"A World Without Nuclear Weapons" was a speech [1] [2] made by US President Barack Obama on April 5, 2009 at Hradcany Square [3] [4] in Prague, Czech Republic, in which he spoke about the threat of nuclear weapons in the post– Cold War era, how to stop the spread of these weapons and laid out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. [5] [6] [7]
Barack Obama had as a U.S. Senator co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. [8] In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008 Senator Obama noted: "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons."
After his inauguration as U.S. president undertook in early April 2009 a journey to several European countries [9] [10] (See List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama during 2009). After Obama had attended 2009 G-20 London Summit and the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit [11] he arrived in Prague on the evening of April 4 from Strasbourg, where he attended NATO's 60th anniversary summit. [10] President Obama visited the Czech Republic, then holding the rotating presidency of the European Council, to attend a US-EU-meeting. [12] [13] [10] Obama hold his speech after conferring with Czech leaders. [7] and before the US-EU-summit. [12] [14] After the speech and a round of private meetings with foreign leaders and former Czech President Václav Havel Obama continued his Europe journey to Turkey. [15] [14]
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev - meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in London - agreed to reopen negotiations about reducing nuclear warheads. They aimed to produce a new arms control treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I ( START I) which expired in December 2009. [9] During the NATO summit Obama noted although NATO's old Soviet-bloc enemy has long gone, the threat of nuclear catastrophe remained. "Even with the Cold War over, the spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," Obama said at a U.S.-style town hall meeting in the French city of Strasbourg on April 3, 2009. [16] "This weekend in Prague, I will lay out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," he said, referring to the EU-U.S. summit in the Czech Republic on April 5, 2009 which followed the NATO gathering. [16] [17] [18]
In the hours before Obama's speech the North Korean government had launched according to ABC News a Taepodong-2 missile in the late night of April 4, 2009. [19] [15] [20] World leaders, including President Obama on April 3, 2009, had issued repeated warnings to North Korea that such an act would be considered a "provocative" act and would further isolate the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the international community, but North Korea claimed its missile launch was merely a way to put a communications satellite into orbit. [19] North Korea had notified the international community that the launch was coming and the route the rocket would take. North Korea had also warned that debris might fall off Japan's northern coast when the rocket's first stage fell away, so Tokyo positioned batteries of interceptor missiles on its coast and radar-equipped ships to monitor the launch. [21] North Korea declared the missile launch a success. But the U.S. military said "no object entered orbit," with the first stage of the rocket falling into the waters between Korea and Japan, and the two other stages and its payload landing in the Pacific Ocean. [7]
Confirmation of the launch by the Pentagon occurred at approximately 10:30 pm ET, 4:30 am in Prague. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs immediately woke up the president after receiving word of the confirmation. [19] At an event at the Prague Castle with President Václav Klaus and Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek of the Czech Republic on the morning of April 5, President Obama said that "North Korea made a launch this morning that defies U.N. Security Council resolutions, (and) that harms peace and stability for Northeast Asia." [19] Obama referenced here the in October 2006 passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 which demanded that North Korea refrain from conducting any further tests of ballistic missiles. [19]
A military band and honor guard greeted U.S. President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, as they arrived at Prague's majestic medieval castle grounds early Sunday morning. [10] After his meeting at Prague Castle with President Klaus and Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek [19] Obama spoke outside Prague Castle against the backdrop of a hazy Prague skyline. [10]
According to NBC News The choice of Prague for a nuclear weapons disarmament speech carried strong symbolism which that Obama didn't miss. One of the few peaceful overthrows of communism in the Iron Curtain was the 1989 Velvet Revolution which originated in Prague and toppled decades of communism in Czechoslovakia. [7] [15] And the BBC's Mark Mardell noted with respect to Hradcany Square: "The backdrop was ideal for President Obama's initial message of a world that had changed beyond recognition. These were the gates through which Hitler drove to glory in his conquest of Czechoslovakia, this the castle in which Communist presidents used to receive like-minded leaders of the unfree world." [22]
Speaking before an estimated crowd between of 20,000 [23] [7] and 30,000 people [10] Obama played down the adulation which he received during his trip to Europe [11] by stating "to paraphrase one of my predecessors, I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague." [11] This was a reference to John F. Kennedy who stated during a 1961 trip to France: "I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris — and I have enjoyed it!" [24]
After his opening remarks Obama spoke about the history of the Czech people in the 20th century by referencing the founder and first President of Czechoslovakia, Thomas Masaryk, the Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution. [25] Obama then called for cooperation in the face of common threads such as the 2008–2012 global recession and the changing climate. [9] [25] "Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world's dependence on fossil fuels, by tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part." [25] The next section of Obama's speech was devoted to NATO in which Obama's remarks stretched from NATO's founding over the Cold War years to NATO response to the 9/11 attacks and NATO's subsequent mission in Afghanistan. [25] In his remarks Obama noted that the NATO memebers " must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern." [25]
Obama then adressed the thread posed by nuclear weapons in the post Cold War world:
“ | The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the cold war. [...] Today, the cold war has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up." [25] | ” |
Barack Obama attributed this situation to the circumstances that more nations have acquired nuclear weapons, that nuclear testings continues, that the technology to build nuclear weapons has spread and that terrorists will do anything they can to get hold of nuclear material. [26] [13] He warned:
“ | Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global nonproliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold. Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city--be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague--could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival." [25] | ” |
Obama then directly addressed those who think it’s likely too late to rid the world of nuclear weapons. “Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked – that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction," he said. "This fatalism is a deadly adversary. For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable." [27]
After adressing the thread posed by nuclear weapons in the post Cold War world Obama laid out an agenda which was dubbed later by US officials like US Vice President Joe Biden [28] and US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon [29] as the Prague Agenda.
“ | Today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change." [27] | ” |
Obama said that the United States, with its huge arsenal and its history using two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, had to lead the world and a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now. [15]. Reducing and eventually eliminating existing nuclear arsenals, halting proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials are the goals of the Prague Agenda according the White House. [19] [17] The Prague Agenda includes the following items:
Obama's speech does not mean the US has immediate plans to get rid of all its nuclear weapons, because Obama noted in his speech that the United States will maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear capability to deter adversaries and reassure its allies. [31] The US president also raised in his speech a sticky subject between the United States and Russia — the missile defense shield the U.S. government has discussed building in Poland and the Czech Republic, which Russian leaders have said is provocative. [27] He told the Czech Republic and neighbouring Poland that they could still host US missile defence facilities provided the missile shield project was deemed to be "proven and cost-effective". [4] During his speech Obama stated as long as Iran's nuclear programm and its missile activities pose a threat to Iran's neighbors, the United States allies and the United States itself, the United States will pursue its missile defense system in Europe. [5] [27] Obama also adressed the North Korea's programm of weapons of mass destruction by stating that North Korea’s missile test on April 5, 2009 [7] [19] illustrated “the need for action, not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.” [5] The President underscored: "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to the security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons." [25] [27]
Before closing his speech Obama adressed those who doubt that the Prague Agenda can be realized. He said:
“ | Now, I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake: We know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. We know the path when we choose fear over hope. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends." [25] | ” |
Barack Obama noted that human destiny is what humans make of it [25] and closed his speech in this context with a call for common action: "[L]et us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it. Together we can do it." [25]
Al Jazeera's Prague correspondent Rob Reynolds noted that Obama is going to try to lead by example and rally international support for renewed anti-nuclear weapons steps. [13] "More concretely he is going to, and has already begun engaging the Russians to restart nuclear arms reduction and limitation talks with a view towards having a treaty on that subject completed before the end of the year." [13] The Guardian's Ian Traynor noted that Obama "put flesh on the bones of his utopian vision for ridding the world of nuclear weapons" [4]
According Fox News few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done. Even backward nations such as North Korea have shown they can develop bombs, given enough time. But a program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and lions of the foreign policy world. [15] [2] Local reactions in Prague reached from approval to dispointment. [14] "I found the speech uplifting," said Prague resident Paul Allen. "He made a lot of concrete promises." [14] Prague resident Svétlana Simonovská, originally from Macedonia, said she attended Obama's speech. "I was pretty disappointed. He sounded like Bush," she said. [14] Former President Václav Havel offered some advice to the younger politician during their half-hour meeting following the EU-U.S. summit. Havel told the Czech News Agency that he warned Obama that people had enormous hopes pinned on him, and their enthusiasm could turn into disappointment if their hopes are not realized. "People may believe that he has cheated them, gave them more hope than what was justified," Havel said. [14] Former french foreign minister Hubert Védrine welcomed the debate on reducing the nuclear arsenal in an interview with France Info television on Apr. 6, 2009, but called Obama’s vision “demagogic.” [26] “No U.S. President has been able to reduce nuclear arms because they could never be sure of a world without conflict.” [26] Vedrine believes that “in a world with fewer nuclear armaments there will be not less war, but more.” He argued that “in a world of nuclear weapons, they function as a means to dissuade war.” [26]
One year after the speech and a New York Times report which cited some senior US aides as saying that President Obama plans to permanently reduce the American arsenal of nuclear warheads Key-young Son, an expert on international affairs in Japan, said with respect to six party talks on North Korea's nuclear program and a nuclear free Korean peninsula: "If the Obama Administration is moving to build trust in terms of nuclear issues, I think it will obviously help in the restart of nuclear talks and also it might change the attitude of North Korea in a more positive direction in the near future." [32] "There are some 23,000 weapons all over the world. Out of this 22,000 are shared between US and Russia," says Retired Gen. Talat Masood, a security analyst in Islamabad. "The remaining one thousand are with other countries. So I don't think anyone should expect any change among other nuclear powers. The lead has to come from US, Russia, and then followed by other permanent UN members and India, Pakistan and Israel." [32]
Prior to North Korea's rocket launch, concern was raised by other nations, particularly the United States, South Korea and Japan, that the rocket was a Taepodong-2, [33], but according to the North Korean government it was an Unha-2 rocket. [34] The launch of the rocket was sharply condemned by the United States [35] and the European Union, [36] while the People's Republic of China [37] and Russia [38] urged restraint. On 13 April 2009, the United Nations Security Council issued a Presidential Statement condemning the launch as a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 (2006). [39] [40] One day after, on 14 April 2009, North Korea called the Presidential Statement an infringement on a country's right for space exploration embodied in the Outer Space Treaty and withdrew from Six Party Talks. [41]
On 17 September 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced with respect to the missile defense system in Europe that the planned deployment of long-range missile defence interceptors and equipment in Poland and the Czech Republic was not to go forward, and that a defence against short- and medium-range missiles using AEGIS warships would be deployed instead. [42] [43] [44] For further information see NATO missile defence system.
On 24 September 2009 US President Obama chaired a United Nations Security Council Summit on Nonproliferation and Nuclear Disarmament in New York City whose participating members unanimously adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887. The resolution commits UN member nations to work toward a world without nuclear weapons, and endorses a broad framework of actions to reduce global nuclear risks. It also urges states to join and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); refrain from testing nuclear weapons and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and ensure safeguards of nuclear material and prevent trafficking of this material. [45]
In 2010 the IAEA Board of Governors has approved the creation of two separate fuel banks. The first, formally established by the IAEA and the Russian government in March 2010, is owned, operated, and paid for by the Russian Federation and located near the Siberian city of Angarsk. The reserve has been fully stocked and became operational on 1 December 2010. The Board of Governors approved a second fuel reserve in December 2010, which will be owned and operated by the IAEA itself, but this fuel bank is not yet operational. [46] And on March 29, 2011 US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon stated that for the purpose of "building a new international framework to support peaceful uses of nuclear energy without increasing the risk of proliferation" the United States are committed to develop "commercial concepts for nuclearfuel leasing, so all countries can benefit from nuclear energy without spreading dangerous technology and materials." [47] For further information see Nuclear fuel bank.
The 2010 Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was held at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 3 to 28 May 2010. [48] The final document of this summit supported the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, as well as the prompt negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, recognized the legitimate interest of non-nuclear weapon states to request nuclear weapon states to reduce operational status of their nuclear weapons. [49] It also called to achieve total disarmament and then to maintain a world without nuclear weapons. [49] For further information see 2010 Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
In early April 2010 the Obama administration released its Nuclear Posture Review. [50] [51] [52] renounces development of any new nuclear weapons such as the bunker-busters proposed by the Bush Administration, and for the first time rules out a nuclear attack against non-nuclear-weapon states who are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This rule pointedly excludes Iran and North Korea. [53] [54] [55] With respect to these countries Thomas Donilon noted in 2011 that the Obama administration is working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure inspections and verifications, while tightening international sanctions against Iran and North Korea. [47] For further information see Nuclear Posture Review.
A new nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation was signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague, [56] and, after ratification [57], entered into force on 5 February 2011. [58] US Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in June 2012 in this context: "Beyond responsibly reducing the number of nuclear weapons, the Obama Administration has been committed to reducing their role in our national security strategy as well. We are not developing new nuclear weapons; we are not pursuing new nuclear missions; we are working toward creating the conditions to make deterring nuclear use the sole purpose of our nuclear weapons; and we have clearly stated that it is in our interest and the interest of all other states that the more than 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever." [59] And in March 2011 Thomas Donilon, Barack Obama's national security advisor, stated the U.S. plans to negionate a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia which covers nondeployed and nonstrategic nuclear weapons. "A priority will be to address Russian tactical nuclear weapons. We will work with our NATO allies to shape an approach to reduce the role and number of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, as Russia takes reciprocal measures to reduce its nonstrategic forces and relocates its nonstrategic forces away from NATO’s borders." [47] He added that no previous arms control agreement has included provisions to limit and monitor non-deployed warheads or tactical warheads. [47] For further information regarding the 2011 treaty see New START.
The " Global Summit on Nuclear Security" took place April 12–13, 2010. The summit was proposed by President Obama in Prague and was intended to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in conjunction with the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. [60] The Summit focused on how to better safeguard weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to prevent nuclear terrorism. [61] Forty seven states and three international organizations took part in the summit [62], which issued a communiqué [63] and a work plan. [64] According Thomas Donilon "the Washington summit built high level political support for nuclear security and created a concrete work plan to support a global effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years." [47] He stated in March 2011 that since April 2009 thousands of kilograms of nuclear materials at over 20 sites around the world have either been removed or eliminated. "In locations where material elimination is not possible, we have worked with other governments to lock down materials through robust security enhancements. Countries are also beefing up transport security and response forces. But nuclear security is more than about protecting material with guards, guns, and gates. It also means addressing the human element by establishing a security culture and training programs for the personnel responsible for protecting nuclear materials." [47] Therefore the United States signed with several countries like Japan, China, India, Italia or Algeria agreements to establish and work together at regional "Centers of Excellence" to provide training and education for nuclear security officials. Donilon also stated that the Obama Administration 1.) worked at home and around the world to convert research reactors so they no longer use Highly Enriched Uranium fuel and 2.) has committed an additional $10 billion to the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction to help countries pay for nuclear and biosecurity upgrades. [47] The Global Partnership is a multilateral initiative to reduce the risk of WMD terrorism through cooperative capacity building on specific projects. It consists of 24 countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States. [65] For further information regarding the 2010 meeting see 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.
On March 26, 2012 during the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit President Obama delivered remarks at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul in which he discussed his Prague agenda to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek the peace and security of a world without them. In his remarks talked about the securing of vulnerable nuclear material, the nuclear activities of Iran and North Korea and further reductions in the United States nuclear weapons arsenal. [66] [67]
As of June 4, 2012 neither the US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty has occured nor has been the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty be succesful. The United States is still committed to both projects realization according to Rose Gottemoeller, US Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and New START negotiator. [68] [69] US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon stated in March 2011 three reasons for US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. First he argued that by a US treaty ratification others would be induced also to ratify the treaty and thus the legal and political barriers to a resumption of nuclear testing would be strengthened. Second he noted that due the treaty's global monitoring system and strengthened US national capabilities the United states are in better position to verify the treaty. And third he said that the U.S. could maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal without nuclear testing due to the US Stockpile stewardship programm. [47]
As of August 4, 2015 the pursuit of a treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons wasn't crowned by success because has blocked moves to cut off such supplies in international talks that require unanimity. [70] In Prague Barack Obama vowed to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the review conference failed to approve a consensus document in 2015. [70]
7 December 2012: Morsi supporters and anti-Morsi demonstrators continued their protests in different cities including Cairo, Alexandria, and Assiut. Demonstrators in Assiut chanted "No Brotherhood, no Salafis, Egypt is a civic state." [71] Dozens of protesters threw rocks and glass bottles at Morsi's home in Sharkia province and tried to push aside a police barrier. [72] Advisers and Brotherhood leaders acknowledged that outside his core base of Islamist supporters President Morsi feels increasingly isolated in the political arena and even within his own government. [73] Opposition leaders said in a statement that Morsi's December 6 dialogue offer failed to meet “the principles of real and serious negotiations” and displayed “the complete disregard” for the opposition’s demands. They said they would not negotiate with Morsi until he cancels his Nov. 22 decree and calls off the Dec. 15 referendum on the draft constitution. [74] [75] [76] Opposition protesters marched on the presidential palace and breached a security perimeter built by the military’s elite Republican Guard — charged with protecting the palace — which withdrew behind the palace walls. [74] [75] [76] The Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm also reported that individuals suspected of protesting against the Muslim Brotherhood were being tortured and beaten in a facility run by the Brotherhood in Heliopolis, a Cairo suburb. [77]
8 December 2012: The Egyptian Army issued its first statement since the protests erupted, stating that it would protect public institutions and innocent people and not allow the events to become more serious. [78] The Qandil Cabinet also authorized the army to help Egypt's police maintain security. [79] Egypt state news media reported that Morsi was moving toward imposing a form of martial law to secure the streets and allow the vote on the draft charter constitutional referendum. [80] [78] [81] Morsi annulled his decree which had expanded his presidential authority and removed judicial review of his decrees, an Islamist official said, but added that the effects of that declaration would stand. [82] [83] [84] [85] In addition the mostly annuled November 2012 constitutional declaration should be replaced by a modificated one. [86] The new decree Morsi issued Saturday night said he retained the limited authority to issue “constitutional declarations” protecting the draft charter constitution that judges could not overturn. [80] George Isaac of the Constitution Party said that Mursi’s declaration did not offer anything new, the National Salvation Front rejected it as an attempt save face, and the April 6 Movement and Gamal Fahmi of the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate said the new declaration failed to address the “fundamental” problem of the nature of the assembly that was tasked with drafting the constitution. [82]
9 December 2012: Confusion and disarray pervaded the ranks of Egypt’s opposition after Morsi rescinded his November 22 constitutional declaration a day earlier. [87] [88] [89] Despite the declaration's annullment the general prosecutor, who was dismissed, will not be reinstated, and the retrial of the former regime officials will go ahead. [90] Opposition leaders also called for more protests after Morsi refused to cancel the constitutional referendum in the wake of the declaration's annullment. [87] [91] [92] In response, the Alliance of Islamist Forces, an umbrella group that includes Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood, said it would hold rival demonstrations. The group said its rallies would support of the referendum and the president under the slogan "Yes to legitimacy". [90]
On 10 December, the opposition group, the National Salvation Front, announced that it would organize a rally on 11 December. [93]
Der Dom wurde am 15. Februar 2013 wiedereröffnet worden. [94] An der 15-monatigen Renovierungsphase vom 7. 6. 2010 bis 15. 2. 2013 waren 15 Büros und 51 Handwerksbetriebe mit 350 Mitarbeitern beteiligt. Während dieser Zeit wurden 10.000 Quadratmeter Wand- und Gewölbeflächen aufgefrischt und 24 Kilomterkabel verlegt. Ein komplett neues, 5500 Quadratmeter umfassendes Kupferdach wurde während der ersten Sanierungsphase installiert. Decken, Wände und Kunstwerke im Dom wurden gesäubert und farblich neugefasst. Im Zuge der Erneuerung der Technik wurde eine energiesparende Erdwärmeheizung, eine moderne LED-Beleuchtung und eine neue Mikrofonanlage installiert. Die digitale Lautsprecheranlage wurde zudem neu konzipiert und auch für Hörgeschädigte auf den neuesten Stand gebracht. Am Portal zur astronomischen Uhr wurde ein behindertengerechter Zugang eingefügt. Der Glockenstuhl wurde aus Eichenholz neu gezimmert. Die Steuerung von Licht, Mikros und Glocken erfolg von einer Leitstelle in der Sakristei aus. Eine aus „Lichtspeiern“ (bei diesen handelt es sich um "kleine, aus der Wand ragende Messingarme, die wie Wasserspeier aussehen und ihr LED-Licht nach unten zu den Gläubigen und nach oben an Wand und Decke werfen, sodass der Dom mit seinem Gewölbe auch indirekt strahlt") [95] und Strahlenkränzen bestehende Beleuchtung sorgt für helles Licht. Die Gesamtkosten all dieser Maßnahmen belaufen sich auf rund 14 Millionen Euro. [96]
Due Process of Law gewährt prozeduralen und substantiellen Schutz. Beim sogenannten procedural due process (Deutsch: Angemessener prozeduraler Rechtsprozess) handelt es sich faire und unparteiische Rechtsverfahren, die anhand etablierter Regeln und Prinzipien funktionieren. Hier dem sogenannten substantive due process (Deutsch: Angemessener substantieller Rechtsprozess) verbirgt sich das Prinzip, dass Gesetze und Verordnungen nur den legitimen Regierungszwecken dürfen dienen und weder willkürlich noch unfair sein dürfen. [97]
On June 18, 2013 the handover of security from NATO to Afghan forces was completed. [98] [99] [100] [101] The International Security Assistance Force formally handed over control of the last 95 districts to Afghan forces at a ceremony attended by President Hamid Karzai and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at a military academy outside Kabul. [98] Following the handover, Afghan forces will have the lead for security in all 403 districts of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. Before the handover they were responsible for 312 districts nationwide, where 80 percent of Afghanistan's population of nearly 30 million lives. [99]"Our security and defense forces will now be in the lead," Karzai said. "From here, all security responsibility and all security leadership will be taken by our brave forces. When people see security has been transferred to Afghans, they support the army and police more than before." [98] Rasmussen said that by taking the lead in security on Tuesday, Afghan forces were completing a five-stage transition process that began in March 2011. "They are doing so with remarkable resolve," he said. "Ten years ago, there were no Afghan national security forces... now you have 350,000 Afghan troops and police, a formidable force." [98] he security transition signaled an important shift. The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force is slated to end its mission by the end of 2014, and coalition forces are in the process of closing bases and shipping out equipment. [101] Rasmussen stated that the focus of ISAF forces will shift fom combat to support and that by the end of 2014 Afghanistan will be fully secured by Afghans. After the handover, 100,000 NATO forces will play a supporting and training role, as Afghan soldiers and police take the lead in the fight against armed groups. [99] "We will continue to help Afghan troops in operations if needed, but we will no longer plan, execute or lead those operations, and by the end of 2014 our combat mission will be completed," Rasmussen added. [98]
[[Datei:President Kennedy inaugural address (color).jpg|miniatur|Kennedy bei seiner Amtsantrittsrede vor dem United States Kapitol in Washington, District of Columbia.]] thumb|140px|"Fragt nicht, was euer Land für euch tun kann - fragt, was ihr für euer Land tun könnt." - Zitat in Englisch auf einem Gedenkstein in Elmira, NY
In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) the U.S. Supreme Court expressly disavowed a “domestic security surveillance” exception to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment by holding that government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. The Court however left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance (FIS) exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause. [102] Following the USCC's ruling three U.S. Federal Circuit Courts recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Warrant Clause, but tied them to certain requirements. [102] In United States of America v. Truong Dinh Hung [103] the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said that “this foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be carefully limited to those situations in which the interests of the executive branch of government are paramount.” [102] In particular the Truong court required that the object of the search or surveillance be “a foreign power, its agent or collaborators,” and that ”the executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” [102] Finally the existence of the FIS exception was squarely tied to the “practical difficulties of obtaining a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance . . . at the time [the underlying] surveillance was conducted,” [102] which the courts described as “particularly acute” prior to the enactment of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [102] According to law professor Steve Vladeck "part of the justification for the FIS exception was the absence of a FISA-like procedure that balanced the need for secrecy with the need to secure ex ante judicial approval before conducting foreign intelligence surveillance." [102]
With Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enactment in 1978 the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) was established in the same year. As part of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 the U.S. Congress eliminated the second prong of Truong i.e. the requirement that the “primary purpose” of the search be the gathering of foreign intelligence surveillance (as opposed to law enforcement evidence). [102] In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 the FISCR upheld 2002 the elimination of the primary purpose test without specifically endorsing a categorical foreign intelligence surveillance exception. Given the language of FISA at the time, there was no real need to reach that issue because "virtually of the surveillance undertaken pursuant to FISA was with a (FISA) warrant." [102] This changed with the 2008 In re Directivesref name="Seyla20080822"> Selya, Bruce M. (August 22, 2008). "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF). U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Retrieved July 15, 2013.</ref> of the FISCR with which the FISCR formally rcognized for the first time a “foreign intelligence surveillance” exception to the Fourth Amendment. [104] The FISCR hold that “a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” [104]
In a press conference on August 9, 2013 President Obama annouced four steps to reform U.S. intelligence gathering measures, to increase transparency and restore public trust in surveillance by NSA, but made no indication to alter the NSA's ongoing mass collection of phone data and surveillance of internet communications in the short term. [105] [106]. These four steps are: [107] [108] [109]
In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972), [121] the U.S. Supreme Court expressly disavowed a “domestic security surveillance” exception to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment by holding that government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. The Court however left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance (FIS) exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause. [102] Following the Supreme Court's ruling, three United States Courts of Appeals recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Warrant Clause, but tied them to certain requirements. [102] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit In United States of America v. Truong Dinh Hung [122] for example hold
For the first time a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Fourth Amendment was recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review recognized in its 2008 In re Directives [123] decision. [104] The court hold that “a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” [104]
, nachdem der Forschers Jeffrey T. Richelson vom Nationalen Sicherheitsarchiv der George Washington Universität einen Freedom of Information Act stellte. [124] Laut einem von der CIA freigegebenen Dokument sei der Militärstandort rund 200 Kilometer nordwestlich der Casino-Metropole Las Vegas bloß ein Testgelände für die Spionageflugzeuge U-2 und Lockheed A-12 Oxcart etwa während des Kalten Krieges gewesen. [125] Es handelt sich um ein 407 Seiten starkes Dokument, in dem Spionage-Flüge der US-Streitkräfte in den Jahren 1954 bis 1974 festgehalten wurden. Niemand, sei es nun Piloten und Passagiere kommerzieller Flüge oder ob Beobachter auf der Erde, konnten sich rasend schnelle, blitzhelle Lichterscheinungen am Himmel erklären. Die Erklärung der CIA: Mitte der fünfziger Jahre flogen Passagierflugzeuge in Höhen zwischen drei und sechs Kilometern, militärische Flugzeuge wie Bomber der Typen B-47 und B-57 blieben unter zwölf Kilometern. Die Spionageflugzeuge warem dagegen eigens dafür konstruiert, enorme Höhen zu erreichen. Als sie begannen höher als 18 Kilometer zu fliegen, bekamen die Fluglotsen steigende Zahlen an Ufo-Meldungen. Da die Spionageflugzeuge in rund 20 Kilometer Höhe in der Stratosphäre verkehrten, wurden von ihren Flügeln Sonnenstrahlen auch dann noch reflektiert, wenn es in tieferen Schichten der Atmosphäre längst dunkel geworden war. Das erweckte den Anschein, als seien Ufos im Anflug. Hunderte Ufo-Sichtungen sind nun aufgeklärt. [126] [127] [128] [129]
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Afghan President Hamid Karzai annouced on October 12, 2013 that they reached an agreement on a set of core elements of the biltareral security. [130] [131] Both however didn't reach an agreement on immunity from prosecution under Afghan law for American troops who remain in Afghanistan after 2014. This issue along with the entire agremment will be decided first by a traditional gathering of elders and other powerful people known as a loya jirga and then by the Afghan Parliament. [130] The agreement provides a legal framework for continued U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, including the leasing of Afghan bases. [132] Karzai said the draft framework agreement included his demands for the protection of Afghan sovereignty and rules on how military operations are to be carried out on Afghan territory. "Tonight we reached some sort of agreement," Karzai told reporters. U.S. forces "will no longer conduct operations by themselves. We have been provided written guarantee of the safety of the Afghan people. And a clear definition of 'invasion' was provided." [133] "The one issue that is outstanding is the issue of jurisdiction," Kerry added. "We need to say that if the issue of jurisdiction cannot be resolved, unfortunately there cannot be a bilateral security agreement." [133]
Neither Kerry nor Karzai provided details of what exactly had been agreed to, and it was not clear how they had forged a compromise on an Afghan demand that the United States guarantee Afghanistan’s security as it would if the country were a NATO ally. That could compel the United States to send troops on raids into America's nuclear-armed power ally Pakistan. Afghan officials had said that demand was crucial to the country’s sovereignty and must be met. The Obama administration had said it would not consider making any such guarantee. [130] According to the BBC's David Loyn saidPresident Karzai failed to win security guarantees so that Afghanistan would be protected by US troops from external attack. Loyn added the US will not grant that as it could mire them in a war with Pakistan. [134] On the other main sticking point, the outlines of a compromise seemed clearer. Karzai had refused to allow American forces to hunt for operatives of Al Qaeda here on their own. Instead, he wanted any intelligence gathered by the United States handed over to Afghan forces, who could then conduct the raids. Karzai said on October 12, 2013 he had been assured that American forces would not conduct any unilateral operations in Afghanistan after 2014, leaving open the possibility that raids against Al Qaeda would be conducted jointly with Afghan forces. [130]
The United States and Afghanistan reached an agreement on the final language of the bilateral security agreement [136], which according State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki wasn't the final document and which U.S. officials were still reviewing it, [137] on November 20, 2013. [138] [139] [140] [141] [137] A letter written by U.S. President Obama [142] said U.S. forces will be “cooperating in training, advising, and assisting” Afghan forces “in a targeted, smaller, counterterrorism mission.” [143] There is no limit on how long U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan [138] The accord also has no expiration date. [144] The agreement says that “unless mutually agreed, United States forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan.” It states the parties’ “intention of protecting U.S. and Afghan national interests without U.S. military counter-terrorism operations” but does not specifically prohibit such operations. [138] United States Special Operations forces will retain leeway to conduct antiterrorism raids on private Afghan homes [139] American counterterrorism operations will be intended to “complement and support” Afghan missions [139] and that US forces will not conduct military operations in Afghanistan "unless mutually agreed" the text says. [145]. It underscores that Afghan forces will be in the lead and that any American military operations will be carried out “with full respect for Afghan sovereignty and full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes.” [139] [140] It also notes that “U.S. forces shall not target Afghan civilians, including in their homes, consistent with Afghan law and United States forces’ rules of engagement.” [138] U.S. President Barack Obama wrote in a letter to his Afghan counterpart: "US forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of US nationals. We will continue to make every effort to respect the sanctity and dignity of Afghans in their homes and in their daily lives, just as we do for our own citizens." [146]
The agreement does not spell out the number of U.S. forces who will remain, but Afghan President Karzai said on November 21, 2013 that he envisions up to 15,000 NATO troops being based in the country. According to several estimates, the United States plans to maintain a force of no more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014. The draft agreement allows an indefinite U.S. presence, but Karzai said on November 21, 2013 it would be in place for 10 years. [143] The agreement also includes language on the U.S. government's continued funding for Afghan security forces, funneling such contributions through the Kabul-based government. [140]
The agreement text grants the United States full legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and Defense Department civilians working in Afghanistan. [138] On troop immunity, it says that Afghanistan agrees “that the United States shall have the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction” over members of the force and its civilian component “in respect of any criminal or civil offenses committed in the territory of Afghanistan.”, [138] and that "Afghanistan authorises the United States to hold [civil and criminal] trial in such cases, or take other disciplinary action, as appropriate, in the territory of Afghanistan.", [141] [145] but Afghan authorities can ask that anyone be taken out of the country. [140] Afghan authorities are prohibited from detaining American troops or U.S. civilians working with them. In the event that happens “for any reason,” however, those personnel “shall be immediately handed over to United States forces authorities.” [138] The agreement also specifies that American troops and civilians cannot be surrendered to any “international tribunal or any other entity or state” without express U.S. consent. Afghanistan, it says, retains legal jurisdiction over civilian contractors, and contractors are prohibited from wearing military uniforms and “may only carry weapons in accordance with Afghan laws and regulations.” [138]
The document has a clause committing the United States to consulting with the Afghan government in the event of external threats, but not the sort of NATO-style mutual defense pact the Afghans originally wanted. “The United States shall regard with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external aggression against the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Afghanistan,” the proposed agreement states. There is a later clause saying they would “consult urgently” in the event of such aggression. [139] U.S. President Obama added in a letter to his Afghan counterpart: "The US commitment to Afghanistan's independence, territorial integrity, and national unity, as enshrined in our Strategic Partnership Agreement, is enduring, as is our respect for Afghan sovereignty." [146]
In a preamble, the draft specifies that “the United States does not seek permanent military facilities in Afghanistan, or a presence that is a threat to Afghanistan’s neighbors, and has pledged not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks on other countries.” [138] It says that “unless otherwise mutually agreed, United States forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan” and makes no promise of U.S. military support in the event of an attack or other security threat to Afghanistan. If there is such a threat, it says, the United States will regard it with “grave concern,” consult and “shall urgently determine support it is prepared to provide.” [138] But the United States stated the U.S. will regard any external aggression with "grave concern" and will "strongly oppose" military threats or force against Afghanistan after 2014. [137]
The draft agreement says that U.S. military and Defense Department civilian personnel are exempt from visa requirements and taxation. Afghan taxes and other fees will not be imposed on the entry or exit of goods specifically for the use of U.S. forces. [138] An annex to the draft lists locations where Afghanistan agrees to provide facilities for U.S. forces, including Kabul; Bagram, north of the capital, where the United States has its largest current base; Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan; Herat in the west; Kandahar in the south; Shindand in Herat province; Sharab in Helmand province; Gardez, south of Kabul; and Jalalabad, to the east. [138] The draft document gives the U.S. the right to deploy American forces on nine bases, including the two biggest, the airfields in Bagram and Kandahar. It also allows U.S. military planes to fly in and out of Afghanistan from seven air bases, including Kabul International Airport. [137] U.S. forces would be permitted under the document to transport supplies from five border crossings, described along with the air bases as "official points of embarkation and debarkation." [137] All bases in Afghanistan would revert to Afghan ownership and sovereignty after 2014, according to the draft. [137]
The draft of the agreement was finalized early on November 19, 2013 after Obama wrote Karzai a letter assuring him that U.S. forces will continue to respect the “sanctity and dignity of the Afghan people.” [143] The agreement must as of November 21, 2013 be ratified by an Afghan grand council of elders [139] and by ratified by the parliaments of Afghnistan and the United States. [138] The agreement ,according to the draft wording, takes effect Jan. 1, 2015 and then “it shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond“ unless terminated with two years’ advance notice. [139] Afghan President Karzai said that the agreement would not be signed until after 2014 elections in Afghanistan, [147] [148] but U.S. officials have said unequivocally that the agreement must be signed by the end of the year 2013, if not sooner, to allow the Pentagon to prepare for its role after the American combat mission ends. [143] [148]
Nach Recherchen des NDR und der Süddeutschen Zeitung werden Aussagen von Asylbewerbern über die Sicherheitslage in ihren Heimatländern von deutschen Geheimdienstlern der "Hauptstelle für Befragungswesen" (HBW) (eine Einrichtung, die eng mit dem Bundesnachrichtendienst zusammenarbeitet und direkt dem Kanzleramt unterstellt ist) gesammelt und dann vom BND [149] an die Militärgeheimdienste der USA und Großbritanniens weitergegeben. Dort fließen sie auch in die Zielerfassung für US-Tötungsaktionen mit Kampfdrohnen in Krisengebieten wie Somalia oder Irak ein. [150] [151] [152]
Karzai, who earlier stated he would sign what he had agreed to sign, stated later, after the annoucement of the Bilatereal Security Agreement (BSA) draft textthat, he wouldn’t sign it until 2014, after a presidential election to choose his successor, but before he leaves office. Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for Karzai, stated that Karzai wanted to wait until after the election in April 2013 to test further conditions: whether American forces would stop raids on Afghan homes, whether the Obama Administration will help stabilize security in Afghanistan, help promote peace talks and not interfere in the election. [153] [154] Officials of the Obama Administration consider the signing date to be nonnegotiable, citing the need for at least a year to plan future deployments and to allow coalition partners, including Germany and Italy, to plan for a residual troop presence that they have offered. [154]
The text of the BSA was approved by the delegates at the Loya Jirga on November 24, 2013 and must now be signed by the Afghanistan president, who rejected the final recommendation of the Loya Jirga promptly to sign the BSA with the United States, and sent to the parliament for final ratification. [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] If approved, the agreement would allow the U.S. to deploy military advisors to train and equip Afghan security forces, along with U.S. special-operations troops for anti-terrorism missions against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. President Obama will determine the size of the force. [158] [160] The jirga set a few conditions before expressing approval for the agreement among them a 10-year time limit on the post-2014 troop presence and reparations for damages caused by U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan. [156] It also voted attach a letter of U.S. President Obama; pledging that U.S. troops would enter Afghan homes only in "extraordinary" circumstances and only if American lives were at direct risk, to the BSA. [158] The elder assembly also demanded the release of 19 Afghans from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay and a stronger U.S. pledge to defend Afghanistan from any incursion from it neighbors, particularly Pakistan. The loya jirga also voted to request that the U.S. military add a base [159] to the nine bases that would be occupied by U.S. troops under the proposed security pact after combat forces depart Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The base is in Bamian Province in central Afghanistan, where the NATO-led military coalition has maintained a presence. Bamian is a population center for Hazaras, a Shiite minority whose members were massacred by the Taliban prior to the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the militant group. Afghan analysts said Hazara delegates proposed the additional base. [158] At least five of the 50 jirga committees raised objections to the article addressing “status of personnel” which “authorises the United States to hold [civil and criminal] trial … or take other disciplinary action, as appropriate, in the territory of Afghanistan” when a US soldier is accused of criminal activity. [159] Spokespeople from at least two committees directly stated that Afghanistan should have jurisdiction over any US soldiers accused of crimes on Afghan soil. Several committees also stated that if trials are held in the United States, families of victims should have access to and presence in US-held trials at the expense of Washington. [159]
Grundrecht aller Bürger auf Belastungsgleichheit bei Beiträgen zur Sozialversicherungs [161]
People are intellectual disabled and thus uneligble for the death penalty if these three conditions are met the Aktins court :“subaverage intellectual functioning,” meaning low I.Q. scores; a lack of fundamental social and practical skills; and the presence of both conditions before age 18.
[162] The Aktins court also stated I.Q. scores under “approximately 70” typically indicate disability, but the court let it the states determine who is mentally disabled and thus can't be executed.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the discretion under which U.S. states can designate an individual convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.
[163] The court prohibited states in borderline cases from relying only on intelligence test scores to determine whether a death row inmate is eligible to be executed. States must look beyond IQ scores when inmates test in the range of 70 to 75. IQ tests have a margin of error, and those inmates whose scores fall within the margin must be allowed to present other evidence of mental disability, Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion.
[164]
In a 5 to 4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy the Hall court held that the tates may not use a "rigid rule" that denies leniency to defendants with severe mental disabilities simply because they score 70 or above on an IQ test. [165] “Florida seeks to execute a man because he scored a 71 instead of 70 on an I.Q. test,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. [162] "This rigid rule, the court now holds, creates an unacceptable risk that persons with an intellectual disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional," Kennedy said. [165] If an individual claiming intellectual incapacity has an IQ score that falls somewhere between 70 and 75, then that individual’s lawyers must be allowed to offer additional clinical evidence of intellectual deficit, including, most importantly, the inability to learn basic skills and adapt how to react to changing circumstances. [163] The court also modified its 2002 Aktkins decision by adopting the term "intellectually disabled" to replace "mentally retarded," which had been used in prior opinions. Intellectually disabled refers to people of limited intellectual and adaptive capabilities, according to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, and the term is preferred by the medical profession. [166]
The
Bill of Rights imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil libiterties and fundamental rights.
[167]
[168]
[169] The Supreme Court for example concluded in the
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the
Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities.
[167]
[168]
[169]
[170] As the Court noted the idea of the Bill of Rights “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”
[170]
[171] This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
[170]
[171]
Für Philipp Holstein von der Rheinischen Post ist der Film "der sehenswerte und bedrückende Dokumentarfilm, der [...] Geschichte erzählt." [172] Für ihn bleiben die Texte von Baldwin angesichts von Organisationen wie Black Lives Matter, die sich gegen Rassismus engagieren, leider dringlich. [172] Beseelt vom gerechten Zorn über die Verhältnisse und gepaart mit kraftvoller Lust an Aufklärung gelinge nach Worten von Programmkinokritiker.de Luidgard Koch Regisseur Raoul Peck ein brennend aktueller Essayfilm. "Sein brillant komponierter Rückblick auf die Ära der amerikanischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung sowie das Leben und Werk des verstorbenen afroamerikanischen Schriftstellers James Baldwin erschüttert. Unmissverständlich zeigt der gebürtige Haitianer, dass Unterdrückung, Ungerechtigkeit, Rassismus und Klassenunterschiede keineswegs durch globalen Neoliberalismus verschwunden sind." [173]
Knut Elstermann vom MDR bezeichnete den Film als "großartigen Dokumentarfilm über den homosexuellen Schriftsteller und die bewegten sechziger Jahre", der "eine fulminante Montage aus Archivmaterial, Interviews mit dem 1987 gestorbenen, sprachgewaltigen und scharfsinnigen Autor und Reflexionen über den Zustand einer noch immer rassistisch geprägten Gesellschaft" darstelle. [174] Nach Worten von Susanne Lenz in ihrer Kritik für die Berliner Zeitung meint, dass I Am Not Your Negro eine aufwühlende Dokumentation sei, in der sich Baldwins Text und Pecks Bilder, die Filmausschnitte, Fotos, Nachrichtenbilder historisch und aktuell so kongenial ergänzen. [175] Gia Maihofer von der Zeitung Der Tagesspiegel meint, dass Regisseur Peck eine "essayistische Annäherung an Baldwins Denken" geschaffe habe. Der Regisseur habe aus dem reichen literarischen Œuvre der 1960er Jahre Peck ein Amalgam kreirt, das die Psychopathologie und paranoide Imagination des weißen Amerikas offenlege, im Privatleben wie in der Populärkultur. "Die Reise in die Vergangenheit wird zur Konfrontation mit der Gegenwart", in der sich das weiße, liberale Amerika sich mit einer medialen Fantasiewelt narkotisiere und halte in dieser Fantasiewelt die Illusion der eigenen Unschuld aufrecht. [176] "Es verweigert sich der Auseinandersetzung mit der von Sklaverei, Segregation und Unterdrückung geprägten Geschichte, die Baldwin immer wieder fordert [...]." [176] Maihofer bilanziert über Peck's Dokumentarfilm: "Pecks eindrucksvolle Hommage reiht sich in diese Erinnerungsarbeit ein. Ihm ist mit „I’m not your Negro“ ein pointierter Essay über Amerikas tief sitzenden Rassismus und ein Höhepunkt seines politischen Weltkinos gelungen. Ein Film der Stunde, dessen Botschaft und Botschafter nichts an Relevanz verloren haben." [176]
Geri Krebs meinte in der " Neuen Zürcher Zeitung", dass Raoul Peck mit I Am Not Your Negro eine Tour d'Horizon durch die Geschichte der Schwarzen in den USA vollziehe, die "beispielhaft von Vergangenem erzählt und dabei die Gegenwart im Auge hat." [177] Und wenn in den Nachrichtenbildern etwa die Unruhen von Watts 1965 mit jenen von Ferguson 2014 kollidieren, lässt sich die Aktualität von Vergangenem nicht leugnen. [177] Nach Auffassung von ttt – titel, thesen, temperamente Autor Joachim Gaertner habe Raoul Peck "einen faszinierenden Dokumentarfilm gemacht, in dem man mehr über amerikanische Geschichte lernt als in jedem Geschichtsbuch." [178] Gaertner bilanziert mit Blick auf US-Präsident Donald Trump: "Es ist beängstigend zu sehen, welche Aktualität Baldwins Analysen bis heute haben. Der Film macht klar: Unter dem heutigen Präsidenten, der offen rassistische Stereotype propagiert, fängt der Kampf für Bürgerrechte noch einmal ganz neu an. [...] Eine Lösung, folgerte Baldwin, kann also nicht sein, wenn Schwarze sich in die weiße Gesellschaft integrieren, sondern nur, wenn sie ihre eigene Identität und Geschichte in den Traum eines neuen, gemeinsamen Amerikas einbringen" [178]
Nach Weiland Freund von Der Welt erzählt I Am Not Your Negro die Geschichte der Bürgerrechtsbewegung, die Geschichte von Medgar Evers, Malcolm X und Martin Luther King, die Geschichte von James Baldwin und die Geschichte danach: Rodney King, Barack Obama, Trayvon Martin; Selma, Weißes Haus, Ferguson . [179] "„I Am Not Your Negro“ ist unter anderem deshalb ein eindrucksvoller, ein großer Dokumentarfilm, weil er in anderthalb Stunden fasst, was mit einiger Berechtigung auch den Platz einer vielteiligen Serie hätte beanspruchen können." [179] Jan Kedves von der Süddeutschen Zeitung betont, dass Raoul Peck ein sehr feinfühliges Porträt des Kämpfers James Baldwin, dessen Waffe unbedingt die Rhetorik war, gelungen sei. Er attestiert dem Film, dass er "auf beachtliche Weise dreierlei leistet: Er erinnert an Baldwin und illustriert dabei dessen Absicht, die "Geschichte Amerikas anhand der Leben dreier seiner ermordeten Freunde zu erzählen". Damit sind Medgar Evers, Malcolm X und Martin Luther King Jr. gemeint. Und drittens: Dass die Schwarzen in den USA nicht Schwarze sind, sondern zu Schwarzen gemacht werden, von den Weißen, das hat man lange nicht mehr so anschaulich in einem Film dargelegt bekommen." [180] Auch Julian Brimmers bemerkt die von Weiland Freund bemerkten Paralle zwischen den 1960er Jahre und aktuellen Ereignisse der 201er Jahren in den USA, indem auf folgenden Aspekt des Dokumentarfilm verweist: "Hier passiert alles auf einmal: die rassistischen Ausschreitungen in Little Rock 1957 und "Black Lives Matter"-Proteste in Ferguson 2014, die Vereidigung Barack Obamas neben den Morden an Evers, Malcolm X und King, die Aufstände in Watts von 1965 neben Bildern der jüngsten Opfer von Polizeigewalt." [181] Insgesamt sei I Am Not Your Negro weniger ein historisches Biopic als eine Aufforderung an den Zuschauer, seine eigene Toleranz und Handlungsfähigkeit zu hinterfragen. [181]
I am Not Your Negro ist die Biografie des Autors James Baldwin, welcher seine Geschichte anhand der Geschichte drei seiner Freunde aus der Zeit der ameriaknischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung erzählt. Bei den Freunden handelt es sich um den 1963 ermorderten Menschenrechtsanwalt Medgar Evers, den 1965 ermorderten Menschenrechtsaktivist Malcolm X und den 1968 ermorderten Pfarrer Martin Luther King. [182] Ausgangspunkt des Regisseur Raoul Peck ist ein 30-seitiger Textentwurf von Baldwin aus dem unvollendenten Roman Remember This House für eine Geschichte der Schwarzen. [182] Peck verwendet dazu eine Collage aus Briefen, die Baldwin an seinen Agenten Jay Acton schreibt (Tonspur: das Gehacke der Schreibmaschine), Texte, die aus dem Werk Baldwins von Samuel L. Jackson zitiert werden, und einer Fülle biografischer Fotos und Videoexzerpten von Baldwin. [182]
Thematisch handelt der Film von "Kapitel Zwei der sogenannten Befreiung der Schwarzen, in dem die Nachkommen der Sklaven um ihre Bürgerrechte kämpften [...]." [182] In einem zeitlichen Bogen von 1890 bis 2014 werden dabei Szenen weißer Gewalt gegenüber Farbigen jeder Couleur, welche die Historie Amerikas takteten, gezeigt. Dabei handelt es sich um das Massaker in Wounded Knee 1890, die Gewalt der Polizei unter Eugene „Bull“ Connor in Birmingham 1963, der Watts-Aufruhr in Los Angeles des Jahres 1965, und der Todesfall Michael Brown in Ferguson 2014. [182] [182]
I Am Not Your Negro grossed as of April 6, 2017 $6,838,593. [183] [184] As of April 7, 2017 the movie was estimated to gross more than $7 million. [185] The film industry and review website IndieWire attributed the fiancial success of the movie to the three factors : 1.) The release date of February 3, 2017 which was less than two weeks after the Academy Award nominees would be announced, 2.) Opening the movie nationwide in 43 theaters and 18 cities and 3.) Opening in nontraditional movie theaters where “I Am Not Your Negro” would generate strong word of mouth. [185]
Der Film konnte bislang 86 Prozent der Kritiker bei Rotten Tomatoes überzeugen. [186] Karsten Scholz lobte etwa in seiner Kritik für die Internetseite buffed.de vier Sachen an Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2: 1.) Die technische Perfektion, 2.) die neuen Völker und Schauplätze, 3.) die höhere Schlagzahl der Gags im Vergleich zum Vorgänger und 4.) "ein kunterbuntes Sammelsurium an Easter Eggs und Cameo-Auftritten, das dank des erneut fantastischen Soundtracks auch gleich den Retro-Fan in uns anspricht." [187] In seinem Fazit moniert er zwar Schwächen, diese sind aber marginal. So schreibt er über den Film in seinem Fazit: "Schwächen besitzt der Film nur wenige. Einige nicht zünden wollende Gags, aber auch der Bösewicht, der mit seinen Machenschaften zwar die gesamte Galaxie bedroht, der Marvel-typisch jedoch ziemlich blass bleibt. Unterm Strich spielt beides keine Rolle. Dafür sind alle anderen Facetten von Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 zu gut, dafür rockt der Streifen über die gesamte Laufzeit zu sehr die Leinwand." [187]
In einer Video-Kritk meinte Christoph Kellerbach von der Rheinischen Post, dass Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 ein "absolut fantastischer Weltraum-Spaß geworden" ist, "der etliche Sachen gleich, aber viele auch anders macht." [188] Die Charaktäre seien die große Stärke von James Gunn's Film. Ergänzt um eine fantastische Optik, auch in 3D, und einem wunderbarem Ohrwurm-Soundtrack ist Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 genau wie sein Vorgänger nach Auffassung von Kellerbach ein "exzellenter Weltraum-Comic-Spaß". [188] Hannes Könitzer bewertete in seiner Kritik für die Internetseite robots-and-dragons.de die drei primären Handlungsstränge des Films unteschiedlich: Während die Geschichte rund um Peter Quill und seinen Vater einen hohen Unterhaltswert hätten und die Geschichte rund um Rocket die richtige Mischung aus Spaß und Spannung aufweise, sei der Handlungsstrang um Gamorra und Nebula der schwächste der drei Handlungsstränge. Könnitzer lobte den Humor und die Musiktitel aus den 70ern und 80ern. In seinem Fazit urteilte er: "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 macht genauso viel Spaß wie Teil 1. Wer es im ersten Film genossen hat, Zeit mit der sympathischen Heldentruppe zu verbringen, der dürfte auch in der Fortsetzung auf seine Kosten kommen. Die Geschichte punktet dabei nicht nur durch Humor, sondern bietet auch auf emotionaler Ebene eine überraschende Tiefe. Ein dritter Teil darf sich gern anschließen." [189]
Dimitry Halley hebt in seiner Kritik für GameStar die Charaktäre besonders lobend hervor. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 punkte vor allem mit seinen meisterhaft inszenierten und unglaublich sympathischen Figuren. So schaffe es der Film nicht nur die komplette Truppe rund um Star Lord und Co. ins Herz der Zuschauer zu befördern, sondern auch jeder Figur mindestens einen glaubhaften inneren Konflikt zu geben. [190] "Der Film wärmt nicht einfach das Zusammentreffen aus dem ersten Teil auf, sondern setzt deren Beziehungen tatsächlich fort (wie es sich eben für eine Fortsetzung gehört). Oder anders: Wo Guardians of the Galaxy 1 die Truppe durch die stürmische Kennenlern-Phase führt, geht die Beziehung in Teil Zwei erst richtig los." [190] Er bilanzierte, dass die Guardians Star Lord, Rocket, Drax und Co. auf der Leinwand so unglaublich gut funktionieren, dass die Comics in seinen Augen im Vergleich den Kürzeren ziehen. Das war beim ersten Guardians of the Galaxy so, und das gelte auch für Teil Zwei. Denn der "Film baut eine Crew aus Charakteren auf, die den Avengers und auch der Justice League in puncto Persönlichkeit, Charme und Humor die Show stehlen." [191]
Vier von fünf Punkten vergebend ist bei MovieJones zu lesen:"Während die Dramaturgie zwar über weite Strecken schwächelt, wird dies durch Witz, ganz viel Familie und für Marvel sogar ungewöhnlich emotionale Momente wieder wettgemacht. Das neue Abenteuer bringt das MCU nicht vorwärts, dafür uns die Protagonisten noch näher und beschert uns eine verdammt gute Zeit." [192] Im Filmblog Filmverliebt wurden die Sammlung an verrückten Charakteren, die visuell einwandfreie Inszenierung und der Humor gelobt. Im Fazit ist dann zu lesen: "Auch wenn Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 nicht an die Qualität des Vorgängers heranreicht – Marvel hat hier wieder erstklassiges Popcorn-Kino abgeliefert." [193] Vienna Online meinte, dass der Film mit viel Liebe zum Detail und einem ausgewogenen Cast punkte, der bestens aufeinander eingespielt agiere. Fazit: "“Vol. 2” glänzt weniger als eigenständiges Album, denn als gelungene Compilation mit den “Greatest Hits” aus dem schenkelklopfendem Sci-Fi-Universum – und hat am Ende ein Versprechen parat: Fortsetzung folgt!" [194]
Auf der Interseite Filmfutter.com wurde dem Regisseur James Gunn ein konservativer Ansatz attestiert, der auf Bewährtes des Vorgängerfilms zurückgreife: Sympathische Antihelden, anarchischer Humor, freche Sprüche, ein flottes Erzähltempo, bunte Weltraumaction und ein fetziger Soundtrack. Dabei sei wie in Fast and Furious 8 Familie das Thema, das den Film zusammenhalte und den emotionalen Kern des Sequels bilde. Daran anknüpfend ist im Fazit folgendes zu lesen:"Man sucht sich seine Familie nicht aus, doch manchmal findet sie einen selbst, wenn man es am wenigsten erwartet. Das ist das Thema von Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, der zwar nicht mehr die Frische seines Vorgängers besitzt, dafür aber den größten emotionalen Kern unter allen bisherigen Marvel-Abenteuern. Mit viel Humor, Herz, fantastischen visuellen Einfällen, einer liebevollen Weiterentwicklung seiner Hauptfiguren und einem großartigen Kurt Russsell auf dem Hoch seines Karriere-Revivals zeigen James Gunn und Marvel, wie ein gutes Sequel sein sollte. Fans des Originals werden nicht enttäuscht sein!" [195] Auch die Interseite Ingame.de lobte den Film und meinte in Richtung der potentiell Zuschauenden: "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 ist sein Kinogeld mehr als wert, denn selten wurden wir von einer Fortsetzung so gut unterhalten wie hier. Auf euch warten mal wieder abgefahrene Marvel-Helden, jede Menge Space-Action und ein lässiger Soundtrack für ein awesome Kinoerlebnis." [196]
Doch nicht bei allen Kritikern kam der Film gut an. Sascha Westphal schreibt in der Westdeutschen Allgemeinen Zeitung, anders als beim ersten Guardians of the Galaxy, in dem sich die einzelnen Elemente wunderbar zu einem ungeheuer mitreißenden Weltraum-Abenteuer zusammengefügt hätten, ergebe das Ganze diesmal weniger als die Summe der einzelnen Teile. Regisseur James Gunn begnüge sich über weite Strecken des Films damit, einfach nur Lücken in den Hintergründen seiner Figuren auszufüllen, so Westphal, wobei er sich vor allem auf den von Chris Pratt gespielten Peter Quill konzentriere. Durch dessen Begegnung mit seinem leiblichen Vater entwickele sich aus einer zunächst rührselig gestimmten Familienzusammenführung einer der zentralen Konflikte des Films. [197] Heiner Gumprecht von Blasting News nahm den Film mit zwiespältigen Gefühlen auf. Der Vorgängerfilm hatte seiner Meinung nach frische Ansätze, viele eigene Ideen und diese besondere Gruppendynamik innerhalb der Guardians, die keiner wirklich vermutet hätte. James Gunns Fortsetzung vertiefe stattdessen lieber jedoch die Eckpunkte des Films, die Teil 1 zu einem immensen Erfolg verholfen haben. Dabei bleibe die Geschichte auf der Strecke zurück und wirke eher wie ein Gerüst, dass die wertvolle Statue stützen soll, als selbst Teil des Kunstwerks zu sein. So fiel dann sein Fazit auch entsprechend zwiespältig aus: "Ohne Diskussion äußerst gelungen in dem, was er sein möchte, unterm Strich aber so viel weniger, als wir erwarten durften. "Würdig" ist in dieser Hinsicht ein hartes Wort, denn kommt es ganz darauf an, was ihr am ersten Teil so interessant/positiv fandet. Waren es die Sprüche, die Action und der derbe Mix aus Sci-Fi und Oldies der Popmoderne, dann macht ihr mit einem Kinobesuch in der Fortsetzung nichts falsch. Abseits davon bietet Vol. 2 jedoch keine neuen Gründe, sich ein Ticket zu kaufen." [198]
Björn Becher von der Filmstart Redaktion vergab 3,5 von 5 Punkten und verwies in seiner Kritk auf das Wechselspiel von Stärken und Schwächen des Films. Zwar sei der Film kurzweilig und mache viel Spaß, aber die erzählerische Stringenz lasse ein wenig zu wünschen übrig, die Spannung bleibe weitgehend auf der Strecke und die Bösewichte überzeugten nicht wirklich. Man lache immer wieder über eine wundervolle Hommage oder die ironische Brechung eines kitschigen Moments und freue sich über einen der vielen überraschenden Cameo-Auftritte oder die Entdeckung einiger Easter Eggs. Und auch James Gunn sorge konstant für Humor, doch er gebe den Zuschauern lange Zeit kaum Gelegenheit, mit den Figuren mitzufiebern. Becher Fazit: "„Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2“ ist nicht frei von Schwächen, macht aber sehr viel Spaß."
[199] Marin Schwickert von der Augsburger Allgemeinen Zeitung konstatierte eine "eher schlaff-komische Gruppendynamik im Heldenteam"Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page)., die sich "auf ihren Charakterisierungen aus Teil 1"Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page). ausruhen und "in ihrem schrägen Dasein"Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page). erstarrt wirken. Zwei von fünf Punkten vergebend urteilte er: "„Vol. 2“ ist in 137 Minuten ein ermüdender Wiederaufguss und zeigt erneut, dass sich Humor und Komik selten erfolgreich in einem Franchise rekultivieren lassen."
[200] Daniel Benedict von der Neuen Osnabrücker Zeitung bemerkte eine Selbstironie, die selbst im nonchalanten Marvel-Universum einzigartig sei. Action und Effekte seien in dieser immer wieder sehr lustigen „Guardians“-Fortsetzung grundsätzlich ihre eigene Persiflage. Sein Fazit fiel wie das seines Kollegen aus deer Ausgburger Allgemeinen Zeitung aber negativ aus: "Zwei Stunden lang feiern die Guardians gemeinsam mit ihren Fans eine funky Party, an deren Ende sogar die Asche kremierter Helden wie Holi-Puder durchs All schwebt. Konfetti in kosmischen Nichts: Ein schönes Bild für das jubelnde „Anything goes“ dieses Films, der in jeder Szene beides zugleich ist: übervoll, aber auch leer. . "
[201]
Infrmation regarding the second post-credits scene and the mention of the accords therein was reversed with the following statement: "/Film uses the term "likely", Movieweb first says "may be" and in later articles doesn't give any attribution to where the information came from. Please wait for something more concrete and use the talk page first next time". Before I response to the accords itself some sentence with respect to the talk page process. I added information which in my eyes was concrete enough to added. After it was pointed out that I cited the wrong source I responded by adding other sources to support my claim. After the above cited response to my second edit I'm willing to discuss the issue at the talk page. So while I'm willing to react to responses I'm unwilling to use the talk page first to make my case without to the ability to use the article page first for some edits. At least two edits should be allowed for editors to react to edit responses before the accusation of edit warring is raised or an edit war starts.
I think the information that the accords mentioned in the second post credits scene are not speculative. Evidences (emphasis added):
As the wording of the stressed verbs shows the accords are not mentioned as something speculative but something of the past and present it is fair to say the accords are real and not speculative. Further evidence comes from Marvel President Kevin Feige. He revealed that the post-credit sequence was footage shot by Anthony and Joe Russo from Captain America: Civil War. [209] [210] This reinforces the Dash Film source and 2015-07-23 MovieWeb source because thus we know the accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene are real i.e. are already part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Conclusion: The accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene aren't speculative, but real and concrete and should be therefore added as The Sokovia Accords.
Joseph Wigler of MTV.com considered the movie as "one of the most entertaining Ethan Hunt adventures" which proves that "the franchise still has plenty of fight left in it, with no signs of slowing down." [211] [211] He praised the perfomances of Cruise and Ferguson, aplauding the latter for playing "the most fascinating character in the entire movie" and "one of the most complicated and alluring characters in the entire five film series." [212]
As of February 23, 2016 91 prisoners remain in Guantánamo. From these 91 prisoners 35 are recommended for transfer if security conditions can be met. The remaining prisoners are expected to be brought to U.S. facilities in the United States. [216] [217] [218] [219] If brought to the United States, some of those detainees would continue through military commissions; others might face trial in civilian courts. [217] 13 potential facilities in the United States that might be used to house detainees were reviewed by the Obama Administration, but their names were not revealed. [217] The foregoing information were published because the U.S. Congress has asked the administration to include information about where and how the administration intends to hold existing and future detainees, if Guantanamo is closed. [220] Obama's plan was rejected by several Republicans in Congress. [221]
Der Einsatz militärischer Gewalt im Inland durch die Bundeswehr ist demnach unter engen Grenzen ultima ratio zulässig und durch Artikel 35 Absatz 2 Satz 2 und Absatz 3 Grundgesetz grundsätzlich auch nicht ausgeschlossen. [222] [223]
Die Redation der auf Unterhaltung spezialisierten Nachrichtenagentur spot on news nahm Gal Gadots schauspielerische Leistung positiv auf. Gadot gehe in anspruchsvollen Rolle der Wonder Woman voll auf und vermöge dabei die Augen der Zuschauer aus Rührung oder vor Lachen glänzen zu lassen. Ungeachtet ihrer schwer von der Hand zu weisenden, physischen Attraktivität verkörpere Gadot vor allem eine Heldin, die mit ihren Werten, ihren Überzeugungen und ihrer Selbstständigkeit überzeuge. [224] In diesem Zusammenhang wurde jedoch moniert, dass es eigentlich ein Jammer sei, dass eine ähnliche Erkenntnis erst im Jahr 2017 in einem gelungenen Film mit einer weiblichen Superheldin (von einer weiblichen Regisseurin) münde und daher als Meilenstein gefeiert werden müsse. [224] Die Redaktion von spot on news bilanziert: "Es ist kein Leichtes, eine übertriebene Superheldin wie "Wonder Woman" einerseits lustig-charmant, andererseits kriegsgebeutelt darzustellen. Regisseurin Patty Jenkins ist dieser Spagat nicht nur gelungen, sie hat mit ihrem Film ein längst überfälliges Statement im Comicfilm-Universum gesetzt. [...] Auch wenn "Wonder Woman" meist auf bewährten Action-Einheitsbrei setzt, die positive Stimmung, mit der der Film Frauen wie Männer in die Nacht entlässt, bleibt: Von solchen Superheldinnen wollen wir mehr sehen." [224]
Jenni Zylka von SPIEGEL Online meinte zwar, dass die Geschichte Fahrt in Richtung typisches Wurzelsuche-Genre aufnehme, aber dank der kurdisch-deutschen Regisseurin Soleen Yusef doch glücklicherweise einen ganz anderen und weniger ausgetretenen Weg gehe. Sie lobte die Darstellung der Figuren: So machen "authentische Figuren den Charme des Films aus: Die ruppigen Tankstellenjungs mit dem großherzigen Vater, der die Geschwister selbstlos bewirtet und zum Übernachten auf seiner Steinveranda unter den Sternen einlädt; der auf den ersten Blick regimetreue, dann aber doch höchst sensible Polizist; der weise Schäfer; der aufdringliche, aber gutherzige Taxifahrer - ohne zu sehr in Stereotype zu fallen, zeichnet Yusef mit genauem Blick und knappen Dialogen ein glaubhaftes Bild der Situationen." [228]
Der Journalist und Historiker Nils Michaelis von der Zeitung vorwärts sah in Haus ohne Dach ein ungewöhnliches Roadmovie, in dem die Regisseurin es vermeidet "Land und Leute zu idyllisieren oder in allzu dramatischen Farben zu malen. Vielmehr bemüht sich der Film um Eindruck von Alltäglichkeit." [229] Michaelis lobt Soleen Yusef für "ihren so unaufgeregten wie genauen Blick bewahrt, mit dem sie die von den Schrecken der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart erzählt." [229] Leyla Yenirce von der Zeitung Der Tagespiegel knüpft an die Beobachtung von Michaelis an, indem sie Soleen Yusef für ihre Herangehensweise an den Film lobte: "Trotz des schwierigen politischen Hintergrunds trifft Yusef einen ernsten, aber humorvollen Ton und zeigt so ganz nebenbei, dass ein Film über die Geschichte Kurdistans nicht ausschließlich melancholisch und leidvoll erzählt sein muss. Sie leistet damit einen wichtigen Beitrag nicht nur für das kurdische Kino, sondern zeigt auch neue Perspektiven im deutschen Kino auf." [230]
Markus Raska vom Wochenmagazin ZITTY lobte Youssef ebenfalls. Dieser gelinge "es in ihrem wunderbaren Debüt nicht nur, das Politische im Privaten zu spiegeln, sie kreiert auch durch die bis in die Nebenfiguren mit viel Wärme gezeichneten Rollen eine Atmosphäre voller feinem Humor und sanfter Poesie. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Filmen von und über diese unruhige Gegend der Welt verweist sie trotz der grausamen Abgründe, die auch hier nie weit entfernt sind, auf das Gute im Menschen." [231]
Sabine Fischer von der Stuttgarter Zeitung lobte einerseits die mit "erstaunlich viel Einfühlungsvermögen und einen Blick für die Tragik kaum sichtbarer Augenblicke" [232] erzählte innere Entwicklung der Protagonisten, und andererseits die clevere Einbettung von Versatzstücken der Weltgeschichte, wodurch auf subtile Art und Weise den Blick auf ein Gesamtbild geweitet werde, das für viele Zuschauer sonst nur aus Fernsehreportagen und abstrakten Zahlen bestehen dürfte. [232] Fischer sah in Haus ohne Dach zudem einen autobiographischen Film von Soleen Yusef: "In ihrem Familiendrama „Haus ohne Dach“ erzählt die kurdisch-deutsche Regisseurin Soleen Yusef [...] eindrucksvoll von der zehrenden Identitätssuche ihrer Generation – und das mit klarer Erzählstimme und scharfem Blick für die inneren Kämpfe ihrer Figuren. [...] Die ungleichen Geschwister personalisieren auf clevere Art und Weise verschiedene Stadien der Identitätssuche, der sich so viele Migrantenkinder gegenüber sehen: Liya, die Angepasste. Alan, der Verlorene. Jan, der Traditionsbewusste. Drei Menschen, drei Strategien, um mit der Frage umzugehen, wer genau man eigentlich ist. Und die versucht Yusef zu beantworten, indem sie die drei Lebenswelten mit großem Wumms aufeinander prallen lässt." [232] Regisseurin Soleen Yusef merkte in diesem Zusammenhang in einem Interview mit dem Deutschlandradio Kultur von Ende August 2017 an: "Ich verstehe den Film immer als so eine Art Patchwork aus vielen Geschichten aus meinem Umfeld. Die Beziehung zwischen den Geschwistern wie auch der Konflikt zu den Eltern ist, glaube ich, sehr autobiografisch. Alles andere ist so eine Art Geschichtserzählung aus einem ganzen Ort sozusagen, die irgendwie zusammengewebt worden sind zu einer Familienbiografie." [233]
Knut Elsterman von MDR Kultur sah im Debütfilm von Soleen Yusef eine erstaunliche Geschlossenheit und große emotionale Kraft, die vor allem daher rühre, dass sich die Regisseurin ganz auf ihre Figuren konzentriere. Sie begleite diese zerrissenen Menschen mit großer innerer Anteilnahme bei dieser gefahrvollen Reise und vermittele wie nebenbei tiefere Einsichten in die verzweifelte Lage des Landes. [234] Das Hamburger Abendblatt sah in der Kurdistan- Odyssee der Geschwister-Protagonisten einerseits eine Art Roadtrip, und anderseits ein unter schwierigen Drehbedingungen entstandenes, teils sehr aufreibendes Drama, das auch für deutsche Kinozuschauer interessant sei. [235] Und die Jury des First Steps Awards urteilte: "Ein kurdischer Heimatfilm, klischeefrei, lustig, anrührend – und ein anderer Blick auf die Menschen, die „Flüchtlinge“ genannt werden." [236] [237]
Ulrich Sonnenschein von epd Film meint, man sehe dem Film nicht an, unter welchen Bedingungen und mit welchem Budget er entstand: „Starke Charaktere, karge, aber treffende Dialoge und eine Bewegung, die auch die knapp zwei Stunden überdauert, das Konzept ist durchdacht und überzeugend.“ [238] Wenn Soleen Yusef starke Bilder finden musste, so Sonnenschein, suchte sie diese in den Gesichtern der Menschen, denn bei aller Faszination für den Ort, bei aller Heimatverbundenheit und Sehnsucht nach dem eigenen Land, gehe es ihr in erster Linie um das Gefühl der Zusammengehörigkeit. [238] Michael Heins von programmkino.de, dem Kinomagazin der deutschen Arthouse-, Filmkunst- und Programmkinos, monierte eine nicht immer eine gelungene Balance zwischen Andeutung und Zuspitzung, die zu bekannt, zu sehr nach Variation von erzählerischen Mustern, zu überlegt und gewollt wirke. Demnoch attestierte er dem Film, dass das etwas unbestimmte Erzählen zu einer Stärke werde, "die am Ende dazu beiträgt, dass „Haus ohne Dach“ nicht auf intellektuelle, aber dafür emotionale Weise über den Krieg im Osten der Türkei und das Schicksal der Kurden in der Region erzählt" [239] Verene Schmöller vom Portal für Film und Kino kino-zeit.de meinte das Haus ohne Dach ein Film sei, indem das Bild sehr wichtig sei. Sie schreibt: "Die Milieus und die politischen Verhältnisse, die den Film ebenso prägen wie das Dazwischensein zwischen der deutschen und der kurdischen Kultur, machen den Film allerdings zu etwas Besonderem. Sie nehmen den Zuschauer mit auf eine Reise in eine fremde Kultur, geben ihm eine einzigartige Tonalität und wecken in der Regisseurin, wie sie sagt, Erinnerungen und ein Gefühl von Heimat. [...] Und es sind vor allem die Bilder, mit denen Yusuf überzeugt: Totalen, die die karge, aber beeindruckende Landschaft zeigen, wechseln sich ab mit Nahaufnahmen, die das Hin- und Hergerissensein der Figuren sichtbar machen." [240]
Marie Schmidt von ZEIT Online lobte einerseits den Kontrast zwischen der Jessica Chastain gespielten Miss Sloante und der Schauspielerin selber, kritisierte aber andererseits den Film als solches. Sie schrieb: "Der Kontrast zwischen der zynischen Kälte ihrer Figur und der feinnervigen Sensibilität der Schauspielerin gibt diesem Film ein Charisma, das er eigentlich nicht verdient hat.Denn dieser mit routiniertem Drive inszenierte und geschnittene Film ist ein Empörstück, das wie der politische Populismus ein großes Theater veranstaltet um die Idee, "die da oben" würden unsere Geschicke unter sich ausdealen, mit Machtgier und vielen Millionen Dollar." [241] Verena Lueken von der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung kritisierte den Film hingegen als zäh. "Zwar wird teilweise rasant geschnitten und mit einiger Schärfe geredet und argumentiert, aber die Figuren gewinnen keine Kontur, so dass es für den Zuschauer letztlich keine Rolle spielt, wer die Gefechte gewinnt." [242]
David Kleingers von SPIEGEL Online hob die schauspielerische Leistung von Jessica Chastain und der von ihr gespielten Elisabeth Sloane positiv hervor. Er kam zu folgenden Schluss: "Unterstützt von einem starken Ensemble bereitet der Film [...] die Bühne für die raumgreifende Performance von "Miss Sloane" - so der Originaltitel -, und es ist ein wendungsreiches wie zynisches Vergnügen, Jessica Chastains Lobbyistin bei der Meinungsmache in den Korridoren der Macht zuzusehen. Eine andere Erzählung hätte womöglich einen dramatischen Läuterungsprozess der Figur ins Zentrum gestellt, doch Elisabeth Sloane bleibt in ihrer ethischen und zwischenmenschlichen Zwiespältigkeit bis zum spannenden Finale unkalkulierbar." [243]
Hans-Georg Rodeck von der Zeitung die Welt sah im Film eine Dualität bestehend aus dem "Porträt einer Frau, die beruflichen Erfolg über alles stellt" [244] und einem "Blick hinter die Kulissen einer Tätigkeit, die eine andere Filmfigur „den moralisch korruptesten Berufsstand seit den Geisterheilern“ nennt." [244] Dabei sei „Die Erfindung der Wahrheit“ das Sittengemälde einer Branche und das Seelengemälde einer Frau, die sich vorgenommen habe, Männer an Taffness noch weit zu überholen. Und ebenso liefere Jessica Chastain die besten Vorstellung ihrer an Höhepunkten nicht armen Karriere. Rodeck lobte den Film bilanzierend als "geistreich, verdichtet und (meistens) dem mitdenkenden Zuschauer anderthalb Wendungen voraus." [244]
Der für die Zeitung Der Tagesspiegel arbeitende Christian Schröder sah in Die Erfindung der Wahrheit eine Demonstration, wie sehr die Sitten verfallen seien sowie ein Kommentar zur Bedeutung von Fake News in Zeiten von Donald Trump. Er bilanzierte: "Wenn man nicht schon aus der Präsidentenserie „ House of Cards“ wüsste, dass in Washington die Gesetze von Shakespeare gelten – in „Die Erfindung der Wahrheit“ würde man es lernen. Allerdings überdreht der Film am Ende etwas zu arg, und dass Sloane als beziehungsunfähige, unbefriedigte Karrierefrau sich mit Callboys treffen muss, ist ein ärgerliches Klischee. Doch Jessica Chastain wahrt bis zum Schluss ihr Geheimnis. Inmitten unaufhörlichen Geplappers ist das eine oscarreife Leistung. [245] Ebenfalls lobend nahm Knut Elstermann die schauspielerische Leistung von Jessica Chastain auf: "Jessica Chastains differenziertes Spiel in dieser zwiespältigen Rolle ist ein Ereignis. Eine hochintelligente Frau, die das Gute mit schlimmen Mitteln will. Dabei enthüllt der starke Thriller auch noch, welche manipulativen Prozesse hinter politischen Entscheidungen der Politiker stehen, beeinflusst und gesteuert von Menschen ohne Mandat wie Miss Sloane, die niemand gewählt hat." [246]
Patrick Seyboth von epd Film meinte, dass es der Regisseur John Madden schaffe, dass die Melange aus Charakterstudie und Politthriller nie langweilig werde. Seine Inszenierung konzentriere sich auf die Figuren und deren Interaktion und beweise einen ausgeprägten Sinn für subtile visuelle Akzente – genau das richtige Rezept, um mit dem Dialogfeuerwerk des Drehbuchs umzugehen. "Diesem allerdings merkt man an, dass es das Werk eines Debütanten ist: So viel Schärfe die verbalen Scharmützel aus der Feder von Jonathan Perera entfalten und so elegant immer wieder die Themen Wahrheit, Identität und Moral eingeflochten sind, so überambitioniert wirken spätestens im letzten Viertel des Films die immer unglaubwürdigeren Wendungen. Um wie viel stärker könnte dieser Film sein, hätten die Produzenten auf ein paar Überraschungen weniger bestanden. So verpufft am Ende einiges von der Wirkung der Geschichte, während immerhin Miss Sloane wenig sympathisch, aber sehr faszinierend bleibt." [247]
Lucas Barwenczik vom Portal für Film und Kino kino-zeit.de sah im Film Die Erfindung der Warheit eine auf Momentbasis gelingende Charakterstudie. "Gelegentlich entlockt Chastain der skrupellosen Lobbyistin eine interessante Geste, einen besonders kalten Blick oder aber auch das Gegenteil – eine kurze Entgleisung, eine Eruption, vielleicht sogar einen Hauch von Zweifel. Sloane ist eine Figur, die Masken über Masken trägt. [...] Ein moralischer, emotionaler Kern wird angedeutet, tief unter Schichten des Pragmatismus verborgen, doch eigentlich geht es nicht um eine wie auch immer geartete Enthüllung. Eine letzte Panzerschicht bleibt bestehen, zum Glück: In ihrer endgültigen Dekonstruktion hätte kein Wert gelegen. Das gerade so zu erahnende Pochen eines Herzens ist in diesem Fall spannender als der offene Brustkorb."
[248] Barwenczik kritisierte jedoch, dass sich alles zu sehr um den Charakter der Elisabeth Sloane drehe: "Selbst die Nebenfiguren, gespielt von Stars wie Mark Strong oder John Lithgow, sind nie mehr als ihre Funktion, Bezugspunkte im System Elizabeth Sloane. Hätte John Madden konsequent sein wollen, er hätte nur eine einzige Schauspielerin gebraucht."
[248] Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[249]
[250]
[251]
[252] nachdem es folgende Vorgaben für die Aufsichtsgremien von öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten
[252] gemacht hat:
Der Film bekam trotz mancher kritischer Rezensionen größenteils gute Bewertungen. Die Zeitung Westfälische Nachrichten zufolge etwa ist die Flucht der beiden Brüder vor der Polizei nach Hamburg "Auftakt einer tollen, zwischen humorvollen und rührenden Szenen gelassen pendelnden Odyssee und eine schöne Geschichte über Bruderliebe. Viel besser als der vergleichbare halbgare und alberne Schweiger-Film „ Honig im Kopf“ und einer der deutschen Filme des Jahres." [259] Jenny Hoch von der Zeitung Die ZEIT lobte nebden Hauptdarstellern Kross und Lau auch die sonstige Besetzung. So lobte sie die Darsteller Annette Frier, Emilia Schüle und Devid Striesow. Hoch hob die Rolle der Stadt Hamburg hervor: "Simpel ist kein einfacher Film. Er besticht durch Schattierungen und hat sogar noch einen dritten Hauptdarsteller, der sich zwar erst nach einer guten halben Stunde ins Bild mogelt, aber dann sehr präsent ist: die Stadt Hamburg. Von ein paar Luftbildern der glitzernden Metropole bei Nacht abgesehen, dient die Großstadt nicht als Traumkulisse, sondern als Auslöser für die innere Entwicklung der Figuren. Die rastlosen Hochbahnen, das Treiben auf der Fruchtallee, im Schanzenviertel und auf St. Pauli, das alles kann Angst machen, aber auch neue Lebenswege aufzeigen. Je tiefer die Helden in die Topografie der Stadt vordringen, desto weiter wird ihr Horizont." [260]
Britta Schmeis von epd Film sagt, Markus Goller habe den gleichnamigen Jugendroman von Marie-Aude Murail als bewegende Tragikomödie inszeniert, die alle Fragen von Verantwortung, Pflichtgefühl, Familie und Freundschaft aufgreife. Schmeis erklärt, Simpels liebenswerte Kindlichkeit entwaffne und führe zu urkomischen und rührenden Situationen, etwa wenn er, stets mit seinem Stofftier Hasehase im Schlepptau, auf einem Spielplatz ein behindertes Mädchen trifft und sich mit ihm anfreundet. Aber auch das liebevolle, fast allzu aufopfernde Kümmern Bens zerreiße einem so manches Mal das Herz, so Schmeis, und es handele sich um einen Film, der viele menschliche Gefühle anspreche und daher berühre. [261] In diesselbe Richtung wie Britta Schmeis sah auch Bettina Peulecke vom Norddeutschen Rundfunk den Film. Ihrer Meinung ist die Inszenierung der besonderen Bruderbeziehung "ein größtenteils gelungener Balanceakt zwischen Tragik und Komik, der man manche überzogene Momente aufgrund ihrer Aufrichtigkeit schnell verzeiht." [262]
Matthias Halbig spricht in der Hannoverschen Allgemeinen von großem, echtem Gefühlskino: „'Simpel' ist witzig, traurig, zart und randvoll mit Abenteuern – ein Lehrgang zum Herzen, den Regisseur Markus Goller dem Zuschauer nie mit Kitsch zustellt. Kross ist großartig als enthusiastischer, unschuldiger Kindmann, Lau nicht minder anrührend als bester Freund, den ein Bruder haben kann. Zwei Typen, die das Kino mit ihrer Geschichte der Inklusion durch Liebe bereichern, wie es damals Arnie ( Leonardo DiCaprio) und Gilbert Grape ( Johnny Depp) taten, irgendwo in Iowa.“ [263]
In einer Kritik zum Film bei Focus Online ist der Film als warmherziges und amüsantes Roadmovie mit großartigen Schauspielern beschrieben: „Mit zwei sehr unterschiedlichen Menschen in den Hauptrollen, deren Stärke es ist, immer füreinander da zu sein. Genau von dieser Beziehung zwischen Ben und Simpel lebt der Film. Frederick Lau und David Kross haben keinerlei Berührungsängste, sodass man ihnen ohne jeden Zweifel abnimmt, dass sie Brüder sind. Die Rollen scheinen perfekt auf die beiden Schauspieler zugeschnitten worden zu sein.“ [264]
Über Kross sagt Peter Zander von der Berliner Morgenpost, es sei bewegend, wie er bei Eiseskälte in Unterhosen und Moonboots im Watt tanzt und mit seiner naiven Gutmütigkeit selbst die Herzen wildfremder Menschen öffnet. Aber auch Lau berühre als Ben, der alles für seinen Bruder tut, auch wenn er dadurch nie Zeit für ein eigenes Leben hat und letztlich mit der Situation heillos überfordert ist. [265] [266]
Gemischte Kritk gab es von Marc Reichwein von der Zeitung Die Welt. Er meinte, dass Feel-Good-Filme schon zu oft die waren, die viel wollen und wenig können. Der Film schaffe zwar schafft anrührende Szenen, führe die wechselseitige Abhängigkeit von Familienmitgliedern vor, birge komische und tragikomische Momente. Daneben störten aber einige irgendwie verschenkte Szenen, Simpels Eindringen in die Familie seines leiblichen Vaters etwa. Sein Fazit: "Man geht emotional nicht gerade erschüttert, ergriffen, geläutert aus dem Kino. Dafür nämlich ist dieser Film dann irgendwie doch zu lau, namentlich die Figur, die Lau verkörpert. Alles, was Simpel begegnet, fügt sich ein bisschen zu wohlgefällig ins sozialpädagogisch Gute. Vielleicht, ahnt man, ist die Realität doch ein bisschen weniger simpel als „Simpel“." [267]
Eugen Zentner vom Filmblog Filmverliebt lobte zwar die schauspielerische Leistungen von David Kross und Frederick Lau. Sein Fazit fiel jedoch ebenfalls gemischt aus: "«Simpel» ist eine Tragikomödie über Respekt, Nächstenliebe und Lebensängste, die visuell kühle Bilder mit menschlicher Wärme kontrastiert. Der Tonfall der Erzählung macht sie gewiss zu einem rührenden Film. Dennoch wäre es gewagt, hier von einem «Feel-Good-Movie» zu sprechen. Gute Laune gibt es nur in sehr kleinen Portionen, was größtenteils der spannungsarmen Handlung und dem nicht immer stilsicheren Witz geschuldet ist. Der Film ist ganz passabel, feinfühlig und atmosphärisch dicht. Doch das reicht nicht aus, um mit Feel-Good-Movies wie « Garden State» oder « Forrest Gump» mithalten zu können." [268]
Hingegen befindet Martin Schwickert in der Sächsischen Zeitung, der Film kranke „erheblich an der Glaubwürdigkeit seiner eindimensionalen Charaktere“ und behandele die Probleme im Zusammenleben mit behinderten Menschen „vollkommen oberflächlich [...], um den flauschigen Wohlfühlcharakter des Unterhaltungsproduktes nicht zu gefährden“. Die „deutlich komplexer ausgearbeitete“ Vorlage werde „ins deutsche Mainstreamformat hineinbanalisiert“. [269] Bianka Piringer von "kino-zeit.de - Das Portal für Film und Kino" meinte kritisch bilanzierend: "Der Film entlässt seine Zuschauer ohne emotionalen Nachhall und auch nicht mit dem Eindruck, etwas Relevantes über die Welt und ihre Menschen erfahren zu haben." [270]
2014 äußerte sich Christo zu seine Arbeiten mit folgenden Worten: "Es ist total irrational und sinnlos." Millionen Mesnchen waren demnoch von der Schönheit seiner in abstrakte Objekte verwandelten Gebäude und Landschaften fasziniert. [272]
In seinem von 1935 bis 2020 reichenden Leben realisierte Christo zusammen mit seiner Frau viele Kunstprojekte. [273]
Das Lebenswerk von Christo wurde nach dessen Tod von der Bundesregierung gewürdigt. So schrieb Kulturstaatsministerin Monika Grütters (CDU) auf Twitter, Christo habe "die Menschen weltweit gelehrt, neu und schärfer zu sehen." Bundesaußenminister Heiko Maaß (SPD) äußerte sich dahingehend, dass Christo und Jeanne-Claude "mit Kunst unsere Welt bereichert" hätten. Mit der Verhüllung des Reichtstages habe Christo "unserem wiedervereinten Land ein spektakuläres Denkmal" gesetzt, so der Bundesaußenminister auf Twitter [274]
Bislang konnte der Film 84 Prozent der Kritiker bei Rotten Tomatoes überzeugen. [275]
In ersten Reaktionen nach dem Wegfall des Social-Media-Embargos zeigten sich Filmkritiker via Twitter von dem voller Easter Eggs und Refenzen gespickten Film [276] begeistert, auch wenn bemängelt wurde, der Film fühle sich wie die erste Hälfte eines Zweiteilers an, obwohl Marvel mehrmals betont hatte, dass dem nicht so sein sollte. [277] Auch die ersten internationalen Pressestimmen waren größenteils begeitstern vom Film, während am Film beteiligte Schauspieler es auch waren. [278]
Wilson Morales von Blackfilm.com meint, Avengers: Infinity War sei Non-Stop-Action von Anfang bis Ende, auch wenn sich etwas mehr Substanz in der Handlung finden könnte. [279] [277]
Eric Eisenberg von CinemaBlend spricht von atemberaubenden Momenten, einer großartigen Interaktion zwischen den Figuren und oft verheerenden Überraschungen. [280] [281] Sein Kollege Conner Schwerdtfeger meint, Avengers: Infinity War bewege sich auf einem nächsten Level und sei eine der emotionalsten, intensivsten und eindringlichsten Erfahrungen seines Lebens gewesen. [282]
Joshua Yehl von IGN meint, der Film habe ihn durchgehend und über seine komplette Handlung hinweg entweder zum Lachen, Schreien oder zum Weinen gebracht. [283] Sein Kollege Scott Collura bemerkt, besonders das Ende sei brilliant. [284]
{{original recording|Discurso de Kennedy.ogg}}
Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility ( 4 December 2013) at THEARC in Washington, D.C.
Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect with exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. [286] With respect to the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948): "[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." And the court added in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883): "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."
Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is “state action” meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental power. [286] In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880) the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the 14th Amendment "have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State, by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State." [287]
There are however instances where people are the victims of civil-rights violations that occur in circumstances involving both government officials and private actors. [286] In the 1960s the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action opening the door to wide-ranging civil-rights litigation against private actors when they act as state actors [286] i.e. acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state (Compare Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the state action doctrine is equally applicable to denials of privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection of the laws. [288]
The critical factor in determining the existence of state action is not governmental involvement with private persons or private corporations is not the critical factor in determining the existence of state action, but "the inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." [289] "Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance." [290]
The Supreme Court asserted that plaintiffs must establish not only that a private party "acted under color of the challenged statute, but also that its actions are properly attributable to the State. [...] [291] And the actions are to be attributable to the State apparently only if the State compelled the actions and not if the State merely established the process through statute or regulation under which the private party acted. [288]
The rules developed by the Supreme Court for business regulation are that (1) the "mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment," [a] and (2) "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must be deemed to be that of the State." [b]
A day after the decision in Windsor, the federal judge hearing McLaughlin v. Panetta asked the parties to explain by July 18 why the logic that found DOMA's section 3 unconstitutional did not apply equally to federal regulations that control eligibility for veterans' spousal benefits, which define "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex." [292] On July 18, 2013, BLAG stated in a court filing that in light of Windsor, they would no longer seek to defend this case or similar statutes in court, and sought leave to withdraw from defending the case. [293]
In September 2013, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state's refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses contradicted Windsor. [294] Governor Chris Christie dropped his appeal of this ruling in October 2013 after the State Supreme Court signaled that they were likely to reject his appeal, making New Jersey the 14th state in the union to permit gay marriage. [295]
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor and the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in Griego v. Oliver holding that marriage licenses must be issued to couples without respect to gender [296] four United States District Court judges (see Kitchen v. Herbert, [297] Bishop v. Oklahoma, [298] Bostic v. Rainey, [299] and De Leon v. Perry [300]) interpreted the Windsor decision as meaning that state laws defining marriage as one man and one woman are likewise unconstitutional. [301] In December 2013, a U.S. District Court judge for example ruled in Kitchen v. Herbert that Utah's prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, citing Windsor to support his findings with respect to Baker v. Nelson and equal protection. [302]
A 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott (Case 11-17357, Case ID:8944502) resolved a dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies SmithKline Beecham and Abbott Laboratories whether gay people could be kept off a jury in a trial involving HIV drugs. It ruled unanimously on January 21, 2014, that, based on its reading of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, distinctions based on sexual orientation are subject to the "heightened scrutiny" standard of review and that "equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation". [303] The decision was not appealed. [304]
The Ninth Circuit looked at the Windsor decision and ruled that the Supreme Court applied heightened scrutiny, without naming it directly: “Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.” [303] The Windsor Court, the opinion noted, reviewed the actual purposes and justifications for the law i.e. Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and not under the more lenient rational basis standard where any conceivable rationale is enough to sustain a law. The Ninth Circuit court also observed that the Windsor Court shifted the burden from the same-sex couple to the government when it wrote that the government has to “justify disparate treatment of the group.” [305] In sum the Ninth Cirucuit concluded: "In sum, Windsor requires that we reexamine our prior precedents, and Witt tells us how to interpret Windsor. Under that analysis, we are required by Windsor to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection." [303] In holding that heightened scrutiny is required for classifications based on sexual orientation within the Ninth Circuit the court in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott handed down a ruling whose underlying rationale could have broad implications outside of the case with respect to “the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement. [304] [306]
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling the Obama Administration and several federal agencies began to extend federal rights, priveleges and benefits to same-sex by changing regulations in order to conform with the Supreme Court decision in Windsor:
Despite the foregoing efforts the U.S. federal agencies are not working in concert. Instead "they are creating a patchwork of regulations affecting gay and lesbian couples — and may be raising questions about discrimination and fairness in the way that federal benefits are distributed."
US district court judge for the District of Columbia Richard Leon on declared [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] on December 16, 2013 that the mass collection of metadata of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the fourth amendment prohibition unreasonable searches and seizures. [319] “Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation – most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics – I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.” [320] “Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the government’s interest in collecting and analysing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment,” he wrote. [320]
"The Fourth Amendment typically requires 'a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public,' and it is offended by 'general warrants' and laws that allow searches to be conducted 'indiscriminately and without regard to their connections with a crime under investigation,'" he wrote. [321] He added: "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast." [321]
Leon granted the request for an preliminary injunction that blocks the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs (Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011) [320] and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. But the judge stayed action on his ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing in his 68-page opinion the “significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues.” [319]
As a consequence of proposals made by his NSA-review pnale, the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, [322] U.S. President Obama is considering as of January 2014 to propose [323] [324]
According to the New York Times [325] [326] [327], The Guardian [328] and ProPublica [329]
Negotiations among intelligence agencies, the White House, lawmakers and their aides, and privacy advocates in the summer of 2014 led to a modified bill (S. S.2685) in the U.S. Senate [330]. This bill version addressed most privacy concerns regarding the NSA program that collects records of Americans’ phone calls in bulk and other issues. Under the bill the NSA would no longer collect those phone records. Instead, most of the records would have stayed in the hands of the phone companies, which would not have been required to hold them any longer than they already do for normal business purposes, which in some cases is 18 months. The bill would require the NSA to request specific data from phone companies under specified limits i.e. the NSA would need to show it had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the number it is interested in is tied to a foreign terrorist organization or individual. The proposed legislation would still have allowed analysts to perform so-called contact chaining in which they trace a suspect’s network of acquaintances, but they would been required to use a new kind of court order to swiftly obtain only those records that were linked, up to two layers away, to a suspect — even when held by different phone companies. It would also require the federal surveillance court to appoint a panel of public advocates to advance legal positions in support of privacy and civil liberties, and would expand company reporting to the public on the scope of government requests for customers’ data. This USA Freedom Act version thus gained the support of the Obama Administration, including the director of national intelligence and attorney general, as well as many tech companies including Apple, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo as well as a diverse range of groups, including the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.ref>Ellen Nakashima and Ed O'Keefe (November 18, 2014). "Senate fails to advance legislation on NSA reform". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 19, 2014.</ref> [331]
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) [332] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages. [333] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment [334] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does." [335] The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974's Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. only applied to "the institutional press." [335] "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers." [335] Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones." [336]
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) [332] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently. [333] The Ninth Circuit court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment [334] and in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does." [335] The Ninth Circuit panel found the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones." [335] [336]
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2014 [332] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages. [333] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. [334] The Court held that in defamation cases not the identity of the speaker, but rather the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue provide the First Amendment foundation. [336] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2014 [332] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. [333] The Ninth Circuit court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment [334] because the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story." [335] [336]
The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme. [332] But every United States appeals court which adressed this issue concluded [337] [338] [339] [340] [341] [342] [332] that that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. [332] [335]
While it is an open question whether people who blog, twitter or use other social media are journalists entitled to protection by Shield laws in the United States [343], they are protected equally by the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause, because both clause don't difference between media businesses and nonprofessional speakers. [344] [345] [346] This is further evidenced by the United States Supreme Court who constantly refused to to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers. [347] [348] [349] For example in a case involving campaign finance laws the Court rejected the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by” non-institutional-press businesses. [350]
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, to lawfully search and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a writ known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional if conducted without a valid warrant [351] and the police must obtain a warrant whenever practicable. [352] Searches and seizures without a warrant are not considered unreasonable if one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. [353] [354] [355] These exceptions apply "[o]nly in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." [356] In these situations where the warrant requirement doesn't apply a search or seizure nonetheless must be justified by some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. [357] However the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception to the requirement of individualized suspicion. It ruled that "In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion" a search [or seizure] would still be reasonable. [358]
After 13 years Britain and the United States officially ended their combat operation in Afghanistan on October 26, 2014. On that day Britain handed over its last base in Afghanistan, Camp Bastion in the southern province of Helmand, to Afghanistan, while the United States handed over its last base, Camp Leatherneck in the southern province of Helmand. [363] [364] [365] [366] [367] [368]
Afghanistan and the United States signed the BSA signed through U.S. Ambassador James B. Cunningham and Afghan national security adviser Mohammad Hanif the bilateral security agreement on September 30, 2014 in a cordial ceremony at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afhanistan. [369] [370] [371] On that day the NATO Status of Forces Agreement was also signed, giving forces from Allied and partner countries the legal protections necessary to carry out the NATO Resolute Support mission when International Security Assistance Force comes to an end in 2014. [372] Under both agreements 9,800 American and at least 2,000 NATO troops are allowed to remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on December 31, 2014 [369] while also enabling the continued training and advising of Afghan security forces, as well as counterterrorism operations against remnants of al-Qaeda. [370] Most of the troops will help train and assist the struggling Afghan security forces, although some American Special Operations forces will remain to conduct counterterrorism missions. [369] The Nato-led ISAF mission will transition to a training mission headquartered in Kabul with six bases around the country. [369] Under the BSA the United States are allowed to have bases at nine separate locations across Afghanistan. [370] A base in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, could also remain a launching point for armed drone missions in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan. [369] [370] The agreement also prevents U.S. military personnel from being prosecuted under Afghan laws for any crimes they may commit; instead, the United States has jurisdiction over any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action involving its troops inside the country. The provision does not apply to civilian contractors. [370] The troop number of 9.800 Americans is to be cut in half by 2016, with American forces thereafter based only in Kabul and at Bagram air base. By the end of 2017, the U.S. force is to be further reduced in size to what U.S. officials have called a “normal” military advisory component at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, most likely numbering several hundred. [370] The BSA goes into force on January 1, 2015 and remains in force "until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless it is terminated by either side with two years' notice. [373]
At the end of March 2015 U.S. President Obama announced to slow the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal by maintaining the current force levels of 9,800 troops through at least the end of 2015. This annoucement came after a request by the Afghan government under its new president Ashraf Ghani. Obama and Ghani stated the troops were needed to train and advise Afghan forces. According to U.S. official keeping the current force in place would allow American special operations troops and the Central Intelligence Agency to operate in southern and eastern Afghanistan, where the insurgents are strongest and where Al Qaeda’s presence is concentrated. Obama also stated to close the remaining U.S. bases in Afghanistan, to withdraw all but about 1,000 troops by the time he leaves office at the beginning of 2017 consolidate the remaining U.S. forces in Kabul. Those forces would operate largely in Kabul and protect embassy personnel and other American officials there. [374] [375] [376]
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_url=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in ständiger Rechtsprechung (vgl. etwa BVerfGE 75, 108, 148) ausgeführt, dass Beiträge zur Sozialversicherung nicht der Finanzierung allgemeiner Staatsausgaben dienen dürfen. Einen Einsatz der Sozialversicherungsbeiträge zur Befriedung des allgemeinen Finanzbedarfs des Staates hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht ausdrücklich für unzulässig erklärt. Ansonsten sei der Grundsatz der Belastungsgleichheit aller Bürger verletzt, der Ausprägung des allgemeinen Gleichheitssatzes des Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG ist.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archiveurl=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
ZEITONLINE20170405Mayer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
wazWestphal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
Captain America: Civil War takes place after Avengers: Age of Ultron, where both Cap and Iron Man find themselves on opposite sides of the Sokovia Accords, a new initiative designed to make each superhero accountable for their destructive actions.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG begründet in Verbindung mit dem Sozialstaatsprinzip aus Art. 20 Abs. 1 GG ein soziales Teilhaberecht.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
In der Praxis hat Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG in seiner Wirkung als Teilhaberecht – häufig in Verbindung mit Freiheitsrechten oder dem Sozialstaatsprinzip des Art. 20 Abs. 1 GG – große Bedeutung: Da originäre Leistungsrechte aus der Verfassung nur in seltenen Ausnahmefällen in Betracht kommen und daher der Einzelne in der Regel kein Recht auf Schaffung bestimmter Leistungen hat, möchte er wenigstens, dass die bestehenden Ressourcen gerecht verteilt werden. Dabei geht es regelmäßig um die gleiche, chancengleiche und qualifikationsgerechte Zuteilung von Ansprüchen. Das Recht auf gleiche Teilhabe wird dabei oft zum Verfahrensrecht, das sich auf die Organisation und das Verfahren der Leistungsgewährung auswirkt. Für den Zugang zum öffentlichen Dienst trifft Art. 33 Abs. 2 GG eine spezielle Regelung.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE-url=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
BverfGPMNR262014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help) Anmerkung: Das Tomatometer bei
Rotten Tomatoes gibt an, wie viel Prozent der angemeldeten Kritiker dem Film eine positive Bewertung gegeben haben.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
WSJ20131212
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
NYTimesNov18
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
ECBbritannicaFA20140418
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Katz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
"A World Without Nuclear Weapons" was a speech [1] [2] made by US President Barack Obama on April 5, 2009 at Hradcany Square [3] [4] in Prague, Czech Republic, in which he spoke about the threat of nuclear weapons in the post– Cold War era, how to stop the spread of these weapons and laid out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. [5] [6] [7]
Barack Obama had as a U.S. Senator co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. [8] In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008 Senator Obama noted: "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons."
After his inauguration as U.S. president undertook in early April 2009 a journey to several European countries [9] [10] (See List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama during 2009). After Obama had attended 2009 G-20 London Summit and the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit [11] he arrived in Prague on the evening of April 4 from Strasbourg, where he attended NATO's 60th anniversary summit. [10] President Obama visited the Czech Republic, then holding the rotating presidency of the European Council, to attend a US-EU-meeting. [12] [13] [10] Obama hold his speech after conferring with Czech leaders. [7] and before the US-EU-summit. [12] [14] After the speech and a round of private meetings with foreign leaders and former Czech President Václav Havel Obama continued his Europe journey to Turkey. [15] [14]
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev - meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in London - agreed to reopen negotiations about reducing nuclear warheads. They aimed to produce a new arms control treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I ( START I) which expired in December 2009. [9] During the NATO summit Obama noted although NATO's old Soviet-bloc enemy has long gone, the threat of nuclear catastrophe remained. "Even with the Cold War over, the spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," Obama said at a U.S.-style town hall meeting in the French city of Strasbourg on April 3, 2009. [16] "This weekend in Prague, I will lay out an agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," he said, referring to the EU-U.S. summit in the Czech Republic on April 5, 2009 which followed the NATO gathering. [16] [17] [18]
In the hours before Obama's speech the North Korean government had launched according to ABC News a Taepodong-2 missile in the late night of April 4, 2009. [19] [15] [20] World leaders, including President Obama on April 3, 2009, had issued repeated warnings to North Korea that such an act would be considered a "provocative" act and would further isolate the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the international community, but North Korea claimed its missile launch was merely a way to put a communications satellite into orbit. [19] North Korea had notified the international community that the launch was coming and the route the rocket would take. North Korea had also warned that debris might fall off Japan's northern coast when the rocket's first stage fell away, so Tokyo positioned batteries of interceptor missiles on its coast and radar-equipped ships to monitor the launch. [21] North Korea declared the missile launch a success. But the U.S. military said "no object entered orbit," with the first stage of the rocket falling into the waters between Korea and Japan, and the two other stages and its payload landing in the Pacific Ocean. [7]
Confirmation of the launch by the Pentagon occurred at approximately 10:30 pm ET, 4:30 am in Prague. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs immediately woke up the president after receiving word of the confirmation. [19] At an event at the Prague Castle with President Václav Klaus and Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek of the Czech Republic on the morning of April 5, President Obama said that "North Korea made a launch this morning that defies U.N. Security Council resolutions, (and) that harms peace and stability for Northeast Asia." [19] Obama referenced here the in October 2006 passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 which demanded that North Korea refrain from conducting any further tests of ballistic missiles. [19]
A military band and honor guard greeted U.S. President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, as they arrived at Prague's majestic medieval castle grounds early Sunday morning. [10] After his meeting at Prague Castle with President Klaus and Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek [19] Obama spoke outside Prague Castle against the backdrop of a hazy Prague skyline. [10]
According to NBC News The choice of Prague for a nuclear weapons disarmament speech carried strong symbolism which that Obama didn't miss. One of the few peaceful overthrows of communism in the Iron Curtain was the 1989 Velvet Revolution which originated in Prague and toppled decades of communism in Czechoslovakia. [7] [15] And the BBC's Mark Mardell noted with respect to Hradcany Square: "The backdrop was ideal for President Obama's initial message of a world that had changed beyond recognition. These were the gates through which Hitler drove to glory in his conquest of Czechoslovakia, this the castle in which Communist presidents used to receive like-minded leaders of the unfree world." [22]
Speaking before an estimated crowd between of 20,000 [23] [7] and 30,000 people [10] Obama played down the adulation which he received during his trip to Europe [11] by stating "to paraphrase one of my predecessors, I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague." [11] This was a reference to John F. Kennedy who stated during a 1961 trip to France: "I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris — and I have enjoyed it!" [24]
After his opening remarks Obama spoke about the history of the Czech people in the 20th century by referencing the founder and first President of Czechoslovakia, Thomas Masaryk, the Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution. [25] Obama then called for cooperation in the face of common threads such as the 2008–2012 global recession and the changing climate. [9] [25] "Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world's dependence on fossil fuels, by tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part." [25] The next section of Obama's speech was devoted to NATO in which Obama's remarks stretched from NATO's founding over the Cold War years to NATO response to the 9/11 attacks and NATO's subsequent mission in Afghanistan. [25] In his remarks Obama noted that the NATO memebers " must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern." [25]
Obama then adressed the thread posed by nuclear weapons in the post Cold War world:
“ | The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the cold war. [...] Today, the cold war has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up." [25] | ” |
Barack Obama attributed this situation to the circumstances that more nations have acquired nuclear weapons, that nuclear testings continues, that the technology to build nuclear weapons has spread and that terrorists will do anything they can to get hold of nuclear material. [26] [13] He warned:
“ | Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global nonproliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold. Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city--be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague--could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival." [25] | ” |
Obama then directly addressed those who think it’s likely too late to rid the world of nuclear weapons. “Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked – that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction," he said. "This fatalism is a deadly adversary. For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable." [27]
After adressing the thread posed by nuclear weapons in the post Cold War world Obama laid out an agenda which was dubbed later by US officials like US Vice President Joe Biden [28] and US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon [29] as the Prague Agenda.
“ | Today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change." [27] | ” |
Obama said that the United States, with its huge arsenal and its history using two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, had to lead the world and a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now. [15]. Reducing and eventually eliminating existing nuclear arsenals, halting proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials are the goals of the Prague Agenda according the White House. [19] [17] The Prague Agenda includes the following items:
Obama's speech does not mean the US has immediate plans to get rid of all its nuclear weapons, because Obama noted in his speech that the United States will maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear capability to deter adversaries and reassure its allies. [31] The US president also raised in his speech a sticky subject between the United States and Russia — the missile defense shield the U.S. government has discussed building in Poland and the Czech Republic, which Russian leaders have said is provocative. [27] He told the Czech Republic and neighbouring Poland that they could still host US missile defence facilities provided the missile shield project was deemed to be "proven and cost-effective". [4] During his speech Obama stated as long as Iran's nuclear programm and its missile activities pose a threat to Iran's neighbors, the United States allies and the United States itself, the United States will pursue its missile defense system in Europe. [5] [27] Obama also adressed the North Korea's programm of weapons of mass destruction by stating that North Korea’s missile test on April 5, 2009 [7] [19] illustrated “the need for action, not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.” [5] The President underscored: "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to the security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons." [25] [27]
Before closing his speech Obama adressed those who doubt that the Prague Agenda can be realized. He said:
“ | Now, I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake: We know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. We know the path when we choose fear over hope. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends." [25] | ” |
Barack Obama noted that human destiny is what humans make of it [25] and closed his speech in this context with a call for common action: "[L]et us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it. Together we can do it." [25]
Al Jazeera's Prague correspondent Rob Reynolds noted that Obama is going to try to lead by example and rally international support for renewed anti-nuclear weapons steps. [13] "More concretely he is going to, and has already begun engaging the Russians to restart nuclear arms reduction and limitation talks with a view towards having a treaty on that subject completed before the end of the year." [13] The Guardian's Ian Traynor noted that Obama "put flesh on the bones of his utopian vision for ridding the world of nuclear weapons" [4]
According Fox News few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done. Even backward nations such as North Korea have shown they can develop bombs, given enough time. But a program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and lions of the foreign policy world. [15] [2] Local reactions in Prague reached from approval to dispointment. [14] "I found the speech uplifting," said Prague resident Paul Allen. "He made a lot of concrete promises." [14] Prague resident Svétlana Simonovská, originally from Macedonia, said she attended Obama's speech. "I was pretty disappointed. He sounded like Bush," she said. [14] Former President Václav Havel offered some advice to the younger politician during their half-hour meeting following the EU-U.S. summit. Havel told the Czech News Agency that he warned Obama that people had enormous hopes pinned on him, and their enthusiasm could turn into disappointment if their hopes are not realized. "People may believe that he has cheated them, gave them more hope than what was justified," Havel said. [14] Former french foreign minister Hubert Védrine welcomed the debate on reducing the nuclear arsenal in an interview with France Info television on Apr. 6, 2009, but called Obama’s vision “demagogic.” [26] “No U.S. President has been able to reduce nuclear arms because they could never be sure of a world without conflict.” [26] Vedrine believes that “in a world with fewer nuclear armaments there will be not less war, but more.” He argued that “in a world of nuclear weapons, they function as a means to dissuade war.” [26]
One year after the speech and a New York Times report which cited some senior US aides as saying that President Obama plans to permanently reduce the American arsenal of nuclear warheads Key-young Son, an expert on international affairs in Japan, said with respect to six party talks on North Korea's nuclear program and a nuclear free Korean peninsula: "If the Obama Administration is moving to build trust in terms of nuclear issues, I think it will obviously help in the restart of nuclear talks and also it might change the attitude of North Korea in a more positive direction in the near future." [32] "There are some 23,000 weapons all over the world. Out of this 22,000 are shared between US and Russia," says Retired Gen. Talat Masood, a security analyst in Islamabad. "The remaining one thousand are with other countries. So I don't think anyone should expect any change among other nuclear powers. The lead has to come from US, Russia, and then followed by other permanent UN members and India, Pakistan and Israel." [32]
Prior to North Korea's rocket launch, concern was raised by other nations, particularly the United States, South Korea and Japan, that the rocket was a Taepodong-2, [33], but according to the North Korean government it was an Unha-2 rocket. [34] The launch of the rocket was sharply condemned by the United States [35] and the European Union, [36] while the People's Republic of China [37] and Russia [38] urged restraint. On 13 April 2009, the United Nations Security Council issued a Presidential Statement condemning the launch as a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 (2006). [39] [40] One day after, on 14 April 2009, North Korea called the Presidential Statement an infringement on a country's right for space exploration embodied in the Outer Space Treaty and withdrew from Six Party Talks. [41]
On 17 September 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced with respect to the missile defense system in Europe that the planned deployment of long-range missile defence interceptors and equipment in Poland and the Czech Republic was not to go forward, and that a defence against short- and medium-range missiles using AEGIS warships would be deployed instead. [42] [43] [44] For further information see NATO missile defence system.
On 24 September 2009 US President Obama chaired a United Nations Security Council Summit on Nonproliferation and Nuclear Disarmament in New York City whose participating members unanimously adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887. The resolution commits UN member nations to work toward a world without nuclear weapons, and endorses a broad framework of actions to reduce global nuclear risks. It also urges states to join and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); refrain from testing nuclear weapons and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and ensure safeguards of nuclear material and prevent trafficking of this material. [45]
In 2010 the IAEA Board of Governors has approved the creation of two separate fuel banks. The first, formally established by the IAEA and the Russian government in March 2010, is owned, operated, and paid for by the Russian Federation and located near the Siberian city of Angarsk. The reserve has been fully stocked and became operational on 1 December 2010. The Board of Governors approved a second fuel reserve in December 2010, which will be owned and operated by the IAEA itself, but this fuel bank is not yet operational. [46] And on March 29, 2011 US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon stated that for the purpose of "building a new international framework to support peaceful uses of nuclear energy without increasing the risk of proliferation" the United States are committed to develop "commercial concepts for nuclearfuel leasing, so all countries can benefit from nuclear energy without spreading dangerous technology and materials." [47] For further information see Nuclear fuel bank.
The 2010 Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was held at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 3 to 28 May 2010. [48] The final document of this summit supported the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, as well as the prompt negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, recognized the legitimate interest of non-nuclear weapon states to request nuclear weapon states to reduce operational status of their nuclear weapons. [49] It also called to achieve total disarmament and then to maintain a world without nuclear weapons. [49] For further information see 2010 Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
In early April 2010 the Obama administration released its Nuclear Posture Review. [50] [51] [52] renounces development of any new nuclear weapons such as the bunker-busters proposed by the Bush Administration, and for the first time rules out a nuclear attack against non-nuclear-weapon states who are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This rule pointedly excludes Iran and North Korea. [53] [54] [55] With respect to these countries Thomas Donilon noted in 2011 that the Obama administration is working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure inspections and verifications, while tightening international sanctions against Iran and North Korea. [47] For further information see Nuclear Posture Review.
A new nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation was signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague, [56] and, after ratification [57], entered into force on 5 February 2011. [58] US Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in June 2012 in this context: "Beyond responsibly reducing the number of nuclear weapons, the Obama Administration has been committed to reducing their role in our national security strategy as well. We are not developing new nuclear weapons; we are not pursuing new nuclear missions; we are working toward creating the conditions to make deterring nuclear use the sole purpose of our nuclear weapons; and we have clearly stated that it is in our interest and the interest of all other states that the more than 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever." [59] And in March 2011 Thomas Donilon, Barack Obama's national security advisor, stated the U.S. plans to negionate a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia which covers nondeployed and nonstrategic nuclear weapons. "A priority will be to address Russian tactical nuclear weapons. We will work with our NATO allies to shape an approach to reduce the role and number of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, as Russia takes reciprocal measures to reduce its nonstrategic forces and relocates its nonstrategic forces away from NATO’s borders." [47] He added that no previous arms control agreement has included provisions to limit and monitor non-deployed warheads or tactical warheads. [47] For further information regarding the 2011 treaty see New START.
The " Global Summit on Nuclear Security" took place April 12–13, 2010. The summit was proposed by President Obama in Prague and was intended to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in conjunction with the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. [60] The Summit focused on how to better safeguard weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to prevent nuclear terrorism. [61] Forty seven states and three international organizations took part in the summit [62], which issued a communiqué [63] and a work plan. [64] According Thomas Donilon "the Washington summit built high level political support for nuclear security and created a concrete work plan to support a global effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years." [47] He stated in March 2011 that since April 2009 thousands of kilograms of nuclear materials at over 20 sites around the world have either been removed or eliminated. "In locations where material elimination is not possible, we have worked with other governments to lock down materials through robust security enhancements. Countries are also beefing up transport security and response forces. But nuclear security is more than about protecting material with guards, guns, and gates. It also means addressing the human element by establishing a security culture and training programs for the personnel responsible for protecting nuclear materials." [47] Therefore the United States signed with several countries like Japan, China, India, Italia or Algeria agreements to establish and work together at regional "Centers of Excellence" to provide training and education for nuclear security officials. Donilon also stated that the Obama Administration 1.) worked at home and around the world to convert research reactors so they no longer use Highly Enriched Uranium fuel and 2.) has committed an additional $10 billion to the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction to help countries pay for nuclear and biosecurity upgrades. [47] The Global Partnership is a multilateral initiative to reduce the risk of WMD terrorism through cooperative capacity building on specific projects. It consists of 24 countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States. [65] For further information regarding the 2010 meeting see 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.
On March 26, 2012 during the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit President Obama delivered remarks at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul in which he discussed his Prague agenda to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek the peace and security of a world without them. In his remarks talked about the securing of vulnerable nuclear material, the nuclear activities of Iran and North Korea and further reductions in the United States nuclear weapons arsenal. [66] [67]
As of June 4, 2012 neither the US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty has occured nor has been the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty be succesful. The United States is still committed to both projects realization according to Rose Gottemoeller, US Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and New START negotiator. [68] [69] US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon stated in March 2011 three reasons for US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. First he argued that by a US treaty ratification others would be induced also to ratify the treaty and thus the legal and political barriers to a resumption of nuclear testing would be strengthened. Second he noted that due the treaty's global monitoring system and strengthened US national capabilities the United states are in better position to verify the treaty. And third he said that the U.S. could maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal without nuclear testing due to the US Stockpile stewardship programm. [47]
As of August 4, 2015 the pursuit of a treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons wasn't crowned by success because has blocked moves to cut off such supplies in international talks that require unanimity. [70] In Prague Barack Obama vowed to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the review conference failed to approve a consensus document in 2015. [70]
7 December 2012: Morsi supporters and anti-Morsi demonstrators continued their protests in different cities including Cairo, Alexandria, and Assiut. Demonstrators in Assiut chanted "No Brotherhood, no Salafis, Egypt is a civic state." [71] Dozens of protesters threw rocks and glass bottles at Morsi's home in Sharkia province and tried to push aside a police barrier. [72] Advisers and Brotherhood leaders acknowledged that outside his core base of Islamist supporters President Morsi feels increasingly isolated in the political arena and even within his own government. [73] Opposition leaders said in a statement that Morsi's December 6 dialogue offer failed to meet “the principles of real and serious negotiations” and displayed “the complete disregard” for the opposition’s demands. They said they would not negotiate with Morsi until he cancels his Nov. 22 decree and calls off the Dec. 15 referendum on the draft constitution. [74] [75] [76] Opposition protesters marched on the presidential palace and breached a security perimeter built by the military’s elite Republican Guard — charged with protecting the palace — which withdrew behind the palace walls. [74] [75] [76] The Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm also reported that individuals suspected of protesting against the Muslim Brotherhood were being tortured and beaten in a facility run by the Brotherhood in Heliopolis, a Cairo suburb. [77]
8 December 2012: The Egyptian Army issued its first statement since the protests erupted, stating that it would protect public institutions and innocent people and not allow the events to become more serious. [78] The Qandil Cabinet also authorized the army to help Egypt's police maintain security. [79] Egypt state news media reported that Morsi was moving toward imposing a form of martial law to secure the streets and allow the vote on the draft charter constitutional referendum. [80] [78] [81] Morsi annulled his decree which had expanded his presidential authority and removed judicial review of his decrees, an Islamist official said, but added that the effects of that declaration would stand. [82] [83] [84] [85] In addition the mostly annuled November 2012 constitutional declaration should be replaced by a modificated one. [86] The new decree Morsi issued Saturday night said he retained the limited authority to issue “constitutional declarations” protecting the draft charter constitution that judges could not overturn. [80] George Isaac of the Constitution Party said that Mursi’s declaration did not offer anything new, the National Salvation Front rejected it as an attempt save face, and the April 6 Movement and Gamal Fahmi of the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate said the new declaration failed to address the “fundamental” problem of the nature of the assembly that was tasked with drafting the constitution. [82]
9 December 2012: Confusion and disarray pervaded the ranks of Egypt’s opposition after Morsi rescinded his November 22 constitutional declaration a day earlier. [87] [88] [89] Despite the declaration's annullment the general prosecutor, who was dismissed, will not be reinstated, and the retrial of the former regime officials will go ahead. [90] Opposition leaders also called for more protests after Morsi refused to cancel the constitutional referendum in the wake of the declaration's annullment. [87] [91] [92] In response, the Alliance of Islamist Forces, an umbrella group that includes Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood, said it would hold rival demonstrations. The group said its rallies would support of the referendum and the president under the slogan "Yes to legitimacy". [90]
On 10 December, the opposition group, the National Salvation Front, announced that it would organize a rally on 11 December. [93]
Der Dom wurde am 15. Februar 2013 wiedereröffnet worden. [94] An der 15-monatigen Renovierungsphase vom 7. 6. 2010 bis 15. 2. 2013 waren 15 Büros und 51 Handwerksbetriebe mit 350 Mitarbeitern beteiligt. Während dieser Zeit wurden 10.000 Quadratmeter Wand- und Gewölbeflächen aufgefrischt und 24 Kilomterkabel verlegt. Ein komplett neues, 5500 Quadratmeter umfassendes Kupferdach wurde während der ersten Sanierungsphase installiert. Decken, Wände und Kunstwerke im Dom wurden gesäubert und farblich neugefasst. Im Zuge der Erneuerung der Technik wurde eine energiesparende Erdwärmeheizung, eine moderne LED-Beleuchtung und eine neue Mikrofonanlage installiert. Die digitale Lautsprecheranlage wurde zudem neu konzipiert und auch für Hörgeschädigte auf den neuesten Stand gebracht. Am Portal zur astronomischen Uhr wurde ein behindertengerechter Zugang eingefügt. Der Glockenstuhl wurde aus Eichenholz neu gezimmert. Die Steuerung von Licht, Mikros und Glocken erfolg von einer Leitstelle in der Sakristei aus. Eine aus „Lichtspeiern“ (bei diesen handelt es sich um "kleine, aus der Wand ragende Messingarme, die wie Wasserspeier aussehen und ihr LED-Licht nach unten zu den Gläubigen und nach oben an Wand und Decke werfen, sodass der Dom mit seinem Gewölbe auch indirekt strahlt") [95] und Strahlenkränzen bestehende Beleuchtung sorgt für helles Licht. Die Gesamtkosten all dieser Maßnahmen belaufen sich auf rund 14 Millionen Euro. [96]
Due Process of Law gewährt prozeduralen und substantiellen Schutz. Beim sogenannten procedural due process (Deutsch: Angemessener prozeduraler Rechtsprozess) handelt es sich faire und unparteiische Rechtsverfahren, die anhand etablierter Regeln und Prinzipien funktionieren. Hier dem sogenannten substantive due process (Deutsch: Angemessener substantieller Rechtsprozess) verbirgt sich das Prinzip, dass Gesetze und Verordnungen nur den legitimen Regierungszwecken dürfen dienen und weder willkürlich noch unfair sein dürfen. [97]
On June 18, 2013 the handover of security from NATO to Afghan forces was completed. [98] [99] [100] [101] The International Security Assistance Force formally handed over control of the last 95 districts to Afghan forces at a ceremony attended by President Hamid Karzai and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at a military academy outside Kabul. [98] Following the handover, Afghan forces will have the lead for security in all 403 districts of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. Before the handover they were responsible for 312 districts nationwide, where 80 percent of Afghanistan's population of nearly 30 million lives. [99]"Our security and defense forces will now be in the lead," Karzai said. "From here, all security responsibility and all security leadership will be taken by our brave forces. When people see security has been transferred to Afghans, they support the army and police more than before." [98] Rasmussen said that by taking the lead in security on Tuesday, Afghan forces were completing a five-stage transition process that began in March 2011. "They are doing so with remarkable resolve," he said. "Ten years ago, there were no Afghan national security forces... now you have 350,000 Afghan troops and police, a formidable force." [98] he security transition signaled an important shift. The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force is slated to end its mission by the end of 2014, and coalition forces are in the process of closing bases and shipping out equipment. [101] Rasmussen stated that the focus of ISAF forces will shift fom combat to support and that by the end of 2014 Afghanistan will be fully secured by Afghans. After the handover, 100,000 NATO forces will play a supporting and training role, as Afghan soldiers and police take the lead in the fight against armed groups. [99] "We will continue to help Afghan troops in operations if needed, but we will no longer plan, execute or lead those operations, and by the end of 2014 our combat mission will be completed," Rasmussen added. [98]
[[Datei:President Kennedy inaugural address (color).jpg|miniatur|Kennedy bei seiner Amtsantrittsrede vor dem United States Kapitol in Washington, District of Columbia.]] thumb|140px|"Fragt nicht, was euer Land für euch tun kann - fragt, was ihr für euer Land tun könnt." - Zitat in Englisch auf einem Gedenkstein in Elmira, NY
In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) the U.S. Supreme Court expressly disavowed a “domestic security surveillance” exception to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment by holding that government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. The Court however left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance (FIS) exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause. [102] Following the USCC's ruling three U.S. Federal Circuit Courts recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Warrant Clause, but tied them to certain requirements. [102] In United States of America v. Truong Dinh Hung [103] the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said that “this foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be carefully limited to those situations in which the interests of the executive branch of government are paramount.” [102] In particular the Truong court required that the object of the search or surveillance be “a foreign power, its agent or collaborators,” and that ”the executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” [102] Finally the existence of the FIS exception was squarely tied to the “practical difficulties of obtaining a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance . . . at the time [the underlying] surveillance was conducted,” [102] which the courts described as “particularly acute” prior to the enactment of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [102] According to law professor Steve Vladeck "part of the justification for the FIS exception was the absence of a FISA-like procedure that balanced the need for secrecy with the need to secure ex ante judicial approval before conducting foreign intelligence surveillance." [102]
With Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enactment in 1978 the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) was established in the same year. As part of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 the U.S. Congress eliminated the second prong of Truong i.e. the requirement that the “primary purpose” of the search be the gathering of foreign intelligence surveillance (as opposed to law enforcement evidence). [102] In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 the FISCR upheld 2002 the elimination of the primary purpose test without specifically endorsing a categorical foreign intelligence surveillance exception. Given the language of FISA at the time, there was no real need to reach that issue because "virtually of the surveillance undertaken pursuant to FISA was with a (FISA) warrant." [102] This changed with the 2008 In re Directivesref name="Seyla20080822"> Selya, Bruce M. (August 22, 2008). "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF). U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Retrieved July 15, 2013.</ref> of the FISCR with which the FISCR formally rcognized for the first time a “foreign intelligence surveillance” exception to the Fourth Amendment. [104] The FISCR hold that “a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” [104]
In a press conference on August 9, 2013 President Obama annouced four steps to reform U.S. intelligence gathering measures, to increase transparency and restore public trust in surveillance by NSA, but made no indication to alter the NSA's ongoing mass collection of phone data and surveillance of internet communications in the short term. [105] [106]. These four steps are: [107] [108] [109]
In United States v. U.S. District Court (1972), [121] the U.S. Supreme Court expressly disavowed a “domestic security surveillance” exception to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment by holding that government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. The Court however left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance (FIS) exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause. [102] Following the Supreme Court's ruling, three United States Courts of Appeals recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Warrant Clause, but tied them to certain requirements. [102] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit In United States of America v. Truong Dinh Hung [122] for example hold
For the first time a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Fourth Amendment was recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review recognized in its 2008 In re Directives [123] decision. [104] The court hold that “a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” [104]
, nachdem der Forschers Jeffrey T. Richelson vom Nationalen Sicherheitsarchiv der George Washington Universität einen Freedom of Information Act stellte. [124] Laut einem von der CIA freigegebenen Dokument sei der Militärstandort rund 200 Kilometer nordwestlich der Casino-Metropole Las Vegas bloß ein Testgelände für die Spionageflugzeuge U-2 und Lockheed A-12 Oxcart etwa während des Kalten Krieges gewesen. [125] Es handelt sich um ein 407 Seiten starkes Dokument, in dem Spionage-Flüge der US-Streitkräfte in den Jahren 1954 bis 1974 festgehalten wurden. Niemand, sei es nun Piloten und Passagiere kommerzieller Flüge oder ob Beobachter auf der Erde, konnten sich rasend schnelle, blitzhelle Lichterscheinungen am Himmel erklären. Die Erklärung der CIA: Mitte der fünfziger Jahre flogen Passagierflugzeuge in Höhen zwischen drei und sechs Kilometern, militärische Flugzeuge wie Bomber der Typen B-47 und B-57 blieben unter zwölf Kilometern. Die Spionageflugzeuge warem dagegen eigens dafür konstruiert, enorme Höhen zu erreichen. Als sie begannen höher als 18 Kilometer zu fliegen, bekamen die Fluglotsen steigende Zahlen an Ufo-Meldungen. Da die Spionageflugzeuge in rund 20 Kilometer Höhe in der Stratosphäre verkehrten, wurden von ihren Flügeln Sonnenstrahlen auch dann noch reflektiert, wenn es in tieferen Schichten der Atmosphäre längst dunkel geworden war. Das erweckte den Anschein, als seien Ufos im Anflug. Hunderte Ufo-Sichtungen sind nun aufgeklärt. [126] [127] [128] [129]
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Afghan President Hamid Karzai annouced on October 12, 2013 that they reached an agreement on a set of core elements of the biltareral security. [130] [131] Both however didn't reach an agreement on immunity from prosecution under Afghan law for American troops who remain in Afghanistan after 2014. This issue along with the entire agremment will be decided first by a traditional gathering of elders and other powerful people known as a loya jirga and then by the Afghan Parliament. [130] The agreement provides a legal framework for continued U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, including the leasing of Afghan bases. [132] Karzai said the draft framework agreement included his demands for the protection of Afghan sovereignty and rules on how military operations are to be carried out on Afghan territory. "Tonight we reached some sort of agreement," Karzai told reporters. U.S. forces "will no longer conduct operations by themselves. We have been provided written guarantee of the safety of the Afghan people. And a clear definition of 'invasion' was provided." [133] "The one issue that is outstanding is the issue of jurisdiction," Kerry added. "We need to say that if the issue of jurisdiction cannot be resolved, unfortunately there cannot be a bilateral security agreement." [133]
Neither Kerry nor Karzai provided details of what exactly had been agreed to, and it was not clear how they had forged a compromise on an Afghan demand that the United States guarantee Afghanistan’s security as it would if the country were a NATO ally. That could compel the United States to send troops on raids into America's nuclear-armed power ally Pakistan. Afghan officials had said that demand was crucial to the country’s sovereignty and must be met. The Obama administration had said it would not consider making any such guarantee. [130] According to the BBC's David Loyn saidPresident Karzai failed to win security guarantees so that Afghanistan would be protected by US troops from external attack. Loyn added the US will not grant that as it could mire them in a war with Pakistan. [134] On the other main sticking point, the outlines of a compromise seemed clearer. Karzai had refused to allow American forces to hunt for operatives of Al Qaeda here on their own. Instead, he wanted any intelligence gathered by the United States handed over to Afghan forces, who could then conduct the raids. Karzai said on October 12, 2013 he had been assured that American forces would not conduct any unilateral operations in Afghanistan after 2014, leaving open the possibility that raids against Al Qaeda would be conducted jointly with Afghan forces. [130]
The United States and Afghanistan reached an agreement on the final language of the bilateral security agreement [136], which according State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki wasn't the final document and which U.S. officials were still reviewing it, [137] on November 20, 2013. [138] [139] [140] [141] [137] A letter written by U.S. President Obama [142] said U.S. forces will be “cooperating in training, advising, and assisting” Afghan forces “in a targeted, smaller, counterterrorism mission.” [143] There is no limit on how long U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan [138] The accord also has no expiration date. [144] The agreement says that “unless mutually agreed, United States forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan.” It states the parties’ “intention of protecting U.S. and Afghan national interests without U.S. military counter-terrorism operations” but does not specifically prohibit such operations. [138] United States Special Operations forces will retain leeway to conduct antiterrorism raids on private Afghan homes [139] American counterterrorism operations will be intended to “complement and support” Afghan missions [139] and that US forces will not conduct military operations in Afghanistan "unless mutually agreed" the text says. [145]. It underscores that Afghan forces will be in the lead and that any American military operations will be carried out “with full respect for Afghan sovereignty and full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes.” [139] [140] It also notes that “U.S. forces shall not target Afghan civilians, including in their homes, consistent with Afghan law and United States forces’ rules of engagement.” [138] U.S. President Barack Obama wrote in a letter to his Afghan counterpart: "US forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of US nationals. We will continue to make every effort to respect the sanctity and dignity of Afghans in their homes and in their daily lives, just as we do for our own citizens." [146]
The agreement does not spell out the number of U.S. forces who will remain, but Afghan President Karzai said on November 21, 2013 that he envisions up to 15,000 NATO troops being based in the country. According to several estimates, the United States plans to maintain a force of no more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014. The draft agreement allows an indefinite U.S. presence, but Karzai said on November 21, 2013 it would be in place for 10 years. [143] The agreement also includes language on the U.S. government's continued funding for Afghan security forces, funneling such contributions through the Kabul-based government. [140]
The agreement text grants the United States full legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and Defense Department civilians working in Afghanistan. [138] On troop immunity, it says that Afghanistan agrees “that the United States shall have the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction” over members of the force and its civilian component “in respect of any criminal or civil offenses committed in the territory of Afghanistan.”, [138] and that "Afghanistan authorises the United States to hold [civil and criminal] trial in such cases, or take other disciplinary action, as appropriate, in the territory of Afghanistan.", [141] [145] but Afghan authorities can ask that anyone be taken out of the country. [140] Afghan authorities are prohibited from detaining American troops or U.S. civilians working with them. In the event that happens “for any reason,” however, those personnel “shall be immediately handed over to United States forces authorities.” [138] The agreement also specifies that American troops and civilians cannot be surrendered to any “international tribunal or any other entity or state” without express U.S. consent. Afghanistan, it says, retains legal jurisdiction over civilian contractors, and contractors are prohibited from wearing military uniforms and “may only carry weapons in accordance with Afghan laws and regulations.” [138]
The document has a clause committing the United States to consulting with the Afghan government in the event of external threats, but not the sort of NATO-style mutual defense pact the Afghans originally wanted. “The United States shall regard with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external aggression against the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Afghanistan,” the proposed agreement states. There is a later clause saying they would “consult urgently” in the event of such aggression. [139] U.S. President Obama added in a letter to his Afghan counterpart: "The US commitment to Afghanistan's independence, territorial integrity, and national unity, as enshrined in our Strategic Partnership Agreement, is enduring, as is our respect for Afghan sovereignty." [146]
In a preamble, the draft specifies that “the United States does not seek permanent military facilities in Afghanistan, or a presence that is a threat to Afghanistan’s neighbors, and has pledged not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks on other countries.” [138] It says that “unless otherwise mutually agreed, United States forces shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan” and makes no promise of U.S. military support in the event of an attack or other security threat to Afghanistan. If there is such a threat, it says, the United States will regard it with “grave concern,” consult and “shall urgently determine support it is prepared to provide.” [138] But the United States stated the U.S. will regard any external aggression with "grave concern" and will "strongly oppose" military threats or force against Afghanistan after 2014. [137]
The draft agreement says that U.S. military and Defense Department civilian personnel are exempt from visa requirements and taxation. Afghan taxes and other fees will not be imposed on the entry or exit of goods specifically for the use of U.S. forces. [138] An annex to the draft lists locations where Afghanistan agrees to provide facilities for U.S. forces, including Kabul; Bagram, north of the capital, where the United States has its largest current base; Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan; Herat in the west; Kandahar in the south; Shindand in Herat province; Sharab in Helmand province; Gardez, south of Kabul; and Jalalabad, to the east. [138] The draft document gives the U.S. the right to deploy American forces on nine bases, including the two biggest, the airfields in Bagram and Kandahar. It also allows U.S. military planes to fly in and out of Afghanistan from seven air bases, including Kabul International Airport. [137] U.S. forces would be permitted under the document to transport supplies from five border crossings, described along with the air bases as "official points of embarkation and debarkation." [137] All bases in Afghanistan would revert to Afghan ownership and sovereignty after 2014, according to the draft. [137]
The draft of the agreement was finalized early on November 19, 2013 after Obama wrote Karzai a letter assuring him that U.S. forces will continue to respect the “sanctity and dignity of the Afghan people.” [143] The agreement must as of November 21, 2013 be ratified by an Afghan grand council of elders [139] and by ratified by the parliaments of Afghnistan and the United States. [138] The agreement ,according to the draft wording, takes effect Jan. 1, 2015 and then “it shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond“ unless terminated with two years’ advance notice. [139] Afghan President Karzai said that the agreement would not be signed until after 2014 elections in Afghanistan, [147] [148] but U.S. officials have said unequivocally that the agreement must be signed by the end of the year 2013, if not sooner, to allow the Pentagon to prepare for its role after the American combat mission ends. [143] [148]
Nach Recherchen des NDR und der Süddeutschen Zeitung werden Aussagen von Asylbewerbern über die Sicherheitslage in ihren Heimatländern von deutschen Geheimdienstlern der "Hauptstelle für Befragungswesen" (HBW) (eine Einrichtung, die eng mit dem Bundesnachrichtendienst zusammenarbeitet und direkt dem Kanzleramt unterstellt ist) gesammelt und dann vom BND [149] an die Militärgeheimdienste der USA und Großbritanniens weitergegeben. Dort fließen sie auch in die Zielerfassung für US-Tötungsaktionen mit Kampfdrohnen in Krisengebieten wie Somalia oder Irak ein. [150] [151] [152]
Karzai, who earlier stated he would sign what he had agreed to sign, stated later, after the annoucement of the Bilatereal Security Agreement (BSA) draft textthat, he wouldn’t sign it until 2014, after a presidential election to choose his successor, but before he leaves office. Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for Karzai, stated that Karzai wanted to wait until after the election in April 2013 to test further conditions: whether American forces would stop raids on Afghan homes, whether the Obama Administration will help stabilize security in Afghanistan, help promote peace talks and not interfere in the election. [153] [154] Officials of the Obama Administration consider the signing date to be nonnegotiable, citing the need for at least a year to plan future deployments and to allow coalition partners, including Germany and Italy, to plan for a residual troop presence that they have offered. [154]
The text of the BSA was approved by the delegates at the Loya Jirga on November 24, 2013 and must now be signed by the Afghanistan president, who rejected the final recommendation of the Loya Jirga promptly to sign the BSA with the United States, and sent to the parliament for final ratification. [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] If approved, the agreement would allow the U.S. to deploy military advisors to train and equip Afghan security forces, along with U.S. special-operations troops for anti-terrorism missions against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. President Obama will determine the size of the force. [158] [160] The jirga set a few conditions before expressing approval for the agreement among them a 10-year time limit on the post-2014 troop presence and reparations for damages caused by U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan. [156] It also voted attach a letter of U.S. President Obama; pledging that U.S. troops would enter Afghan homes only in "extraordinary" circumstances and only if American lives were at direct risk, to the BSA. [158] The elder assembly also demanded the release of 19 Afghans from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay and a stronger U.S. pledge to defend Afghanistan from any incursion from it neighbors, particularly Pakistan. The loya jirga also voted to request that the U.S. military add a base [159] to the nine bases that would be occupied by U.S. troops under the proposed security pact after combat forces depart Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The base is in Bamian Province in central Afghanistan, where the NATO-led military coalition has maintained a presence. Bamian is a population center for Hazaras, a Shiite minority whose members were massacred by the Taliban prior to the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the militant group. Afghan analysts said Hazara delegates proposed the additional base. [158] At least five of the 50 jirga committees raised objections to the article addressing “status of personnel” which “authorises the United States to hold [civil and criminal] trial … or take other disciplinary action, as appropriate, in the territory of Afghanistan” when a US soldier is accused of criminal activity. [159] Spokespeople from at least two committees directly stated that Afghanistan should have jurisdiction over any US soldiers accused of crimes on Afghan soil. Several committees also stated that if trials are held in the United States, families of victims should have access to and presence in US-held trials at the expense of Washington. [159]
Grundrecht aller Bürger auf Belastungsgleichheit bei Beiträgen zur Sozialversicherungs [161]
People are intellectual disabled and thus uneligble for the death penalty if these three conditions are met the Aktins court :“subaverage intellectual functioning,” meaning low I.Q. scores; a lack of fundamental social and practical skills; and the presence of both conditions before age 18.
[162] The Aktins court also stated I.Q. scores under “approximately 70” typically indicate disability, but the court let it the states determine who is mentally disabled and thus can't be executed.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the discretion under which U.S. states can designate an individual convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.
[163] The court prohibited states in borderline cases from relying only on intelligence test scores to determine whether a death row inmate is eligible to be executed. States must look beyond IQ scores when inmates test in the range of 70 to 75. IQ tests have a margin of error, and those inmates whose scores fall within the margin must be allowed to present other evidence of mental disability, Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion.
[164]
In a 5 to 4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy the Hall court held that the tates may not use a "rigid rule" that denies leniency to defendants with severe mental disabilities simply because they score 70 or above on an IQ test. [165] “Florida seeks to execute a man because he scored a 71 instead of 70 on an I.Q. test,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. [162] "This rigid rule, the court now holds, creates an unacceptable risk that persons with an intellectual disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional," Kennedy said. [165] If an individual claiming intellectual incapacity has an IQ score that falls somewhere between 70 and 75, then that individual’s lawyers must be allowed to offer additional clinical evidence of intellectual deficit, including, most importantly, the inability to learn basic skills and adapt how to react to changing circumstances. [163] The court also modified its 2002 Aktkins decision by adopting the term "intellectually disabled" to replace "mentally retarded," which had been used in prior opinions. Intellectually disabled refers to people of limited intellectual and adaptive capabilities, according to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, and the term is preferred by the medical profession. [166]
The
Bill of Rights imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil libiterties and fundamental rights.
[167]
[168]
[169] The Supreme Court for example concluded in the
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the
Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities.
[167]
[168]
[169]
[170] As the Court noted the idea of the Bill of Rights “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”
[170]
[171] This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
[170]
[171]
Für Philipp Holstein von der Rheinischen Post ist der Film "der sehenswerte und bedrückende Dokumentarfilm, der [...] Geschichte erzählt." [172] Für ihn bleiben die Texte von Baldwin angesichts von Organisationen wie Black Lives Matter, die sich gegen Rassismus engagieren, leider dringlich. [172] Beseelt vom gerechten Zorn über die Verhältnisse und gepaart mit kraftvoller Lust an Aufklärung gelinge nach Worten von Programmkinokritiker.de Luidgard Koch Regisseur Raoul Peck ein brennend aktueller Essayfilm. "Sein brillant komponierter Rückblick auf die Ära der amerikanischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung sowie das Leben und Werk des verstorbenen afroamerikanischen Schriftstellers James Baldwin erschüttert. Unmissverständlich zeigt der gebürtige Haitianer, dass Unterdrückung, Ungerechtigkeit, Rassismus und Klassenunterschiede keineswegs durch globalen Neoliberalismus verschwunden sind." [173]
Knut Elstermann vom MDR bezeichnete den Film als "großartigen Dokumentarfilm über den homosexuellen Schriftsteller und die bewegten sechziger Jahre", der "eine fulminante Montage aus Archivmaterial, Interviews mit dem 1987 gestorbenen, sprachgewaltigen und scharfsinnigen Autor und Reflexionen über den Zustand einer noch immer rassistisch geprägten Gesellschaft" darstelle. [174] Nach Worten von Susanne Lenz in ihrer Kritik für die Berliner Zeitung meint, dass I Am Not Your Negro eine aufwühlende Dokumentation sei, in der sich Baldwins Text und Pecks Bilder, die Filmausschnitte, Fotos, Nachrichtenbilder historisch und aktuell so kongenial ergänzen. [175] Gia Maihofer von der Zeitung Der Tagesspiegel meint, dass Regisseur Peck eine "essayistische Annäherung an Baldwins Denken" geschaffe habe. Der Regisseur habe aus dem reichen literarischen Œuvre der 1960er Jahre Peck ein Amalgam kreirt, das die Psychopathologie und paranoide Imagination des weißen Amerikas offenlege, im Privatleben wie in der Populärkultur. "Die Reise in die Vergangenheit wird zur Konfrontation mit der Gegenwart", in der sich das weiße, liberale Amerika sich mit einer medialen Fantasiewelt narkotisiere und halte in dieser Fantasiewelt die Illusion der eigenen Unschuld aufrecht. [176] "Es verweigert sich der Auseinandersetzung mit der von Sklaverei, Segregation und Unterdrückung geprägten Geschichte, die Baldwin immer wieder fordert [...]." [176] Maihofer bilanziert über Peck's Dokumentarfilm: "Pecks eindrucksvolle Hommage reiht sich in diese Erinnerungsarbeit ein. Ihm ist mit „I’m not your Negro“ ein pointierter Essay über Amerikas tief sitzenden Rassismus und ein Höhepunkt seines politischen Weltkinos gelungen. Ein Film der Stunde, dessen Botschaft und Botschafter nichts an Relevanz verloren haben." [176]
Geri Krebs meinte in der " Neuen Zürcher Zeitung", dass Raoul Peck mit I Am Not Your Negro eine Tour d'Horizon durch die Geschichte der Schwarzen in den USA vollziehe, die "beispielhaft von Vergangenem erzählt und dabei die Gegenwart im Auge hat." [177] Und wenn in den Nachrichtenbildern etwa die Unruhen von Watts 1965 mit jenen von Ferguson 2014 kollidieren, lässt sich die Aktualität von Vergangenem nicht leugnen. [177] Nach Auffassung von ttt – titel, thesen, temperamente Autor Joachim Gaertner habe Raoul Peck "einen faszinierenden Dokumentarfilm gemacht, in dem man mehr über amerikanische Geschichte lernt als in jedem Geschichtsbuch." [178] Gaertner bilanziert mit Blick auf US-Präsident Donald Trump: "Es ist beängstigend zu sehen, welche Aktualität Baldwins Analysen bis heute haben. Der Film macht klar: Unter dem heutigen Präsidenten, der offen rassistische Stereotype propagiert, fängt der Kampf für Bürgerrechte noch einmal ganz neu an. [...] Eine Lösung, folgerte Baldwin, kann also nicht sein, wenn Schwarze sich in die weiße Gesellschaft integrieren, sondern nur, wenn sie ihre eigene Identität und Geschichte in den Traum eines neuen, gemeinsamen Amerikas einbringen" [178]
Nach Weiland Freund von Der Welt erzählt I Am Not Your Negro die Geschichte der Bürgerrechtsbewegung, die Geschichte von Medgar Evers, Malcolm X und Martin Luther King, die Geschichte von James Baldwin und die Geschichte danach: Rodney King, Barack Obama, Trayvon Martin; Selma, Weißes Haus, Ferguson . [179] "„I Am Not Your Negro“ ist unter anderem deshalb ein eindrucksvoller, ein großer Dokumentarfilm, weil er in anderthalb Stunden fasst, was mit einiger Berechtigung auch den Platz einer vielteiligen Serie hätte beanspruchen können." [179] Jan Kedves von der Süddeutschen Zeitung betont, dass Raoul Peck ein sehr feinfühliges Porträt des Kämpfers James Baldwin, dessen Waffe unbedingt die Rhetorik war, gelungen sei. Er attestiert dem Film, dass er "auf beachtliche Weise dreierlei leistet: Er erinnert an Baldwin und illustriert dabei dessen Absicht, die "Geschichte Amerikas anhand der Leben dreier seiner ermordeten Freunde zu erzählen". Damit sind Medgar Evers, Malcolm X und Martin Luther King Jr. gemeint. Und drittens: Dass die Schwarzen in den USA nicht Schwarze sind, sondern zu Schwarzen gemacht werden, von den Weißen, das hat man lange nicht mehr so anschaulich in einem Film dargelegt bekommen." [180] Auch Julian Brimmers bemerkt die von Weiland Freund bemerkten Paralle zwischen den 1960er Jahre und aktuellen Ereignisse der 201er Jahren in den USA, indem auf folgenden Aspekt des Dokumentarfilm verweist: "Hier passiert alles auf einmal: die rassistischen Ausschreitungen in Little Rock 1957 und "Black Lives Matter"-Proteste in Ferguson 2014, die Vereidigung Barack Obamas neben den Morden an Evers, Malcolm X und King, die Aufstände in Watts von 1965 neben Bildern der jüngsten Opfer von Polizeigewalt." [181] Insgesamt sei I Am Not Your Negro weniger ein historisches Biopic als eine Aufforderung an den Zuschauer, seine eigene Toleranz und Handlungsfähigkeit zu hinterfragen. [181]
I am Not Your Negro ist die Biografie des Autors James Baldwin, welcher seine Geschichte anhand der Geschichte drei seiner Freunde aus der Zeit der ameriaknischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung erzählt. Bei den Freunden handelt es sich um den 1963 ermorderten Menschenrechtsanwalt Medgar Evers, den 1965 ermorderten Menschenrechtsaktivist Malcolm X und den 1968 ermorderten Pfarrer Martin Luther King. [182] Ausgangspunkt des Regisseur Raoul Peck ist ein 30-seitiger Textentwurf von Baldwin aus dem unvollendenten Roman Remember This House für eine Geschichte der Schwarzen. [182] Peck verwendet dazu eine Collage aus Briefen, die Baldwin an seinen Agenten Jay Acton schreibt (Tonspur: das Gehacke der Schreibmaschine), Texte, die aus dem Werk Baldwins von Samuel L. Jackson zitiert werden, und einer Fülle biografischer Fotos und Videoexzerpten von Baldwin. [182]
Thematisch handelt der Film von "Kapitel Zwei der sogenannten Befreiung der Schwarzen, in dem die Nachkommen der Sklaven um ihre Bürgerrechte kämpften [...]." [182] In einem zeitlichen Bogen von 1890 bis 2014 werden dabei Szenen weißer Gewalt gegenüber Farbigen jeder Couleur, welche die Historie Amerikas takteten, gezeigt. Dabei handelt es sich um das Massaker in Wounded Knee 1890, die Gewalt der Polizei unter Eugene „Bull“ Connor in Birmingham 1963, der Watts-Aufruhr in Los Angeles des Jahres 1965, und der Todesfall Michael Brown in Ferguson 2014. [182] [182]
I Am Not Your Negro grossed as of April 6, 2017 $6,838,593. [183] [184] As of April 7, 2017 the movie was estimated to gross more than $7 million. [185] The film industry and review website IndieWire attributed the fiancial success of the movie to the three factors : 1.) The release date of February 3, 2017 which was less than two weeks after the Academy Award nominees would be announced, 2.) Opening the movie nationwide in 43 theaters and 18 cities and 3.) Opening in nontraditional movie theaters where “I Am Not Your Negro” would generate strong word of mouth. [185]
Der Film konnte bislang 86 Prozent der Kritiker bei Rotten Tomatoes überzeugen. [186] Karsten Scholz lobte etwa in seiner Kritik für die Internetseite buffed.de vier Sachen an Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2: 1.) Die technische Perfektion, 2.) die neuen Völker und Schauplätze, 3.) die höhere Schlagzahl der Gags im Vergleich zum Vorgänger und 4.) "ein kunterbuntes Sammelsurium an Easter Eggs und Cameo-Auftritten, das dank des erneut fantastischen Soundtracks auch gleich den Retro-Fan in uns anspricht." [187] In seinem Fazit moniert er zwar Schwächen, diese sind aber marginal. So schreibt er über den Film in seinem Fazit: "Schwächen besitzt der Film nur wenige. Einige nicht zünden wollende Gags, aber auch der Bösewicht, der mit seinen Machenschaften zwar die gesamte Galaxie bedroht, der Marvel-typisch jedoch ziemlich blass bleibt. Unterm Strich spielt beides keine Rolle. Dafür sind alle anderen Facetten von Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 zu gut, dafür rockt der Streifen über die gesamte Laufzeit zu sehr die Leinwand." [187]
In einer Video-Kritk meinte Christoph Kellerbach von der Rheinischen Post, dass Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 ein "absolut fantastischer Weltraum-Spaß geworden" ist, "der etliche Sachen gleich, aber viele auch anders macht." [188] Die Charaktäre seien die große Stärke von James Gunn's Film. Ergänzt um eine fantastische Optik, auch in 3D, und einem wunderbarem Ohrwurm-Soundtrack ist Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 genau wie sein Vorgänger nach Auffassung von Kellerbach ein "exzellenter Weltraum-Comic-Spaß". [188] Hannes Könitzer bewertete in seiner Kritik für die Internetseite robots-and-dragons.de die drei primären Handlungsstränge des Films unteschiedlich: Während die Geschichte rund um Peter Quill und seinen Vater einen hohen Unterhaltswert hätten und die Geschichte rund um Rocket die richtige Mischung aus Spaß und Spannung aufweise, sei der Handlungsstrang um Gamorra und Nebula der schwächste der drei Handlungsstränge. Könnitzer lobte den Humor und die Musiktitel aus den 70ern und 80ern. In seinem Fazit urteilte er: "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 macht genauso viel Spaß wie Teil 1. Wer es im ersten Film genossen hat, Zeit mit der sympathischen Heldentruppe zu verbringen, der dürfte auch in der Fortsetzung auf seine Kosten kommen. Die Geschichte punktet dabei nicht nur durch Humor, sondern bietet auch auf emotionaler Ebene eine überraschende Tiefe. Ein dritter Teil darf sich gern anschließen." [189]
Dimitry Halley hebt in seiner Kritik für GameStar die Charaktäre besonders lobend hervor. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 punkte vor allem mit seinen meisterhaft inszenierten und unglaublich sympathischen Figuren. So schaffe es der Film nicht nur die komplette Truppe rund um Star Lord und Co. ins Herz der Zuschauer zu befördern, sondern auch jeder Figur mindestens einen glaubhaften inneren Konflikt zu geben. [190] "Der Film wärmt nicht einfach das Zusammentreffen aus dem ersten Teil auf, sondern setzt deren Beziehungen tatsächlich fort (wie es sich eben für eine Fortsetzung gehört). Oder anders: Wo Guardians of the Galaxy 1 die Truppe durch die stürmische Kennenlern-Phase führt, geht die Beziehung in Teil Zwei erst richtig los." [190] Er bilanzierte, dass die Guardians Star Lord, Rocket, Drax und Co. auf der Leinwand so unglaublich gut funktionieren, dass die Comics in seinen Augen im Vergleich den Kürzeren ziehen. Das war beim ersten Guardians of the Galaxy so, und das gelte auch für Teil Zwei. Denn der "Film baut eine Crew aus Charakteren auf, die den Avengers und auch der Justice League in puncto Persönlichkeit, Charme und Humor die Show stehlen." [191]
Vier von fünf Punkten vergebend ist bei MovieJones zu lesen:"Während die Dramaturgie zwar über weite Strecken schwächelt, wird dies durch Witz, ganz viel Familie und für Marvel sogar ungewöhnlich emotionale Momente wieder wettgemacht. Das neue Abenteuer bringt das MCU nicht vorwärts, dafür uns die Protagonisten noch näher und beschert uns eine verdammt gute Zeit." [192] Im Filmblog Filmverliebt wurden die Sammlung an verrückten Charakteren, die visuell einwandfreie Inszenierung und der Humor gelobt. Im Fazit ist dann zu lesen: "Auch wenn Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 nicht an die Qualität des Vorgängers heranreicht – Marvel hat hier wieder erstklassiges Popcorn-Kino abgeliefert." [193] Vienna Online meinte, dass der Film mit viel Liebe zum Detail und einem ausgewogenen Cast punkte, der bestens aufeinander eingespielt agiere. Fazit: "“Vol. 2” glänzt weniger als eigenständiges Album, denn als gelungene Compilation mit den “Greatest Hits” aus dem schenkelklopfendem Sci-Fi-Universum – und hat am Ende ein Versprechen parat: Fortsetzung folgt!" [194]
Auf der Interseite Filmfutter.com wurde dem Regisseur James Gunn ein konservativer Ansatz attestiert, der auf Bewährtes des Vorgängerfilms zurückgreife: Sympathische Antihelden, anarchischer Humor, freche Sprüche, ein flottes Erzähltempo, bunte Weltraumaction und ein fetziger Soundtrack. Dabei sei wie in Fast and Furious 8 Familie das Thema, das den Film zusammenhalte und den emotionalen Kern des Sequels bilde. Daran anknüpfend ist im Fazit folgendes zu lesen:"Man sucht sich seine Familie nicht aus, doch manchmal findet sie einen selbst, wenn man es am wenigsten erwartet. Das ist das Thema von Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, der zwar nicht mehr die Frische seines Vorgängers besitzt, dafür aber den größten emotionalen Kern unter allen bisherigen Marvel-Abenteuern. Mit viel Humor, Herz, fantastischen visuellen Einfällen, einer liebevollen Weiterentwicklung seiner Hauptfiguren und einem großartigen Kurt Russsell auf dem Hoch seines Karriere-Revivals zeigen James Gunn und Marvel, wie ein gutes Sequel sein sollte. Fans des Originals werden nicht enttäuscht sein!" [195] Auch die Interseite Ingame.de lobte den Film und meinte in Richtung der potentiell Zuschauenden: "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 ist sein Kinogeld mehr als wert, denn selten wurden wir von einer Fortsetzung so gut unterhalten wie hier. Auf euch warten mal wieder abgefahrene Marvel-Helden, jede Menge Space-Action und ein lässiger Soundtrack für ein awesome Kinoerlebnis." [196]
Doch nicht bei allen Kritikern kam der Film gut an. Sascha Westphal schreibt in der Westdeutschen Allgemeinen Zeitung, anders als beim ersten Guardians of the Galaxy, in dem sich die einzelnen Elemente wunderbar zu einem ungeheuer mitreißenden Weltraum-Abenteuer zusammengefügt hätten, ergebe das Ganze diesmal weniger als die Summe der einzelnen Teile. Regisseur James Gunn begnüge sich über weite Strecken des Films damit, einfach nur Lücken in den Hintergründen seiner Figuren auszufüllen, so Westphal, wobei er sich vor allem auf den von Chris Pratt gespielten Peter Quill konzentriere. Durch dessen Begegnung mit seinem leiblichen Vater entwickele sich aus einer zunächst rührselig gestimmten Familienzusammenführung einer der zentralen Konflikte des Films. [197] Heiner Gumprecht von Blasting News nahm den Film mit zwiespältigen Gefühlen auf. Der Vorgängerfilm hatte seiner Meinung nach frische Ansätze, viele eigene Ideen und diese besondere Gruppendynamik innerhalb der Guardians, die keiner wirklich vermutet hätte. James Gunns Fortsetzung vertiefe stattdessen lieber jedoch die Eckpunkte des Films, die Teil 1 zu einem immensen Erfolg verholfen haben. Dabei bleibe die Geschichte auf der Strecke zurück und wirke eher wie ein Gerüst, dass die wertvolle Statue stützen soll, als selbst Teil des Kunstwerks zu sein. So fiel dann sein Fazit auch entsprechend zwiespältig aus: "Ohne Diskussion äußerst gelungen in dem, was er sein möchte, unterm Strich aber so viel weniger, als wir erwarten durften. "Würdig" ist in dieser Hinsicht ein hartes Wort, denn kommt es ganz darauf an, was ihr am ersten Teil so interessant/positiv fandet. Waren es die Sprüche, die Action und der derbe Mix aus Sci-Fi und Oldies der Popmoderne, dann macht ihr mit einem Kinobesuch in der Fortsetzung nichts falsch. Abseits davon bietet Vol. 2 jedoch keine neuen Gründe, sich ein Ticket zu kaufen." [198]
Björn Becher von der Filmstart Redaktion vergab 3,5 von 5 Punkten und verwies in seiner Kritk auf das Wechselspiel von Stärken und Schwächen des Films. Zwar sei der Film kurzweilig und mache viel Spaß, aber die erzählerische Stringenz lasse ein wenig zu wünschen übrig, die Spannung bleibe weitgehend auf der Strecke und die Bösewichte überzeugten nicht wirklich. Man lache immer wieder über eine wundervolle Hommage oder die ironische Brechung eines kitschigen Moments und freue sich über einen der vielen überraschenden Cameo-Auftritte oder die Entdeckung einiger Easter Eggs. Und auch James Gunn sorge konstant für Humor, doch er gebe den Zuschauern lange Zeit kaum Gelegenheit, mit den Figuren mitzufiebern. Becher Fazit: "„Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2“ ist nicht frei von Schwächen, macht aber sehr viel Spaß."
[199] Marin Schwickert von der Augsburger Allgemeinen Zeitung konstatierte eine "eher schlaff-komische Gruppendynamik im Heldenteam"Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page)., die sich "auf ihren Charakterisierungen aus Teil 1"Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page). ausruhen und "in ihrem schrägen Dasein"Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page). erstarrt wirken. Zwei von fünf Punkten vergebend urteilte er: "„Vol. 2“ ist in 137 Minuten ein ermüdender Wiederaufguss und zeigt erneut, dass sich Humor und Komik selten erfolgreich in einem Franchise rekultivieren lassen."
[200] Daniel Benedict von der Neuen Osnabrücker Zeitung bemerkte eine Selbstironie, die selbst im nonchalanten Marvel-Universum einzigartig sei. Action und Effekte seien in dieser immer wieder sehr lustigen „Guardians“-Fortsetzung grundsätzlich ihre eigene Persiflage. Sein Fazit fiel wie das seines Kollegen aus deer Ausgburger Allgemeinen Zeitung aber negativ aus: "Zwei Stunden lang feiern die Guardians gemeinsam mit ihren Fans eine funky Party, an deren Ende sogar die Asche kremierter Helden wie Holi-Puder durchs All schwebt. Konfetti in kosmischen Nichts: Ein schönes Bild für das jubelnde „Anything goes“ dieses Films, der in jeder Szene beides zugleich ist: übervoll, aber auch leer. . "
[201]
Infrmation regarding the second post-credits scene and the mention of the accords therein was reversed with the following statement: "/Film uses the term "likely", Movieweb first says "may be" and in later articles doesn't give any attribution to where the information came from. Please wait for something more concrete and use the talk page first next time". Before I response to the accords itself some sentence with respect to the talk page process. I added information which in my eyes was concrete enough to added. After it was pointed out that I cited the wrong source I responded by adding other sources to support my claim. After the above cited response to my second edit I'm willing to discuss the issue at the talk page. So while I'm willing to react to responses I'm unwilling to use the talk page first to make my case without to the ability to use the article page first for some edits. At least two edits should be allowed for editors to react to edit responses before the accusation of edit warring is raised or an edit war starts.
I think the information that the accords mentioned in the second post credits scene are not speculative. Evidences (emphasis added):
As the wording of the stressed verbs shows the accords are not mentioned as something speculative but something of the past and present it is fair to say the accords are real and not speculative. Further evidence comes from Marvel President Kevin Feige. He revealed that the post-credit sequence was footage shot by Anthony and Joe Russo from Captain America: Civil War. [209] [210] This reinforces the Dash Film source and 2015-07-23 MovieWeb source because thus we know the accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene are real i.e. are already part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Conclusion: The accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene aren't speculative, but real and concrete and should be therefore added as The Sokovia Accords.
Joseph Wigler of MTV.com considered the movie as "one of the most entertaining Ethan Hunt adventures" which proves that "the franchise still has plenty of fight left in it, with no signs of slowing down." [211] [211] He praised the perfomances of Cruise and Ferguson, aplauding the latter for playing "the most fascinating character in the entire movie" and "one of the most complicated and alluring characters in the entire five film series." [212]
As of February 23, 2016 91 prisoners remain in Guantánamo. From these 91 prisoners 35 are recommended for transfer if security conditions can be met. The remaining prisoners are expected to be brought to U.S. facilities in the United States. [216] [217] [218] [219] If brought to the United States, some of those detainees would continue through military commissions; others might face trial in civilian courts. [217] 13 potential facilities in the United States that might be used to house detainees were reviewed by the Obama Administration, but their names were not revealed. [217] The foregoing information were published because the U.S. Congress has asked the administration to include information about where and how the administration intends to hold existing and future detainees, if Guantanamo is closed. [220] Obama's plan was rejected by several Republicans in Congress. [221]
Der Einsatz militärischer Gewalt im Inland durch die Bundeswehr ist demnach unter engen Grenzen ultima ratio zulässig und durch Artikel 35 Absatz 2 Satz 2 und Absatz 3 Grundgesetz grundsätzlich auch nicht ausgeschlossen. [222] [223]
Die Redation der auf Unterhaltung spezialisierten Nachrichtenagentur spot on news nahm Gal Gadots schauspielerische Leistung positiv auf. Gadot gehe in anspruchsvollen Rolle der Wonder Woman voll auf und vermöge dabei die Augen der Zuschauer aus Rührung oder vor Lachen glänzen zu lassen. Ungeachtet ihrer schwer von der Hand zu weisenden, physischen Attraktivität verkörpere Gadot vor allem eine Heldin, die mit ihren Werten, ihren Überzeugungen und ihrer Selbstständigkeit überzeuge. [224] In diesem Zusammenhang wurde jedoch moniert, dass es eigentlich ein Jammer sei, dass eine ähnliche Erkenntnis erst im Jahr 2017 in einem gelungenen Film mit einer weiblichen Superheldin (von einer weiblichen Regisseurin) münde und daher als Meilenstein gefeiert werden müsse. [224] Die Redaktion von spot on news bilanziert: "Es ist kein Leichtes, eine übertriebene Superheldin wie "Wonder Woman" einerseits lustig-charmant, andererseits kriegsgebeutelt darzustellen. Regisseurin Patty Jenkins ist dieser Spagat nicht nur gelungen, sie hat mit ihrem Film ein längst überfälliges Statement im Comicfilm-Universum gesetzt. [...] Auch wenn "Wonder Woman" meist auf bewährten Action-Einheitsbrei setzt, die positive Stimmung, mit der der Film Frauen wie Männer in die Nacht entlässt, bleibt: Von solchen Superheldinnen wollen wir mehr sehen." [224]
Jenni Zylka von SPIEGEL Online meinte zwar, dass die Geschichte Fahrt in Richtung typisches Wurzelsuche-Genre aufnehme, aber dank der kurdisch-deutschen Regisseurin Soleen Yusef doch glücklicherweise einen ganz anderen und weniger ausgetretenen Weg gehe. Sie lobte die Darstellung der Figuren: So machen "authentische Figuren den Charme des Films aus: Die ruppigen Tankstellenjungs mit dem großherzigen Vater, der die Geschwister selbstlos bewirtet und zum Übernachten auf seiner Steinveranda unter den Sternen einlädt; der auf den ersten Blick regimetreue, dann aber doch höchst sensible Polizist; der weise Schäfer; der aufdringliche, aber gutherzige Taxifahrer - ohne zu sehr in Stereotype zu fallen, zeichnet Yusef mit genauem Blick und knappen Dialogen ein glaubhaftes Bild der Situationen." [228]
Der Journalist und Historiker Nils Michaelis von der Zeitung vorwärts sah in Haus ohne Dach ein ungewöhnliches Roadmovie, in dem die Regisseurin es vermeidet "Land und Leute zu idyllisieren oder in allzu dramatischen Farben zu malen. Vielmehr bemüht sich der Film um Eindruck von Alltäglichkeit." [229] Michaelis lobt Soleen Yusef für "ihren so unaufgeregten wie genauen Blick bewahrt, mit dem sie die von den Schrecken der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart erzählt." [229] Leyla Yenirce von der Zeitung Der Tagespiegel knüpft an die Beobachtung von Michaelis an, indem sie Soleen Yusef für ihre Herangehensweise an den Film lobte: "Trotz des schwierigen politischen Hintergrunds trifft Yusef einen ernsten, aber humorvollen Ton und zeigt so ganz nebenbei, dass ein Film über die Geschichte Kurdistans nicht ausschließlich melancholisch und leidvoll erzählt sein muss. Sie leistet damit einen wichtigen Beitrag nicht nur für das kurdische Kino, sondern zeigt auch neue Perspektiven im deutschen Kino auf." [230]
Markus Raska vom Wochenmagazin ZITTY lobte Youssef ebenfalls. Dieser gelinge "es in ihrem wunderbaren Debüt nicht nur, das Politische im Privaten zu spiegeln, sie kreiert auch durch die bis in die Nebenfiguren mit viel Wärme gezeichneten Rollen eine Atmosphäre voller feinem Humor und sanfter Poesie. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Filmen von und über diese unruhige Gegend der Welt verweist sie trotz der grausamen Abgründe, die auch hier nie weit entfernt sind, auf das Gute im Menschen." [231]
Sabine Fischer von der Stuttgarter Zeitung lobte einerseits die mit "erstaunlich viel Einfühlungsvermögen und einen Blick für die Tragik kaum sichtbarer Augenblicke" [232] erzählte innere Entwicklung der Protagonisten, und andererseits die clevere Einbettung von Versatzstücken der Weltgeschichte, wodurch auf subtile Art und Weise den Blick auf ein Gesamtbild geweitet werde, das für viele Zuschauer sonst nur aus Fernsehreportagen und abstrakten Zahlen bestehen dürfte. [232] Fischer sah in Haus ohne Dach zudem einen autobiographischen Film von Soleen Yusef: "In ihrem Familiendrama „Haus ohne Dach“ erzählt die kurdisch-deutsche Regisseurin Soleen Yusef [...] eindrucksvoll von der zehrenden Identitätssuche ihrer Generation – und das mit klarer Erzählstimme und scharfem Blick für die inneren Kämpfe ihrer Figuren. [...] Die ungleichen Geschwister personalisieren auf clevere Art und Weise verschiedene Stadien der Identitätssuche, der sich so viele Migrantenkinder gegenüber sehen: Liya, die Angepasste. Alan, der Verlorene. Jan, der Traditionsbewusste. Drei Menschen, drei Strategien, um mit der Frage umzugehen, wer genau man eigentlich ist. Und die versucht Yusef zu beantworten, indem sie die drei Lebenswelten mit großem Wumms aufeinander prallen lässt." [232] Regisseurin Soleen Yusef merkte in diesem Zusammenhang in einem Interview mit dem Deutschlandradio Kultur von Ende August 2017 an: "Ich verstehe den Film immer als so eine Art Patchwork aus vielen Geschichten aus meinem Umfeld. Die Beziehung zwischen den Geschwistern wie auch der Konflikt zu den Eltern ist, glaube ich, sehr autobiografisch. Alles andere ist so eine Art Geschichtserzählung aus einem ganzen Ort sozusagen, die irgendwie zusammengewebt worden sind zu einer Familienbiografie." [233]
Knut Elsterman von MDR Kultur sah im Debütfilm von Soleen Yusef eine erstaunliche Geschlossenheit und große emotionale Kraft, die vor allem daher rühre, dass sich die Regisseurin ganz auf ihre Figuren konzentriere. Sie begleite diese zerrissenen Menschen mit großer innerer Anteilnahme bei dieser gefahrvollen Reise und vermittele wie nebenbei tiefere Einsichten in die verzweifelte Lage des Landes. [234] Das Hamburger Abendblatt sah in der Kurdistan- Odyssee der Geschwister-Protagonisten einerseits eine Art Roadtrip, und anderseits ein unter schwierigen Drehbedingungen entstandenes, teils sehr aufreibendes Drama, das auch für deutsche Kinozuschauer interessant sei. [235] Und die Jury des First Steps Awards urteilte: "Ein kurdischer Heimatfilm, klischeefrei, lustig, anrührend – und ein anderer Blick auf die Menschen, die „Flüchtlinge“ genannt werden." [236] [237]
Ulrich Sonnenschein von epd Film meint, man sehe dem Film nicht an, unter welchen Bedingungen und mit welchem Budget er entstand: „Starke Charaktere, karge, aber treffende Dialoge und eine Bewegung, die auch die knapp zwei Stunden überdauert, das Konzept ist durchdacht und überzeugend.“ [238] Wenn Soleen Yusef starke Bilder finden musste, so Sonnenschein, suchte sie diese in den Gesichtern der Menschen, denn bei aller Faszination für den Ort, bei aller Heimatverbundenheit und Sehnsucht nach dem eigenen Land, gehe es ihr in erster Linie um das Gefühl der Zusammengehörigkeit. [238] Michael Heins von programmkino.de, dem Kinomagazin der deutschen Arthouse-, Filmkunst- und Programmkinos, monierte eine nicht immer eine gelungene Balance zwischen Andeutung und Zuspitzung, die zu bekannt, zu sehr nach Variation von erzählerischen Mustern, zu überlegt und gewollt wirke. Demnoch attestierte er dem Film, dass das etwas unbestimmte Erzählen zu einer Stärke werde, "die am Ende dazu beiträgt, dass „Haus ohne Dach“ nicht auf intellektuelle, aber dafür emotionale Weise über den Krieg im Osten der Türkei und das Schicksal der Kurden in der Region erzählt" [239] Verene Schmöller vom Portal für Film und Kino kino-zeit.de meinte das Haus ohne Dach ein Film sei, indem das Bild sehr wichtig sei. Sie schreibt: "Die Milieus und die politischen Verhältnisse, die den Film ebenso prägen wie das Dazwischensein zwischen der deutschen und der kurdischen Kultur, machen den Film allerdings zu etwas Besonderem. Sie nehmen den Zuschauer mit auf eine Reise in eine fremde Kultur, geben ihm eine einzigartige Tonalität und wecken in der Regisseurin, wie sie sagt, Erinnerungen und ein Gefühl von Heimat. [...] Und es sind vor allem die Bilder, mit denen Yusuf überzeugt: Totalen, die die karge, aber beeindruckende Landschaft zeigen, wechseln sich ab mit Nahaufnahmen, die das Hin- und Hergerissensein der Figuren sichtbar machen." [240]
Marie Schmidt von ZEIT Online lobte einerseits den Kontrast zwischen der Jessica Chastain gespielten Miss Sloante und der Schauspielerin selber, kritisierte aber andererseits den Film als solches. Sie schrieb: "Der Kontrast zwischen der zynischen Kälte ihrer Figur und der feinnervigen Sensibilität der Schauspielerin gibt diesem Film ein Charisma, das er eigentlich nicht verdient hat.Denn dieser mit routiniertem Drive inszenierte und geschnittene Film ist ein Empörstück, das wie der politische Populismus ein großes Theater veranstaltet um die Idee, "die da oben" würden unsere Geschicke unter sich ausdealen, mit Machtgier und vielen Millionen Dollar." [241] Verena Lueken von der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung kritisierte den Film hingegen als zäh. "Zwar wird teilweise rasant geschnitten und mit einiger Schärfe geredet und argumentiert, aber die Figuren gewinnen keine Kontur, so dass es für den Zuschauer letztlich keine Rolle spielt, wer die Gefechte gewinnt." [242]
David Kleingers von SPIEGEL Online hob die schauspielerische Leistung von Jessica Chastain und der von ihr gespielten Elisabeth Sloane positiv hervor. Er kam zu folgenden Schluss: "Unterstützt von einem starken Ensemble bereitet der Film [...] die Bühne für die raumgreifende Performance von "Miss Sloane" - so der Originaltitel -, und es ist ein wendungsreiches wie zynisches Vergnügen, Jessica Chastains Lobbyistin bei der Meinungsmache in den Korridoren der Macht zuzusehen. Eine andere Erzählung hätte womöglich einen dramatischen Läuterungsprozess der Figur ins Zentrum gestellt, doch Elisabeth Sloane bleibt in ihrer ethischen und zwischenmenschlichen Zwiespältigkeit bis zum spannenden Finale unkalkulierbar." [243]
Hans-Georg Rodeck von der Zeitung die Welt sah im Film eine Dualität bestehend aus dem "Porträt einer Frau, die beruflichen Erfolg über alles stellt" [244] und einem "Blick hinter die Kulissen einer Tätigkeit, die eine andere Filmfigur „den moralisch korruptesten Berufsstand seit den Geisterheilern“ nennt." [244] Dabei sei „Die Erfindung der Wahrheit“ das Sittengemälde einer Branche und das Seelengemälde einer Frau, die sich vorgenommen habe, Männer an Taffness noch weit zu überholen. Und ebenso liefere Jessica Chastain die besten Vorstellung ihrer an Höhepunkten nicht armen Karriere. Rodeck lobte den Film bilanzierend als "geistreich, verdichtet und (meistens) dem mitdenkenden Zuschauer anderthalb Wendungen voraus." [244]
Der für die Zeitung Der Tagesspiegel arbeitende Christian Schröder sah in Die Erfindung der Wahrheit eine Demonstration, wie sehr die Sitten verfallen seien sowie ein Kommentar zur Bedeutung von Fake News in Zeiten von Donald Trump. Er bilanzierte: "Wenn man nicht schon aus der Präsidentenserie „ House of Cards“ wüsste, dass in Washington die Gesetze von Shakespeare gelten – in „Die Erfindung der Wahrheit“ würde man es lernen. Allerdings überdreht der Film am Ende etwas zu arg, und dass Sloane als beziehungsunfähige, unbefriedigte Karrierefrau sich mit Callboys treffen muss, ist ein ärgerliches Klischee. Doch Jessica Chastain wahrt bis zum Schluss ihr Geheimnis. Inmitten unaufhörlichen Geplappers ist das eine oscarreife Leistung. [245] Ebenfalls lobend nahm Knut Elstermann die schauspielerische Leistung von Jessica Chastain auf: "Jessica Chastains differenziertes Spiel in dieser zwiespältigen Rolle ist ein Ereignis. Eine hochintelligente Frau, die das Gute mit schlimmen Mitteln will. Dabei enthüllt der starke Thriller auch noch, welche manipulativen Prozesse hinter politischen Entscheidungen der Politiker stehen, beeinflusst und gesteuert von Menschen ohne Mandat wie Miss Sloane, die niemand gewählt hat." [246]
Patrick Seyboth von epd Film meinte, dass es der Regisseur John Madden schaffe, dass die Melange aus Charakterstudie und Politthriller nie langweilig werde. Seine Inszenierung konzentriere sich auf die Figuren und deren Interaktion und beweise einen ausgeprägten Sinn für subtile visuelle Akzente – genau das richtige Rezept, um mit dem Dialogfeuerwerk des Drehbuchs umzugehen. "Diesem allerdings merkt man an, dass es das Werk eines Debütanten ist: So viel Schärfe die verbalen Scharmützel aus der Feder von Jonathan Perera entfalten und so elegant immer wieder die Themen Wahrheit, Identität und Moral eingeflochten sind, so überambitioniert wirken spätestens im letzten Viertel des Films die immer unglaubwürdigeren Wendungen. Um wie viel stärker könnte dieser Film sein, hätten die Produzenten auf ein paar Überraschungen weniger bestanden. So verpufft am Ende einiges von der Wirkung der Geschichte, während immerhin Miss Sloane wenig sympathisch, aber sehr faszinierend bleibt." [247]
Lucas Barwenczik vom Portal für Film und Kino kino-zeit.de sah im Film Die Erfindung der Warheit eine auf Momentbasis gelingende Charakterstudie. "Gelegentlich entlockt Chastain der skrupellosen Lobbyistin eine interessante Geste, einen besonders kalten Blick oder aber auch das Gegenteil – eine kurze Entgleisung, eine Eruption, vielleicht sogar einen Hauch von Zweifel. Sloane ist eine Figur, die Masken über Masken trägt. [...] Ein moralischer, emotionaler Kern wird angedeutet, tief unter Schichten des Pragmatismus verborgen, doch eigentlich geht es nicht um eine wie auch immer geartete Enthüllung. Eine letzte Panzerschicht bleibt bestehen, zum Glück: In ihrer endgültigen Dekonstruktion hätte kein Wert gelegen. Das gerade so zu erahnende Pochen eines Herzens ist in diesem Fall spannender als der offene Brustkorb."
[248] Barwenczik kritisierte jedoch, dass sich alles zu sehr um den Charakter der Elisabeth Sloane drehe: "Selbst die Nebenfiguren, gespielt von Stars wie Mark Strong oder John Lithgow, sind nie mehr als ihre Funktion, Bezugspunkte im System Elizabeth Sloane. Hätte John Madden konsequent sein wollen, er hätte nur eine einzige Schauspielerin gebraucht."
[248] Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[249]
[250]
[251]
[252] nachdem es folgende Vorgaben für die Aufsichtsgremien von öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten
[252] gemacht hat:
Der Film bekam trotz mancher kritischer Rezensionen größenteils gute Bewertungen. Die Zeitung Westfälische Nachrichten zufolge etwa ist die Flucht der beiden Brüder vor der Polizei nach Hamburg "Auftakt einer tollen, zwischen humorvollen und rührenden Szenen gelassen pendelnden Odyssee und eine schöne Geschichte über Bruderliebe. Viel besser als der vergleichbare halbgare und alberne Schweiger-Film „ Honig im Kopf“ und einer der deutschen Filme des Jahres." [259] Jenny Hoch von der Zeitung Die ZEIT lobte nebden Hauptdarstellern Kross und Lau auch die sonstige Besetzung. So lobte sie die Darsteller Annette Frier, Emilia Schüle und Devid Striesow. Hoch hob die Rolle der Stadt Hamburg hervor: "Simpel ist kein einfacher Film. Er besticht durch Schattierungen und hat sogar noch einen dritten Hauptdarsteller, der sich zwar erst nach einer guten halben Stunde ins Bild mogelt, aber dann sehr präsent ist: die Stadt Hamburg. Von ein paar Luftbildern der glitzernden Metropole bei Nacht abgesehen, dient die Großstadt nicht als Traumkulisse, sondern als Auslöser für die innere Entwicklung der Figuren. Die rastlosen Hochbahnen, das Treiben auf der Fruchtallee, im Schanzenviertel und auf St. Pauli, das alles kann Angst machen, aber auch neue Lebenswege aufzeigen. Je tiefer die Helden in die Topografie der Stadt vordringen, desto weiter wird ihr Horizont." [260]
Britta Schmeis von epd Film sagt, Markus Goller habe den gleichnamigen Jugendroman von Marie-Aude Murail als bewegende Tragikomödie inszeniert, die alle Fragen von Verantwortung, Pflichtgefühl, Familie und Freundschaft aufgreife. Schmeis erklärt, Simpels liebenswerte Kindlichkeit entwaffne und führe zu urkomischen und rührenden Situationen, etwa wenn er, stets mit seinem Stofftier Hasehase im Schlepptau, auf einem Spielplatz ein behindertes Mädchen trifft und sich mit ihm anfreundet. Aber auch das liebevolle, fast allzu aufopfernde Kümmern Bens zerreiße einem so manches Mal das Herz, so Schmeis, und es handele sich um einen Film, der viele menschliche Gefühle anspreche und daher berühre. [261] In diesselbe Richtung wie Britta Schmeis sah auch Bettina Peulecke vom Norddeutschen Rundfunk den Film. Ihrer Meinung ist die Inszenierung der besonderen Bruderbeziehung "ein größtenteils gelungener Balanceakt zwischen Tragik und Komik, der man manche überzogene Momente aufgrund ihrer Aufrichtigkeit schnell verzeiht." [262]
Matthias Halbig spricht in der Hannoverschen Allgemeinen von großem, echtem Gefühlskino: „'Simpel' ist witzig, traurig, zart und randvoll mit Abenteuern – ein Lehrgang zum Herzen, den Regisseur Markus Goller dem Zuschauer nie mit Kitsch zustellt. Kross ist großartig als enthusiastischer, unschuldiger Kindmann, Lau nicht minder anrührend als bester Freund, den ein Bruder haben kann. Zwei Typen, die das Kino mit ihrer Geschichte der Inklusion durch Liebe bereichern, wie es damals Arnie ( Leonardo DiCaprio) und Gilbert Grape ( Johnny Depp) taten, irgendwo in Iowa.“ [263]
In einer Kritik zum Film bei Focus Online ist der Film als warmherziges und amüsantes Roadmovie mit großartigen Schauspielern beschrieben: „Mit zwei sehr unterschiedlichen Menschen in den Hauptrollen, deren Stärke es ist, immer füreinander da zu sein. Genau von dieser Beziehung zwischen Ben und Simpel lebt der Film. Frederick Lau und David Kross haben keinerlei Berührungsängste, sodass man ihnen ohne jeden Zweifel abnimmt, dass sie Brüder sind. Die Rollen scheinen perfekt auf die beiden Schauspieler zugeschnitten worden zu sein.“ [264]
Über Kross sagt Peter Zander von der Berliner Morgenpost, es sei bewegend, wie er bei Eiseskälte in Unterhosen und Moonboots im Watt tanzt und mit seiner naiven Gutmütigkeit selbst die Herzen wildfremder Menschen öffnet. Aber auch Lau berühre als Ben, der alles für seinen Bruder tut, auch wenn er dadurch nie Zeit für ein eigenes Leben hat und letztlich mit der Situation heillos überfordert ist. [265] [266]
Gemischte Kritk gab es von Marc Reichwein von der Zeitung Die Welt. Er meinte, dass Feel-Good-Filme schon zu oft die waren, die viel wollen und wenig können. Der Film schaffe zwar schafft anrührende Szenen, führe die wechselseitige Abhängigkeit von Familienmitgliedern vor, birge komische und tragikomische Momente. Daneben störten aber einige irgendwie verschenkte Szenen, Simpels Eindringen in die Familie seines leiblichen Vaters etwa. Sein Fazit: "Man geht emotional nicht gerade erschüttert, ergriffen, geläutert aus dem Kino. Dafür nämlich ist dieser Film dann irgendwie doch zu lau, namentlich die Figur, die Lau verkörpert. Alles, was Simpel begegnet, fügt sich ein bisschen zu wohlgefällig ins sozialpädagogisch Gute. Vielleicht, ahnt man, ist die Realität doch ein bisschen weniger simpel als „Simpel“." [267]
Eugen Zentner vom Filmblog Filmverliebt lobte zwar die schauspielerische Leistungen von David Kross und Frederick Lau. Sein Fazit fiel jedoch ebenfalls gemischt aus: "«Simpel» ist eine Tragikomödie über Respekt, Nächstenliebe und Lebensängste, die visuell kühle Bilder mit menschlicher Wärme kontrastiert. Der Tonfall der Erzählung macht sie gewiss zu einem rührenden Film. Dennoch wäre es gewagt, hier von einem «Feel-Good-Movie» zu sprechen. Gute Laune gibt es nur in sehr kleinen Portionen, was größtenteils der spannungsarmen Handlung und dem nicht immer stilsicheren Witz geschuldet ist. Der Film ist ganz passabel, feinfühlig und atmosphärisch dicht. Doch das reicht nicht aus, um mit Feel-Good-Movies wie « Garden State» oder « Forrest Gump» mithalten zu können." [268]
Hingegen befindet Martin Schwickert in der Sächsischen Zeitung, der Film kranke „erheblich an der Glaubwürdigkeit seiner eindimensionalen Charaktere“ und behandele die Probleme im Zusammenleben mit behinderten Menschen „vollkommen oberflächlich [...], um den flauschigen Wohlfühlcharakter des Unterhaltungsproduktes nicht zu gefährden“. Die „deutlich komplexer ausgearbeitete“ Vorlage werde „ins deutsche Mainstreamformat hineinbanalisiert“. [269] Bianka Piringer von "kino-zeit.de - Das Portal für Film und Kino" meinte kritisch bilanzierend: "Der Film entlässt seine Zuschauer ohne emotionalen Nachhall und auch nicht mit dem Eindruck, etwas Relevantes über die Welt und ihre Menschen erfahren zu haben." [270]
2014 äußerte sich Christo zu seine Arbeiten mit folgenden Worten: "Es ist total irrational und sinnlos." Millionen Mesnchen waren demnoch von der Schönheit seiner in abstrakte Objekte verwandelten Gebäude und Landschaften fasziniert. [272]
In seinem von 1935 bis 2020 reichenden Leben realisierte Christo zusammen mit seiner Frau viele Kunstprojekte. [273]
Das Lebenswerk von Christo wurde nach dessen Tod von der Bundesregierung gewürdigt. So schrieb Kulturstaatsministerin Monika Grütters (CDU) auf Twitter, Christo habe "die Menschen weltweit gelehrt, neu und schärfer zu sehen." Bundesaußenminister Heiko Maaß (SPD) äußerte sich dahingehend, dass Christo und Jeanne-Claude "mit Kunst unsere Welt bereichert" hätten. Mit der Verhüllung des Reichtstages habe Christo "unserem wiedervereinten Land ein spektakuläres Denkmal" gesetzt, so der Bundesaußenminister auf Twitter [274]
Bislang konnte der Film 84 Prozent der Kritiker bei Rotten Tomatoes überzeugen. [275]
In ersten Reaktionen nach dem Wegfall des Social-Media-Embargos zeigten sich Filmkritiker via Twitter von dem voller Easter Eggs und Refenzen gespickten Film [276] begeistert, auch wenn bemängelt wurde, der Film fühle sich wie die erste Hälfte eines Zweiteilers an, obwohl Marvel mehrmals betont hatte, dass dem nicht so sein sollte. [277] Auch die ersten internationalen Pressestimmen waren größenteils begeitstern vom Film, während am Film beteiligte Schauspieler es auch waren. [278]
Wilson Morales von Blackfilm.com meint, Avengers: Infinity War sei Non-Stop-Action von Anfang bis Ende, auch wenn sich etwas mehr Substanz in der Handlung finden könnte. [279] [277]
Eric Eisenberg von CinemaBlend spricht von atemberaubenden Momenten, einer großartigen Interaktion zwischen den Figuren und oft verheerenden Überraschungen. [280] [281] Sein Kollege Conner Schwerdtfeger meint, Avengers: Infinity War bewege sich auf einem nächsten Level und sei eine der emotionalsten, intensivsten und eindringlichsten Erfahrungen seines Lebens gewesen. [282]
Joshua Yehl von IGN meint, der Film habe ihn durchgehend und über seine komplette Handlung hinweg entweder zum Lachen, Schreien oder zum Weinen gebracht. [283] Sein Kollege Scott Collura bemerkt, besonders das Ende sei brilliant. [284]
{{original recording|Discurso de Kennedy.ogg}}
Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility ( 4 December 2013) at THEARC in Washington, D.C.
Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect with exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. [286] With respect to the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948): "[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." And the court added in Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883): "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."
Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is “state action” meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental power. [286] In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880) the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the 14th Amendment "have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State, by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State." [287]
There are however instances where people are the victims of civil-rights violations that occur in circumstances involving both government officials and private actors. [286] In the 1960s the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action opening the door to wide-ranging civil-rights litigation against private actors when they act as state actors [286] i.e. acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state (Compare Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the state action doctrine is equally applicable to denials of privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection of the laws. [288]
The critical factor in determining the existence of state action is not governmental involvement with private persons or private corporations is not the critical factor in determining the existence of state action, but "the inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." [289] "Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance." [290]
The Supreme Court asserted that plaintiffs must establish not only that a private party "acted under color of the challenged statute, but also that its actions are properly attributable to the State. [...] [291] And the actions are to be attributable to the State apparently only if the State compelled the actions and not if the State merely established the process through statute or regulation under which the private party acted. [288]
The rules developed by the Supreme Court for business regulation are that (1) the "mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment," [a] and (2) "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must be deemed to be that of the State." [b]
A day after the decision in Windsor, the federal judge hearing McLaughlin v. Panetta asked the parties to explain by July 18 why the logic that found DOMA's section 3 unconstitutional did not apply equally to federal regulations that control eligibility for veterans' spousal benefits, which define "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex." [292] On July 18, 2013, BLAG stated in a court filing that in light of Windsor, they would no longer seek to defend this case or similar statutes in court, and sought leave to withdraw from defending the case. [293]
In September 2013, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state's refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses contradicted Windsor. [294] Governor Chris Christie dropped his appeal of this ruling in October 2013 after the State Supreme Court signaled that they were likely to reject his appeal, making New Jersey the 14th state in the union to permit gay marriage. [295]
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor and the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in Griego v. Oliver holding that marriage licenses must be issued to couples without respect to gender [296] four United States District Court judges (see Kitchen v. Herbert, [297] Bishop v. Oklahoma, [298] Bostic v. Rainey, [299] and De Leon v. Perry [300]) interpreted the Windsor decision as meaning that state laws defining marriage as one man and one woman are likewise unconstitutional. [301] In December 2013, a U.S. District Court judge for example ruled in Kitchen v. Herbert that Utah's prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, citing Windsor to support his findings with respect to Baker v. Nelson and equal protection. [302]
A 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott (Case 11-17357, Case ID:8944502) resolved a dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies SmithKline Beecham and Abbott Laboratories whether gay people could be kept off a jury in a trial involving HIV drugs. It ruled unanimously on January 21, 2014, that, based on its reading of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, distinctions based on sexual orientation are subject to the "heightened scrutiny" standard of review and that "equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation". [303] The decision was not appealed. [304]
The Ninth Circuit looked at the Windsor decision and ruled that the Supreme Court applied heightened scrutiny, without naming it directly: “Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.” [303] The Windsor Court, the opinion noted, reviewed the actual purposes and justifications for the law i.e. Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and not under the more lenient rational basis standard where any conceivable rationale is enough to sustain a law. The Ninth Circuit court also observed that the Windsor Court shifted the burden from the same-sex couple to the government when it wrote that the government has to “justify disparate treatment of the group.” [305] In sum the Ninth Cirucuit concluded: "In sum, Windsor requires that we reexamine our prior precedents, and Witt tells us how to interpret Windsor. Under that analysis, we are required by Windsor to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection." [303] In holding that heightened scrutiny is required for classifications based on sexual orientation within the Ninth Circuit the court in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott handed down a ruling whose underlying rationale could have broad implications outside of the case with respect to “the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement. [304] [306]
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling the Obama Administration and several federal agencies began to extend federal rights, priveleges and benefits to same-sex by changing regulations in order to conform with the Supreme Court decision in Windsor:
Despite the foregoing efforts the U.S. federal agencies are not working in concert. Instead "they are creating a patchwork of regulations affecting gay and lesbian couples — and may be raising questions about discrimination and fairness in the way that federal benefits are distributed."
US district court judge for the District of Columbia Richard Leon on declared [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] on December 16, 2013 that the mass collection of metadata of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the fourth amendment prohibition unreasonable searches and seizures. [319] “Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation – most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics – I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.” [320] “Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the government’s interest in collecting and analysing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment,” he wrote. [320]
"The Fourth Amendment typically requires 'a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public,' and it is offended by 'general warrants' and laws that allow searches to be conducted 'indiscriminately and without regard to their connections with a crime under investigation,'" he wrote. [321] He added: "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast." [321]
Leon granted the request for an preliminary injunction that blocks the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs (Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011) [320] and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. But the judge stayed action on his ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing in his 68-page opinion the “significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues.” [319]
As a consequence of proposals made by his NSA-review pnale, the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, [322] U.S. President Obama is considering as of January 2014 to propose [323] [324]
According to the New York Times [325] [326] [327], The Guardian [328] and ProPublica [329]
Negotiations among intelligence agencies, the White House, lawmakers and their aides, and privacy advocates in the summer of 2014 led to a modified bill (S. S.2685) in the U.S. Senate [330]. This bill version addressed most privacy concerns regarding the NSA program that collects records of Americans’ phone calls in bulk and other issues. Under the bill the NSA would no longer collect those phone records. Instead, most of the records would have stayed in the hands of the phone companies, which would not have been required to hold them any longer than they already do for normal business purposes, which in some cases is 18 months. The bill would require the NSA to request specific data from phone companies under specified limits i.e. the NSA would need to show it had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the number it is interested in is tied to a foreign terrorist organization or individual. The proposed legislation would still have allowed analysts to perform so-called contact chaining in which they trace a suspect’s network of acquaintances, but they would been required to use a new kind of court order to swiftly obtain only those records that were linked, up to two layers away, to a suspect — even when held by different phone companies. It would also require the federal surveillance court to appoint a panel of public advocates to advance legal positions in support of privacy and civil liberties, and would expand company reporting to the public on the scope of government requests for customers’ data. This USA Freedom Act version thus gained the support of the Obama Administration, including the director of national intelligence and attorney general, as well as many tech companies including Apple, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo as well as a diverse range of groups, including the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.ref>Ellen Nakashima and Ed O'Keefe (November 18, 2014). "Senate fails to advance legislation on NSA reform". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 19, 2014.</ref> [331]
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) [332] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages. [333] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment [334] and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does." [335] The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974's Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. only applied to "the institutional press." [335] "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers." [335] Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones." [336]
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) [332] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently. [333] The Ninth Circuit court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment [334] and in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does." [335] The Ninth Circuit panel found the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones." [335] [336]
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2014 [332] ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages. [333] Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. [334] The Court held that in defamation cases not the identity of the speaker, but rather the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue provide the First Amendment foundation. [336] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2014 [332] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. [333] The Ninth Circuit court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment [334] because the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story." [335] [336]
The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme. [332] But every United States appeals court which adressed this issue concluded [337] [338] [339] [340] [341] [342] [332] that that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. [332] [335]
While it is an open question whether people who blog, twitter or use other social media are journalists entitled to protection by Shield laws in the United States [343], they are protected equally by the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause, because both clause don't difference between media businesses and nonprofessional speakers. [344] [345] [346] This is further evidenced by the United States Supreme Court who constantly refused to to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers. [347] [348] [349] For example in a case involving campaign finance laws the Court rejected the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by” non-institutional-press businesses. [350]
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, to lawfully search and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a writ known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional if conducted without a valid warrant [351] and the police must obtain a warrant whenever practicable. [352] Searches and seizures without a warrant are not considered unreasonable if one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. [353] [354] [355] These exceptions apply "[o]nly in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." [356] In these situations where the warrant requirement doesn't apply a search or seizure nonetheless must be justified by some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. [357] However the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception to the requirement of individualized suspicion. It ruled that "In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion" a search [or seizure] would still be reasonable. [358]
After 13 years Britain and the United States officially ended their combat operation in Afghanistan on October 26, 2014. On that day Britain handed over its last base in Afghanistan, Camp Bastion in the southern province of Helmand, to Afghanistan, while the United States handed over its last base, Camp Leatherneck in the southern province of Helmand. [363] [364] [365] [366] [367] [368]
Afghanistan and the United States signed the BSA signed through U.S. Ambassador James B. Cunningham and Afghan national security adviser Mohammad Hanif the bilateral security agreement on September 30, 2014 in a cordial ceremony at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afhanistan. [369] [370] [371] On that day the NATO Status of Forces Agreement was also signed, giving forces from Allied and partner countries the legal protections necessary to carry out the NATO Resolute Support mission when International Security Assistance Force comes to an end in 2014. [372] Under both agreements 9,800 American and at least 2,000 NATO troops are allowed to remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on December 31, 2014 [369] while also enabling the continued training and advising of Afghan security forces, as well as counterterrorism operations against remnants of al-Qaeda. [370] Most of the troops will help train and assist the struggling Afghan security forces, although some American Special Operations forces will remain to conduct counterterrorism missions. [369] The Nato-led ISAF mission will transition to a training mission headquartered in Kabul with six bases around the country. [369] Under the BSA the United States are allowed to have bases at nine separate locations across Afghanistan. [370] A base in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, could also remain a launching point for armed drone missions in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan. [369] [370] The agreement also prevents U.S. military personnel from being prosecuted under Afghan laws for any crimes they may commit; instead, the United States has jurisdiction over any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action involving its troops inside the country. The provision does not apply to civilian contractors. [370] The troop number of 9.800 Americans is to be cut in half by 2016, with American forces thereafter based only in Kabul and at Bagram air base. By the end of 2017, the U.S. force is to be further reduced in size to what U.S. officials have called a “normal” military advisory component at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, most likely numbering several hundred. [370] The BSA goes into force on January 1, 2015 and remains in force "until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless it is terminated by either side with two years' notice. [373]
At the end of March 2015 U.S. President Obama announced to slow the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal by maintaining the current force levels of 9,800 troops through at least the end of 2015. This annoucement came after a request by the Afghan government under its new president Ashraf Ghani. Obama and Ghani stated the troops were needed to train and advise Afghan forces. According to U.S. official keeping the current force in place would allow American special operations troops and the Central Intelligence Agency to operate in southern and eastern Afghanistan, where the insurgents are strongest and where Al Qaeda’s presence is concentrated. Obama also stated to close the remaining U.S. bases in Afghanistan, to withdraw all but about 1,000 troops by the time he leaves office at the beginning of 2017 consolidate the remaining U.S. forces in Kabul. Those forces would operate largely in Kabul and protect embassy personnel and other American officials there. [374] [375] [376]
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_url=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in ständiger Rechtsprechung (vgl. etwa BVerfGE 75, 108, 148) ausgeführt, dass Beiträge zur Sozialversicherung nicht der Finanzierung allgemeiner Staatsausgaben dienen dürfen. Einen Einsatz der Sozialversicherungsbeiträge zur Befriedung des allgemeinen Finanzbedarfs des Staates hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht ausdrücklich für unzulässig erklärt. Ansonsten sei der Grundsatz der Belastungsgleichheit aller Bürger verletzt, der Ausprägung des allgemeinen Gleichheitssatzes des Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG ist.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archiveurl=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
ZEITONLINE20170405Mayer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
wazWestphal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
Captain America: Civil War takes place after Avengers: Age of Ultron, where both Cap and Iron Man find themselves on opposite sides of the Sokovia Accords, a new initiative designed to make each superhero accountable for their destructive actions.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG begründet in Verbindung mit dem Sozialstaatsprinzip aus Art. 20 Abs. 1 GG ein soziales Teilhaberecht.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
In der Praxis hat Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG in seiner Wirkung als Teilhaberecht – häufig in Verbindung mit Freiheitsrechten oder dem Sozialstaatsprinzip des Art. 20 Abs. 1 GG – große Bedeutung: Da originäre Leistungsrechte aus der Verfassung nur in seltenen Ausnahmefällen in Betracht kommen und daher der Einzelne in der Regel kein Recht auf Schaffung bestimmter Leistungen hat, möchte er wenigstens, dass die bestehenden Ressourcen gerecht verteilt werden. Dabei geht es regelmäßig um die gleiche, chancengleiche und qualifikationsgerechte Zuteilung von Ansprüchen. Das Recht auf gleiche Teilhabe wird dabei oft zum Verfahrensrecht, das sich auf die Organisation und das Verfahren der Leistungsgewährung auswirkt. Für den Zugang zum öffentlichen Dienst trifft Art. 33 Abs. 2 GG eine spezielle Regelung.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE-url=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
BverfGPMNR262014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help) Anmerkung: Das Tomatometer bei
Rotten Tomatoes gibt an, wie viel Prozent der angemeldeten Kritiker dem Film eine positive Bewertung gegeben haben.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
, |date=
, and |archivedate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
WSJ20131212
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
NYTimesNov18
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
ECBbritannicaFA20140418
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Katz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).