Often the most interesting aspects of a story do not concern the merits
of the story, but rather the collateral details. In fact, many havewondered why Meloni, in her victim-like advert on the Almasri case,
falsely claimed to have received a "notice of investigation", while in
fact it was simply a registration in the register of suspects. Moreover,
there is not even an obligation on the part of the judicial authority to
communicate such registration to the interested parties; indeed, it is
up to those who fear such an eventuality to take action to obtain news
of it. If the jurisdiction of the Court of Ministers had not been
involved, perhaps Meloni would have remained quietly unaware.
Therefore, it was not a question of information of investigation, but
even if Meloni had used the correct expression of registration in the
register of suspects, the effect of making her followers indignant, and
pushing them into an ideal embrace towards her, would have been there
anyway, since the subtleties of criminal procedure are not universally
known. There are therefore two cases: either Meloni lied needlessly, out
of pure habit and conditioned reflex, equally needlessly exposing
herself to being exposed as a liar; or Meloni is the first to ignore the
implications of the criminal procedure and, imprudently, rushed to seek
the warmth of her fans before even consulting with her co-defendants
Nordio and Piantedosi, who, although not the best, probably know
something about criminal procedure. It could therefore not be a case of
intentional or compulsive lying, but of banal quackery. Meloni would in
any case have the excuse of being in good company in the international
community, given that we have just seen Trump claim possession of
Greenland. Evidently he had not been informed of the fact that the US
has already had Greenland at its disposal for time immemorial; nor was
he even aware of the detail that formally annexing it would not be
convenient, since it would mean taking on the costs of its
administration; while today the US is in the perfect position to be the
master in Denmark's house, but leaving the "owner" with the burden of
paying the condominium and bills.
Some observe that Meloni has demonstrated remarkable ability to pick up
displaced people and turn them into her idolaters; but now this
unhealthy relationship with her worshippers is conditioning her beyond
measure; in fact, if in the Almasri case Meloni had avoided the
proclamations, immediately opposing state secrecy, today she would have
fewer difficulties. This is certainly the case, but it is also true that
appealing to secrecy is an oxymoron, the indication of a flaw in the
system. Meloni could have reason to recriminate, but not against the
magistrates, who this time have nothing to do with it, but rather
against the Italian secret services.
It has been said that the Italian government had to release Almasri and
arrange for his expatriation because there were unspeakable agreements
established by previous governments with Libyan factions. Sabino Cassese
and Bruno Vespa, in a mood of cynicism and crude realism, have appealed
to the "reason of State", revealing to us, no less, that in the mythical
"State of Law" governments claim to be superior to the law, exactly like
absolute monarchs. All we needed was for Vespa and Cassese to also
reveal to us that Santa Claus does not exist, otherwise we would never
have recovered from the shock.
But, even in this circumstance, the rhetoric of the reason of State is
specious and pathetic, as well as self-contradictory; in short, it is
yet another fairy tale in a more "pulp" version. If there really was a
"reason of State" to protect, then it was up to the apparatus
institutionally responsible for the "reason of State", i.e. the secret
services, to prevent the matter from being shown in the streets,
therefore preventing Almasri's arrest from taking place right here in
Italy. The International Criminal Court cannot have made the decision to
arrest Almasri overnight, but there must have been preparatory
consultations, all traceable; therefore, if there had been an
"intelligence", they would have made sure to warn Almasri that something
was brewing and therefore to keep away from Italy. Even admitting that
the "intelligence" may have failed, the numbers still wouldn't add up.
According to the official reconstruction, the International Criminal
Court issued the arrest warrant against Almasri on January 18, asking
for the collaboration of six countries including Italy. The arrest would
have taken place in Turin on January 19; therefore AISI and AISE would
have had almost a day to make Almasri disappear in order to avoid
embarrassment and embarrassment for the Italian government. Twenty-four
hours is not a lot, but not a little either, given that our services
were playing on home ground.
Unfortunately for Meloni, according to Law 124 of 2007, there is no
basis for complaining about the inertia of the secret services in the
affair. This is already evident from the title of the law which speaks
of an "information system for security"; therefore not "information and
security", but rather "information for security". In other words, the
secret services are only bound to the information aspect but not to the
operational one, which should instead be delegated to other police
bodies. The fact that the services do not have an operational function
could appear to be a guarantee against their possible abuses; in
reality, the information function implies the possibility of committing
any crime in order to obtain information, but then the secret services
are not required to act following the results of such information or the
"adverse effects" of the methods used to obtain that same information.
In short, the secret services can do what they want and do not have to
account for anything because they are not required to do anything,
except to "inform", that is, to tell what they want.
The concept is also reiterated in the latest Security Bill, in Article
31, in which the informative purpose even allows for the organization of
terrorist groups. On the other hand, if there is no operational purpose,
if there is no obligation to prevent attacks by terrorist groups, the
services would at least have the obligation to provide information.
However, even this obligation remains abstract, given that the
government depends on the information that the services pass to it and
does not have other sources available to examine such information and
establish whether there has been omission or falsification of the same.
Both Law 124/2007 and the Security Bill now being discussed in the
Senate effectively issue a blank cheque to the secret services, without
any guarantee of receiving a "service" in exchange, as seen in the
Almasri case. Given the level of irresponsibility and impunity of the
secret services, de facto appointed to deal only with their own
business, it is right that Meloni vents her frustration by using the
magistrates as punching bags. The problem with "reason of state" is that
it lacks a precise subject identifiable as the "State".
Comidad
https://umanitanova.org/caso-almasri-la-patetica-fiaba-della-ragion-di-stato/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten