Geskiedenis Podcasts

Is 529 die grootste gelyktydige doodstraf ooit?

Is 529 die grootste gelyktydige doodstraf ooit?

Onlangs het Egipte opslae gemaak deur 529 mense in 'n enkele hofuitspraak ter dood te veroordeel.

Ek het baie in die media en aanlyn gesien dat dit die grootste enkele doodstraf in die "onlangse geskiedenis" is. Ek het egter geen verwysing na een groter gesien nie. Trouens, die enigste van dieselfde grootte wat ek genoem het, was 152 gevonnis in 'n enkele saak in Bangladesh in 2009. Dit was egter 'n bietjie anders, omdat dit 'n militêre verhoor was van 'n hele militêre eenheid vir muitery. .

Hierdie uitspraak lyk vir baie mense aaklig, maar ek dink dit sal nuttig wees om 'n daadwerklike grens daaraan te stel.

Die vraag is dus of daar ooit gedokumenteerde hofsake is wat meer as 529 burgerlikes tegelyk ter dood veroordeel het? Indien wel, wat was die mees onlangse?


Bloedbad van Verden in 782 kan beskou word as die teregstelling van 4,500 Sakse deur Karel die Grote omdat hy in stryd was met Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, 'n wet wat heidendom verbied. Dit was in die konteks van 'n opstand en die 4,500 is deur die Saksiese magte oorgegee by kapitulasie. Dit is miskien nie waarna die vraesteller op soek is nie, aangesien hulle niks gegee het wat die regte proses benader nie, maar ek het gedink dat dit 'n interessante voorbeeld was, aangesien so baie nominaal tereggestel is weens 'n oortreding van 'n spesifieke regskode wat nie direk verband hou met die daad van opstand nie. .


Die grootste geval van 'n nasie wat 'n behoorlike regstelsel gebruik waaraan ek kan dink, is na die Derde Serviele Oorlog, die beroemde slawe -opstand onder leiding van Spartacus, die Romeine het die oorblywende 6 000 rebelslawe veroordeel en tereggestel wat nie in die geveg gedood is nie. Die betrokke slawe was gladiators, so dit was moeilik om die opstand te verpletter. Slawe is burgerlikes, selfs al is dit gladiators.

Omdat slawe nie burgers is nie en die tydsberekening van die opstand in die laat republiek is, behoort die betrokke slawe aan die imperium onderworpe te wees. Die regstelsel het meer korrup geword en die weermag magtiger namate Rome 'n diktatuur geword het. Dit sou beteken dat hulle in 'n sekere sin deur 'n landdros 'verhoor' sou gewees het met die mag om militêre geregtigheid uit te spreek.

In die herfs, toe die opstand op sy hoogtepunt was en Spartacus ongeveer 120 000 volgelinge gehad het, het die senaat gestem om die konsuls oor te gee en imperium toe te ken aan Marcus Licinius Crassus, wat 'n praetor was in 73 v.C. maar tans geen amp beklee nie

Daar is baie groter voorbeelde van lande wat buitelandse geregtigheid of summiere teregstelling gebruik. Die vertoningsproewe tydens die Kulturele Revolusie sou waarskynlik die boonste grens wees vir die grootste doodsvonnisse ooit. Honderde duisende mense is skuldig bevind aan reaksionêre revolusionêre.

Om die aantal 529 in 'n behoorlike moderne historiese konteks te plaas, het die grootste gelyktydige doodstraf in die Soedannese regstelsel tydens die wrede oorlog in Darfoer 'n bietjie meer as 100 mense behels wat skuldig bevind is aan terreurdade teen die regering in 2008. Na die volksmoord in Rwanda het die regering dit oorweeg om duisende mense tereg te stel. Tweeduisend sterf in die gevangenis in afwagting van verhoor. Die Internasionale Hof van Justisie het ingegryp en saam met Rwanda gewerk om die ergste oortreders wat dikwels in ander lande weggekruip het, voor die gereg te bring. By die grootste teregstelling was sewe mense betrokke. As ons hierdie feite in ag neem, lyk die getal baie groot.

Bron: DOMAC gevallestudie 19 Soedan


Is 529 die grootste gelyktydige doodstraf ooit? - Geskiedenis

War Sovereign Soaring The Heavens

Hoofstuk 3098 - Minder as 100 mense

Hoofstuk 3098: Minder as 100 mense

Vertaler: EndlessFantasy -vertaling Redakteur: EndlessFantasy -vertaling

“Jiang Lan gaan bloedenergie en sielsvuur versamel uit 'n valse piek Oorkoepelende hemelse hoogste hemele met die formasie voordat hy dit in een keer na die embrio's stuur. ”

Duan Ling Tian kyk na die deurskynende versperring van die Formasie. Die versperring was soos 'n koepel wat die boom van die Hemelofferende Goddelike Vrugte omring, wat keer dat dit bloedenergie en sielvuur absorbeer. Terselfdertyd het die boom nie opgehou om dit te probeer absorbeer nie, daarom het die trekkrag van die boom veroorsaak dat die bloedenergie en sielvuur teen die versperring gips. Sodra die versperring verwyder is, word al die opgehoopte bloed -energie en sielvuur dadelik deur die boom opgeneem.

Op hierdie oomblik was daar bloedenergie en sielsvuur van drie gevalle piek Oorkoepelende hemelse hoogste hemele wat op die versperring vasgesteek het. Dit het nie lank geduur voordat die bloedenergie en sielvuur van nog twee gevalle pieke, die oorkoepelende hemelse opperste hemele, by hulle aangesluit het nie.

Na 'n rukkie verskyn 'n persoon voor Duan Ling Tian. Hy het 'n geruime tyd gewag voordat sy nuwe teenstander voor hom verskyn.

Terselfdertyd het Ling Jue Yun en Lin Fei Yang ook hul opponente gekonfronteer.

Dit alles is doelbewus gereël deur Jiang Lan.

Nadat die embrio's van die Heaven Sacrificial Divine Fruit verskyn het, het Jiang Lan desperaat geword. Dit was asof hy nie meer kon wag totdat die boom vrugte dra nie. Om dinge te bespoedig, is Duan Ling Tian, ​​Ling Jue Yun, Lin Fei Yang en die ander vinnig 'n teenstander toegewys sodra hulle klaar was met hul gevegte.

Jiang Lan het doelbewus gereël dat Ling Jue Yun en Lin Fei Yang die topoorheersende hemelse hoogste hemele bestry het wat drie dieptes van 'n wet begryp het. Dit was egter nie sy bedoeling om die duo op te offer nie. Die duo kon hom immers help om die ander vinniger dood te maak.

Toe hy voorheen die piek Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials hier gekies en uitgenooi het, het hy bereken dat daar meer as 100 mense oor sou wees wanneer die embrio's verskyn. Hiermee was daar meer as genoeg bloedenergie en sielsvuur om die embrio's te voed sodat hulle die Hemeloffer Goddelike Vrugte kon dra. Daarom kon hy dit bekostig om Ling Jue Yun en Lin Fei Yang se lewens te spaar as hy so wou.

Swoosh! Swoosh! Swoosh! Swoosh! Swoosh!

Die huidige teenstander van Duan Ling Tian was 'n middeljarige man geklee in 'n lang groen kleed.

Die middeljarige man het drie dieptes van die wet van wind begryp en die vierde diepte begin begryp. Sy gesig bly onverskillig terwyl windblaaie om sy lyf draai, wat geluide skep wat soortgelyk is aan 'n swerm gonsende bye.

𠇍ie! ” Die man van middeljarige ouderdom het uitgeroep toe hy Duan Ling Tian gluur. Hy swaai die drie voet lange lem in sy hand en roer 'n gewelddadige rukwind op wat met die Wind Blade Profundity en twee ander dieptes uit die windwet opgewek is. Die rukwind het soos 'n kwaai draak na Duan Ling Tian gewaai.

Sjoe! Sjoe! Sjoe! Sjoe! Sjoe!

Die oorboor en skerp gehuil van die wind lui in die lug.

Die geluide van die swaarde en die wind was ongelooflik hard.

Mense wat die wet van wind verstaan, het 'n groot voordeel bo diegene wat die wet van die aarde verstaan ​​in terme van spoed en oortreding. Die vorige teenstander van Duan Ling Tian het drie dieptes van die wet van die aarde verstaan. Alhoewel sy vorige teenstander die enigste aanstootlike diepgaande uit die wet van die aarde verstaan ​​het, was die Shake Profundity, sy vorige teenstander se aanvalle ver van die middeljarige man wat drie dieptes verstaan ​​het en besig was om die vierde diepte te begryp. uit die wet van die wind.

Desondanks verkies Duan Ling Tian sy huidige teenstander bo die vorige. Sy vorige teenstander het die Gravitational Space Profundity gebruik en hom in 'n ruimte ingeperk voordat hy hom met aanvalle uit alle rigtings gebombardeer het. Alhoewel hy nie aan die aanvalle gely het nie, het die onderdrukking van die Gravitational Space Profundity hom uiters ongemaklik gemaak. Alhoewel sy huidige teenstander sterker was, was die aanvalle nie so moeilik om te hanteer in vergelyking met sy vorige teenstander nie.

“ Net betyds! ” Namate sy teenstander se aanval nader kom, het Duan Ling Tian en Celestial Origin Energy wat 'n hupstoot gekry het met die elementêre vuur van die vuur en die oorvloed van pille uit sy liggaam gestyg. Binne 'n oomblik was hy in vlamme verswelg.

Duan Ling Tian storm vorentoe soos 'n menslike fakkel. 'N Gebrande reuk bly in die lug terwyl hy 'n vuurspoor in sy nasleep verlaat soos die stert van 'n feniks.

Gonsgeluide lui in die lug,

Op hierdie oomblik sien die teenstander van Duan Ling Tian 'n ring uit die vlamme vlieg wat Duan Ling Tian verswelg.

Die ring was verswelg in rooi en groen vlamme. Sy formidabele aura kan mense laat vrees van vrees.

Duan Ling Tian was vreesloos toe hy gekonfronteer word met die dreigende aanval van sy teenstander wat die windwet verstaan ​​het. Hy het reeds 'n hoogtepunt van die oorkoepelende hemelse hemelhemel wat drie dieptes van die wet van die aarde verstaan ​​het, doodgemaak, waarom sou hy bang wees vir 'n ander hoogtepunt van die oorkoepelende hemelse opperste hemelse wat drie dieptes van die wet van wind begryp het? Alhoewel laasgenoemde 'n basiese begrip van die wet van wind en die vierde diepte van die wind gehad het, het dit vir hom geen verskil gemaak nie.

Duan Ling Tian was nie verbaas toe die aanvalle bots nie, en sy aanval het sy teenstander se aanval vinnig oorweldig ná 'n kort stilstand. Net soos goddelike krag, verander die rooi en groen vlamme in 'n vlammende swaard voordat dit sy teenstander doodmaak.

Intussen was Jiang Lan wat na Duan Ling Tian gekyk het, ook nie verbaas oor die uitslag nie. “ Net soos ek gedink het … Alhoewel hy slegs twee dieptes van die vuurwet begryp het, met die kombinasie van die twee koninklike graad hemelse wapens, sou selfs Ling Jue Yun en Lin Fei Yang nie 'n wedstryd vir hom wees nie! & #x201D

Jiang Lan kon sê dat die teenstander wat Duan Ling Tian pas doodgemaak het, so sterk soos Lin Fei Yang was en effens swakker as Ling Jue Yun. As Ling Jue Yun teen die teenstander van Duan Ling Tian sou veg, kan dit Ling Jue Yun 'n paar dae en nagte neem om die teenstander te verslaan. Aan die ander kant het Duan Ling Tian die teenstander moeiteloos verslaan.

Op die oomblik het Ling Jue Yun en Lin Fei Yang voortgegaan om hul teenstanders suksesvol dood te maak. Sekondes later verskyn 'n nuwe teenstander vinnig voor hulle. Dit was te danke aan die desperaatheid van Jiang Lan om die vrugdraende proses van die boom van die Hemelse offer Goddelike vrugte te bespoedig. Hy wou soveel bloedenergie en sielvuur as moontlik versamel voordat hy dit alles in een keer na die embrio's van die Hemelofferende Goddelike Vrugte gestuur het.

Na 'n rukkie het die paar honderd oorlewendes afgeneem tot slegs minder as 100 honderd oorlewendes.

Op hierdie oomblik vlieg die Mystical Yin en Yang Nine Water Chestnut Ring in die hande van Duan Ling Tian uit voordat die groen en rooi vlamme na 'n ander van sy teenstanders skiet. Net so het hy moeiteloos 'n hoogtepunt van die oorkoepelende hemelse opperste hemelhemel doodgemaak wat drie dieptes van die metaalwet begryp het.

Nadat hy sy teenstander vermoor het, het Duan Ling Tian opgemerk dat die versperring rondom die boom van die Hemel Offer Goddelike Vrug effens bewe toe sy teenstander se bloed energie en sielevuur daarop beland. Dit was asof die versperring uiteindelik die druk van al die bloedenergie en sielvuur voel. Die versperring het nog meer gebewe toe die bloed -energie en sielevuur van 'n opponent Ling Jue Yun pas doodgemaak het.

Duan Ling Tian het 'n stemuitsending na Ling Jue Yun gestuur om hom van sy ontdekking in kennis te stel. Dit lyk asof die formasie wat hy in sy vorige lewe voorberei het, gaan onder die impak van soveel bloedenergie en sielvuur. Of miskien kan dit nie die trekkrag van die boom van die Hemeloffer Goddelike Vrugte weerstaan ​​nie. ”

Ling Jue Yun kyk vlugtig na die versperring voordat hy sê: "Dit lyk asof dit so is." My raaiskoot is dat die deurskynende versperring slegs weer 'n dosyn piek kan weerstaan. ” Sy oë glinster terwyl hy aanhou sê, ȁTeen daardie tyd sou Jiang Lan waarskynlik die oorblywende oorlewendes doodmaak voordat die embrio's groei en vrugte dra. Ek is immers seker dat hy ook bekommerd is dat iemand die vrugte van hom kan steel. Van nou af moet ons noukeuriger aandag gee aan die versperring. As dit op die punt staan ​​om te breek, moet ons voorbereid wees en waaksaam wees. ”

Terwyl Duan Ling Tian en Ling Jue Yun met Voice Transmission gesels, het Jiang Lan ook die probleem opgemerk. Dit lyk asof ek die trekkrag van die boom van die Hemel Offer Goddelike Vrugte onderskat het As die versperring verpletter, sou die bloedenergie en sielvuur wat op die versperring opgehoop het, onmiddellik in die embrio's van die Hemelofferoffer gedompel word Vrugte … Daar is egter nog soveel oorlewendes oor … ”

Op hierdie oomblik kyk Jiang Lan na Duan Ling Tian en die ander terwyl moordopset stadig uit die diepte van sy oë opkom.


*356 III

Die besluit van die meerderheid berus ook op die gevolgtrekking dat daar "geen bewyse is dat die kongres bedoel het om die tradisionele gemeenregtelike immuniteit in § 1983-aksies op te skort nie." Ante, op 337. Trouens, daar is aansienlike bewyse in die wetgewende geskiedenis dat die Kongres wel van plan was om die immuniteit van deelnemers aan staatsgeregtelike verrigtinge op te skort.

Op versoek van versoekers [16] het die Hof die wetgewende geskiedenis van § 2 van die 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, 17 Stat. 13, nou gekodifiseer as 42 U.S. C. § 1985 (3) (1976 uitg., Supp. V). Die voorloper van § 1983 was egter § 1 van die 1871 -wet, nie § 2. Soos die meerderheid daarop wys, ante, by 337, 340-341, verskil die twee afdelings aansienlik in hul taal en doel. Dit is dus nie verbasend dat die debatte oor § 2 min lig op § 1. werp nie. Na my mening moet die ondersoek fokus op die geskiedenis van § 1. Slegs deur die *357 oorsprong van die bepaling te ondersoek, kan vasgestel word of die kongres van plan was sekere gemeenregtelike immuniteite op te hef.

Die oorsprong van § 1 kan nie ernstig bevraagteken word nie. Die taal en konsep van die bepaling is grootliks ontleen aan § 2 van die Wet op Burgerregte van 1866, 14 Stat. 27. [17] Die skrywer van § 1 het die verhouding tussen die twee wette duidelik gestel by die bekendstelling van die 1871 -maatreël:

Omdat die twee bepalings so intiem verbind is, moet 'n volledige ondersoek van die geskiedenis van § 1 van die 1871 -wet begin met § 2 van die 1866 -wet.

Die Civil Rights Act van 1866 was die eerste federale statuut wat breë beskerming op die gebied van burgerregte bied. Die hoofdoel daarvan was om die nuut geemansipeerde neger gelykheid met blankes voor die wet te waarborg. Artikel 2 van die wet het strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid verleen vir enige persoon wat, as gevolg van die wet, 'n ander van sy regte ontneem het weens ras. Hierdie bepaling is breedvoerig bespreek. Omstredenheid fokus grootliks oor die beoogde toepassing daarvan op staatsamptenare wat 'n integrale deel van die geregtelike proses is.

Die aanspreeklikheid van staatsregterlike amptenare en alle amptelike deelnemers aan staatsgeregtelike verrigtinge ingevolge § 2 is uitdruklik en herhaaldelik bevestig. [18] Die idee van immuniteit vir sulke amptenare is deeglik gediskrediteer. Die borg van die Senaat van *359 die Wet beskou die idee "gelyk aan die maksimum van die Engelse wet dat die koning geen onreg kan doen nie. Dit plaas amptenare bo die wet. Dit is die leerstuk waaruit die rebellie [die burgeroorlog] uitgebroei is. " Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1758 (1866) (Sen. Trumbull). Dus was § 2 'direk gerig op die staatsgeregtigheid'. Id., te 1155 (Rep. Eldridge). Sien ook id., om 1778 (sen. Johnson, lid van die Senaat se regterlike komitee) (§ 2 van die 1866 -wet "slaan op die regterlike departement van die regerings van die state").

Twee onsuksesvolle pogings is aangewend om § 2 te wysig. Eerstens het verteenwoordiger Miller 'n wysiging ingedien om staatsregters vry te stel van strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid. Id., op 1156. Tweedens, en veral van besondere belang, het verteenwoordiger Bingham 'n wysiging ingedien om 'n siviele aksie te vervang deur die kriminele sanksies in die voorstel. Id., by 1266, 1271-1272. Die borg van die 1866 -wet, verteenwoordiger Wilson, het die wysiging grootliks gekant op grond daarvan dat dit die finansiële las van die beskerming van burgerregte op arm individue in plaas van op die regering sou plaas. Id., op 1295. Terselfdertyd beklemtoon hy dat daar "geen verskil in die beginsel daaraan verbonde is nie" tussen 'n siviele regsmiddel en 'n kriminele sanksie. Ibid.

Nadat die wetsontwerp van 1866 die Senaat en Huis goedgekeur het, het president Andrew Johnson dit veto gelê. Sy opposisie was gedeeltelik gebaseer op die feit dat § 2 van die wetsontwerp 'die regterlike mag van die staat binnedring'. Veto Boodskap, in id., om 1680. Die president het gewaarsku dat "regters van die staatshowe ... [en] bevelhebbers en balju's, wat as ministeriële beamptes prosesse moet uitvoer, goedgekeur deur staatswette en deur staatsregters uitgevaardig is, in die uitvoering van hul vonnisse. voor ander tribunale gebring word en daar boetes en gevangenisstraf opgelê word vir die uitvoering van die pligte wat sulke staatswette kan oplê. " Ibid. Binne twee weke het die Senaat en die Huis die veto oortree. Verskeie kongreslede het op die president se kritiek gereageer en vrylik toegegee dat § 2 van die wetgewing op staatsregstelsels gerig was. As 'n lid van die Huisregeringskomitee, het verteenwoordiger *360 Lawrence verklaar: "Ek antwoord dat dit beter is om die regterlike mag van die staat binne te val as om toe te laat om die burgerregte van die burgers binne te val, in te val en te vernietig. 'N Geregtelike mag verdraai tot sulke gebruike moet vinnig binnegedring word. Die grief sou onbeduidend wees. " Id., op 1837. Sien ook id., om 1758 (antwoord van sen. Trumbull op die veto -boodskap van die president) id., om 1838 (verklaring van Rep. Clarke). Die wetsontwerp het op 9 April 1866 wet geword.

Hierdie hof het van tyd tot tyd § 1983 gelees teen die 'agtergrond' van gemeenregtelike aanspreeklikheid. [19] Die agtergrond wat die Wet op Burgerregte van 1866 verskaf het, is egter veel meer relevant vir hierdie saak. Verteenwoordiger Bingham, wat die wysiging ingevoer het om burgerlike aanspreeklikheid te vervang deur strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid in die Wet van 1866, het teen die tyd van die 42d -kongres voorsitter geword van die Huisregterkomitee. Senator Trumbull, borg van die Senaat van die 1866 -wet, was voorsitter van die Senaat se regterlike komitee in 1871. Verteenwoordiger Shellabarger, wat aan die debatte oor die wet van 1866 deelgeneem het, [20] het die wet van 1871 opgestel.

Die kongres was deeglik bewus daarvan dat die 'model' vir § 1 van die 1871 -wet in die Wet op Burgerregte van 1866 gevind kan word. Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871) (Rep. Shellabarger). Die bestuurder van die wetsontwerp in die senaat, George Edmunds, het beklemtoon dat § 1 slegs 'die uitvoering van die beginsels van die wetsontwerp op burgerregte' was wat in 1866 aangeneem is. Id., op 568. Verteenwoordiger Coburn verklaar dat § 1 "'n burgerlike regsorg parallel met die strafbepaling" in die Burgerregtewet gee. 'As hierdie strafafdeling geldig is en niemand dit durf bestry nie, is die siviele regsmiddel wettig en onbetwisbaar.' Id., by 461. Sien ook id., op 429 (Rep. McHenry in opposisie) *361 ("Die eerste afdeling van die wetsontwerp is bedoel as 'n wysiging van die burgerregtewet") id., by 365 (Rep. Arthur in opposisie) (§ 1 is "kumulatief, sover dit gaan, met sekere bepalings in die wetsontwerp op burgerregte").

Die feit dat § 2 van die Wet op Burgerregte die model was vir § 1 van die 1871 -wet, verduidelik waarom die debatte in die 42d -kongres oor § 1 so perfek was. [21] Van al die maatreëls in die Ku Klux Klan -wet het § 1 die minste twis veroorsaak, aangesien dit bloot 'n burgerlike eweknie was vir die veel meer omstrede strafregtelike bepaling in die 1866 -wet. Sien id., by 568 (sen. Edmunds) ("Die eerste afdeling is een waarvan ek glo niemand beswaar het nie") id., by App. 313 (Rep. Burchard) ("Ek kan geen besware teen die eerste afdeling sien nie, omdat ek 'n regsgeding in die Verenigde State se howe in die Amerikaanse regshowe aanhangig maak)) Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U. S., op 665 (debat oor § 1 was beperk en die afdeling sonder wysiging aangeneem) Ontwikkelinge in die wet - afdeling 1983 en federalisme, 90 Harv. L. Eerw. 1133, 1155 (1977).

Teenstanders van § 1 van die 1871 -wet herhaal dieselfde argumente wat teen § 2 van die 1866 -wet aangevoer is. Hulle het gewaarsku oor die aanspreeklikheid vir regterlike beamptes wat sou voortspruit uit die inwerkingtreding van § 1. [22] In die uitbeelding van die onvermydelike gevolge van die 1871 -wet wys senator Thurman op strafregtelike vervolging van staatsregterlike amptenare wat reeds onder die 1866 plaasgevind het. Daad. [23] Hierdie stellings kan kwalik afgemaak word as oordrewe retoriek van teenstanders van die 1871 -wet. In plaas daarvan weerspieël hulle bloot die feit dat die stryd om aanspreeklikheid vir diegene wat 'n integrale deel van die regsproses was, reeds in 1866 gevoer is toe die kongres *362 die veel ernstiger strafmaatreël teen staatsregstelsels aanvaar het. Artikel 1, daarenteen, het voorsiening gemaak vir "die milde remedie van 'n siviele aksie." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 482 (1871) (Rep. Wilson, lid van die House Judiciary Committee). Dit was dus nie verbasend dat die argumente van die teenstanders van die 1871 -wet op dowe ore sou val nie. Dit is ook opmerklik dat verteenwoordiger Shellabarger, wat skaars huiwerig was om sprekers wat sy voorstel verkeerd vertolk het, te onderbreek, [24] nooit die karakteristieke van die teenstanders betwis het met betrekking tot die aanspreeklikheid van staatsregters nie. [25]

Om aan te neem dat die kongres, wat 'n kriminele sanksie teen staatsregterlike amptenare ingestel het, [26] bedoel het sub silentio om dieselfde amptenare vry te stel van die burgerlike eweknie, benader die ongelooflike. [27] Balju's en marshalle, terwyl hulle 'n tipies geregtelike funksie vervul het, soos die bedieningsproses, was volgens die wet van 1866 duidelik aanspreeklik, nieteenstaande president Johnson se besware. Omdat, *363 soos verteenwoordiger Shellabarger verklaar het, § 1 van die 1871 -wet 'n siviele regsmiddel "in identies dieselfde geval" of "op dieselfde feitestaat" as § 2 van die 1866 -wet verskaf het, het dit uiteraard alles wat immuniteit mag hê, oortref. bestaan ​​daar in gemeenreg vir hierdie deelnemers aan die geregtelike proses in 1871.

Die gebrek aan historiese ondersteuning vir getuienis -immuniteit kontrasteer sterk met die aansienlike historiese steun vir wetgewende immuniteit wat hierdie hof erken het in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951), 'n saak waarop die meerderheid steun. Ante, op 330, 334. Wetgewende immuniteit het 'n unieke historiese posisie geniet, aangesien dit in die parlementêre stryd van die 17de eeu gedink is en vervat is in die spraak- en debatsklousule van die Grondwet. Die oorgrote meerderheid state het grondwetlike bepalings aangeneem wat 'n parallelle beskerming bied teen burgerlike en strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid. Sien 341 U.S., op 372-375.

Boonop ondersteun die geskiedenis van § 1 die inkorporering van wetgewende immuniteit. Byvoorbeeld, toe die spook om staatswetgewers aanspreeklik te hou ingevolge § 2 van die 1866 -wet deur president Johnson se vetoregboodskap geopper is, [28], was die Senaat se borg van die wet vinnig om so 'n voorneme te ontken. Senator Trumbull het breedvoerig aangevoer dat wetgewers nie binne die omvang van die wet val nie, omdat hulle wette eerder as 'kleur' ​​van staatsreg opstel. [29] Wat ook al die geldigheid van hierdie onderskeid is, weerspieël dit ongetwyfeld die onwilligheid van die kongres om die immuniteit van staatswetgewers in te boet. Alhoewel die Radikale Republikeinse Kongres 'n 'vaste voorstander van wetgewende vryheid' was, het 341 VSA op 376 geen aandag aan staatshowe getoon nie. [30] Die debatte oor die 1871 -wet wemel van vyandige opmerkings wat gerig is op staatsgeregtelike *364 stelsels. [31] Dit is heeltemal redelik om tot die gevolgtrekking te kom dat die kongres van plan was om staatswetgewers vry te stel van burgerlike aanspreeklikheid ingevolge § 1 van die 1871 -wet. Daar bestaan ​​geen soortgelyke bewyse om 'n immuniteit te ondersteun vir polisiebeamptes wat as getuies getuig nie. [32]

Die meerderheid baseer ook sy besluit op oorwegings van openbare beleid, wat na bewering absolute immuniteit vereis vir polisiebeamptes wat volgens § 1983 gedagvaar is vir hul getuienis as getuies. Ante, by 341-345. Hierdie hof het absolute immuniteit slegs erken in 'buitengewone situasies' waar openbare beleid dit 'noodsaaklik' maak. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507 (1978). [33] Na my mening val die saak vir immuniteit teen amptelike getuies ver onder hierdie standaard.

*365 Polisiebeamptes en ander regeringsamptenare verskil aansienlik van private burgers, rondom wie gemeenregtelike leerstellings van getuienis-immuniteit ontwikkel het. 'N Polisiebeampte kom na die getuiebank geklee met die gesag van die staat. Sy amptelike status gee hom geloofwaardigheid en skep 'n veel groter potensiaal vir skade as wat die gemiddelde burger getuig. [34] Die situasie word vererger as die amptenaar gebruik maak van spesiale kundigheid. 'N Polisieman wat getuig van 'n vingerafdruk -identifikasie of 'n mediese ondersoeker wat getuig van die oorsaak van 'n dood, kan 'n kritieke impak op 'n beskuldigde se verhoor hê. [35] Terselfdertyd bestaan ​​die bedreiging van strafregtelike vervolging, wat 'n belangrike beperking op die getuienis van die gemiddelde getuie is, in die konteks van polisie-getuie feitlik nie. Ondanks die skynbare voorkoms van meineed van die polisie, toon [36] aanklaers uiterste *366 huiwering om polisiebeamptes strafregtelik aan te kla weens hul behoefte om noue werksverhoudinge met wetstoepassingsagentskappe te onderhou. [37] Die meerderheid sluit dus 'n siviele sanksie uit in presies die situasies waar die nood die dringendste is.

Boonop is die gevaar dat amptelike getuies deur die vrees vir 'n skadevergoedingsaksie belemmer kan word, veel groter as wat die geval sou wees met private getuies. Polisielede het gewoonlik die plig om te getuig oor aangeleenthede wat hul amptelike optrede behels. Die idee dat amptenare met 'n professionele belang om kriminele veroordelings te beveilig, hul getuienis ten gunste van 'n beskuldigde sal verdoesel om die risiko van 'n siviele saak te vermy, kan slegs met skepsis beskou word. Boonop is polisiebeamptes gewoonlik geïsoleer van enige ekonomiese ontbering wat verband hou met regsgedinge op grond van gedrag binne die omvang van hul bevoegdheid. [38] In elk geval, as die hof werklik aan polisiebeamptes wil gee "elke aanmoediging om alle relevante inligting binne hul kennis volledig bekend te maak", ante, op 335 (kwoteer Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S., op 439 (WHITE, J., stem saam in die vonnis)), moet dit ten minste § 1983 -pakke toelaat wat beweer dat amptenare belangrike inligting weerhou het terwyl hulle getuig. [39]

*367 Die meerderheid se grootste bekommernis blyk dat § 1983 -klagte teen polisiegetuies 'aansienlike laste op die regstelsel en op die wetstoepassingshulpbronne' sal plaas. Ante, op 343. As 'n empiriese aangeleentheid is hierdie bewering ongegrond. Sowel die Sixth Circuit as die District of Columbia Circuit het sulke pakke al langer as vyf jaar toegelaat, sien ante, op 328-329, n. 4, maar daar is geen merkbare afname in regsbronne in die kringe in vergelyking met ander kringe wat sulke regsgedinge uitskakel nie. Boonop dui 'n omvattende studie van § 1983 -gedagtes wat in die Sentraal -distrik van Kalifornië ingedien is, wat Los Angeles insluit, aan dat slegs ongeveer 30 aksies vir vals arrestasie jaarliks ​​in die distrik ingedien is. [40] Polisiebeamptes arresteer baie meer gereeld as wat hulle getuig, en 'n arrestasie sal ongetwyfeld baie mense ontevrede maak. Tog vorm regsgedinge wat op sulke bewerings gebaseer is, slegs 0,5% van alle sake wat in die Sentraal-distrik aanhangig gemaak is, [41] of gemiddeld slegs een vir elke 243 voltydse polisie *368 beamptes in die stad Los Angeles. [42] Dit blyk nie 'n 'beduidende las' te wees nie. [43] Die eenvoudige feit is dat praktiese struikelblokke alleen genoeg is om die meeste individue te weerhou om die polisie te dagvaar vir amptelike wangedrag. [44]

By die oorweging van die mededingende belange wat op hierdie gebied op die spel is, vind die meerderheid 'n baie eensydige balans. Dit vermy enige gekwalifiseerde immuniteit ten gunste van 'n absolute immuniteit. Die blote ondersoek na te goeder trou word dus so ongewens geag dat ons eenvoudig moet toegee aan die moontlikheid dat regeringsamptenare hul regte kwaadwillig sal ontneem. [45] Van my kant kan ek in hierdie geval nie dink hoe patentskending van individuele regte in die naam van die openbare belang geduld kan word nie. "Die essensie van burgerlike vryheid bestaan ​​beslis uit die reg van elke individu om die beskerming van die wette op te eis, wanneer hy 'n besering opdoen." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Krans 137, 163 (1803).


Inhoud

Daar was baie terroriste -aanvalle in Mumbai sedert die 13 gekoördineerde bomontploffings wat 257 mense op 12 Maart 1993 dood en 700 beseer het. [36] Die aanvalle van 1993 is uitgevoer as wraak vir vroeër godsdienstige onluste wat baie Moslems doodgemaak het. [37]

Op 6 Desember 2002 het 'n ontploffing in 'n BESTE bus naby Ghatkopar -stasie twee mense gedood en 28 beseer. [38] Die bombardement het plaasgevind op die 10de herdenking van die sloping van die Babri -moskee in Ayodhya. [39] 'n Fietsbom het naby die Vile Parle -stasie in Mumbai ontplof en een persoon is dood en 25 gewond op 27 Januarie 2003, 'n dag voor die besoek van die premier van Indië Atal Bihari Vajpayee aan die stad. [40] Op 13 Maart 2003, 'n dag na die 10de herdenking van die Bombay -bomaanvalle in 1993, het 'n bom in 'n treinkompartement naby die Mulund -stasie ontplof en 10 mense dood en 70 gewond. [41] Op 28 Julie 2003 het 'n ontploffing in 'n BESTE bus in Ghatkopar het 4 mense dood en 32 beseer. [42] Op 25 Augustus 2003 het twee bomme in Suid -Mumbai ontplof, een naby die Gateway of India en die ander by Zaveri Bazaar in Kalbadevi. Minstens 44 mense is dood en 150 beseer. [43] Op 11 Julie 2006 het sewe bomme binne 11 minute op die Suburban Railway in Mumbai ontplof, [44] het 209 mense doodgemaak, waaronder 22 buitelanders [45] [46] [47] en meer as 700 beseerdes. [48] ​​[49] Volgens die polisie in Mumbai is die bomaanvalle uitgevoer deur Lashkar-e-Taiba en Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). [50] [51]

'N Groep mans, soms as 24 en ander tye 26, [52] het opleiding in mariene oorlogvoering ontvang by 'n afgeleë kamp in die bergagtige Muzaffarabad in Pakistan. Na berig word, het 'n deel van die opleiding in die Mangla Dam -reservoir in Pakistan plaasgevind. [53]

Volgens Indiese en Amerikaanse mediaberigte het die rekrute die volgende stadiums van opleiding ondergaan:

  • Sielkundig: Indoktrinasie tot Islamistiese Jihadi -idees, insluitend beeldmateriaal van gruweldade wat Moslems in Indië, [54] Tsjetsjenië, Palestina en oor die hele wêreld gely het.
  • Basiese geveg: Lashkar se basiese gevegsopleiding en metodologie kursus, die Daura Aam.
  • Gevorderde opleiding: gekies om gevorderde gevegsopleiding te ondergaan by 'n kamp naby Mansehra, 'n kursus wat die organisasie die Daura Khaas. [54] According to an unnamed source at the US Defense Department this includes advanced weapons and explosives training supervised by former members of the Pakistan Army, [29] along with survival training and further indoctrination.
  • Commando Training: Finally, an even smaller group selected for specialised commando tactics training and marine navigation training given to the Fedayeen unit selected in order to target Mumbai. [55]

From the recruits, ten were handpicked for the Mumbai mission. [56] They also received training in swimming and sailing, besides the use of high-end weapons and explosives under the supervision of LeT commanders. According to a media report citing an unnamed former Defence Department Official of the US, the intelligence agencies of the US had determined that former officers from Pakistan's Army and Inter-Services Intelligence agency assisted actively and continuously in training. [29] They were given blueprints of all the four targets – The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi Trident, Nariman House and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus.

The first events were detailed around 20:00 Indian Standard Time (IST) on 26 November, when 10 men in inflatable speedboats came ashore at two locations in Colaba. They reportedly told local Marathi-speaking fishermen who asked them who they were to "mind their own business" before they split up and headed two different ways. The fishermen's subsequent report to the police department received little response and local police were helpless. [57]

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus Edit

The Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT) was attacked by two gunmen, Ismail Khan and Ajmal Kasab. [58] Kasab was later caught alive by the police and identified by eyewitnesses. The attacks began around 21:30 when the two men entered the passenger hall and opened fire [59] using AK-47 rifles. [60] The attackers killed 58 people and injured 104 others, [60] their assault ending at about 22:45. [59] Security forces and emergency services arrived shortly afterwards. Announcements by a railway announcer, Vishnu Dattaram Zende, alerted passengers to leave the station and saved many lives. [61] [62] The two gunmen fled the scene and fired at pedestrians and police officers in the streets, killing eight police officers. The attackers passed a police station. Knowing that they were outgunned against the heavily armed terrorists, the police officers at the station, instead of confronting the terrorists, decided to switch off the lights and secure the gates.

The attackers then headed towards Cama Hospital with intent to kill patients, [63] but the hospital staff locked all of the patient wards. A team of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorist Squad led by police chief Hemant Karkare searched the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and then left in pursuit of Kasab and Khan. Kasab and Khan opened fire on the vehicle in a lane next to the hospital, and received return fire in response. Karkare, Vijay Salaskar, Ashok Kamte and one of their officers were killed. The only survivor, Constable Arun Jadhav, was severely wounded. [64] Kasab and Khan seized the police vehicle but later abandoned it and seized a passenger car instead. They then ran into a police roadblock, which had been set up after Jadhav radioed for help. [65] A gun battle then ensued in which Khan was killed and Kasab was wounded. After a physical struggle, Kasab was arrested. [66] A police officer, Tukaram Omble, was also killed when he tried to disarm Kasab by wrestling his weapon away from him.

Leopold Cafe Edit

The Leopold Cafe, a popular restaurant and bar on Colaba Causeway in South Mumbai, was one of the first sites to be attacked. [67] Two attackers, Shoaib alias Soheb and Nazir alias Abu Umer, [58] opened fire on the cafe on the evening of 26 November between 21:30 and 21:48, killing 10 people (including some foreigners) and injuring many more. [68]

Bomb blasts in taxis Edit

There were two explosions in taxis caused by timer bombs. The first one occurred at 22:40 at Vile Parle, killing the driver and a passenger. The second explosion took place at Wadi Bunder between 22:20 and 22:25. Three people, including the driver of the taxi were killed, and about 15 others were injured. [22] [69]

Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and Oberoi Trident Edit

Two hotels, The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and the Oberoi Trident, were among the four locations targeted. Six explosions were reported at the Taj Hotel – one in the lobby, two in the elevators, three in the restaurant – and one at the Oberoi Trident. [70] [71] At the Taj, firefighters rescued 200 hostages from windows using ladders during the first night.

CNN initially reported on the morning of 27 November 2008 that the hostage situation at the Taj Hotel had been resolved and quoted the police chief of Maharashtra stating that all hostages were freed [46] however, it was learned later that day that there were still two attackers holding hostages, including foreigners, in the Taj Hotel. [72]

A number of European Parliament Committee on International Trade delegates were staying in the Taj Hotel when it was attacked, [73] but none of them were injured. [74] British Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Sajjad Karim (who was in the lobby when attackers initially opened fire there) and German Social Democrat MEP Erika Mann were hiding in different parts of the building. [73] Also reported present was Spanish MEP Ignasi Guardans, who was barricaded in a hotel room. [75] [76] Another British Conservative MEP, Syed Kamall, reported that he along with several other MEPs left the hotel and went to a nearby restaurant shortly before the attack. [73] Kamall also reported that Polish MEP Jan Masiel was thought to have been sleeping in his hotel room when the attacks started, but eventually left the hotel safely. [77] Kamall and Guardans reported that a Hungarian MEP's assistant was shot. [73] [78] Also caught up in the shooting were the President of Madrid, Esperanza Aguirre, while checking in at the Oberoi Trident, [78] and Indian MP N. N. Krishnadas of Kerala and Gulam Noon while having dinner at a restaurant in the Taj Hotel. [79] [80]

Nariman House Edit

Nariman House, a Chabad Lubavitch Jewish centre in Colaba known as the Mumbai Chabad House, was taken over by two attackers and several residents were held hostage. [81] Police evacuated adjacent buildings and exchanged fire with the attackers, wounding one. Local residents were told to stay inside. The attackers threw a grenade into a nearby lane, causing no casualties. NSG commandos arrived from Delhi, and a naval helicopter took an aerial survey. During the first day, 9 hostages were rescued from the first floor. The following day, the house was stormed by NSG commandos fast-roping from helicopters onto the roof, covered by snipers positioned in nearby buildings. After a long battle, one NSG commando, Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, and both perpetrators were killed. [82] [83] Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka Holtzberg, who was six months pregnant, were murdered with four other hostages inside the house by the attackers. [84]

According to radio transmissions picked up by Indian intelligence, the attackers "would be told by their handlers in Pakistan that the lives of Jews were worth 50 times those of non-Jews". Injuries on some of the bodies indicated that they may have been tortured. [85] [86]

NSG raid Edit

During the attacks, both hotels were surrounded by Rapid Action Force personnel and Marine Commandos (MARCOS) and National Security Guards (NSG) commandos. [87] [88] When reports emerged that attackers were receiving television broadcasts, feeds to the hotels were blocked. [89] Security forces stormed both hotels, and all nine attackers were killed by the morning of 29 November. [90] [91] Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan of the NSG was martyred during the rescue of Commando Sunil Yadav, who was hit in the leg by a bullet during the rescue operations at Taj. [92] [93] 32 hostages were killed at the Oberoi Trident. [94]

NSG commandos then took on the Nariman house, and a Naval helicopter took an aerial survey. During the first day, 9 hostages were rescued from the first floor. The following day, the house was stormed by NSG commandos fast-roping from helicopters onto the roof, covered by snipers positioned in nearby buildings. NSG Commando Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, who was part of the team that fast-roped onto Nariman House, died after a long battle in which both perpetrators were also killed. [82] [83] By the morning of 28 November, the NSG had secured the Jewish outreach centre at Nariman House as well as the Oberoi Trident hotel. They also incorrectly believed that the Taj Palace and Towers had been cleared of attackers, and soldiers were leading hostages and holed-up guests to safety, and removing bodies of those killed in the attacks. [95] [96] [97] However, later news reports indicated that there were still two or three attackers in the Taj, with explosions heard and gunfire exchanged. [97] Fires were also reported at the ground floor of the Taj with plumes of smoke arising from the first floor. [97] The final operation at the Taj Palace hotel was completed by the NSG commandos at 08:00 on 29 November, killing three attackers and resulting in the conclusion of the attacks. [98] The NSG rescued 250 people from the Oberoi, 300 from the Taj and 60 people (members of 12 different families) from Nariman House. [99] In addition, police seized a boat filled with arms and explosives anchored at Mazgaon dock off Mumbai harbour. [100]

The Mumbai attacks were planned and directed by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants inside Pakistan, and carried out by 10 young armed men trained and sent to Mumbai and directed from inside Pakistan via mobile phones and VoIP. [28] [29] [101]

In July 2009 Pakistani authorities confirmed that LeT plotted and financed the attacks from LeT camps in Karachi and Thatta. [102] In November 2009, Pakistani authorities charged seven men they had arrested earlier, of planning and executing the assault. [16]

Mumbai police department originally identified 37 suspects—including two Pakistani army officers—for their alleged involvement in the plot. All but two of the suspects, many of whom are identified only through aliases, are Pakistani. [103] Two more suspects arrested in the United States in October 2009 for other attacks were also found to have been involved in planning the Mumbai attacks. [104] [105] One of these men, Pakistani American David Headley (born Daood Sayed Gilani), was found to have made several trips to India before the attacks and gathered video and GPS information on behalf of the plotters.

In April 2011, the United States issued arrest warrants for four Pakistani men as suspects in the attack. The men, Sajid Mir, Abu Qahafa, Mazhar Iqbal alias "Major Iqbal", are believed to be members of Lashkar-e-Taiba and helped plan and train the attackers. [106]

Negotiations with Pakistan Edit

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and President Asif Ali Zardari condemned the attacks. [24] [25] Pakistan promised to assist in the investigation and President Zardari vowed "strong action against any Pakistani elements found involved in the attack". [107]

Pakistan initially denied that Pakistanis were responsible for the attacks, blaming plotters in Bangladesh and Indian criminals, [108] a claim refuted by India, [109] and saying they needed information from India on other bombings first. [110]

Pakistani authorities finally agreed that Ajmal Kasab was a Pakistani on 7 January 2009, [31] [111] [112] and registered a case against three other Pakistani nationals. [113]

The Indian government supplied evidence to Pakistan and other governments, in the form of interrogations, weapons, and call records of conversations during the attacks. [114] [115] In addition, Indian government officials said that the attacks were so sophisticated that they must have had official backing from Pakistani "agencies", an accusation denied by Pakistan. [29] [111]

Under US and UN pressure, Pakistan arrested a few members of Jamaat ud-Dawa and briefly put its founder under house arrest, but he was found to be free a few days later. [116] A year after the attacks, Mumbai police continued to complain that Pakistani authorities were not co-operating by providing information for their investigation. [117] Meanwhile, journalists in Pakistan said security agencies were preventing them from interviewing people from Kasab's village. [118] [119] The then Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the Pakistani authorities had not shared any information about American suspects Headley and Rana, but that the FBI had been more forthcoming. [120]

An Indian report, summarising intelligence gained from India's interrogation of David Headley, [121] was released in October 2010. It alleged that Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) had provided support for the attacks by providing funding for reconnaissance missions in Mumbai. [122] The report included Headley's claim that Lashkar-e-Taiba's chief military commander, Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, had close ties to the ISI. [121] He alleged that "every big action of LeT is done in close coordination with [the] ISI." [122]

In 2018, during an interview with newspaper Dagbreek, [123] Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reportedly indirectly accepted Pakistan's involvement in not preventing the Mumbai attacks. [124] [125]

Ondersoek Redigeer

According to investigations, the attackers travelled by sea from Karachi, Pakistan, across the Arabian Sea, hijacked the Indian fishing trawler 'Kuber', killed the crew of four, then forced the captain to sail to Mumbai. After murdering the captain, the attackers entered Mumbai on a rubber dinghy. The captain of 'Kuber', Amar Singh Solanki, had earlier been imprisoned for six months in a Pakistani jail for illegally fishing in Pakistani waters. [126] The attackers stayed and were trained by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in a safehouse at Azizabad in Karachi before boarding a small boat for Mumbai. [127]

David Headley was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, and between 2002 and 2009 Headley travelled extensively as part of his work for LeT. Headley received training in small arms and countersurveillance from LeT, built a network of connections for the group, and was chief scout in scoping out targets for Mumbai attack [128] [129] having allegedly been given $25,000 in cash in 2006 by an ISI officer known as Major Iqbal, The officer also helped him arrange a communications system for the attack, and oversaw a model of the Taj Hotel so that gunmen could know their way inside the target, according to Headley's testimony to Indian authorities. Headley also helped ISI recruit Indian agents to monitor Indian troop levels and movements, according to a US official. At the same time, Headley was also an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Administration, and Headley's wives warned American officials of Headley's involvement with LeT and his plotting attacks, warning specifically that the Taj Hotel may be their target. [128]

US officials believed that the Inter-Services Intelligence (I.S.I.) officers provided support to Lashkar-e-Taiba militants who carried out the attacks. [130] Disclosures made by former American intelligence contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had intercepted communications between the Lashkar boat and the LeT headquarters in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and passed the alert on to RAW on 18 November, eight days before the terrorists actually struck Mumbai. [131] In the hours after the attack, the New York City Police Department sent Brandon del Pozo, an official from their Intelligence Division, to investigate the incident in order to understand what vulnerabilities its methods posed for New York City. [132]

The arrest of Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Hamza in June 2012 provided further clarity on how the plot was hatched. According to Abu Hamza, the attacks were previously scheduled for 2006, using Indian youth for the job. However, a huge cache of AK-47's and RDX, which were to be used for the attacks, was recovered from Aurangabad in 2006, thus leading to the dismantling of the original plot. Subsequently, Abu Hamza fled to Pakistan and along with Lashkar commanders, scouted for Pakistani youth to be used for the attacks. In September 2007, 10 people were selected for the mission. In September 2008, these people tried sailing to Mumbai from Karachi, but couldn't complete their mission due to choppy waters. These men made a second attempt in November 2008, and successfully managed to execute the final attacks. David Headley's disclosures, that three Pakistani army officers were associated with the planning and execution of the attack were substantiated by Ansari's revelations during his interrogation. [133] [134]

After Ansari's arrest, Pakistan's Foreign Office claimed they had received information that up to 40 Indian nationals were involved in the attacks. [135]

Method Edit

The attackers had planned the attack several months ahead of time and knew some areas well enough to vanish and reappear after security forces had left. Several sources have quoted Kasab telling the police that the group received help from Mumbai residents. [136] [137] The attackers used at least three SIM cards purchased on the Indian side of the border with Bangladesh. [138] There were also reports of a SIM card purchased in the US state of New Jersey. [139] Police had also mentioned that Faheem Ansari, an Indian Lashkar operative who had been arrested in February 2008, had scouted the Mumbai targets for the November attacks. [140] Later, the police arrested two Indian suspects, Mikhtar Ahmad, who is from Srinagar in Kashmir, and Tausif Rehman, a resident of Kolkata. They supplied the SIM cards, one in Calcutta, and the other in New Delhi. [141]

The attackers used a satellite phone and cell phones to talk to each other as well as their handlers that were based in Pakistan. In transcripts intercepted by Indian authorities between the attackers and their handlers, the handlers provided the attackers with encouragement, tactical advice, and information gained from media coverage. The attackers used both personal cell phones and those obtained from their victims to communicate with each other and the news media. Although the attackers were encouraged to murder hostages, the attackers were in communication with the news media via cell phones to make demands in return for the release of hostages. This was believed to be done in order to further confuse Indian authorities that they were dealing with primarily a hostage situation. [142]

Type 86 Grenades made by China's state-owned Norinco were used in the attacks. [143]

There were also indications that the attackers had been taking steroids. [144] The gunman who survived said that the attackers had used Google Earth to familiarise themselves with the locations of buildings used in the attacks. [145]

There were 10 gunmen, nine of whom were subsequently shot dead and one captured by security forces. [146] [147] Witnesses reported that they seemed to be in their early twenties, wore black T-shirts and jeans, and that they smiled and looked happy as they shot their victims. [148]

It was initially reported that some of the attackers were British citizens, [149] [150] but the Indian government later stated that there was no evidence to confirm this. [151] Similarly, early reports of 12 gunmen [152] were also later shown to be incorrect. [114]

On 9 December, the 10 attackers were identified by Mumbai police, along with their home towns in Pakistan: Ajmal Amir from Faridkot, Abu Ismail Dera Ismail Khan from Dera Ismail Khan, Hafiz Arshad and Babr Imran from Multan, Javed from Okara, Shoaib from Sialkot, Nazir Ahmed and Nasir from Faisalabad, Abdul Rahman from Arifwalla, and Fahadullah from Dipalpur Taluka. Dera Ismail Khan is in the North-West Frontier Province the rest of the towns are in Pakistani Punjab. [153]

On 6 April 2010, the Home Minister of Maharashtra State, which includes Mumbai, informed the Assembly that the bodies of the nine killed Pakistani gunmen from the 2008 attack on Mumbai were buried in a secret location in January 2010. The bodies had been in the mortuary of a Mumbai hospital after Muslim clerics in the city refused to let them be buried on their grounds. [154]

Attackers Edit

Only one of the 10 attackers, Ajmal Kasab, survived the attack. He was hanged in Yerwada jail in 2012. [155] The other nine attackers killed during the onslaught were Hafiz Arshad alias Abdul Rehman Bada, Abdul Rahman Chhota, Javed alias Abu Ali, Fahadullah alias Abu Fahad, Ismail Khan alias Abu Ismail, Babar Imran alias Abu Akasha, Nasir alias Abu Umar, Nazir alias Abu Umer and Shoaib alias Abu Soheb.

Arrests Edit

Ajmal Kasab was the only attacker arrested alive by police. At first, he deposed to police inspector Ramesh Mahale that he had come to India "to see Amitabh Bachchan's bungalow", and that he was apprehended by the Mumbai Police outside the bungalow. [54] [156] Much of the information about the attackers' preparation, travel, and movements comes from his subsequent confessions to the Mumbai police. [157]

On 12 February 2009 Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that Pakistani national Javed Iqbal, who acquired VoIP phones in Spain for the Mumbai attackers, and Hamad Ameen Sadiq, who had facilitated money transfer for the attack, had been arrested. [113] Two other men known as Khan and Riaz, but whose full names were not given, were also arrested. [5] Two Pakistanis were arrested in Brescia, Italy (east of Milan) on 21 November 2009, after being accused of providing logistical support to the attacks and transferring more than US$200 to Internet accounts using a false ID. [158] [159] They had Red Corner Notices issued against them by Interpol for their suspected involvement and it was issued after the last year's strikes. [160]

In October 2009, two Chicago men were arrested and charged by the FBI for involvement in "terrorism" abroad, David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana. Headley, a Pakistani-American, was charged in November 2009 with scouting locations for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. [161] [162] Headley is reported to have posed as an American Jew and is believed to have links with militant Islamist groups based in Bangladesh. [163] On 18 March 2010, Headley pleaded guilty to a dozen charges against him thereby avoiding going to trial.

In December 2009, the FBI charged Abdur Rehman Hashim Syed, a retired major in the Pakistani army, for planning the attacks in association with Headley. [164]

On 15 January 2010, in a successful snatch operation R&AW agents nabbed Sheikh Abdul Khwaja, one of the handlers of the 26/11 attacks, chief of HuJI India operations and a most wanted suspect in India, from Colombo, Sri Lanka, and brought him over to Hyderabad, India for formal arrest. [165]

On 25 June 2012, the Delhi Police Department arrested Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Hamza, one of the key suspects in the attack at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi. His arrest was touted as the most significant development in the case since Kasab's arrest. [166] Security agencies had been chasing him for three years in Delhi. Ansari is a Lashker-e-Taiba ultra and the Hindi tutor of the 10 attackers who were responsible for the Mumbai attacks in 2008. [167] [168] He was apprehended, after he was arrested and deported to India by Saudi Intelligence officials as per official request by Indian authorities. [169] After Ansari's arrest, investigations revealed that in 2009 he allegedly stayed for a day in a room in Old Legislators's Hostel, belonging to Fauzia Khan, a former MLA and minister in Maharashtra Government. The minister, however, denied having any links with him. Home Minister P. Chidambaram asserted that Ansari was provided a safe place in Pakistan and was present in the control room, which could not have been established without active State support. Ansari's interrogation further revealed that Sajid Mir and a Pakistani Army major visited India under fake names as cricket spectators to survey targets in Delhi and Mumbai for about a fortnight. [170] [171] [172]

A number of suspects were also arrested on false charges. At least two of them spent nearly eight years in prison and were not paid any compensation by the Indian government. [173]

Nasionaliteit Deaths Injured
Indië 141 256
Verenigde State 6 [b] [174] [175] 2 [175]
Israel 4 [176]
Duitsland 3 [150] 3
Australië 2 [177] 2
Kanada 2 [178] 2
Frankryk 2 [179]
Italië 1 [180]
Verenigde Koninkryk 1 [c] [181] 7
Nederland 1 [182] 1 [183]
Japan 1 [184] 1
Jordaan 1 1
Maleisië 1 [185]
Mauritius 1 [186] [187]
Mexiko 1 [188]
Singapoer 1 [189]
Thailand 1 [190]
Oostenryk 1 [191]
Spanje 2 [150] [192] [193]
Sjina 1 [150]
Oman 2 [150]
Filippyne 1 [194]
Finland 1 [150]
Noorweë 1 [195]
Totaal 166 293

At least 174 people, including civilians, security personnel and nine of the attackers, were killed in the attacks. Among the dead were 29 foreign nationals. [3] [46] [196] [197] [198] One attacker was captured. [199] The bodies of many of the dead hostages showed signs of torture or disfigurement. [200] A number of those killed were notable figures in business, media, and security services. [201] [202] [203]

The Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Vilasrao Deshmukh, stated that 15 policemen and two NSG commandos were killed, including the following officers: [196] [203]

  • Assistant Police Sub-Inspector Tukaram Omble, [204] who succeeded in capturing a terrorist alive, with his bare hands.
  • Joint Commissioner of Police Hemant Karkare, the Chief of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad[202]
  • Additional Commissioner of Police: Ashok Kamte[202]
  • Encounter specialist Senior Inspector Vijay Salaskar[202]
  • Senior Inspector Shashank Shinde[202]
  • NSG Commando, Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan
  • NSG Commando, Hawaldar Gajender Singh Bisht

Three railway officials of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus were also killed. [205]

The casualties occurred in the following locations:

The government of Maharashtra announced about ₹ 500,000 (US$7,000) as compensation to the kin of each of those killed in the terror attacks and about ₹ 50,000 (US$700) to the seriously injured. [216] In August 2009, the Indian Hotels Company and the Oberoi Group received about US$28 million as part-payment of the insurance claims, on account of the attacks on Taj and Trident, from General Insurance Corporation of India. [217]

The attacks are sometimes referred to in India as "26/11", after the date in 2008 that the attacks began. The Pradhan Inquiry Commission, appointed by the Maharashtra government, produced a report that was tabled before the legislative assembly more than a year after the events. The report said the "war-like" attack was beyond the capacity to respond of any police force, but also found fault with the Mumbai Police Commissioner Hasan Gafoor's lack of leadership during the crisis. [218]

The Maharashtra government planned to buy 36 speed boats to patrol the coastal areas and several helicopters for the same purpose. It also planned to create an anti-terror force called "Force One" and upgrade all the weapons that Mumbai police currently have. [219] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on an all-party conference declared that legal framework would be strengthened in the battle against "terrorism" and a federal anti-terrorist intelligence and investigation agency, like the FBI, will be set up soon to co-ordinate action against "terrorism". [220] The government strengthened anti-terror laws with UAPA 2008, and the federal National Investigation Agency was formed.

The attacks further strained India's slowly recovering relationship with Pakistan. India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee declared that India may indulge in military strikes against terror camps in Pakistan to protect its territorial integrity. There were also after-effects on the United States's relationships with both countries, [221] the US-led NATO war in Afghanistan, [222] and on the Global War on Terror. [223] FBI chief Robert Mueller praised the "unprecedented cooperation" between American and Indian intelligence agencies over the Mumbai terror attack probe. [224] However, Interpol secretary general Ronald Noble said that Indian intelligence agencies did not share any information with Interpol. [225]

A new National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) was proposed to be set up by the then-Home Minister P. Chidambaram as an office to collect, collate, summarise, integrate, analyse, co-ordinate and report all information and inputs received from various intelligence agencies, state police departments, and other ministries and their departments.

Movement of troops Edit

Pakistan moved troops towards the border with India voicing concerns about the Indian government's possible plans to launch attacks on Pakistani soil if it did not co-operate. After days of talks, the Pakistan government, however, decided to start moving troops away from the border. [226]

Indians criticised their political leaders after the attacks, saying that their ineptness was partly responsible. The Times of India commented on its front page that "Our politicians fiddle as innocents die." [227] Political reactions in Mumbai and India included a range of resignations and political changes, including the resignations of Minister for Home Affairs Shivraj Patil, [23] Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh [228] and deputy chief minister R. R. Patil [229] for controversial reactions to the attack including taking the former's son and Bollywood director Ram Gopal Verma to tour the damaged Taj Hotel and the latters remarks that the attacks were not a big deal in such a large city. Indian Muslims condemned the attacks and refused to bury the attackers. Groups of Muslims marched against the attacks [230] and mosques observed silence. Prominent Muslim personalities such as Bollywood actor Aamir Khan appealed to their community members in the country to observe Eid al-Adha as a day of mourning on 9 December. [231] The business establishment also reacted, with changes to transport, and requests for an increase in self-defence capabilities. [232] The attacks also triggered a chain of citizens' movements across India such as the India Today Group's "War Against Terror" campaign. There were vigils held across all of India with candles and placards commemorating the victims of the attacks. [233] The NSG commandos based in Delhi also met criticism for taking ten hours to reach the three sites under attack. [234] [235]

International reaction for the attacks was widespread, with many countries and international organisations condemning the attacks and expressing their condolences to the civilian victims. Many important personalities around the world also condemned the attacks. [236]

Media coverage highlighted the use of social media and social networking tools, including Twitter and Flickr, in spreading information about the attacks. In addition, many Indian bloggers offered live textual coverage of the attacks. [237] A map of the attacks was set up by a web journalist using Google Maps. [238] [239] The New York Times, in July 2009, described the event as "what may be the most well-documented terrorist attack anywhere". [240]

In November 2010, families of American victims of the attacks filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn, New York, naming Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, chief of the ISI, as being complicit in the Mumbai attacks. On 22 September 2011, the attack on the American Embassy in Afghanistan was attributed to Pakistan via cell phone records identical to the attacks in Mumbai, also linked to Pakistan.

Kasab's trial Edit

Kasab's trial was delayed due to legal issues, as many Indian lawyers were unwilling to represent him. A Mumbai Bar Association passed a resolution proclaiming that none of its members would represent Kasab. However, the Chief Justice of India stated that Kasab needed a lawyer for a fair trial. A lawyer for Kasab was eventually found, but was replaced due to a conflict of interest. [241] On 25 February 2009, Indian investigators filed an 11,000-page chargesheet, formally charging Kasab with murder, conspiracy, and waging war against India among other charges. [ aanhaling nodig ]

Kasab's trial began on 6 May 2009. He initially pleaded not guilty, but later admitted his guilt on 20 July 2009. He initially apologised for the attacks and claimed that he deserved the death penalty for his crimes, but later retracted these claims, saying that he had been tortured by police to force his confession, and that he had been arrested while roaming the beach. The court had accepted his plea, but due to the lack of completeness within his admittance, the judge had deemed that many of the 86 charges were not addressed and therefore the trial continued.

Kasab was convicted of all 86 charges on 3 May 2010. He was found guilty of murder for directly killing seven people, conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of the 164 people killed in the three-day terror siege, waging war against India, causing terror, and of conspiracy to murder two high-ranking police officers. On 6 May 2010, he was sentenced to death by hanging. [242] [243] [244] [245] However, he appealed his sentence at high court. On 21 February 2011, the Bombay High Court upheld the death sentence of Kasab, dismissing his appeal. [246]

On 29 August 2012, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for Kasab. The court stated, "We are left with no option but to award death penalty. The primary and foremost offence committed by Kasab is waging war against the Government of India". [247] The verdict followed 10 weeks of appeal hearings, and was decided by a two-judge Supreme Court panel, which was led by Judge Aftab Alam. The panel rejected arguments that Kasab was denied a free and fair trial. [248]

Kasab filed a mercy petition with the President of India, which was rejected on 5 November. Kasab was hanged in Pune's Yerwada jail in secret on 21 November 2012 at 7:30 am named as operation 'X'. The Indian mission in Islamabad informed the Pakistan government about Kasab's hanging through a letter. Pakistan refused to take the letter, which was then faxed to them. His family in Pakistan was sent news of his hanging via a courier. [249]

In Pakistan Edit

Indian and Pakistani police exchanged DNA evidence, photographs and items found with the attackers to piece together a detailed portrait of the Mumbai plot. Police in Pakistan arrested seven people, including Hammad Amin Sadiq, a homoeopathic pharmacist, who arranged bank accounts and secured supplies. Sadiq and six others began their formal trial on 3 October 2009 in Pakistan. Indian authorities said the prosecution stopped well short of top Lashkar leaders. [250] In November 2009, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that Pakistan had not done enough to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. [251]

An eight-member commission comprising defence lawyers, prosecutors and a court official was allowed to travel to India on 15 March 2013 to gather evidence for the prosecution of seven suspects linked to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. However, the defence lawyers were barred from cross-examining the four prosecution witnesses in the case including Ajmal Kasab. [252] [253] On the eve of the first anniversary of 26/11, a Pakistani anti-terror court formally charged seven accused, including LeT operations commander Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi. However, the actual trial started on 5 May 2012. The Pakistani court conducting trial of Mumbai attacks accused, reserved its judgement on the application filed by Lakhvi, challenging the report of the judicial panel, to 17 July 2012. [254] On 17 July 2012, the court refused to take the findings of the Pakistani judicial commission as part of the evidence. However, it ruled that if a new agreement, which allows the panel's examination of witnesses, is reached, the prosecution may make an application for sending the panel to Mumbai. [255] The Indian Government, upset over the court ruling, however, contended that evidence collected by the Pakistani judicial panel has evidential value to punish all those involved in the attack. [256] On 21 September 2013, a Pakistani judicial commission arrived in India to carry out the investigation and to cross examine the witnesses. This is the second such visit: the one in March 2012 was not a success [257] as its report was rejected by an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan due to lack of evidence.

In the United States Edit

The LeT operative David Headley (born Daood Sayed Gilani) in his testimony before a Chicago federal court during co-accused Tahawwur Rana's trial revealed that Mumbai Chabad House was added to the list of targets for surveillance given by his Inter Services Intelligence handler Major Iqbal, though the Oberoi Hotel, one of the sites attacked, was not originally on the list. [258] On 10 June 2011, Tahawwur Rana was acquitted of plotting the 2008 Mumbai attacks, but was held guilty on two other charges. [259] He was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison on 17 January 2013. [260]

David Headley pleaded guilty to 12 counts related to the attacks, including conspiracy to commit murder in India and aiding and abetting in the murder of six Americans. On 23 January 2013, he was sentenced to 35 years in federal prison. His plea that he not be extradited to India, Pakistan or Denmark was accepted. [261]

On the first anniversary of the event, the state paid homage to the victims of the attack. Force One—a new security force created by the Maharashtra government—staged a parade from Nariman Point to Chowpatty. Other memorials and candlelight vigils were also organised at the various locations where the attacks occurred. [262]

On the second anniversary of the event, homage was again paid to the victims. [263]

On the 10th anniversary of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Nariman House, one of the several establishments that were targeted by the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists, were to be declared a memorial and renamed as Nariman Light House. [264]

The Indian Express group hosts an annual memorial event, 26/11 - Stories of Strength, in Mumbai to pay homage to those killed in the ghastly terror attacks in the city in 2008. [265] [266] The memorial event started in 2016, is now organised at the Gateway of India and brings forth the inspiring stories of courage and strength of more than 100 survivors that the Indian Express has interviewed over the past decade. Actor Amitabh Bachchan has been the brand ambassador for the event over the years. [267]

Documentaries Edit

Operation Black Tornado (2018) is a TV documentary which premiered on Veer by Discovery Channel series, Battle Ops. [268] [269]

Films/Movies Edit

  1. Hotel Mumbai (2019) is an American-Australian action thriller film directed by Anthony Maras and written by John Collee and Maras. It has come under criticism for omitting any reference to the role of Pakistan in the terror strikes. [270]
  2. The Attacks of 26/11 (2013) is an Indian action thriller film directed by Ram Gopal Varma, based on the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
  3. Taj Mahal (2015) is a French-Belgian thriller-drama film directed and written by Nicolas Saada. It was screened in the Horizons section at the 72nd Venice International Film Festival. This film is about an actual 18-year-old French girl who was alone in her hotel room when the terrorists attacked the hotel.
  4. Terror in Mumbai (2009) The inside story of the November 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai, India. It features exclusive never-before-heard audio tapes of the intercepted phone calls between the young gunmen and their controllers in Pakistan, and testimony from the sole surviving gunman. [271]
  5. Mumbai Siege: 4 Days of Terror (ook One Less God) (2017) features the situation of some foreigners inside Taj Hotel. [272]
  6. State of Siege: 26/11 (2020) ZEE5 Original crime thriller Web Series features When Mumbai was under siege in 2008, it was the NSG commandos that came to its rescue. Witness the untold stories of the brave heroes and the lesser-known facts of the horrid Mumbai attacks that shook the whole world. [273]

Books Edit

The Siege: The Attack on the Taj is a non-fiction book by Cathy Scott-Clerk and Adrian Levy. It is an account of the 2008 attacks on The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, India, during the night of 26 November 2008. The book was first published by Penguin Books in 2013. [274]

In 2017, Elias Davidsson published The Betrayal of India: Revisting the 26/11 Evidence, claiming powerful institutions in India and the US had been the beneficiaries and the attacks had been organized by Indian prime Intelligence Agency, RAW and her surrogates. [275]

Aziz Burney wrote a book titled 26/11: RSS ki Saazish? ("26/11: An RSS conspiracy?") hinting that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was somehow linked to the attack and launched the book in presence of Congress leader Digvijaya Singh. [276] Later as RSS filed a case against him, he had to apologise for it. [277] [278]

Former National Security Advisor of India, Shivshankar Menon wrote Choices: Inside the Making of India's Foreign Policy. In his book Menon mentioned that the reason why India did not immediately attacked Pakistan was, after the examination of the options by the leadership of the government, it was concluded by the decision makers that, "more was to be gained from not attacking Pakistan than from attacking it". [279]

In his 2020 memoirs, Let Me Say It Now, former IPS officer Rakesh Maria, who was given the responsibility of investigating the attacks and personally interrogated Ajmal Kasab, revealed the extent to which terrorists had gone to ensure their bodies would be mis-identified as Hindus, to lend credence to the narrative that the attack was the handiwork of Hindu extremists, and thus provide the Pakistani authorities with plausible deniability. According to Maria, Lashkar-e-Taiba wanted Kasab to be killed as a Bengaluru resident named ‘Samir Dinesh Chaudhari’, with a "red (sacred) thread" tied around his wrist to portray the attack as a case of ‘Hindu terror’, but their plan apparently did not succeed and the police nabbed Kasab. LeT had even given each terrorist a fake identity card listing an Indian address, to further strengthen the circumstantial narrative. If everything went according to plan, Kasab would have died as Chaudhari and the media would have blamed 'Hindu terrorists' for the attack. Kasab, in his confessional account, acknowledged this plot, as did David Coleman Headley, who corroborated this account by confirming that the sacred threads to be worn around the terrorists' wrists to identify them as Hindus, were procured from Mumbai's Siddhivinayak Temple. [280] [281]


Kyk die video: Chinese executions exposed by rare photos (Desember 2021).