Defendant: Yes.

Prosecutor: Did you know it would prevent him from being able to walk?
Defendant: Yes.

Prosecutor: And were you doing it for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession?
Defendant: Yes.

Prosecutor: Isn’t that torture?

Defendant: No sir. Read the statute. I knew those harms would occur, but I did not specifically intend any of them. Causing those harms was not my conscious objective.

Prof. John Mikhail, no Georgetown Law Faculty Blog

Lendo a Liberalosfera nacional

Alguns tópicos de moda:

– Salazar, esse exótico discípulo do capitalismo, das sociedades urbanas e da rule of law;
– A Monarquia do Sr. D. Carlos e o parto terrorista da República;
– A vida antes da vida do feto;
– A escravatura do ponto de vista econométrico.

No princípio, aconteceu o liberalismo. Na verdade, foi inventado. Individualista. Progressista. Internacionalista, nacionalista quando convinha. Chegou cá atrasado e o engenho luso foi às compras, adaptou-o, fê-lo nosso à nossa maneira. Castiço. Composto. Liberal, mas… conservador. Eis o Liberal Português. É como aquele velho anúncio da rádio que falava dos dois pólos, o pólo norte e o pólo sul…depois havia o polilon. Por cá, do liberalismo sobra-nos o polilon. Com algum terylene.

Era uma vez no país dos checks and balances

Uma história “exemplar”

Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people. Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or words to that effect, then walked on. Ten minutes later, according to Howards’ lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had “assaulted” the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure.

O Novo Paradigma

Na New Yorker, Jane Mayer ensaia um relato perturbador acerca das mentes legais que, sob a liderança de David S. Addington, suportam Dick Cheney, uma equipa que parece revelar uma notória incapacidade para governar em democracia sob o incómodo dos tais “checks and balances”:

“Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal positions were, to a remarkable degree, “all Addington.” Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was “an unopposable force.”

Pode o Direito ser a alternativa à cegueira de uma Guerra Perpétua?

Douglas Burgess, na Legal Affairs

TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF DEFINING TERRORISM as a species of piracy, consider the words of the 16th-century jurist Alberico Gentili’s De jure belli: “Pirates are common enemies, and they are attacked with impunity by all, because they are without the pale of the law. They are scorners of the law of nations; hence they find no protection in that law.” Gentili, and many people who came after him, recognized piracy as a threat, not merely to the state but to the idea of statehood itself. All states were equally obligated to stamp out this menace, whether or not they had been a victim of piracy. This was codified explicitly in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, and it has been reiterated as a guiding principle of piracy law ever since. Ironically, it is the very effectiveness of this criminalization that has marginalized piracy and made it seem an arcane and almost romantic offense. Pirates no longer terrorize the seas because a concerted effort among the European states in the 19th century almost eradicated them. It is just such a concerted effort that all states must now undertake against terrorists, until the crime of terrorism becomes as remote and obsolete as piracy.

But we are still very far from such recognition for the present war on terror. President Bush and others persist in depicting this new form of state vs. nonstate warfare in traditional terms, as with the president’s declaration of June 2, 2004, that “like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless surprise attack on the United States.” He went on: “We will not forget that treachery and we will accept nothing less than victory over the enemy.” What constitutes ultimate victory against an enemy that lacks territorial boundaries and governmental structures, in a war without fields of battle or codes of conduct? We can’t capture the enemy’s capital and hoist our flag in triumph. The possibility of perpetual embattlement looms before us.

If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.

Continuar a lerPode o Direito ser a alternativa à cegueira de uma Guerra Perpétua?

Mais achas para a fogueira da liberdade de expressão, ou “Poor Charles and the appalling old waxworks”.

Prince Charles’ lawyers fight diary leak

The prince believes the diaries were accessed unlawfully
Prince Charles is entitled to keep his personal documents confidential, like “the humblest private citizen”, his lawyer has told the High Court.
Associated Newspapers is being sued for breach of confidentiality and copyright after the Mail on Sunday published part of his private journal.
In extracts about the 1997 Hong Kong handover, the prince described Chinese officials as “appalling old waxworks”.
The prince claims eight diaries were copied by a former member of his staff.
“We say it is absolutely vital to the position of the claimant, and anyone else in his position, that this sort of document cannot be published willy nilly by the press,” said Hugh Tomlinson QC, for the prince.
Mr Tomlinson said Prince Charles had given copies of his private journals to family members, friends and advisers over the last 30 years in envelopes marked private and confidential.
“The claimant does not intend or wish to publish the journals although it is possible that after his death, edited extracts may be published,” he said.
Like everyone else, from the humblest private citizen to the highest public figure, he is entitled to keep his personal documents private
The Prince of Wales says the documents, including the 3,000 word journal he titled The Handover of Hong Kong – or The Great Chinese Takeaway, were unlawfully copied and wants the court to order their return.
In another reported extract published by Mail on Sunday in November 2005, Prince Charles described one ceremony as an “awful Soviet-style” performance and dismissed a speech by then-Chinese President Jiang Zemin as “propaganda”.
His client recognised he was the subject of public comment, Mr Tomlinson said.
“What he says, however, is that like everyone else, from the humblest private citizen to the highest public figure, he is entitled to keep his personal documents private.”
Mr Tomlinson said the publication in the Mail on Sunday could not be justified as “press freedom” as the right of free speech was governed by responsibilities.
He told the trial judge, Mr Justice Blackburne, that the prince’s legal team had decided against seeking orders for confidentiality over witness statements in the case.
Associated Newspapers, together with other media organisations, had been trying to stop the case being made the subject of such rulings.

(Extraído há meia-dúzia de minutos do site da BBC)