Informazione
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/3560/1/68/
Dalla Jugoslavia alla Slovenia: il caso dei cittadini "cancellati"
Data inizio: 29.10.2004
Data fine: 29.10.2004
Luogo: Trieste - Teatro Stabile Sloveno
Organizzato da: Associazione culturale "Spaesati", Bonawentura - Teatro
Miela, Dipartimento di Storia e Storia dell'
Appuntamento nell'ambito di "S/Paesati, eventi sul tema delle
migrazioni"
Nel 1992 un provvedimento amministrativo tolse a migliaia di persone
originarie delle repubbliche ex-jugoslave e residenti in Slovenia al
momento della dichiarazione d'Indipendenza ogni diritto che la legge
riconosce agli stranieri con residenza.
Con questo atto, dichiarato incostituzionale già nel 1999, queste
persone persero i diritti sociali, al lavoro e
all'assistenza sanitaria.
Cancellati in senso letterale dai registri dello Stato, molti di loro
aspettano ancora che la loro situazione giuridica
venga chiarita.
Ore 19:00 - Incontro
Aleksander Todorovic, Associazione "I Cancellati"
Marija Mitrovic, slavista Università di Trieste
Pierluigi Sabatti, scrittore e giornalista Il Piccolo
Lea Sirok, giornalista TeleCapodistria
Ore 21:00 - Concerto
KATALENA
Nati con la volontà di diffondere e dare nuova linfa alla musica
popolare slovena, i Katalena sono 6 giovani musicisti che presentano un
entusiasmante crossover, in cui si mescolano le radici profonde della
musica popolare e le più svariate tradizioni musicali, dal rock al
folk, al blues.
Ingresso al concerto: 7,00 euro
Info:
Teatro Miela
Piazza Duca degli Abruzzi - Trieste
Telefono: 040 365119
Fax: 040 367817
Email: teatro@ miela.it
Dalla Jugoslavia alla Slovenia: il caso dei cittadini "cancellati"
Data inizio: 29.10.2004
Data fine: 29.10.2004
Luogo: Trieste - Teatro Stabile Sloveno
Organizzato da: Associazione culturale "Spaesati", Bonawentura - Teatro
Miela, Dipartimento di Storia e Storia dell'
Appuntamento nell'ambito di "S/Paesati, eventi sul tema delle
migrazioni"
Nel 1992 un provvedimento amministrativo tolse a migliaia di persone
originarie delle repubbliche ex-jugoslave e residenti in Slovenia al
momento della dichiarazione d'Indipendenza ogni diritto che la legge
riconosce agli stranieri con residenza.
Con questo atto, dichiarato incostituzionale già nel 1999, queste
persone persero i diritti sociali, al lavoro e
all'assistenza sanitaria.
Cancellati in senso letterale dai registri dello Stato, molti di loro
aspettano ancora che la loro situazione giuridica
venga chiarita.
Ore 19:00 - Incontro
Aleksander Todorovic, Associazione "I Cancellati"
Marija Mitrovic, slavista Università di Trieste
Pierluigi Sabatti, scrittore e giornalista Il Piccolo
Lea Sirok, giornalista TeleCapodistria
Ore 21:00 - Concerto
KATALENA
Nati con la volontà di diffondere e dare nuova linfa alla musica
popolare slovena, i Katalena sono 6 giovani musicisti che presentano un
entusiasmante crossover, in cui si mescolano le radici profonde della
musica popolare e le più svariate tradizioni musicali, dal rock al
folk, al blues.
Ingresso al concerto: 7,00 euro
Info:
Teatro Miela
Piazza Duca degli Abruzzi - Trieste
Telefono: 040 365119
Fax: 040 367817
Email: teatro@ miela.it
[ Di seguito la trascrizione della seduta del 21 ottobre u.s., nella
quale Milosevic ha per l'ennesima volta fieramente ribadito il suo
diritto a difendersi da solo dalle infamanti accuse rivoltegli dal
"Tribunale ad hoc" della NATO. Si noti che il presidente del "Tribunale
ad hoc", Theodor Meron, con il quale Milosevic scambia delle battute in
questa trascrizione, e' precisamente l'ex inviato di Clinton alla
Conferenza di Roma per la istituzione della Corte Penale Internazionale
(1998): quello cioe' che disse formalmente di "NO", a nome degli USA,
in quella occasione... In precedenza, Meron era stato ambasciatore di
Israele in Canada.
Questa trascrizione e' stata tenuta nascosta per circa una settimana
dalle autorita' del "Tribunale" affinche' la stampa internazionale non
potesse riportare le dichiarazioni di Milosevic quando era necessario.
Analogamente era stata impedita la diffusione pubblica delle
trascrizioni della autodifesa dell'imputato all'inizio di settembre,
nei giorni cioe' in cui piu' "scottante" sarebbe risultata la loro
diffusione attraverso la stampa occidentale.
Con l'occasione segnaliamo che IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA
AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC (31/8 - 1/9/2004), IN CORSO DI REVISIONE E
CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO INVECE AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
Ricordiamo anche, en passant, che le suddette pagine internet, insieme
alle presente newsletter, rappresentano attualmente per il pubblico
italiano l'UNICA fonte di informazione sul processo-farsa dell'Aia, in
un contesto mediatico di perfetta censura.
(a cura di ICDSM Italia) ]
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 29 Ott 2004 02:59:18 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Milosevic: This is a political trial (21 October transcript)
**********************************************************
NOTE: After the 21 October session of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY,
most of the Western media were quoting Steven Kay and not President
Milosevic.
These days, after he files a "request for withdrawal", instead of a
simple, although late resignation, again it is Steven Kay who gets all
the publicity.
The Appeals Chamber session was open. Its transcript (like for any
other session) was done next day and had to be available to all
parties. For days, and with different excuses, it was denied to
assistants of President Milosevic to get the transcript in the
electronic form. Finally, when there were no more excuses, the
transcript appeared on the ICTY web site.
Additional proof that it appeared only due to the pressure from
President Milosevic's team is the fact that the transcript of 19
October, when ICDSM Vice-Chair Liana Kanelli slammed the ICTY had not
been posted yet. Here we give the words of President Milosevic, that
someone tried to hide from the public as long as possible.
The whole transcript can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/041021DR.htm
The whole text of the 'Lawyers Petition' extensively quoted by
President Milosevic can be read at:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
Everything about the political campaign to silence President Milosevic
can be read at:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
************************************************************
Thursday, 21 October 2004
[Appeal Proceedings]
[Open session]
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: In my deep conviction concerning this
decision to take away my right to represent myself, this was not
prompted by health reasons nor legal reasons but by political reasons.
Health reasons were taken exclusively as an excuse or pretext.
I would like to turn your attention to the fact that there was a
campaign conducted not to permit me to speak. On the 29th of August,
one of the drafters of your Statute, Michael Scharf published in the
Washington Post an article as part of this campaign in which he said,
amongst other things -- I'm not going to quote the entire article, I
would just like to point to a few things or excepts from it.
"At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding
judge, Britain's Richard May, ruled that 'under international law, the
defendant has a right to counsel but he also has a right not to have
counsel.' Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic
trial can be traced back to that erroneous ruling."
As part of that campaign, therefore, things set out from insisting that
the Chamber, which was presided by Judge May, wrongly decided to enable
me to speak, and then this is explained by stating:
"By acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial
with an 18-hour long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality
video and slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by
the 1999 NATO bombing campaign."
That is what disturbed all those who do not wish to hear the truth from
this place, because for three years now, the other side has been
explaining crimes that I did not commit, ascribing to me intentions
which I never had.
We're talking about legal alchemy here, which is jeopardized by the
possibility that truth be spoken here and that what really happened be
talked about here.
In his article, Scharf explains that or provides an explanation from
which it can be seen that we're not talking about law here but
politics. I will quote just one more excerpt:
"In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the UN Security Council
set three objectives: First, to educate the Serbian people, who were
long misled by Milosevic propaganda, about the acts of aggression, war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his regime ..."
As you can see, he is citing a political reason which only a twisted
mind can use in view of the fact that there was no war in Serbia and
that Serbia was the only one that maintained the structure of
population as it was before and that there was no discrimination at
all. This is part of the propaganda which is being affirmed here.
Secondly, "to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and other top leaders and disclosing the
way in which the Milosevic regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit
atrocities; and third, to promote political catharsis while enabling
Serbia's newly elected leaders to distance themselves from the
repressive policies of the past. May's decision to allow Milosevic to
represent himself has seriously undercut these aims."
He also explains that this is also very wrong because this trial is
being followed, because the majority of the citizens in Serbia give
their support to me, which is not a surprise, because everybody had the
opportunity to hear what is being said here.
For example, this statement of mine of the 31st of August and the 1st
of September was published in newspapers with the broadest circulation.
It was also broadcast on television. It was published in hundreds of
thousands of copies. So I can expose myself to the trial of the -- or
to the scrutiny of the public, whereas the other side cannot. And that
is the main reason why it is not being permitted here, the truth, or
arguments be brought out in favour of the truth and that this truth be
proved by facts.
I would like to also draw your attention, gentlemen, because you are
all experts in the legal profession, that in relation to this question
of assigning counsel, denying me my right, taking away my right, about
100 prominent legal scholars, professors, experts in international and
criminal law from Serbia, Russia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the
United States, Canada, India, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Netherlands, Czech Republic, Great Britain, France, submitted a
petition to the General Secretary and to the United Nations Security
Council.
You probably did not pay attention to this, but many arguments were
stated there against this decision which was adopted by the Trial
Chamber.
They say that this imposition of counsel, "This apparently punitive
measure is contrary to international law, incompatible with the
adversarial system of criminal justice adopted by the Security Council
in Resolution 808, and ignores the Court's obligation to provide
adequate medical care and provisional release to the defendant. ... The
ICTY has ignored repeated requests for provisional release, to which
everyone presumed innocent is entitled, has imposed unrealistically
short preparation periods ..."
I warned you, Mr. Meron, the last time that we had a discussion here
and when we were talking about me being granted three months for
preparations compared to several years that the other side had, I drew
your attention specifically to the existing decision of doctors that I
can only work for three days a week and that that time is very short.
At the time, you said that you would review all of these things. There
has been no subsequent review of these issues.
I would also like to remind you that in the decision of the Appeals
Chamber of the 18th of April, 2002, comprising of Claude Jorda, David
Hunt, Mehmet Guney, Fausto Pocar and Theodor Meron - that's what it
states here on the cover page - in paragraph 27 it was stated since the
reasons for decision on Prosecution interlocutory appeal from refusal
to order joinder was being discussed at the time,
"As has been shown to be necessary in all long trials before this
Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will from time to time have to take a break
in the hearing of evidence to enable the parties to marshal their
forces and, if need be, to unrepresented accused to rest from the work
involved."
This was not respected either. And in connection with that, I would
like to say that when the three-day work rule was being respected,
these three workdays are not only days spent in court but three
workdays in general. This was not taken into account. But there were no
problems at the time. I will come back to that later.
In the petition, it says: "The envisaged imposition of counsel
constitutes an egregious violation of internationally recognised
judicial rights, and will serve to only aggravate Mr. Milosevic's
life-threatening illness and will further discredit these proceedings.
"The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under the
Statutes of the Internation Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia include the right to defend oneself in person."
I will skip over. "As stated by the US Supreme Court, with respect to
the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which bears a striking
similarity to Article 21 of the ICTY Statute."
And then there is a quote from the Faretta versus California case, from
which they -
"It speaks of the 'assistance' of counsel, and an assistant, however
expert, is still an assistant. The language and spirit of the Sixth
Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defence tools
guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant -
not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and
his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the
accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the
Amendment. In such a case, counsel is not an assistant, but a master,
and the right to make a defence is stripped of the personal character
upon which the Amendment exists."
And then it goes on to say:
"The essence of the right to represent oneself is defeated when the
right to counsel becomes an obligation. As stated in Faretta, supra:
"An unwanted counsel 'represents' the defendant only through a tenuous
and unacceptable legal fiction."
Then Faretta case. There's another quote from that case.
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceedings. The Tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character and characteristically departed from common law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialised in trying 'political'
offences, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
Gentlemen, we are facing a practice here which, as you can see, is
being dealt with in a way which is not a -- which does not serve as a
compliment. In this case, it says:
"Imposition of counsel, even 'standby counsel', as appears to be
presently envisaged by the ICTY, will not alleviate any of the
difficulties facing the process: it will not treat, much less cure,
Slobodan Milosevic's malignant hypertension; it will not provide the
defendant with the time and conditions to prepare his case; it will not
redress the gross imbalance in the resources accorded the Prosecutor
and the Defence," et cetera.
"If Slobodan Milosevic's medical condition does not permit him to
attend the proceedings, and he does not waive his right to be present,
the ICTY does not have the jurisdiction to hold hearings in his absence.
Adjournments will continue as long as measures are not taken to treat
Mr. Milosevic's malignant hypertension, a condition that cannot be
treated by further violating his rights, threatening to remove him from
the process, or by transferring his Defence to a complete stranger.
"By imposing counsel, the ICTY would not only violate his right to
self-representation, but his right to present relevant evidence
demonstrating the repeated violations of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over
a decade.
"The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The United
Nations should not tolerate these continuing violations of
international law in the name of expediency. Using a detained person's
inappropriately treated illness as an excuse to infringe upon his
rights and silence him and embark on a 'radical reform' of the
proceedings - as the Chamber is now considering, by changing the rules
in the mid-trial, and to the defendant's detriment- is a perversion of
both the letter and the spirit of international law."
That is about 100 legal scholars and professionals said on this matter.
I mentioned them before.
Mr. Meron, we are talking here about the cogent norms of international
law, ius cogens, imperative norms which do not allow a restrictive
interpretation and which in my deep conviction and according to the
conviction of many lawyers throughout the world say that I cannot be
denied of my right to represent myself. Therefore, the fact that you
question my surprise at all that the Trial Chamber could have adopted
such a decision at all is something that does not surprise me but
astonishes even many people throughout the world, especially when we
keep in mind that we're talking here about the denial of the minimum
rights which I should enjoy here.
So I would like to be very brief. I would like for my right to be
restored to me.
As far as arguments that were utilised which say that because of my
hypertension many sittings had to be suspended, I would like to say
that it is my deep conviction that the doctors on this matter have also
been manipulated, because some elements were stated in a context in
which they cannot be considered to hold.
As you can see here, I have a letter from Dr. van Dijkman to the
Detention Unit physician, Dr. Falke, where he says -- this letter is
dated on the 10th of June, 2004, and it says that on the 9th and 10th
of June I was monitored for 24 hours, my blood pressure was monitored
for 24 hours, and it explains
" ... blood pressure during daytime 164/103." Et cetera. And he goes on
to say, "I do not consider the blood pressure to be so high -- ...
cease his activities." Therefore, when it was high, he believed it did
not justify a cessation of my activities. On the 26th of July, the date
when I was examined the last time in order to agree in the future with
Dr. Tavernier's findings, my pressure was 150/95. Therefore, it was
better. And then when it was better, it served as a basis for
concluding that I was medically unfit to defend myself.
And furthermore, they manipulated the information about a loss of ten
days, allegedly because of my health situation. And you will agree,
gentlemen, that when this piece of information is used, it is in
relation to days when my blood pressure was high. That's what it seems.
However, that is not accurate. I have an official document stamped and
signed by the authorised officer of the Detention Unit, the only one
who is in charge of medical records, which states in view of the fact
that on several occasions I had a very severe case of flu with high
fever, and it says "Dates of flu." In 2001, it was one week. In 2002,
it was one week. In early 2003, it was ten days. In May 2003, two
weeks. And finally in 2004, in February, two weeks. In total, that
amounts to six and a half weeks of flu involving high fever in various
periods.
What happened then, gentlemen, then back in February 2004, when I was
running a high fever and having flu and was bedridden, I received
notification that the appeal -- that the Prosecution case had been
completed and that I was to prepare my list of witnesses. I therefore
asked the liaison officer from the Registry, who is sitting here,
whether, being ill, I was allowed to have an extension of that deadline
because the task involves a huge amount of work. In those six and a
half weeks, I was supposed to prepare a list of witnesses and was not
able to start immediately.
I was informed by a Trial Chamber, through their legal assistant or
whatever they call it, that the deadline cannot be moved. Therefore, I
practically had to work from my bed at a very high intensity and to
work very hard to comply with the deadline and submit that list within
the six weeks given me from the time when I was informed of the
completion of the Prosecution case.
That is what caused stress, shortage of sleep, and other problems.
And this complete disregard for the rule that I was allowed to work for
only three days a week drove my tension and blood pressure up. In other
words, it was the Trial Chamber who caused it with their decision and
the fact that they set unreasonable deadlines. And then the resulting
problems were used as an excuse to impose counsel on me with the
explanation that I was unable to handle the preparations required
myself. That is what happened.
I can give you this paper which shows exactly how many weeks were in
issue, with appropriate dates and signatures. The loss of days caused
by this was completely unrelated to the problems I was experiencing. It
is, therefore, abundantly clear that this is a manipulation of findings
and facts.
It is, as a consequence, abundantly clear that all talk of
obstructionism is malicious, because if you say that about somebody who
spent 300 days examining the witnesses of the other side, calling him
an obstructionist, which he had never been in any of the 300 days of
dealing with the case of the opposing side. It is nonsense, to say the
least.
Even Mr. Nice putting forward his arguments before the Trial Chamber,
trying to deny me an extension, said that I was working very
efficiently and did not need an extension of the deadline. Therefore,
in my then-health situation, I experienced additional pressure which
caused a deterioration of my health, which was then used as a pretext
for assigning counsel on me.
When I did not have any other health problems, I worked quite
efficiently indeed, except for the times when I had flu with high
fever, which nobody is immune from, and nobody can guarantee that it
would not happen to them.
You asked me a number of questions that I will attempt to answer.
What is the best solution? The best and the only solution, in my
opinion, is for you to give me back my rights. Your stand-by counsel is
of no interest to me whatsoever.
Mr. Kay used to be an amicus curiae. He, as well as his colleague, upon
leave of the Trial Chamber, put questions to witnesses when he deemed
fit. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to such practice at
all. As far as I'm concerned, in that capacity he can continue if you
think that necessary. He can continue to put questions to witnesses or
perform any other tasks.
But it is indubitable that the only solution, the only one I see as
just, fair, logical and reasonable is to give me back my right to
represent myself, to call witnesses, to examine them, and to lead
evidence in my Defence case.
That amounts, practically, to the guarantees I enjoy under every
international covenant, agreement, treaty, and finally your own Statute.
And I cannot agree to anything less because that is my principled
position, one from which I do not intend to retreat. So much, Mr.
Meron. Thank you for your attention.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, what would you
suggest to the Court? How should it act if you would have to reduce
your presence in the courtroom even beyond the three days that you have
been able to cope with in the past? Imagine for a moment that you could
be in the court, bearing also -- taking into account also the time you
would need in the detention centre to prepare, only one day a week.
Would you -- do you believe that the Court can go on if the situation
would arise in that context? Do give us some practical suggestions to
try and, in fairness, to remedy the situation that has arisen.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, your question is completely
logical. I believe, however, that one should take into account the
history of the accumulation of the present problems. Namely, several
times - and this is known to everybody sitting here and it can be seen
from the transcript - at the moment when this so-called trial began
with charges from the Kosovo indictments, indictments on Croatia and
Bosnia were issued. At that time, I received over half a million pages
of material from the other side in connection with the charges raised
then.
On several occasions, I asked them, "When do you gentlemen suppose that
I can read this? Will you give me time to review this material, to
familiarise myself with it and to respond?" The answer I constantly
received was that the Trial Chamber would consider it.
And finally we ended up in this situation where I have not been given
time to talk to my potential witnesses. In fact, I talked to as many
witnesses as I had time to talk with. And during the summer recess and
preparation, I was allowed to receive witnesses three days a week.
I assume you know that the opposite side spends sometimes several days
speaking to one witness. I speak to one witness a day, sometimes two
witnesses per day. I cannot be any more expedient than that. I believe,
therefore, you should bear in mind that if it is true, and it is
written in para 10 of the reasoned decision of the Trial Chamber on the
assignment of counsel, since on the 30th of September it heard the
arguments of sides to the proceedings, the Trial Chamber made its
decision on the basis of the medical report concerning the accused's
health that the Chamber would sit three days each week.
That decision was made back then, and I believe that coupled with
observation of this rule, a three-day work rule for the courtroom, and
in view of the fact that I had not been given the opportunity in a
timely manner to talk to my witnesses, a compromise is being made now
between this and the decision made as a result. You should see what is
fair in this situation. I believe that we can keep up the dynamics of
three workdays per week with the proviso that weeks off should be taken
occasionally so that I can proof witnesses I intend to call. And that
would be a perfectly reasonable timetable enabling us to conduct these
proceedings in a perfectly normal manner, achieving all that we have to
achieve.
Those are my practical suggestions.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Of course, some of the
difficulties that you have alluded to in terms of pressure on you, in
terms of tension, are a result of the fact that you chose not to have a
counsel. You have your legal advisors. Had you named them as your
counsel, they would have borne some of the burden that you -- that you
took upon yourself. And from the perspective of the Court, shouldn't a
person accept the consequences of his decision? You chose to go this
way, and you made things so much more difficult for yourself. Mr.
Milosevic.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, in support and in favour of
Mr. Kay, who very correctly put forward his position, because I really
have nothing personal against him, and he is doubtlessly a very capable
lawyer, nevertheless, no lawyer, Mr. Kay or any other lawyer, is able
to replace me in this job. It is simply because of the nature of these
charges.
This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether
I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are
ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are
beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer.
The point here is that the truth about the events in the former
Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the
procedural questions, because I'm not sitting here because I was
accused of a specific crime. I'm sitting here because I am accused of
conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party. The
nature of the proceedings here is such that a lawyer cannot deal with
it. In fact, even that is not the issue. The issue is whether I have
the right to represent myself under the Statute, and the Statute says I
do.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: You should be clear on this mystification
regarding the alleged failure to comply with my therapy.
You can find out the truth from the authorised medical personnel at the
Detention Unit. I'm going to explain.
There is no mystification whatsoever. I was told one day that the next
day a test would be made to ascertain how much of the medication I'm
taking is actually absorbed by my body, and that I would receive
medication at 7.00 a.m. in order to take a blood sample five hours
later at 2.00 p.m. and the concentration of the medication would be
measured in my blood. There is a record of this. At 7.00 a.m. exactly I
took the medication, and two hours later a blood sample was taken. The
analysis, however, showed that the concentration in my blood was not
sufficient.
What business of that is mine? Please tell me. I don't know what was
wrong, whether there was enough of the concentration of the medication
in the pill itself or not or something else was the problem. In any
case, I complied with the procedure fully. Everything was done
properly. And to base a theory on the allegation that I'm refusing to
take my medicine is absolutely senseless. The procedure could have been
checked. Another method could have been chosen, because no method is
absolutely foolproof, but to take such conclusions is absolutely
uncalled for, especially by laymen such as Mr. Nice. I will not waste
any more time on this.
Second, regarding the campaign, you intervened, Mr. Meron, when I used
the word "campaign" and when I mentioned Michael Scharf. Michael Scharf
used to be the legal advisor of Madeleine Albright, as you know, I
suppose. You also know that I was brought here on the 5th of July,
being ill when the Trial Chamber ignored the fact that I'm ill, and the
press came here to hear my opening statement although they were not
notified that there would be no opening statement on that day.
You know, Madeleine Albright was here and that she personally is
anxious, in view of her own responsibility for the bombing of my
country and her own participation in aiding Croatian forces in the
Operation Storm when several hundred thousand Serbs were expelled from
Croatia.
And the next day, Mr. Prosper, the ambassador of your country, a person
in charge of these issues, arrived.
Mrs. Albright is often referred to as the mother of this Tribunal and
her personal interest, vested interest, is indubitable. It is doubtless
that she has a role in this campaign, and you can see this
argumentation that she shares in the transcript of Mr. Nice's speech.
Mr. Nice spoke here, and I wish to respond to several of the things he
said. He said it was up to me whether I would accept what has been
offered. This is not a situation of offering or accepting. We are not
at the bazaar where people are offering and taking. We have a
completely different situation here. We are discussing the minimum of
my rights, on which I insist. It is not a case of offering and
accepting or not accepting wherein I am to take the consequences of my
own refusal.
What is at issue here is to observe the minimum of my guaranteed rights.
Second, isn't it absolutely clear that I have the right to appoint
counsel, but I also have the right not to appoint counsel? I am
exercising my right not to appoint counsel; in other words, my right to
represent myself. Therefore, I am acting in full conformity with the
spirit of the right given me.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that a judgement can be taken even without a
Defence case, because several witnesses have been here, none of which
have provided any evidence. So a judgement can be taken without a
Defence. That is precisely their aim, because a Defence put forward by
an imposed counsel is not my defence. That, I hope, need not be proven.
Defence through an imposed counsel is a legal fiction.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that I gave a list of witnesses to Mr. Kay.
That is not true. I disclosed my witness list through the liaison
officer answerable to the Trial Chamber. Mr. Kay, in his official
capacity, has access to that list of witnesses, and through no fault of
his, he has -- he doesn't know what to do with it, as he doesn't know
what to do with the list of thousands of exhibits that I made
available, because if we keep this
limit of 150 days, Mr. Kay does not know what selection I personally
would have made out of the 1.600 witnesses to fit into the 150 days.
And you will admit, gentlemen, that a bad use of witnesses and exhibits
is worse than a complete failure to use witnesses and exhibits.
Then Mr. Nice asked the question, Who is running this court? That is
not the question here. The question here is, Who is running my Defence,
me or Mr. Nice?
For the duration of their half time, I didn't show a shadow of
intention to interfere with their business, whereas they have wanted
all the time to organise my Defence and to dictate the terms and
conditions of my exercise of my own rights. That is absolutely
inappropriate. I didn't take away my own right to self-representation;
it was taken away from me by the Trial Chamber.
I therefore demand my right to represent myself back. I believe that my
legal position cannot be changed in the middle of the trial, or my
capacity to defend myself, and I demand my right back. Thank you.
***********************************************************
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM www.icdsm.org Sofia-New York-Moscow
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
www.sloboda.org.yu Belgrade
*********************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
*********************************************************
After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.
We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the
creation of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.
*******************************************
The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to
deal properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still
enough only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional work
at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
************************************************************
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank transfers, please do not
hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @ freenet.de
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @ yubc.net
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt
a parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
quale Milosevic ha per l'ennesima volta fieramente ribadito il suo
diritto a difendersi da solo dalle infamanti accuse rivoltegli dal
"Tribunale ad hoc" della NATO. Si noti che il presidente del "Tribunale
ad hoc", Theodor Meron, con il quale Milosevic scambia delle battute in
questa trascrizione, e' precisamente l'ex inviato di Clinton alla
Conferenza di Roma per la istituzione della Corte Penale Internazionale
(1998): quello cioe' che disse formalmente di "NO", a nome degli USA,
in quella occasione... In precedenza, Meron era stato ambasciatore di
Israele in Canada.
Questa trascrizione e' stata tenuta nascosta per circa una settimana
dalle autorita' del "Tribunale" affinche' la stampa internazionale non
potesse riportare le dichiarazioni di Milosevic quando era necessario.
Analogamente era stata impedita la diffusione pubblica delle
trascrizioni della autodifesa dell'imputato all'inizio di settembre,
nei giorni cioe' in cui piu' "scottante" sarebbe risultata la loro
diffusione attraverso la stampa occidentale.
Con l'occasione segnaliamo che IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA
AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC (31/8 - 1/9/2004), IN CORSO DI REVISIONE E
CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO INVECE AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
Ricordiamo anche, en passant, che le suddette pagine internet, insieme
alle presente newsletter, rappresentano attualmente per il pubblico
italiano l'UNICA fonte di informazione sul processo-farsa dell'Aia, in
un contesto mediatico di perfetta censura.
(a cura di ICDSM Italia) ]
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 29 Ott 2004 02:59:18 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Milosevic: This is a political trial (21 October transcript)
**********************************************************
NOTE: After the 21 October session of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY,
most of the Western media were quoting Steven Kay and not President
Milosevic.
These days, after he files a "request for withdrawal", instead of a
simple, although late resignation, again it is Steven Kay who gets all
the publicity.
The Appeals Chamber session was open. Its transcript (like for any
other session) was done next day and had to be available to all
parties. For days, and with different excuses, it was denied to
assistants of President Milosevic to get the transcript in the
electronic form. Finally, when there were no more excuses, the
transcript appeared on the ICTY web site.
Additional proof that it appeared only due to the pressure from
President Milosevic's team is the fact that the transcript of 19
October, when ICDSM Vice-Chair Liana Kanelli slammed the ICTY had not
been posted yet. Here we give the words of President Milosevic, that
someone tried to hide from the public as long as possible.
The whole transcript can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/041021DR.htm
The whole text of the 'Lawyers Petition' extensively quoted by
President Milosevic can be read at:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
Everything about the political campaign to silence President Milosevic
can be read at:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
************************************************************
Thursday, 21 October 2004
[Appeal Proceedings]
[Open session]
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: In my deep conviction concerning this
decision to take away my right to represent myself, this was not
prompted by health reasons nor legal reasons but by political reasons.
Health reasons were taken exclusively as an excuse or pretext.
I would like to turn your attention to the fact that there was a
campaign conducted not to permit me to speak. On the 29th of August,
one of the drafters of your Statute, Michael Scharf published in the
Washington Post an article as part of this campaign in which he said,
amongst other things -- I'm not going to quote the entire article, I
would just like to point to a few things or excepts from it.
"At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding
judge, Britain's Richard May, ruled that 'under international law, the
defendant has a right to counsel but he also has a right not to have
counsel.' Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic
trial can be traced back to that erroneous ruling."
As part of that campaign, therefore, things set out from insisting that
the Chamber, which was presided by Judge May, wrongly decided to enable
me to speak, and then this is explained by stating:
"By acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial
with an 18-hour long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality
video and slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by
the 1999 NATO bombing campaign."
That is what disturbed all those who do not wish to hear the truth from
this place, because for three years now, the other side has been
explaining crimes that I did not commit, ascribing to me intentions
which I never had.
We're talking about legal alchemy here, which is jeopardized by the
possibility that truth be spoken here and that what really happened be
talked about here.
In his article, Scharf explains that or provides an explanation from
which it can be seen that we're not talking about law here but
politics. I will quote just one more excerpt:
"In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the UN Security Council
set three objectives: First, to educate the Serbian people, who were
long misled by Milosevic propaganda, about the acts of aggression, war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his regime ..."
As you can see, he is citing a political reason which only a twisted
mind can use in view of the fact that there was no war in Serbia and
that Serbia was the only one that maintained the structure of
population as it was before and that there was no discrimination at
all. This is part of the propaganda which is being affirmed here.
Secondly, "to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and other top leaders and disclosing the
way in which the Milosevic regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit
atrocities; and third, to promote political catharsis while enabling
Serbia's newly elected leaders to distance themselves from the
repressive policies of the past. May's decision to allow Milosevic to
represent himself has seriously undercut these aims."
He also explains that this is also very wrong because this trial is
being followed, because the majority of the citizens in Serbia give
their support to me, which is not a surprise, because everybody had the
opportunity to hear what is being said here.
For example, this statement of mine of the 31st of August and the 1st
of September was published in newspapers with the broadest circulation.
It was also broadcast on television. It was published in hundreds of
thousands of copies. So I can expose myself to the trial of the -- or
to the scrutiny of the public, whereas the other side cannot. And that
is the main reason why it is not being permitted here, the truth, or
arguments be brought out in favour of the truth and that this truth be
proved by facts.
I would like to also draw your attention, gentlemen, because you are
all experts in the legal profession, that in relation to this question
of assigning counsel, denying me my right, taking away my right, about
100 prominent legal scholars, professors, experts in international and
criminal law from Serbia, Russia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the
United States, Canada, India, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Netherlands, Czech Republic, Great Britain, France, submitted a
petition to the General Secretary and to the United Nations Security
Council.
You probably did not pay attention to this, but many arguments were
stated there against this decision which was adopted by the Trial
Chamber.
They say that this imposition of counsel, "This apparently punitive
measure is contrary to international law, incompatible with the
adversarial system of criminal justice adopted by the Security Council
in Resolution 808, and ignores the Court's obligation to provide
adequate medical care and provisional release to the defendant. ... The
ICTY has ignored repeated requests for provisional release, to which
everyone presumed innocent is entitled, has imposed unrealistically
short preparation periods ..."
I warned you, Mr. Meron, the last time that we had a discussion here
and when we were talking about me being granted three months for
preparations compared to several years that the other side had, I drew
your attention specifically to the existing decision of doctors that I
can only work for three days a week and that that time is very short.
At the time, you said that you would review all of these things. There
has been no subsequent review of these issues.
I would also like to remind you that in the decision of the Appeals
Chamber of the 18th of April, 2002, comprising of Claude Jorda, David
Hunt, Mehmet Guney, Fausto Pocar and Theodor Meron - that's what it
states here on the cover page - in paragraph 27 it was stated since the
reasons for decision on Prosecution interlocutory appeal from refusal
to order joinder was being discussed at the time,
"As has been shown to be necessary in all long trials before this
Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will from time to time have to take a break
in the hearing of evidence to enable the parties to marshal their
forces and, if need be, to unrepresented accused to rest from the work
involved."
This was not respected either. And in connection with that, I would
like to say that when the three-day work rule was being respected,
these three workdays are not only days spent in court but three
workdays in general. This was not taken into account. But there were no
problems at the time. I will come back to that later.
In the petition, it says: "The envisaged imposition of counsel
constitutes an egregious violation of internationally recognised
judicial rights, and will serve to only aggravate Mr. Milosevic's
life-threatening illness and will further discredit these proceedings.
"The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under the
Statutes of the Internation Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia include the right to defend oneself in person."
I will skip over. "As stated by the US Supreme Court, with respect to
the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which bears a striking
similarity to Article 21 of the ICTY Statute."
And then there is a quote from the Faretta versus California case, from
which they -
"It speaks of the 'assistance' of counsel, and an assistant, however
expert, is still an assistant. The language and spirit of the Sixth
Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defence tools
guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant -
not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and
his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the
accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the
Amendment. In such a case, counsel is not an assistant, but a master,
and the right to make a defence is stripped of the personal character
upon which the Amendment exists."
And then it goes on to say:
"The essence of the right to represent oneself is defeated when the
right to counsel becomes an obligation. As stated in Faretta, supra:
"An unwanted counsel 'represents' the defendant only through a tenuous
and unacceptable legal fiction."
Then Faretta case. There's another quote from that case.
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceedings. The Tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character and characteristically departed from common law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialised in trying 'political'
offences, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
Gentlemen, we are facing a practice here which, as you can see, is
being dealt with in a way which is not a -- which does not serve as a
compliment. In this case, it says:
"Imposition of counsel, even 'standby counsel', as appears to be
presently envisaged by the ICTY, will not alleviate any of the
difficulties facing the process: it will not treat, much less cure,
Slobodan Milosevic's malignant hypertension; it will not provide the
defendant with the time and conditions to prepare his case; it will not
redress the gross imbalance in the resources accorded the Prosecutor
and the Defence," et cetera.
"If Slobodan Milosevic's medical condition does not permit him to
attend the proceedings, and he does not waive his right to be present,
the ICTY does not have the jurisdiction to hold hearings in his absence.
Adjournments will continue as long as measures are not taken to treat
Mr. Milosevic's malignant hypertension, a condition that cannot be
treated by further violating his rights, threatening to remove him from
the process, or by transferring his Defence to a complete stranger.
"By imposing counsel, the ICTY would not only violate his right to
self-representation, but his right to present relevant evidence
demonstrating the repeated violations of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over
a decade.
"The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The United
Nations should not tolerate these continuing violations of
international law in the name of expediency. Using a detained person's
inappropriately treated illness as an excuse to infringe upon his
rights and silence him and embark on a 'radical reform' of the
proceedings - as the Chamber is now considering, by changing the rules
in the mid-trial, and to the defendant's detriment- is a perversion of
both the letter and the spirit of international law."
That is about 100 legal scholars and professionals said on this matter.
I mentioned them before.
Mr. Meron, we are talking here about the cogent norms of international
law, ius cogens, imperative norms which do not allow a restrictive
interpretation and which in my deep conviction and according to the
conviction of many lawyers throughout the world say that I cannot be
denied of my right to represent myself. Therefore, the fact that you
question my surprise at all that the Trial Chamber could have adopted
such a decision at all is something that does not surprise me but
astonishes even many people throughout the world, especially when we
keep in mind that we're talking here about the denial of the minimum
rights which I should enjoy here.
So I would like to be very brief. I would like for my right to be
restored to me.
As far as arguments that were utilised which say that because of my
hypertension many sittings had to be suspended, I would like to say
that it is my deep conviction that the doctors on this matter have also
been manipulated, because some elements were stated in a context in
which they cannot be considered to hold.
As you can see here, I have a letter from Dr. van Dijkman to the
Detention Unit physician, Dr. Falke, where he says -- this letter is
dated on the 10th of June, 2004, and it says that on the 9th and 10th
of June I was monitored for 24 hours, my blood pressure was monitored
for 24 hours, and it explains
" ... blood pressure during daytime 164/103." Et cetera. And he goes on
to say, "I do not consider the blood pressure to be so high -- ...
cease his activities." Therefore, when it was high, he believed it did
not justify a cessation of my activities. On the 26th of July, the date
when I was examined the last time in order to agree in the future with
Dr. Tavernier's findings, my pressure was 150/95. Therefore, it was
better. And then when it was better, it served as a basis for
concluding that I was medically unfit to defend myself.
And furthermore, they manipulated the information about a loss of ten
days, allegedly because of my health situation. And you will agree,
gentlemen, that when this piece of information is used, it is in
relation to days when my blood pressure was high. That's what it seems.
However, that is not accurate. I have an official document stamped and
signed by the authorised officer of the Detention Unit, the only one
who is in charge of medical records, which states in view of the fact
that on several occasions I had a very severe case of flu with high
fever, and it says "Dates of flu." In 2001, it was one week. In 2002,
it was one week. In early 2003, it was ten days. In May 2003, two
weeks. And finally in 2004, in February, two weeks. In total, that
amounts to six and a half weeks of flu involving high fever in various
periods.
What happened then, gentlemen, then back in February 2004, when I was
running a high fever and having flu and was bedridden, I received
notification that the appeal -- that the Prosecution case had been
completed and that I was to prepare my list of witnesses. I therefore
asked the liaison officer from the Registry, who is sitting here,
whether, being ill, I was allowed to have an extension of that deadline
because the task involves a huge amount of work. In those six and a
half weeks, I was supposed to prepare a list of witnesses and was not
able to start immediately.
I was informed by a Trial Chamber, through their legal assistant or
whatever they call it, that the deadline cannot be moved. Therefore, I
practically had to work from my bed at a very high intensity and to
work very hard to comply with the deadline and submit that list within
the six weeks given me from the time when I was informed of the
completion of the Prosecution case.
That is what caused stress, shortage of sleep, and other problems.
And this complete disregard for the rule that I was allowed to work for
only three days a week drove my tension and blood pressure up. In other
words, it was the Trial Chamber who caused it with their decision and
the fact that they set unreasonable deadlines. And then the resulting
problems were used as an excuse to impose counsel on me with the
explanation that I was unable to handle the preparations required
myself. That is what happened.
I can give you this paper which shows exactly how many weeks were in
issue, with appropriate dates and signatures. The loss of days caused
by this was completely unrelated to the problems I was experiencing. It
is, therefore, abundantly clear that this is a manipulation of findings
and facts.
It is, as a consequence, abundantly clear that all talk of
obstructionism is malicious, because if you say that about somebody who
spent 300 days examining the witnesses of the other side, calling him
an obstructionist, which he had never been in any of the 300 days of
dealing with the case of the opposing side. It is nonsense, to say the
least.
Even Mr. Nice putting forward his arguments before the Trial Chamber,
trying to deny me an extension, said that I was working very
efficiently and did not need an extension of the deadline. Therefore,
in my then-health situation, I experienced additional pressure which
caused a deterioration of my health, which was then used as a pretext
for assigning counsel on me.
When I did not have any other health problems, I worked quite
efficiently indeed, except for the times when I had flu with high
fever, which nobody is immune from, and nobody can guarantee that it
would not happen to them.
You asked me a number of questions that I will attempt to answer.
What is the best solution? The best and the only solution, in my
opinion, is for you to give me back my rights. Your stand-by counsel is
of no interest to me whatsoever.
Mr. Kay used to be an amicus curiae. He, as well as his colleague, upon
leave of the Trial Chamber, put questions to witnesses when he deemed
fit. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to such practice at
all. As far as I'm concerned, in that capacity he can continue if you
think that necessary. He can continue to put questions to witnesses or
perform any other tasks.
But it is indubitable that the only solution, the only one I see as
just, fair, logical and reasonable is to give me back my right to
represent myself, to call witnesses, to examine them, and to lead
evidence in my Defence case.
That amounts, practically, to the guarantees I enjoy under every
international covenant, agreement, treaty, and finally your own Statute.
And I cannot agree to anything less because that is my principled
position, one from which I do not intend to retreat. So much, Mr.
Meron. Thank you for your attention.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, what would you
suggest to the Court? How should it act if you would have to reduce
your presence in the courtroom even beyond the three days that you have
been able to cope with in the past? Imagine for a moment that you could
be in the court, bearing also -- taking into account also the time you
would need in the detention centre to prepare, only one day a week.
Would you -- do you believe that the Court can go on if the situation
would arise in that context? Do give us some practical suggestions to
try and, in fairness, to remedy the situation that has arisen.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, your question is completely
logical. I believe, however, that one should take into account the
history of the accumulation of the present problems. Namely, several
times - and this is known to everybody sitting here and it can be seen
from the transcript - at the moment when this so-called trial began
with charges from the Kosovo indictments, indictments on Croatia and
Bosnia were issued. At that time, I received over half a million pages
of material from the other side in connection with the charges raised
then.
On several occasions, I asked them, "When do you gentlemen suppose that
I can read this? Will you give me time to review this material, to
familiarise myself with it and to respond?" The answer I constantly
received was that the Trial Chamber would consider it.
And finally we ended up in this situation where I have not been given
time to talk to my potential witnesses. In fact, I talked to as many
witnesses as I had time to talk with. And during the summer recess and
preparation, I was allowed to receive witnesses three days a week.
I assume you know that the opposite side spends sometimes several days
speaking to one witness. I speak to one witness a day, sometimes two
witnesses per day. I cannot be any more expedient than that. I believe,
therefore, you should bear in mind that if it is true, and it is
written in para 10 of the reasoned decision of the Trial Chamber on the
assignment of counsel, since on the 30th of September it heard the
arguments of sides to the proceedings, the Trial Chamber made its
decision on the basis of the medical report concerning the accused's
health that the Chamber would sit three days each week.
That decision was made back then, and I believe that coupled with
observation of this rule, a three-day work rule for the courtroom, and
in view of the fact that I had not been given the opportunity in a
timely manner to talk to my witnesses, a compromise is being made now
between this and the decision made as a result. You should see what is
fair in this situation. I believe that we can keep up the dynamics of
three workdays per week with the proviso that weeks off should be taken
occasionally so that I can proof witnesses I intend to call. And that
would be a perfectly reasonable timetable enabling us to conduct these
proceedings in a perfectly normal manner, achieving all that we have to
achieve.
Those are my practical suggestions.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Of course, some of the
difficulties that you have alluded to in terms of pressure on you, in
terms of tension, are a result of the fact that you chose not to have a
counsel. You have your legal advisors. Had you named them as your
counsel, they would have borne some of the burden that you -- that you
took upon yourself. And from the perspective of the Court, shouldn't a
person accept the consequences of his decision? You chose to go this
way, and you made things so much more difficult for yourself. Mr.
Milosevic.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, in support and in favour of
Mr. Kay, who very correctly put forward his position, because I really
have nothing personal against him, and he is doubtlessly a very capable
lawyer, nevertheless, no lawyer, Mr. Kay or any other lawyer, is able
to replace me in this job. It is simply because of the nature of these
charges.
This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether
I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are
ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are
beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer.
The point here is that the truth about the events in the former
Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the
procedural questions, because I'm not sitting here because I was
accused of a specific crime. I'm sitting here because I am accused of
conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party. The
nature of the proceedings here is such that a lawyer cannot deal with
it. In fact, even that is not the issue. The issue is whether I have
the right to represent myself under the Statute, and the Statute says I
do.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: You should be clear on this mystification
regarding the alleged failure to comply with my therapy.
You can find out the truth from the authorised medical personnel at the
Detention Unit. I'm going to explain.
There is no mystification whatsoever. I was told one day that the next
day a test would be made to ascertain how much of the medication I'm
taking is actually absorbed by my body, and that I would receive
medication at 7.00 a.m. in order to take a blood sample five hours
later at 2.00 p.m. and the concentration of the medication would be
measured in my blood. There is a record of this. At 7.00 a.m. exactly I
took the medication, and two hours later a blood sample was taken. The
analysis, however, showed that the concentration in my blood was not
sufficient.
What business of that is mine? Please tell me. I don't know what was
wrong, whether there was enough of the concentration of the medication
in the pill itself or not or something else was the problem. In any
case, I complied with the procedure fully. Everything was done
properly. And to base a theory on the allegation that I'm refusing to
take my medicine is absolutely senseless. The procedure could have been
checked. Another method could have been chosen, because no method is
absolutely foolproof, but to take such conclusions is absolutely
uncalled for, especially by laymen such as Mr. Nice. I will not waste
any more time on this.
Second, regarding the campaign, you intervened, Mr. Meron, when I used
the word "campaign" and when I mentioned Michael Scharf. Michael Scharf
used to be the legal advisor of Madeleine Albright, as you know, I
suppose. You also know that I was brought here on the 5th of July,
being ill when the Trial Chamber ignored the fact that I'm ill, and the
press came here to hear my opening statement although they were not
notified that there would be no opening statement on that day.
You know, Madeleine Albright was here and that she personally is
anxious, in view of her own responsibility for the bombing of my
country and her own participation in aiding Croatian forces in the
Operation Storm when several hundred thousand Serbs were expelled from
Croatia.
And the next day, Mr. Prosper, the ambassador of your country, a person
in charge of these issues, arrived.
Mrs. Albright is often referred to as the mother of this Tribunal and
her personal interest, vested interest, is indubitable. It is doubtless
that she has a role in this campaign, and you can see this
argumentation that she shares in the transcript of Mr. Nice's speech.
Mr. Nice spoke here, and I wish to respond to several of the things he
said. He said it was up to me whether I would accept what has been
offered. This is not a situation of offering or accepting. We are not
at the bazaar where people are offering and taking. We have a
completely different situation here. We are discussing the minimum of
my rights, on which I insist. It is not a case of offering and
accepting or not accepting wherein I am to take the consequences of my
own refusal.
What is at issue here is to observe the minimum of my guaranteed rights.
Second, isn't it absolutely clear that I have the right to appoint
counsel, but I also have the right not to appoint counsel? I am
exercising my right not to appoint counsel; in other words, my right to
represent myself. Therefore, I am acting in full conformity with the
spirit of the right given me.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that a judgement can be taken even without a
Defence case, because several witnesses have been here, none of which
have provided any evidence. So a judgement can be taken without a
Defence. That is precisely their aim, because a Defence put forward by
an imposed counsel is not my defence. That, I hope, need not be proven.
Defence through an imposed counsel is a legal fiction.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that I gave a list of witnesses to Mr. Kay.
That is not true. I disclosed my witness list through the liaison
officer answerable to the Trial Chamber. Mr. Kay, in his official
capacity, has access to that list of witnesses, and through no fault of
his, he has -- he doesn't know what to do with it, as he doesn't know
what to do with the list of thousands of exhibits that I made
available, because if we keep this
limit of 150 days, Mr. Kay does not know what selection I personally
would have made out of the 1.600 witnesses to fit into the 150 days.
And you will admit, gentlemen, that a bad use of witnesses and exhibits
is worse than a complete failure to use witnesses and exhibits.
Then Mr. Nice asked the question, Who is running this court? That is
not the question here. The question here is, Who is running my Defence,
me or Mr. Nice?
For the duration of their half time, I didn't show a shadow of
intention to interfere with their business, whereas they have wanted
all the time to organise my Defence and to dictate the terms and
conditions of my exercise of my own rights. That is absolutely
inappropriate. I didn't take away my own right to self-representation;
it was taken away from me by the Trial Chamber.
I therefore demand my right to represent myself back. I believe that my
legal position cannot be changed in the middle of the trial, or my
capacity to defend myself, and I demand my right back. Thank you.
***********************************************************
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM www.icdsm.org Sofia-New York-Moscow
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
www.sloboda.org.yu Belgrade
*********************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
*********************************************************
After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.
We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the
creation of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.
*******************************************
The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to
deal properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still
enough only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional work
at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
************************************************************
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank transfers, please do not
hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @ freenet.de
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @ yubc.net
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt
a parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article15354.html
États-Unis
100 personnalités contestent la version officielle du 11 septembre
Un an et demi après la publication de L'Effroyable imposture, le doute
sur les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 atteint les États-Unis. 40 % des
New-Yorkais pensent que l'administration Bush était informée à
l'avance, mais a délibérément laissé commettre les attentats. 100
personnalités états-uniennes de tous horizons, dont les candidats
libertarien et écologiste à l'élection présidentielle, récusent le
récent rapport de la Commission présidentielle et demandent la
réouverture de l'enquête. 40 membres de familles de victimes déposeront
demain une plainte pénale devant le procureur général de New York de
manière à ce que les citoyens puissent prendre le contrôle d'une
enquête jusqu'ici verrouillée par l'administration Bush.
27 octobre 2004
100 personnalités états-uniennes et 40 membres des familles des
victimes du 11 septembre 2001 ont annoncé aujourd'hui la publication
d'une Déclaration pour la vérité sur le 11 septembre, un appel pour une
enquête immédiate sur les indices qui suggèrent que des responsables
haut placés du gouvernement ont pu laisser délibérément perpétrer les
attaques du 11 septembre
[http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/11septembre.html%5d. Un an et demi après
la publication par Thierry Meyssan de L'Effroyable imposture
[http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/%5d et du Pentagate
[http://www.pentagate.info/%5d, un sondage Zogby
[http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article14733.html%5d, réalisé le 31 août,
établit que près de 50 % des New-Yorkais pensent que le gouvernement
était au courant et a « consciemment échoué à agir » et que 66 %
d'entre eux sont insatisfaits du rapport de la Commission
présidentielle et réclament une nouvelle enquête sur le 11 septembre.
Centrée sur 12 questions, la déclaration souligne des indices
accablants qui ont été improprement examinés ou ignorés par la
Commission Kean, allant des délits d'initiés et financements des
pirates de l'air aux avertissements de gouvernements étrangers en
passant par les systèmes de défense inactifs autour du Pentagone. La
déclaration demande quatre actions :
- le lancement immédiat d'une enquête par le procureur général Eliot
Spitzer,
- des auditions parlementaires,
- des analyses médiatiques
- et la constitution d'une commission d'enquête indépendante et
citoyenne.
La liste des signataires de la déclaration inclut des personnalités de
l'ensemble du spectre politique, tels que les candidats aux
présidentielles Ralph Nader et Michael Badnarik, des notables tels que
David Cobb et Catherine Austin Fitts, membre de la première
administration Bush, ainsi que des vétérans de l'administration tels
que Daniel Ellsberg, l'ancien haut fonctionnaire du Pentagone qui
révéla les mensonges ayant conduit à la guerre du Vietnam, et
l'analyste de la CIA à la retraite Ray McGovern. Parmi les signataires
figurent également des activistes pacifistes tels que la co-fondatrice
de Code Pink Jodie Evans et Kevin Danaher de Global Exchange, l'ancien
ambassadeur des États-Unis et chef de mission en Irak Edward L. Peck ;
des environnementalistes comme Randy Hayes et John Robbins ; des chefs
d'entreprise tels que Paul Hawken et Karl Schwartz, Pdg de Patmos
Nanotechnologies, ainsi que le journaliste populaire Ronnie Dugger ou
encore la journaliste d'investigation réputée Kelly Patricia O'Meara.
La déclaration est également soutenue par 43 écrivains reconnus, dont
l'auteur du best-seller n°1 du New York Times, John Gray, ainsi que par
18 éminents professeurs, historiens et théologiens. Y figurent par
ailleurs d'autres personnalités telles que Cynthia McKinney, la
parlementaire de Géorgie élue cinq fois, les chanteurs Michelle Shocked
et Michael Franti et les acteurs Ed Asner et Mimi Kennedy.
La déclaration a été rendue possible grâce à 911truth.org
[http://www.911truth.org/%5d.
La Déclaration
Nous voulons de vraies réponses sur le 11 septembre
Le 31 août 2004, Zogby International, l'institut officiel de sondages
nord-américain de Reuters, a publié les résultats d'une étude montrant
que pratiquement la moitié (49 %) des résidents de la ville de New York
et 41 % des résidents de l'État de New York pensent que les dirigeants
états-uniens avaient une connaissance préalable de l'imminence des
attaques du 11 septembre et ont « consciemment échoué » à agir. Parmi
les résidents de la ville de New York, 66 % ont demandé un nouvel
examen par le Congrès ou le procureur général de New York des
questions laissées sans réponse.
Suite à ces informations, nous avons rassemblé 100 personnalités
états-uniennes et 40 membres des familles de ceux qui sont morts pour
signer cette déclaration sur le 11 septembre, demandant un examen
public immédiat des questions laissées sans réponse. Ces dernières
suggèrent que des personnes de l'administration actuelle auraient
effectivement laissé délibérément les attaques du 11 septembre se
produire, peut-être comme prétexte pour la guerre.
Nous demandons des réponses sincères à des questions comme :
1. Pourquoi les procédures opérationnelles standard en cas de
détournement d'avion de ligne n'ont-elles pas été respectées ce
jour-là ?
2. Pourquoi les batteries de missiles et défenses anti-aériennes
officiellement déployées autour du Pentagone n'ont-elles pas été
activées lors de l'attaque ?
3. Pourquoi les Services secrets ont-ils autorisé M. Bush à
poursuivre sa visite de l'école primaire, sans manifestement se
préoccuper de sa sécurité ni de celle des écoliers ?
4. Comment se fait-il qu'absolument personne n'ait été licencié,
sanctionné ou condamné pour l'incompétence totale constatée ce jour-là ?
5. Pourquoi les autorités aux États-Unis et à l'étranger
n'ont-elles pas publié les résultats de plusieurs enquêtes portant sur
les transactions financières qui suggéraient une connaissance préalable
de détails spécifiques sur les attaques du 11 septembre, ayant engendré
des dizaines de millions de dollars de bénéfices retraçables ?
6. Pourquoi Sibel Edmonds, une ancienne traductrice du FBI qui
affirme avoir pris connaissance de mises-en-garde préalables, a-t-elle
été publiquement réduite au silence par une injonction judiciaire, sur
requête du procureur général Ashcroft et accordée par un juge nommé par
Bush ?
7. Comment le vol 77, qui officiellement a percuté le Pentagone,
aurait-il pu faire demi-tour et voler en direction de Washington D.C.
pendant 40 minutes sans être détecté par les radars de la FAA (Federal
Aviation Agency), ni les radars encore plus puissant de l'armée
états-unienne ?
8. Comment le FBI et la CIA ont-ils été en mesure de publier les
noms et photos des pirates de l'air présumés en l'espace de quelques
heures, ainsi qu'inspecter les maisons, restaurants et écoles
d'aviation dont on savait qu'ils les fréquentaient ?
9. Qu'est-il advenu des plus de 20 avertissements documentés
transmis à notre gouvernement par 14 agences de renseignement ou chefs
d'États étrangers ?
10. Pourquoi l'administration Bush a-t-elle étouffé le fait que
le patron des services de renseignement pakistanais était à Washington
durant la semaine du 11 septembre, et a selon des sources versé 100 000
dollars sur le compte de Mohammed Atta, qui est considéré comme le chef
des pirates de l'air ?
11. Pourquoi la commission du 11 septembre a-t-elle échoué à
traiter la plupart des questions posées par les familles des victimes,
en plus de pratiquement toutes les questions posées ici ?
12. Pourquoi Philip Zelikow a-t-il été choisi comme directeur
exécutif de la Commission soit-disant indépendante, malgré le fait
qu'il a co-écrit un livre avec Condoleezza Rice ?
Ceux qui demandent une enquête plus approfondie se comptent dorénavant
par centaines de milliers, avec parmi eux une ancienne membre de la
première administration Bush, un colonel de l'U.S. Air Force à la
retraite, un parlementaire européen, des familles de victimes, des
auteurs très respectés, des journalistes d'investigation, des leaders
activistes pour la paix et la justice, des anciens employés du
Pentagone et le Parti des Verts états-uniens ?
En tant que citoyens états-uniens, nous demandons quatre choses :
1. L'ouverture immédiate d'une enquête par le procureur général
de New York Eliot Spitzer.
2. Des investigations immédiates sous la forme d'auditions
parlementaires.
3. Une couverture médiatique pour examiner et enquêter sur les
indices.
4. La constitution d'une initiative d'enquête citoyenne
véritablement indépendante.
Étant donnée l'importance des élections à venir, nous pensons qu'il est
impératif que ces questions soient traitées publiquement, honnêtement
et rigoureusement afin que les États-uniens puissent exercer leurs
droits démocratiques en toute connaissance de cause.
Pour finir, nous espérons et nous louons une approche sage et
compassionnelle de ce sujet pour que nous puissions cicatriser les
blessures infligées en ce jour terrible.
Signataires
Note : Toutes les organisations sont nommées uniquement dans un but
d'identification. Les personnes individuelles ont signé cette
déclaration en leur propre âme et conscience, non pas pour signifier le
soutien de leur organisation.
1. Virginia Deane Abernethy, anthropologue, auteur de Population
Politics.
2. Ed Asner, acteur, militant.
3. Marshall Auerback, analyste financier international pour David W.
Tice & Associates, Inc.
4. Catherine Austin Fitts, assistante du secrétaire au Logement de
la première administratin Bush.
5. Keidi Obi Awadu, animateur de The Conscious Rasta, émission de
LIBRadio.
6. Michael Badnarik, candidat du Parti libertarien à la présidence
des Etats-Unis.
7. Byron Belitsos, éditeur (Origin Press), auteur de Planetary
Democracy.
8. Philip J. Berg, ancien procureur général adjoint de
Pennsylvanie.
9. Medea Benjamin, militant, co-fondateur de Global Exchange et de
Code Pink.
10. Dennis Bernstein, journaliste d'investigation, animateur de
l'émission Flashpoint sur KPFA.
11. Steve Bhaerman dit Swami Beyondananda, écrivain, comédien.
12. Brad Blanton, psychothérapeute, auteur de Radical Honesty.
13. Saniel Bonder, auteur de Great Relief.
14. Dr. Robert Bowman, lieutenant-colonel (cr) de l'US Air Force,
fondateur de l'Institute for Space and Security Studies
15. John Buchanan, écrivain, candidat aux primaires républicaines
de l'élection présidentielle 2004.
16. Gray Brechin, écrivain, historien de l'environnement, professeur
à l'université de Berkeley.
17. Fred Burks, interprète présidentiel pour Bush, Clinton, Cheney
et Gore .
18. Norma Carr-Rufino, écrivain, professeur de management à
l'université d'État de San Francisco.
19. Angana Chatterji, professeur d'anthropologie.
20. Paul Cienfuegos, co-fondateur de Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt
County.
21. David Cobb, avocat, candidat à la présidence du Parti des
Verts US.
22. John Cobb, Ph.D., théologien, co-auteur de For the Common Good.
23. Ernest Callenbach, fondateur et directeur de la revue Film
Quarterly, auteur de Ecotopia
24. Kevin Danaher, écrivain, co-fondateur de Global Exchange.
25. Stephen Dinan, auteur de Radical Spirit.
26. Ronnie Dugger, journaliste et écrivain, co-fondateur de l'Alliance
for Democracy.
27. Rachel Ehrenfeld, directeur de l'American Center for
Democracy, auteur de Funding Evil.
28. Daniel Ellsberg, auteur de Secrets : A Memoir of Vietnam and the
Pentagon Papers.
29. Jodie Evans, co-fondateur de Code Pink
30. Richard Falk, professeur émérite de Droit international à
l'université de Princeton.
31. Michael Franti, musicien, réalisateur de cinéma, militant des
droits de l'homme.
32. Janeane Garofalo, actrice, animatrice de talk show sur Air
America Radio.
33. Jim Garrison, Ph.D., président du State of the World Forum,
auteur de America as Empire.
34. Bruce Gagnon, président du Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space
35. Ric Giardina, écrivain, consultant, conférencier, ancien directeur
des marques de Intel.
36. John Gray, auteur du bestseller Men Are from Mars, Women Are
from Venus.
37. Stan Goff, vétéran avec 25 ans d'expérience dans les Forces
spéciales de l'Army, auteur de Full Spectrum Disorder.
38. Melvin Goodman, chercheur au Center for International Policy,
écrivain, ancien analyste senior à la CIA, professeur au Collège de
guerre (National War College).
39. Morton Goulder, secrétaire adjoint au Renseignement et aux
Menaces sous Nixon, Ford, and Carter
40. David Ray Griffin, professeur de théologie, auteur de The New Pearl
Harbor.
41. Doris "Granny D" Haddock, directeur de campagnes de financement,
candidat du Parti démocrate à l'élection sénatoriale du New Hampshire.
42. Thom Hartmann, animateur radio ; auteur de Unequal Protection
43. Richie Havens, chanteur, artiste.
44. Paul Hawken, auteur de best-sellers, écologiste, chef
d'entreprise, fondateur de Smith & Hawken.
45. Randy Hayes, fondateur du Rainforest Action Network, directuer
fédéral de la Direction Conservation.
46. Richard Heinberg, auteur de The Party's Over, New College of
California.
47. Van Jones, directeur exécutif de l'Ella Baker Center for Human
Rights.
48. Rob Kall, rédacteur en chef de OpEdNews.com, président de
Futurehealth, Inc.
49. Georgia Kelly, directeur exécutif du Praxis Peace Institute
50. Sean Kelly, écrivain, professeur de philosophie et de
religion à l'Institute of Integral Studies de Californie.
51. John Joseph Kennedy, candidat aux primaires démocrates de
2004
52. Mimi Kennedy, comédienne.
53. Faiz Khan, Triage Emergency Physician on 9/11, imam adjoint.
54. David Korten, auteur de When Corporations Rule the World.
55. Frances Moore Lappé, auteur de Diet for a Small Planet ;
fondateur du Small Planet Institute
56. Scott M. Legere, directeur de radio àTampa (Floride).
57. Rabbin Michael Lerner, rédacteur en chef de TIKKUN Magazine, auteur
de Healing Israel/Palestine.
58. Michael Levine, auteur du best-seller Deep Cover, journaliste, 25
ans d'expérience à la DEA
59. Joanna Macy, philosophe écologiste.
60. Enver Masud, fondateur du Wisdom Fund, auteur de The Truth About
Islam.
61. John McCarthy, ancien capitaine des Forces spéciales, président
de Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy
62. Ray McGovern, ancien analyste de la CIA, co-fondateur de Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
63. Cynthia McKinney, ancienne représentante de Géorgie au Congrès des
États-Unis.
64. Ralph Metzner, écrivain, co-fondateur de la Green Earth
Foundation
65. Mark Crispin Miller, critique des médias, professeur à
l'université de New York.
66. Joseph W. Montaperto, Département des pompiers de la Ville de
New York.
67. Leuren Moret, scientifique, commissaire environnemental.
68. Ralph Nader, candidat indépendant la présidence des États-Unis
d'Amérique.
69. Craig Neal, co-fondateur du Heartland Institute, ancien
rédacteur en chef de Utne Reader.
70. Jeff Norman, directeur exécutif de Tour of Duty.
71. Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organization.
72. Kelly Patricia O'Meara, journaliste d'investigation.
73. Michael Parenti, auteur de Superpatriotism and The Terrorism Trap.
74. Edward L. Peck, ancien ambassadeur des États-Unis en Irak,
ancien directeur adjoint du Groupe de travail sur le terrorisme à la
Maison-Blanche (White House Task Force on Terrorism).
75. Peter Phillips, Ph.D., professeur à l'université d'État de
Sonoma, directeur du Project Censored.
76. Henri Poole, pionnier d'Internet, administrateur de la Free
Software Foundation.
77. Robert Rabbin, écrivain, créateur de TruthForPresident.org.
78. Paul H. Ray, sociologue, auteur de The Cultural Creatives.
79. John Renesch, auteur de Getting to the Better Future.
80. John Rensenbrink, professeur émérite au Bowdoin College,
co-fondateur du Parti des Verts des États-Unis.
81. John Robbins, écrivain, fondateur de EarthSave International.
82. William Rodriguez, sauveteur héroïque du 11 septembre, fondateur du
Hispanic Victims Group
83. Neal Rogin, écrivain, lauréat du Emmy-award.
84. Allen Roland, psychothérapeute, écrivain.
85. Rosemary Radford Ruether, professeur de théologie féministe au
Graduate Theological Union.
86. Michael Ruppert, rédacteur en chef de From The Wilderness,
auteur de Crossing the Rubicon.
87. Chris Sanders, fondateur de Sanders Research Associates.
88. Karl W. B. Schwarz, Pdg de Patmos Nanotechnologies.
89. Peter Dale Scott, professeur émérite, auteur de Drugs, Oil,
and War.
90. Kevin Shea, pompier au Département incendie de la Ville de New
York.
91. Michelle Shocked, parolier, chanteur.
92. Indira Singh, consultant en management des crises et des
systèmes informatiques.
93. J. Michael Springmann, avocat, ancien diplomate du Département
d'État.
94. Douglas Sturm, professeur émérite à l'université Bucknell.
95. Marjorie Hewit Suchocki, professeur de théologie, écrivain.
96. Chuck Turner, conseil municipal de Boston.
97. James W. Walter Jr., philanthrope, fondateur de Walden Three.
98. Dan Whaley, pionnier du commerce sur Internet, fondateur de
GetThere.com.
99. Burns H. Weston, professeur émérite de Droit au Centre des
droits de l'homme de l'université de l'Iowa.
100. Howard Zinn, professeur d'histoire, auteur de Histoire
populaire des États-Unis, lauréat du prix de l'Association des amis du
Monde diplomatique.
Membres des familles des victimes
1. Joanne Barbara, épouse de l'assistant du chef du département des
sapeurs pompiers de New York (FDNY)
2. Gayle Barker, soeur de William A. Karnes, WTC (World Trade Center)
3. Michele Bergsohn, épouse de Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
4. Derrill Bodley, père de Deora Bodley, passager du vol 93
5. Kathryn C. Bowden, soeur de Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104ème étage
6. Janet Calia, épouse de Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
7. Maggie Cashman, épouse de William Joseph Cashman, vol United 93
8. Lynne Castrianno Galante, soeur de Leonard Castrianno, WTC1, 105ème
étage
9. Elza Chapa-McGowan, fille de Rosemary Chapa, Pentagone
10. Bruce De Cell, beau-père de Mark Petrocelli, Tour Nord, 92ème étage
11. Ralph D'Esposito, père de Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96ème étage
12. Loisanne Diehl, épouse survivante de Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90ème
étage
13. Jonathan M. Fisher, fils de Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagone
14. Michael J. Fox, frère de Jeffrey L. Fox, Tour 2, 89ème étage
15. Laurel A. Gay, soeur de Peter A. Gay, AA Vol 11
16. Irene Golinsky, épouse de Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagone
17. Kristen Hall, fille de Thomas Kuveikis, pompier décédé
18. Kurt D. Horning, père de Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tour 1, 95ème étage
19. Jennifer W. Hunt, épouse de William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
20. Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, soeur et parents Richard
Guadagno, Flight 93
21. John Keating, fils de Barbara Keating, passager du vol AA 11
22. L. Russell Keene II, père de Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89ème étage, KBW
23. Peter Kousoulis, dont la soeur est morte dans le WTC
24. Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mère de William E. Krukowski, pompier
de New York
25. Laura and Ira Lassman, père de Nicholas C. Lassman, mort dans le
WTC, tour 1
26. Johnny Lee, époux de Lorraine Greene
27. Alicia LeGuillow, mère de Nestor A. Cintron III
28. Francine Levine, soeur de Adam K. Ruhalter, décédé le 11 septembre
29. Christopher Longing, époux de Laura M. Longing, WTC1
30. Bob McIlvaine, père de Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
31. Mary McWilliams mère de FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
32. Daryl J. Meehan, frère de Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105ème étage
33. Elvira P. Murphy, épouse de Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
34. Natalee Pecorelli, soeur de Thomas Pecorelli du vol 11
35. James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents de John W. Perry,
Esq., officier de police de la ville de New York
36. Elaine Saber, mère de Scott Saber
37. Julie Scarpitta, mère de Michelle Scarpitta, WTC 2, 84ème étage
38. Kathleen A. Stanton, WTC sud, survivant blessé
39. Elizabeth Turner, épouse de Simon Turner, décédé le 11 septembre
2001
40. Joan W. Winton, mère de David Winton, WTC, tour sud, 89ème étage
41. David Yancey, époux de Vicki Yancey, American Airlines vol 77
Avis à la presse :
Une conférence de presse se tiendra à l'extérieur du bureau d'Eliot
Spitzer à Manhattan (au croisement des rues Cedar et Nassau) jeudi 28
octobre 2004 à 14h00. Des membres des familles de victimes du 11
septembre et des représentants d'associations de victimes déposeront
une plainte pénale demandant l'ouverture de la première enquête
criminelle sur les événements du 11 septembre par le procureur général
de New York.
États-Unis
100 personnalités contestent la version officielle du 11 septembre
Un an et demi après la publication de L'Effroyable imposture, le doute
sur les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 atteint les États-Unis. 40 % des
New-Yorkais pensent que l'administration Bush était informée à
l'avance, mais a délibérément laissé commettre les attentats. 100
personnalités états-uniennes de tous horizons, dont les candidats
libertarien et écologiste à l'élection présidentielle, récusent le
récent rapport de la Commission présidentielle et demandent la
réouverture de l'enquête. 40 membres de familles de victimes déposeront
demain une plainte pénale devant le procureur général de New York de
manière à ce que les citoyens puissent prendre le contrôle d'une
enquête jusqu'ici verrouillée par l'administration Bush.
27 octobre 2004
100 personnalités états-uniennes et 40 membres des familles des
victimes du 11 septembre 2001 ont annoncé aujourd'hui la publication
d'une Déclaration pour la vérité sur le 11 septembre, un appel pour une
enquête immédiate sur les indices qui suggèrent que des responsables
haut placés du gouvernement ont pu laisser délibérément perpétrer les
attaques du 11 septembre
[http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/11septembre.html%5d. Un an et demi après
la publication par Thierry Meyssan de L'Effroyable imposture
[http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/%5d et du Pentagate
[http://www.pentagate.info/%5d, un sondage Zogby
[http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article14733.html%5d, réalisé le 31 août,
établit que près de 50 % des New-Yorkais pensent que le gouvernement
était au courant et a « consciemment échoué à agir » et que 66 %
d'entre eux sont insatisfaits du rapport de la Commission
présidentielle et réclament une nouvelle enquête sur le 11 septembre.
Centrée sur 12 questions, la déclaration souligne des indices
accablants qui ont été improprement examinés ou ignorés par la
Commission Kean, allant des délits d'initiés et financements des
pirates de l'air aux avertissements de gouvernements étrangers en
passant par les systèmes de défense inactifs autour du Pentagone. La
déclaration demande quatre actions :
- le lancement immédiat d'une enquête par le procureur général Eliot
Spitzer,
- des auditions parlementaires,
- des analyses médiatiques
- et la constitution d'une commission d'enquête indépendante et
citoyenne.
La liste des signataires de la déclaration inclut des personnalités de
l'ensemble du spectre politique, tels que les candidats aux
présidentielles Ralph Nader et Michael Badnarik, des notables tels que
David Cobb et Catherine Austin Fitts, membre de la première
administration Bush, ainsi que des vétérans de l'administration tels
que Daniel Ellsberg, l'ancien haut fonctionnaire du Pentagone qui
révéla les mensonges ayant conduit à la guerre du Vietnam, et
l'analyste de la CIA à la retraite Ray McGovern. Parmi les signataires
figurent également des activistes pacifistes tels que la co-fondatrice
de Code Pink Jodie Evans et Kevin Danaher de Global Exchange, l'ancien
ambassadeur des États-Unis et chef de mission en Irak Edward L. Peck ;
des environnementalistes comme Randy Hayes et John Robbins ; des chefs
d'entreprise tels que Paul Hawken et Karl Schwartz, Pdg de Patmos
Nanotechnologies, ainsi que le journaliste populaire Ronnie Dugger ou
encore la journaliste d'investigation réputée Kelly Patricia O'Meara.
La déclaration est également soutenue par 43 écrivains reconnus, dont
l'auteur du best-seller n°1 du New York Times, John Gray, ainsi que par
18 éminents professeurs, historiens et théologiens. Y figurent par
ailleurs d'autres personnalités telles que Cynthia McKinney, la
parlementaire de Géorgie élue cinq fois, les chanteurs Michelle Shocked
et Michael Franti et les acteurs Ed Asner et Mimi Kennedy.
La déclaration a été rendue possible grâce à 911truth.org
[http://www.911truth.org/%5d.
La Déclaration
Nous voulons de vraies réponses sur le 11 septembre
Le 31 août 2004, Zogby International, l'institut officiel de sondages
nord-américain de Reuters, a publié les résultats d'une étude montrant
que pratiquement la moitié (49 %) des résidents de la ville de New York
et 41 % des résidents de l'État de New York pensent que les dirigeants
états-uniens avaient une connaissance préalable de l'imminence des
attaques du 11 septembre et ont « consciemment échoué » à agir. Parmi
les résidents de la ville de New York, 66 % ont demandé un nouvel
examen par le Congrès ou le procureur général de New York des
questions laissées sans réponse.
Suite à ces informations, nous avons rassemblé 100 personnalités
états-uniennes et 40 membres des familles de ceux qui sont morts pour
signer cette déclaration sur le 11 septembre, demandant un examen
public immédiat des questions laissées sans réponse. Ces dernières
suggèrent que des personnes de l'administration actuelle auraient
effectivement laissé délibérément les attaques du 11 septembre se
produire, peut-être comme prétexte pour la guerre.
Nous demandons des réponses sincères à des questions comme :
1. Pourquoi les procédures opérationnelles standard en cas de
détournement d'avion de ligne n'ont-elles pas été respectées ce
jour-là ?
2. Pourquoi les batteries de missiles et défenses anti-aériennes
officiellement déployées autour du Pentagone n'ont-elles pas été
activées lors de l'attaque ?
3. Pourquoi les Services secrets ont-ils autorisé M. Bush à
poursuivre sa visite de l'école primaire, sans manifestement se
préoccuper de sa sécurité ni de celle des écoliers ?
4. Comment se fait-il qu'absolument personne n'ait été licencié,
sanctionné ou condamné pour l'incompétence totale constatée ce jour-là ?
5. Pourquoi les autorités aux États-Unis et à l'étranger
n'ont-elles pas publié les résultats de plusieurs enquêtes portant sur
les transactions financières qui suggéraient une connaissance préalable
de détails spécifiques sur les attaques du 11 septembre, ayant engendré
des dizaines de millions de dollars de bénéfices retraçables ?
6. Pourquoi Sibel Edmonds, une ancienne traductrice du FBI qui
affirme avoir pris connaissance de mises-en-garde préalables, a-t-elle
été publiquement réduite au silence par une injonction judiciaire, sur
requête du procureur général Ashcroft et accordée par un juge nommé par
Bush ?
7. Comment le vol 77, qui officiellement a percuté le Pentagone,
aurait-il pu faire demi-tour et voler en direction de Washington D.C.
pendant 40 minutes sans être détecté par les radars de la FAA (Federal
Aviation Agency), ni les radars encore plus puissant de l'armée
états-unienne ?
8. Comment le FBI et la CIA ont-ils été en mesure de publier les
noms et photos des pirates de l'air présumés en l'espace de quelques
heures, ainsi qu'inspecter les maisons, restaurants et écoles
d'aviation dont on savait qu'ils les fréquentaient ?
9. Qu'est-il advenu des plus de 20 avertissements documentés
transmis à notre gouvernement par 14 agences de renseignement ou chefs
d'États étrangers ?
10. Pourquoi l'administration Bush a-t-elle étouffé le fait que
le patron des services de renseignement pakistanais était à Washington
durant la semaine du 11 septembre, et a selon des sources versé 100 000
dollars sur le compte de Mohammed Atta, qui est considéré comme le chef
des pirates de l'air ?
11. Pourquoi la commission du 11 septembre a-t-elle échoué à
traiter la plupart des questions posées par les familles des victimes,
en plus de pratiquement toutes les questions posées ici ?
12. Pourquoi Philip Zelikow a-t-il été choisi comme directeur
exécutif de la Commission soit-disant indépendante, malgré le fait
qu'il a co-écrit un livre avec Condoleezza Rice ?
Ceux qui demandent une enquête plus approfondie se comptent dorénavant
par centaines de milliers, avec parmi eux une ancienne membre de la
première administration Bush, un colonel de l'U.S. Air Force à la
retraite, un parlementaire européen, des familles de victimes, des
auteurs très respectés, des journalistes d'investigation, des leaders
activistes pour la paix et la justice, des anciens employés du
Pentagone et le Parti des Verts états-uniens ?
En tant que citoyens états-uniens, nous demandons quatre choses :
1. L'ouverture immédiate d'une enquête par le procureur général
de New York Eliot Spitzer.
2. Des investigations immédiates sous la forme d'auditions
parlementaires.
3. Une couverture médiatique pour examiner et enquêter sur les
indices.
4. La constitution d'une initiative d'enquête citoyenne
véritablement indépendante.
Étant donnée l'importance des élections à venir, nous pensons qu'il est
impératif que ces questions soient traitées publiquement, honnêtement
et rigoureusement afin que les États-uniens puissent exercer leurs
droits démocratiques en toute connaissance de cause.
Pour finir, nous espérons et nous louons une approche sage et
compassionnelle de ce sujet pour que nous puissions cicatriser les
blessures infligées en ce jour terrible.
Signataires
Note : Toutes les organisations sont nommées uniquement dans un but
d'identification. Les personnes individuelles ont signé cette
déclaration en leur propre âme et conscience, non pas pour signifier le
soutien de leur organisation.
1. Virginia Deane Abernethy, anthropologue, auteur de Population
Politics.
2. Ed Asner, acteur, militant.
3. Marshall Auerback, analyste financier international pour David W.
Tice & Associates, Inc.
4. Catherine Austin Fitts, assistante du secrétaire au Logement de
la première administratin Bush.
5. Keidi Obi Awadu, animateur de The Conscious Rasta, émission de
LIBRadio.
6. Michael Badnarik, candidat du Parti libertarien à la présidence
des Etats-Unis.
7. Byron Belitsos, éditeur (Origin Press), auteur de Planetary
Democracy.
8. Philip J. Berg, ancien procureur général adjoint de
Pennsylvanie.
9. Medea Benjamin, militant, co-fondateur de Global Exchange et de
Code Pink.
10. Dennis Bernstein, journaliste d'investigation, animateur de
l'émission Flashpoint sur KPFA.
11. Steve Bhaerman dit Swami Beyondananda, écrivain, comédien.
12. Brad Blanton, psychothérapeute, auteur de Radical Honesty.
13. Saniel Bonder, auteur de Great Relief.
14. Dr. Robert Bowman, lieutenant-colonel (cr) de l'US Air Force,
fondateur de l'Institute for Space and Security Studies
15. John Buchanan, écrivain, candidat aux primaires républicaines
de l'élection présidentielle 2004.
16. Gray Brechin, écrivain, historien de l'environnement, professeur
à l'université de Berkeley.
17. Fred Burks, interprète présidentiel pour Bush, Clinton, Cheney
et Gore .
18. Norma Carr-Rufino, écrivain, professeur de management à
l'université d'État de San Francisco.
19. Angana Chatterji, professeur d'anthropologie.
20. Paul Cienfuegos, co-fondateur de Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt
County.
21. David Cobb, avocat, candidat à la présidence du Parti des
Verts US.
22. John Cobb, Ph.D., théologien, co-auteur de For the Common Good.
23. Ernest Callenbach, fondateur et directeur de la revue Film
Quarterly, auteur de Ecotopia
24. Kevin Danaher, écrivain, co-fondateur de Global Exchange.
25. Stephen Dinan, auteur de Radical Spirit.
26. Ronnie Dugger, journaliste et écrivain, co-fondateur de l'Alliance
for Democracy.
27. Rachel Ehrenfeld, directeur de l'American Center for
Democracy, auteur de Funding Evil.
28. Daniel Ellsberg, auteur de Secrets : A Memoir of Vietnam and the
Pentagon Papers.
29. Jodie Evans, co-fondateur de Code Pink
30. Richard Falk, professeur émérite de Droit international à
l'université de Princeton.
31. Michael Franti, musicien, réalisateur de cinéma, militant des
droits de l'homme.
32. Janeane Garofalo, actrice, animatrice de talk show sur Air
America Radio.
33. Jim Garrison, Ph.D., président du State of the World Forum,
auteur de America as Empire.
34. Bruce Gagnon, président du Global Network Against Weapons &
Nuclear Power in Space
35. Ric Giardina, écrivain, consultant, conférencier, ancien directeur
des marques de Intel.
36. John Gray, auteur du bestseller Men Are from Mars, Women Are
from Venus.
37. Stan Goff, vétéran avec 25 ans d'expérience dans les Forces
spéciales de l'Army, auteur de Full Spectrum Disorder.
38. Melvin Goodman, chercheur au Center for International Policy,
écrivain, ancien analyste senior à la CIA, professeur au Collège de
guerre (National War College).
39. Morton Goulder, secrétaire adjoint au Renseignement et aux
Menaces sous Nixon, Ford, and Carter
40. David Ray Griffin, professeur de théologie, auteur de The New Pearl
Harbor.
41. Doris "Granny D" Haddock, directeur de campagnes de financement,
candidat du Parti démocrate à l'élection sénatoriale du New Hampshire.
42. Thom Hartmann, animateur radio ; auteur de Unequal Protection
43. Richie Havens, chanteur, artiste.
44. Paul Hawken, auteur de best-sellers, écologiste, chef
d'entreprise, fondateur de Smith & Hawken.
45. Randy Hayes, fondateur du Rainforest Action Network, directuer
fédéral de la Direction Conservation.
46. Richard Heinberg, auteur de The Party's Over, New College of
California.
47. Van Jones, directeur exécutif de l'Ella Baker Center for Human
Rights.
48. Rob Kall, rédacteur en chef de OpEdNews.com, président de
Futurehealth, Inc.
49. Georgia Kelly, directeur exécutif du Praxis Peace Institute
50. Sean Kelly, écrivain, professeur de philosophie et de
religion à l'Institute of Integral Studies de Californie.
51. John Joseph Kennedy, candidat aux primaires démocrates de
2004
52. Mimi Kennedy, comédienne.
53. Faiz Khan, Triage Emergency Physician on 9/11, imam adjoint.
54. David Korten, auteur de When Corporations Rule the World.
55. Frances Moore Lappé, auteur de Diet for a Small Planet ;
fondateur du Small Planet Institute
56. Scott M. Legere, directeur de radio àTampa (Floride).
57. Rabbin Michael Lerner, rédacteur en chef de TIKKUN Magazine, auteur
de Healing Israel/Palestine.
58. Michael Levine, auteur du best-seller Deep Cover, journaliste, 25
ans d'expérience à la DEA
59. Joanna Macy, philosophe écologiste.
60. Enver Masud, fondateur du Wisdom Fund, auteur de The Truth About
Islam.
61. John McCarthy, ancien capitaine des Forces spéciales, président
de Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy
62. Ray McGovern, ancien analyste de la CIA, co-fondateur de Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
63. Cynthia McKinney, ancienne représentante de Géorgie au Congrès des
États-Unis.
64. Ralph Metzner, écrivain, co-fondateur de la Green Earth
Foundation
65. Mark Crispin Miller, critique des médias, professeur à
l'université de New York.
66. Joseph W. Montaperto, Département des pompiers de la Ville de
New York.
67. Leuren Moret, scientifique, commissaire environnemental.
68. Ralph Nader, candidat indépendant la présidence des États-Unis
d'Amérique.
69. Craig Neal, co-fondateur du Heartland Institute, ancien
rédacteur en chef de Utne Reader.
70. Jeff Norman, directeur exécutif de Tour of Duty.
71. Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organization.
72. Kelly Patricia O'Meara, journaliste d'investigation.
73. Michael Parenti, auteur de Superpatriotism and The Terrorism Trap.
74. Edward L. Peck, ancien ambassadeur des États-Unis en Irak,
ancien directeur adjoint du Groupe de travail sur le terrorisme à la
Maison-Blanche (White House Task Force on Terrorism).
75. Peter Phillips, Ph.D., professeur à l'université d'État de
Sonoma, directeur du Project Censored.
76. Henri Poole, pionnier d'Internet, administrateur de la Free
Software Foundation.
77. Robert Rabbin, écrivain, créateur de TruthForPresident.org.
78. Paul H. Ray, sociologue, auteur de The Cultural Creatives.
79. John Renesch, auteur de Getting to the Better Future.
80. John Rensenbrink, professeur émérite au Bowdoin College,
co-fondateur du Parti des Verts des États-Unis.
81. John Robbins, écrivain, fondateur de EarthSave International.
82. William Rodriguez, sauveteur héroïque du 11 septembre, fondateur du
Hispanic Victims Group
83. Neal Rogin, écrivain, lauréat du Emmy-award.
84. Allen Roland, psychothérapeute, écrivain.
85. Rosemary Radford Ruether, professeur de théologie féministe au
Graduate Theological Union.
86. Michael Ruppert, rédacteur en chef de From The Wilderness,
auteur de Crossing the Rubicon.
87. Chris Sanders, fondateur de Sanders Research Associates.
88. Karl W. B. Schwarz, Pdg de Patmos Nanotechnologies.
89. Peter Dale Scott, professeur émérite, auteur de Drugs, Oil,
and War.
90. Kevin Shea, pompier au Département incendie de la Ville de New
York.
91. Michelle Shocked, parolier, chanteur.
92. Indira Singh, consultant en management des crises et des
systèmes informatiques.
93. J. Michael Springmann, avocat, ancien diplomate du Département
d'État.
94. Douglas Sturm, professeur émérite à l'université Bucknell.
95. Marjorie Hewit Suchocki, professeur de théologie, écrivain.
96. Chuck Turner, conseil municipal de Boston.
97. James W. Walter Jr., philanthrope, fondateur de Walden Three.
98. Dan Whaley, pionnier du commerce sur Internet, fondateur de
GetThere.com.
99. Burns H. Weston, professeur émérite de Droit au Centre des
droits de l'homme de l'université de l'Iowa.
100. Howard Zinn, professeur d'histoire, auteur de Histoire
populaire des États-Unis, lauréat du prix de l'Association des amis du
Monde diplomatique.
Membres des familles des victimes
1. Joanne Barbara, épouse de l'assistant du chef du département des
sapeurs pompiers de New York (FDNY)
2. Gayle Barker, soeur de William A. Karnes, WTC (World Trade Center)
3. Michele Bergsohn, épouse de Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
4. Derrill Bodley, père de Deora Bodley, passager du vol 93
5. Kathryn C. Bowden, soeur de Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104ème étage
6. Janet Calia, épouse de Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
7. Maggie Cashman, épouse de William Joseph Cashman, vol United 93
8. Lynne Castrianno Galante, soeur de Leonard Castrianno, WTC1, 105ème
étage
9. Elza Chapa-McGowan, fille de Rosemary Chapa, Pentagone
10. Bruce De Cell, beau-père de Mark Petrocelli, Tour Nord, 92ème étage
11. Ralph D'Esposito, père de Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96ème étage
12. Loisanne Diehl, épouse survivante de Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90ème
étage
13. Jonathan M. Fisher, fils de Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagone
14. Michael J. Fox, frère de Jeffrey L. Fox, Tour 2, 89ème étage
15. Laurel A. Gay, soeur de Peter A. Gay, AA Vol 11
16. Irene Golinsky, épouse de Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagone
17. Kristen Hall, fille de Thomas Kuveikis, pompier décédé
18. Kurt D. Horning, père de Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tour 1, 95ème étage
19. Jennifer W. Hunt, épouse de William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
20. Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, soeur et parents Richard
Guadagno, Flight 93
21. John Keating, fils de Barbara Keating, passager du vol AA 11
22. L. Russell Keene II, père de Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89ème étage, KBW
23. Peter Kousoulis, dont la soeur est morte dans le WTC
24. Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mère de William E. Krukowski, pompier
de New York
25. Laura and Ira Lassman, père de Nicholas C. Lassman, mort dans le
WTC, tour 1
26. Johnny Lee, époux de Lorraine Greene
27. Alicia LeGuillow, mère de Nestor A. Cintron III
28. Francine Levine, soeur de Adam K. Ruhalter, décédé le 11 septembre
29. Christopher Longing, époux de Laura M. Longing, WTC1
30. Bob McIlvaine, père de Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
31. Mary McWilliams mère de FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
32. Daryl J. Meehan, frère de Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105ème étage
33. Elvira P. Murphy, épouse de Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
34. Natalee Pecorelli, soeur de Thomas Pecorelli du vol 11
35. James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents de John W. Perry,
Esq., officier de police de la ville de New York
36. Elaine Saber, mère de Scott Saber
37. Julie Scarpitta, mère de Michelle Scarpitta, WTC 2, 84ème étage
38. Kathleen A. Stanton, WTC sud, survivant blessé
39. Elizabeth Turner, épouse de Simon Turner, décédé le 11 septembre
2001
40. Joan W. Winton, mère de David Winton, WTC, tour sud, 89ème étage
41. David Yancey, époux de Vicki Yancey, American Airlines vol 77
Avis à la presse :
Une conférence de presse se tiendra à l'extérieur du bureau d'Eliot
Spitzer à Manhattan (au croisement des rues Cedar et Nassau) jeudi 28
octobre 2004 à 14h00. Des membres des familles de victimes du 11
septembre et des représentants d'associations de victimes déposeront
une plainte pénale demandant l'ouverture de la première enquête
criminelle sur les événements du 11 septembre par le procureur général
de New York.
COMITATI
CONTRO LA GUERRA
MILANO
sabato 30 ottobre si svolgerà a Roma la manifestazione organizzata dal
Comitato Fermiamo la Guerra. Pur aderendo alla mobilitazione per il
ritiro delle truppe italiane dall'Iraq, non possiamo condividere
l'appello di convocazione di questa manifestazione. Ne spieghiamo
brevemente qui sotto i motivi.
Questo è l'appello a firma del Comitato Fermiamo la Guerra:
COMUNICATO per la Manifestazione Nazionale del 30 Ottobre
COMITATO FERMIAMO LA GUERRA
martedì 12 ottobre 2004.
C'E' UNA ALTERNATIVA ALLO "SCONTRO DI CIVILTÀ": GIÙ LE ARMI. LIBERIAMO
LA PACE. VIA SUBITO LE TRUPPE DALL'IRAQ
BASTA CON LA GUERRA, IL TERRORISMO , IL NEOLIBERISMO PER LA GIUSTIZIA
SOCIALE E L'INCONTRO DI CIVILTÀ PER LA PACE, I DIRITTI, LA DEMOCRAZIA,
LA PARTECIPAZIONE
UN'ALTRA EUROPA É POSSIBILE E NECESSARIA
CONTRO LA GUERRA PERMANENTE Vita e libertà per il popolo iracheno e per
gli ostaggi. Stop immediato ai bombardamenti. Cessate il fuoco, fine
dell'occupazione, ritiro delle truppe dall'Iraq. La comunità
internazionale deve impegnarsi per una soluzione politica che
restituisca sovranità al popolo iracheno, coinvolgendo tutte le
componenti irachene inclusa la società civile e le forze che hanno
scelto la strada della resistenza. Per una pace giusta in Medio
Oriente: due stati per due popoli. Fine all' occupazione dei territori
palestinesi, no al muro illegale. Vita, diritti e dignità per il popolo
kurdo e per il popolo ceceno.
L'EUROPA RIPUDI LA GUERRA assumendo il contenuto dell'articolo 11 della
Costituzione Italiana. Prevenzione dei conflitti, riduzione delle spese
militari e disarmo.
CONTRO LE POLITICHE DEL TERRORE E DELLA BARBARIE Contro ogni forma di
terrorismo da chiunque perpetrato -stati, organizzazioni o individui.
No alla aggressione dei fondamentalisti neoconservatori contro il mondo
islamico, che alimenta lo "scontro di civiltà". No all'uso della "lotta
al terrorismo" per colpire diritti civili e democratici, dissenso e
conflitto sociale.
NO AL RAZZISMO No alle leggi xenofobe. No ai Centri di Permanenza
Temporanea. No alle deportazioni. Libertà di circolazione e pieni
diritti ai migranti. No all'Europa fortezza. Cittadinanza di residenza.
Per una Europa solidale con i sud del mondo.
DIRITTI SOCIALI GARANTITI Diritto al lavoro, alla casa, al reddito,
alla salute, all'istruzione, alla previdenza. No alla precarietà e allo
smantellamento dello stato sociale. No alle politiche neoliberiste in
Italia, in Europa, in tutto il mondo.
30 OTTOBRE - MANIFESTAZIONE NAZIONALE A ROMA
COMITATO FERMIAMO LA GUERRA
http://www.socialpress.it/breve.php3?id_breve=504
Queste sono le nostre considerazioni:
Due note sull’appello del COMITATO FERMIAMO LA GUERRA per la
manifestazione del 30 ottobre per il ritiro delle truppe italiane
dall’Iraq.
UNA CONFUSIONE INACCETTABILE
Riprendiamo, citandoli, alcuni punti di questo appello:
1) “C'E' UNA ALTERNATIVA ALLO "SCONTRO DI CIVILTÀ"
dire “c’è un’alternativa allo scontro di civiltà” implica riconoscere
che questo scontro esiste ed è in atto, significa dunque nascondere che
si tratta, invece, di una formula mediatica che vuole giustificare
l’aggressione imperialista ai popoli del Medioriente
2) “liberiamo la pace”
!?! La pace non è un ostaggio. La realtà è che siamo in guerra, che gli
stati e i governi dell’Occidente capitalista hanno lanciato una guerra
di aggressione per il controllo delle risorse, delle vie di
comunicazione mercantili, per il dominio delle aree strategiche e per
la supremazia del proprio modello economico-politico
(liberista/democratico). La guerra contro i Paesi non allineati
all’ordine capitalista, la guerra al proletariato mondiale per la sua
definitiva soggezione.
La pace tra i popoli non può nascere che contro la guerra imperialista:
"la pace tra gli oppressi, la guerra all’oppressore", questo è l’unico
incontro di civiltà per la pace possibile.
3) “BASTA CON LA GUERRA, IL TERRORISMO,…”
IL TERRORISMO – cioè?
La pratica terrorista del bombardamento sulle città, dei
rastrellamenti, delle torture e quella dei servizi segreti contro le
popolazioni (bombe sui mercati o sugli ospedali) e gli obiettivi
“simbolici” (moschee, per esempio), l’assassinio di giornalisti
indipendenti, i sequestri ad uso montatura mediatica? O le azioni della
guerriglia contro militari, caserme di polizia, mercenari,
collaborazionisti?
Il muro di Sharon, i posti di blocco, i buldozer che ribaltano case e
campi, le braccia spezzate agli adolescenti, le bombe intelligenti di
Israele? O i metodi di lotta dell’Intifada palestinese?
Se si intende una categoria astratta di guerra non convenzionale,
indipendentemente dai soggetti che la adottano, in questo caso
bisognerebbe ricordare, come fanno gli studiosi e i commentatori
onesti, che la guerra “classica” non è più da tempo rispettosa delle
regole stabilite dal “diritto internazionale” e fa normalmente uso,
oltre al bombardamento a tappeto, di tutte le tecniche terroristiche
contro militari e, soprattutto, civili. E' dunque sconcertante che,
mentre si nobilitano queste pratiche come atti di guerra quando ad
applicarle sono gli eserciti aggressori dotati di potentissimi sistemi
d’arma, si stigmatizzino quando praticate dagli aggrediti in condizione
di assoluta inferiorità sul piano militare. La “condanna” morale, che
si pretende equidistante, in realtà condanna l’aggredito a rimanere
vittima in quanto intende togliergli ogni facoltà di autodifesa.
Aggiungiamo soltanto che la Resistenza irachena sconfessa e condanna
sistematicamente le azioni terroristiche spettacolari compiute da
gruppi che sostengono di agire in nome dell’Islam e rivendicano
l’appartenenza alla resistenza ma sono manipolati o diretti dai
differenti servizi segreti.
4) “La comunità internazionale deve impegnarsi per una soluzione
politica che restituisca sovranità al popolo iracheno,…”
LA COMUNITA’ INTERNAZIONALE … Cioè? L’ONU? Che cosa la resistenza
irachena pensa dell’ONU lo ha mostrato con l’attentato (rivendicato)
all’inviato speciale Vieira de Mello allora membro del “triumvirato”
che controllava il “governo provvisorio”. Quello che se ne dovrebbe
pensare risulta abbastanza chiaro valutando il ruolo svolto dall’ONU
nella disgregazione della Jugoslavia, la sua benedizione alla prima
Guerra del Golfo e all’embargo e la legittimazione di fatto
dell’occupazione dell’Iraq. Quest’ultima in palese violazione della sua
stessa Carta che sancisce il diritto alla resistenza con ogni mezzo
all’invasione e all’occupazione militare. Se si vuole parlare di ONU si
dovrebbe fare riferimento a questo principio e sconfessare la realtà di
questo organismo, vero ingranaggio della guerra imperialista.
L’ONU e’ sempre stato espressione dei rapporti di forza esistenti:
l’ingresso dell’ONU in Iraq - prima avversato dagli americani convinti
di poter riportare una rapida vittoria e caldeggiato invece dalle altre
potenze (Europa e Russia) - sancisce ora il compromesso per la
spartizione delle risorse privatizzate tra USA, incapaci di ottenere la
vittoria da soli, e Paesi Europei; in più, disimpegnando militari
statunitensi, agevola nuove aggressioni.
5) “Vita, diritti e dignità per il popolo kurdo e per il popolo
ceceno.”
CECENIA – e’ quanto meno inopportuno accomunare nel medesimo appello a
manifestare “contro la guerra permanente” la questione cecena a quella
irachena, se non altro perché l’Italia mantiene truppe di occupazione
in Iraq, non nel Caucaso: sarebbe più pertinente un riferimento alla
Jugoslavia e ai Balcani, presidiati da circa 9000 nostri soldati.
A parte questo, è bene ricordare che a beneficiare della guerra in
Cecenia (e non solo di un esito di definitiva secessione) sono i
colossi petroliferi anglo-americani in competizione tra loro e con le
compagnie russe per il controllo degli oleodotti. Il Paese non ha
risorse proprie e, nei fatti, non potrebbe sopravvivere economicamente
in stato di indipendenza, se non a carico dei proventi ottenuti dai
permessi di transito del petrolio sul territorio nazionale, rendite per
loro natura legate ai contratti stipulati con i petrolieri. Risulta
evidente (oltre ad essere provato) l’interesse della CIA al processo di
destabilizzazione dell’area: del reclutamento e addestramento dei due
eserciti separatisti di Basayev e del saudita Khattab si è incaricato
il servizio segreto pakistano (1994, campo afgano di Amir Muavvia, per
esempio, impiantato negli anni ’80 in collaborazione con la CIA). Il
micronazionalismo ceceno, come le precedenti – e in larga parte
superate presso la popolazione - forme di lotta contro l’assimilazione,
è strumento di ingerenze esterne delle potenze imperialiste ed ora
anche delle mafie “locali” affermatesi con la disgregazione dell’URSS e
interessate alla spartizione della proprietà sociale e ai traffici
petroliferi. Non è possibile, e non è decente, parlare di
autodeterminazione o di guerra di liberazione nazionale.
KURDI – altrettanto inopportuno l’appello, in questa sede, ai diritti
del popolo kurdo, anche se ci si riferisse ai Kurdi della Turchia. Ma
la genericità del testo fa per di più dubitare che si voglia associare
la lotta autenticamente popolare dei kurdi turchi contro la
discriminazione economica sociale e politica e la repressione, e per
una società progressista, all’azione delle fazioni nazionaliste
tardofeudali dei capi kurdi iracheni strumento da decenni
dell’imperialismo statunitense.
6) “L'EUROPA RIPUDI LA GUERRA…”
L’Europa di Shengen, del riarmo, delle privatizzazioni, della
Commissione Europea (vero governo mai eletto)? L’Europa è già
coinvolta nella “guerra al terrorismo” e, benché attualmente sovrastata
dalla evidente superiorità militare e oggetto a sua volta delle
strategie di dominio globale delle amministrazioni nordamericane,
intende porsi come polo imperialista concorrente agli USA.
7) Caricare un appello per un impegno comune di un ventaglio così
ampio di contenuti che si sanno non condivisibili per una consistente
parte del movimento contro la guerra evidenzia una volontà di creare
divisione e contrapporsi alle componenti antimperialiste. E’ dunque
un’operazione, oltre che di dubbia correttezza, indicativa della
volontà politica di limitare l’efficacia della mobilitazione e farne
strumento di pressione politica istituzionale ad esclusivo vantaggio
della propria fazione.
C’E’ UN’ALTERNATIVA ALLA DEMAGOGIA: assumere l’obiettivo comune del
“RITIRO INCONDIZIONATO DELLE TRUPPE” e riconoscere la piena
“LEGITTIMITA’ DELLA RESISTENZA IRACHENA E PALESTINESE”.
Invitiamo chi condivide queste note e intende partecipare alla
manifestazione ad unirsi alla parte del corteo che esprime sostegno
alla RESISTENZA IRACHENA E PALESTINESE e a partecipare alla successiva
manifestazione indetta per il 13 novembre a Roma da FORUMPALESTINA
[vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3892 ]
(per contatti: vale.po @ tiscalinet.it )
CONTRO LA GUERRA
MILANO
sabato 30 ottobre si svolgerà a Roma la manifestazione organizzata dal
Comitato Fermiamo la Guerra. Pur aderendo alla mobilitazione per il
ritiro delle truppe italiane dall'Iraq, non possiamo condividere
l'appello di convocazione di questa manifestazione. Ne spieghiamo
brevemente qui sotto i motivi.
Questo è l'appello a firma del Comitato Fermiamo la Guerra:
COMUNICATO per la Manifestazione Nazionale del 30 Ottobre
COMITATO FERMIAMO LA GUERRA
martedì 12 ottobre 2004.
C'E' UNA ALTERNATIVA ALLO "SCONTRO DI CIVILTÀ": GIÙ LE ARMI. LIBERIAMO
LA PACE. VIA SUBITO LE TRUPPE DALL'IRAQ
BASTA CON LA GUERRA, IL TERRORISMO , IL NEOLIBERISMO PER LA GIUSTIZIA
SOCIALE E L'INCONTRO DI CIVILTÀ PER LA PACE, I DIRITTI, LA DEMOCRAZIA,
LA PARTECIPAZIONE
UN'ALTRA EUROPA É POSSIBILE E NECESSARIA
CONTRO LA GUERRA PERMANENTE Vita e libertà per il popolo iracheno e per
gli ostaggi. Stop immediato ai bombardamenti. Cessate il fuoco, fine
dell'occupazione, ritiro delle truppe dall'Iraq. La comunità
internazionale deve impegnarsi per una soluzione politica che
restituisca sovranità al popolo iracheno, coinvolgendo tutte le
componenti irachene inclusa la società civile e le forze che hanno
scelto la strada della resistenza. Per una pace giusta in Medio
Oriente: due stati per due popoli. Fine all' occupazione dei territori
palestinesi, no al muro illegale. Vita, diritti e dignità per il popolo
kurdo e per il popolo ceceno.
L'EUROPA RIPUDI LA GUERRA assumendo il contenuto dell'articolo 11 della
Costituzione Italiana. Prevenzione dei conflitti, riduzione delle spese
militari e disarmo.
CONTRO LE POLITICHE DEL TERRORE E DELLA BARBARIE Contro ogni forma di
terrorismo da chiunque perpetrato -stati, organizzazioni o individui.
No alla aggressione dei fondamentalisti neoconservatori contro il mondo
islamico, che alimenta lo "scontro di civiltà". No all'uso della "lotta
al terrorismo" per colpire diritti civili e democratici, dissenso e
conflitto sociale.
NO AL RAZZISMO No alle leggi xenofobe. No ai Centri di Permanenza
Temporanea. No alle deportazioni. Libertà di circolazione e pieni
diritti ai migranti. No all'Europa fortezza. Cittadinanza di residenza.
Per una Europa solidale con i sud del mondo.
DIRITTI SOCIALI GARANTITI Diritto al lavoro, alla casa, al reddito,
alla salute, all'istruzione, alla previdenza. No alla precarietà e allo
smantellamento dello stato sociale. No alle politiche neoliberiste in
Italia, in Europa, in tutto il mondo.
30 OTTOBRE - MANIFESTAZIONE NAZIONALE A ROMA
COMITATO FERMIAMO LA GUERRA
http://www.socialpress.it/breve.php3?id_breve=504
Queste sono le nostre considerazioni:
Due note sull’appello del COMITATO FERMIAMO LA GUERRA per la
manifestazione del 30 ottobre per il ritiro delle truppe italiane
dall’Iraq.
UNA CONFUSIONE INACCETTABILE
Riprendiamo, citandoli, alcuni punti di questo appello:
1) “C'E' UNA ALTERNATIVA ALLO "SCONTRO DI CIVILTÀ"
dire “c’è un’alternativa allo scontro di civiltà” implica riconoscere
che questo scontro esiste ed è in atto, significa dunque nascondere che
si tratta, invece, di una formula mediatica che vuole giustificare
l’aggressione imperialista ai popoli del Medioriente
2) “liberiamo la pace”
!?! La pace non è un ostaggio. La realtà è che siamo in guerra, che gli
stati e i governi dell’Occidente capitalista hanno lanciato una guerra
di aggressione per il controllo delle risorse, delle vie di
comunicazione mercantili, per il dominio delle aree strategiche e per
la supremazia del proprio modello economico-politico
(liberista/democratico). La guerra contro i Paesi non allineati
all’ordine capitalista, la guerra al proletariato mondiale per la sua
definitiva soggezione.
La pace tra i popoli non può nascere che contro la guerra imperialista:
"la pace tra gli oppressi, la guerra all’oppressore", questo è l’unico
incontro di civiltà per la pace possibile.
3) “BASTA CON LA GUERRA, IL TERRORISMO,…”
IL TERRORISMO – cioè?
La pratica terrorista del bombardamento sulle città, dei
rastrellamenti, delle torture e quella dei servizi segreti contro le
popolazioni (bombe sui mercati o sugli ospedali) e gli obiettivi
“simbolici” (moschee, per esempio), l’assassinio di giornalisti
indipendenti, i sequestri ad uso montatura mediatica? O le azioni della
guerriglia contro militari, caserme di polizia, mercenari,
collaborazionisti?
Il muro di Sharon, i posti di blocco, i buldozer che ribaltano case e
campi, le braccia spezzate agli adolescenti, le bombe intelligenti di
Israele? O i metodi di lotta dell’Intifada palestinese?
Se si intende una categoria astratta di guerra non convenzionale,
indipendentemente dai soggetti che la adottano, in questo caso
bisognerebbe ricordare, come fanno gli studiosi e i commentatori
onesti, che la guerra “classica” non è più da tempo rispettosa delle
regole stabilite dal “diritto internazionale” e fa normalmente uso,
oltre al bombardamento a tappeto, di tutte le tecniche terroristiche
contro militari e, soprattutto, civili. E' dunque sconcertante che,
mentre si nobilitano queste pratiche come atti di guerra quando ad
applicarle sono gli eserciti aggressori dotati di potentissimi sistemi
d’arma, si stigmatizzino quando praticate dagli aggrediti in condizione
di assoluta inferiorità sul piano militare. La “condanna” morale, che
si pretende equidistante, in realtà condanna l’aggredito a rimanere
vittima in quanto intende togliergli ogni facoltà di autodifesa.
Aggiungiamo soltanto che la Resistenza irachena sconfessa e condanna
sistematicamente le azioni terroristiche spettacolari compiute da
gruppi che sostengono di agire in nome dell’Islam e rivendicano
l’appartenenza alla resistenza ma sono manipolati o diretti dai
differenti servizi segreti.
4) “La comunità internazionale deve impegnarsi per una soluzione
politica che restituisca sovranità al popolo iracheno,…”
LA COMUNITA’ INTERNAZIONALE … Cioè? L’ONU? Che cosa la resistenza
irachena pensa dell’ONU lo ha mostrato con l’attentato (rivendicato)
all’inviato speciale Vieira de Mello allora membro del “triumvirato”
che controllava il “governo provvisorio”. Quello che se ne dovrebbe
pensare risulta abbastanza chiaro valutando il ruolo svolto dall’ONU
nella disgregazione della Jugoslavia, la sua benedizione alla prima
Guerra del Golfo e all’embargo e la legittimazione di fatto
dell’occupazione dell’Iraq. Quest’ultima in palese violazione della sua
stessa Carta che sancisce il diritto alla resistenza con ogni mezzo
all’invasione e all’occupazione militare. Se si vuole parlare di ONU si
dovrebbe fare riferimento a questo principio e sconfessare la realtà di
questo organismo, vero ingranaggio della guerra imperialista.
L’ONU e’ sempre stato espressione dei rapporti di forza esistenti:
l’ingresso dell’ONU in Iraq - prima avversato dagli americani convinti
di poter riportare una rapida vittoria e caldeggiato invece dalle altre
potenze (Europa e Russia) - sancisce ora il compromesso per la
spartizione delle risorse privatizzate tra USA, incapaci di ottenere la
vittoria da soli, e Paesi Europei; in più, disimpegnando militari
statunitensi, agevola nuove aggressioni.
5) “Vita, diritti e dignità per il popolo kurdo e per il popolo
ceceno.”
CECENIA – e’ quanto meno inopportuno accomunare nel medesimo appello a
manifestare “contro la guerra permanente” la questione cecena a quella
irachena, se non altro perché l’Italia mantiene truppe di occupazione
in Iraq, non nel Caucaso: sarebbe più pertinente un riferimento alla
Jugoslavia e ai Balcani, presidiati da circa 9000 nostri soldati.
A parte questo, è bene ricordare che a beneficiare della guerra in
Cecenia (e non solo di un esito di definitiva secessione) sono i
colossi petroliferi anglo-americani in competizione tra loro e con le
compagnie russe per il controllo degli oleodotti. Il Paese non ha
risorse proprie e, nei fatti, non potrebbe sopravvivere economicamente
in stato di indipendenza, se non a carico dei proventi ottenuti dai
permessi di transito del petrolio sul territorio nazionale, rendite per
loro natura legate ai contratti stipulati con i petrolieri. Risulta
evidente (oltre ad essere provato) l’interesse della CIA al processo di
destabilizzazione dell’area: del reclutamento e addestramento dei due
eserciti separatisti di Basayev e del saudita Khattab si è incaricato
il servizio segreto pakistano (1994, campo afgano di Amir Muavvia, per
esempio, impiantato negli anni ’80 in collaborazione con la CIA). Il
micronazionalismo ceceno, come le precedenti – e in larga parte
superate presso la popolazione - forme di lotta contro l’assimilazione,
è strumento di ingerenze esterne delle potenze imperialiste ed ora
anche delle mafie “locali” affermatesi con la disgregazione dell’URSS e
interessate alla spartizione della proprietà sociale e ai traffici
petroliferi. Non è possibile, e non è decente, parlare di
autodeterminazione o di guerra di liberazione nazionale.
KURDI – altrettanto inopportuno l’appello, in questa sede, ai diritti
del popolo kurdo, anche se ci si riferisse ai Kurdi della Turchia. Ma
la genericità del testo fa per di più dubitare che si voglia associare
la lotta autenticamente popolare dei kurdi turchi contro la
discriminazione economica sociale e politica e la repressione, e per
una società progressista, all’azione delle fazioni nazionaliste
tardofeudali dei capi kurdi iracheni strumento da decenni
dell’imperialismo statunitense.
6) “L'EUROPA RIPUDI LA GUERRA…”
L’Europa di Shengen, del riarmo, delle privatizzazioni, della
Commissione Europea (vero governo mai eletto)? L’Europa è già
coinvolta nella “guerra al terrorismo” e, benché attualmente sovrastata
dalla evidente superiorità militare e oggetto a sua volta delle
strategie di dominio globale delle amministrazioni nordamericane,
intende porsi come polo imperialista concorrente agli USA.
7) Caricare un appello per un impegno comune di un ventaglio così
ampio di contenuti che si sanno non condivisibili per una consistente
parte del movimento contro la guerra evidenzia una volontà di creare
divisione e contrapporsi alle componenti antimperialiste. E’ dunque
un’operazione, oltre che di dubbia correttezza, indicativa della
volontà politica di limitare l’efficacia della mobilitazione e farne
strumento di pressione politica istituzionale ad esclusivo vantaggio
della propria fazione.
C’E’ UN’ALTERNATIVA ALLA DEMAGOGIA: assumere l’obiettivo comune del
“RITIRO INCONDIZIONATO DELLE TRUPPE” e riconoscere la piena
“LEGITTIMITA’ DELLA RESISTENZA IRACHENA E PALESTINESE”.
Invitiamo chi condivide queste note e intende partecipare alla
manifestazione ad unirsi alla parte del corteo che esprime sostegno
alla RESISTENZA IRACHENA E PALESTINESE e a partecipare alla successiva
manifestazione indetta per il 13 novembre a Roma da FORUMPALESTINA
[vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3892 ]
(per contatti: vale.po @ tiscalinet.it )
