Podcasts de historia

¿Es 529 el mayor veredicto simultáneo de pena de muerte de la historia?

¿Es 529 el mayor veredicto simultáneo de pena de muerte de la historia?

Recientemente, Egipto fue noticia al condenar a muerte a 529 personas en un solo veredicto judicial.

He visto mucho hablar tanto en los medios de comunicación como en línea acerca de que esta es la pena de muerte más grande en la "historia reciente". Sin embargo, no he visto ninguna referencia a uno más grande. De hecho, el único de tamaño comparable que he visto mencionado fue 152 sentenciado en un solo caso en Bangladesh en 2009. Sin embargo, incluso eso fue un poco diferente, ya que fue un juicio militar de toda una unidad militar por motín. .

Este veredicto parece un poco horrible para mucha gente, pero creo que sería útil ponerle un límite real.

Entonces, la pregunta es, ¿alguna vez se han documentado casos judiciales que condenaron a muerte a más de 529 civiles a la vez? Si es así, ¿cuál fue el más reciente??


La masacre de Verden en 782 puede verse como la ejecución de 4.500 sajones por Carlomagno por violar la Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, una ley que prohíbe el paganismo. Esto fue en el contexto de una revuelta y los 4.500 fueron entregados por las fuerzas sajonas al capitular. Puede que no sea lo que busca el interrogador, ya que no se les dio nada parecido al debido proceso, pero pensé que era un ejemplo interesante, ya que muchos fueron ejecutados nominalmente por violar un código legal específico que no está directamente relacionado con el acto de rebelarse. .


El caso más grande de una nación que usa un sistema legal adecuado que se me ocurre es después de la Tercera Guerra Servil, la famosa revuelta de esclavos liderada por Espartaco, los romanos condenaron y ejecutaron a los 6.000 esclavos rebeldes restantes que no habían sido asesinados en batalla. Los esclavos involucrados eran gladiadores, por lo que fue difícil aplastar la revuelta. Los esclavos son civiles, incluso si son gladiadores.

Debido al hecho de que los esclavos no son ciudadanos y el momento de la revuelta es a finales de la República, los esclavos involucrados deben estar sujetos al imperium. El sistema de justicia se volvió más corrupto y el ejército más poderoso a medida que Roma se convirtió en una dictadura. Esto significaría que habrían sido "juzgados" en cierto sentido por un magistrado con poder para dictar justicia militar.

En el otoño, cuando la revuelta estaba en su apogeo y Espartaco tenía alrededor de 120.000 seguidores, el Senado votó para pasar a los cónsules y otorgar el imperium a Marco Licinio Craso, que había sido pretor en el 73 a. C. pero actualmente no ocupaba ningún cargo

Hay muchos ejemplos más grandes que este de naciones que utilizan la justicia extrajudicial o la ejecución sumaria. Los juicios de espectáculos durante la Revolución Cultural probablemente serían el límite superior para las condenas a muerte más grandes de la historia. Cientos de miles de personas fueron declaradas culpables de ser revolucionarios reaccionarios.

Para situar la cifra de 529 en un contexto histórico moderno adecuado, el mayor caso de pena de muerte simultánea en el sistema de justicia sudanés durante la brutal guerra en Darfur involucró a poco más de 100 personas declaradas culpables de actos terroristas contra el gobierno en 2008. Tras el genocidio en Ruanda, el gobierno consideró ejecutar a miles de personas. Dos mil murieron en prisión en espera de juicio. La Corte Internacional de Justicia intervino y trabajó con Ruanda para llevar ante la justicia a los peores infractores que a menudo se escondían en otros países. La ejecución más grande involucró a siete personas. Teniendo en cuenta estos hechos, el número parece muy grande.

Fuente: estudio de caso DOMAC 19 Sudán


¿Es 529 el mayor veredicto simultáneo de pena de muerte de la historia? - Historia

Soberano de guerra volando por los cielos

Capítulo 3098 - Menos de 100 personas

Capítulo 3098: Menos de 100 personas

Traductor: Traducción de EndlessFantasy Editor: Traducción de EndlessFantasy

& # x201CJiang Lan va a reunir energía de sangre y fuego del alma del pico caído Celestiales Supremos Celestiales Superiores con la Formación antes de enviarlos a los embriones de una sola vez. & # x201D

Duan Ling Tian miró la barrera translúcida de la Formación. La barrera era como una cúpula que rodeaba el árbol de la Fruta Divina del Sacrificio Celestial, impidiendo que absorbiera la energía de la sangre y el fuego del alma. Al mismo tiempo, el árbol no dejó de intentar absorberlos, por lo tanto, la fuerza de tracción del árbol hizo que la energía de la sangre y el fuego del alma se pegaran contra la barrera. Una vez que se quitó la barrera, toda la energía de la sangre acumulada y el fuego del alma serían absorbidos por el árbol a la vez.

En este momento, había energía de sangre y fuego del alma de tres Celestiales Supremos Celestiales Superiores de los picos caídos pegados en la barrera. No pasó mucho tiempo antes de que la energía de la sangre y el fuego del alma de otros dos picos caídos Celestiales Supremos Celestiales dominantes se unieran a ellos.

Después de un tiempo, una persona apareció frente a Duan Ling Tian. Había estado esperando bastante tiempo antes de que su nuevo oponente apareciera frente a él.

Al mismo tiempo, Ling Jue Yun y Lin Fei Yang también se enfrentaban a sus oponentes.

Todo esto fue arreglado deliberadamente por Jiang Lan.

Después de que aparecieron los embriones de la Fruta Divina del Sacrificio Celestial, Jiang Lan se había desesperado. Era como si ya no pudiera esperar a que el árbol diera frutos. Por lo tanto, para acelerar las cosas, a Duan Ling Tian, ​​Ling Jue Yun, Lin Fei Yang y los demás se les asignó rápidamente un oponente tan pronto como terminaron sus batallas.

Jiang Lan había organizado deliberadamente que Ling Jue Yun y Lin Fei Yang lucharan contra los Celestiales Supremos Celestiales Superiores que habían comprendido tres profundidades de una ley. Sin embargo, no era su intención sacrificar al dúo. Después de todo, el dúo podría ayudarlo a matar a los demás a un ritmo más rápido.

Anteriormente, cuando había seleccionado e invitado a los Celestiales Supremos Celestiales Superiores de la cima aquí, había calculado que quedarían más de 100 personas cuando aparecieran los embriones. Con esto, había más que suficiente energía de sangre y fuego del alma para nutrir a los embriones y hacerlos producir las Frutas Divinas del Sacrificio Celestial. Por lo tanto, podía permitirse perdonar las vidas de Ling Jue Yun y Lin Fei Yang si así lo deseaba.

¡Silbido! ¡Silbido! ¡Silbido! ¡Silbido! ¡Silbido!

El oponente actual de Duan Ling Tian era un hombre de mediana edad vestido con una larga túnica verde.

El hombre de mediana edad había comprendido tres profundidades de la ley del viento y había comenzado a comprender la cuarta profundidad. Su rostro permaneció indiferente mientras las palas de viento giraban alrededor de su cuerpo, creando ruidos algo similares a un enjambre de abejas zumbantes.

& # x201CDie! & # x201D El hombre de mediana edad gritó mientras miraba a Duan Ling Tian. Blandió la hoja de un metro de largo en su mano, provocando una violenta ráfaga de viento que había sido impulsada con la Profundidad de la Hoja de Viento y otras dos profundidades de la ley del viento. La ráfaga de viento barrió hacia Duan Ling Tian como un dragón enojado.

¡Uy! ¡Uy! ¡Uy! ¡Uy! ¡Uy!

El penetrante y agudo aullido del viento resonó en el aire.

Los sonidos de las espadas y el viento eran increíblemente fuertes.

Las personas que comprendían la ley del viento tenían una gran ventaja sobre las que comprendían la ley de la tierra en términos de velocidad y ofensiva. El oponente anterior de Duan Ling Tian & # x2019 había comprendido tres profundidades de la ley de la tierra. Aunque su oponente anterior había comprendido la única profundidad ofensiva de la ley de la tierra, el Shake Profundity, los ataques de su oponente anterior estaban muy lejos de este hombre de mediana edad que había comprendido tres profundidades y en el proceso de comprender la cuarta profundidad. de la ley del viento.

Sin embargo, Duan Ling Tian prefería a su oponente actual sobre el anterior. Su oponente anterior había usado la Profundidad del Espacio Gravitacional y lo confinó en un espacio antes de bombardearlo con ataques desde todas las direcciones. Aunque no sufrió los ataques, la supresión de la Profundidad del Espacio Gravitacional lo hizo extremadamente incómodo. Aunque su oponente actual era más fuerte, los ataques no eran tan difíciles de manejar en comparación con su oponente anterior.

& # x201C ¡Justo a tiempo! & # x201D Cuando el ataque de su oponente se acercaba, Duan Ling Tian & # x2019s Celestial Origin Energy que había sido impulsada con la Profundidad Elemental de Fuego y la Profundidad de Saqueo surgió de su cuerpo. En solo un instante, fue envuelto en llamas.

Duan Ling Tian cargó hacia adelante como una antorcha humana. Un olor a quemado permaneció en el aire mientras dejaba un rastro de fuego a su paso como la cola de un fénix.

Zumbidos sonaron en el aire

En este momento, el oponente de Duan Ling Tian vio un anillo saliendo de las llamas que envolvieron a Duan Ling Tian.

El anillo estaba envuelto en llamas rojas y verdes. Su formidable aura podría hacer que la gente temblara de miedo.

Duan Ling Tian no tuvo miedo cuando se enfrentó al ataque amenazante de su oponente que había comprendido la ley del viento. Ya había matado a un pico Celestial Supremo Celestial General que había comprendido tres profundidades de la ley de la tierra, ¿por qué tendría miedo de otro pico Celestial Supremo Celestial General que había comprendido tres profundidades de la ley del viento? Aunque este último tenía una comprensión básica de la ley del viento y la cuarta profundidad, no hizo ninguna diferencia para él.

Duan Ling Tian no se sorprendió cuando los ataques chocaron, y su ataque rápidamente superó el ataque de su oponente después de una breve parada. Al igual que el poder divino, las llamas rojas y verdes se transformaron en una espada de fuego antes de matar a su oponente.

Mientras tanto, Jiang Lan, que estaba viendo a Duan Ling Tian, ​​tampoco se sorprendió por el resultado. & # x201CJusto como pensaba & # x2026 Aunque solo ha comprendido dos profundidades de la ley del fuego, con la combinación de las dos Armas Celestiales de Grado Real, ¡incluso Ling Jue Yun y Lin Fei Yang ganaron & # x2019t ser un rival para él! & # x201D

Jiang Lan podía decirle al oponente a quien Duan Ling Tian acababa de matar que era tan fuerte como Lin Fei Yang y un poco más débil que Ling Jue Yun. Si Ling Jue Yun fuera a luchar contra el oponente de Duan Ling Tian & # x2019, Ling Jue Yun podría necesitar unos días y noches para derrotar al oponente. Por otro lado, Duan Ling Tian había derrotado a ese oponente sin esfuerzo.

En este momento, Ling Jue Yun y Lin Fei Yang continuaron matando con éxito a sus oponentes uno tras otro. Segundos después, un nuevo oponente aparecería rápidamente ante ellos. Esto se debió a la desesperación de Jiang Lan por acelerar el proceso de fructificación del árbol de la Fruta Divina del Sacrificio Celestial. Quería reunir tanta energía de sangre y fuego del alma como fuera posible antes de enviarlo todo a los embriones de la Fruta Divina del Sacrificio Celestial de una sola vez.

Después de un tiempo, los pocos cientos de sobrevivientes se redujeron a solo menos de 100 sobrevivientes.

En este momento, el Anillo Místico Yin y Yang Nueve Castaño de Agua en las manos de Duan Ling Tian & # x2019s volaron antes de que las llamas verdes y rojas se dispararan hacia otro de sus oponentes. Simplemente así, sin esfuerzo mató a un pico Celestial Supremo Celestial Supremo que había comprendido tres profundidades de la ley del metal.

Después de matar a su oponente, Duan Ling Tian notó que la barrera que rodeaba el árbol de la Fruta Divina del Sacrificio Celestial tembló ligeramente cuando la energía de sangre y el fuego del alma de su oponente aterrizaron sobre ella. Era como si la barrera finalmente sintiera la presión de toda la energía de la sangre y el fuego del alma. La barrera tembló aún más cuando la energía de la sangre y el fuego del alma de un oponente que Ling Jue Yun acababa de matar aterrizaron sobre ella.

Duan Ling Tian envió una transmisión de voz a Ling Jue Yun para informarle de su descubrimiento. & # x201C Parece que la Formación que preparó en su vida pasada está a punto de ceder bajo el impacto de tanta energía de sangre y fuego del alma. O tal vez, no puede resistir la fuerza de tracción del árbol de la Fruta Divina del Sacrificio Celestial. & # X201D

Ling Jue Yun miró furtivamente a la barrera antes de decir: & # x201CI parece que sí & # x2026 ¡Supongo que la barrera translúcida solo es capaz de resistir otra docena de Celestiales Supremos Celestiales Celestiales dominantes y energía de sangre y fuego del alma antes de que se rompa! & # x201D Sus ojos brillaron mientras continuaba diciendo, & # x201C En ese momento, Jiang Lan probablemente mataría a los supervivientes restantes antes de que los embriones crecieran y dieran frutos. Después de todo, estoy seguro de que a él también le preocupa que alguien pueda robarle las frutas. De ahora en adelante, debemos prestar más atención a la barrera. Cuando esté a punto de romperse, debemos estar preparados y en alerta total. & # X201D

Mientras Duan Ling Tian y Ling Jue Yun conversaban a través de la transmisión de voz, Jiang Lan también había notado el problema. & # x201CI Parece que & # x2019 he subestimado el poder de arrastre del árbol de la Fruta Divina del Sacrificio del Cielo & # x2026 Cuando la barrera se rompe, la energía de la sangre y el fuego del alma acumulados en la barrera serían llevados instantáneamente a los embriones del Divino Sacrificio del Cielo. Fruta & # x2026 Sin embargo, todavía quedan muchos supervivientes & # x2026 & # x201D

En este momento, Jiang Lan miró a Duan Ling Tian y a los demás mientras la intención asesina se elevaba lentamente desde las profundidades de sus ojos.


* 356 III

La decisión de la mayoría también se basa en su conclusión de que "no hay evidencia de que el Congreso tuviera la intención de derogar la inmunidad tradicional de testigos de derecho consuetudinario en las acciones de 1983". Apuesta inicial, en 337. De hecho, existe evidencia considerable en la historia legislativa de que el Congreso tuvo la intención de derogar la inmunidad de los participantes en los procedimientos judiciales estatales.

A instancias de los peticionarios, [16] el Tribunal ha examinado ampliamente la historia legislativa del § 2 de la Ley del Ku Klux Klan de 1871, 17 Stat. 13, ahora codificado como 42 U.S. C. § 1985 (3) (edición de 1976, Suplemento V). Sin embargo, el precursor del § 1983 fue el § 1 de la Ley de 1871, no el § 2. Como señala la mayoría, apuesta inicial, en 337, 340-341, las dos secciones difieren significativamente en su lenguaje y propósito. Por tanto, no es de extrañar que los debates sobre el § 2 arrojen poca luz sobre el § 1. En mi opinión, la investigación debería centrarse en la historia del § 1. Solo examinando la génesis * 357 de esa disposición se puede determinar si el Congreso tenía la intención de derogar determinadas inmunidades de derecho consuetudinario.

El origen del § 1 no es cuestionable. El lenguaje y el concepto de la disposición se derivaron en gran parte del § 2 de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1866, 14 Stat. 27. [17] El autor del § 1 estableció claramente la relación entre las dos leyes al introducir la medida de 1871:

Debido a que las dos disposiciones están tan íntimamente conectadas, un examen completo de la historia del § 1 de la Ley de 1871 debe comenzar con el § 2 de la Ley de 1866.

La Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1866 fue el primer estatuto federal que proporcionó una amplia protección en el campo de los derechos civiles. Su propósito principal era garantizar la igualdad de los negros recién emancipados con los blancos ante la ley. El artículo 2 de la ley estipulaba la responsabilidad penal de cualquier persona que, actuando bajo el pretexto de la ley, privara a otra de sus derechos por motivos de raza. Esta disposición fue ampliamente debatida. La controversia se centró en gran parte en su aplicación prevista a los funcionarios estatales que son parte integral del proceso judicial.

La responsabilidad de los funcionarios judiciales estatales y todos los participantes oficiales en los procedimientos judiciales estatales en virtud del § 2 se afirmó explícita y repetidamente. [18] La noción de inmunidad para tales funcionarios fue completamente desacreditada. El patrocinador del Senado * 359 de la ley consideró la idea "similar a la máxima de la ley inglesa de que el rey no puede hacer nada malo. Coloca a los funcionarios por encima de la ley. Es la doctrina misma de la cual la rebelión [la Guerra Civil] fue eclosionado ". Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1758 (1866) (Sen. Trumbull). Por lo tanto, el § 2 estaba "dirigido directamente al poder judicial del Estado". Identificación., en 1155 (Rep. Eldridge). Ver también identificación., en 1778 (Sen. Johnson, miembro del Comité Judicial del Senado) (§ 2 de la Ley de 1866 "huelgas en el departamento judicial de los gobiernos de los Estados").

Se hicieron dos esfuerzos infructuosos para enmendar el § 2. Primero, el Representante Miller presentó una enmienda para eximir a los jueces estatales de responsabilidad penal. Identificación., en 1156. En segundo lugar, y de particular importancia, el Representante Bingham presentó una enmienda para sustituir una acción civil por las sanciones penales contenidas en la propuesta. Identificación., en 1266, 1271-1272. El patrocinador de la Ley de 1866, el Representante Wilson, se opuso a la enmienda en gran parte sobre la base de que colocaría la carga financiera de proteger los derechos civiles en los individuos pobres en lugar de en el gobierno. Identificación., en 1295. Al mismo tiempo, destacó que "no hay diferencia en el principio involucrado" entre un recurso civil y una sanción penal. Ibídem.

Después de que el proyecto de ley de 1866 fue aprobado por el Senado y la Cámara, el presidente Andrew Johnson lo vetó. Su oposición se basó en parte en el hecho de que el § 2 del proyecto de ley "invade el poder judicial del Estado". Mensaje de Veto, en identificación., en 1680. El Presidente advirtió que "los jueces de los tribunales estatales ... [y] alguaciles y alguaciles, quienes, como funcionarios ministeriales, deben ejecutar procesos, sancionados por las leyes estatales y dictados por los jueces estatales, en ejecución de sus sentencias, podrían ser llevado ante otros tribunales y sujeto a multa y prisión por el desempeño de los deberes que tales leyes estatales pudieran imponer ”. Ibídem. En dos semanas, tanto el Senado como la Cámara anularon el veto. Varios congresistas respondieron a las críticas del presidente y admitieron libremente que el § 2 de la legislación estaba dirigido a los sistemas judiciales estatales. Como miembro del Comité Judicial de la Cámara, el Representante * 360 Lawrence, declaró: "Respondo que es mejor invadir el poder judicial del Estado que permitirle invadir, derribar y destruir los derechos civiles de los ciudadanos. Un poder judicial pervertido a tales usos debería ser rápidamente invadido. El agravio sería insignificante ". Identificación., en 1837. Véase también identificación., en 1758 (respuesta del senador Trumbull al mensaje de veto del presidente) identificación., en 1838 (declaración del representante Clarke). El proyecto de ley se convirtió en ley el 9 de abril de 1866.

Este Tribunal ha leído de vez en cuando § 1983 teniendo en cuenta el "trasfondo" de la responsabilidad extracontractual de derecho consuetudinario. [19] Sin embargo, mucho más pertinente a este caso son los antecedentes proporcionados por la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1866. El representante Bingham, que había introducido la enmienda para sustituir la responsabilidad civil por la responsabilidad penal en la Ley de 1866, se había convertido en presidente del Comité Judicial de la Cámara en el momento del 42º Congreso. El Senador Trumbull, el patrocinador del Senado de la Ley de 1866, fue presidente del Comité Judicial del Senado en 1871. El Representante Shellabarger, que había participado en los debates sobre la legislación de 1866, [20] redactó la Ley de 1871.

El Congreso era muy consciente de que el "modelo" para el § 1 de la ley de 1871 se podía encontrar en la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1866. Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 68 (1871) (Rep. Shellabarger). El gerente del proyecto de ley en el Senado, George Edmunds, enfatizó que el § 1 estaba simplemente "llevando a cabo los principios del proyecto de ley de derechos civiles" que se había aprobado en 1866. Identificación., en 568. El Representante Coburn declaró que el § 1 "da un recurso civil paralelo a la disposición penal" en la Ley de Derechos Civiles. "Si esta sección penal es válida y nadie se atreve a contradecirla, el recurso civil es legal e incuestionable". Identificación., en 461. Ver también identificación., en 429 (Rep. McHenry en oposición) * 361 ("La primera sección del proyecto de ley pretende ser una enmienda de la ley de derechos civiles") identificación., en 365 (Rep. Arthur en oposición) (§ 1 es "acumulativo, en la medida de lo posible, con ciertas disposiciones en el proyecto de ley de derechos civiles").

El hecho de que el § 2 de la Ley de derechos civiles fuera el modelo del § 1 de la Ley de 1871 explica por qué los debates en el 42º Congreso sobre el § 1 fueron tan superficiales. [21] De todas las medidas de la Ley del Ku Klux Klan, el § 1 generó la menor controversia ya que simplemente proporcionó una contraparte civil a la disposición penal mucho más controvertida de la Ley de 1866. Ver identificación., en 568 (Sen. Edmunds) ("La primera sección es una a la que creo que nadie se opone") identificación., en App. 313 (Rep. Burchard) ("Para la primera sección, otorgando reparación a una parte lesionada mediante una demanda en los tribunales de los Estados Unidos en los casos enumerados, no veo objeciones") Monell v. Departamento de Servicios Sociales de la Ciudad de Nueva York, 436 U. S., en 665 (el debate sobre § 1 fue limitado y la sección fue aprobada sin enmiendas) Desarrollos en la Ley - Sección 1983 y Federalismo, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1133, 1155 (1977).

Los opositores del § 1 de la Ley de 1871 repitieron los mismos argumentos que se habían hecho contra el § 2 de la Ley de 1866. Advirtieron sobre la responsabilidad de los funcionarios judiciales que resultaría de la promulgación del § 1. [22] De hecho, al describir las consecuencias inevitables de la Ley de 1871, el Senador Thurman señaló los enjuiciamientos penales de los funcionarios judiciales estatales que ya habían tenido lugar bajo la Ley de 1866. Actuar. [23] Estas declaraciones difícilmente pueden descartarse como retórica exagerada de los opositores a la Ley de 1871. En cambio, simplemente reflejan el hecho de que la batalla por la responsabilidad de los integrantes del proceso judicial ya se había librado en 1866 cuando el Congreso * 362 adoptó la sanción penal mucho más seria dirigida a los sistemas judiciales estatales. La sección 1, en cambio, preveía "el recurso leve de una acción civil". Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 482 (1871) (Rep. Wilson, miembro del Comité Judicial de la Cámara). Por tanto, no era de extrañar que los argumentos de los opositores a la Ley de 1871 cayeran en oídos sordos. También es digno de mención que el Representante Shellabarger, quien apenas se mostró reacio a interrumpir a los oradores que interpretaban mal su propuesta, [24] nunca cuestionó las caracterizaciones de los oponentes con respecto a la responsabilidad de los funcionarios judiciales estatales. [25]

Asumir que el Congreso, que había promulgado una sanción penal dirigida contra funcionarios judiciales estatales, [26] pretendía sub silentio eximir a esos mismos funcionarios de la contraparte civil se acerca a lo increíble. [27] Los alguaciles y alguaciles, aunque desempeñaban una función fundamentalmente judicial como el proceso de notificación, eran claramente responsables en virtud de la Ley de 1866, a pesar de las objeciones del presidente Johnson. Porque, * 363 como dijo el Representante Shellabarger, § 1 de la Ley de 1871 proporcionó un remedio civil "en el mismo caso idéntico" o "en el mismo estado de hechos" que el § 2 de la Ley de 1866, obviamente anuló cualquier inmunidad que pudiera tener. existía en el derecho consuetudinario para estos participantes en el proceso judicial en 1871.

La falta de respaldo histórico a la inmunidad de testigos contrasta fuertemente con el sustancial respaldo histórico a la inmunidad legislativa que esta Corte reconoció en Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951), un caso en el que se basa la mayoría. Apuesta inicial, en 330, 334. La inmunidad legislativa disfrutó de una posición histórica única desde que fue concebida en las luchas parlamentarias del siglo XVII y consagrada en la Cláusula de Discurso y Debate de la Constitución. La gran mayoría de los Estados ha adoptado disposiciones constitucionales que brindan una protección paralela contra la responsabilidad civil y penal. Consulte 341 U.S., en 372-375.

Además, la historia del § 1 apoya la incorporación de la inmunidad legislativa. Por ejemplo, cuando el mensaje de veto del presidente Johnson planteó el fantasma de responsabilizar a los legisladores estatales en virtud del artículo 2 de la Ley de 1866, [28] el patrocinador de la Ley en el Senado se apresuró a desmentir tal intención. El senador Trumbull argumentó con cierta extensión que los legisladores no entraban dentro del alcance de la ley porque "promulgan" leyes en lugar de actuar "bajo el pretexto de" la ley estatal. [29] Cualquiera que sea la validez de esta distinción, sin duda refleja la renuencia del Congreso a vulnerar la inmunidad de los legisladores estatales. Pero aunque el Congreso Republicano Radical era un "firme defensor de la libertad legislativa", 341 U.S., en 376, no mostró ninguna solicitud por los tribunales estatales. [30] Los debates sobre la Ley de 1871 están repletos de comentarios hostiles dirigidos a los sistemas 364 judiciales estatales. [31] Es completamente razonable concluir que el Congreso tenía la intención de hacer que los legisladores estatales fueran inmunes a la responsabilidad civil en virtud del § 1 de la Ley de 1871. No existen pruebas similares para respaldar la inmunidad de los agentes de policía que testifican como testigos. [32]

La mayoría también basa su decisión en consideraciones de orden público, que supuestamente exigen inmunidad absoluta para los oficiales de policía demandados bajo § 1983 por su testimonio como testigos. Apuesta inicial, al 341-345. Esta Corte ha reconocido la inmunidad absoluta sólo en "situaciones excepcionales" donde el orden público la hace "imprescindible". Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507 (1978). [33] En mi opinión, el caso de la inmunidad de testigos oficiales dista mucho de cumplir este estándar.

* 365 Los agentes de policía y otros funcionarios gubernamentales difieren significativamente de los ciudadanos privados, en torno a los cuales se desarrollaron las doctrinas de derecho consuetudinario de la inmunidad de testigos. Un oficial de policía llega al estrado de los testigos vestido con la autoridad del Estado. Su estatus oficial le da credibilidad y crea un potencial de daño mucho mayor que el que existe cuando el ciudadano promedio testifica. [34] La situación se agrava cuando el funcionario recurre a conocimientos especializados. Un policía que testifique sobre una identificación mediante huellas dactilares o un médico forense que testifique sobre la causa de una muerte puede tener un impacto crítico en el juicio de un acusado. [35] Al mismo tiempo, la amenaza de un enjuiciamiento criminal por perjurio, que constituye una limitación importante en el testimonio de un testigo promedio, es prácticamente inexistente en el contexto de los testigos policiales. A pesar de la aparente prevalencia del perjurio policial, [36] los fiscales muestran una extrema * 366 renuencia a acusar a los agentes de policía de conducta delictiva debido a su necesidad de mantener relaciones de trabajo estrechas con los organismos encargados de hacer cumplir la ley. [37] La ​​mayoría excluye así una sanción civil precisamente en aquellas situaciones en las que la necesidad es más urgente.

Además, el peligro de que los testigos oficiales se vean inhibidos a declarar por el temor a una acción por daños y perjuicios es mucho más remoto que en el caso de los testigos privados. Los policías normalmente tienen el deber de testificar sobre asuntos relacionados con su conducta oficial. La idea de que los funcionarios con un interés profesional en obtener condenas penales ensombrecerían su testimonio a favor de un acusado para evitar el riesgo de una demanda civil solo puede verse con escepticismo. Además, los oficiales de policía generalmente están aislados de cualquier dificultad económica asociada con juicios basados ​​en conductas dentro del alcance de su autoridad. [38] En todo caso, si la Corte realmente desea dar a los agentes de policía "todo estímulo para que revelen en su totalidad toda la información pertinente que esté en su conocimiento" ". apuesta inicial, en 335 (citando Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S., en 439 (WHITE, J., concurriendo en la sentencia)), entonces al menos debería permitir demandas de § 1983 que alegan que los funcionarios retenían información clave mientras testificaban. [39]

* 367 La principal preocupación de la mayoría parece ser que las demandas de 1983 contra testigos de la policía impondrían "cargas significativas sobre el sistema judicial y los recursos para hacer cumplir la ley". Apuesta inicial, en 343. Como cuestión empírica, esta afirmación es infundada. Tanto el Sexto Circuito como el Circuito del Distrito de Columbia han permitido este tipo de demandas durante más de cinco años, ver apuesta inicial, en 328-329, n. 4, pero no hay una pérdida perceptible de recursos legales en esos Circuitos en comparación con otros Circuitos que prohíben tales demandas. Además, un estudio exhaustivo de las demandas de § 1983 presentadas en el Distrito Central de California, que incluye a Los Ángeles, indica que solo se presentaron aproximadamente 30 acciones por arresto falso anualmente en ese Distrito. [40] Los agentes de policía arrestan con mucha más frecuencia de lo que testifican, y un arresto indudablemente hará que muchas personas se sientan descontentas. Sin embargo, las demandas basadas en tales acusaciones constituyeron solo el 0.5% de todos los casos presentados en el Distrito Central, [41] o un promedio de solo uno por cada 243 policías a tiempo completo * 368 oficiales en la ciudad de Los Ángeles. [42] Esto no parece ser una "carga significativa". [43] El simple hecho es que los obstáculos prácticos por sí solos son suficientes para disuadir a la mayoría de las personas de demandar a la policía por mala conducta oficial. [44]

Al considerar los intereses en competencia en juego en esta área, la mayoría logra un equilibrio muy unilateral. Evita cualquier inmunidad calificada en favor de una absoluta. Por lo tanto, la mera investigación de buena fe se considera tan indeseable que simplemente debemos aceptar la posibilidad de que los funcionarios del gobierno privarán maliciosamente a los ciudadanos de sus derechos. [45] Por mi parte, no puedo concebir en este caso cómo se pueden tolerar las violaciones patentes de los derechos individuales en nombre del bien público. "La esencia misma de la libertad civil consiste ciertamente en el derecho de cada individuo a reclamar la protección de las leyes, siempre que reciba una lesión". Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803).


Contenido

Ha habido muchos ataques terroristas en Mumbai desde las 13 explosiones coordinadas de bombas que mataron a 257 personas e hirieron a 700 el 12 de marzo de 1993. [36] Los ataques de 1993 se llevaron a cabo en venganza por disturbios religiosos anteriores que mataron a muchos musulmanes. [37]

El 6 de diciembre de 2002, una explosión en un autobús BEST cerca de la estación de Ghatkopar mató a dos personas e hirió a 28. [38] El atentado ocurrió en el décimo aniversario de la demolición de la mezquita de Babri en Ayodhya. [39] Una bicicleta bomba explotó cerca de la estación de Vile Parle en Mumbai, matando a una persona e hiriendo a 25 el 27 de enero de 2003, un día antes de la visita del Primer Ministro de la India Atal Bihari Vajpayee a la ciudad. [40] El 13 de marzo de 2003, un día después del décimo aniversario de los atentados de Bombay en 1993, una bomba explotó en un compartimento de tren cerca de la estación de Mulund, matando a 10 personas e hiriendo a 70. [41] El 28 de julio de 2003, una explosión en un autobús BEST en Ghatkopar mató a 4 personas e hirió a 32. [42] El 25 de agosto de 2003, dos bombas explotaron en el sur de Mumbai, una cerca de la Puerta de la India y la otra en Zaveri Bazaar en Kalbadevi. Al menos 44 personas murieron y 150 resultaron heridas. [43] El 11 de julio de 2006, siete bombas explotaron en 11 minutos en el ferrocarril suburbano de Mumbai, [44] matando a 209 personas, incluidos 22 extranjeros [45] [46] [47] y más de 700 heridos. [48] ​​[49] Según la Policía de Mumbai, los atentados fueron llevados a cabo por Lashkar-e-Taiba y el Movimiento Islámico de Estudiantes de la India (SIMI). [50] [51]

Un grupo de hombres, a veces declarado como 24 y en otras ocasiones 26, [52] recibió entrenamiento en guerra marítima en un campamento remoto en la montaña Muzaffarabad en Pakistán. Se informó que parte de la capacitación tuvo lugar en el embalse de la presa Mangla en Pakistán. [53]

Los reclutas pasaron por las siguientes etapas de entrenamiento, según informes de los medios de comunicación indios y estadounidenses:

  • Psicológico: Adoctrinamiento de las ideas islamistas yihadistas, incluidas imágenes de las atrocidades sufridas por los musulmanes en India, [54] Chechenia, Palestina y en todo el mundo.
  • Combate básico: el curso de metodología y entrenamiento básico de combate de Lashkar, el 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. [dieciséis]

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]

Investigación Editar

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]

Nacionalidad Deaths Injured
India 141 256
Estados Unidos 6 [b] [174] [175] 2 [175]
Israel 4 [176]
Alemania 3 [150] 3
Australia 2 [177] 2
Canadá 2 [178] 2
Francia 2 [179]
Italia 1 [180]
United Kingdom 1 [c] [181] 7
Países Bajos 1 [182] 1 [183]
Japón 1 [184] 1
Jordán 1 1
Malaysia 1 [185]
Mauritius 1 [186] [187]
México 1 [188]
Singapore 1 [189]
Tailandia 1 [190]
Austria 1 [191]
España 2 [150] [192] [193]
porcelana 1 [150]
Oman 2 [150]
Filipinas 1 [194]
Finlandia 1 [150]
Noruega 1 [195]
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. The Times of India commented on its front page that "Our politicians fiddle as innocents die." [227] Political reactions in Mumbai and India included a range of resignations and political changes, including the resignations of Minister for Home Affairs Shivraj Patil, [23] Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh [228] and deputy chief minister R. R. Patil [229] for controversial reactions to the attack including taking the former's son and Bollywood director Ram Gopal Verma to tour the damaged Taj Hotel and the latters remarks that the attacks were not a big deal in such a large city. Indian Muslims condemned the attacks and refused to bury the attackers. Groups of Muslims marched against the attacks [230] and mosques observed silence. Prominent Muslim personalities such as Bollywood actor Aamir Khan appealed to their community members in the country to observe Eid al-Adha as a day of mourning on 9 December. [231] The business establishment also reacted, with changes to transport, and requests for an increase in self-defence capabilities. [232] The attacks also triggered a chain of citizens' movements across India such as the India Today Group's "War Against Terror" campaign. There were vigils held across all of India with candles and placards commemorating the victims of the attacks. [233] The NSG commandos based in Delhi also met criticism for taking ten hours to reach the three sites under attack. [234] [235]

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

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

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

Kasab's trial Edit

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

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]


Ver el vídeo: El doloroso momento que vivió Nikolas Cruz cuando su hermano entro al cuarto de interrogatorio (Octubre 2021).