|
auxiliaires > do >
valeur épistémique
ce que j'affirme est vrai, prouvé,
indiscutable, scientifique
la question que je pose est essentielle
Bob Englehart
Hartford, Connecticut -- The Hartford Courant
Cagle
8.12.2005
http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/englehart.asp
Condoleezza Rice, 66th Secretary of State
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
Jack Ohman
Portland, OR, The Portland Oregonian
Cagle 7.12.2005
http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/ohman.asp
Condoleezza Rice, 66th Secretary of State
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
John Deering The
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Cagle
11.11.2005
http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/deering.asp
Left: George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States.
Right: Vice-president Dick Cheney.
The Guardian G2
p. 1 8.2.2006
The Guardian
p. 9 16.11.2005
Interview
What type of policing do we want?
Met police chief Sir Ian Blair speaks on the eve of tonight's Richard Dimbleby
lecture
Martin Kettle The Guardian
Wednesday November 16, 2005
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/story/0,11660,1643378,00.html
The Guardian
G2 p. 1
5.1.2006
George Bush insists that Iran must not be
allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the
Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?
In an extract from his explosive new book,
New York Times reporter James Risen
reveals the bungles and miscalculations that led to a spectacular intelligence
fiasco
The Guardian
Thursday January 5, 2006
http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1678218,00.html
The Guardian G2
p. 1 15.10.2004
http://digital.guardian.co.uk/guardian/2004/10/15/pages/two1.shtml
The Guardian p. 5
9.2.2007
The Guardian Family
p. 5 19.11.2005
Reform agenda appears to be struggling
Our survey of 400 has produced worrying results.
It suggests that lessons still
haven't been learned since the Laming inquiry in 2003
Chris Smith The Guardian
Social Care p. 2
Wednesday October 19, 2005
http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcare/story/0,7890,1594888,00.html
The Guardian p. 24
28.9.2005
August 15, 2005
Vol. 166 No. 7
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601050815,00.html
After 3 Decades, Guilty Verdict in Rape Case, With Help From
DNA
November 10, 2005
The New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
Thirty-two years after a young woman was raped
at knifepoint in a Manhattan apartment, the man accused at the time was
convicted yesterday for the assault, in a case that displayed the power of DNA
testing to identify elusive criminals.
The guilty verdict against Fletcher A. Worrell, which a jury reached after
deliberating less than two hours, closed a circle of justice for the victim,
Kathleen Ham, now 58. Mr. Worrell's 1974 trial for the rape ended in a hung jury
after his defense lawyer suggested that Ms. Ham was a prostitute and tried to
cast doubt on whether she had been violently assaulted.
More than three decades later - after Mr. Worrell was arrested last year after
trying to buy a gun in Georgia - Ms. Ham took the witness stand last week. She
retold the story of the assault, and of the insomnia and painful personal
isolation she had lived with virtually every moment since.
"I feel very, very vindicated," said Ms. Ham, with a smile of relief, at a news
conference after the verdict. "It's taken a long time." Ms. Ham, now a lawyer
living in California, has insisted that her name be published along with
accounts of the trial, saying that she is not ashamed to have been a victim of
rape.
Mr. Worrell, 59, who was tried the first time under the name Clarence Williams,
was convicted in State Supreme Court in Manhattan of one count of first-degree
rape and one count of robbery. Police found four dollar bills, which he had
taken from Ms. Ham's purse, in his pocket when they first arrested him just a
few minutes after the rape, at dawn on June 26, 1973.
Mr. Worrell faces 8 to 25 years in prison on each count, and is scheduled to be
sentenced on Nov. 28. But this trial was just the beginning of multiple charges
being brought against him. The authorities say he has been linked by DNA
evidence to at least 21 other sexual assaults in Maryland and New Jersey,
including a string of rapes in Montgomery County, Md., attributed to an attacker
the police called the Silver Spring rapist.
Mr. Worrell jumped bail in 1975 before he could be tried again for Ms. Ham's
rape, and left New York. He was arrested in Georgia in May 2004 after he tried
to buy a shotgun, and a background check turned up the open warrant. But the
biggest break in the case came when a DNA sample was recovered from the
underpants that Ms. Ham wore on the day of the crime, which were found stuffed
in the files in the Manhattan district attorney's cold case unit.
In her closing argument this morning, a prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney
Melissa Mourges, said that the DNA profile recovered from the underwear and Mr.
Worrell's DNA profile were "identical in every way." Ms. Mourges told the jurors
that Yankee Stadium could be filled with 50,000 people once a day for 54,000
years and there would not be another person who would match Mr. Worrell's
profile.
Mr. Worrell's attack, Ms. Mourges said, was his attempt to impose his "total
domination" and to "reduce Kathleen Ham to nothing but a piece of meat."
But, Ms. Mourges told the jurors, in the new trial, "it was her turn to hold the
power - her turn, because DNA works."
Ms. Ham was not able to identify Mr. Worrell in the first trial because he
pulled a sheet over her head during the attack, so she never saw his face.
In a 57-minute summation, Mr. Worrell's lawyer, Michael F. Rubin, argued that
the DNA analysis done by the chief medical examiner's office was incomplete. Mr.
Rubin said there might have been genetic mutations that could have disqualified
his client.
The jurors were not convinced.
"Everybody agreed that the DNA evidence was so strong," said the jury foreman,
Celestino Gregorio, 57, a sales manager for a pharmaceutical company. "That's
why everybody voted guilty in this case."
Mr. Gregorio said that if Mr. Rubin had intended to challenge the science of the
DNA testing, he should have called an expert witness rather than make the
argument himself.
Mr. Rubin did not call any witnesses.
Mr. Worrell, in a brown cap and a bushy salt-and-pepper beard, sat impassively
as the jury announced its verdict. He exhibited no emotion throughout the two
and a half days of trial.
Several jurors said they were shocked when they learned, after the trial, that
Mr. Worrell had been linked to other rapes. Robert L. Jones, 56, an illustrator
who lives in Harlem, said, "It makes me feel better about taking him off the
street and putting him away for rest of his life."
The verdict, and the role of DNA, prompted District Attorney Robert M.
Morgenthau of Manhattan to propose a change in state law to eliminate the
statute of limitations for violent sexual assault and to elevate those crimes to
the highest level of felony, a Class A felony.
"I felt such horrible guilt," Ms. Ham said of the first trial. "I knew a monster
had been unleashed on the city." She, too, supported an end to the statute of
limitations.
"DNA doesn't
fade away," Ms. Ham said, "and DNA
doesn't lie."
Anemona Hartocollis contributed reporting for this article.
After
3 Decades, Guilty Verdict in Rape Case, With Help From DNA, NYT, 10.11.2005,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/nyregion/10rape.html
Budget blues
The Audit Commission says the government's supported housing programme is in
danger of failing vulnerable people.
Do the
experts agree?
Budget
blues, Interviews by Matt Weaver, G, 19.10.2005,
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1594920,00.html
Do the
arts matter?
Next month, John Carey, emeritus professor of English Literature at Oxford
university, publishes What Good Are the Arts? It's the queen bee of questions.
And it leads to a swarm of others: What is art? Who decides? Are there absolute
standards? Can art make us better people? To answer these, Carey gathers a crowd
of philosophers, poets, artists, writers and ordinary people, with provoking
results. Carey's own definition of art is this: a work of art is anything that
anyone has ever considered a work of art. As he well knows, this will only
deepen the mystery and excite further argument, and it is in this spirit that
The Observer asked a few people who ought to know...
Headline
and sub, O, 8.5.2005,
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1478754,00.html
Did Blair
mislead us?
Two legal experts make their case
29 April 2005
The Independent
Yes, says Maurice Mendelson QC, the expert
in international law
Finally, then, the Attorney General's opinion of 7 March 2003 has been extracted
from a most reluctant Government. Does it amount to a "smoking gun", or is it
just a damp squib, as Tony Blair claimed yesterday?
Attorneys general are not usually trained in international law. For this reason,
the Foreign Office has lawyers who are experts in this, and at least one is
seconded to the AG's office to advise him. We know (from the resignation letter
of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the FO), and the opinion now
confirms, that Lord Goldsmith originally shared the specialists' grave doubts
about the legality of the war. We also know he had been pressed by US government
lawyers to change his original view.
The opinion of 7 March looks much like that of a lawyer already straining to the
utmost to support a course of action about which he entertains grave doubts, but
on which his client is set. He canvasses the arguments on both sides; but the
best he can say is that a "reasonable argument" can be made in favour of going
to war.
But he is sitting on the fence. If he was strongly of the view that the war was
legal, he would have said so. (In this context, it is relevant to note that most
qualified international lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic were always clear
that the war would be illegal without a further Security Council resolution.)
There seems little doubt that if the Cabinet, let alone Parliament, had been
shown this opinion, Mr Blair would have had far more difficulty in getting
backing for war.
Knowing that, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and Baroness
Morgan of Huyton had a meeting with Lord Goldsmith. The Chief of Defence Staff
was also dissatisfied without unequivocal advice that the war was legal. Mr
Blair presented him with what, with hindsight, can be seen as largely false
information about the threat, whether deliberately or innocently is a subject
much debated. The most charitable interpretation is that Mr Blair believed what
he wanted to believe. Finally, on 17 March, Lord Goldsmith came up with what he
claimed was his "opinion", which stated unequivocally that war was lawful even
without the further Security Council resolution. This was just a one-page set of
conclusions, not an opinion. No self-respecting lawyer, even if he had persuaded
himself of the legality of the war, could have written a proper opinion without
canvassing the strong counter-arguments.
Yet the Government consistently sought to give the impression that the document
was the only formal opinion, and that the AG had no doubts. He backed them in
this. Whether the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the AG actually
lied, the weasel words and economy with the truth was breathtaking, and sullied
an already tarnished political process. Even damp squibs can sometimes sputter
into life. Whether this one will remains to be seen.
No, says Geoffrey Bindman, the prominent
human rights lawyer
Everyone agrees military action was only lawful if authorised by the Security
Council. In November 1990, in resolution 678, it authorised action to liberate
Kuwait. By April 1991, that job had been done and resolution 687 affirmed the
ceasefire but Lord Goldsmith believes the authority for war did not come to an
end there, but lay dormant pending the elimination by Iraq of its WMD and
compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements.
By November 2002, resolution 1441 was designed to give the Iraqis a last chance
to comply but did not itself authorise force. As Lord Goldsmith says "the
argument that 1441 itself provides the authorisation depends on the revival of
the express authorisation to use force given in 1990 by Security Council
resolution 678".
This, says Lord Goldsmith, raises two questions. Is the revival argument sound?
If so, can breach of 1441 revive the authorisation? He accepts the revival is
controversial and not widely accepted but favours it.
But he also accepts 1441 required the matter to come back to the council for
discussion before the revival could take effect. He thought it unclear whether
that meant a further decision had to be made but he though it was for the
council to assess whether Iraq was in material breach of 1441.
It was finely balanced, so he recommended a further resolution authorising
force. He thought a case for revival of the old authorisation could be made
without a further resolution but only if hard evidence of non-compliance and
non-co-operation could be demonstrated.
On 17 March, Lord Goldsmith's answer was a brief and straight summary of the
revival argument with the assertion that Iraq was in material breach of 1441 -
but without any of the doubts in his full opinion.
In the Commons on 18 March, the Prime Minister said "the opinion of the Attorney
General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq having been at the time of
resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use
force under resolution 678 has revived and continues today".
That was not an unfair summary of what Lord Goldsmith said on 17 March. It falls
lamentably short of a fair summary of the difficulties of the opinion of 7
March.
I am saddened his informative opinion was not available to assist deliberations
of Cabinet and Parliament. It was entirely wrong, in my opinion, that Parliament
and the public did not have the opportunity to debate the legal and moral issues
arising from Mr Blair's reliance on a dubious legal argument.
There is no evidence Mr Blair set out to deliberately mislead Parliament or the
country. The Prime Minister preferred to rely on authorisation given 12 years
earlier.
I do not charge him with dishonesty but I believe the failure to disclose the
full opinion was a serious mistake that could have influenced Parliament's
decision to support the war.
Did
Blair mislead us?: Two legal experts make their case, I, 29.4.2005,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634052
Does spelling
really matter?
As Molesworth might have observed, any fule kno it don't. Tony Blair wrote
"toomorrow" three times in a memo, Keats once spelled fruit as "furuit", Yeats
wrote peculiarities as "peculeraritys", and Hemingway wrote professional as
"proffessional". Clearly such mistakes may not help you to be topp in skool, but
they don't signify that you are unfit to write great literature or run the
world's fourth largest industrial power.
'Ooh, I know this one!' : British spelling is
in decline. What can be done? The BBC's answer is Hard Spell, a nationwide
spelling test involving 100,000 children. We, however, asked Vivian Cook,
professor of applied linguistics, to devise a test using 10 simple but
problematic English words - then put five people with a professional interest in
spelling through it. Stuart Jeffries introduces the results, G, 18.11.2004,
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1353871,00.html
Mark Trail
Jack Elrod 22 / 23.2.2005
http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mtrail/about.htm
Flash Gordon
Jim Keefe
Created in 1934 by legendary
comic-strip artist Alex Raymond
30.1.2005
http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/fgordon/about.htm
Voir aussi
Graham RANGER, DO : trois fonctions, un schéma
Cycnos, Volume 18 N° 2
http://revel.unice.fr/cycnos/document.html?id=40
Do auxiliaire >
Validation / Emphase
Questions en Do
auxiliaire
Question en be + -ing >
Ellipse de be
Question en be + -ing >
Présupposition
Questions > Do épistémique
/ Be + -ing anaphorique
|
