The Tashkent Declaration was a peace agreement between India and Pakistan signed on 10 January 1966 that resolved the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Peace had been achieved on 23 September by the intervention of the external powers that pushed the two nations to cease fire, afraid the conflict could escalate and draw in other powers.[1]
The war between India and Pakistan in 1965 was an escalation of the small scale and irregular fighting from April 1965 to September 1965 between both countries.[2] It was over control of the resources and population of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, a sore point between both countries ever since Partition in 1947.[2]
Overview
The meeting was held in Tashkent in the Uzbek SSR, USSR (now Uzbekistan) from 4–10 January 1966 to try to create a more permanent settlement.[2]
The Tashkent conference, under United Nations, American and Soviet pressure, compelled India and Pakistan to abide by their previous treaty obligations and accept Status quo ante bellum – to give away the captured regions of each other and return to the 1949 ceasefire line in Kashmir.[5][6]
Declaration
The conference was viewed as a great success and the declaration that was released was hoped to be a framework for lasting peace. The declaration stated that[1] Indian and Pakistani forces would pull back to their pre-conflict positions, pre-August lines,[1] no later than 25 February 1966,[2] the nations would not interfere in each other's internal affairs, economic and diplomatic relations would be restored, there would be an orderly transfer of prisoners of war, and the two leaders would work towards improving bilateral relations.[2]
Aftermath
The agreement was criticized in India because it did not contain a no-war pact or any renunciation of guerrilla warfare in Kashmir. After signing the agreement, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri died mysteriously in Tashkent.[2] Shastri's sudden death has led to persistent conspiracy theories that he was poisoned.[7] The Indian government has refused to declassify a report on his death claiming that this could harm foreign relations, cause disruption in the country and cause a breach of parliamentary privileges.[7]
In accordance with the Tashkent Declaration, talks at the ministerial level were held on 1 and 2 March 1966. Despite the fact that these talks were unproductive, diplomatic exchange continued throughout the spring and summer. No result was achieved out of these talks, as there was a difference of opinion over the Kashmir issue. News of the Tashkent Declaration shocked the people of Pakistan who were expecting something different.[clarification needed] Things further worsened as Ayub Khan refused to comment and went into seclusion instead of announcing the reasons for signing the agreement. Demonstrations and rioting erupted at various places throughout Pakistan.[2][better source needed] In order to dispel the anger and misgivings of the people, Ayub Khan decided to lay the matter before the people by addressing the nation on 14 January 1966. It was the difference over Tashkent Declaration, which eventually led to the removal of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto from Ayub’s government, who later on launched his own party, called the Pakistan People’s Party. Although Ayub Khan was able to satisfy the misgivings of the people, the Tashkent Declaration greatly damaged his image and was one of the factors that led to his downfall.[8]
The perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris two days earlier are both killed after a hostage situation; a second hostage situation, related to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, occurs at a Jewish market in Vincennes.
On 7 January 2015 at about 11:30am CET local time, two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaperCharlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege where a terrorist held 19 hostages, of whom he murdered 4 Jewish people.
France raised its Vigipirate terror alert and deployed soldiers in Île-de-France and Picardy. A major manhunt led to the discovery of the suspects, who exchanged fire with police. The brothers took hostages at a signage company in Dammartin-en-Goële on 9 January and were shot dead when they emerged from the building firing.
On 11 January, about two million people, including more than 40 world leaders, met in Paris for a rally of national unity, and 3.7 million people joined demonstrations across France. The phrase Je suis Charlie became a common slogan of support at the rallies and in social media. The staff of Charlie Hebdo continued with the publication, and the following issue print ran 7.95 million copies in six languages, compared to its typical print run of 60,000 in only French.
Numerous violent plots related to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were discovered, primarily targeting cartoonist Westergaard, editor Rose, and the property or employees of Jyllands-Posten and other newspapers that printed the cartoons.[a] Westergaard was the subject of several attacks and planned attacks, and lives under police protection. On 1 January 2010, police used guns to stop a would-be assassin in his home,[27][28] who was sentenced to nine years in prison.[b][29][30] In 2010, three men based in Norway were arrested on suspicion of planning a terror attack against Jyllands-Posten or Kurt Westergaard; two of them were convicted.[31][32] In the United States, David Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana were convicted in 2013 of planning terrorism against Jyllands-Posten.[33][34][35]
In France, blasphemy law ceased to exist with progressive emancipation of the Republic from the Catholic church between 1789 and 1830. In France, the principle of laïcité – the separation of church and state – was enshrined in the 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, and in 1945 became part of the constitution. Under its terms, the government and all public administrations and services must be religion-blind and their representatives must refrain from any display of religion, but private citizens and organisations are free to practise and express the religion of their choice where and as they wish (although discrimination based on religion is prohibited).[36]
In recent years there has been a trend towards a stricter interpretation of laïcité which would also prohibit users of public services from expressing their religion (e.g. the 2004 law which bans school pupils from wearing "blatant" religious symbols[37]) or even ban citizens from expressing their religion in public even outside the administration and public services (e.g. a 2015 law project prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols by the employees of private crèches). This restrictive interpretation is not supported by the initial law on laïcité and is challenged by the representatives of all the major religions.[38]
Authors, humorists, cartoonists and individuals have the right to satirise people, public actors and religions, a right which is balanced by defamation laws. These rights and legal mechanisms were designed to protect freedom of speech from local powers, among which was the then-powerful Catholic Church in France.[39]
Though images of Muhammad are not explicitly banned by the Quran itself, prominent Islamic views have long opposed human images, especially those of prophets. Such views have gained ground among militant Islamic groups.[40][41][42] Accordingly, some Muslims take the view that the satire of Islam, of religious representatives, and above all of Islamic prophets is blasphemy in Islam punishable by death.[43] This sentiment was most famously actualized in the murder of the controversial Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. According to the BBC, France has seen "the apparent desire of some younger, often disaffected children or grandchildren of immigrant families not to conform to western, liberal lifestyles – including traditions of religious tolerance and free speech".[44] Salafi scholar Muhammad Al-Munajjid indicates that the Islamic concept of Gheerah (protective jealousy) requires that Muslims protect Muhammad from blasphemy.[45]
Attack
Charlie Hebdo headquarters
On the morning of 7 January 2015, a Wednesday, Charlie Hebdo staff were gathered at 10 Rue Nicolas-Appert in the 11th arrondissement of Paris for the weekly editorial meeting starting around 10:30. The magazine had moved into an unmarked office at this address following the 2011 firebombing of their previous premises due to the magazine's original satirization of the Prophet Muhammad.[46]
Around 11:30am, two armed and hooded men first burst into the wrong address at 6 Rue Nicolas-Appert, shouting "Is this Charlie Hebdo?" and threatening people. After realizing their mistake and firing a bullet through a glass door, the two men left for 10 Rue Nicolas-Appert.[47] There, they encountered cartoonist Corinne "Coco" Rey outside and at gunpoint, forced her to enter the passcode into the electronic door.[48]
The men sprayed the lobby with gunfire upon entering. The first victim was maintenance worker Frédéric Boisseau, who was killed as he sat at the reception desk.[49] The gunmen forced Rey at gunpoint to lead them to a second-floor office, where 15 staff members were having an editorial meeting,[50]Charlie Hebdo's first news conference of the year. Reporter said they were interrupted by what they thought was the sound of a firecracker—the gunfire from the lobby—and recalled, "We still thought it was a joke. The atmosphere was still joyous."[51]
The gunmen burst into the meeting room and called out Charlie's name to target him before opening fire. The shooting lasted five to ten minutes. The gunmen aimed at the journalists' heads and killed them.[52][53] During the gunfire, Rey survived uninjured by hiding under a desk, from where she witnessed the murders of Wolinski and Cabu.[54] Léger also survived by hiding under a desk as the gunmen entered.[55] Other witnesses reported that the gunmen identified themselves as belonging to Al-Qaeda in Yemen.[56]
Psychoanalyst Elsa Cayat, a French columnist of Tunisian Jewish descent, was killed.[57] Another female columnist present at the time, crime reporter Sigolène Vinson, survived; one of the shooters aimed at her but spared her, saying, "I'm not killing you because you are a woman", and telling her to convert to Islam, read the Quran and wear a veil. She said he left shouting, "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"[58][59][60][61]
Escape
Police vans arrive on the scene
An authenticated video surfaced on the Internet that shows two gunmen and a police officer, Ahmed Merabet, who is wounded and lying on a sidewalk after an exchange of gunfire. This took place near the corner of Boulevard Richard-Lenoir and Rue Moufle, 180 metres (590 ft) east of the main crime scene. One of the gunmen ran towards the policeman and shouted, "Did you want to kill us?" The policeman answered, "No, it's fine, boss", and raised his hand toward the gunman, who then gave the policeman a fatal shot to the head at close range.[62]
Sam Kiley, of Sky News, concluded from the video that the two gunmen were "military professionals" who likely had "combat experience", saying that the gunmen were exercising infantry tactics such as moving in "mutual support" and were firing aimed, single-round shots at the police officer. He also stated that they were using military gestures and were "familiar with their weapons" and fired "carefully aimed shots, with tight groupings".[63]
The gunmen then left the scene, shouting (according to witnesses), "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad. We have killed Charlie Hebdo!"[64][65][61][60] They escaped in a getaway car, and drove to Porte de Pantin, hijacking another car and forcing its driver out. As they drove away, they ran over a pedestrian and shot at responding police officers.[66]
It was initially believed that there were three suspects. One identified suspect turned himself in at a Charleville-Mézières police station.[67][68] Seven of the Kouachi brothers' friends and family were taken into custody.[69] Jihadist flags and Molotov cocktails were found in an abandoned getaway car, a black Citroën C3.[70]
Motive
Charlie Hebdo had attracted considerable worldwide attention for its controversial depictions of Muhammad.
Hatred for Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, which made jokes about Islamic leaders as well as the Islamic prophet Muhammad, is considered to be the principal motive for the massacre. Michael Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, suggested that the motive of the attackers was "absolutely clear: trying to shut down a media organisation that lampooned the Prophet Muhammad".[71]
In March 2013, Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen, commonly known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), released a hit list in an edition of their English-language magazine Inspire. The list included Stéphane Charbonnier (mentioned above in this article as Charlie Hebdo editor who died in this shooting) and others whom AQAP accused of insulting Islam.[72][73]
On 9 January, AQAP claimed responsibility for the attack in a speech from AQAP's top Shariah cleric Harith bin Ghazi al-Nadhari, citing the motive as "revenge for the honour" of Muhammad.[74]
Victims
Killed
Commemorative plaque at 10, rue Nicolas-Appert
Frédéric Boisseau, 42, building maintenance worker for Sodexo, killed in the lobby as came to the building on a call, first victim of the shooting.
Franck Brinsolaro, 49, Protection Service police officer assigned as a bodyguard for Charb.[75]
Several people at the meeting were unharmed, including book designer Gérard Gaillard, who was a guest, and staff members, Sigolène Vinson,[90] [fr], and Éric Portheault.
The cartoonist Coco was coerced into letting the murderers into the building, and was not harmed.[91] Several other staff members were not in the building at the time of the shooting, including medical columnist Patrick Pelloux, cartoonists Rénald "Luz" Luzier and [fr] and film critic [fr], who were late for work, cartoonist Willem, who never attends, editor-in-chiefGérard Biard and journalist Zineb El Rhazoui who were on holiday, journalist [fr], who was at a funeral, and comedian and columnist Mathieu Madénian. Luz arrived in time to see the gunmen escaping.[92]
Assailants
Chérif and Saïd Kouachi
Biography
Chérif and Saïd Kouachi
Chérif Kouachi (left) and Saïd Kouachi
Born
Chérif:(1982-11-29)29 November 1982 Saïd:(1980-09-07)7 September 1980
Police quickly identified brothers Saïd Kouachi (French pronunciation: [sa.id kua.ʃi]; 7 September 1980 – 9 January 2015) and Chérif Kouachi ([ʃe.ʁif]; 29 November 1982 – 9 January 2015) as the main suspects.[c] French citizens born in Paris to Algerian immigrants, the brothers were orphaned at a young age after their mother's apparent suicide and placed in a foster home in Rennes.[94] After two years, they were moved to an orphanage in Corrèze in 1994, along with a younger brother and an older sister.[98][99] The brothers moved to Paris around 2000.[100]
Upon leaving prison, Chérif Kouachi married and got a job in a fish market on the outskirts of Paris. He became a student of Farid Benyettou, a radical Muslim preacher at the Addawa Mosque in the 19th arrondissement of Paris. Kouachi wanted to attack Jewish targets in France, but Benyettou told him that France, unlike Iraq, was not "a land of jihad".[106]
On 28 March 2008, Chérif was convicted of terrorism and sentenced to three years in prison, with 18 months suspended, for recruiting fighters for militant Islamist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's group in Iraq.[94] He said outrage at the torture of inmates by the US Army at Baghdad Central Prison in Abu Ghraib inspired him to help Iraq's insurgency.[107][108]
French judicial documents state Amedy Coulibaly and Chérif Kouachi travelled with their wives in 2010 to central France to visit Djamel Beghal. In a police interview in 2010, Coulibaly identified Chérif as a friend he had met in prison and said they saw each other frequently.[109] In 2010, the Kouachi brothers were named in connection with a plot to break out of jail with another Islamist, . Belkacem was one of those responsible for the 1995 Paris Métro and RER bombings that killed eight people.[103][110] For lack of evidence, they were not prosecuted.
From 2009 to 2010, Saïd Kouachi visited Yemen on a student visa to study at the San'a Institute for the Arabic Language. There, according to a Yemeni reporter who interviewed Saïd, he met and befriended Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the perpetrator of the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 later in 2009. Also according to the reporter, the two shared an apartment for "one or two weeks".[111]
In 2011, Saïd returned to Yemen for a number of months and trained with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula militants.[112] According to a senior Yemeni intelligence source, he met al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki in the southern province of Shabwa.[113] Chérif Kouachi told BFM TV that he had been funded by a network loyal to Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a drone strike in 2011 in Yemen.[114] According to US officials, the US provided France with intelligence in 2011 showing the brothers received training in Yemen. French authorities monitored them until the spring of 2014.[115] During the time leading to the Charlie Hebdo attack, Saïd lived with his wife and children in a block of flats in Reims. Neighbours described him as solitary.[citation needed]
The weapons used in the attack were supplied via the Brussels underworld. According to the Belgian press, a criminal sold Amedy Coulibaly the rocket-propelled grenade launcher and Kalashnikov rifles that the Kouachi brothers used for less than 5,000 euros.[116]
In an interview between Chérif Kouachi and Igor Sahiri, one of France's BFM TV journalists, Chérif stated that "We are not killers. We are defenders of the prophet, we don’t kill women. We kill no one. We defend the prophet. If someone offends the prophet then there is no problem, we can kill him. We don’t kill women. We are not like you. You are the ones killing women and children in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn’t us. We have an honour code in Islam."[117]
After the attack: Manhunt (8 and 9 January)
A massive manhunt began immediately after the attack. One suspect left his ID card in an abandoned getaway car.[118][119] Police officers searched apartments in the Île-de-France region, in Strasbourg and in Reims.[120][121]
Police detained several people during the manhunt for the two main suspects. A third suspect voluntarily reported to a police station after hearing he was wanted, and was not charged. Police described the assailants as "armed and dangerous". France raised its terror alert to its highest level and deployed soldiers in Île-de-France and Picardyregions.
Later that day, the police search concentrated on the Picardy, particularly the area around Villers-Cotterêts and the village of Longpont, after the suspects robbed a petrol station near Villers-Cotterêts,[123] then reportedly abandoned their car before hiding in a forest near Longpont.[124] Searches continued into the surrounding Forêt de Retz (130 km2), one of the largest forests of France.[125]
The manhunt continued with the discovery of the two fugitive suspects early in the morning of 9 January. The Kouachis had hijacked a Peugeot 206 near the town of Crépy-en-Valois. They were chased by police cars for approximately 27 kilometres (17 miles) south down the N2 trunk road. At some point they abandoned their vehicle and an exchange of gunfire between pursuing police and the brothers took place near the commune of Dammartin-en-Goële, 35 kilometres (22 miles) northeast of Paris. Several blasts went off as well and Saïd Kouachi sustained a minor neck wound. Several others may have been injured as well but no one was killed in the gunfire. The suspects were not apprehended and escaped on foot.[126]
Dammartin-en-Goële hostage crisis, death of Chérif and Saïd (9 January)
At around 9:30 am on 9 January 2015, the Kouachi brothers fled into the office of Création Tendance Découverte, a signage production company on an industrial estate in Dammartin-en-Goële. Inside the building were owner Michel Catalano and a male employee, 26-year-old graphics designer Lilian Lepère. Catalano told Lepère to go hide in the building and remained in his office himself.[127] Not long after, a salesman named Didier went to the printworks on business. Catalano came out with Chérif Kouachi who introduced himself as a police officer. They shook hands and Kouachi told Didier, "Leave. We don't kill civilians anyhow." These words were what caused Didier to guess that Kouachi was a terrorist and he alerted the police.[128]
The Kouachi brothers remained inside and a lengthy standoff began. Catalano re-entered the building and closed the door after Didier had left.[129] The brothers were not aggressive towards Catalano, who stated, "I didn't get the impression they were going to harm me." He made coffee for them and helped bandage the neck wound that Saïd Kouachi had sustained during the earlier gunfire. Catalano was allowed to leave after an hour.[130] Catalano swore three times to the terrorists that he was alone and did not reveal Lepère's presence. The Kouachi brothers were never aware of him being there. Lepère hid inside a cardboard box and sent the Gendarmerie text messages for around three hours during the siege, providing them with "tactical elements such as [the brothers'] location inside the premises".[131]
Given the proximity (10 km) of the siege to Charles de Gaulle Airport, two of the airport's runways were closed.[126][132]Interior MinisterBernard Cazeneuve called for a Gendarmerie operation to neutralise the perpetrators. An Interior Ministry spokesman announced that the Ministry wished first to "establish a dialogue" with the suspects. Officials tried to establish contact with the suspects to negotiate the safe evacuation of a school 500 metres (1,600 feet) from the siege. The Kouachi brothers did not respond to attempts at communication by the French authorities.[133]
The siege lasted for eight to nine hours, and at around 4:30 p.m. there were at least three explosions near the building. At around 5:00 pm, a GIGN team landed on the roof of the building and a helicopter landed nearby.[134] Before gendarmes could reach them, the pair ran out of the building and opened fire on gendarmes. The brothers had stated a desire to die as martyrs[135] and the siege came to an end when both Kouachi brothers were shot and killed. Lilian Lepère was rescued unharmed.[136][137] A cache of weapons, including Molotov cocktails and a rocket launcher, was found in the area.[131]
During the standoff in Dammartin-en-Goële, another jihadist named Amedy Coulibaly, who had met the brothers in prison,[138]took hostages in a kosher supermarket at Porte de Vincennes in east Paris, killing those of Jewish faith while leaving the others alive. Coulibaly was reportedly in contact with the Kouachi brothers as the sieges progressed, and told police that he would kill hostages if the brothers were harmed.[126][139] Coulibaly and the Kouachi brothers died within minutes of each other.[140]
Suspected Charlie Hebdo attack driver
The police initially identified the 18-year-old brother-in-law of Chérif Kouachi, a French Muslim student of North African descent and unknown nationality, as a third suspect in the shooting, accused of driving the getaway car.[94] He was believed to have been living in Charleville-Mézières, about 200 km northeast of Paris near the border with Belgium.[141] He turned himself in at a Charleville-Mézières police station early in the morning on 8 January 2015.[141] The man said he was in class at the time of the shooting, and that he rarely saw Chérif Kouachi.[142] Many of his classmates said that he was at school in Charleville-Mézières during the attack.[143] After being detained for nearly 50 hours, police decided not to continue further investigations into the teenager.[144]
Peter Cherif
In December 2018, French authorities arrested Peter Cherif for playing an “important role in organizing” the Charlie Hebdo attack[145]. Not only was Cherif a close friend of brothers Cherif Kouachi and Said Kouachi,[146] but had been on the run from French authorities since 2011. Cherif fled Paris in 2011 just before a court sentenced him to five years in prison on terrorism charges for fighting as an insurgent in Iraq.
Aftermath
France
14 January 2015 cover of Charlie Hebdo rendered in the same style as the 3 November 2011 one. It depicts Muhammad holding a sign saying Je suis Charlie and the caption "All is forgiven".
Location of three anti-Muslim incidents that took place the night of 7 January 2015 and in the early hours of the morning across France.
The remaining staff of Charlie Hebdo continued normal weekly publication, and the following issue print run had 7.95 million copies in six languages.[147] In contrast, its normal print run was 60,000, of which it typically sold 30,000 to 35,000 copies.[148] The cover depicts Muhammad holding a "Je suis Charlie" sign, and is captioned: "All is forgiven".[149] The issue was also sold outside France.[150] The Digital Innovation Press Fund donated €250,000 to support the magazine, matching a donation by the French Press and Pluralism Fund.[151][152] The Guardian Media Group pledged £100,000 to the same cause.[153]
On the night of 8 January, police commissioner Helric Fredou, who had been investigating the attack, committed suicide in his office in Limoges while he was preparing his report shortly after meeting with the family of one of the victims. He was said to have been experiencing depression and burnout.[154]
In the week after the shooting, 54 anti-Muslim incidents were reported in France. These included 21 reports of shootings, grenade throwing at mosques and other Islamic centers, an improvised explosive device attack,[155] and 33 cases of threats and insults.[d] Authorities classified these acts as right-wing terrorism.[155]
On 7 January 2016, the one-year anniversary of the shooting, an attempted attack occurred at a police station in the Goutte d'Or district of Paris. The assailant, a Tunisian man posing as an asylum-seeker from Iraq or Syria, charged police officers with a meat cleaver while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and was subsequently shot and killed.[162][163]
On 14 February 2015 in Copenhagen, Denmark, a public event called "Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression", was organised to honour victims of the attack in January against the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. A series of shootings took place that day and the following day in Copenhagen, with two people killed and five police officers wounded. The suspect, Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, a recently released, radicalized prisoner, was later shot dead by police on 15 February.
On 3 May 2015, two men attempted an attack on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas. The center was hosting an exhibit featuring cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The event was presented as a response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and organised by the group American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI).[164] Both gunmen were killed by police. A Garland Independent School District police officer was injured by a shot to the ankle but survived.
Hours after the shooting, Spanish Interior MinisterJorge Fernández Díaz said that Spain's anti-terrorist security level had been upgraded, and that the country was sharing information with France in relation to the attacks. Spain increased security in public places such as railway stations and increased the police presence on streets throughout the country's cities.[167]
The British Transport Police confirmed on 8 January that they would establish new armed patrols in and around St Pancras International railway station in London, following reports that the suspects were moving north towards Eurostar stations. They confirmed that the extra patrols were for the reassurance of the public and to maintain visibility and that there were no credible reports yet of the suspects heading towards St Pancras.[168]
In Belgium, the staff of P-Magazine were given police protection, although there were no specific threats. P-Magazine had previously published a cartoon of Muhammad drawn by the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.[169]
The phrase Je suis Charlie (French for "I am Charlie") came to be a common worldwide sign of solidarity against the attacks.[172] Many demonstrators used the slogan to express solidarity with the magazine. It appeared on printed and hand-made placards, and was displayed on mobile phones at vigils, and on many websites, particularly media sites such as Le Monde. The hashtag #jesuischarlie quickly trended at the top of Twitter hashtags worldwide following the attack.[173]
Not long after the attack, it is estimated that around 35,000 people gathered in Paris holding "Je suis Charlie" signs. 15,000 people also gathered in Lyon and Rennes.[174] 10,000 people gathered in Nice and Toulouse; 7,000 in Marseille; and 5,000 each in Nantes, Grenoble and Bordeaux. Thousands also gathered in Nantes at the Place Royale.[175] More than 100,000 people in total gathered within France to partake in these demonstrations the evening of 7 January.[176]
A crowd gathered on the evening of 7 January, at Union Square in Manhattan, New York City. French ambassador to the United Nations François Delattre was present; the crowd lit candles, held signs, and sang the French national anthem.[185] Several hundred people also showed up outside of the French consulate in San Francisco with "Je suis Charlie" signs to show their solidarity.[186] In downtown Seattle, another vigil was held where people gathered around a French flag laid out with candles lit around it. They prayed for the victims and held "Je suis Charlie" signs.[187] In Argentina, a large demonstration was held to denounce the attacks and show support for the victims outside the French embassy in the Buenos Aires.[188]
More vigils and gatherings were held in Canada to show support to France and condemn terrorism. Many cities had notable "Je suis Charlie" gatherings, including Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.[189] In Calgary, there was a strong anti-terrorism sentiment. "We're against terrorism and want to show them that they won't win the battle. It's horrible everything that happened, but they won't win," commented one demonstrator. "It's not only against the French journalists or the French people, it's against freedom – everyone, all over the world, is concerned at what's happening."[190] In Montreal, despite a temperature of −21 °C (−6 °F), over 1,000 people gathered chanting "Liberty!" and "Charlie!" outside of the city's French Consulate. Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre was among the gatherers and proclaimed, "Today, we are all French!" He confirmed the city's full support for the people of France and called for strong support regarding freedom, stating that "We have a duty to protect our freedom of expression. We have the right to say what we have to say."[191][192]
8 January
By 8 January, vigils had spread to Australia, with thousands holding "Je suis Charlie" signs. In Sydney, people gathered at Martin Place – the location of a siege less than a month earlier – and in Hyde Park dressed in white clothing as a form of respect. Flags were at half-mast at the city's French consulate where mourners left bouquets.[193] A vigil was held at Federation Square in Melbourne with an emphasis on togetherness. French consul Patrick Kedemos described the gathering in Perth as "a spontaneous, grass roots event". He added, "We are far away but our hearts today [are] with our families and friends in France. It [was] an attack on the liberty of expression, journalists that were prominent in France, and at the same time it's an attack, or a perceived attack on our culture."[194]
On 8 January over 100 demonstrations were held from 18:00 in the Netherlands at the time of the silent march in Paris, after a call to do so from the mayors of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, and other cities. Many Dutch government members joined the demonstrations.[195][196]
Around 700,000 people walked in protest in France on 10 January. Major marches were held in Toulouse (attended by 180,000), Marseille (45,000), Lille (35–40,000), Nice (23–30,000), Pau (80,000), Nantes (75,000), Orléans (22,000), and Caen (6,000).[197]
On 11 January, up to 2 million people, including President Hollande and more than 40 world leaders, led a rally of national unity in the heart of Paris to honour the 17 victims. The demonstrators marched from Place de la République to Place de la Nation. 3.7 million joined demonstrations nationwide in what officials called the largest public rally in France since World War II.[e]
There were also large marches in many other French towns and cities, and marches and vigils in many other cities worldwide.[f]
About 54 people in France, who had publicly supported the attack on Charlie Hebdo, were arrested as "apologists for terrorism" and about 12 people were sentenced to several months in jail.[204][205] Comedian Dieudonné faces the same charges for having written on Facebook "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly".[206]
Following a series of police raids in Belgium, in which two suspected terrorists were killed in a shootout in the city of Verviers, Belgian police stated that documents seized after the raids appear to show that the two were planning to attack sellers of the next edition of Charlie Hebdo released following the attack in Paris.[207] Police named the men killed in the raid as Redouane Hagaoui and Tarik Jadaoun.[207]
Protests following resumed publication
Unrest in Niger following the publication of the post-attack issue of Charlie Hebdo resulted in ten deaths,[208] dozens injured, and at least 45 churches were burned down.[209]The Guardian reported seven churches burned in Niamey alone. Churches were also reported to be on fire in eastern Maradi and Goure. There were violent demonstrations in Karachi in Pakistan, where Asif Hassan, a photographer working for the Agence France-Presse, was seriously injured by a shot to the chest. In Algiers and Jordan, protesters clashed with police, and there were peaceful demonstrations in Khartoum, Sudan, Russia, Mali, Senegal, and Mauritania.[210] In the week after the shooting, 54 anti-Muslim incidents were reported in France. These included 21 reports of shootings and grenade-throwing at mosques and other Islamic centres and 33 cases of threats and insults.[g]
RT reported that a million people attended a demonstration in Grozny, the capital city of the Chechen Republic, protesting the depictions of Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo and proclaiming that Islam is a religion of peace. One of the slogans was "Violence is not the method".[211]
On 8 February 2015 the Muslim Action Forum, an Islamic rights organization, orchestrated a mass demonstration outside Downing Street in London. Placards read, "Stand up for the Prophet" and "Be careful with Muhammad".[212]
Reactions
French Government
PresidentFrançois Hollande addressed media outlets at the scene of the shooting and called it "undoubtedly a terrorist attack", adding that "several [other] terrorist attacks were thwarted in recent weeks".[213] He later described the shooting as a "terrorist attack of the most extreme barbarity",[9] called the slain journalists "heroes",[214] and declared a day of national mourning on 8 January.[215]
At a rally in the Place de la République in the wake of the shooting, mayor of ParisAnne Hidalgo said, "What we saw today was an attack on the values of our republic; Paris is a peaceful place. These cartoonists, writers and artists used their pens with a lot of humour to address sometimes awkward subjects and as such performed an essential function." She proposed that Charlie Hebdo "be adopted as a citizen of honour" by Paris.[216]
Other media publications such as Germany's Berliner Kurier and Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza reprinted cartoons from Charlie Hebdo the day after the attack; the former had a cover of Muhammad reading Charlie Hebdo whilst bathing in blood.[229] At least three Danish newspapers featured Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and the tabloid BT used one on its cover depicting Muhammad lamenting being loved by "idiots".[166] The German newspaper Hamburger Morgenpost re-published the cartoons, and their office was fire-bombed.[230][231] In Russia, LifeNews and Komsomolskaya Pravda suggested that the US had carried out the attack.[232][233] "We are Charlie Hebdo" appeared on the front page of Novaya Gazeta.[233] Russia's media supervision body, Roskomnadzor, stated that publication of the cartoons could lead to criminal charges.[234]
Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to harness and direct Muslim anger over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons against the West.[235] Putin is believed to have backed protests by Muslims in Russia against Charlie Hebdo and the West.[236]
In China, the state-run Xinhua advocated limiting freedom of speech, while another state-run newspaper, Global Times, said the attack was "payback" for what it characterised as Western colonialism.[237][238]
Media organisations carried out protests against the shootings. Libération, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and other French media outlets used black banners carrying the slogan "Je suis Charlie" across the tops of their websites.[239] The front page of Libération's printed version was a different black banner that stated, "Nous sommes tous Charlie" ("We are all Charlie"), while Paris Normandie renamed itself Charlie Normandie for the day.[166] The French and UK versions of Google displayed a black ribbon of mourning on the day of the attack.[9]
Ian Hislop, editor of the British satirical magazine Private Eye, stated, "I am appalled and shocked by this horrific attack – a murderous attack on free speech in the heart of Europe. ... Very little seems funny today."[240] The editor of Titanic, a German satirical magazine, declared, "[W]e are scared when we hear about such violence. However, as a satirist, we are beholden to the principle that every human being has the right to be parodied. This should not stop just because of some idiots who go around shooting".[241] Many cartoonists from around the world responded to the attack on Charlie Hebdo by posting cartoons relating to the shooting.[242] Among them was Albert Uderzo, who came out of retirement at age 87 to depict his character Astérix supporting Charlie Hebdo.[243] In Australia, what was considered the iconic national cartoonist's reaction[244] was a cartoon by David Pope in the Canberra Times, depicting a masked, black-clad figure with a smoking rifle standing poised over a slumped figure of a cartoonist in a pool of blood, with a speech balloon showing the gunman saying, "He drew first."[245]
In India, Mint ran the photographs of copies of Charlie Hebdo on their cover, but later apologised after receiving complaints from the readers.[246]The Hindu also issued an apology after it printed a photograph of some people holding copies of Charlie Hebdo.[247] The editor of the Urdu newspaper Avadhnama, Shireen Dalvi, which printed the cartoons faced several police complaints. She was arrested and released on bail. She began to wear the burqa for the first time in her life and went into hiding.[248][249]
Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm featured drawings by young cartoonists signed with "Je suis Charlie" in solidarity with the victims.[250]Al-Masry al-Youm also displayed on their website a slide show of some Charlie Hebdo cartoons, including controversial ones. This was seen by analyst Jonathan Guyer as a "surprising" and maybe "unprecedented" move, due to the pressure Arab artists can be subject to when depicting religious figures.[251]
In Los Angeles, the Jewish Journal weekly changed its masthead that week to Jewish Hebdo and published the offending Muhammad cartoons.[252]
The Guardian reported that many Muslims and Muslim organisations criticised the attack while some Muslims support it and other Muslims stated they would only condemn it if France condemned the killings of Muslims worldwide".[253] Zvi Bar'el argued in Haaretz that believing the attackers represented Muslims was like believing that Ratko Mladić represented Christians.[254]Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr attacked Charlie Hebdo as the work of solipsists, and sent out a staff-wide e-mail where he argued: "Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile." The e-mail elicited different responses from within the organisation.[255][clarification needed]
Reporters Without Borders criticised the presence of leaders from Egypt, Russia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, saying, "On what grounds are representatives of regimes that are predators of press freedom coming to Paris to pay tribute to Charlie Hebdo, a publication that has always defended the most radical concept of freedom of expression?"[262]
Hacktivist group Anonymous released a statement in which they offered condolences to the families of the victims and denounced the attack as an "inhuman assault" on freedom of expression. They addressed the terrorists: "[a] message for al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other terrorists – we are declaring war against you, the terrorists." As such, Anonymous plans to target jihadist websites and social media accounts linked to supporting Islamic terrorism with the aim of disrupting them and shutting them down.[263]
The League of Arab States released a collective condemnation of the attack. Al-Azhar University released a statement denouncing the attack, stating that violence was never appropriate regardless of "offence committed against sacred Muslim sentiments".[269] The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation condemned the attack, saying that it went against Islam's principles and values.[270]
Malek Merabet, the brother of Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim police officer killed in the shooting, condemned the terrorists who killed his brother: "My brother was Muslim and he was killed by two terrorists, by two false Muslims".[274] Just hours after the shootings, the mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Muslim born in Morocco, condemned Islamist extremists living in the West who "turn against freedom" and told them to "fuck off".[275]
Supporting the attack
Saudi-Australian Islamic preacher Junaid Thorne said: "If you want to enjoy 'freedom of speech' with no limits, expect others to exercise 'freedom of action'."[276]Anjem Choudary, a radical British Islamist, wrote an editorial in USA Today in which he professes justification from the words of Muhammad that those who insult prophets should face death, and that Muhammad should be protected to prevent further violence.[277]Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia[278] said that "as a result, it is assumed necessary in all cases to ensure that the pressure does not exceed the red lines, which will then ultimately lead to irreversible problems".[279]Bahujan Samaj Party leader Yaqub Qureishi, a Muslim MLA and former Minister from Uttar Pradesh in India, offered a reward of ₹510 million (US$8 million) to the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo shootings.[i] On 14 January, about 1,500 Filipino Muslims held a rally in Muslim-majority Marawi in support of the attacks.[284]
Two Islamist newspapers in Turkey ran headlines that were criticised on social media as justifying the attack. The Yeni Akit ran an article entitled "Attack on the magazine that provoked Muslims", and Türkiye ran an article entitled "Attack on the magazine that insulted our Prophet".[291] Yahoo Canada reported a rally in support of the shootings in southern Afghanistan, where the demonstrators called the gunmen "heroes" who meted out punishment for the disrespectful cartoons. The demonstrators also protested Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's swift condemnation of the shootings.[292] Around 40 to 60[293] people gathered in Peshawar, Pakistan, to praise the killers, with a local cleric holding a funeral for the killers, lionizing them as "heroes of Islam."[294][295]
Schools
Le Figaro reported that in a Seine-Saint-Denis primary school, up to 80% of the pupils refused[296] to participate in the minute of silence that the French government decreed for schools.[297] A student told a teacher, "I'll drop you with a Kalashnikov, mate." Other teachers were told Charlie Hebdo "had it coming", and "Me, I'm for the killers". One teacher requested to be transferred.[296]
They also reported that students from a vocational school in Senlis tried to attack and beat students from a neighbouring school while saying "we will kill more Charlie Hebdos". The incident is being investigated by authorities who are handling 37 proceedings of "terrorism glorification" and 17 proceedings of threats of violence in schools.[298]
La Provence reported that a fight broke out in the l'Arc à Orange high school during the minute of silence, as a result of a student post on a social network welcoming the atrocities. The student was later penalised for posting the message.[299]Le Point reported on the "provocations" at a grade school in Grenoble, and cited a girl who said "Madame, people won't let the insult of a drawing of the prophet pass by, it is normal to take revenge. This is more than a joke, it's an insult!"[300]
Le Monde reported that the majority of students they met at Saint-Denis condemned the attack. For them, life is sacred, but so is religion. Marie-Hélène, age 17, said "I didn't really want to stand for the one minute silence, I didn't think it was right to pay homage to a man who insulted Islam and other religions too". Abdul, age 14, said "of course everyone stood for the one minute silence, and that includes all Muslims... I did it for those who were killed, but not for Charlie. I have no pity for him, he had no respect for us Muslims". It also reported that for most students at the Paul Eluard high school in Saint-Denis, freedom of expression is perceived as being "incompatible with their faith". For Erica, who describes herself as Catholic, "there are wrongs on both sides". A fake bomb was planted in the faculty lounge at the school.[301]
France Télévisions reported that a fourth-grade student told her teacher, "We will not be insulted by a drawing of the prophet, it is normal that we take revenge." It also reported that the fake bomb contained the message "I Am Not Charlie".[302]
Salman Rushdie, who is on the Al-Qaeda hit list[17][73] and received death threats over his novel The Satanic Verses, said, "I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity ... religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today."[304]
Swedish artist Lars Vilks, also on the Al-Qaeda hit list[73] for publishing his own satirical drawings of Muhammad, condemned the attacks and said that the terrorists "got what they wanted. They've scared people. People were scared before, but with this attack fear will grow even larger"[305] and that the attack "expose[s] the world we live in today".[306]
American journalist David Brooks wrote an article titled "I Am Not Charlie Hebdo" in The New York Times, arguing that the magazine's humor was childish, but necessary as a voice of satire. He also criticised many of those in America who were ostensibly voicing support for free speech, noting that were the cartoons to be published in an American university newspaper, the editors would be accused of "hate speech" and the university would "have cut financing and shut them down." He called on the attacks to be an impetus toward tearing down speech codes.[307]
American linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky views the popularisation of the Je suis Charlie slogan by politicians and media in the West as hypocritical, comparing the situation to the NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters in 1999, when 16 employees were killed. "There were no demonstrations or cries of outrage, no chants of 'We are RTV' [...]", he noted. Chomsky also mentioned other incidents where US military forces have caused higher civilian death tolls, without leading to intensive reactions such as those that followed the 2015 Paris attacks.[308]
German politician Sahra Wagenknecht, the deputy leader of the party Die Linke in the German Parliament, has compared the US drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen with the terrorist attacks in Paris. ″If a drone controlled by the West extinguishes an innocent Arab or Afghan family, which is just a despicable crime as the attacks in Paris, and it should fill us with the same sadness and the same horror". We should not operate a double standard. Through the drone attacks had been "murdered thousands of innocent people", in the concerned countries, this created helplessness, rage and hatred: "Thereby we prepare the ground for the terror, we officially want to fight." The politician stressed that this war is also waged from German ground. Regarding the Afghanistan war with German participation for years, she said: "Even the Bundeswehr is responsible for the deaths of innocent people in Afghanistan." As the most important consequence of the terrorist attacks in Paris, Wagenknecht demanded the end of all military operations of the West in the Middle East.[309][310]
Bill Donohue, president of the US Catholic League, said Charlie Hebdo had a "long and disgusting record" of mocking religious figures and that Charb "didn't understand the role he played in his tragic death. ... Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive."[311]
Cartoonist-journalist Joe Sacco expressed grief for the victims in a comic strip, and wrote
but ... tweaking the noses of Muslims ... has never struck me as anything other than a vapid way to use the pen ... I affirm our right to "take the piss" ... but we can try to think why the world is the way it is ... and [retaliating with violence against Muslims] is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other's world.[312]
Japanese famous film director, Hayao Miyazaki expressed his opinion about the attack and gave his opinion about the magazine decision to publish the content cited as the trigger for the incident. He said, "I think it's a mistake to caricaturize the figures venerated by another culture. You shouldn't do it." He assert, "Instead of doing something like that, you should first make caricatures of your own country's politicians."[313][314]
Social media
French Minister of the Interior Bernard Cazeneuve declared that by the morning of 9 January 2015, a total of 3,721 messages "condoning the attacks" had already been documented through the French government system.[315][316]
In an open letter titled "To the Youth in Europe and North America", Iran's Supreme LeaderAyatollah Ali Khamenei urged young people in Europe and North America not to judge Islam by the attacks, but to seek their own understanding of the religion.[317]Holly Dagres of Al-Monitor wrote that Khamenei’s followers "actively spammed Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google+ and even Tumblr with links" to the letter with the aim of garnering the attention of people in the West.[318]
^Woolf, Christopher (15 January 2015). "Where did the Paris attackers get their guns?". PRI The World®. Minneapolis, US: Public Radio International. Retrieved 16 January 2015. The weapons seen in various images of the attackers include Zastava M70 assault rifle; submachine gun; several Russian-designed Tokarev TT pistols and a grenade or rocket launcher – probably the Yugoslav M80 Zolja.
^Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak, Majallat al-Da’wah, Islam QA Fatwa 14305: It is essential to respond to those who defame the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) retrieved 12 February 2015 | If we leave the kuffaar and atheists to say whatever they want without denouncing it or punishing them, great mischief will result, which is something that these kuffaar love....Whoever hears the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) being insulted and does not feel any protective jealousy or get angry is not a true believer – we seek refuge with Allaah from humility, kufr and obeying the Shaytaan
^"En direct: Des coups de feu au siège de Charlie Hebdo" (in French). see comments at 13h09 and 13h47: "LeMonde.fr: @Antoine Tout ce que nous savons est qu'ils parlent un français sans accent." and "LeMonde.fr: Sur la même vidéo, on peut entendre les agresseurs. D'après ce qu'on peut percevoir, les hommes semblent parler français sans accent."
^[1] Charlie Hebdo shooting: Hamyd Mourad 'in shock' after wrongly linked to attack on newspaper Australian Broadcasting Corporation 10 January 2015 – Retrieved 11 January 2015
[fr], Yves Charles; , Sylvie; [fr], Cynthia (2004). "Les contours d'une population susceptible d'être musulmane d'après la filiation". L'Islam en France (in French). Presses Universitaires de France. ISBN 978-2-13-053723-6.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
External links
, Are the French still "Charlie"? Reflections after the terrorist attacks in Paris, CIFE Policy Paper No 10, 2015. [2]
Gunmen from an offshoot the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda attack a bus carrying the Togo national football team on its way to the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations, killing three.
The Togo national football team bus attack was a terrorist attack that occurred on 8 January 2010 as the Togo national football team traveled through the Angolan province of Cabinda on the way to the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations tournament, which began on 10 January.[2] A little-known offshoot of the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC), a group promoting independence for the province of Cabinda, known as the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda – Military Position (FLEC-PM), claimed responsibility for the attack.[3] Bus driver Mário Adjoua, the team's assistant manager Améleté Abalo, and media officer Stanislas Ocloo were killed, with several others injured.[4] Secretary General of the FLEC-PM Rodrigues Mingas, currently exiled in France, claimed the attack was not aimed at the Togolese players but at the Angolan forces at the head of the convoy.[3] Authorities reported two suspects were detained in connection with the attacks.[5]
Attack
Map of Cabinda, an Angolan exclave. The main part of Angola is to the south east with the Democratic Republic of Congo in between (labelled on the map with its former name Zaire).
On 8 January 2010, the Togo national team bus was attacked by gunmen as it traveled through the Angolan province of Cabinda for the Africa Cup of Nations.[6] The bus came under machine gun fire just after it had crossed the border from the Republic of the Congo into the Angolan exclave province of Cabinda.[7] All of Togo's initial Group B games were to take place in the Estádio Nacional do Chiazi stadium in Cabinda.
According to rebel leader Mingas, the attack was carried out by his Commander Sametonne who claimed 15 FLEC fighters participated in the ambush.[8] The siege lasted for at least 30 minutes.[9] The bus driver, Mário Adjoua, was killed,[10] cutting off all possible means of escape.[9] The passengers hid beneath the seats. A security team of around 10 men in two cars travelling with the team returned the attackers' fire.[11]
FC Vaslui defender Serge Akakpo was badly wounded by bullets and lost blood,[12] as was goalkeeper Kodjovi Obilalé.[11] Alongside both players, Vice-President Gabriel Ameyi of the Togolese Football Federation and seven members including a journalist and two team doctors were wounded.[13]Emmanuel Adebayor said the attack was, "one of the worst things I've ever been through in my life."[9] He had to carry his screaming teammates into the hospital as he was one of those least affected. Thomas Dossevi said, "It was a real hell. Twenty minutes of shots, of blood and fear," and Richmond Forson said, "The bus carrying the luggage was riddled.[14] Maybe they thought we were there. Then they opened fire, even against our coaches. It was terrible."[9] Dossevi said the team was "machine-gunned, like dogs."[9][15]
The Angolan separatist guerrilla group Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) has claimed responsibility for the attack.[16] A statement signed by FLEC's secretary general Rodrigues Mingas said, "This operation is just the start of a series of planned actions that will continue to take place in the whole territory of Cabinda."[17]French Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Bernard Valero said that "inciting violence is totally unacceptable" and Mingas could be prosecuted under French laws for making such statements.[8]
A larger offshoot group known as Armed Forces of Cabinda (FLEC-FAC) also claimed the responsibility. The leader of the group Jean-Claude N'Zita dismissed Mingas' faction as opportunist.[18]
Mário Adjoua – Angolan-born bus driver (died on 8 January 2010)[23]
Wounded
Kodjovi Obilalé[24] – was shot in the lower back. The bullet split into several pieces making its way into his stomach. The goalkeeper's condition was reportedly stabilized on 11 January. South African doctors suggested leaving bullet fragments in his stomach since the operation to remove them would possibly cause more damage.[25]
In connection with the deadly attack on the Togolese national football team, the Angolan police arrested two suspects on 10 January 2010.[29] As the national radio reported, citing the prosecutor, the arrests were made in the Angolan enclave of Cabinda, located between the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in West Africa. A total of 9 suspects were arrested.
Angola arrested four men – Monsignor Raul Tati, a Roman Catholic priest and later bishop, Francisco Luemba, a lawyer, Belchior Tati, an economist and Jose Benjamin Fuca, a former police officer – who had documents about Flec and had travelled to Paris for meetings with exiled leaders. In August, they were jailed for links to FLEC-PM. A court in Cabinda found the four guilty of crimes against state security; although the judge did not say whether the four had direct links to the attack. Their prison sentences ranged from three to five years.[citation needed] On 11 January, two FLEC operatives were arrested near the site of the shooting.[30]
The trial was criticised by human rights groups that accused the government of using the attacks to justify a crackdown on critics. Martinho Nombo, a lawyer taking part in the court hearings, said the judge convicted them only because they had spoken or written about independence for Cabinda. "This is unconstitutional. A judge cannot jail someone for nothing. This will only worsen Angola's poor record on human rights and the whole peace process with FLEC. The supposed link was implied rather than stated. They were convicted on the basis of those documents." Human Rights Watch also criticised the conviction calling the four "activists" and saying "This is clearly a lost opportunity to restore justice in Angola, and particularly in Cabinda."[31]
Aftermath
The Togolese team called for a boycott of the competition as a result of the attack.[32]Alaixys Romao and Thomas Dossevi spoke of their disgust and their lack of desire to compete following their experience.[32] Togo's national football squad subsequently withdrew from the tournament. Togolese midfielder Alaixys Romao said the team was also trying to persuade the other teams in their group to pull out of the competition.[7] After seeing the aftermath of the attack, members of the Mozambique national team flying into Luanda asked for assurances of protection.[33]
Togo was due to play its first game of the tournament against Ghana, three days after the attack on 11 January 2010.[34] STV Sport reported that Togo pulled out of the tournament a day later.[35]
Later there was something of a reversal as two of the Togolese players said they would play in the African Nations Cup in "memory of the dead."[36]Thomas Dossevi, one of the Togolese players, announced that Togo would compete "to show our national colours, our values and that we are men."[7][37] The Togolese government, however, subsequently ordered the team to return home after all, on grounds of security.[38][39]
On 11 January 2010, Togo was officially disqualified from the Africa Cup upon their return to their homeland. The Togolese team had left on Sunday, two days after the attack on the team bus. "The team is disqualified, this group will consist of three teams", said a spokesman for the Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF). According to Togo Sports Minister, Christophe Padumhokou Tchao, Togo's official request to re-join the tournament was denied despite the reasoning to mourn the fallen members of the team.[40]
Reactions
Angolan government minister António Bento Bembe called it an "act of terrorism",[10] and stepped up security at the tournament. Martin O'Neill, manager of player Moustapha Salifou at Aston Villa, expressed his shock on the club's website.[10]Manchester City and Portsmouth football clubs expressed concerns over the safety of their players.[10] Players from other teams in Africa, such as Benni McCarthy and Momo Sissoko, condemned the attack.[41] Togolese Prime Minister Gilbert Houngbo ordered a three-day period of national mourning. "The government has opted for a prolonged nationwide three days of mourning period, which will begin on Monday 11 January 2010," Houngbo said on state television.[42]
Danny Jordaan, organiser of the 2010 FIFA World Cup which was played in South Africa in June and July 2010, dismissed concerns that the attack had any relevance to the security arrangements for the World Cup.[43]
On 12 April, Togo captain Emmanuel Adebayor announced his retirement from international football, stating that he was "still haunted by the events I witnessed on that horrible afternoon."[44] Adebeyor subsequently returned to international duty in November 2011 following assurances from the Togo Football Federation regarding safety,[45] making his comeback in a 1–0 win over Guinea-Bissau in a 2014 World Cup qualifier.[46]
^Watson, Roland; Costello, Miles; Fleming, Sam; Jonathan Clayton; Anne Barrowclough; Ben Smith (10 January 2010). "Togo team flying home after terrorist attack". The Times. London. Retrieved 10 January 2010.
^"Hull boss Phil Brown". BBC Sport. 9 January 2010. F.A. Premier League Managers Phil Brown(Hull City),Avram Grant (Portsmouth F.C.) and Harry Redknapp(Tottenham Hotspurs) also brought up the security arrangements and have asked if the players from these teams would return from the tournament back to England. Retrieved 9 January 2010.
The Senate trial in the impeachment of U.S. President Bill Clinton begins.
Impeachment of Bill Clinton
1998 Presidential impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton
Impeachment of Bill Clinton
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right.
On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868), when the House formally adopted two articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication; two other articles were considered, but were rejected.[a] A trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office—in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Clinton remained in office for the remainder of his second term.[4]
In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas.[5] Clinton attempted to delay a trial until after he left office, but in May 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Clinton's claim that the Constitution immunized him from civil lawsuits, and shortly thereafter the pre-trial discovery process commenced.[6]
Jones's attorneys wanted to prove Clinton had engaged in a pattern of behavior with women who supported her claims. In late 1997, Linda Tripp began secretly recording conversations with her friend Monica Lewinsky, a former intern and Department of Defense employee. In those recordings, Lewinsky divulged that she had had a sexual relationship with Clinton. Tripp shared this information with Jones's lawyers, who added Lewinsky to their witness list in December 1997. According to the Starr Report, a U.S. federal government report written by appointed Independent Counsel Ken Starr on his investigation of President Clinton, after Lewinsky appeared on the witness list Clinton began taking steps to conceal their relationship. Some of the steps he took included suggesting to Lewinsky that she file a false affidavit to misdirect the investigation, encouraging her to use cover stories, concealing gifts he had given her, and attempting to help her find gainful employment to try to influence her testimony.[citation needed]
In a January 17, 1998 sworn deposition, Clinton denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair", or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky.[7] His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky. The Starr Report states that the following day, Clinton "coached" his secretary Betty Currie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify.
Bill Clinton makes a presentation that ends with a short commentary on the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. The presentation is known for the quote "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (6:22)
After rumors of the scandal reached the news, Clinton publicly said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."[8] But months later, Clinton admitted his relationship with Lewinsky was "wrong" and "not appropriate". Lewinsky engaged in oral sex with Clinton several times.[9][10]
The judge in the Jones case later ruled the Lewinsky matter immaterial, and threw out the case in April 1998 on the grounds that Jones had failed to show any damages. After Jones appealed, Clinton agreed in November 1998 to settle the case for $850,000 while still admitting no wrongdoing.[11]
Independent counsel investigation
The charges arose from an investigation by Ken Starr, an Independent Counsel.[12] With the approval of United States Attorney GeneralJanet Reno, Starr conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses, including the Whitewater controversy, the firing of White House travel agents, and the alleged misuse of FBI files. On January 12, 1998, Linda Tripp, who had been working with Jones's lawyers, informed Starr that Lewinsky was preparing to commit perjury in the Jones case and had asked Tripp to do the same. She also said Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan was assisting Lewinsky. Based on the connection to Jordan, who was under scrutiny in the Whitewater probe, Starr obtained approval from Reno to expand his investigation into whether Lewinsky and others were breaking the law.
A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is". Contending his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."[13] Starr obtained further evidence of inappropriate behavior by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky. Based on the president's conflicting testimony, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury. Starr submitted his findings to Congress in a lengthy document, the Starr Report, which was released to the public via the Internet a few days later and included descriptions of encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky.[14] Starr was criticized by Democrats for spending $70 million on the investigation.[15] Critics of Starr also contend that his investigation was highly politicized because it regularly leaked tidbits of information to the press in violation of legal ethics, and because his report included lengthy descriptions which were humiliating and irrelevant to the legal case.[16][17]
December 18, 1998: The House continued debate on four articles of impeachment against President Clinton for perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
The Republican controlled House of Representatives decided with a bipartisan vote of 258–176 (31 Democrats joined Republicans) to commence impeachment proceedings against Clinton on October 8, 1998.[18] Since Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing and held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 midterm elections. Impeachment was one of the major issues in those elections.
Political context
In the November 1998 House elections, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House, but the Republicans still maintained majority control. The results went against what House SpeakerNewt Gingrich predicted, who, before the election, had been reassured by private polling that Clinton's scandal would result in Republican gains of up to thirty House seats. Shortly after the elections, Gingrich, who had been one of the leading advocates for impeachment, announced he would resign from Congress as soon as he was able to find somebody to fill his vacant seat;[19][20] Gingrich fulfilled this pledge, and officially resigned from Congress on January 3, 1999.[21]
Impeachment proceedings were held during the post-election, "lame duck" session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress. Unlike the case of the 1974 impeachment process against Richard Nixon, the committee hearings were perfunctory but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides. The Speaker-designate, Representative Bob Livingston, chosen by the Republican Party Conference to replace Gingrich as House Speaker, announced the end of his candidacy for Speaker and his resignation from Congress from the floor of the House after his own marital infidelity came to light.[22]
In the same speech, Livingston also encouraged Clinton to resign. Clinton chose to remain in office and urged Livingston to reconsider his resignation.[23]
Many other prominent Republican members of Congress (including Dan Burton,[22]Helen Chenoweth,[22] and Henry Hyde,[22] the chief House manager of Clinton's trial in the Senate) had infidelities exposed about this time, all of whom voted for impeachment. Publisher Larry Flynt offered a reward for such information, and many supporters of Clinton accused Republicans of hypocrisy.[22]
House of Representatives impeachment votes
On December 11, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee agreed to send three articles of impeachment to the full House for consideration. The vote on two articles, grand juryperjury and obstruction of justice, was 21–17, both along party lines. On the third, perjury in the Paula Jones case, the committee voted 20–18, with Republican Lindsey Graham joining with Democrats, in order to give President Clinton "the legal benefit of the doubt".[24] The next day, December 12, the committee agreed to send a fourth and final article, for abuse of power, to the full House by a 21–17 vote, again, along party lines.[25]
Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (first article, 228–206)[26] and obstruction of justice (third article, 221–212).[27] The two other articles were rejected, the count of perjury in the Jones case (second article, 205–229)[28] and abuse of power (fourth article, 148–285).[29] Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached; the first, Andrew Johnson, was impeached in 1868.[30][31] The only other previous U.S. president to be the subject of formal House impeachment proceedings was Richard Nixon in 1973–74. The Judiciary Committee agreed to a resolution containing three articles of impeachment in July 1974, but Nixon resigned from office soon thereafter, before the House took up the resolution.[32]
H. Res. 611 – Impeaching President Bill Clinton December 19, 1998
Article I, charging Clinton with perjury, alleged in part that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:
the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;
prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him;
prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and
his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.[33][34]
Article II, charging Clinton with obstruction of justice alleged in part that:
The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
...corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
...corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
...corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
...intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
...at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
...related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
...made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.[33][35]
Senate trial
Tickets dated January 14 and 15, 1999, for President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial
Pretrial
The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice of the United StatesWilliam Rehnquist presiding. The first day consisted of formal presentation of the charges against Clinton, and of Rehnquist swearing in all arguants in the trial.
A resolution on rules and procedure for the trial was adopted unanimously on the following day;[37] however, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial. The trial remained in recess while briefs were filed by the House (January 11) and Clinton (January 13).[38][39]
Testimony
The managers presented their case over three days, from January 14 to 16, with discussion of the facts and background of the case; detailed cases for both articles of impeachment (including excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony that Clinton had made the previous August); matters of interpretation and application of the laws governing perjury and obstruction of justice; and argument that the evidence and precedents justified removal of the President from office by virtue of "willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice".[40] The defense presentation took place January 19–21. Clinton's defense counsel argued that Clinton's grand jury testimony had too many inconsistencies to be a clear case of perjury, that the investigation and impeachment had been tainted by partisan political bias, that the President's approval rating of more than 70 percent indicated his ability to govern had not been impaired by the scandal, and that the managers had ultimately presented "an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from office".[40] January 22 and 23 were devoted to questions from members of the Senate to the House managers and Clinton's defense counsel. Under the rules, all questions (over 150) were to be written down and given to Rehnquist to read to the party being questioned.
On January 25, Senator Robert Byrd moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment for lack of merit. On the following day, Representative Bryant moved to call witnesses to the trial, a question the Senate had scrupulously avoided to that point. In both cases, the Senate voted to deliberate on the question in private session, rather than public, televised procedure. On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a nearly party line vote of 56–44, while the motion to depose witnesses passed by the same margin. A day later, the Senate voted down motions to move directly to a vote on the articles of impeachment and to suppress videotaped depositions of the witnesses from public release, Senator Russ Feingold again voting with the Republicans.
Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky.
On February 8, closing arguments were presented with each side allotted a three-hour time slot. On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared:
There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit.[40]
Chief Prosecutor Henry Hyde countered:
A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious... We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President... And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done.[40]
Verdict
On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict on either charge and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[3][41][42] Senator Arlen Specter voted "not proved"[b] for both charges,[43] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty". All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges, as did five Republicans; they were joined by five additional Republicans in voting "not guilty" on the perjury charge.[3][41][42]
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District JudgeSusan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[47]
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...[47]
On the day before leaving office on January 20, 2001, Clinton, in what amounted to a plea bargain, agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansaslaw license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with the independent counsel Robert Ray to end his investigation without filing any criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice.[48][49] Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar as a result of his law license suspension. However, as is customary, he was allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment. Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar during the 40-day appeals period.[50]
Civil settlement with Paula Jones
Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.[51][52]
Political ramifications
Opponents of Clinton's impeachment demonstrating outside the Capitol in December 1998
Polls conducted during 1998 and early 1999 showed that only about one-third of Americans supported Clinton's impeachment or conviction. However, one year later, when it was clear that impeachment would not lead to the ousting of the President, half of Americans said in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that they supported impeachment but 57% approved of the Senate's decision to keep him in office and two thirds of those polled said the impeachment was harmful to the country.[53]
While Clinton's job approval rating rose during the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment, his poll numbers with regard to questions of honesty, integrity and moral character declined.[54] As a result, "moral character" and "honesty" weighed heavily in the next presidential election. According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, "post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character."[55][56][57]
According to an analysis of the election by Stanford University:
A more political explanation is the belief in Gore campaign circles that disapproval of President Clinton's personal behavior was a serious threat to the vice president's prospects. Going into the election the one negative element in the public's perception of the state of the nation was the belief that the country was morally on the wrong track, whatever the state of the economy or world affairs. According to some insiders, anything done to raise the association between Gore and Clinton would have produced a net loss of support—the impact of Clinton's personal negatives would outweigh the positive impact of his job performance on support for Gore. Thus, hypothesis four suggests that a previously unexamined variable played a major role in 2000—the retiring president's personal approval.[58]
The Stanford analysis, however, presented different theories and mainly argued that Gore had lost because he decided to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign. The writers of it concluded:[58]
We find that Gore's oft-criticized personality was not a cause of his under-performance. Rather, the major cause was his failure to receive a historically normal amount of credit for the performance of the Clinton administration... [and] failure to get normal credit reflected Gore's peculiar campaign which in turn reflected fear of association with Clinton's behavior.[58]
According to the America's Future Foundation:
In the wake of the Clinton scandals, independents warmed to Bush's promise to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House'. According to Voter News Service, the personal quality that mattered most to voters was 'honesty'. Voters who chose 'honesty' preferred Bush over Gore by over a margin of five to one. Forty Four percent of Americans said the Clinton scandals were important to their vote. Of these, Bush reeled in three out of every four.[59]
Political commentators have argued that Gore's refusal to have Clinton campaign with him was a bigger liability to Gore than Clinton's scandals.[58][60][61][62][63] The 2000 U.S. Congressional election also saw the Democrats gain more seats in Congress.[64] As a result of this gain, control of the Senate was split 50–50 between both parties,[65] and Democrats would gain control over the Senate after Republican Senator Jim Jeffords defected from his party in early 2001 and agreed to caucus with the Democrats.[66]
Al Gore reportedly confronted Clinton after the election, and "tried to explain that keeping Clinton under wraps [during the campaign] was a rational response to polls showing swing voters were still mad as hell over the Year of Monica". According to the AP, "during the one-on-one meeting at the White House, which lasted more than an hour, Gore used uncommonly blunt language to tell Clinton that his sex scandal and low personal approval ratings were a hurdle he could not surmount in his campaign... [with] the core of the dispute was Clinton's lies to Gore and the nation about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."[67][68][69] Clinton, however, was unconvinced by Gore's argument and insisted to Gore that he would have won the election if he had embraced the administration and its good economic record.[67][68][69]
Ensuing events for House managers
Of the 13 members of the House who managed Clinton's trial in the Senate, one lost to a Democrat in his 2000 bid for re-election (James E. Rogan, to Adam Schiff). Charles Canady retired from Congress in 2000, following through on a previous term limits pledge to voters, and Bill McCollum ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate. Asa Hutchinson, after being re-elected in 2000, left Congress after being appointed head of the Drug Enforcement Administration by President George W. Bush. In 2014, Hutchinson was elected governor of Arkansas. In 2002, two former House managers lost their seats after redistricting placed them in the same district as another incumbent (Bob Barr lost to John Linder in a Republican primary, and George Gekas lost to Democrat Tim Holden), while two more ran for the U.S. Senate (Lindsey Graham successfully, Ed Bryant unsuccessfully). The other five remained in the House well into the 2000s, and two (Jim Sensenbrenner and Steve Chabot) are still members (although Chabot lost his seat to Steve Driehaus in the 2008 elections, Chabot defeated Driehaus in a 2010 rematch). In 2009, Sensenbrenner served again as a manager for the impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent of Texas[70] as well as serving in 2010 as Republican lead manager in the impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana.[71]
^Prior to Bill Clinton, the only other U.S. president aside from Andrew Johnson to be the subject of formal House impeachment proceedings was Richard Nixonin 1973–74, but he resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, before the House voted on his impeachment.[2]
^"House begins impeachment of Nixon". history.com. A&E Television Networks. February 26, 2019 [Published November 24, 2009]. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
^ abcBaker, Peter (February 13, 1999). "The Senate Acquits President Clinton". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Co. Archived from the original on November 10, 2013. Retrieved December 4, 2013.
^Riley, Russell L. "Bill Clinton: Domestic Affairs". millercenter.org. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Miller Center, University of Virginia. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
^Gibbs, Nancy; Duffy, Michael (November 16, 1998). "Fall Of The House Of Newt". Time. Archived from the original on August 21, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.(subscription required)
^ abRiley, Russell L. "Bill Clinton: Domestic Affairs". Charlottesville, Virginia: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
^Specter, Arlen (February 12, 1999). "Senator Specter's closed-door impeachment statement". CNN. Archived from the original on June 14, 2008. Retrieved March 13, 2008. My position in the matter is that the case has not been proved. I have gone back to Scottish law where there are three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proved. I am not prepared to say on this record that President Clinton is not guilty. But I am certainly not prepared to say that he is guilty. There are precedents for a Senator voting present. I hope that I will be accorded the opportunity to vote not proved in this case.... But on this record, the proofs are not present. Juries in criminal cases under the laws of Scotland have three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not proved. Given the option in this trial, I suspect that many Senators would choose 'not proved' instead of 'not guilty'. That is my verdict: not proved. The President has dodged perjury by calculated evasion and poor interrogation. Obstruction of justice fails by gaps in the proofs.
^Neal v. Clinton, Civ. No. 2000-5677, Agreed Order of Discipline (Ark. Cir. Ct. January 19, 2001) ("Mr. Clinton admits and acknowledges... that his discovery responses interfered with the conduct of the Jones case by causing the court and counsel for the parties to expend unnecessary time, effort, and resources...").
^Bishin, B. G.; Stevens, D.; Wilson, C. (Summer 2006). "Character Counts?: Honesty and Fairness in Election 2000". Public Opinion Quarterly. 70 (2): 235–48. doi:10.1093/poq/nfj016.
^Weiner, Todd J. (May 15, 2004). "Blueprint for Victory". America's Future Foundation. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 12, 2015.
^ abHarris, John F. (February 7, 2001). "Blame divides Gore, Clinton". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
^"Sensenbrenner, House Vote to Impeach Judge Kent of Texas" (Press release). Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. June 19, 2009. Archived from the original on January 22, 2011. Retrieved January 22, 2011. After voting to impeach, Sensenbrenner was selected to serve as one of the five House Managers who will try the case in the Senate.
^"Sensenbrenner to Serve as House Manager for Porteous Impeachment" (Press release). Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. March 11, 2010. Archived from the original on January 22, 2011. Retrieved January 22, 2011. Sensenbrenner was selected to serve as one of the five House Managers who will try the case in the Senate after the resolution passed.
India
Pakistan
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
This article incorporates 
