Argentina's top court finds Nazi files ‘of global significance' in basement
More than 80 boxes filled with documents from Nazi Germany have been discovered in the basement of Argentina's Supreme Court, decades after the crates were stashed in 1941.
The 'discovery of global significance' came as workers were clearing out the area in preparation for transferring the archives to a newly-established museum, the court said in a statement on Monday.
The 83 boxes were sent by the German embassy in Japan's capital Tokyo to Argentina in June 1941 on board the Japanese steamship 'Nan-a-Maru', the court statement said.
At the time, German diplomats in Argentina claimed they contained personal effects, but the shipment was held up by customs and became the subject of a probe by a special commission on 'anti-Argentine activities'. A judge later ordered the seizure of the materials, and the matter ended up before the Supreme Court, which took possession of the crates.
About 84 years later, upon opening one of the boxes, the court identified material 'intended to consolidate and propagate Adolf Hitler's ideology in Argentina during the Second World War'.
The rest of the boxes were opened last Friday in the presence of the chief rabbi of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) and officials of the Buenos Aires Holocaust Museum.
'Given the historical relevance of the find and the potential crucial information it could contain to clarify events related to the Holocaust, the president of the Supreme Court, Horacio Rosatti, ordered an exhaustive survey of all the material found,' the court said.
'The main objective is to … determine if the material contains crucial information about the Holocaust and if any clues found can shed light on aspects still unknown, such as the route of Nazi money at a global level,' it added.
The court has transferred the boxes to a room equipped with extra security measures and invited the Holocaust Museum in Buenos Aires to participate in their preservation and inventory.
Experts will examine them for any clues about still-unknown aspects of the Holocaust, such as international financing networks used by the Nazis.
Argentina remained neutral in World War II until 1944. The South American country declared war on Germany and Japan the following year. From 1933 to 1954, according to the Holocaust Museum, 40,000 Jews entered Argentina as they fled Nazi persecution in Europe.
But after World War II, Argentina, led by President Juan Peron, became a haven for several high-ranking Nazi officials.
They included Adolf Eichmann, who was considered a key architect of Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews. He was captured in Buenos Aires in 1960 and taken to Israel, where he was tried and executed.
Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, too, hid away in Argentina before fleeing to Paraguay and later Brazil, where he died.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
2 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Irregularities reported in Polish election
Warsaw: Irregularities in the second round of Poland's presidential election have been reported, with candidates' results allegedly swapped in some commissions, sparking controversy. The Polish elections, held on June 1, resulted in conservative Karol Nawrocki beating liberal Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski by a very close margin. Nawrocki won 50.89% of the vote against Trzaskowki's 49.11%. Polish politicians, namely from Trzaskowski's camp, have been asking for the results to be investigated. Chief among these those expressing concerns is Rafał Trzaskowski's chief of staff Wiola Paprocka, who wrote about the surprising reversal of support in the second round of the presidential election in some commissions. 'We will contact the PKW [National Electoral Comission] to clarify each of these cases,' Paprocka announced on Twitter. Her statement included four polling stations at which reports of irregularities have come to light. Due to suspected irregularities, Paprocka appealed for electoral protests to be filed with the Supreme Court. (Agencies)
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data
The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them. On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court's ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA). In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law. In both cases, the Supreme Court's three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority's decision. DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic 'bloat'. Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump's re-election, DOGE was designed to 'dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies'. At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity. But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE. The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts. In addition, DOGE's sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems. Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump's re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire's tenure as a 'special government employee' in the White House. That falling-out has left DOGE's future uncertain. One of DOGE's controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Early in Trump's second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation. Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old. They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration's confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report. Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it 'the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time' and calling for its elimination. In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information. Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person's identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy. Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had 'never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA's entire record systems'. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a 'more tailored' approach. 'Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.' The judge's ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information. The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE's access. The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander's temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision. But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts. 'Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,' Brown Jackson wrote. She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any 'irreparable harm' would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data. But by granting the Trump administration's emergency petition, she said the court was 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process'. The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws. The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group. It argued that DOGE's sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE's structures had kept it insulated from outside probes. 'While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE's authority leaves that an open question,' CREW said in a statement. The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings. While a US district judge had sided with CREW's request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court's decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed. 'Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade,' the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled. It also said that the courts needed to exercise 'deference and restraint' regarding 'internal' executive communications.
Qatar Tribune
2 days ago
- Qatar Tribune
Trump imposes travel ban on 12 countries for security concerns
WashingtoncTypeface:> US President Donald Trump imposed a travel ban on 12 countries on Wednesday, citing security risks. 'As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people,' Trump said in a proclamation. 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court.' The ban fully restricts the entry of nationals from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Those from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will be partially restricted, Trump's proclamation adds. In a video on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said new countries may be added 'as threats emerge' around the world. 'In the 21st century we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign visa over-stayers from dangerous places all over the world.' Restrictions could also be removed, if 'material improvements' were made, he added. 'Very simply we cannot have open migration from any country where we can not safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States,' he said. 'We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm, and nothing will stop us from keeping America safe.' A fact sheet issued by the White House stated that some of the named countries had 'inadequate screening and vetting processes, hindering America's ability to identify potential security threats before entry.' (DPA)
