Let's keep the court biased -- Ejja nżommu l-qorti mxaqilba

 

This year's drama of the US presidential election has been in the news and on the lips of many people around the world.  Personally speaking, I have never expected to see a main party of the strongest world economy be so uncomfortable with its own choice of representative for the presidency election.

 

I've already commented another time on Donald Trump's pronouncements - against Mexican and Muslim immigration, his base comments, those in favour of torture and the proliferation of nuclear arms, amongst others.  Lately his misogynistic attitudes with regards to women are also coming to light.

 

However today I'd like to talk about somthing that really shocked me about what the Republican Party, and those who consider themselves conservative in the United States, considers to be the most crucial topic this election.

 

It regards none of the afore-mentioned subjects.

 

According to John Boehner, until not so long ago the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, “the only thing that really matters over the next four years or eight years is who is going to appoint the next Supreme Court nominees .... I believe that Donald Trump’s view of who these judges should be is much closer to where I am than the judges Hillary Clinton would appoint.”1

 

Also the website of the Breitbart organisation, one of the most important conservative sites in the US, whose head Steve Brannon left to lead Trump's campaign,2 Milo Yiannapoulos wrote that “The supreme court has had a conservative advantage since Nixon appointed 4 justices to the court ... He set up a long running conservative court .... the reason the supreme court is the central issue of this election is that the next president is likely to select quite a few justices ....”3

 

In other words, the Supreme Court today favours conservatives, so it's important (for conservatives) to elect a 'conservative' person, or at least someone not 'progressive', so that this state of affairs containues.

 

The the last debate with Clinton, Trump in fact declared very clearly, and brazenly, that he wants to appoint judges with a conservative bent.

 

And in this vein, for progressives, let's elect a conservative person, so that judges can be elected with the opposite slant.

 

Oh my goodness.

 

What on earth was I thinking, having the impression that courts should be presided by impartial and independent judges.  What an idiot.  How mistaken could I be?  From where did I embrace this fallacy?

 

I do accept that imperfection exists.  I do know the gulf between words, or intentions, and actions.  I also accept that sometimes prejudice can cloud your vision, even inadverdently.  I even accept that sometimes individuals covertly are not really impartial, if not corrupt.  There are mechanisms that with time weed out those who do the wrong thing.

 

However I never expected to see members of a major, established party, a component of the country's fibre, imply that the federal Supreme Court is biased, say openly that this is a good thing (because rose-coloured decisions are being taken matching with their rose-tinted spectacles) and that all measures should be taken to retain this state of affairs, even at the cost of supporting someone they are uncomfortable with!

 

And what country is this?  Some banana republic?  Or one that preaches the separation of the three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judiciary?

 

-----------------

 

 

Id-drama ta' din is-sena tal-elezzjoni għal President tal-Istati Uniti ilha fl-aħbarijiet u fil-kummenti ta' ħafna nies madwar id-dinja.  Ngħid għalija, qatt ma stennejt li partit ewlieni tal-iktar pajjiż b'saħħtu ekonomikament fid-dinja juri tant skumdità fl-għażla tar-rappreżentant tagħhom għall-elezzjoni tal-presidenza.

 

Diġà kkummentajt darb'oħra fuq l-istqarrijiet ta' Donald Trump - kontra immigranti Messikani u Musulmani, il-bassezzi tiegħu, kummenti favur it-tortura u favur il-proliferazzjoni tal-armamenti nukleari, fost l-oħrajn.  Dan l-aħħar qed joħorġu fil-beraħ attitudnijiet misoġinisti tiegħu fil-konfront tan-nisa.

 

Imma llum xtaqt nitkellem fuq ħaġa li xxukkjatni dwar dak li l-Partit Repubblikan, u dawk li jqisu ruħhom konservattivi fl-Istati Uniti, jaħsbu li hu l-iktar suġġett kruċjali ta' din l-elezzjoni.

 

Mhi l-ebda waħda mis-suġġetti li semmejt iktar fuq.

 

Skont John Boehner, li sa ftit ilu kien spiker Repubblikan tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti, 'l-unika ħaġa li se tkun verament importanti fl-erbgħa jew tmien snin li ġejjin hu min se jaħtar l-imħallfin li jmiss fil-Qorti Suprema ....  nemmen li l-ħsieb ta' Donald Trump dwar min se jkunu dawn l-imħallfin hu eqreb għalija milli dawk li probabbly taħtar Hillary Clinton'.1

 

Ukoll f'websajt tal-organizzazzjoni Breitbart, li hija waħda mill-iktar siti konservattivi importanti fl-Istati Uniti, li l-kap tagħha Steve Brannon telaq biex imexxi l-kampanja ta' Trump,2 Milo Yiannapoulos kiteb li 'l-Qorti Suprema kellha vantaġġ għall-konservattivi minn mindu (l-President) Nixon ħatar 4 imħallfin għall-qorti...... Huwa ħatar qorti konservattiva li ilha għaddejja għal żmien twil ... Il-president li ġej probabbilment għandu/ha j/tagħżel xi ftit imħallfin mhux ħażin....'3

 

Fi kliem ieħor, il-Qorti Suprema llum tiffavorixxi lill-konservattivi, allura importanti (għall-konservattivi) li jitla' bniedem 'konservattiv', jew inkella 'mhux progressiv', biex dan l-istat ta' fatt jitkompla.

 

Fl-aħħar dibattitu ma' Clinton, Trump fil-fatt iddikjara ċar u tond, u sfaċċatament, li jrid jaħtar ġudikanti ta' xejra konservattiva.

 

U b'din il-loġika, għall-progressivi, ejja ntellgħu lil xi ħadd progressiv, ħalli jaħtar imħallfin imxaqilbin lin-naħa l-oħra.

 

U ġieżu ġieżu.

 

Ara jien ukoll, li kelli l-impressjoni li l-qorti għandha tkun preseduta minn ġudikatura imparzjali u indipendenti.  Kemm kont baħnan.  Kemm kien jgħarrali.  Din minn fejn ġietni din l-illużjoni?

 

Jien l-imperfezzjoni naċċettaha li teżisti.  Naf li bejn kliem u fatti hemm baħar jikkumbatti.  Naċċetta li kultant ikun hemm xi preġudizzju li jċajparlek il-viżjoni, anke mingħajr ma trid.  Naċċetta wkoll li se jkun hemm individwi li fil-moħbi fil-fatt ma jkunu imparzjali xejn, sakemm ma jkunux korrotti wkoll.  Hemm mekkaniżmi biex biż-żmien min jimxi ħażin jitwarrab.

 

Imma qatt ma stennejt li jkun hemm membri ta' partit maġġuri, stabbilit, parti mill-fibra tal-pajjiż, li jimplikaw li l-qorti suprema federali tal-pajjiż hija mxaqilba, jgħidu bil-miftuħ li din hija ħaġa tajba (għax qed tiffavorixxi lill-kulur tal-lenti tan-nuċċali tagħhom) u jridu jaraw x'se jagħmlu biex is-sitwazzjoni tkompli hekk, akkost li jappoġġjaw lil min huma skomdi għall-aħħar bih!

 

U x'pajjiż hu dan?  Xi repubblika tal-banana?  Jew pajjiż li jippriedka s-separazzjoni tat-tliet friegħi tal-gvern: il-leġislattiv, l-eżekuttiv u l-ġudikatura?

 

 

 

 

1http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/why-the-supreme-court-matters-more-to-republicans-than-trump/504038/, retrieved 17/10/2016

2http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/media/breitbart-stephen-bannon-donald-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016

3http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/10/11/milo-vanderbilt-supreme-court-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016

1http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/why-the-supreme-court-matters-more-to-republicans-than-trump/504038/, retrieved 17/10/2016

2http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/media/breitbart-stephen-bannon-donald-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016

3http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/10/11/milo-vanderbilt-supreme-court-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016

Unethical acts from supposedly advanced countries -- Aġir mhux etiku fil-pajjiżi suppost avvanzati

 

Every so often, news surfaces about such and such a country showing just how little value is placed in ethics by leadership.  One of these regards East Timor, which in 2004 negotiated an agreement with Australia about their maritime border.  East Timor wants this agreement to be re-negotiated, as during the negotiations that had been held, Australia had spied on the Timorese side, so as to gain confidential infromation that had been provided to the Australian side to have the upper hand during negotiations.

 

The story, as reported by the Australian ABC program Lateline, goes that Australian spies under cover of aid that was being provided to this poor Asian country, had installed microphones in the government palace in Dili, the country's capital.  When the Timorese Prime Minister complained about this by his Australian counterpart, then Julia Gillard, about what had happened, she denied this and sent to Timor for discussions the person who allegedly had carried out the spying!1

 

This is a really shameful case.  It does not seems that the Australian activity is illegal in Australian law, as Australian intelligence agencies have the role of acting in the interests not only of national security and foreign relations, but also in the interests of national economic health.2  What's at stake is the ability to capitalise on a stretch of water, called Greater Sunrise, which contains petroleum resources worth an estimated $40 billion - a considerable sum in the Australian context, let alone the Timorese one.

 

Nevertheless, is this activity right?  Is it ok for those who are wealthy use their sophistication to take advantage of those who are weak?

 

You will probably tell me there is nothing new under the sun.  Does that make it right?

 

Is it acceptable for the one who unmasked this activity, who is being referred to as Witness X, have his passport removed so that he cannot personally give evidence on what happened at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Netherlands and have related evidence confiscated, in the (declared) interests of national security?3

 

Is it a good thing for Australia to argue that the PCA has no jurisdiction in this case, after having criticised China for making the same point on the case of the Pacific islands on which military bases are being built?  It can be noted that Australia abandoned this argument a few days ago, after it had been rejected by the PCA.

 

The point I make here is that in this case, Australia says it is acting strictly in its national interest, come what may.  It is pursuing this aim with all its might.  Where does fairness come in?  Do we approve acts such as this?

 

What example is being given to its citizens?  What message are we getting?

 

What are governments doing, in our name?  Do we approve?

 

It is this sense of governments not acting in the interests of the people that is leading some persons in the know of what is going on, normally by having access to this information or by being directly involved in some way, to feel a moral obligation to take action to uncover the lid of what is going on and blow the whistle.

 

In this Australian case and the Australian spying on the East Timorese government, Witness X is said to have been a director of the Australian secret service ASIS (Australian Secret Intelligence Service), and was not comfortable with what was going on.

 

Another well known case is that of Edward Snowden, and American who used to work the the US secret service the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and with a contractor for the NSA (National Security Agency) which uncovered and extensive program of global surveillance by the American side of the internet and phone traffic, in collaboration with other governments, including Australian, British and Canadian.  This included spying even on leaders of friendly nations, such as Germany.4

 

I cannot not mention Julian Assange, the Australian founder of the Wikileaks organisation, whose mission is to publish material that had been censored or restricted which involves warfare, spying and corruption.  He had received, and Wikileaks had published, material from Bradley Manning, an analyst with the American army, on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included a video where an American helicopter had shot on and killed a group of individuals that had been thought to be combatants, but were in fact Iraqi kids and journalists.5  Manning copped 35 years in prison for his role, and Assange has been hold inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London for 3 years with the fear of being caught by the United States.

 

As a principle, it is bad to publish material that places the lives of people who are doing positive work for their country.  This certainly was the result of part of the published material that had come out of Snowden and Manning.

 

Nevertheless it is good, very much so, that we, the citizens who have so many rights on paper but next to none in reality when kept in ignorance of what is really happening, get to know about the filth happening in our name, authorised by those we elect to govern us, and carried out by those paid by the taxes raised off our backs.

 

------------

 

 

Kull tant żmien, titfaċċa storja li turi kemm it-tali pajjiż juri kemm l-etika fit-tmexxija fil-fatt ma tiswiex ħabba.  Storja minn dawn tittratta t-Timor tal-Lvant, li fl-2004 nnegozjat ftehim mal-Awstralja fuq il-fruntiera marittima bejn iż-żewġ pajjiżi.  It-Timor tal-Lvant trid li dan il-ftehim jerġa jiġi nnegozjat, minħabba li waqt in-negozjati li kienu saru, l-Awstralja kienet spijat fuq in-naħa Timoriża, tant li ġabet informazzjoni kunfidenzjali li tgħaddiet lin-naħa Awstraljana biex ikollha vantaġġ waqt in-negozjati.

 

L-istorja, kif irrappurtata mill-programm tal-ABC Awstraljana Lateline, hi li spiji Awstraljani kienu qed jinħbew wara għajnuna li kienet qed tingħata lil dan il-pajjiż fqir Asjatiku, biex jistallaw mikrofoni fil-palazz tal-gvern f'Dili, il-kapitali tal-pajjiż.  Meta l-Prim Ministru Timoriż gerger ma dak Awstraljan, dakinhar Julia Gillard, fuq li kien ġara, din ċaħdet dan u bagħtet fit-Timor għad-diskussjonijiet lill-persuna li allegatament wettaq l-ispijar!1

Dan huwa każ verament tal-mistħija.  Ma jidhirx li l-aġir Awstraljan huwa illegali skont il-liġi Awstraljana, għax l-aġenziji ta' intelliġenza Awstraljana għandhom il-funzjoni li jaħdmu fl-interess mhux biss fil-qasam tas-sigurtà nazzjonali u r-relazzjonijiet barranin, imma wkoll fl-interess tas-saħħa ekonomika nazzjonali.2  Fin-nofs hemm l-isfruttar ta' medda fuq il-baħar, imsejħa Greater Sunrise, li għandha riżorsi ta' petroljum li huma stmati li jiswew $40 biljun - ammont konsiderevoli fil-kuntest Awstraljan, aħseb u ara fil-kuntest Timoriż.

 

Madankollu, dan l-aġir huwa sewwa?  Tajjeb li min hu għani juża s-sofistikazzjoni tiegħu biex jieħu vantaġġ minn min hu dgħajjef?

 

Probabbli tgħiduli li dan ilu jsir, xejn ġdid.  Dan jagħmlu sewwa?

 

Tajjeb li l-persuna li kixef dan l-aġir, li jiġi rriferut bħala x-Xhud X, jitteħidlu l-passaport biex ma jkunx jista' jmur personalment jagħti xhieda fuq dak li ġara mal-Qorti Permanenti tal-Arbitraġġ (Permanent Court of Arbitration - PCA) fl-Olanda u jitteħidlu evidenza fuq il-każ, fl-interess (dikjarat) tas-sigurtà nazzjonali?3

 

Tajjeb li l-Awstralja targumenta li l-PCA m'għandhiex ġurisdizzjoni fuq dan il-każ, wara li kienet ikkritikat liċ-Ċina li għamlet l-istess punt fuq il-każ tal-gżejjer fil-Paċifiku li qed tibni bażijiet militari fuqhom?  Ta' min jgħid li l-Awstrala abbandunat dan l-argument ftit ġranet ilu, wara li l-PCA rrifjutah.

 

Il-punt li nagħmel hawn huwa li f'dan il-każ, l-Awstralja tgħid li qed timxi fl-interess nazzjonali strett tagħha, akkost ta' kollox.  Qed tiġbed lejha b'kemm għandha saħħa.  Fejn hu l-fier?  Aħna napprovaw aġir bħal dan?

 

X'eżempju qed tagħti liċ-ċittadini tagħha?  X'messaġġ qed ittina?  

 

X'qed jagħmlu l-gvernijiet tagħna, f'isimna?  Aħna napprovaw?

 

Huwa dan is-sens ta' gvernijiet mhux jimxu fl-interess tal-poplu li qed iwassal lil ċerti persuni li jkunu jafu b'li jkun għaddej, normalment għax ikollhom aċċess għal din l-informazzjoni jew li jkunu direttament involuti b'xi mod, li jħossu li moralment għandhom jieħdu azzjoni biex jikxfu dak li qed isir u jsaffru s-suffara (whistleblower).

F'dan il-każ Awstraljan u l-ispijar Awstraljan fuq il-gvern tat-Timor tal-Lvant, ix-Xhud X jingħad li kien direttur tas-servizz sigriet Awstraljan ASIS (Australian Secret Intelligence Service), li ma kienx komdu b'dak li kien għaddej.

 

Każ ċelebri ieħor huwa dak ta' Edward Snowden, Amerikan li kien jaħdem mas-servizzi sigrieti Amerikani CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) u ma kuntrattur tal-NSA (National Security Agency) li kixef programmi estensivi ta' sorveljanza globali min-naħa Amerikana tal-internet u t-telefonati, b'kollaborazzjoni ta' gvernijiet oħra, fosthom Awstraljani, Brittanniċi u Kanadiżi.  Dan kien jinkludi spijar anke fuq mexxejja ta' pajjiżi ħbieb, bħall-Ġermanja.4

 

Ma nistax ukoll ma nsemmix lil Julian Assange, Awstraljan li huwa l-fundatur tal-organizzazzjoni Wikileaks, li l-missjoni tagħha hi li tippubblika materjal li kien iċċensurat jew ristrett li jinvolvi gwerer, l-ispijar u l-korruzzjoni.  Dan kien irċieva, u l-Wikileaks ippubblika, materjal li kien irċieva minn Bradley Manning, analista tal-armata Amerikana, fuq il-gwerra fl-Iraq u l-Afganistan, li kien jinkludi vidjo fejn ħelikopter Amerikan spara fuq u qatel grupp ta' individwi li kienu nħasbu li huma ġellieda, imma li fil-fatt kienu tfal Iraqqini u ġurnalisti.5  Manning laqqat 35 sena l-ħabs għar-rwol tiegħu, u Assange ilu tliet snin f'kenn fl-ambaxxata tal-Ekwador f'Londra bil-biża li jiġi maqbud mill-Istati Uniti.

 

Bħala prinċipju, mhux tajjeb li jiġi ppubblikat materjal li jpoġġi f'periklu lil persuni li qed jagħmlu xogħol fejjiedi għal pajjiżhom.  Dan ċertament kien ir-riżultat ta' parti mill-materjal ippublikat li kien ħareġ mingħand Snowden u Manning.

 

Madankollu, huwa tajjeb, u ħafna wkoll, li aħna, iċ-ċittadini li għandna tant drittijiet fuq il-karta imma ftit li xejn fil-fatt meta ninżammu fl-injoranza ta' dak li verament għaddej, insiru nafu bil-ħmieġ li qed jitwettaq f'isimna, awtorizzat minn dawk li ntellgħu biex jiggvernawna, u mwettaq minn dawk li jitħallsu mit-taxxi li jittieħdu mill-għaraq ta' ġbinna.

 

1http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/east-timor-greater-sunrise-spy-scandal/6969830, retrieved 28/9/2016

2Intelligence Services Act 2001, Section 11, as amended; Australian Government

3http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/asio-raided-lawyer-representing-east-timor-in-spying-case/5132486, retrieved 29/9/2016

4http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964, retrieved 29/9/2016

5https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-sentence-bradley-manning-today/2013/08/20/85bee184-09d0-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html, retrieved 29/9/2016

1http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/east-timor-greater-sunrise-spy-scandal/6969830, retrieved 28/9/2016

2Intelligence Services Act 2001, Section 11, as amended; Australian Government

3http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/asio-raided-lawyer-representing-east-timor-in-spying-case/5132486, retrieved 29/9/2016

4http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964, retrieved 29/9/2016

5https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-sentence-bradley-manning-today/2013/08/20/85bee184-09d0-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html, retrieved 29/9/2016