Podcasts sur l'histoire

Le 529 est-il le plus grand verdict de peine de mort simultané jamais prononcé ?

Le 529 est-il le plus grand verdict de peine de mort simultané jamais prononcé ?

Récemment, l'Égypte a fait la une des journaux en condamnant 529 personnes à mort en un seul verdict.

J'ai vu beaucoup de discussions dans les médias et en ligne sur le fait qu'il s'agissait de la plus grande condamnation à mort de « l'histoire récente ». Cependant, je n'ai vu aucune référence à un plus grand. En fait, le seul de taille comparable que j'ai vu mentionné a été 152 condamnés dans une seule affaire au Bangladesh en 2009. Cependant, même cela était un peu différent, en ce sens qu'il s'agissait d'un procès militaire d'une unité militaire entière pour mutinerie .

Ce verdict semble un peu horrible à beaucoup de gens, mais je pense qu'il serait utile d'y mettre une limite.

La question est donc de savoir s'il y a déjà eu des affaires judiciaires documentées qui ont condamné à mort plus de 529 civils à la fois ? Si oui, quelle était la plus récente?


Le massacre de Verden en 782 peut être considéré comme l'exécution de 4 500 Saxons par Charlemagne pour avoir enfreint la Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, une loi interdisant le paganisme. C'était dans le contexte d'une révolte et les 4 500 ont été rendus par les forces saxonnes lors de la capitulation. Ce n'est peut-être pas ce que recherche le questionneur car il n'a rien reçu d'approximatif d'une procédure régulière, mais j'ai pensé que c'était un exemple intéressant car tant de personnes ont été exécutées nominalement pour violation d'un code juridique spécifique non directement lié à l'acte de se rebeller. .


Le plus grand cas d'une nation utilisant un système juridique approprié auquel je puisse penser est celui de la troisième guerre servile, la célèbre révolte des esclaves dirigée par Spartacus, les Romains ont condamné et exécuté les 6 000 esclaves rebelles restants qui n'avaient pas été tués au combat. Les esclaves impliqués étaient des gladiateurs, il était donc difficile d'écraser la révolte. Les esclaves sont des civils, même s'ils sont des gladiateurs.

En raison du fait que les esclaves ne sont pas des citoyens et que le moment de la révolte se situe à la fin de la République, les esclaves impliqués devraient être soumis à l'imperium. Le système judiciaire est devenu plus corrompu et l'armée plus puissante à mesure que Rome devenait une dictature. Cela signifierait qu'ils auraient été « jugés » en quelque sorte par un magistrat ayant le pouvoir de rendre la justice militaire.

À l'automne, alors que la révolte était à son paroxysme et que Spartacus comptait environ 120 000 fidèles, le Sénat vota pour passer outre les consuls et accorder l'imperium à Marcus Licinius Crassus, qui avait été préteur en 73 av. mais n'occupe actuellement aucun poste

Il existe de nombreux exemples plus vastes que celui de nations ayant recours à la justice extrajudiciaire ou à l'exécution sommaire. Les procès-spectacles pendant la Révolution culturelle seraient probablement la limite supérieure des condamnations à mort les plus importantes jamais prononcées. Des centaines de milliers de personnes ont été reconnues coupables d'être des révolutionnaires réactionnaires.

Pour replacer le nombre de 529 dans un contexte historique moderne approprié, le plus grand cas de peine de mort simultanée dans le système judiciaire soudanais pendant la guerre brutale au Darfour impliquait un peu plus de 100 personnes reconnues coupables d'actes terroristes contre le gouvernement en 2008. Après le génocide au Rwanda, le gouvernement a envisagé d'exécuter des milliers de personnes. Deux mille sont morts en prison en attendant leur procès. La Cour internationale de justice est intervenue et a travaillé avec le Rwanda pour traduire en justice les pires délinquants qui se cachaient souvent dans d'autres pays. La plus grande exécution a impliqué sept personnes. Compte tenu de ces faits, le nombre semble très important.

Source : étude de cas DOMAC 19 Soudan


Le 529 est-il le plus grand verdict de peine de mort simultané jamais prononcé ? - Histoire

Souverain de la guerre planant dans les cieux

Chapitre 3098 - Moins de 100 personnes

Chapitre 3098: Moins de 100 personnes

Traducteur: Traduction de fantaisie sans fin Éditeur: Traduction de fantaisie sans fin

“Jiang Lan va rassembler l'énergie du sang et le feu de l'âme du pic déchu Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials avec la Formation avant de les envoyer dans les embryons en une seule fois.”

Duan Ling Tian regarda la barrière translucide de la Formation. La barrière était comme un dôme entourant l'arbre du fruit divin sacrificiel du ciel, l'empêchant d'absorber l'énergie du sang et le feu de l'âme. En même temps, l'arbre n'arrêtait pas d'essayer de les absorber, par conséquent, la force de traction de l'arbre a fait que l'énergie du sang et le feu de l'âme se sont plaqués contre la barrière. Une fois la barrière enlevée, toute l'énergie sanguine accumulée et le feu de l'âme seraient absorbés par l'arbre en une fois.

À ce moment, il y avait de l'énergie sanguine et du feu de l'âme de trois sommets déchus Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials collés sur la barrière. Il ne fallut pas longtemps avant que l'énergie du sang et le feu de l'âme de deux autres sommets tombés, Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials, les rejoignent.

Après un moment, une personne est apparue devant Duan Ling Tian. Il attendait depuis un certain temps avant que son nouvel adversaire n'apparaisse devant lui.

Dans le même temps, Ling Jue Yun et Lin Fei Yang affrontaient également leurs adversaires.

Tout cela a été délibérément arrangé par Jiang Lan.

Après que les embryons du fruit divin sacrificiel du ciel soient apparus, Jiang Lan était devenu désespéré. C'était comme s'il ne pouvait plus attendre que l'arbre porte ses fruits. Par conséquent, afin d'accélérer les choses, Duan Ling Tian, ​​Ling Jue Yun, Lin Fei Yang et les autres se sont rapidement vu attribuer un adversaire dès qu'ils ont terminé leurs batailles.

Jiang Lan s'était délibérément arrangé pour que Ling Jue Yun et Lin Fei Yang combattent les Célestes suprêmes célestes dominants qui avaient compris trois profondeurs d'une loi. Cependant, ce n'était pas son intention de sacrifier le duo. Après tout, le duo pourrait l'aider à tuer les autres à un rythme plus rapide.

Auparavant, lorsqu'il avait sélectionné et invité le pic Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestials ici, il avait calculé qu'il resterait plus de 100 personnes lorsque les embryons seraient apparus. Avec cela, il y avait plus qu'assez d'énergie sanguine et de feu d'âme pour nourrir les embryons afin qu'ils portent les fruits divins sacrificiels du ciel. Par conséquent, il pouvait se permettre d'épargner la vie de Ling Jue Yun et Lin Fei Yang&# x2019s s'il le souhaitait.

Swoosh ! Swoosh ! Swoosh ! Swoosh ! Swoosh !

Duan Ling Tian&# x2019s adversaire actuel était un homme d'âge moyen vêtu d'une longue robe verte.

L'homme d'âge moyen avait compris trois profondeurs de la loi du vent et avait commencé à comprendre la quatrième profondeur. Son visage est resté indifférent alors que les pales du vent tournaient autour de son corps, créant des bruits quelque peu similaires à un essaim d'abeilles bourdonnantes.

𠇍ie!” L'homme d'âge moyen a crié en regardant Duan Ling Tian. Il brandit la lame de trois pieds de long dans sa main, provoquant une violente rafale de vent qui avait été renforcée par la profondeur de la lame du vent et deux autres profondeurs de la loi du vent. La rafale de vent a balayé Duan Ling Tian comme un dragon en colère.

Ouf ! Ouf ! Ouf ! Ouf ! Ouf !

Le hurlement perçant et aigu du vent résonnait dans l'air.

Les sons des épées et du vent étaient incroyablement forts.

Les gens qui comprenaient la loi du vent avaient un énorme avantage sur ceux qui comprenaient la loi de la terre en termes de vitesse et d'infraction. Duan Ling Tian&# x2019s précédent adversaire avait compris trois profondeurs de la loi de la terre. Bien que son adversaire précédent avait compris la seule profondeur offensive de la loi de la terre, la profondeur de secousse, ses attaques précédentes adversaire&# x2019s étaient loin de cet homme d'âge moyen qui avait compris trois profondeurs et en train de comprendre la quatrième profondeur de la loi du vent.

Néanmoins, Duan Ling Tian a préféré son adversaire actuel au précédent. Son précédent adversaire avait utilisé la profondeur de l'espace gravitationnel et l'avait confiné dans un espace avant de le bombarder d'attaques dans toutes les directions. Bien qu'il n'ait pas souffert des attaques, la suppression de la profondeur de l'espace gravitationnel l'a rendu extrêmement mal à l'aise. Bien que son adversaire actuel soit plus fort, les attaques n'étaient pas aussi difficiles à gérer que son adversaire précédent.

Alors que l'attaque de son adversaire se rapprochait, l'énergie d'origine céleste de Duan Ling Tian, ​​qui avait été renforcée par la profondeur élémentaire de feu et la profondeur du pillage, jaillit de son corps. En un instant, il a été englouti par les flammes.

Duan Ling Tian chargea en avant comme une torche humaine. Une odeur de brûlé persistait dans l'air alors qu'il laissait une traînée de feu dans son sillage comme la queue d'un phénix.

Des bourdonnements résonnaient dans l'air,

À ce moment, l'adversaire de Duan Ling Tian&# x2019 a vu un anneau jaillir des flammes qui ont englouti Duan Ling Tian.

L'anneau était englouti par des flammes rouges et vertes. Son aura formidable pourrait faire trembler les gens de peur.

Duan Ling Tian était intrépide face à l'attaque menaçante de son adversaire qui avait compris la loi du vent. Il avait déjà tué un sommet Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestial qui avait compris trois profondeurs de la loi de la terre, pourquoi aurait-il peur d'un autre sommet Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestial qui avait compris trois profondeurs de la loi du vent? Bien que ce dernier avait une compréhension de base de la loi du vent&# x2019s quatrième profondeur, cela ne faisait aucune différence pour lui.

Duan Ling Tian n'a pas été surpris lorsque les attaques sont entrées en collision, et son attaque a rapidement submergé l'attaque de son adversaire après un bref arrêt. Tout comme le pouvoir divin, les flammes rouges et vertes se sont transformées en une épée enflammée avant de tuer son adversaire.

Pendant ce temps, Jiang Lan qui regardait Duan Ling Tian n'était pas non plus surpris par le résultat. 𠇌omme je le pensais… Bien qu'il n'ait compris que deux profondeurs de la loi du feu, avec la combinaison des deux armes célestes de qualité royale, même Ling Jue Yun et Lin Fei Yang ne lui conviendront pas !& #x201D

Jiang Lan pouvait dire que l'adversaire que Duan Ling Tian venait de tuer était aussi fort que Lin Fei Yang et légèrement plus faible que Ling Jue Yun. Si Ling Jue Yun devait combattre l'adversaire de Duan Ling Tian, ​​cela pourrait prendre quelques jours et quelques nuits à Ling Jue Yun pour vaincre l'adversaire. D'un autre côté, Duan Ling Tian avait vaincu cet adversaire sans effort.

A cette époque, Ling Jue Yun et Lin Fei Yang ont continué à tuer avec succès leurs adversaires l'un après l'autre. Quelques secondes plus tard, un nouvel adversaire apparaissait rapidement devant eux. Cela était dû au désespoir de Jiang Lan&# x2019s pour accélérer le processus de fructification de l'arbre du fruit divin sacrificiel du ciel. Il voulait rassembler autant d'énergie sanguine et de feu d'âme que possible avant de tout envoyer dans les embryons du fruit divin sacrificiel du ciel en une seule fois.

Après un certain temps, les quelques centaines de survivants sont tombés à moins de 100 cents survivants.

À ce moment, l'anneau de châtaigne d'eau mystique Yin et Yang neuf dans les mains de Duan Ling Tian&# x2019s s'est envolé avant que les flammes vertes et rouges ne se dirigent vers un autre de ses adversaires. Juste comme ça, il a tué sans effort un sommet Overarching Heavenly Supreme Celestial qui avait compris trois profondeurs de la loi du métal.

Après avoir tué son adversaire, Duan Ling Tian a remarqué que la barrière entourant l'arbre du fruit divin sacrificiel du ciel tremblait légèrement lorsque l'énergie du sang et le feu de l'âme de son adversaire ont atterri dessus. C'était comme si la barrière ressentait enfin la pression de toute l'énergie du sang et du feu de l'âme. La barrière trembla encore plus lorsque l'énergie du sang et le feu de l'âme d'un adversaire que Ling Jue Yun venait de tuer se posèrent dessus.

Duan Ling Tian a envoyé une transmission vocale à Ling Jue Yun pour l'informer de sa découverte. On dirait que la formation qu'il a préparée dans sa vie passée est sur le point de s'effondrer sous l'impact de tant d'énergie sanguine et de feu de l'âme. Ou peut-être qu'il ne peut pas résister à la force de traction de l'arbre du fruit divin sacrificiel du ciel.&# x201D

Ling Jue Yun jeta un coup d'œil furtif à la barrière avant de dire : « On dirait que c'est le cas » ” Ses yeux brillèrent alors qu'il continuait à dire : 𠇊 à ce moment-là, Jiang Lan tuerait probablement les survivants avant que les embryons ne se développent et portent leurs fruits. Après tout, je suis sûr qu'il craint aussi que quelqu'un ne lui vole les fruits. Désormais, nous devons faire plus attention à la barrière. Lorsqu'il est sur le point de se briser, nous devons être prêts et en alerte maximale.

Alors que Duan Ling Tian et Ling Jue Yun conversaient par transmission vocale, Jiang Lan avait également remarqué le problème. Il semble que j'aie sous-estimé le pouvoir d'attraction de l'arbre du fruit divin sacrificiel du ciel. Fruit… Cependant, il reste encore tant de survivants…”

À ce moment, Jiang Lan a regardé Duan Ling Tian et les autres alors que l'intention de tuer montait lentement du fond de ses yeux.


*356 III

La décision de la majorité est également fondée sur sa conclusion qu'il n'y a "aucune preuve que le Congrès avait l'intention d'abroger l'immunité traditionnelle des témoins de droit commun dans les actions du § 1983". Ante, à 337. En fait, il existe des preuves considérables dans l'histoire législative que le Congrès a eu l'intention d'abroger l'immunité des participants aux procédures judiciaires de l'État.

À la demande des requérants, [16] la Cour a examiné en détail l'historique législatif du § 2 de la loi de 1871 sur le Ku Klux Klan, 17 Stat. 13, maintenant codifié 42 U.S. C . § 1985(3) (éd. 1976, Supp. V). Cependant, le précurseur du § 1983 était le § 1 de la loi de 1871, et non le § 2. Comme le souligne la majorité, ante, à 337, 340-341, les deux sections diffèrent considérablement dans leur langue et leur objet. Il n'est donc guère surprenant que les débats sur le § 2 aient peu éclairé le § 1. À mon avis, l'enquête devrait se concentrer sur l'histoire du § 1. Ce n'est qu'en examinant la *357 genèse de cette disposition que l'on peut déterminer si le Congrès avait l'intention de abroger certaines immunités de droit commun.

L'origine du § 1 n'est pas sujette à caution. Le libellé et le concept de la disposition découlent en grande partie du § 2 de la loi sur les droits civils de 1866, 14 Stat. 27. [17] L'auteur du § 1 énonce clairement la relation entre les deux lois en introduisant la mesure de 1871 :

Parce que les deux dispositions sont si intimement liées, un examen complet de l'histoire du § 1 de la loi de 1871 doit commencer par le § 2 de la loi de 1866.

Le Civil Rights Act de 1866 a été la première loi fédérale à offrir une large protection dans le domaine des droits civils. Son objectif principal était de garantir l'égalité des Noirs nouvellement émancipés avec les Blancs devant la loi. L'article 2 de la loi prévoit la responsabilité pénale de toute personne qui, agissant sous couvert de la loi, prive autrui de ses droits en raison de sa race. Cette disposition a été longuement débattue. La controverse a porté en grande partie sur son application prévue aux représentants de l'État faisant partie intégrante du processus judiciaire.

La responsabilité des fonctionnaires judiciaires de l'État et de tous les participants officiels aux procédures judiciaires de l'État en vertu du § 2 a été explicitement et à plusieurs reprises affirmée. [18] La notion d'immunité pour de tels fonctionnaires a été complètement discréditée. Le parrain sénatorial de la loi *359 a estimé que l'idée « s'apparente à la maxime de la loi anglaise selon laquelle le roi ne peut rien faire de mal. Elle place les fonctionnaires au-dessus de la loi. C'est la doctrine même dont la rébellion [la guerre civile] était éclos." Cong. Globe, 39e Cong., 1re sess., 1758 (1866) (sén. Trumbull). Ainsi, le § 2 était « visant directement le pouvoir judiciaire de l'État ». Identifiant., à 1155 (Rep. Eldridge). Voir également identifiant., à 1778 (Sen. Johnson, membre de la Commission judiciaire du Sénat) (§ 2 de la loi de 1866 « grèves au département judiciaire des gouvernements des États »).

Deux efforts infructueux ont été faits pour amender le § 2. Premièrement, le représentant Miller a introduit un amendement pour exempter les juges des États de la responsabilité pénale. Identifiant., à 1156. Deuxièmement, et d'une importance particulière, le représentant Bingham a introduit un amendement visant à substituer une action civile aux sanctions pénales contenues dans la proposition. Identifiant., à 1266, 1271-1272. Le parrain de la loi de 1866, le représentant Wilson, s'est opposé à l'amendement en grande partie au motif qu'il placerait le fardeau financier de la protection des droits civils sur les pauvres plutôt que sur le gouvernement. Identifiant., à 1295. En même temps, il a souligné qu'il n'y avait « aucune différence de principe en cause » entre un recours civil et une sanction pénale. Idem.

Après l'adoption du projet de loi de 1866 par le Sénat et la Chambre, le président Andrew Johnson y a opposé son veto. Son opposition était fondée en partie sur le fait que l'article 2 du projet de loi « envahit le pouvoir judiciaire de l'État ». Message de veto, dans identifiant., p. être traduit devant d'autres tribunaux et y être passible d'une amende et d'une peine d'emprisonnement pour l'accomplissement des devoirs que ces lois de l'État pourraient imposer. » Idem. En moins de deux semaines, le Sénat et la Chambre ont annulé le veto. Plusieurs membres du Congrès ont répondu aux critiques du président et admis librement que le § 2 de la loi visait les systèmes judiciaires des États. En tant que membre du comité judiciaire de la Chambre, le représentant *360 Lawrence, a déclaré : « Je réponds qu'il vaut mieux envahir le pouvoir judiciaire de l'État que de lui permettre d'envahir, d'abattre et de détruire les droits civils des citoyens. Un pouvoir judiciaire pervertis à de tels usages devraient être rapidement envahis. Le grief serait insignifiant. Identifiant., à 1837. Voir aussi identifiant., à 1758 (réponse du sénateur Trumbull au message de veto du président) identifiant., à 1838 (déclaration du représentant Clarke). Le projet de loi est devenu loi le 9 avril 1866.

Cette Cour a de temps à autre lu le § 1983 par rapport au « contexte » de la responsabilité délictuelle de droit commun. [19] Cependant, le contexte fourni par le Civil Rights Act de 1866 est bien plus pertinent en l'espèce. Le représentant Bingham, qui avait introduit l'amendement visant à substituer la responsabilité civile à la responsabilité pénale dans la loi de 1866, était devenu président du comité judiciaire de la Chambre au moment du 42e Congrès. Le sénateur Trumbull, le parrain sénatorial de la loi de 1866, était président du comité judiciaire du Sénat en 1871. Le représentant Shellabarger, qui avait participé aux débats sur la législation de 1866, [20] a rédigé la loi de 1871.

Le Congrès était bien conscient que le « modèle » du § 1 de la loi de 1871 se trouvait dans le Civil Rights Act de 1866. Cong. Globe, 42e Cong., 1ère sess., App. 68 (1871) (Rép. Shellabarger). Le directeur du projet de loi au Sénat, George Edmunds, a souligné que le § 1 ne faisait que « mettre en œuvre les principes du projet de loi sur les droits civiques » qui avait été adopté en 1866. Identifiant., à 568. Le représentant Coburn a déclaré que le § 1 "donne un recours civil parallèle à la disposition pénale" dans la loi sur les droits civils. "Si cette section pénale est valable, et que personne n'ose la contester, le recours civil est légal et incontestable." Identifiant., à 461. Voir aussi identifiant., à 429 (Rep. McHenry dans l'opposition) *361 ("La première section du projet de loi est conçue comme un amendement de la loi sur les droits civils") identifiant., à 365 (Rep. Arthur dans l'opposition) (le § 1 est "cumulatif, dans la mesure où il va, avec certaines dispositions du projet de loi sur les droits civiques").

Le fait que le § 2 de la loi sur les droits civils ait été le modèle du § 1 de la loi de 1871 explique pourquoi les débats du 42e Congrès sur le § 1 ont été si superficiels. [21] De toutes les mesures de la loi sur le Ku Klux Klan, le § 1 a suscité le moins de controverses puisqu'il ne faisait que fournir une contrepartie civile à la disposition pénale beaucoup plus controversée de la loi de 1866. Voir identifiant., à 568 (Sen. Edmunds) ("La première section est celle à laquelle je crois que personne ne s'oppose") identifiant., à l'appli. 313 (Rep. Burchard) ("À la première section, donnant à une partie lésée réparation par un procès devant les tribunaux des États-Unis dans les cas énumérés, je ne vois pas d'objections") Monell v. Département des services sociaux de la ville de New York, 436 U.S., à 665 (le débat sur le § 1 a été limité et la section a été adoptée sans amendement) Developments in the Law — Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1133, 1155 (1977).

Les opposants au § 1 de la loi de 1871 ont repris les mêmes arguments qui avaient été avancés contre le § 2 de la loi de 1866. Ils ont mis en garde contre la responsabilité des huissiers de justice qui résulterait de la promulgation du § 1. Acte. [23] Ces déclarations peuvent difficilement être rejetées comme une rhétorique exagérée de la part des opposants à la loi de 1871. Au lieu de cela, ils reflètent simplement le fait que la bataille sur la responsabilité des personnes faisant partie intégrante du processus judiciaire avait déjà été menée en 1866 lorsque le Congrès *362 a adopté la sanction pénale beaucoup plus grave visant les systèmes judiciaires des États. L'article 1, en revanche, prévoyait « le recours léger d'une action civile ». Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1re sess., 482 (1871) (Rep. Wilson, membre du House Judiciary Committee). Il n'est donc pas surprenant que les arguments des opposants à la loi de 1871 tombent dans l'oreille d'un sourd. Il est également à noter que le représentant Shellabarger, qui n'a guère hésité à interrompre les orateurs qui interprétaient mal sa proposition [24], n'a jamais contesté les caractérisations des opposants en ce qui concerne la responsabilité des huissiers de justice de l'État. [25]

Supposer que le Congrès, qui avait promulgué une sanction pénale dirigée contre les fonctionnaires judiciaires de l'État, [26] avait l'intention sous silence exempter ces mêmes fonctionnaires de la contrepartie civile relève de l'incroyable. [27] Les shérifs et les maréchaux, tout en exerçant une fonction essentiellement judiciaire telle que la signification du processus, étaient clairement responsables en vertu de la loi de 1866, nonobstant les objections du président Johnson. Parce que, *363 comme l'a déclaré le représentant Shellabarger, le § 1 de la loi de 1871 prévoyait un recours civil "dans le même cas identique" ou "sur le même état de faits" que le § 2 de la loi de 1866, il a évidemment prévalu sur toute immunité pouvant avoir existait en common law pour ces participants au processus judiciaire en 1871.

L'absence de fondement historique de l'immunité des témoins contraste fortement avec le soutien historique substantiel de l'immunité législative que notre Cour a reconnu dans Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951), une décision sur laquelle s'appuie la majorité. Ante, à 330, 334. L'immunité législative a joui d'une position historique unique puisqu'elle avait été conçue dans les luttes parlementaires du 17ème siècle et consacrée dans la clause de discours et de débat de la Constitution. La grande majorité des États ont adopté des dispositions constitutionnelles prévoyant une protection parallèle contre la responsabilité civile et pénale. Voir 341 U.S., p. 372-375.

De plus, l'historique du § 1 soutient l'incorporation de l'immunité législative. Par exemple, lorsque le spectre de tenir les législateurs des États pour responsables en vertu du § 2 de la loi de 1866 a été soulevé par le message de veto du président Johnson [28], le parrain sénatorial de la loi n'a pas tardé à désavouer une telle intention. Le sénateur Trumbull a soutenu assez longuement que les législateurs n'entraient pas dans le champ d'application de la loi parce qu'ils « édictaient » des lois plutôt que d'agir « sous le couvert de » la loi de l'État. [29] Quelle que soit la validité de cette distinction, elle reflétait sans aucun doute la réticence du Congrès à empiéter sur l'immunité des législateurs des États. Mais alors que le Congrès républicain radical était un « ardent défenseur de la liberté législative », 341 U.S. , à 376 , il ne montrait aucune sollicitude pour les tribunaux d'État. [30] Les débats sur la loi de 1871 regorgent de commentaires hostiles dirigés contre les systèmes judiciaires de l'État *364. [31] Il est tout à fait raisonnable de conclure que le Congrès avait l'intention d'exonérer les législateurs des États de la responsabilité civile en vertu du § 1 de la loi de 1871. Aucune preuve similaire n'existe pour étayer une immunité pour les policiers témoignant en tant que témoins. [32]

La majorité fonde également sa décision sur des considérations d'ordre public, qui imposent prétendument une immunité absolue aux policiers poursuivis en vertu du § 1983 pour leur témoignage en tant que témoins. Ante, au 341-345. Notre Cour n'a reconnu l'immunité absolue que dans des « situations exceptionnelles » où l'ordre public la rend « essentielle ». Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507 (1978). [33] À mon avis, la justification de l'immunité des témoins officiels est loin de répondre à cette norme.

*365 Les agents de police et autres représentants du gouvernement diffèrent considérablement des citoyens privés, autour desquels se sont développées les doctrines de common law sur l'immunité des témoins. Un policier se présente à la barre des témoins revêtu de l'autorité de l'État. Son statut officiel lui donne de la crédibilité et crée un potentiel de préjudice bien plus grand que celui qui existe lorsque le citoyen moyen témoigne. [34] La situation s'aggrave lorsque le fonctionnaire fait appel à une expertise particulière. Un policier témoignant au sujet d'une identification par empreinte digitale ou un médecin légiste témoignant de la cause d'un décès peut avoir un impact critique sur le procès d'un accusé. [35] En même temps, la menace d'une poursuite criminelle pour parjure, qui constitue une contrainte importante sur le témoignage du témoin moyen, est pratiquement inexistante dans le contexte des témoins policiers. Malgré la prévalence apparente du parjure de la police [36], les procureurs font preuve d'une extrême réticence *366 à inculper des policiers pour conduite criminelle en raison de leur besoin de maintenir des relations de travail étroites avec les organismes chargés de l'application de la loi. [37] La ​​majorité exclut donc une sanction civile précisément dans les situations où le besoin est le plus pressant.

De plus, le danger que les témoins officiels soient empêchés de témoigner par crainte d'une action en dommages et intérêts est beaucoup plus éloigné que ce ne serait le cas pour les témoins privés. Les policiers ont normalement le devoir de témoigner sur des questions concernant leur conduite officielle. L'idée que des fonctionnaires ayant un intérêt professionnel à obtenir des condamnations pénales nuanceraient leur témoignage en faveur d'un accusé pour éviter le risque d'une action civile ne peut être considérée qu'avec scepticisme. De plus, les fonctionnaires de police sont généralement à l'abri de toute difficulté économique associée à des poursuites judiciaires fondées sur une conduite relevant de leur autorité. [38] Quoi qu'il en soit, si la Cour désire vraiment donner aux policiers « « tous les encouragements à faire une divulgation complète de tous les renseignements pertinents à leur connaissance », » ante, à 335 (citant Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S., à 439 (WHITE, J., souscrivant au jugement)), alors à tout le moins, il devrait autoriser les poursuites en vertu du § 1983 qui allèguent que des fonctionnaires ont caché des informations clés pendant leur témoignage. [39]

*367 La principale préoccupation de la majorité semble être que les poursuites en vertu du § 1983 contre les témoins de la police imposeraient « des charges importantes au système judiciaire et aux ressources chargées de l'application de la loi ». Ante, à 343. D'un point de vue empirique, cette affirmation n'est pas fondée. Tant le Sixième Circuit que le Circuit du District de Columbia ont autorisé de telles poursuites pendant plus de cinq ans, voir ante, au 328-329, n. 4, mais il n'y a pas de ponction perceptible sur les ressources juridiques dans ces circuits par rapport à d'autres circuits qui interdisent de telles poursuites. De plus, une étude approfondie des poursuites en vertu de l'article 1983 déposées dans le district central de Californie, qui comprend Los Angeles, indique que seules une trentaine d'actions pour fausse arrestation ont été déposées chaque année dans ce district. [40] Les policiers arrêtent beaucoup plus souvent qu'ils ne le disent, et une arrestation va sans aucun doute mécontenter de nombreuses personnes. Pourtant, les poursuites fondées sur de telles allégations ne constituaient que 0,5% de tous les cas déposés dans le district central [41] ou en moyenne une seule pour 243 policiers à temps plein *368 agents dans la ville de Los Angeles. [42] Cela ne semble pas être un "fardeau important". [43] Le simple fait est que les obstacles pratiques à eux seuls suffisent à dissuader la plupart des individus de poursuivre la police pour inconduite officielle. [44]

En considérant les intérêts concurrents en jeu dans ce domaine, la majorité parvient à un équilibre très unilatéral. Il évite toute immunité qualifiée au profit d'une immunité absolue. Ainsi, la simple enquête de bonne foi est jugée si indésirable que nous devons simplement accepter la possibilité que des représentants du gouvernement privent malicieusement les citoyens de leurs droits. [45] Pour ma part, je ne conçois pas en l'espèce comment des violations patentes des droits individuels peuvent être tolérées au nom du bien public. "L'essence même de la liberté civile consiste certainement dans le droit de chaque individu de réclamer les protections des lois, chaque fois qu'il reçoit un préjudice." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803).


Contenu

Il y avait eu de nombreux attentats terroristes à Mumbai depuis les 13 attentats à la bombe coordonnés qui ont tué 257 personnes et en ont blessé 700 le 12 mars 1993. [36] Les attentats de 1993 ont été perpétrés pour se venger d'émeutes religieuses antérieures qui ont tué de nombreux musulmans. [37]

Le 6 décembre 2002, une explosion dans un bus BEST près de la gare de Ghatkopar a tué deux personnes et en a blessé 28. [38] L'attentat à la bombe a eu lieu à l'occasion du 10e anniversaire de la démolition de la mosquée Babri à Ayodhya. [39] Une bicyclette piégée a explosé près de la gare de Vile Parle à Mumbai, tuant une personne et en blessant 25 le 27 janvier 2003, un jour avant la visite du Premier ministre indien Atal Bihari Vajpayee dans la ville. [40] Le 13 mars 2003, au lendemain du 10e anniversaire des attentats de Bombay de 1993, une bombe explose dans un compartiment de train près de la gare de Mulund, tuant 10 personnes et en blessant 70. [41] Le 28 juillet 2003, une explosion à un bus BEST à Ghatkopar a tué 4 personnes et en a blessé 32. [42] Le 25 août 2003, deux bombes ont explosé dans le sud de Mumbai, l'une près de la porte d'entrée de l'Inde et l'autre au bazar Zaveri à Kalbadevi. Au moins 44 personnes ont été tuées et 150 blessées. [43] Le 11 juillet 2006, sept bombes ont explosé en 11 minutes sur le Suburban Railway à Mumbai, [44] tuant 209 personnes, dont 22 étrangers [45] [46] [47] et plus de 700 blessés. [48] ​​[49] Selon la police de Mumbai, les attentats à la bombe ont été effectués par Lashkar-e-Taiba et le Mouvement islamique des étudiants de l'Inde (SIMI). [50] [51]

Un groupe d'hommes, parfois déclarés comme 24 et parfois 26, [52] a reçu une formation à la guerre maritime dans un camp éloigné de la montagne Muzaffarabad au Pakistan. Une partie de la formation aurait eu lieu sur le réservoir du barrage de Mangla au Pakistan. [53]

Les recrues sont passées par les étapes de formation suivantes, selon les médias indiens et américains :

  • Psychologique : Endoctrinement aux idées islamistes djihadistes, y compris l'imagerie des atrocités subies par les musulmans en Inde, [54] Tchétchénie, Palestine et à travers le monde.
  • Combat de base : cours de base sur l'entraînement au combat et la méthodologie de Lashkar, le Daura Aam.
  • Advanced Training: Selected to undergo advanced combat training at a camp near Mansehra, a course the organisation calls the 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 Dawn, [123] Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reportedly indirectly accepted Pakistan's involvement in not preventing the Mumbai attacks. [124] [125]

Enquête Modifier

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]

Nationalité Deaths Injured
Inde 141 256
États Unis 6 [b] [174] [175] 2 [175]
Israel 4 [176]
Allemagne 3 [150] 3
Australie 2 [177] 2
Canada 2 [178] 2
La France 2 [179]
Italie 1 [180]
Royaume-Uni 1 [c] [181] 7
Pays-Bas 1 [182] 1 [183]
Japon 1 [184] 1
Jordan 1 1
Malaisie 1 [185]
Mauritius 1 [186] [187]
Mexique 1 [188]
Singapour 1 [189]
Thaïlande 1 [190]
L'Autriche 1 [191]
Espagne 2 [150] [192] [193]
Chine 1 [150]
Oman 2 [150]
Philippines 1 [194]
Finlande 1 [150]
Norvège 1 [195]
Le total 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. Le temps de l'Inde 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. [ citation requise ]

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 (aka 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]


Voir la vidéo: Peine de mort en Afrique VF (Novembre 2021).