Showing posts with label pardon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pardon. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

World War II code-breaker Alan Turing, castrated by the UK for being gay, receives posthumous royal pardon





Alan Turing, a British mathematical genius who broke codes for the Allies during World War II but was convicted in 1952 of homosexual activity, illegal in England at the time, has received a posthumous royal pardon.


Turing was chemically castrated as punishment for his conviction, and committed suicide two years later at age 41 by eating an apple laced with cyanide.


“His later life was overshadowed by his conviction for homosexual activity, a sentence we would now consider unjust and discriminatory and which has now been repealed,” Justice Minister Chris Grayling said. “Turing deserves to be remembered and recognized for his fantastic contribution to the war effort and his legacy to science. A pardon from the Queen is a fitting tribute to an exceptional man.”


Turing’s work helped break the Nazis’ Enigma machine ciphers, saving thousands of lives and helping the Allies win the war. Turing also set the foundation for modern computing by publishing a paper in 1937 that envisioned a device, later known as the Turing Machine, that could compute solutions to problems.


British human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told BBC News he welcomed the pardon for Turing, but at least 50,000 other men convicted of homosexual activity by the UK have not been pardoned.


“I pay tribute to the government for ensuring Alan Turing has a royal pardon at last but I do think it’s very wrong that other men convicted of exactly the same offense are not even being given an apology, let alone a royal pardon,” he said.
 


http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/united-kingdom/131224/world-war-ii-code-breaker-alan-turing-castrated-t




GlobalPost – Home



World War II code-breaker Alan Turing, castrated by the UK for being gay, receives posthumous royal pardon

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Khodorkovsky: Myths, hagiography and the pardon



Opinion pieces by Peter Lavelle, the host of RT’s shows CrossTalk and On the Money, who was also the anchor of the review programme In Context and the commentary series IMHO.




Published time: December 21, 2013 20:03

Former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Reuters/Karpukhin)


President Vladimir Putin’s decision to pardon disgraced oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky was indeed a bombshell.


Having been a witness of – and wrote extensively about – the “Yukos affair,” I fully expected Khodorkovsky to serve out his full sentence, then to slowly fade away.


How to explain Putin’s political calculus? Western media and the world of punditry immediately explained Putin’s decision as a mixture of “a man at the pinnacle of power” who could afford to do so, as well as an attempt to “clean-up” Russia’s human rights record before the Sochi Winter Olympic Games. Both explanations are mildly interesting, but neither is compelling. Putin does not have to prove anything to anyone.


Khodorkovsky was not a prisoner of conscience – he was a criminal who would have been sentenced to life in other jurisdictions for the crimes he committed. Khodorkovsky can hardly have been called a businessman either – he, like other oligarchs during the 1990s, stole, extorted, and even possibly ordered murders when making empires from looted state property. He was also a political fraudster – buying political influence from virtually anyone who would take his dirty money. It was only in prison did Khodorkovsky “find religion” in an attempt to rebrand himself as a man of the people and supporter of democracy.


Khodorkovsky and his PR machine created myths too. Khodorkovsky was never a real threat to Putin’s political power and Putin never feared him (and probably never will). Before his arrest, trial, and imprisonment, Khodorkovsky expressed little interest in being elected to office.Though there is overwhelming evidence he did everything in his power to capture the state for personal gain. And this is what was at the heart of the “Yukos affair.”


Not only did Khodorkovsky become Russia’s richest man, but he also intended to cash-out and/or make himself even richer (and at the expense of the Russian state and people). No one can deny Khodorkovsky had ambitions. His ambitions became hubris. First, he wanted to sell Yukos to Texas oilmen. Second and against Russian law, he wanted to build a private pipeline to export energy. (Under Russian law, the state has the monopoly right to export energy). Putin, as head of state and protector of the country’s sovereignty had no choice – Khodorkovsky and the other oligarchs had to be stopped.


A handout picture released by Newtimes.ru on December 21, 2013 shows Mikhail Khodorkovsky during his first interview after his release with the editor in chief of the Russian weekly newspaper


After being elected to the presidency in 2000, Putin made it clear the oligarchs were to stay out of politics and pay their fair share of taxes. This was the background to what is called Putin’s “Oligarch Wars.”


Khodorkovsky ignored Putin’s warnings and threats at his own peril. Western media and paid apologists in the service of corruption claim Khodorkovsky is a victim of arbitrary prosecution and persecution.


This is fantasy. The fact is Khodorkovsky willingly put himself straight and center in Putin’s sights. Taking on Khodorkovsky, the Russian state was saved from what could have easily turned into a de facto oligarch coup. It was at this time the other oligarchs understood that Putin was not to be taken for granted. Instead of an oligarch coup, the remaining oligarchs either fled or became – to use Putin’s words – highly paid state workers working in the interest of the state.


Western critics claim Khodorkovsky did not receive a fair trial and that his trials were politically motivated. That is not the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. In the Court’s judgments Khodorkovsky was guilty of massive tax evasion for which he was justly convicted and imprisoned. In another judgment the Court found that there were no grounds to suppose a political motivation to his case distinct from the charges that were brought against him. Alas, Khodorkovsky’s hagiographers never miss a chance to omit or overlook inconvenient facts.


Another myth about Khodorkovsky is public perception of him. For a small number of Russian liberals and of course the entirety of western mainstream media, Khodorkovsky is a saint. Miraculously, Khodorkovsky is deemed the conscience of the nation having martyred himself in front of Putin’s “authoritarian” throne.


The average Russian thinks differently. Khodorkovsky is a name and person associated with the


past – and an awful past at that. Khodorkovsky is no hero to the millions of Russians who saw their lives turned upside down. They witnessed a small number of greedy and heartless individuals rob them and then to almost destroy the state down to its very foundations.


Khodorkovsky and his fellow oligarchs had no tears when the lives of millions were destroyed.


Now on to the pardon: Putin could have pardoned Khodorkovsky years ago. Foreign public opinion has never been part of his political calculus – and he cares even less about the low-octane thoughts and words of western media pundits. Had Putin granted a pardon a year ago, two years, or even five years ago, basically the same nonsense that is written today would have been heard.


Jailed oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky is seen on a screen during an appeal for a reduced sentence at Russia


Russia’s human rights record has always been and probably will continue to be a reason to criticize the Kremlin. But it does not change Kremlin behavior (and won’t in the future).


As for the theory Putin can afford the pardon because he feels powerful enough to do so – well he has strong and consistent public opinion support (even as the economy has hit a rough patch). To date, Putin has never really been forced to do anything that he was against.


Political opposition to Putin’s governance is on the rocks – and this probably won’t change anytime soon. Russian liberals bickering among themselves long ago become a national spectator sport.


Putin pardoned Khodorkovsky because the former Yukos head was one of many eligible for early release under a general amnesty law– along with the political action group Pussy Riot and the Greenpeace 30. There is nothing special about Khodorkovsky beyond his greed and hubris. Putin apparently believes Khodorkovsky served enough time thinking about both.


What happens now is an open question. We should assume Khodorkovsky still has significant funds stashed away in foreign bank accounts. Now we will see if Khodorkovsky has learned anything from his criminal past. There is no meaningful interest in him from the average Russian.


The best way for him to rehabilitate himself would be to simply fade away.


Save this space!


Peter Lavelle is host of RT’s “CrossTalk” and “On the Money.”


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.




RT – Op-Edge



Khodorkovsky: Myths, hagiography and the pardon

Thursday, December 5, 2013

[286] Turkey Pardon Fail, Black Friday Mass Consumption, Greenpeace Takes on the World

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


[286] Turkey Pardon Fail, Black Friday Mass Consumption, Greenpeace Takes on the World

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Hustler Publisher Asks Authorities to Pardon His Shooter


Hustler Publisher Asks Authorities to Pardon His Shooter


Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 19, 2013




Larry Flynt, paralyzed by a shot 35 years ago, doesn’t want his attacker to be executed; Eminem’s latest hit number is homophobic; meanwhile, London plutocrats have been banned from bending building regulations to construct luxurious basement homes. These discoveries and more below.


On a regular basis, Truthdig brings you the news items and odds and ends that have found their way to Larry Gross, director of the USC Annenberg School for Communication. A specialist in media and culture, art and communication, visual communication and media portrayals of minorities, Gross helped found the field of gay and lesbian studies.


Paralyzed Porn Mogul Wants Attacker’s Life Spared
Porn mogul Larry Flynt urged US authorities Thursday to spare the life of a man sentenced to death for shooting him 35 years ago, leaving him paralyzed and wheelchair-bound.


Surprise! Eminem’s New Hit Song Is Homophobic
Seems like the real Slim Shady is at it again.


The Extraordinary Promise of the New Greenwald-Omidyar Venture
Make no mistake, news that Glenn Greenwald is leaving The Guardian to start a new publication funded by eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar is giant news—a bigger deal, than Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post.


The Best Free Data Mapping Tools
As the trend for data visualisation and mapping increases, so does the demand for tools that allow you to put this trend into action and produce content that portrays statistics in a more accessible and visually interesting way.


The Book: Its Past, Its Future
Roger Chartier, a professor at the Collège de France, examines the upheavals of the digital age which now confront us with an unprecedented question about the future of the written text: in its electronic form, should a text be fixed and immutable like a printed book, or can it open up to the potentialities of anonymity and unbounded multiplicity?


Helping Professors Use Technology Is Top Concern in Computing Survey
As professors step out from behind lecterns to stand beside laptops or in front of cameras—or both—the top concern for campus information-technology departments across the country is how they can help faculty members move smoothly into the digital age of learning.


This Is Your City Underwater
Sea levels are rising – what will that mean for your city?


Just How Much Neighborhood Transformation Can You Get From an Art Project?
Since 2005, Jeroen Koolhaas and Dre Urhahn (“Haas and Hahn”) have organized three large-scale painting projects in Rio de Janeiro’s slums, or favelas.


A Fond Farewell to London’s Insane Luxury Mega-Basements
Pity the average London plutocrat searching for a decent home.


The Case for Cul-de-Sacs
In a weird way, Thomas R. Hochschild Jr. actually first encountered the social cohesion of cul-de-sacs in his latest research when he wandered into one in Connecticut with his clipboard and polo shirt, and someone called the cops.


More Below the Ad






Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.




Previous item: Do We Sleep to Clean Our Brains?






New and Improved Comments


If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.





Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines



Hustler Publisher Asks Authorities to Pardon His Shooter

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Restore Honor and Pardon Edward Snowden


Restore Honor and Pardon Edward Snowden


Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 13, 2013




AP/Vincent Yu

By Robert Scheer


How do you justify criminally charging a government contractor for revealing an alarming truth that the public has every right to know? That is the contradiction raised by President Obama now that he has, in effect, acknowledged that Edward Snowden was an indispensable whistle-blower who significantly raised public awareness about a government threat to our freedom. 


Unfortunately, the president didn’t have the grace and courage to concede that precise point and remains committed to imprisoning Snowden instead of thanking him for serving the public interest. But Julian Assange, no stranger to unrequited integrity, nailed it. “Today, the president of the United States validated Edward Snowden’s role as a whistleblower by announcing plans to reform America’s global surveillance program,” the WikiLeaks founder said in a statement posted Saturday, the day after Obama’s remarks.


While boasting, “I called for a review of our surveillance programs,” Obama avoided the obvious fact that this review was compelled not by a sudden burst of respect for the safeguards demanded by our Constitution but rather Snowden’s action in making the public cognizant of the astounding breadth and depth of the National Security Agency’s spying program. 


Once again, Obama managed to blame not those responsible for government malfeasance, himself included, but instead the rare insiders driven to do their duty to inform the American people. “Unfortunately, rather than an orderly and lawful process to debate these issues and come up with appropriate reforms, repeated leaks of classified information have initiated the debate in a very passionate but not always fully informed way,” he said.


How disingenuous, to put it mildly. Without the leaks, there would be no reforms. We, the voters, couldn’t initiate a debate about the wisdom of this extensive spying because the government officials who authorized it, from the president on down, kept us in the dark. 


Those elected officials who were briefed on these nefarious programs never shared that information with the public, and most of them, led by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have branded Snowden a traitor for exposing their own failure to protect our freedoms.

“I don’t look at this as being a whistle-blower,” Feinstein said of Snowden in June. “I think it is an act of treason.” The senator added, “He took an oath—that oath is important. He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s an act of treason in my view.”


What about Feinstein betraying her oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and its Fourth Amendment prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures”? If she judged the NSA program to be constitutional, why didn’t she reveal the scope of the operation to the spied-upon American public to let the voters decide? Instead, last year, Feinstein joined with the Obama administration in defeating amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would have compelled the NSA to reveal the extent of its spying.


A decent Democrat, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, explained why the public needed the information that Feinstein would deny them. “Citizens generally assume our government is not spying on them,” he told U.S. News & World Report in December. “If they had any inkling of how this system really works, the details of which I cannot discuss, they would be profoundly appalled.”


But Feinstein’s contempt for the public’s right to know sustained people’s ignorance until Snowden took the courageous step of letting us in on the alarming details of this assault on our rights. The president was forced to reverse course, conceding for the first time that there is a problem, and advanced initiatives he claimed would better shield our liberties. Suddenly, defending those freedoms is our patriotic duty, as Obama acknowledged Friday, “because what makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation. It’s the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process.”


Why did it require the shocking Snowden revelations to get this president to recognize the danger to that democratic process resulting from the secret hearings of the FISC in which, as Obama put it, “One of the concerns that people raise is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic surveillance only hears one side of the story, may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty.”


No kidding? But maybe the president now gets the point that the authors of our Constitution intended, a notion this Harvard-educated constitutional law professor claimed to understand when he was a senator attempting to rein in the unbridled power of the NSA. That Obama has been forced by public opinion to come to his senses on this issue, even in a limited way, is a tribute to the courage of Snowden, who should be honored as the poster boy for the right of the citizen to protest government injustice rather than be hunted as a fugitive. 


Absurd as it sounds in this era of fear mongering, a presidential pardon for Snowden would bring honor to our country.






Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.





Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.




Previous item: What NSA Reforms?






New and Improved Comments


If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.





Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines



Restore Honor and Pardon Edward Snowden