Informazione
==========================
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)
==========================
(english / italiano)
KAY GETTA LA SPUGNA
1. Dispacci ANSA (in italiano)
2. Bar Association of Belgrade against ICTY -
LA POSIZIONE DELL'ORDINE DEGLI AVVOCATI DI BELGRADO: COMUNICATO
UFFICIALE
3. Prosecution-Appointed Counsel Resigns Over Show Trial Fiasco
---( 1 )---
MILOSEVIC: TPI, AVVOCATI UFFICIO CHIEDONO ESONERO DA INCARICO
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 27 OTT - Gli avvocati d'ufficio designati a
settembre per difendere Slobodan Milosevic al Tribunale penale
internazionale sull'ex Jugoslavia hanno chiesto di essere esonerati
dall'incarico. Lo hanno reso noto fonti vicine al processo in corso
all'Aja. (ANSA) RIG
27/10/2004 10:58
MILOSEVIC: TPI,AVVOCATI UFFICIO CHIEDONO ESONERO DA INCARICO (2)
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 27 OTT - ''Non siamo in condizioni di portare
avanti il nostro incarico'', ha commentato Steve Kay, uno dei due
avvocati britannici assegnati il 2 settembre quali avvocati d'ufficio,
precisando che sarebbe sbagliato ''illudersi che quanto stia avvenendo
al processo sia una difesa corretta''. La camera del consiglio del Tpi
puo' accettare, o rifiutare, tale richiesta, che giunge al termine di
forte tensioni tra gli stessi avvocati e Milosevic, il quale ha da
sempre rifiutato di essere assistito nella difesa che vuole portare
avanti da solo. Giorni fa, Kay aveva gia' preannunciato di ''non essere
nelle condizioni di svolgere tale compito'', precisando che ''la
relazione cordiale'' che aveva con l'imputato quando il legale faceva
parte degli 'amici curiae', gli avvocati incaricati di vegliare sul
corretto svolgimento del processo, ''non esiste piu'. In
quell'occasione, Kay aveva ricordato che Milosevic ha scelto il
conflitto e l'antagonismo nei confronti del collegio degli avvocati
perche' insiste nel volersi difendere da solo. L'ex presidente
jugoslavo deve rispondere di genocidio e crimini di guerra e contro
l'umanita' per fatti avvenuti durante le guerre degli anni '90 nei
Balcani. Il processo contro Milosevic e' cominciato nel febbraio del
2002 e dovrebbe concludersi entro la fine del prossimo anno. (ANSA) RIG
27/10/2004 11:20
MILOSEVIC: DIFENSORI GETTANO SPUGNA, SLOBO NON COLLABORA/ANSA
(di Martino Rigacci) (ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 27 OTT - Nuovo ma non inatteso
scossone al processo contro Slobodan Milosevic in corso all'Aja: i due
avvocati difensori nominati d'ufficio a settembre hanno oggi chiesto
l'esonero dall'incarico di fronte all'impossibilita' di svolgere
correttamente le proprie funzioni a causa della totale mancanza di
collaborazione da parte dell'ex presidente jugoslavo. In una lettera di
dodici pagine inviate al Tribunale penale internazionale sull'ex
Jugoslavia (Tpi), Steve Kay e Gillian Higgins hanno sottolineato che
l'imputato ''si e' costantemente rifiutato di vederci, o di parlare con
noi'', secondo quanto ha detto il portavoce della Corte, Jim Landale.
''Non siamo in condizioni di portare avanti il nostro incarico'', ha
sottolineato Kay, precisando che sarebbe sbagliato ''illudersi che
quanto stia avvenendo al processo sia una difesa corretta''. I legali
hanno inoltre ricordato ''la propria incapacita' di continuare ad
operare in questo modo, senza che cio' intacchi quelli che sono i
principi del nostro codice etico''. La parola passa ora alla camera del
consiglio del Tpi, che puo' accettare o rifiutare la richiesta, giunta
al termine di forti tensioni tra gli stessi avvocati e Milosevic, il
quale ha da sempre rifiutato di essere assistito nella difesa, che
vuole invece portare avanti da solo. Giorni fa Kay aveva gia'
preannunciato di ''non essere nelle condizioni di svolgere tale
compito'', precisando che ''la relazione cordiale'' che aveva con
l'imputato quando il legale faceva parte degli 'amici curiae' (gli
avvocati incaricati di vegliare sul corretto svolgimento del processo)
''non esiste piu'''. In quell'occasione Kay aveva ricordato che
Milosevic ha scelto il conflitto e l'antagonismo nei confronti del
collegio degli avvocati, perche' insiste nel volersi difendere da solo.
- PIU' INCERTEZZA - Visti questi precedenti, l'annuncio fatto oggi dai
due avvocati britannici non e' certo inatteso. Tuttavia, la decisione
aggiunge una consistente quota di incertezza al procedimento
giudiziario che si trascina ormai da tempo, e cioe' dal febbraio del
2002, quando all'Aja e' iniziato quello che e' ritenuto uno dei
processi piu' importanti del dopoguerra. Nel caso in cui la camera di
consiglio accetti la richiesta dei due avvocati, possibilita' ritenuta
la piu' probabile da numerosi esperti, il processo potrebbe essere
momentaneamente sospeso per permettere la designazione di altri
avvocati difensori d'ufficio. La nomina della coppia Kay-Higgins era
avvenuta proprio per evitare altri ritardi, dopo le numerose udienze
rinviate a causa delle precarie condizioni di salute di Milosevic, 63
anni, che soffre di problemi cardiaci e stress e che alla Corte
dell'Aja deve rispondere di genocidio e crimini di guerra e contro
l'umanita' per fatti avvenuti durante le guerre degli anni '90 nei
Balcani. (ANSA). RIG
27/10/2004 17:49
---( 2 )---
**********************************************************
THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF BELGRADE
Decancka 13, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
Phone: +381 11 3239 805, +381 11 3239 875;
Fax: +381 11 3237 082
E-mail: komora @ eunet.yu
**********************************************************
Acting in accordance with the conclusions of its Managing Board of 13
October 2004, the Bar Association of Belgrade submits the following
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Acting strictly on the professional and ethical basis and disregarding
any political considerations, the Bar Association of Belgrade points
out that the right to defence of some individuals tried before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has
been blatantly violated.
This violation is reflected in the changes of rules while the procedure
is in progress, by which the defendants are prevented of preparing and
presenting their defence, in conditions of an inappropriately short
time given and uncritical and unprincipled treatment of their health.
In this way, the principle of equality of arms between defence and
prosecution is violated and defendants are put in totally unequal
position. The imposition of defence counsel which acts without
instructions of the accused is also an impediment for the accused to
prepare his defence and use all the evidence and procedural tools he
wishes to. The above especially applies to the trial of former
President Slobodan Milosevic.
Acting in this way, the ICTY compromises the right of defendants to
defence and by that to a fair trial to the utmost; this right being
guaranteed to any accused before any court of law.
Advocates of Belgrade consider that by acting in this was the ICTY
itself contributes to the loss of its credibility not only in the eyes
of experts, but also in the eyes of wide public; acting in this way the
ICTY directly contradicts the efforts of the official, state organs
which call upon those indicted to voluntarily surrender to the Tribunal.
Adhering to the principles of truth and justice, in the belief that
Advocates must bring the truth to courts, we express our protest
against the violation of the rights to defence and fair trial of the
accused. We demand that any accused, without regard to his or hers
nationality, be accorded the right to defence guaranteed by all
international human rights conventions and documents relative to the
procedure before the ICTY.
At the same time, we appeal to all the colleagues at home and abroad
not to accept the dishonorable role of an imposed defence counsel on an
unwilling accused, thus showing respect for the ethics of our
profession and the ICTY Statute.
The Bar Association of Belgrade will inform the international bodies
for the protection of human rights about its position and conclusions
from this statement. The International Union of Advocates will also be
informed, the Union of which the Bar Association of Belgrade is a
founding member since 1928.
President of the Bar
Association of Belgrade
Vojislav S. Nedic
(Published as an ad in the daily "Politika", Belgrade, 23 October 2004)
---( 3 )---
From: Rick Rozoff
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?order=priority
B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - October 26, 2004
Kay throws in the towel
THE HAGUE - According to sources close to the
tribunal, B92’s Hague correspondent Milos Milic
reports that Steven Kay, the British lawyer appointed
in September as Slobodan Milosevic’s defense counsel,
has officially given his resignation to the Tribunal’s
secretariat.
From the beginning of his participation in the trial,
Kay was met with a massive boycott by witnesses who
would not participate if Milosevic himself was not in
charge of the defense proceedings.
Since September 2, Kay was able to convince only five
witnesses to testify, out of a list of potential
witnesses which numbered in the thousands.
He had submitted a complaint to the court earlier
asking to be removed from his position.
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)
==========================
(english / italiano)
KAY GETTA LA SPUGNA
1. Dispacci ANSA (in italiano)
2. Bar Association of Belgrade against ICTY -
LA POSIZIONE DELL'ORDINE DEGLI AVVOCATI DI BELGRADO: COMUNICATO
UFFICIALE
3. Prosecution-Appointed Counsel Resigns Over Show Trial Fiasco
---( 1 )---
MILOSEVIC: TPI, AVVOCATI UFFICIO CHIEDONO ESONERO DA INCARICO
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 27 OTT - Gli avvocati d'ufficio designati a
settembre per difendere Slobodan Milosevic al Tribunale penale
internazionale sull'ex Jugoslavia hanno chiesto di essere esonerati
dall'incarico. Lo hanno reso noto fonti vicine al processo in corso
all'Aja. (ANSA) RIG
27/10/2004 10:58
MILOSEVIC: TPI,AVVOCATI UFFICIO CHIEDONO ESONERO DA INCARICO (2)
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 27 OTT - ''Non siamo in condizioni di portare
avanti il nostro incarico'', ha commentato Steve Kay, uno dei due
avvocati britannici assegnati il 2 settembre quali avvocati d'ufficio,
precisando che sarebbe sbagliato ''illudersi che quanto stia avvenendo
al processo sia una difesa corretta''. La camera del consiglio del Tpi
puo' accettare, o rifiutare, tale richiesta, che giunge al termine di
forte tensioni tra gli stessi avvocati e Milosevic, il quale ha da
sempre rifiutato di essere assistito nella difesa che vuole portare
avanti da solo. Giorni fa, Kay aveva gia' preannunciato di ''non essere
nelle condizioni di svolgere tale compito'', precisando che ''la
relazione cordiale'' che aveva con l'imputato quando il legale faceva
parte degli 'amici curiae', gli avvocati incaricati di vegliare sul
corretto svolgimento del processo, ''non esiste piu'. In
quell'occasione, Kay aveva ricordato che Milosevic ha scelto il
conflitto e l'antagonismo nei confronti del collegio degli avvocati
perche' insiste nel volersi difendere da solo. L'ex presidente
jugoslavo deve rispondere di genocidio e crimini di guerra e contro
l'umanita' per fatti avvenuti durante le guerre degli anni '90 nei
Balcani. Il processo contro Milosevic e' cominciato nel febbraio del
2002 e dovrebbe concludersi entro la fine del prossimo anno. (ANSA) RIG
27/10/2004 11:20
MILOSEVIC: DIFENSORI GETTANO SPUGNA, SLOBO NON COLLABORA/ANSA
(di Martino Rigacci) (ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 27 OTT - Nuovo ma non inatteso
scossone al processo contro Slobodan Milosevic in corso all'Aja: i due
avvocati difensori nominati d'ufficio a settembre hanno oggi chiesto
l'esonero dall'incarico di fronte all'impossibilita' di svolgere
correttamente le proprie funzioni a causa della totale mancanza di
collaborazione da parte dell'ex presidente jugoslavo. In una lettera di
dodici pagine inviate al Tribunale penale internazionale sull'ex
Jugoslavia (Tpi), Steve Kay e Gillian Higgins hanno sottolineato che
l'imputato ''si e' costantemente rifiutato di vederci, o di parlare con
noi'', secondo quanto ha detto il portavoce della Corte, Jim Landale.
''Non siamo in condizioni di portare avanti il nostro incarico'', ha
sottolineato Kay, precisando che sarebbe sbagliato ''illudersi che
quanto stia avvenendo al processo sia una difesa corretta''. I legali
hanno inoltre ricordato ''la propria incapacita' di continuare ad
operare in questo modo, senza che cio' intacchi quelli che sono i
principi del nostro codice etico''. La parola passa ora alla camera del
consiglio del Tpi, che puo' accettare o rifiutare la richiesta, giunta
al termine di forti tensioni tra gli stessi avvocati e Milosevic, il
quale ha da sempre rifiutato di essere assistito nella difesa, che
vuole invece portare avanti da solo. Giorni fa Kay aveva gia'
preannunciato di ''non essere nelle condizioni di svolgere tale
compito'', precisando che ''la relazione cordiale'' che aveva con
l'imputato quando il legale faceva parte degli 'amici curiae' (gli
avvocati incaricati di vegliare sul corretto svolgimento del processo)
''non esiste piu'''. In quell'occasione Kay aveva ricordato che
Milosevic ha scelto il conflitto e l'antagonismo nei confronti del
collegio degli avvocati, perche' insiste nel volersi difendere da solo.
- PIU' INCERTEZZA - Visti questi precedenti, l'annuncio fatto oggi dai
due avvocati britannici non e' certo inatteso. Tuttavia, la decisione
aggiunge una consistente quota di incertezza al procedimento
giudiziario che si trascina ormai da tempo, e cioe' dal febbraio del
2002, quando all'Aja e' iniziato quello che e' ritenuto uno dei
processi piu' importanti del dopoguerra. Nel caso in cui la camera di
consiglio accetti la richiesta dei due avvocati, possibilita' ritenuta
la piu' probabile da numerosi esperti, il processo potrebbe essere
momentaneamente sospeso per permettere la designazione di altri
avvocati difensori d'ufficio. La nomina della coppia Kay-Higgins era
avvenuta proprio per evitare altri ritardi, dopo le numerose udienze
rinviate a causa delle precarie condizioni di salute di Milosevic, 63
anni, che soffre di problemi cardiaci e stress e che alla Corte
dell'Aja deve rispondere di genocidio e crimini di guerra e contro
l'umanita' per fatti avvenuti durante le guerre degli anni '90 nei
Balcani. (ANSA). RIG
27/10/2004 17:49
---( 2 )---
**********************************************************
THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF BELGRADE
Decancka 13, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
Phone: +381 11 3239 805, +381 11 3239 875;
Fax: +381 11 3237 082
E-mail: komora @ eunet.yu
**********************************************************
Acting in accordance with the conclusions of its Managing Board of 13
October 2004, the Bar Association of Belgrade submits the following
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Acting strictly on the professional and ethical basis and disregarding
any political considerations, the Bar Association of Belgrade points
out that the right to defence of some individuals tried before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has
been blatantly violated.
This violation is reflected in the changes of rules while the procedure
is in progress, by which the defendants are prevented of preparing and
presenting their defence, in conditions of an inappropriately short
time given and uncritical and unprincipled treatment of their health.
In this way, the principle of equality of arms between defence and
prosecution is violated and defendants are put in totally unequal
position. The imposition of defence counsel which acts without
instructions of the accused is also an impediment for the accused to
prepare his defence and use all the evidence and procedural tools he
wishes to. The above especially applies to the trial of former
President Slobodan Milosevic.
Acting in this way, the ICTY compromises the right of defendants to
defence and by that to a fair trial to the utmost; this right being
guaranteed to any accused before any court of law.
Advocates of Belgrade consider that by acting in this was the ICTY
itself contributes to the loss of its credibility not only in the eyes
of experts, but also in the eyes of wide public; acting in this way the
ICTY directly contradicts the efforts of the official, state organs
which call upon those indicted to voluntarily surrender to the Tribunal.
Adhering to the principles of truth and justice, in the belief that
Advocates must bring the truth to courts, we express our protest
against the violation of the rights to defence and fair trial of the
accused. We demand that any accused, without regard to his or hers
nationality, be accorded the right to defence guaranteed by all
international human rights conventions and documents relative to the
procedure before the ICTY.
At the same time, we appeal to all the colleagues at home and abroad
not to accept the dishonorable role of an imposed defence counsel on an
unwilling accused, thus showing respect for the ethics of our
profession and the ICTY Statute.
The Bar Association of Belgrade will inform the international bodies
for the protection of human rights about its position and conclusions
from this statement. The International Union of Advocates will also be
informed, the Union of which the Bar Association of Belgrade is a
founding member since 1928.
President of the Bar
Association of Belgrade
Vojislav S. Nedic
(Published as an ad in the daily "Politika", Belgrade, 23 October 2004)
---( 3 )---
From: Rick Rozoff
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?order=priority
B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - October 26, 2004
Kay throws in the towel
THE HAGUE - According to sources close to the
tribunal, B92’s Hague correspondent Milos Milic
reports that Steven Kay, the British lawyer appointed
in September as Slobodan Milosevic’s defense counsel,
has officially given his resignation to the Tribunal’s
secretariat.
From the beginning of his participation in the trial,
Kay was met with a massive boycott by witnesses who
would not participate if Milosevic himself was not in
charge of the defense proceedings.
Since September 2, Kay was able to convince only five
witnesses to testify, out of a list of potential
witnesses which numbered in the thousands.
He had submitted a complaint to the court earlier
asking to be removed from his position.
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 )
GRECIA:RICORRE OGGI LA GIORNATA DEL 'NO' ALL'ITALIA FASCISTA
(ANSA) - ATENE, 28 OTT - E' festa grande oggi in tutta la Grecia (ma
anche nella parte greca dell'isola di Cipro) per la ''Giornata
dell'Ochi'' ('no'): alle 3 del mattino del 28 ottobre 1940 il primo
ministro Ioannis Metaxas rispose 'Ochi' (no) all' ultimatum di Benito
Mussolini - presentatogli di persona dall'ambasciatore italiano
Emanuele Grazzi - che voleva occupare militarmente il Paese e la Grecia
entro' in guerra contro l' Asse. L'immediato rifiuto di Metaxas,
premier autoritario e anch' egli filo-fascista, ma decisamente
nazionalista, dette inizio ad una sanguinosa guerra durata otto mesi e
combattuta nel gelido inverno dell'Epiro e dell'Albania meridionale che
fece circa 25.000 morti (le due parti ebbero quasi lo stesso numero di
vittime) e che si concluse con la sconfitta dell'esercito italiano. In
tutte le citta' greche, dall'alba, rimbombano salve di cannone e le
campane suonano a stormo mentre le bandiere bianco-azzurre fanno da
cornice all'animazione di molte parate. Ma la commemorazione e la
sfilata militare piu' importante - come da sempre - si e' svolta a
Salonicco, nel Nord della Grecia. Per l'occasione, come ha fatto da 10
anni a questa parte, il presidente della Repubblica Costis
Stephanopoulos e' arrivato a Salonicco per presenziare alle
celebrazioni, una visita pero' segnata quest'anno da notevole
commozione in quanto sara' la sua ultima qui da capo dello Stato.
Sempre nell'ambito delle celebrazioni per il 64.mo anniversario del
''Giorno del no'', un toccante incontro e' avvenuto ieri nel villaggio
di Kalpaki, a Nord della citta' di Ioannina, presso il confine con
l'Albania, dove nel 1940 si svolsero cruenti combattimenti tra militari
italiani e greci: visibilmente commossi si sono incontrati e
abbracciati due ''ex nemici'', il reduce italiano Michele Monzagano, di
86 anni, ed il suo coetaneo greco Costas Kantrelis. ''Chiedo perdono
per le sofferenze che abbiamo causato, senza volerlo, ma sotto le
pressioni del regime fascista di Mussolini'', ha detto Monzagano al
''nemico ritrovato''. (ANSA). MRR 28-OTT-04 13:01 NNNN
28/10/2004 16:51
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/fattidelgiorno/200410281651172080/
200410281651172080.html
(ANSA) - ATENE, 28 OTT - E' festa grande oggi in tutta la Grecia (ma
anche nella parte greca dell'isola di Cipro) per la ''Giornata
dell'Ochi'' ('no'): alle 3 del mattino del 28 ottobre 1940 il primo
ministro Ioannis Metaxas rispose 'Ochi' (no) all' ultimatum di Benito
Mussolini - presentatogli di persona dall'ambasciatore italiano
Emanuele Grazzi - che voleva occupare militarmente il Paese e la Grecia
entro' in guerra contro l' Asse. L'immediato rifiuto di Metaxas,
premier autoritario e anch' egli filo-fascista, ma decisamente
nazionalista, dette inizio ad una sanguinosa guerra durata otto mesi e
combattuta nel gelido inverno dell'Epiro e dell'Albania meridionale che
fece circa 25.000 morti (le due parti ebbero quasi lo stesso numero di
vittime) e che si concluse con la sconfitta dell'esercito italiano. In
tutte le citta' greche, dall'alba, rimbombano salve di cannone e le
campane suonano a stormo mentre le bandiere bianco-azzurre fanno da
cornice all'animazione di molte parate. Ma la commemorazione e la
sfilata militare piu' importante - come da sempre - si e' svolta a
Salonicco, nel Nord della Grecia. Per l'occasione, come ha fatto da 10
anni a questa parte, il presidente della Repubblica Costis
Stephanopoulos e' arrivato a Salonicco per presenziare alle
celebrazioni, una visita pero' segnata quest'anno da notevole
commozione in quanto sara' la sua ultima qui da capo dello Stato.
Sempre nell'ambito delle celebrazioni per il 64.mo anniversario del
''Giorno del no'', un toccante incontro e' avvenuto ieri nel villaggio
di Kalpaki, a Nord della citta' di Ioannina, presso il confine con
l'Albania, dove nel 1940 si svolsero cruenti combattimenti tra militari
italiani e greci: visibilmente commossi si sono incontrati e
abbracciati due ''ex nemici'', il reduce italiano Michele Monzagano, di
86 anni, ed il suo coetaneo greco Costas Kantrelis. ''Chiedo perdono
per le sofferenze che abbiamo causato, senza volerlo, ma sotto le
pressioni del regime fascista di Mussolini'', ha detto Monzagano al
''nemico ritrovato''. (ANSA). MRR 28-OTT-04 13:01 NNNN
28/10/2004 16:51
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/fattidelgiorno/200410281651172080/
200410281651172080.html
(srpskohrvatski / francais / english / italiano)
Il Montenegro tra mafia, privatizzazioni e secessione
3: L'Unione Europea vuole sfasciare anche l'Unione di Serbia e
Montenegro: "doppio binario" e "strade parallele" per l'accesso alla UE
A ) Fonte ANSA:
IL MONTENEGRO HA NUOVA BANDIERA E NUOVO INNO NAZIONALE ... CON IL TESTO
SCRITTO DA UN NAZISTA / ACCORDO ASSOCIAZIONE UE SOLO CON SERBIA E
MONTENEGRO INSIEME ? / SOLANA E PATTEN A BELGRADO / SERBIA-MONTENEGRO,
"PERCORSO PARALLELO" (SIC) PER ADESIONE
B ) LINK agli articoli in lingua italiana di "Osservatorio Balcani":
Traffico di bambini in Montenegro? / Transizione dolorosa per il
Montenegro / La Serbia e Montenegro sul 'doppio binario' / L’OSCE ci
riprova in Montenegro /
C ) UZROCI SEPARATIZMA I RASRBLjIVANjA U CRNOJ GORI
(Beograd, 26. 12. 2001 - Slobodan Jarcevic / ARTEL)
*** VOIR AUSSI, EN FRANCAIS, DANS LE SITE PRO-SECESSIONISTE ET
ANTI-YOUGOSLAVE "COURRIER DE BALKANS" :
Bruxelles se rend compte que l’Union de Serbie et Monténégro ne peut
pas survivre
L’Union européenne est en train d’accepter peu à peu l’idée que la
Serbie et le Monténégro gagneraient à être indépendants. Le vibrant
plaidoyer du Président de la République du Monténégro en faveur de deux
États, « amis, alliés, mais indépendants »...
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4595.html
Serbie-Monténégro : il faut reconnaître l'échec de l'Union d'États
L’Union de Serbie et Monténégro a pris du retard dans le chemin de
l’adhésion à l’Union européenne, et se trouve bien loin derrière les
autres états des Balkans. L’union d’États, cette formule unique au
monde, n’a pas fonctionné. Le jugement catégorique du vice-Premier
ministre de Serbie.
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4592.html
Intégration européenne : vers une voie spécifique pour le Monténégro ?
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4580.html
Une rencontre informelle a réuni les chefs de la diplomatie européenne
à Maastricht au début du mois de septembre. Pour la première fois,
l’hypothèse d’une « double voie » dans l’intégration européenne de la
Serbie et du Monténégro a été évoquée. Milo Djukanovic chante victoire,
mais la plus grande prudence demeure pourtant de mise. Javier Solana
reste attaché au maintien de la Communauté d’États...
*** SEE ALSO, IN ENGLISH, FROM THE ANTI-YUGOSLAV, PRO-SECESSIONIST SITE
"IWPR" :
MONTENEGRO BACKS OFF SEPARATION VOTE
Brussels is winning its battle to force republic to stay with Serbia.
By Nedjeljko Rudovic in Podgorica
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 497, May 14, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr3/bcr3_200405_497_1_eng.txt
MONTENEGRO’S OUT-OF-STEP OPPOSITION
Disappointment with Milo Djukanovic may be rising, but the old
opposition parties are not benefiting much. By Nedjeljko Rudovic in
Podgorica
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 506, July 08, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net
COMMENT: EU REALISING STATE UNION CAN'T SURVIVE
Brussels appears to be coming round to accepting that Serbia and
Montenegro would be better off as independent states. By Filip
Vujanovic (president of Montenegro)
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 516, September 17, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net
THE PATTEN LETTER
Letter from European Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten -
apparently leaked to the Montenegrin paper Vijesti and published on
September 10 - heralding the European Union's new strategy for Serbia
and Montenegro.
The letter, sent in mid-July to the chair of the EU Ministerial Council
and Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot and EU representative for
foreign and security policy Javier Solana, presented Patten's idea
about a new approach to the process of association of Serbia and
Montenegro with the European Union according to which the two state
union entities should take separate economic tracks.
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 516, September 17, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net
*** MORE LINKS :
MIA: Macedonia to Tutor Serbia-Montenegro on the Road to EU and NATO
http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=3438
Albania, Montenegro Seek to Build on Ties, Boost Regional Stability (by
Antonela Krstovic)
http://www.setimes.com/html2/english/040721-ANTONELA-001.htm
NATO, EU Membership Depends on Resolving Serbia, Montenegro Relationship
http://news.serbianunity.net/bydate/2004/September_02/3.html?w=p
Slovenia to Help Pave Way for Montenegro's EU Accession (by Antonela
Krstovic)
http://www.setimes.com/
default3.asp?lang=english&page=process_print&article_id=25086
=== A ===
IL MONTENEGRO HA NUOVA BANDIERA E NUOVO INNO NAZIONALE [ CON IL TESTO
SCRITTO DA UN NAZISTA ]
(ANSA-AFP) - PODGORICA (Serbia-Montenegro), 13 LUG - Il Parlamento del
Montenegro ha adottato, la scorsa notte, una legge che permettera' al
Paese di avere una nuova bandiera e un nuovo inno nazionale.
La nuova bandiera montenegrina e' rossa con un bordo dorato e vi
campeggia un'aquila bianca. L'inno e' ripreso da un canto popolare
riadattato, 'Oj svijetla majska zoro (O luminosa alba del mese di
maggio)'.
La legge sui nuovi simboli del Montenegro e' stata approvata con 38
voti, due contro e uno astenuto. La Camera conta 75 deputati. I
rappresentanti dell'opposizione boicottano i lavori del parlamento.
In precedenza il Montenegro aveva una bandiera simile a quella serba,
tre bande orizzontali, rosso, azzurro e bianco. (ANSA-AFP). RED
13/07/2004 17:59
NOTA: Lo stesso patriarca ortodosso Pavle ha fatto notare che --
diversamente da quanto riportato dall'ANSA -- il canto "Oj svijetla
majska zoro" non è semplicemente una canzone popolare montenegrina,
bensi' si tratta di "una revisione con le parole di uno dei personaggi
più oscuri nella storia montenegrina, il nazifascista Sekula Drljevic"
(cfr. JUGOINFO 10 Settembre 2004).
UE: ACCORDO ASSOCIAZIONE SOLO CON SERBIA E MONTENEGRO INSIEME
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 4 OTT - L'Unione europea sottoscrivera' un
accordo di stabilizzazione e di associazione solo con lo Stato della
Serbia-Montenegro e non con le due entita' che ne fanno parte. Lo ha
affermato la portavoce Emma Udwin, alla vigilia della visita domani a
Belgrado del commissario ue alle relazioni esterne Chris Patten e
dell'Alto rappresentante per la politica estera e di sicurezza comune
della Ue Javier Solana. L'UE e' pero' pronta a ''lavorare
separatamente con le due repubbliche sui dossier'', ha affermato
Udwin, che ha anche ricordato che le disposizioni costituzionali non
prevedono una revisione dell'unione della Serbia e del Montenegro
prima del febbraio 2006. (ANSA). OS
04/10/2004 15:48
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO: UE, SOLANA E PATTEN A BELGRADO
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 5 OTT - L'Alto commissario europeo per la politica
estera e di sicurezza Javier Solana e il commisario per gli Affari
esteri Chris Patten sono arrivati oggi a Belgrado per una visita di
alcune ore. Solana e Patten devono incontrare il presidente
serbomontenegrino Svetozar Marovic, i presidenti di Serbia, Boris
Tadic, e Montenegro, Filip Vujanovic, i premier dei due governi
Vojislav Kostunica e Milo Djukanovic e il vicepremier serbo Miroljub
Labus. I due proseguiranno poi per Pristina, per colloqui con le
autorita' kosovare in vista delle elezioni del 23 ottobre nella
provincia. Al centro della missione dei due rappresentanti europei
sono appunto le elezioni politiche in Kosovo, che alcuni esponenti di
Belgrado vorrebbero boicottate dalla comunita' serba, e i progressi
dell'unione Serbia e Montenegro, che Bruxelles vorrebbe fosse
mantenuta nonostante le perplessita' di Podgorica. Stasera il
presidente Tadic dovrebbe pronunciarsi sulla posizione di Belgrado
per le elezioni kosovare. In Montenegro, fra i partiti di governo
c'e' chi insiste per due percorsi di integrazione con l'Ue separati
per Belgrado e Podgorica. Ieri pero' i portavoce di Bruxelles hanno
ribadito la posizione dell'Unione per un processo unificato.
Nella visita, stando ai giornali belgradesi, sara' dato anche spazio
al problema della cooperazione con il Tribunale penale
internazionale, che il procuratore generale del Tpi Carla Del ponte
aveva definito ieri ''drammaticamente scarsa e al suo punto piu'
basso dell'ultimo anno''. (ANSA). OT
05/10/2004 15:58
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO: UE, PERCORSO PARALLELO PER ADESIONE
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 5 OTT - Serbia e Montenegro potranno procedere in
modo parallelo in campo economico nel loro cammino di integrazione
con l'Unione europea, con un modello ribattezzato 'twin tracks'
(percorsi gemelli) che potra' portare nel 2007 alla domanda comune di
adesione e nel 2012 alla decisione finale sull'ingresso. Lo hanno
detto i portavoce della presidenza e del governo serbi al termine di
una visita a Belgrado dell'alto commissario dell'Ue per la politica
estera e di sicurezza Javier Solana e del commissario per le
relazioni esterne Chris Patten. Stando ai portavoce, uno studio
di fattibilita' dovrebbe essere concluso entro l'inizio del prossimo
anno, e se il risultato sara' soddisfacente, nel 2007 Serbia e
Montenegro potranno candidarsi all'adesione, la cui ratifica potrebbe
venire nel 2012. Risolto cosi' il problema della difficile
armonizzazione economica fra Belgrado e Podgorica, resta pero'
l'ostacolo della collaborazione con il Tribunale penale
internazionale per i crimini di guerra nella ex Jugoslavia, giudicata
ieri dal procuratore Carla Del Ponte ''drammaticamente scarsa''.
Solana e Patten hanno incontrato a Belgrado il presidente
serbomontenegrino Svetozar Marovic, il ministro degli esteri Vuk
Draskovic, i presidenti serbo Boris Tadic e montenegrino Filip
Vujanovic, i premier Vojislav Kostunica e Milo Djkanovic e il
vicepremier serbo Miroljub Labus. Sono quindi ripartiti per Buxelles.
Con gli interlocutori serbi, i due esponenti europei hanno
parlato anche della situazione in Kosovo alla vigilia delle elezioni
politiche del 23 ottobre, che alcune componenti della societa' e
della politica belgradesi (in primo luogo la chiesa ortodossa serba)
vorrebbero vedere boicottate dalla minoranza serba. Solana e Patten
hanno invitato alla partecipazione: stasera il presidente Tadic
dovrebbe rivolgere in proposito un messaggio televisivo alla nazione.
Tadic e' atteso peraltro domani a Bruxelles per proseguire i colloqui
su questi temi. (ANSA). OT 05/10/2004 20:05
=== B ===
Traffico di bambini in Montenegro?
02.02.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Tanja Bošković
Il quotidiano britannico Sunday Mirror pubblica una storia sul traffico
di bambini in un campo Rom del Montenegro. I media montenegrini danno
voce alle ripetute smentite dei protagonisti locali. In pochi pensano
alla vulnerabilità dei Rom
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/2780/1/47/
Transizione dolorosa per il Montenegro
19.02.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Tanja Bošković
Protestano i pensionati, scioperano gli impiegati delle aziende
statali, numerosi gli esuberi e pochi i finanziamenti a disposizione.
Il governo cerca di minimizzare, ma resta alto il malcontento
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/2820/1/47/
La Serbia e Montenegro sul 'doppio binario'
11.10.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Jadranka Gilić
Javier Solana e Chris Patten giungono in visita in Serbia e Montenegro
con l'intento di discutere il principio da poco adottato definito del
“doppio binario”, un regolamento diversificato per le due repubbliche
in materia economica e doganale in vista dell'associazione della Serbia
e Montenegro all'UE
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/3498/1/51/
L’OSCE ci riprova in Montenegro
15.10.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Jadranka Gilić
Alla vigilia della ripresa dei lavori del Parlamento montenegrino, il
capo missione dell'OSCE, Maurizio Massari, giunge a Podgorica per
cercare di far cessare il boicottaggio del parlamento da parte
dell'opposizione e risolvere la questione delle dirette televisive
delle sedute parlamentari
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/3519/1/51/
=== C ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2004-06-10.html
UZROCI SEPARATIZMA I RASRBLjIVANjA U CRNOJ GORI
Beograd, 26. 12. 2001.
Slobodan Jarcevic
Umnožavanjem izoblicenih cinjenica do izoblicene svesti
Crnogogorci su jedno a Srbi drugo
Izvestan broj pravoslavnih Crnogoraca uporno istrajava na odvajanju
Crne Gore iz državne zajednice sa Srbijom i žestoko zagovara da
Crnogorci ne pripadaju srpskom narodu. Dodaju da Crnogorci tvore
posebnu (nesrpsku) naciju. Šta su uzroci ovakvog opredeljenja, kad su i
najbliži preci ovih Crnogoraca bili sigurni da su Srbi i, pri takvom
ubedenju, nikome od njih nije padalo na pamet da bi trebalo da
nacionalnu (srpsku) teritoriju razbijaju na više država?
A evo, kod nekih njihovih potomaka pojmovi su se izokrenuli. Ubeduju
nas da postupaju pravilno, a vidimo da samo popunjavaju redove ranije
rasrbljenih saplemenika - muslimana i katolika, ciji pripadnici su,
velikom vecinom (kad su Nebesa najavljivala pometnju i ratove), odlucno
pristajali da sprovode antisrpske projekte, uz manje ili vece pokolje
srpskog stanovništva.
Deo ovih pravoslavnih Srba ne unosi ništa novo u objašnjavanju razloga
oko svog rasrbljivanja i služi se istim obrazloženjima kao i prethodno
rasrbljeni - muslimani i katolici: ne govore srpskim jezikom, drukcije
su konstrukcije od Srba, drukcije su se ponašali od Srba u istoriji,
imaju drukcije obicaje od Srba, nisu se znacajnije mešali sa Srbima,
došli su iz prapostojbine u kojoj Srbi nisu obitovali, itd.
Najnapadnije se koriste cinjenicom da stanovništvo Crne Gore ima neke
individualne crte, koje ne srecemo kod Srba u drugim krajevima.
Medutim, ova lokalna posebnost (kako to ne primecuju?) je jedno od
najneutemeljenijih obrazloženja, jer nema srpskog kraja gde te crte
nisu izražene - pa bi, na osnovu njih, svaka grupa Srba mogla da objavi
da ne pripada srpskom narodu. Te posebnosti, medu kojima su i jezicke,
nekad su razlicitije medu crnogorskim plemenima, nego, naprimer, izmedu
Brdana u Crnoj Gori i susednih Srba u Raškoj, ali na njih se necemo
osvrtati. O tome i doseljavanju Srba u Crnu Goru iz mnogih srpskih
krajeva, pisao je etnolog Jovan Erdeljanovic i mnogi drugi. O
nakaradnom tvrdenju da pravoslavni Srbi u Crnoj Gori nisu Srbi i da
treba Crnogorci-nesrbi da osnuju nesrpsku Crnu Goru, u kojoj ce Srbi
biti nacionalna manjina, govoricemo iz istorijskog ugla.
Da vidimo, cime Srbi-nesrbi opravdavaju svoje opake namere. Obicno,
navode sledece:
1) Crna Gora je bila država u devetnaestom stolecu i prirodno je da se
ta državnost obnovi,
2) Razvoj posebne crnogorske države u srednjem veku,
3) Srbi, od srednjeg veka do danas, imaju osvajacke namere prema Crnoj
Gori,
4) Crnogorci su se vekovima borili protiv turskog ropstva, dok su Srbi
to ropstvo trpeli.
Da pogledamo svaku od ovih tacaka.
1) Separatisti uzdižu (raniju a iznudenu) crnogorsku državnost
Održavanje crnogorske države, odvojeno od srbijanske u 19. stolecu,
bilo je protiv volje srpskog naroda. Usledilo je odlukom evropskih sila
i Turske, uz saglasnost Rusije. Time je ostvaren plan daljeg srpskog
robovanja pod Turskom i Austrougarskom. Turska je zadržala veliki deo
srpskih zemalja, a još veci je ustupljen Austrougarskoj: Hercegovina i
Bosna, a prethodno je okupirala Dalmaciju, Liku, Kordun, Baniju,
Slavoniju, Baranju i Vojvodinu. Tako je Srbima bilo uskraceno prirodno
pravo da stvore državu na celokupnom etnickom prostoru. Ovakvim
ustupcima Turskoj i Austrougarskoj, okoristile su se Engleska i
Francuska, jer su odobrovoljene Nemacka i Austrougarska - pristale su
da, za dogledno vreme, ne pokrecu pitanje preraspodele engleskih i
francuskih kolonija. Austrougarska je izvukla i vanrednu korist
onemogucavanjem ujedinjenja Srbije i Crne Gore. Jer, pojedinacno slabe
i medusobno odvojene, one nisu mogle predstavljati ozbiljan oslonoac
brojnim Srbima u Austrougarskoj, koji su u devetnaestom stolecu
najavljivali svoju autonomiju i ujedinjenje sa Srbijom.
Današnji zagovornici nezavisne Crne Gore uzdižu do neba crnogorsku
državnost iz 19. stoleca, zaklinjuci se da su obavezni da tu državnost
ocuvaju i produže - izlaskom iz zajednicke države sa Srbijom. A vidimo
da ta državnost, na koju se pozivaju, nije bila u devetnaestom stolecu
krajnja tekovina srpskog naroda - njegovog državnickog delovanja i
oslobodilackih ratova, nego privremeno nametnuti projekt velikih sila.
Podatke nalazimo u mnogim dokumentima evropskih država, pa i onih
vezanih za održavanje Berlinskog kongresa 1878.
U njima su jednostavne poruke - velike sile deluju na osnovu sopstvenih
interesa i oni se, samo slucajno, mogu poklopiti sa interesima nejakih
partnera.
U devetnaestom stolecu se interesi velikih sila nisu poklapali sa
srpskim. One su nametnule rešenja na štetu srpskih nacionalnih
interesa. Ponavljanje te štete u dvadesetprvom stolecu je osigurano ako
srpski politicari razbiju državnu zajednicu Crne Gore i Srbije. Neka ih
na to opomene zlosutna izjava guvernera Bosne i Hercegovine Benjamina
Kalaja, kroz koju se nazire odluka o suzbijanju srpskih država u uske
okvire i okupiranje preostalog dela srpskih zemalja (1882):
"Hrvatsko snaženje, s obzirom na nas, cim se cini na štetu Srba, ne
može biti opasno po Austrougarsku, jer granice hrvatskog širenja bice
korisne za nas. Ne samo da cemo razdeliti Južne Slovene, nego cemo i za
dalje deljenje na Balkanu dobiti odrešene ruke…" (1)
Da je strateški cilj velikih sila Evrope bio da se onemoguci
jedninstvena srpska država, možemo se uveriti i na osnovu depeše
ministra inostranih poslova Velike Britanije ser Roberta Solsberija,
upucene britanskom ambasadoru u Berlinu ser Lajardu, 19. juna 1878:
"…Mi smo obecali da cemo, kad se o pitanju Bosne bude raspravljalo,
izneti pred Kongres mišljenje, koje uživa podršku Vlade Njenog
Velicanstva, da ce okupacija ove oblasti od strane Austrougarske biti u
interesu Turske, kako s vojne tako i sa finansijske tacke gledišta.
Time ce se, takode, spreciti ujedinjenje dve slovenske države - Srbije
i Crne Gore - koje Turska nece biti dovoljno kadra da drži
razdvojenim…" (2)
Da li je moguce da ijedan Srbin sme da se ogluši o ove zlokobne davne
poruke, a tako prisutne u vrtlogu današnjih politickih igri pod srpskim
nebom?
2. Nije bilo posebnih srednjovekovnih država: Duklje, Zete, Bosne,
Huma, Raške, Travunije…
Ovaj podnaslov deluje cudno i proizvoljno, ali ako steknemo uvid u
sadržaje starih dokumenata, cudno i proizvoljno ce nam delovati samo
ono što piše u našim istorijskim udžbenicima. Uporedivanjem s
istorijskim izvorima, videcemo da su nam skrivene neke temeljne
istorijske cinjenice. Prepusticemo da razloge za to istražju
istoricari, a mi se sami možemo uveriti da su uceni Srbi (uz
pokroviteljstvo srpskih državnika) stalno sasecali korene srpske
baštine. To je cinjeno u svim oblastima, s posebnom istrajnošcu u
istorijskoj nauci. Nema spora da su ova krivotvorenja istine iz
prošlosti stvorila plodno tlo za bujanje antisrpstva i u grupi
pravoslavnih Srba u Crnoj Gori. Opisacemo dva primera skrivanja
istorijskih cinjenica, cijim korišcenjem se utire put separatizmu i
nacionalnom odrodavanju u Crnoj Gori (i sve podmuklijim u Vojvodini).
1. Nikad nismo ucili da je današnja Crna Gora, sa delovima susedne
Albanije, bila, stolecima, prestonicka teritorija Srbije - sve do
uspostavljanja dinastije Nemanjica 1171. godine. U Skadru je bila
prestonica Srbije, sem kracih perioda, kad je premeštana u Trebinje - u
vreme kad bi Vizantinci, ili Bugari osvajali Skadar. Danas je teško
naci, medu najškolovanijim Srbima, onog koji bi mogao potvrditi da je
za tako nešto ikad cuo. Ako zavirimo u knjige dr Jovana I. Deretica,
videcemo da on Skadar oznacava za prestonicu Srbije od 490. do 1171.
godine, pa cak i u periodu pre Rimske Imperije. Ovaj istraživac je
našao dokumenata u inostranstvu, u kojima je to zabeleženo. On tvrdi da
niko od naših istraživaca nije imao prilike da se tim dokumentima
služi. Na osnovu njih, Jovan I. Deretic piše: "Srpski koreni su u
Podunavlju, ali srce Srbije je u Skadru. Taj stari grad, cije ime
potice neposredno od srpskog imena (pominje se kao: Sarba, Sarda,
Sorda, Skorda, Sardonik, Sadar i Skadar), bio je najduže, oko dvanaest
vekova, prestonica Srbije. Toliko dugo je 'ponosni grad Sardonik', kako
ga naziva Stefan Prvovencani, sa zaledem, bio centar srpske države".
(3) J. I. Deretic opisuje Srbiju u vreme kralja Dobroslava Prvog
Vojislava (1024-1065), kojom prilikom potvrduje da je Skadar prestonica
Srbije (a ne Duklje, ili Zete): "Kraljevic Dobroslav je odrastao u
Raškoj i bio je izuzetno obdaren, kako telesno, tako i umno. Iako je po
godinama bio još dete, delovao je kao zreo covek. Kada je došao u
Skadar 1024. godine, Srbi su odmah pobili sve vizantijske cinovnike i
posadu, pa ga proglasili za kralja. Cim je vizantijski car Vasilije
doznao šta se desilo u Srbiji, digao je veliku vojsku i pošao da licno
povrati predašnje stanje. Vizantija je, u to vreme, bila vrlo mocna,
najmocnija od vremena cara Justinijana. Mladi kralj Dobroslav je izišao
sa vojskom pred Vasilija i porazio ga 1025, u velikoj bici kod Bara….
Bitka je odlucena zahvaljujuci smeloj taktici mladog kralja… Zbog ove i
drugih bitaka, Srbi su svog mudrog vojskovodu, kralja Dobroslava,
nazvali - Vojislav". (4) Bar što se tice prestonice Srbije, naši
istoricari nisu morali da cekaju ova nepoznata dokumenta, na osnovu
kojih J. I. Deretic ispisuje malo drukciju istoriju od one koju smo
ucili. Mogli su da procitaju, na nekoliko mesta, isti podatak (Skadar -
prestonica Srbije) u "Letopisu popa Dukljanina!", s cim cemo se
upoznati iz knjige Nikole Banaševica o ovom srednjevekovnom spisu: "…
Nešto docnije, bice govora o zloglasnoj kraljici Jakvinti, ženi kralja
Bodina, a ovde cu samo podsetiti da je ona u Kotoru pripremila otrovni
napitak, koji je poslala, preko svojih ljudi, u Skadar - da se dadne
kralju Vladimiru Trecem, da bi, njegovom smrcu, osigurala presto svome
sinu Đordu". U istoj knjizi, srecemo drugi navod o Skadru kao
prestonici Srbije: "…Bojeci se da Branislav ili njegovi sinovi ne
preuzmu kraljevstvo posle smrti svoga muža, Jakvinta je pocela
smišljati kako ce ih pogubiti. Obradovala se kada je jednog dana
Branislav sa bratom Gradislavom i sinom Predihnom došao kralju u
Skadar". Evo još jedne potvrde: "…Kralj Bodin ude u Dubrovnik, sagradi
tvrdavu, a zatim se vrati u Skadar, gde je umro". (5)
2. Naše nedoumice oko prestonice Srbije u srednjem veku nisu toliko za
osudu koliko cinjenica da mi ni o Srbiji, kao srednjovekovnoj državi,
nemamo ciste predstave. U našim udžbenicima ne piše da je župan Stefan
Nemanja vladar Srbije. Tamo stoji da je on vladao u Raškoj i uz ovu
grešku, u odredivanju naziva Nemanjine države, ukorenila se i zabluda
da je "Raška prva srpska država". Pored ovako naizmenicnog posezanja za
državnim nazivima (cešce Raška, rede Srbija), teško je zakljuciti u
kojoj državi je ustolicen Stefan Nemanja 1171, a skoro je uzaludno
tragati za podacima da li je ta država bila ona koja je ucrtana u našim
udžbenicima, ili neka druga. U istorijskim izvorima, koji ne mogu biti
dovedeni u sumnju, vidi se da je Raška bila samo deo Srbije.
Tako proizilazi da i Nemanja nije mogao biti gospodar Raške, nego
Srbije. To potvrduje i Sveti Savo u "Žitiju Simeona Nemanje":
"… Jer neka je znano svima nama i drugima da Bog, koji tvori ljudima na
bolje, ne hoteci ljudske pogibli, postavi ovoga vaistinu triput
blaženog gospodina nam i oca, ovoga samodržavnoga gospodina, narecenoga
Stefana Nemanju, da caruje svom Srpskom Zemljom".
I u drugim srednjoveknim dokumentima, piše da je Nemanja vladar Srbije,
a o Raškoj se govori samo kao o srpskoj državnoj oblasti, kojom je
upravljao, možda, Nemanjin deda.
Ovde vidimo da se jedna administrativna oblast (Raška) promoviše u
celokupnu državnu teritoriju. Ali, nažalost, primer Raške, u našoj
istoriografiji, nije usamljen. I ostale administrativne pokrajine
srednjovekovne Srbije figuriraju kao zasebne države: Zeta, Duklja,
Travunija, Hum, Bosna…
Naši istoricari se istovetno odnose i prema Zeti. I nju, kao i Rašku,
tretiraju zasebnom državom - prosto, Srbija pred Raškom, Zetom i Bosnom
nestaje, ne postoji. U vizantijskim izvorima nije tako - tamo piše da
je rec o Srbiji - uvek kad se opisuju dogadaji i u Duklji, i u Zeti, i
u Raškoj, i u Bosni. Pogledajmo šta vizantijski istoricar Skilica
svedoci o vremenu srpskog vladara Stefana Vojislava (1042), kojeg iz
naših udžbenika znamo kao kneza Zete, a prema "Letopisu popa
Dukljanina" kao kralja Dobroslava:
"I Srbija, koja se posle smrti cara Romana bila odmetla, ponovo se
pokori".
Skilica piše dalje:
"Jovan posla Caru, koji je boravio, kako rekosmo, u Solunu deset
kentenarija zlata, ali brod zahvacen olujnim vetrom udari na ilirske
obale i razbi se. Zlato prigrabi Stefan Vojislav, arhont Srba, koji je
bio pre kratkog vremena pobegao iz Carigrada i zauzeo zemlju Srba,
proteravši odande Teofila Erotika".
Mada pobornici nesrpske crnogorske nacije tvrde da Stefan Vojislav nije
Srbin, nego Dukljanin, imamo, pored navedenog, još jedno svedocanstvo
vizantijskog hronicara Kekavmena da je Stefan Vojislav Srbin i još
roden van teritorije Duklje, ili Zete. Kekavmen opisuje rat Vizantije i
Srbije 1042. godine i spominje Stefana Vojislava samo po etnickoj i
geografskoj pripadnosti (roden u Trebinju):
" Tako uradi u Duklji, Travunjanin Srbin kapetanu Draca Mihailu, sinu
logoteta, i uništi njegovu vojsku, koja je brojala 40.000. Pomenuti,
naime, kapetan upavši u Duklju opljacka je, a vracajuci se zatece
klisure kroz koje je bio ušao, zaposjednute i bi zarobljen. A možda je
imao i drugi put da se bezopasno povuce, ali iz nepromišljenosti, bolje
reci neiskustva, bi zarobljen".
Vizantijski izvori i Vojislavljeve naslednike, sina Mihaila i unuka
Bodina, takode, oznacavaju za Srbe. U tekstu vizantijskog hronicara
Kedrina piše o Vojislavljevom sinu sledece:
"Tada Mihailo, Stefanov sin, koji je poslije oca bio postao vladar
Tribala i Srba, sklopi ugovor sa Carem i bi upisan medu saveznike i
prijatelje Romeja i bi pocastvovan protospaterskim sanom".
Kod Skilice je na više mesta Duklja (Zeta) nazvana jednostavno Srbijom.
(6)
Ako ostavimo vizantijske izvore i vratimo se srpskom - "Letopisu popa
Dukljanina", uvericemo se da su Duklja, Zeta, Travunija, Hum, Raška i
Bosna samo pokrajine u Srbiji. I to još u vremenu pre vladara koje smo
opisali (Dobroslava Prvog Vojislava i njegovih potomaka): "Dok je
kraljevao Caslav (863-865), ugarski knez Kiš dode sa svojom vojskom u
Bosnu, pa pustošaše i pljackaše ovu pokrajinu. Tada kralj, sakupivši
vojsku, suprostavi mu se u Drinskoj županiji, pored rijeke. Pošto se tu
zace bitka, gorereceni mladic Tihomil, posvuda ranjavajuci
neprijatelje, pohrli i ubije ugarskog kneza, pa mu posijece glavu i
preda je kralju… Zatim kralj Caslav, neobicno zadovoljan, dade Tihomilu
Drinsku županiju i oženi ga kcerkom bana Raške, a sve to zbog toga što
je ubio kneza Kiša…" (7)
Istovetnu sliku iz vremena Caslava (o centralnoj vlasti u Srbiji i
oblasnim gospodarima u Bosni, Raškoj, Zeti, Travuniji, Dalmaciji…),
srecemo i u sledecem stolecu, za vreme kralja Prelimira (962-990).
Srpski kralj Prelimir je imao 4 sina: Hvalimira, Boleslava, Dragislava
i Svevlada. Poklonio im je, na upravu, sledece oblasti, s titulama
banova (otud i banovi u Bosni); Hvalimiru - Duklju, Boleslavu -
Travuniju (tad je u Trebinju bila prestonica Srbije), Dragoslavu -
Helmaniju (zapadna Bosna i deo Dalmacije) i Svevladu - predele severno
od Trebinja: na istoku do Pive, a na zapadu do reke Rame. (8)
Zanimljivo je da je i crnogorski vladika Vasilije Petrovic imao uvid u
prirodu srednjevekovne srpske države. Zabeležio je da je Crna Gora
naslednik Zete - koja je bila sastavni deo srednjevekovne Srbije, a
pišuci (1757) Mlecima, navodi: "… Od našeg slavnoga carstva srbskoga…"
(9)
Naši istorici i dalje izbegavaju cinjenicu da je u srednjem veku, sve
ovo vreme, opstajala država Srbija, s tim što su neke oblasti, ponekad,
bile pod vlašcu Vizantije, Bugarske i Madarske. Oni, tvrdoglavo,
opisuju da su umesto Srbije bile nezavisne, spomenute, "države":
Duklja, Zeta, Raška, Bosna, Travunija… Pogledajmo kako to navodi i
Siniša Mišic u svom doktorskom radu: "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku":
"… Sve to vreme, Zahumlje se nalazi u sastavu dukljanske države i o
njemu nema posebnih vesti u izvorima… Bez obzira na Bodinove uspehe i
padove, Zahumlje je ostalo pod njegovom vlašcu u toku cele vladavine
(do 1101)". (10)
Kako vidimo, naši autori olako se, i pored istorijskih izvora, odricu
državnog imena Srbije. U ovom slucaju, dr Mišic državu naziva "Dukljom
kralja Bodina"?
Da naši istorici nisu, u udžbenicima, srednjovekovnu Srbiju uoblicili
prema projektima lomljenja srpske zemlje u devetnaestom, dvadesetom i
dvadesetprvom stolecu, ne bi bilo moguce, u redovima njenog maticnog
naroda, odgajiti tolike (i tako opake) neprijatelje. Jer, da su žitelji
Crne Gore uceni da je Crna Gora bila oblast na kojoj je 600 godina bila
prestonica Srbije, teško bi bilo pretpostaviti da bi deo pravoslavnog
stanovništva Crne Gore, danas, samoubilacki srljao u samoodrodenje.
Zaista, uz saznanje da Zeta nije bila zasebna država, ne bi moglo da
buja samoodrodenje Srba - da su, od školskih dana, uceni da je ona bila
samo oblast Srbije, poput Raške, Huma, Travunije i Bosne. Drugo je
pitanje što ce neke od ovih i drugih (novoformiranih) oblasti
životariti kao zasebne državice po smrti Cara Dušana i posle upada
Turaka i Madara u Srbiju.
Inace, nije na odmet podsetiti, kad je rec o glavnom gradu, da je
Skadar igrao znacajnu ulogu u Srbiji i posle premeštanja srpske
prestonice u: Ras, Prizren i Skoplje. U vreme kralja Stefana Decanskog,
iz Skadra je upravljao okolnim oblastima kraljevic Dušan, buduci srpski
car. Skadar je bio prestonica preostalog dela Srbije u vreme Stefana i
Ivana Crnojevica. Kad su ga Turci preoteli, Crnojevic su premestili
prestonicu u Žabljak, a kad su Turci osvojili i Žabljak, Crnojevici su
vladali sa Cetinja do 1490. godine, kad Crna Gora pada pod vlast
Turske, osam godina posle turskog porobljavanja Hercegovine.
3) Grešne poruke separatista o ugroženosti Crne Gore od velikosrpstva
Medu ostalim, i predsednik Crne Gore Milo Đukanovic cesto izjavljuje da
je dosta srpske mitomanije i velikosrpskih ambicija, a ni jedna od ovih
tvrdnji nema uporište u stvarnosti. Ovo možemo nazvati izoblicavanjem
cinjenica, mada bi istrajniji analiticar došao do zakljucka da je u
pitanju i izoblicena svest - kod onih koji mogu verovati da su Srbi,
poslednja dva stoleca, bili nosioci politike kojom bi se nanosila šteta
pripadnicima nekog drugog naroda. U najmanju ruku, takve tvrdnje su
greh pred Bogom i Istorijom, jer su Srbi taj narod koji je, na Balkanu,
najviše stradao. Samo nad srpskim narodom je sprovodeno fizicko
istrebljenje u Prvom i Drugom svetskom ratu. Srbi su, pored Jevreja i
Cigana, spaljivani u hrvatskim jasenovackim pecima, od hrvatskih
vojnika bacani u kraške jame i od istih maljevima ubijani na obalama
Save, Dunava i Drine.
Srbi su želeli stvorti državu na svojim etnickim teritorijama i samo su
zato (od Austrougara) optuženi za velikosrpsku politiku. Austrijanci,
koji su pokušali okupirati sve balkanske narode, nisu prozvani
velikoaustrijancima. Hrvati koji su projektovali svoju državu na
srpskim etnickim teritorijama nisu prozvani velikohrvatima. Hrvati bi
mogli da budu okarkterisani i teže, jer im je državni program bio
ispunjen obavezom istrebljenja pravoslavnih Srba od Istre do Drine. Da
ne govorimo o hrvatskoj drskosti prilikom preuzimanja srpskog jezika za
službeni u Hrvatskoj, naknadno ga nazvavši "srpskohrvatskim", pa
"hrvatskim jezikom". (Taj "srpsko-hrvatski" moguc je, naprimer, kao
"poljsko-bugarski", "srpsko-slovenacki", ili "portugalsko-francuski".
Srpskom narodu pripisivati nameru vladanja drugim narodima, zaista je
greh, jer je taj narod, neštedimice, pomagao oslobadanje Hrvata i
Slovenaca od tudinske vlasti.
Medu separatistima u Crnoj Gori, zacudujuce je, taj greh se proširuje.
Naprimer, tvrdnjom da Srbi robuju svojoj istorijskoj mitomaniji. Ako
bismo pogledali šta se to zamera srpskom narodu, zakljucili bismo da je
to navodni mit o Kosovskoj bici (što ne može ugroziti druge narode i da
je tako) i cinjenica da su na dvoru Nemanjica bili korišceni, u vreme
obroka, nož i viljuška - i to pozlaceni. Bože, pa zamislite da Englezi
iskopaju neki podatak o tome da je Ricard Lavlje Srce, u Londonu - na
svom dvoru, obedovao uz pomoc zlatne viljuške, sigurno je da bi to bila
obavezna odrednica u svim svetskim enciklopedijama - bilo bi to
dragoceno kulturno naslede evropske civilizacije. Ovako, pošto je u
pitanju srpsko naslede, Evopa ga se odrice. Da se ne odrice, ne bi tu
istorijsku i civilizacijsku cinjenicu podvrgla ruglu - što smo mogli
videti i na televiziji, kad je Omer Karabeg intervjuisao Aliju
Izetbegovica i Stipu Mesica.
Umesto da Đukanovic i istomišljenici u Crnoj Gori, s cijeg tla je
dinastija Nemanjica, ponosno isticu ovu cinjenicu, i oni joj se rugaju!?
Separatisti se ne libe daljeg oglušavanja o istorijske cinjenice. Oni,
pored toga, što napadno ponavljaju da su Duklja i Zeta bile crnogorske
srednjovekovne države, a ne pokrajine u Srbiji (kao što smo to
objasnili), pronalaze da su Srbi bili i osvajaci Crne Gore u srednjem
veku. Za takve tvrdnje, koriste i medufeudalne obracune u Srbiji po
smrti Cara Dušana i posle srpskih bitaka protiv Turaka na Marici i
Kosovu polju. Jednostavno, navode da su Balšici i Crnojevici bili
Crnogorci i da su branili državu od srpskih feudalaca. Izbegavaju da
kažu da su medusobno ratovali i oni feudalci koje oni smatraju Srbima.
Naprimer, Lazar Hrebljanovic i Nikola Altomanovic, Tvrtko Kotromanic i
Nikola Altomanovic, Brankovici protiv Hrebeljanovica, itd. Iz istih
razloga (karakteristicnih za feudalizam) dolazilo je do obracuna izmedu
Crnojevica i Brankovica - ne zato što su jedni bili Srbi, a drugi
Nesrbi. Nemanjici su cesto, kao i kraljevi pre njih, silom umirivali
oblasne gospodare, a ti gospodari su, obavezno, bili Srbi. No, danas
separatisti u Crnoj Gori objašnjavaju da su takva previranja na tlu
Zete bila osvajacki pohod Srbije protiv Crne Gore, kao onaj - 1360.
godine, itd. U tom bezumlju, navode nešto što se kosi i s logikom -
Nemanja (roden u Crnoj Gori) nije Crnogorac, nego Srbin, a Dobroslav
Prvi Vojislav (roden u Trebinju) nije Srbin, nego je Crnogorac!? (11)
4) Srpske borbe i oslobodenje Crne Gore u 17. stolecu
Separatisti u Crnoj Gori krivotvore istorijske cinjenice novijih
vekova, koristeci ih kao "dokaze" da su Crnogorci jedno a Srbi drugo.
Navodno, razlika je ocigledna i kad se ima u vidu "cinjenica" da su se
Crnogorci neprestano borili protiv turskog ropstva, a Srbi su ga mirno
podnosili.
Ovo se toliko istice da je postalo jedna od najvažnijih poluga u
rasrbljavanju i razdržavljavanju u Crnoj Gori. Zaprepašcuje cinjenica
da u trecem milenijumu posle Hrista državnici, i poneki od onih koji
kažu da se bave naukom, mogu da se ogluše o neprestana vojevanja
srpskog naroda protiv Turaka i drugih - od rumunskog Arada, slovackog
Komorana, Male Raške u Slavoniji, primorskog Senja, dalmatinskog Klisa,
severne Dalmacije, Hercegovine, Bosne, Šumadije, Kosova i Makedonije i
da to vojevanje smeštaju jedino na predele današnje Crne Gore. A ako
pogledamo istorijske izvore sedamnaestog stoleca, videcemo da je tada
do oslobadanja delova Crne Gore došlo posle lomljenja turske imperije,
cemu su, najznacajnije, doprineli srpski ustanci u spomenutim
oblastima. Iz njih su oslobodilacke jedinice stigle i do crnogorske
teritorije i tamo pomogle Crnogorcima da stvore prve slobodne oaze,
manjeviše nezavisne od Turske. Prirodno je da su Srbi oslobodioci
stizali u crnogorske planine pod zastavama Mletacke Republike, ili
Austrije, jer svoje države nisu imali. (Imali su svoje administrativne
uprave u Austriji, što se delimicno zna, i u Mletackoj Republici, što
malo ko zna). Naravno, oslobodene crnogorske teritorije, Mletacka
Republika i Austrija stavile su pod zaštitu, radi sopstvenih interesa,
koji su se, u ovom slucaju, poklopili s interesima srpskog naroda. Time
je, što je za Srbe bila najveca dobit, Turska morala da se odrekne
naknadnog pokoravanja Crne Gore. U nekolika slucajeva, Turska je posle
okupacije Crne Gore, ili samo namere da to ucini, morala, na
intervenciju velikih sila, da napusti Crnu Goru, mada ju je, formalno -
do 1878, smatrala svojom teritorijom.
Poceci oslobodilackog rata u Crnoj Gori, u sedamnaestom stolecu, vezani
su za opštesrpske pripreme protiv turskog ropstva na Balkanu. Pre toga,
krajem šesnaestog stoleca, Srbi Dalmacije su žestoko ratovali protiv
Turaka - borbe oko Klisa, a 1603. godine protiv srpskih ustanika
krenuli su i Turci i Mlecici. Borbe su bile okrutne i Srbi u Dalmaciji
nisu mogli izdržati. Do 1624, deset hiljada porodica je napustilo
Dalmaciju i raselilo se po Panoniji, oko gradova Baje, Subotice i
Sombora. Krajem šesnaestog stoleca su se digli protiv Turaka Srbi i u
drugim krajevima. Turska je uzdrmana i Turci su, u besu, tada spalili
mošti Svetog Save na Vracaru. Nemire u Turskoj je koristila Katolicka
crkva, koja je Srbima obecavala pomoc i oslobodenje. Za uzvrat, mnogi
Srbi su prihvatali katolicku veru. U Crnoj Gori je katolicenje uzelo
maha i Srbi, verski podeljeni, nisu bili umešni zajednicki delovati
protiv ropstva. Tako, pocetak sedamnaestog stoleca u Crnoj Gori nije
bio pogodan za uspešnu borbu protiv Turaka. Sima Milutinovic je zapisao
da je tada cetinjskom vladici Ruvimu (pod uticajem patrijarha Pajsija)
uspelo da mnoge pokatolicene Drekalovice, Kuce, Bjelopavlice, Pipere,
Zecane i Bratonožice vrati u pravoslavnu religiju. Prema izveštajima
katolickih emisara, Ruvim je u svojoj nameri uspeo, pa je 1633, medu
Bjelopavlicima ostalo još oko 200 katolickih porodica, a izmedu Morace
i Zete ne više od hiljadu. Piperi su do 1610, skoro svi, bili
prihvatili katolicku veru, ali su posle dvadesetak godina opet bili
pravoslavni. Nema spora, vracanje Srba pradedovskoj veri i obicajima
bilo je presudno za predstojece vreme i uspešne borbe protiv Turaka. U
ovo vreme, Turci su provodili i islamiziranje, ali ono je bilo manje
masovno. Tako je u Bjelopavlicima poturceno 90 porodica, itd.
Pocetkom sedamnaestog stoleca, Srbi u Dalmaciji, Hercegovini i Bosni su
priželjkivali opšti ustanak protiv Turaka. Bežali su s turske
teritorije, najviše iz Bosne i Srbije, na uzane prostore Dalmacije pod
mletackom vlašcu i tražili od Mlecica da pomognu protivtursku borbu.
Naselili su pojaseve oko Zadra i Šibenika i medu tim Srbima pojavice se
junaci - udarna snaga mletacke vojske. U Kandijskom ratu ce se
proslaviti odbranom mletackih poseda na Jadranu i dubokim prodorom u
Tursku - do Like, Kljuca, Trebinja, Cetinja, Nikšica, Meduna….
Srbi Dalmacije su, tako, 1649. ušli duboko u Crnu Goru i zapalili
buktinju slobode. Sreli se sa Kucima i sa njima oslobodili tvrdi grad
Medun. U to vreme, Srbi oslobadaju Klis i od tog vremena turska premoc
od Crne Gore do Like jenjava. Narod je opevao tadašnje srpske junake:
Janka Mitrovica i njegovog sina Stojana Jankovica, bracu Smiljanice,
hajduka Cvijana Šarica, Vuka Mandušica i druge. Godine 1654, zabeležen
je još jedan srpski junak - Bajo Pivljanin, koji ce zadavati,
ispocetka, grdne muke Turcima u Hercegovini i južnoj Dalmaciji, a
kasnije i u drugim srpskim krajevima.
Njegova ceta brojala je oko 1.500 ustanika. Turci su u vreme Kandijskog
rata ponovo pokoravali oslobodene krajeve u Crnoj Gori i bezuspešno
napadali Perast i Kotor. Crnogorcima su nametali teške poreze i
ustanike ubijali i progonili, ali se oslobodilacki duh naroda više nije
mogao ugušiti. Uzalud su Turci, s 10.000 vojnika, poharali Pivljane i
Nikšicane, jer su se pridružili Srbima iz Dalmacije. Ustanici su se
sklonili u visoke planine.
Konacan, smrtni, udarac Turskoj zadace srpski ustanici 1682. godine.
Kara-Mustafa, s 250.000 vojnika, opseda Bec 1683. Srbi Dalmacije,
vidimo - godinu dana ranije, dižu ustanak pod vodstvom najmladeg brata
Stojana Jankovica, Ilije. Turci šalju protiv Srba 100.000 vojnika, ali
ustanak se samo rasplamsavao. Turska preti Mlecima da ce, posle
osvajanja Beca, krenuti na Veneciju, ako Mlecani ne umire srpske
ustanike. Mleci šalju Stojana Jankovica u štab Ilije Jankovica, ali
voda ustanka vraca brata u Mletke. Oduševljenje Srba u drugim krajevima
je veliko. U Dalmaciju prelaze Srbi iz Bosne, Hercegovine, Srbije i
Crne Gore. Medu njima i proslavljeni Bajo Pivljanin. Srbi oslobadaju,
pre turskog poraza pod Becom, današnju Dalmaciju, sem utvrdenja: Knina,
Sinja i Imotskog. Turska postaja bespomocna. Srbi prodiru kroz više
pravaca preko Bosne do reke Save i otud dovode u Dalmaciju nove srpske
porodice. Srbi na celom Balkanu i u srednjoj Evropi se dižu na ustanak
- od Komorana u Slovackoj do Kumanova i Skoplja. Poljaci stižu u pomoc
Austrijancima i razbijaju tursku opsadu Beca. Turci uzmicu i nigde ne
mogu da uspostave odbrambenu liniju. U tome im ne pomažu ni visoke
planine Hercegovine i Bosne, ni velike reke u Panoniji. Srpski ustanici
ih ometaju. Tako austrijska armija ulazi na vec oslobodene teritorije.
U ratu je i Mletacka Republika i preuzima slobodnu Dalmaciju od Srba.
Jedino ucestvuje u oslobadanju Knina, Sinja i Imotskog. Austrijska
vojska, od samo 4000 vojnika, prošetala se do Niša. Srbi su, ranije,
proterali Turke iz Srbije. Na celu ovog austrijskog odreda je Enej
Pikolomini. Kad je stigao do Prizrena, tu mu se prikljucilo 6000
srpskih ustanika, više nego što je on imao vojnika. Vojvoda Karpoš
oslobada Kumanovo i severnu Makedoniju, pa Austrijanci, bez muke, ulaze
u Skoplje i pale ga. Hercegovina i Bosna su slobodne, o Madarskoj i
Vojvodini da i ne govorimo. U poslednjim bitkama ginu: Stojan Jankovic,
Ilija Smiljanic i druge srpske vode.
U Crnoj Gori je situacija najteža. Turci je koriste da bi iz nje
zaustavili ustanicku, mletacku i austrisku vojsku. Mletacka vojska se,
i osloncem na crnogorske ustanike, nije snalazila na južnom Jadranu.
Crnogorci su u nezavidnoj situaciji. Skadarski paša Sulejman Bušatlija
im je pretio, pa su se kolebali. Da bi podigla njihov borbeni moral,
Mletacka Republika im šalje Baju Pivljanina, s nedovoljnim brojem
vojnika. Bušatlija 1685. krece u Katunsku nahiju da natera na pokornost
Srbe Crne Gore i Brda. Isprecio mu se, jedino, Bajo Pivljanin, sa
svojim momcima i nevelikim brojem Crnogoraca. Mlecani su, igrom ko zna
kakvih okolnosti, uskratili vecu vojnu pomoc. Bajo je docekao Turke kod
Vrteljke, gde je poražen i ubijen. Sulejman stiže na Cetinje i pali ga.
Crnogorce je naterao da placaju danak i da ga slušaju. Bojeci se
velikih stradanja, Crnogorci te i iduce godine ratuju na strani Turaka
i 1686. ucestvuju u neuspelom turskom napadu na Budvu.
Godine 1687, Crnogorci su se odvažili na borbu protiv Turaka. Mleci
stižu na južni Jadran i povezuju se s crnogorskim plemenima. Opsedaju
Herceg Novi, uz pomoc pridošlih Hercegovaca i Crnogoraca. Mletacki
komandanti žele da u grad udu prvi Italijani, ali ih Turci lako
odbijaju. Juriš preuzimaju Srbi iz Dalmacije i osvajaju ga. Put ka
oslobadanju Crne Gore bio je otvoren. Cetinjski vladika Visarion je
zaslužan za pridobijanje Crnogoraca na borbu. Bušatlija pokušava da
umiri Crnogorce, ali ga Kuci, krajem jeseni, potuku do nogu. 1678, u
prolece, Bušatlija pokušava da umiri Crnu Goru, ali je opet naišao na
Kuce, koji su ga porazili, mada je imao 7.000 vojnika. Crnogorci su
krajem 1688. priznali mletacku vlast, prihvatili guvernera Zana
Grbicica, koji je, sa odredom mletackih vojnika, stigao na Cetinje.
Od tada je Crna Gora pod zaštitom Mlecana. Bez obzira što je Bušatlija,
ponovo, 1692. godine zauzeo Cetinje i prognao guvernera i mletacku
posadu, Crna Gora ce izdržati taj udarac i ostatati na putu
nezavisnosti.
Mada su u drugim srpskim krajevima bojevi bili još žešci i mada su tamo
Srbi znacajnije doprineli porazu Turaka, nego u Dalmaciji i Crnoj Gori,
ti krajevi su ostali pod vlašcu ili Austrije ili Turske. Francuska je
pritekla u pomoc Turcima i napala je Austriju na zapadnim granicama, a
Turcima poslala strucnjake da joj reformišu vojsku. Austrijanci su
napustili Hercegovinu, Bosnu, Makedoniju i Srbiju. Prethodno su
razoružali srpske ustanike i ponudili im preseljenje u Austriju.
Nepokornim Srbima i onima koji nisu želeli preko Save i Dunava,
Austrijanci su palili naselja i uništavali imovinu. Nastupila je glad i
ona je primorala Srbe na pokornost Austriji i preseljenje. Hronike su
zabeležile da do Budima stiže mnogo srpskih porodica: 14 crnogorskih,
12 pecanskih, 6 prizrenskih, 8 sarajevskih, 9 kosovskih, 6
požarevackih, 5 beogradskih, itd. Tih godina, samo u Budimu je bilo
20.000 Srba. Ogorceni time, Srbi u Bosni su ubili austrijskog
feldmaršala, ali sve se desilo kako su odlucile velike sile. Turci su
se vratili u Makedoniju, Srbiju, Hercegovinu i Bosnu. Predstojace novi
ustanci i nove borbe protiv Turaka i nanovo ce velike sile ostavljati
Srbe na Balkanu na milost i nemilost Turcima, a Srbima u srednjoj
Evropi ce dozvoljavati samoupravu, a ništa, u toj samoupravi, od
državnih atributa.
Usledice nove bitke Austrije i Turske. U prvom sukobu s Turcima, u
austrijskoj vojsci je (1691) 10.000 Srba, pešaka i konjanika, pod
komandom Jovana Monastrilije, generalom iz Komorana, poreklom iz
Bitolja. Srbi kod Slankamena provaljuju u centar turske vojske i prave
pokolj - zarobljavaju 34 turske zastave! Srbi kod Sente (1697),
doprinose strahovitom porazu Turaka. Jovan Tekelija, za zasluge u ovoj
bici, dobija austrijsko plemstvo.
U osamnaestom i devetnaestom stolecu, Srbi ce u svim krajevima teško
vojevati. U mnogim bunam i ustancima - i protiv Turske, i protiv
Austrije, i protiv Madarske, i protiv Mletacke. Crnogorske bitke protiv
Turaka u ovom veku nece proci bez pomoci Srba iz okolnih pokrajina.
Hercegovci ce prednjaciti u tome. Pomažuci odbranu slobodne Crne Gore,
Hercegovci ce ciniti cuda od junaštva - vojvode Peko Pavlovic, Stojan
Kovacevic i drugi. Oni ce, cesto, izmicati Crnogorcima u junaštvu i
nepomirljivosti prema Turcima, tako da ce knjaz Nikola uhapsiti
neukrotivog Stojana Kovacevica, okovati ga i predati Turcima (Hag nije
nikakva novost). Srecom, ovaj hercegovacki junak je pobegao iz turskog
zatvora.
Kako rekosmo, bez obzira na srpska junaštva i bitke, sudbina im je
zavisila od odluka velikih sila. Tako, i kad su ratovali na strani
hrišcanskih sila protiv Turske i kad su, tim prilikama, oslobadali
znacajne teritorije, velike sile su odlucivale da se one vrate pod
tursku upravu. Srbi, tada, nisu mogli i protiv Turske i protiv
evropskih sila. Mirili su se i ostavljali oslobadenje od turskog
ropstva buducim generacijama. (12)
Usmena predanja o borbama protiv Turaka i drugih okupatora
Nabrajati sve bitke Srba protiv velikih sila nije moguce u clanku ove
namene, ali je moguce zakljuciti da te bitke nisu sacuvane u predanjima
kod potomaka u vecini srpskih krajeva. Recimo, Srbi Dalmacije,
Hercegovine, Bosne, Vojvodine, Madarske, Rumunije, Srbije, Makedoniji,
Like, Korduna, Banije, Slavonije, Baranje ne znaju ništa o njima.
(Naprimer, Srbi Baranje su ratovali protiv Madara od 1703. do 1711, ali
o tome današnje generacije Baranjaca nisu, od predaka, preuzele
nikakvog pomena). Suprotno tome, Srbi u Crnoj Gori su sacuvali usmena
predanja o bitkama na svojoj teritoriji, uz kitnjasto besedovanje i
obavezno ukljucivanje svojih rodaka u najpresudnije momente. S obzirom
da se ovim tekstom obracamo separatistima u Crnoj Gori, nadamo se da i
ovu razliku u pamcenju predackih vojevanja jednih i drugih -Srba, nece
iskoristiti za dokaz da stanovnici Crne Gore nisu Srbi. Bila bi im to
štetna poplava (inflacija) "dokaza".
1) Vasilije Krestic: "Srpsko-hrvatski odnosi i jugoslovenska ideja",
Beograd, SANU
2) "Srbija 1878 - dokumenti", Beograd, SKZ, 1978, str. 428
3) "Anticka Srbija", dr Jovan I. Deretic, Beogrd, 2000, "Sardonija".
4) Isto.
5) "Letopis popa Dukljanina", Nikola Banaševic, Beograd, SKZ, 1971,
strane: 231, 257, 258.
6) "Etnicko porijeklo Crnogoraca", dr Nikola Vukcevic, Beograd, "Sava
Mihic", 1981 - iz ovog dela uzetai su svi citati vizantijskih hronicara.
7) "Letopis popa Dukljanina", dr Slavko Mijuškovic, Titograd, "Graficki
zavod", 1967, str. 212.
8) "Anticka Srbija", Jovan I. Deretic, Beograd, 2000, "Sardonija" i
"Letopis popa Dukljanina", dr Slavko Mijuškovic, Titograd, "Graficki
zavod", 1967, str. 226/7.
9) "Etnicko porijeklo Crnogoraca", dr Nikola Vukcevic, Beograd, "Sava
Mihic", 1967. Str. 45
10) "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku", dr Siniša Mišic, Beograd,
Filozovski fakultet, 1996.
11) "Pošjetnik o Crnoj Gori i Crnogorstvu", "Dignitas-Elementa
Montenegrina", Cetinje, 1996.
12) Podaci o srpskim ustancima u 17. stolecu korišceni iz: "Istorija
Srba", Vladimir Corovic i "Pravoslavna Dalmacija", Nikodim Milaš.
Il Montenegro tra mafia, privatizzazioni e secessione
3: L'Unione Europea vuole sfasciare anche l'Unione di Serbia e
Montenegro: "doppio binario" e "strade parallele" per l'accesso alla UE
A ) Fonte ANSA:
IL MONTENEGRO HA NUOVA BANDIERA E NUOVO INNO NAZIONALE ... CON IL TESTO
SCRITTO DA UN NAZISTA / ACCORDO ASSOCIAZIONE UE SOLO CON SERBIA E
MONTENEGRO INSIEME ? / SOLANA E PATTEN A BELGRADO / SERBIA-MONTENEGRO,
"PERCORSO PARALLELO" (SIC) PER ADESIONE
B ) LINK agli articoli in lingua italiana di "Osservatorio Balcani":
Traffico di bambini in Montenegro? / Transizione dolorosa per il
Montenegro / La Serbia e Montenegro sul 'doppio binario' / L’OSCE ci
riprova in Montenegro /
C ) UZROCI SEPARATIZMA I RASRBLjIVANjA U CRNOJ GORI
(Beograd, 26. 12. 2001 - Slobodan Jarcevic / ARTEL)
*** VOIR AUSSI, EN FRANCAIS, DANS LE SITE PRO-SECESSIONISTE ET
ANTI-YOUGOSLAVE "COURRIER DE BALKANS" :
Bruxelles se rend compte que l’Union de Serbie et Monténégro ne peut
pas survivre
L’Union européenne est en train d’accepter peu à peu l’idée que la
Serbie et le Monténégro gagneraient à être indépendants. Le vibrant
plaidoyer du Président de la République du Monténégro en faveur de deux
États, « amis, alliés, mais indépendants »...
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4595.html
Serbie-Monténégro : il faut reconnaître l'échec de l'Union d'États
L’Union de Serbie et Monténégro a pris du retard dans le chemin de
l’adhésion à l’Union européenne, et se trouve bien loin derrière les
autres états des Balkans. L’union d’États, cette formule unique au
monde, n’a pas fonctionné. Le jugement catégorique du vice-Premier
ministre de Serbie.
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4592.html
Intégration européenne : vers une voie spécifique pour le Monténégro ?
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4580.html
Une rencontre informelle a réuni les chefs de la diplomatie européenne
à Maastricht au début du mois de septembre. Pour la première fois,
l’hypothèse d’une « double voie » dans l’intégration européenne de la
Serbie et du Monténégro a été évoquée. Milo Djukanovic chante victoire,
mais la plus grande prudence demeure pourtant de mise. Javier Solana
reste attaché au maintien de la Communauté d’États...
*** SEE ALSO, IN ENGLISH, FROM THE ANTI-YUGOSLAV, PRO-SECESSIONIST SITE
"IWPR" :
MONTENEGRO BACKS OFF SEPARATION VOTE
Brussels is winning its battle to force republic to stay with Serbia.
By Nedjeljko Rudovic in Podgorica
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 497, May 14, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr3/bcr3_200405_497_1_eng.txt
MONTENEGRO’S OUT-OF-STEP OPPOSITION
Disappointment with Milo Djukanovic may be rising, but the old
opposition parties are not benefiting much. By Nedjeljko Rudovic in
Podgorica
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 506, July 08, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net
COMMENT: EU REALISING STATE UNION CAN'T SURVIVE
Brussels appears to be coming round to accepting that Serbia and
Montenegro would be better off as independent states. By Filip
Vujanovic (president of Montenegro)
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 516, September 17, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net
THE PATTEN LETTER
Letter from European Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten -
apparently leaked to the Montenegrin paper Vijesti and published on
September 10 - heralding the European Union's new strategy for Serbia
and Montenegro.
The letter, sent in mid-July to the chair of the EU Ministerial Council
and Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot and EU representative for
foreign and security policy Javier Solana, presented Patten's idea
about a new approach to the process of association of Serbia and
Montenegro with the European Union according to which the two state
union entities should take separate economic tracks.
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 516, September 17, 2004 -
http://www.iwpr.net
*** MORE LINKS :
MIA: Macedonia to Tutor Serbia-Montenegro on the Road to EU and NATO
http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=3438
Albania, Montenegro Seek to Build on Ties, Boost Regional Stability (by
Antonela Krstovic)
http://www.setimes.com/html2/english/040721-ANTONELA-001.htm
NATO, EU Membership Depends on Resolving Serbia, Montenegro Relationship
http://news.serbianunity.net/bydate/2004/September_02/3.html?w=p
Slovenia to Help Pave Way for Montenegro's EU Accession (by Antonela
Krstovic)
http://www.setimes.com/
default3.asp?lang=english&page=process_print&article_id=25086
=== A ===
IL MONTENEGRO HA NUOVA BANDIERA E NUOVO INNO NAZIONALE [ CON IL TESTO
SCRITTO DA UN NAZISTA ]
(ANSA-AFP) - PODGORICA (Serbia-Montenegro), 13 LUG - Il Parlamento del
Montenegro ha adottato, la scorsa notte, una legge che permettera' al
Paese di avere una nuova bandiera e un nuovo inno nazionale.
La nuova bandiera montenegrina e' rossa con un bordo dorato e vi
campeggia un'aquila bianca. L'inno e' ripreso da un canto popolare
riadattato, 'Oj svijetla majska zoro (O luminosa alba del mese di
maggio)'.
La legge sui nuovi simboli del Montenegro e' stata approvata con 38
voti, due contro e uno astenuto. La Camera conta 75 deputati. I
rappresentanti dell'opposizione boicottano i lavori del parlamento.
In precedenza il Montenegro aveva una bandiera simile a quella serba,
tre bande orizzontali, rosso, azzurro e bianco. (ANSA-AFP). RED
13/07/2004 17:59
NOTA: Lo stesso patriarca ortodosso Pavle ha fatto notare che --
diversamente da quanto riportato dall'ANSA -- il canto "Oj svijetla
majska zoro" non è semplicemente una canzone popolare montenegrina,
bensi' si tratta di "una revisione con le parole di uno dei personaggi
più oscuri nella storia montenegrina, il nazifascista Sekula Drljevic"
(cfr. JUGOINFO 10 Settembre 2004).
UE: ACCORDO ASSOCIAZIONE SOLO CON SERBIA E MONTENEGRO INSIEME
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 4 OTT - L'Unione europea sottoscrivera' un
accordo di stabilizzazione e di associazione solo con lo Stato della
Serbia-Montenegro e non con le due entita' che ne fanno parte. Lo ha
affermato la portavoce Emma Udwin, alla vigilia della visita domani a
Belgrado del commissario ue alle relazioni esterne Chris Patten e
dell'Alto rappresentante per la politica estera e di sicurezza comune
della Ue Javier Solana. L'UE e' pero' pronta a ''lavorare
separatamente con le due repubbliche sui dossier'', ha affermato
Udwin, che ha anche ricordato che le disposizioni costituzionali non
prevedono una revisione dell'unione della Serbia e del Montenegro
prima del febbraio 2006. (ANSA). OS
04/10/2004 15:48
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO: UE, SOLANA E PATTEN A BELGRADO
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 5 OTT - L'Alto commissario europeo per la politica
estera e di sicurezza Javier Solana e il commisario per gli Affari
esteri Chris Patten sono arrivati oggi a Belgrado per una visita di
alcune ore. Solana e Patten devono incontrare il presidente
serbomontenegrino Svetozar Marovic, i presidenti di Serbia, Boris
Tadic, e Montenegro, Filip Vujanovic, i premier dei due governi
Vojislav Kostunica e Milo Djukanovic e il vicepremier serbo Miroljub
Labus. I due proseguiranno poi per Pristina, per colloqui con le
autorita' kosovare in vista delle elezioni del 23 ottobre nella
provincia. Al centro della missione dei due rappresentanti europei
sono appunto le elezioni politiche in Kosovo, che alcuni esponenti di
Belgrado vorrebbero boicottate dalla comunita' serba, e i progressi
dell'unione Serbia e Montenegro, che Bruxelles vorrebbe fosse
mantenuta nonostante le perplessita' di Podgorica. Stasera il
presidente Tadic dovrebbe pronunciarsi sulla posizione di Belgrado
per le elezioni kosovare. In Montenegro, fra i partiti di governo
c'e' chi insiste per due percorsi di integrazione con l'Ue separati
per Belgrado e Podgorica. Ieri pero' i portavoce di Bruxelles hanno
ribadito la posizione dell'Unione per un processo unificato.
Nella visita, stando ai giornali belgradesi, sara' dato anche spazio
al problema della cooperazione con il Tribunale penale
internazionale, che il procuratore generale del Tpi Carla Del ponte
aveva definito ieri ''drammaticamente scarsa e al suo punto piu'
basso dell'ultimo anno''. (ANSA). OT
05/10/2004 15:58
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO: UE, PERCORSO PARALLELO PER ADESIONE
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 5 OTT - Serbia e Montenegro potranno procedere in
modo parallelo in campo economico nel loro cammino di integrazione
con l'Unione europea, con un modello ribattezzato 'twin tracks'
(percorsi gemelli) che potra' portare nel 2007 alla domanda comune di
adesione e nel 2012 alla decisione finale sull'ingresso. Lo hanno
detto i portavoce della presidenza e del governo serbi al termine di
una visita a Belgrado dell'alto commissario dell'Ue per la politica
estera e di sicurezza Javier Solana e del commissario per le
relazioni esterne Chris Patten. Stando ai portavoce, uno studio
di fattibilita' dovrebbe essere concluso entro l'inizio del prossimo
anno, e se il risultato sara' soddisfacente, nel 2007 Serbia e
Montenegro potranno candidarsi all'adesione, la cui ratifica potrebbe
venire nel 2012. Risolto cosi' il problema della difficile
armonizzazione economica fra Belgrado e Podgorica, resta pero'
l'ostacolo della collaborazione con il Tribunale penale
internazionale per i crimini di guerra nella ex Jugoslavia, giudicata
ieri dal procuratore Carla Del Ponte ''drammaticamente scarsa''.
Solana e Patten hanno incontrato a Belgrado il presidente
serbomontenegrino Svetozar Marovic, il ministro degli esteri Vuk
Draskovic, i presidenti serbo Boris Tadic e montenegrino Filip
Vujanovic, i premier Vojislav Kostunica e Milo Djkanovic e il
vicepremier serbo Miroljub Labus. Sono quindi ripartiti per Buxelles.
Con gli interlocutori serbi, i due esponenti europei hanno
parlato anche della situazione in Kosovo alla vigilia delle elezioni
politiche del 23 ottobre, che alcune componenti della societa' e
della politica belgradesi (in primo luogo la chiesa ortodossa serba)
vorrebbero vedere boicottate dalla minoranza serba. Solana e Patten
hanno invitato alla partecipazione: stasera il presidente Tadic
dovrebbe rivolgere in proposito un messaggio televisivo alla nazione.
Tadic e' atteso peraltro domani a Bruxelles per proseguire i colloqui
su questi temi. (ANSA). OT 05/10/2004 20:05
=== B ===
Traffico di bambini in Montenegro?
02.02.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Tanja Bošković
Il quotidiano britannico Sunday Mirror pubblica una storia sul traffico
di bambini in un campo Rom del Montenegro. I media montenegrini danno
voce alle ripetute smentite dei protagonisti locali. In pochi pensano
alla vulnerabilità dei Rom
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/2780/1/47/
Transizione dolorosa per il Montenegro
19.02.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Tanja Bošković
Protestano i pensionati, scioperano gli impiegati delle aziende
statali, numerosi gli esuberi e pochi i finanziamenti a disposizione.
Il governo cerca di minimizzare, ma resta alto il malcontento
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/2820/1/47/
La Serbia e Montenegro sul 'doppio binario'
11.10.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Jadranka Gilić
Javier Solana e Chris Patten giungono in visita in Serbia e Montenegro
con l'intento di discutere il principio da poco adottato definito del
“doppio binario”, un regolamento diversificato per le due repubbliche
in materia economica e doganale in vista dell'associazione della Serbia
e Montenegro all'UE
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/3498/1/51/
L’OSCE ci riprova in Montenegro
15.10.2004 Da Podgorica, scrive Jadranka Gilić
Alla vigilia della ripresa dei lavori del Parlamento montenegrino, il
capo missione dell'OSCE, Maurizio Massari, giunge a Podgorica per
cercare di far cessare il boicottaggio del parlamento da parte
dell'opposizione e risolvere la questione delle dirette televisive
delle sedute parlamentari
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/3519/1/51/
=== C ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2004-06-10.html
UZROCI SEPARATIZMA I RASRBLjIVANjA U CRNOJ GORI
Beograd, 26. 12. 2001.
Slobodan Jarcevic
Umnožavanjem izoblicenih cinjenica do izoblicene svesti
Crnogogorci su jedno a Srbi drugo
Izvestan broj pravoslavnih Crnogoraca uporno istrajava na odvajanju
Crne Gore iz državne zajednice sa Srbijom i žestoko zagovara da
Crnogorci ne pripadaju srpskom narodu. Dodaju da Crnogorci tvore
posebnu (nesrpsku) naciju. Šta su uzroci ovakvog opredeljenja, kad su i
najbliži preci ovih Crnogoraca bili sigurni da su Srbi i, pri takvom
ubedenju, nikome od njih nije padalo na pamet da bi trebalo da
nacionalnu (srpsku) teritoriju razbijaju na više država?
A evo, kod nekih njihovih potomaka pojmovi su se izokrenuli. Ubeduju
nas da postupaju pravilno, a vidimo da samo popunjavaju redove ranije
rasrbljenih saplemenika - muslimana i katolika, ciji pripadnici su,
velikom vecinom (kad su Nebesa najavljivala pometnju i ratove), odlucno
pristajali da sprovode antisrpske projekte, uz manje ili vece pokolje
srpskog stanovništva.
Deo ovih pravoslavnih Srba ne unosi ništa novo u objašnjavanju razloga
oko svog rasrbljivanja i služi se istim obrazloženjima kao i prethodno
rasrbljeni - muslimani i katolici: ne govore srpskim jezikom, drukcije
su konstrukcije od Srba, drukcije su se ponašali od Srba u istoriji,
imaju drukcije obicaje od Srba, nisu se znacajnije mešali sa Srbima,
došli su iz prapostojbine u kojoj Srbi nisu obitovali, itd.
Najnapadnije se koriste cinjenicom da stanovništvo Crne Gore ima neke
individualne crte, koje ne srecemo kod Srba u drugim krajevima.
Medutim, ova lokalna posebnost (kako to ne primecuju?) je jedno od
najneutemeljenijih obrazloženja, jer nema srpskog kraja gde te crte
nisu izražene - pa bi, na osnovu njih, svaka grupa Srba mogla da objavi
da ne pripada srpskom narodu. Te posebnosti, medu kojima su i jezicke,
nekad su razlicitije medu crnogorskim plemenima, nego, naprimer, izmedu
Brdana u Crnoj Gori i susednih Srba u Raškoj, ali na njih se necemo
osvrtati. O tome i doseljavanju Srba u Crnu Goru iz mnogih srpskih
krajeva, pisao je etnolog Jovan Erdeljanovic i mnogi drugi. O
nakaradnom tvrdenju da pravoslavni Srbi u Crnoj Gori nisu Srbi i da
treba Crnogorci-nesrbi da osnuju nesrpsku Crnu Goru, u kojoj ce Srbi
biti nacionalna manjina, govoricemo iz istorijskog ugla.
Da vidimo, cime Srbi-nesrbi opravdavaju svoje opake namere. Obicno,
navode sledece:
1) Crna Gora je bila država u devetnaestom stolecu i prirodno je da se
ta državnost obnovi,
2) Razvoj posebne crnogorske države u srednjem veku,
3) Srbi, od srednjeg veka do danas, imaju osvajacke namere prema Crnoj
Gori,
4) Crnogorci su se vekovima borili protiv turskog ropstva, dok su Srbi
to ropstvo trpeli.
Da pogledamo svaku od ovih tacaka.
1) Separatisti uzdižu (raniju a iznudenu) crnogorsku državnost
Održavanje crnogorske države, odvojeno od srbijanske u 19. stolecu,
bilo je protiv volje srpskog naroda. Usledilo je odlukom evropskih sila
i Turske, uz saglasnost Rusije. Time je ostvaren plan daljeg srpskog
robovanja pod Turskom i Austrougarskom. Turska je zadržala veliki deo
srpskih zemalja, a još veci je ustupljen Austrougarskoj: Hercegovina i
Bosna, a prethodno je okupirala Dalmaciju, Liku, Kordun, Baniju,
Slavoniju, Baranju i Vojvodinu. Tako je Srbima bilo uskraceno prirodno
pravo da stvore državu na celokupnom etnickom prostoru. Ovakvim
ustupcima Turskoj i Austrougarskoj, okoristile su se Engleska i
Francuska, jer su odobrovoljene Nemacka i Austrougarska - pristale su
da, za dogledno vreme, ne pokrecu pitanje preraspodele engleskih i
francuskih kolonija. Austrougarska je izvukla i vanrednu korist
onemogucavanjem ujedinjenja Srbije i Crne Gore. Jer, pojedinacno slabe
i medusobno odvojene, one nisu mogle predstavljati ozbiljan oslonoac
brojnim Srbima u Austrougarskoj, koji su u devetnaestom stolecu
najavljivali svoju autonomiju i ujedinjenje sa Srbijom.
Današnji zagovornici nezavisne Crne Gore uzdižu do neba crnogorsku
državnost iz 19. stoleca, zaklinjuci se da su obavezni da tu državnost
ocuvaju i produže - izlaskom iz zajednicke države sa Srbijom. A vidimo
da ta državnost, na koju se pozivaju, nije bila u devetnaestom stolecu
krajnja tekovina srpskog naroda - njegovog državnickog delovanja i
oslobodilackih ratova, nego privremeno nametnuti projekt velikih sila.
Podatke nalazimo u mnogim dokumentima evropskih država, pa i onih
vezanih za održavanje Berlinskog kongresa 1878.
U njima su jednostavne poruke - velike sile deluju na osnovu sopstvenih
interesa i oni se, samo slucajno, mogu poklopiti sa interesima nejakih
partnera.
U devetnaestom stolecu se interesi velikih sila nisu poklapali sa
srpskim. One su nametnule rešenja na štetu srpskih nacionalnih
interesa. Ponavljanje te štete u dvadesetprvom stolecu je osigurano ako
srpski politicari razbiju državnu zajednicu Crne Gore i Srbije. Neka ih
na to opomene zlosutna izjava guvernera Bosne i Hercegovine Benjamina
Kalaja, kroz koju se nazire odluka o suzbijanju srpskih država u uske
okvire i okupiranje preostalog dela srpskih zemalja (1882):
"Hrvatsko snaženje, s obzirom na nas, cim se cini na štetu Srba, ne
može biti opasno po Austrougarsku, jer granice hrvatskog širenja bice
korisne za nas. Ne samo da cemo razdeliti Južne Slovene, nego cemo i za
dalje deljenje na Balkanu dobiti odrešene ruke…" (1)
Da je strateški cilj velikih sila Evrope bio da se onemoguci
jedninstvena srpska država, možemo se uveriti i na osnovu depeše
ministra inostranih poslova Velike Britanije ser Roberta Solsberija,
upucene britanskom ambasadoru u Berlinu ser Lajardu, 19. juna 1878:
"…Mi smo obecali da cemo, kad se o pitanju Bosne bude raspravljalo,
izneti pred Kongres mišljenje, koje uživa podršku Vlade Njenog
Velicanstva, da ce okupacija ove oblasti od strane Austrougarske biti u
interesu Turske, kako s vojne tako i sa finansijske tacke gledišta.
Time ce se, takode, spreciti ujedinjenje dve slovenske države - Srbije
i Crne Gore - koje Turska nece biti dovoljno kadra da drži
razdvojenim…" (2)
Da li je moguce da ijedan Srbin sme da se ogluši o ove zlokobne davne
poruke, a tako prisutne u vrtlogu današnjih politickih igri pod srpskim
nebom?
2. Nije bilo posebnih srednjovekovnih država: Duklje, Zete, Bosne,
Huma, Raške, Travunije…
Ovaj podnaslov deluje cudno i proizvoljno, ali ako steknemo uvid u
sadržaje starih dokumenata, cudno i proizvoljno ce nam delovati samo
ono što piše u našim istorijskim udžbenicima. Uporedivanjem s
istorijskim izvorima, videcemo da su nam skrivene neke temeljne
istorijske cinjenice. Prepusticemo da razloge za to istražju
istoricari, a mi se sami možemo uveriti da su uceni Srbi (uz
pokroviteljstvo srpskih državnika) stalno sasecali korene srpske
baštine. To je cinjeno u svim oblastima, s posebnom istrajnošcu u
istorijskoj nauci. Nema spora da su ova krivotvorenja istine iz
prošlosti stvorila plodno tlo za bujanje antisrpstva i u grupi
pravoslavnih Srba u Crnoj Gori. Opisacemo dva primera skrivanja
istorijskih cinjenica, cijim korišcenjem se utire put separatizmu i
nacionalnom odrodavanju u Crnoj Gori (i sve podmuklijim u Vojvodini).
1. Nikad nismo ucili da je današnja Crna Gora, sa delovima susedne
Albanije, bila, stolecima, prestonicka teritorija Srbije - sve do
uspostavljanja dinastije Nemanjica 1171. godine. U Skadru je bila
prestonica Srbije, sem kracih perioda, kad je premeštana u Trebinje - u
vreme kad bi Vizantinci, ili Bugari osvajali Skadar. Danas je teško
naci, medu najškolovanijim Srbima, onog koji bi mogao potvrditi da je
za tako nešto ikad cuo. Ako zavirimo u knjige dr Jovana I. Deretica,
videcemo da on Skadar oznacava za prestonicu Srbije od 490. do 1171.
godine, pa cak i u periodu pre Rimske Imperije. Ovaj istraživac je
našao dokumenata u inostranstvu, u kojima je to zabeleženo. On tvrdi da
niko od naših istraživaca nije imao prilike da se tim dokumentima
služi. Na osnovu njih, Jovan I. Deretic piše: "Srpski koreni su u
Podunavlju, ali srce Srbije je u Skadru. Taj stari grad, cije ime
potice neposredno od srpskog imena (pominje se kao: Sarba, Sarda,
Sorda, Skorda, Sardonik, Sadar i Skadar), bio je najduže, oko dvanaest
vekova, prestonica Srbije. Toliko dugo je 'ponosni grad Sardonik', kako
ga naziva Stefan Prvovencani, sa zaledem, bio centar srpske države".
(3) J. I. Deretic opisuje Srbiju u vreme kralja Dobroslava Prvog
Vojislava (1024-1065), kojom prilikom potvrduje da je Skadar prestonica
Srbije (a ne Duklje, ili Zete): "Kraljevic Dobroslav je odrastao u
Raškoj i bio je izuzetno obdaren, kako telesno, tako i umno. Iako je po
godinama bio još dete, delovao je kao zreo covek. Kada je došao u
Skadar 1024. godine, Srbi su odmah pobili sve vizantijske cinovnike i
posadu, pa ga proglasili za kralja. Cim je vizantijski car Vasilije
doznao šta se desilo u Srbiji, digao je veliku vojsku i pošao da licno
povrati predašnje stanje. Vizantija je, u to vreme, bila vrlo mocna,
najmocnija od vremena cara Justinijana. Mladi kralj Dobroslav je izišao
sa vojskom pred Vasilija i porazio ga 1025, u velikoj bici kod Bara….
Bitka je odlucena zahvaljujuci smeloj taktici mladog kralja… Zbog ove i
drugih bitaka, Srbi su svog mudrog vojskovodu, kralja Dobroslava,
nazvali - Vojislav". (4) Bar što se tice prestonice Srbije, naši
istoricari nisu morali da cekaju ova nepoznata dokumenta, na osnovu
kojih J. I. Deretic ispisuje malo drukciju istoriju od one koju smo
ucili. Mogli su da procitaju, na nekoliko mesta, isti podatak (Skadar -
prestonica Srbije) u "Letopisu popa Dukljanina!", s cim cemo se
upoznati iz knjige Nikole Banaševica o ovom srednjevekovnom spisu: "…
Nešto docnije, bice govora o zloglasnoj kraljici Jakvinti, ženi kralja
Bodina, a ovde cu samo podsetiti da je ona u Kotoru pripremila otrovni
napitak, koji je poslala, preko svojih ljudi, u Skadar - da se dadne
kralju Vladimiru Trecem, da bi, njegovom smrcu, osigurala presto svome
sinu Đordu". U istoj knjizi, srecemo drugi navod o Skadru kao
prestonici Srbije: "…Bojeci se da Branislav ili njegovi sinovi ne
preuzmu kraljevstvo posle smrti svoga muža, Jakvinta je pocela
smišljati kako ce ih pogubiti. Obradovala se kada je jednog dana
Branislav sa bratom Gradislavom i sinom Predihnom došao kralju u
Skadar". Evo još jedne potvrde: "…Kralj Bodin ude u Dubrovnik, sagradi
tvrdavu, a zatim se vrati u Skadar, gde je umro". (5)
2. Naše nedoumice oko prestonice Srbije u srednjem veku nisu toliko za
osudu koliko cinjenica da mi ni o Srbiji, kao srednjovekovnoj državi,
nemamo ciste predstave. U našim udžbenicima ne piše da je župan Stefan
Nemanja vladar Srbije. Tamo stoji da je on vladao u Raškoj i uz ovu
grešku, u odredivanju naziva Nemanjine države, ukorenila se i zabluda
da je "Raška prva srpska država". Pored ovako naizmenicnog posezanja za
državnim nazivima (cešce Raška, rede Srbija), teško je zakljuciti u
kojoj državi je ustolicen Stefan Nemanja 1171, a skoro je uzaludno
tragati za podacima da li je ta država bila ona koja je ucrtana u našim
udžbenicima, ili neka druga. U istorijskim izvorima, koji ne mogu biti
dovedeni u sumnju, vidi se da je Raška bila samo deo Srbije.
Tako proizilazi da i Nemanja nije mogao biti gospodar Raške, nego
Srbije. To potvrduje i Sveti Savo u "Žitiju Simeona Nemanje":
"… Jer neka je znano svima nama i drugima da Bog, koji tvori ljudima na
bolje, ne hoteci ljudske pogibli, postavi ovoga vaistinu triput
blaženog gospodina nam i oca, ovoga samodržavnoga gospodina, narecenoga
Stefana Nemanju, da caruje svom Srpskom Zemljom".
I u drugim srednjoveknim dokumentima, piše da je Nemanja vladar Srbije,
a o Raškoj se govori samo kao o srpskoj državnoj oblasti, kojom je
upravljao, možda, Nemanjin deda.
Ovde vidimo da se jedna administrativna oblast (Raška) promoviše u
celokupnu državnu teritoriju. Ali, nažalost, primer Raške, u našoj
istoriografiji, nije usamljen. I ostale administrativne pokrajine
srednjovekovne Srbije figuriraju kao zasebne države: Zeta, Duklja,
Travunija, Hum, Bosna…
Naši istoricari se istovetno odnose i prema Zeti. I nju, kao i Rašku,
tretiraju zasebnom državom - prosto, Srbija pred Raškom, Zetom i Bosnom
nestaje, ne postoji. U vizantijskim izvorima nije tako - tamo piše da
je rec o Srbiji - uvek kad se opisuju dogadaji i u Duklji, i u Zeti, i
u Raškoj, i u Bosni. Pogledajmo šta vizantijski istoricar Skilica
svedoci o vremenu srpskog vladara Stefana Vojislava (1042), kojeg iz
naših udžbenika znamo kao kneza Zete, a prema "Letopisu popa
Dukljanina" kao kralja Dobroslava:
"I Srbija, koja se posle smrti cara Romana bila odmetla, ponovo se
pokori".
Skilica piše dalje:
"Jovan posla Caru, koji je boravio, kako rekosmo, u Solunu deset
kentenarija zlata, ali brod zahvacen olujnim vetrom udari na ilirske
obale i razbi se. Zlato prigrabi Stefan Vojislav, arhont Srba, koji je
bio pre kratkog vremena pobegao iz Carigrada i zauzeo zemlju Srba,
proteravši odande Teofila Erotika".
Mada pobornici nesrpske crnogorske nacije tvrde da Stefan Vojislav nije
Srbin, nego Dukljanin, imamo, pored navedenog, još jedno svedocanstvo
vizantijskog hronicara Kekavmena da je Stefan Vojislav Srbin i još
roden van teritorije Duklje, ili Zete. Kekavmen opisuje rat Vizantije i
Srbije 1042. godine i spominje Stefana Vojislava samo po etnickoj i
geografskoj pripadnosti (roden u Trebinju):
" Tako uradi u Duklji, Travunjanin Srbin kapetanu Draca Mihailu, sinu
logoteta, i uništi njegovu vojsku, koja je brojala 40.000. Pomenuti,
naime, kapetan upavši u Duklju opljacka je, a vracajuci se zatece
klisure kroz koje je bio ušao, zaposjednute i bi zarobljen. A možda je
imao i drugi put da se bezopasno povuce, ali iz nepromišljenosti, bolje
reci neiskustva, bi zarobljen".
Vizantijski izvori i Vojislavljeve naslednike, sina Mihaila i unuka
Bodina, takode, oznacavaju za Srbe. U tekstu vizantijskog hronicara
Kedrina piše o Vojislavljevom sinu sledece:
"Tada Mihailo, Stefanov sin, koji je poslije oca bio postao vladar
Tribala i Srba, sklopi ugovor sa Carem i bi upisan medu saveznike i
prijatelje Romeja i bi pocastvovan protospaterskim sanom".
Kod Skilice je na više mesta Duklja (Zeta) nazvana jednostavno Srbijom.
(6)
Ako ostavimo vizantijske izvore i vratimo se srpskom - "Letopisu popa
Dukljanina", uvericemo se da su Duklja, Zeta, Travunija, Hum, Raška i
Bosna samo pokrajine u Srbiji. I to još u vremenu pre vladara koje smo
opisali (Dobroslava Prvog Vojislava i njegovih potomaka): "Dok je
kraljevao Caslav (863-865), ugarski knez Kiš dode sa svojom vojskom u
Bosnu, pa pustošaše i pljackaše ovu pokrajinu. Tada kralj, sakupivši
vojsku, suprostavi mu se u Drinskoj županiji, pored rijeke. Pošto se tu
zace bitka, gorereceni mladic Tihomil, posvuda ranjavajuci
neprijatelje, pohrli i ubije ugarskog kneza, pa mu posijece glavu i
preda je kralju… Zatim kralj Caslav, neobicno zadovoljan, dade Tihomilu
Drinsku županiju i oženi ga kcerkom bana Raške, a sve to zbog toga što
je ubio kneza Kiša…" (7)
Istovetnu sliku iz vremena Caslava (o centralnoj vlasti u Srbiji i
oblasnim gospodarima u Bosni, Raškoj, Zeti, Travuniji, Dalmaciji…),
srecemo i u sledecem stolecu, za vreme kralja Prelimira (962-990).
Srpski kralj Prelimir je imao 4 sina: Hvalimira, Boleslava, Dragislava
i Svevlada. Poklonio im je, na upravu, sledece oblasti, s titulama
banova (otud i banovi u Bosni); Hvalimiru - Duklju, Boleslavu -
Travuniju (tad je u Trebinju bila prestonica Srbije), Dragoslavu -
Helmaniju (zapadna Bosna i deo Dalmacije) i Svevladu - predele severno
od Trebinja: na istoku do Pive, a na zapadu do reke Rame. (8)
Zanimljivo je da je i crnogorski vladika Vasilije Petrovic imao uvid u
prirodu srednjevekovne srpske države. Zabeležio je da je Crna Gora
naslednik Zete - koja je bila sastavni deo srednjevekovne Srbije, a
pišuci (1757) Mlecima, navodi: "… Od našeg slavnoga carstva srbskoga…"
(9)
Naši istorici i dalje izbegavaju cinjenicu da je u srednjem veku, sve
ovo vreme, opstajala država Srbija, s tim što su neke oblasti, ponekad,
bile pod vlašcu Vizantije, Bugarske i Madarske. Oni, tvrdoglavo,
opisuju da su umesto Srbije bile nezavisne, spomenute, "države":
Duklja, Zeta, Raška, Bosna, Travunija… Pogledajmo kako to navodi i
Siniša Mišic u svom doktorskom radu: "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku":
"… Sve to vreme, Zahumlje se nalazi u sastavu dukljanske države i o
njemu nema posebnih vesti u izvorima… Bez obzira na Bodinove uspehe i
padove, Zahumlje je ostalo pod njegovom vlašcu u toku cele vladavine
(do 1101)". (10)
Kako vidimo, naši autori olako se, i pored istorijskih izvora, odricu
državnog imena Srbije. U ovom slucaju, dr Mišic državu naziva "Dukljom
kralja Bodina"?
Da naši istorici nisu, u udžbenicima, srednjovekovnu Srbiju uoblicili
prema projektima lomljenja srpske zemlje u devetnaestom, dvadesetom i
dvadesetprvom stolecu, ne bi bilo moguce, u redovima njenog maticnog
naroda, odgajiti tolike (i tako opake) neprijatelje. Jer, da su žitelji
Crne Gore uceni da je Crna Gora bila oblast na kojoj je 600 godina bila
prestonica Srbije, teško bi bilo pretpostaviti da bi deo pravoslavnog
stanovništva Crne Gore, danas, samoubilacki srljao u samoodrodenje.
Zaista, uz saznanje da Zeta nije bila zasebna država, ne bi moglo da
buja samoodrodenje Srba - da su, od školskih dana, uceni da je ona bila
samo oblast Srbije, poput Raške, Huma, Travunije i Bosne. Drugo je
pitanje što ce neke od ovih i drugih (novoformiranih) oblasti
životariti kao zasebne državice po smrti Cara Dušana i posle upada
Turaka i Madara u Srbiju.
Inace, nije na odmet podsetiti, kad je rec o glavnom gradu, da je
Skadar igrao znacajnu ulogu u Srbiji i posle premeštanja srpske
prestonice u: Ras, Prizren i Skoplje. U vreme kralja Stefana Decanskog,
iz Skadra je upravljao okolnim oblastima kraljevic Dušan, buduci srpski
car. Skadar je bio prestonica preostalog dela Srbije u vreme Stefana i
Ivana Crnojevica. Kad su ga Turci preoteli, Crnojevic su premestili
prestonicu u Žabljak, a kad su Turci osvojili i Žabljak, Crnojevici su
vladali sa Cetinja do 1490. godine, kad Crna Gora pada pod vlast
Turske, osam godina posle turskog porobljavanja Hercegovine.
3) Grešne poruke separatista o ugroženosti Crne Gore od velikosrpstva
Medu ostalim, i predsednik Crne Gore Milo Đukanovic cesto izjavljuje da
je dosta srpske mitomanije i velikosrpskih ambicija, a ni jedna od ovih
tvrdnji nema uporište u stvarnosti. Ovo možemo nazvati izoblicavanjem
cinjenica, mada bi istrajniji analiticar došao do zakljucka da je u
pitanju i izoblicena svest - kod onih koji mogu verovati da su Srbi,
poslednja dva stoleca, bili nosioci politike kojom bi se nanosila šteta
pripadnicima nekog drugog naroda. U najmanju ruku, takve tvrdnje su
greh pred Bogom i Istorijom, jer su Srbi taj narod koji je, na Balkanu,
najviše stradao. Samo nad srpskim narodom je sprovodeno fizicko
istrebljenje u Prvom i Drugom svetskom ratu. Srbi su, pored Jevreja i
Cigana, spaljivani u hrvatskim jasenovackim pecima, od hrvatskih
vojnika bacani u kraške jame i od istih maljevima ubijani na obalama
Save, Dunava i Drine.
Srbi su želeli stvorti državu na svojim etnickim teritorijama i samo su
zato (od Austrougara) optuženi za velikosrpsku politiku. Austrijanci,
koji su pokušali okupirati sve balkanske narode, nisu prozvani
velikoaustrijancima. Hrvati koji su projektovali svoju državu na
srpskim etnickim teritorijama nisu prozvani velikohrvatima. Hrvati bi
mogli da budu okarkterisani i teže, jer im je državni program bio
ispunjen obavezom istrebljenja pravoslavnih Srba od Istre do Drine. Da
ne govorimo o hrvatskoj drskosti prilikom preuzimanja srpskog jezika za
službeni u Hrvatskoj, naknadno ga nazvavši "srpskohrvatskim", pa
"hrvatskim jezikom". (Taj "srpsko-hrvatski" moguc je, naprimer, kao
"poljsko-bugarski", "srpsko-slovenacki", ili "portugalsko-francuski".
Srpskom narodu pripisivati nameru vladanja drugim narodima, zaista je
greh, jer je taj narod, neštedimice, pomagao oslobadanje Hrvata i
Slovenaca od tudinske vlasti.
Medu separatistima u Crnoj Gori, zacudujuce je, taj greh se proširuje.
Naprimer, tvrdnjom da Srbi robuju svojoj istorijskoj mitomaniji. Ako
bismo pogledali šta se to zamera srpskom narodu, zakljucili bismo da je
to navodni mit o Kosovskoj bici (što ne može ugroziti druge narode i da
je tako) i cinjenica da su na dvoru Nemanjica bili korišceni, u vreme
obroka, nož i viljuška - i to pozlaceni. Bože, pa zamislite da Englezi
iskopaju neki podatak o tome da je Ricard Lavlje Srce, u Londonu - na
svom dvoru, obedovao uz pomoc zlatne viljuške, sigurno je da bi to bila
obavezna odrednica u svim svetskim enciklopedijama - bilo bi to
dragoceno kulturno naslede evropske civilizacije. Ovako, pošto je u
pitanju srpsko naslede, Evopa ga se odrice. Da se ne odrice, ne bi tu
istorijsku i civilizacijsku cinjenicu podvrgla ruglu - što smo mogli
videti i na televiziji, kad je Omer Karabeg intervjuisao Aliju
Izetbegovica i Stipu Mesica.
Umesto da Đukanovic i istomišljenici u Crnoj Gori, s cijeg tla je
dinastija Nemanjica, ponosno isticu ovu cinjenicu, i oni joj se rugaju!?
Separatisti se ne libe daljeg oglušavanja o istorijske cinjenice. Oni,
pored toga, što napadno ponavljaju da su Duklja i Zeta bile crnogorske
srednjovekovne države, a ne pokrajine u Srbiji (kao što smo to
objasnili), pronalaze da su Srbi bili i osvajaci Crne Gore u srednjem
veku. Za takve tvrdnje, koriste i medufeudalne obracune u Srbiji po
smrti Cara Dušana i posle srpskih bitaka protiv Turaka na Marici i
Kosovu polju. Jednostavno, navode da su Balšici i Crnojevici bili
Crnogorci i da su branili državu od srpskih feudalaca. Izbegavaju da
kažu da su medusobno ratovali i oni feudalci koje oni smatraju Srbima.
Naprimer, Lazar Hrebljanovic i Nikola Altomanovic, Tvrtko Kotromanic i
Nikola Altomanovic, Brankovici protiv Hrebeljanovica, itd. Iz istih
razloga (karakteristicnih za feudalizam) dolazilo je do obracuna izmedu
Crnojevica i Brankovica - ne zato što su jedni bili Srbi, a drugi
Nesrbi. Nemanjici su cesto, kao i kraljevi pre njih, silom umirivali
oblasne gospodare, a ti gospodari su, obavezno, bili Srbi. No, danas
separatisti u Crnoj Gori objašnjavaju da su takva previranja na tlu
Zete bila osvajacki pohod Srbije protiv Crne Gore, kao onaj - 1360.
godine, itd. U tom bezumlju, navode nešto što se kosi i s logikom -
Nemanja (roden u Crnoj Gori) nije Crnogorac, nego Srbin, a Dobroslav
Prvi Vojislav (roden u Trebinju) nije Srbin, nego je Crnogorac!? (11)
4) Srpske borbe i oslobodenje Crne Gore u 17. stolecu
Separatisti u Crnoj Gori krivotvore istorijske cinjenice novijih
vekova, koristeci ih kao "dokaze" da su Crnogorci jedno a Srbi drugo.
Navodno, razlika je ocigledna i kad se ima u vidu "cinjenica" da su se
Crnogorci neprestano borili protiv turskog ropstva, a Srbi su ga mirno
podnosili.
Ovo se toliko istice da je postalo jedna od najvažnijih poluga u
rasrbljavanju i razdržavljavanju u Crnoj Gori. Zaprepašcuje cinjenica
da u trecem milenijumu posle Hrista državnici, i poneki od onih koji
kažu da se bave naukom, mogu da se ogluše o neprestana vojevanja
srpskog naroda protiv Turaka i drugih - od rumunskog Arada, slovackog
Komorana, Male Raške u Slavoniji, primorskog Senja, dalmatinskog Klisa,
severne Dalmacije, Hercegovine, Bosne, Šumadije, Kosova i Makedonije i
da to vojevanje smeštaju jedino na predele današnje Crne Gore. A ako
pogledamo istorijske izvore sedamnaestog stoleca, videcemo da je tada
do oslobadanja delova Crne Gore došlo posle lomljenja turske imperije,
cemu su, najznacajnije, doprineli srpski ustanci u spomenutim
oblastima. Iz njih su oslobodilacke jedinice stigle i do crnogorske
teritorije i tamo pomogle Crnogorcima da stvore prve slobodne oaze,
manjeviše nezavisne od Turske. Prirodno je da su Srbi oslobodioci
stizali u crnogorske planine pod zastavama Mletacke Republike, ili
Austrije, jer svoje države nisu imali. (Imali su svoje administrativne
uprave u Austriji, što se delimicno zna, i u Mletackoj Republici, što
malo ko zna). Naravno, oslobodene crnogorske teritorije, Mletacka
Republika i Austrija stavile su pod zaštitu, radi sopstvenih interesa,
koji su se, u ovom slucaju, poklopili s interesima srpskog naroda. Time
je, što je za Srbe bila najveca dobit, Turska morala da se odrekne
naknadnog pokoravanja Crne Gore. U nekolika slucajeva, Turska je posle
okupacije Crne Gore, ili samo namere da to ucini, morala, na
intervenciju velikih sila, da napusti Crnu Goru, mada ju je, formalno -
do 1878, smatrala svojom teritorijom.
Poceci oslobodilackog rata u Crnoj Gori, u sedamnaestom stolecu, vezani
su za opštesrpske pripreme protiv turskog ropstva na Balkanu. Pre toga,
krajem šesnaestog stoleca, Srbi Dalmacije su žestoko ratovali protiv
Turaka - borbe oko Klisa, a 1603. godine protiv srpskih ustanika
krenuli su i Turci i Mlecici. Borbe su bile okrutne i Srbi u Dalmaciji
nisu mogli izdržati. Do 1624, deset hiljada porodica je napustilo
Dalmaciju i raselilo se po Panoniji, oko gradova Baje, Subotice i
Sombora. Krajem šesnaestog stoleca su se digli protiv Turaka Srbi i u
drugim krajevima. Turska je uzdrmana i Turci su, u besu, tada spalili
mošti Svetog Save na Vracaru. Nemire u Turskoj je koristila Katolicka
crkva, koja je Srbima obecavala pomoc i oslobodenje. Za uzvrat, mnogi
Srbi su prihvatali katolicku veru. U Crnoj Gori je katolicenje uzelo
maha i Srbi, verski podeljeni, nisu bili umešni zajednicki delovati
protiv ropstva. Tako, pocetak sedamnaestog stoleca u Crnoj Gori nije
bio pogodan za uspešnu borbu protiv Turaka. Sima Milutinovic je zapisao
da je tada cetinjskom vladici Ruvimu (pod uticajem patrijarha Pajsija)
uspelo da mnoge pokatolicene Drekalovice, Kuce, Bjelopavlice, Pipere,
Zecane i Bratonožice vrati u pravoslavnu religiju. Prema izveštajima
katolickih emisara, Ruvim je u svojoj nameri uspeo, pa je 1633, medu
Bjelopavlicima ostalo još oko 200 katolickih porodica, a izmedu Morace
i Zete ne više od hiljadu. Piperi su do 1610, skoro svi, bili
prihvatili katolicku veru, ali su posle dvadesetak godina opet bili
pravoslavni. Nema spora, vracanje Srba pradedovskoj veri i obicajima
bilo je presudno za predstojece vreme i uspešne borbe protiv Turaka. U
ovo vreme, Turci su provodili i islamiziranje, ali ono je bilo manje
masovno. Tako je u Bjelopavlicima poturceno 90 porodica, itd.
Pocetkom sedamnaestog stoleca, Srbi u Dalmaciji, Hercegovini i Bosni su
priželjkivali opšti ustanak protiv Turaka. Bežali su s turske
teritorije, najviše iz Bosne i Srbije, na uzane prostore Dalmacije pod
mletackom vlašcu i tražili od Mlecica da pomognu protivtursku borbu.
Naselili su pojaseve oko Zadra i Šibenika i medu tim Srbima pojavice se
junaci - udarna snaga mletacke vojske. U Kandijskom ratu ce se
proslaviti odbranom mletackih poseda na Jadranu i dubokim prodorom u
Tursku - do Like, Kljuca, Trebinja, Cetinja, Nikšica, Meduna….
Srbi Dalmacije su, tako, 1649. ušli duboko u Crnu Goru i zapalili
buktinju slobode. Sreli se sa Kucima i sa njima oslobodili tvrdi grad
Medun. U to vreme, Srbi oslobadaju Klis i od tog vremena turska premoc
od Crne Gore do Like jenjava. Narod je opevao tadašnje srpske junake:
Janka Mitrovica i njegovog sina Stojana Jankovica, bracu Smiljanice,
hajduka Cvijana Šarica, Vuka Mandušica i druge. Godine 1654, zabeležen
je još jedan srpski junak - Bajo Pivljanin, koji ce zadavati,
ispocetka, grdne muke Turcima u Hercegovini i južnoj Dalmaciji, a
kasnije i u drugim srpskim krajevima.
Njegova ceta brojala je oko 1.500 ustanika. Turci su u vreme Kandijskog
rata ponovo pokoravali oslobodene krajeve u Crnoj Gori i bezuspešno
napadali Perast i Kotor. Crnogorcima su nametali teške poreze i
ustanike ubijali i progonili, ali se oslobodilacki duh naroda više nije
mogao ugušiti. Uzalud su Turci, s 10.000 vojnika, poharali Pivljane i
Nikšicane, jer su se pridružili Srbima iz Dalmacije. Ustanici su se
sklonili u visoke planine.
Konacan, smrtni, udarac Turskoj zadace srpski ustanici 1682. godine.
Kara-Mustafa, s 250.000 vojnika, opseda Bec 1683. Srbi Dalmacije,
vidimo - godinu dana ranije, dižu ustanak pod vodstvom najmladeg brata
Stojana Jankovica, Ilije. Turci šalju protiv Srba 100.000 vojnika, ali
ustanak se samo rasplamsavao. Turska preti Mlecima da ce, posle
osvajanja Beca, krenuti na Veneciju, ako Mlecani ne umire srpske
ustanike. Mleci šalju Stojana Jankovica u štab Ilije Jankovica, ali
voda ustanka vraca brata u Mletke. Oduševljenje Srba u drugim krajevima
je veliko. U Dalmaciju prelaze Srbi iz Bosne, Hercegovine, Srbije i
Crne Gore. Medu njima i proslavljeni Bajo Pivljanin. Srbi oslobadaju,
pre turskog poraza pod Becom, današnju Dalmaciju, sem utvrdenja: Knina,
Sinja i Imotskog. Turska postaja bespomocna. Srbi prodiru kroz više
pravaca preko Bosne do reke Save i otud dovode u Dalmaciju nove srpske
porodice. Srbi na celom Balkanu i u srednjoj Evropi se dižu na ustanak
- od Komorana u Slovackoj do Kumanova i Skoplja. Poljaci stižu u pomoc
Austrijancima i razbijaju tursku opsadu Beca. Turci uzmicu i nigde ne
mogu da uspostave odbrambenu liniju. U tome im ne pomažu ni visoke
planine Hercegovine i Bosne, ni velike reke u Panoniji. Srpski ustanici
ih ometaju. Tako austrijska armija ulazi na vec oslobodene teritorije.
U ratu je i Mletacka Republika i preuzima slobodnu Dalmaciju od Srba.
Jedino ucestvuje u oslobadanju Knina, Sinja i Imotskog. Austrijska
vojska, od samo 4000 vojnika, prošetala se do Niša. Srbi su, ranije,
proterali Turke iz Srbije. Na celu ovog austrijskog odreda je Enej
Pikolomini. Kad je stigao do Prizrena, tu mu se prikljucilo 6000
srpskih ustanika, više nego što je on imao vojnika. Vojvoda Karpoš
oslobada Kumanovo i severnu Makedoniju, pa Austrijanci, bez muke, ulaze
u Skoplje i pale ga. Hercegovina i Bosna su slobodne, o Madarskoj i
Vojvodini da i ne govorimo. U poslednjim bitkama ginu: Stojan Jankovic,
Ilija Smiljanic i druge srpske vode.
U Crnoj Gori je situacija najteža. Turci je koriste da bi iz nje
zaustavili ustanicku, mletacku i austrisku vojsku. Mletacka vojska se,
i osloncem na crnogorske ustanike, nije snalazila na južnom Jadranu.
Crnogorci su u nezavidnoj situaciji. Skadarski paša Sulejman Bušatlija
im je pretio, pa su se kolebali. Da bi podigla njihov borbeni moral,
Mletacka Republika im šalje Baju Pivljanina, s nedovoljnim brojem
vojnika. Bušatlija 1685. krece u Katunsku nahiju da natera na pokornost
Srbe Crne Gore i Brda. Isprecio mu se, jedino, Bajo Pivljanin, sa
svojim momcima i nevelikim brojem Crnogoraca. Mlecani su, igrom ko zna
kakvih okolnosti, uskratili vecu vojnu pomoc. Bajo je docekao Turke kod
Vrteljke, gde je poražen i ubijen. Sulejman stiže na Cetinje i pali ga.
Crnogorce je naterao da placaju danak i da ga slušaju. Bojeci se
velikih stradanja, Crnogorci te i iduce godine ratuju na strani Turaka
i 1686. ucestvuju u neuspelom turskom napadu na Budvu.
Godine 1687, Crnogorci su se odvažili na borbu protiv Turaka. Mleci
stižu na južni Jadran i povezuju se s crnogorskim plemenima. Opsedaju
Herceg Novi, uz pomoc pridošlih Hercegovaca i Crnogoraca. Mletacki
komandanti žele da u grad udu prvi Italijani, ali ih Turci lako
odbijaju. Juriš preuzimaju Srbi iz Dalmacije i osvajaju ga. Put ka
oslobadanju Crne Gore bio je otvoren. Cetinjski vladika Visarion je
zaslužan za pridobijanje Crnogoraca na borbu. Bušatlija pokušava da
umiri Crnogorce, ali ga Kuci, krajem jeseni, potuku do nogu. 1678, u
prolece, Bušatlija pokušava da umiri Crnu Goru, ali je opet naišao na
Kuce, koji su ga porazili, mada je imao 7.000 vojnika. Crnogorci su
krajem 1688. priznali mletacku vlast, prihvatili guvernera Zana
Grbicica, koji je, sa odredom mletackih vojnika, stigao na Cetinje.
Od tada je Crna Gora pod zaštitom Mlecana. Bez obzira što je Bušatlija,
ponovo, 1692. godine zauzeo Cetinje i prognao guvernera i mletacku
posadu, Crna Gora ce izdržati taj udarac i ostatati na putu
nezavisnosti.
Mada su u drugim srpskim krajevima bojevi bili još žešci i mada su tamo
Srbi znacajnije doprineli porazu Turaka, nego u Dalmaciji i Crnoj Gori,
ti krajevi su ostali pod vlašcu ili Austrije ili Turske. Francuska je
pritekla u pomoc Turcima i napala je Austriju na zapadnim granicama, a
Turcima poslala strucnjake da joj reformišu vojsku. Austrijanci su
napustili Hercegovinu, Bosnu, Makedoniju i Srbiju. Prethodno su
razoružali srpske ustanike i ponudili im preseljenje u Austriju.
Nepokornim Srbima i onima koji nisu želeli preko Save i Dunava,
Austrijanci su palili naselja i uništavali imovinu. Nastupila je glad i
ona je primorala Srbe na pokornost Austriji i preseljenje. Hronike su
zabeležile da do Budima stiže mnogo srpskih porodica: 14 crnogorskih,
12 pecanskih, 6 prizrenskih, 8 sarajevskih, 9 kosovskih, 6
požarevackih, 5 beogradskih, itd. Tih godina, samo u Budimu je bilo
20.000 Srba. Ogorceni time, Srbi u Bosni su ubili austrijskog
feldmaršala, ali sve se desilo kako su odlucile velike sile. Turci su
se vratili u Makedoniju, Srbiju, Hercegovinu i Bosnu. Predstojace novi
ustanci i nove borbe protiv Turaka i nanovo ce velike sile ostavljati
Srbe na Balkanu na milost i nemilost Turcima, a Srbima u srednjoj
Evropi ce dozvoljavati samoupravu, a ništa, u toj samoupravi, od
državnih atributa.
Usledice nove bitke Austrije i Turske. U prvom sukobu s Turcima, u
austrijskoj vojsci je (1691) 10.000 Srba, pešaka i konjanika, pod
komandom Jovana Monastrilije, generalom iz Komorana, poreklom iz
Bitolja. Srbi kod Slankamena provaljuju u centar turske vojske i prave
pokolj - zarobljavaju 34 turske zastave! Srbi kod Sente (1697),
doprinose strahovitom porazu Turaka. Jovan Tekelija, za zasluge u ovoj
bici, dobija austrijsko plemstvo.
U osamnaestom i devetnaestom stolecu, Srbi ce u svim krajevima teško
vojevati. U mnogim bunam i ustancima - i protiv Turske, i protiv
Austrije, i protiv Madarske, i protiv Mletacke. Crnogorske bitke protiv
Turaka u ovom veku nece proci bez pomoci Srba iz okolnih pokrajina.
Hercegovci ce prednjaciti u tome. Pomažuci odbranu slobodne Crne Gore,
Hercegovci ce ciniti cuda od junaštva - vojvode Peko Pavlovic, Stojan
Kovacevic i drugi. Oni ce, cesto, izmicati Crnogorcima u junaštvu i
nepomirljivosti prema Turcima, tako da ce knjaz Nikola uhapsiti
neukrotivog Stojana Kovacevica, okovati ga i predati Turcima (Hag nije
nikakva novost). Srecom, ovaj hercegovacki junak je pobegao iz turskog
zatvora.
Kako rekosmo, bez obzira na srpska junaštva i bitke, sudbina im je
zavisila od odluka velikih sila. Tako, i kad su ratovali na strani
hrišcanskih sila protiv Turske i kad su, tim prilikama, oslobadali
znacajne teritorije, velike sile su odlucivale da se one vrate pod
tursku upravu. Srbi, tada, nisu mogli i protiv Turske i protiv
evropskih sila. Mirili su se i ostavljali oslobadenje od turskog
ropstva buducim generacijama. (12)
Usmena predanja o borbama protiv Turaka i drugih okupatora
Nabrajati sve bitke Srba protiv velikih sila nije moguce u clanku ove
namene, ali je moguce zakljuciti da te bitke nisu sacuvane u predanjima
kod potomaka u vecini srpskih krajeva. Recimo, Srbi Dalmacije,
Hercegovine, Bosne, Vojvodine, Madarske, Rumunije, Srbije, Makedoniji,
Like, Korduna, Banije, Slavonije, Baranje ne znaju ništa o njima.
(Naprimer, Srbi Baranje su ratovali protiv Madara od 1703. do 1711, ali
o tome današnje generacije Baranjaca nisu, od predaka, preuzele
nikakvog pomena). Suprotno tome, Srbi u Crnoj Gori su sacuvali usmena
predanja o bitkama na svojoj teritoriji, uz kitnjasto besedovanje i
obavezno ukljucivanje svojih rodaka u najpresudnije momente. S obzirom
da se ovim tekstom obracamo separatistima u Crnoj Gori, nadamo se da i
ovu razliku u pamcenju predackih vojevanja jednih i drugih -Srba, nece
iskoristiti za dokaz da stanovnici Crne Gore nisu Srbi. Bila bi im to
štetna poplava (inflacija) "dokaza".
1) Vasilije Krestic: "Srpsko-hrvatski odnosi i jugoslovenska ideja",
Beograd, SANU
2) "Srbija 1878 - dokumenti", Beograd, SKZ, 1978, str. 428
3) "Anticka Srbija", dr Jovan I. Deretic, Beogrd, 2000, "Sardonija".
4) Isto.
5) "Letopis popa Dukljanina", Nikola Banaševic, Beograd, SKZ, 1971,
strane: 231, 257, 258.
6) "Etnicko porijeklo Crnogoraca", dr Nikola Vukcevic, Beograd, "Sava
Mihic", 1981 - iz ovog dela uzetai su svi citati vizantijskih hronicara.
7) "Letopis popa Dukljanina", dr Slavko Mijuškovic, Titograd, "Graficki
zavod", 1967, str. 212.
8) "Anticka Srbija", Jovan I. Deretic, Beograd, 2000, "Sardonija" i
"Letopis popa Dukljanina", dr Slavko Mijuškovic, Titograd, "Graficki
zavod", 1967, str. 226/7.
9) "Etnicko porijeklo Crnogoraca", dr Nikola Vukcevic, Beograd, "Sava
Mihic", 1967. Str. 45
10) "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku", dr Siniša Mišic, Beograd,
Filozovski fakultet, 1996.
11) "Pošjetnik o Crnoj Gori i Crnogorstvu", "Dignitas-Elementa
Montenegrina", Cetinje, 1996.
12) Podaci o srpskim ustancima u 17. stolecu korišceni iz: "Istorija
Srba", Vladimir Corovic i "Pravoslavna Dalmacija", Nikodim Milaš.
GRECIA: ANTIAMERICANISMO ALLE STELLE, SONDAGGIO
"I paesi che registrano la [maggiore] percentuale di simpatia nei
confronti degli Stati Uniti sono l' Albania con il 95%, il Kosovo [SIC]
con l' 89%, Israele con l' 84%..."
(ANSA) - ATENE, 13 OTT - L'antiamericanismo in Grecia e' molto forte.
Secondo un' indagine svolta dalla ditta TNS ICAP in collaborazione con
la Gallup International Association in 60 paesi, la Grecia e' secondo
paese nel mondo dove la maggior parte dei cittadini ha un' impressione
negativa degli Usa. Al primo posto si trova la Svizzera con il 68%;
seguono l'Uruguay e appunto la Grecia con il 63%, l'Egitto con il 60% e
l'Indonesia con il 59%. Secondo quando pubblica oggi il quotidiano
ateniese Ethnos, sette greci su dieci sono contrari alla guerra in
Iraq, e ritengono che la politica estera americana abbia influssi
negativi sulla Grecia. Allo stesso modo otto cittadini su dieci
sostengono che il ruolo degli Usa, per la pace nel mondo, non e'
positivo e che gli americani non contribuscono a combattere la poverta'
e proteggere l'ambiente. Il 68% dei greci e' contrario alla guerra
contro il terrorismo condotta dagli Usa, e il 57% considera negativo il
ruolo americano allo sviluppo dell'economia mondiale. I paesi che
registrano la [maggiore] percentuale di simpatia nei confronti degli
Stati Uniti sono l' Albania con il 95%, il Kosovo con l' 89%, Israele
con l' 84% e l'Afghanistan con l' 80%.(ANSA). COR
13/10/2004 14:07
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/grecia/20041013140733116375.html
"I paesi che registrano la [maggiore] percentuale di simpatia nei
confronti degli Stati Uniti sono l' Albania con il 95%, il Kosovo [SIC]
con l' 89%, Israele con l' 84%..."
(ANSA) - ATENE, 13 OTT - L'antiamericanismo in Grecia e' molto forte.
Secondo un' indagine svolta dalla ditta TNS ICAP in collaborazione con
la Gallup International Association in 60 paesi, la Grecia e' secondo
paese nel mondo dove la maggior parte dei cittadini ha un' impressione
negativa degli Usa. Al primo posto si trova la Svizzera con il 68%;
seguono l'Uruguay e appunto la Grecia con il 63%, l'Egitto con il 60% e
l'Indonesia con il 59%. Secondo quando pubblica oggi il quotidiano
ateniese Ethnos, sette greci su dieci sono contrari alla guerra in
Iraq, e ritengono che la politica estera americana abbia influssi
negativi sulla Grecia. Allo stesso modo otto cittadini su dieci
sostengono che il ruolo degli Usa, per la pace nel mondo, non e'
positivo e che gli americani non contribuscono a combattere la poverta'
e proteggere l'ambiente. Il 68% dei greci e' contrario alla guerra
contro il terrorismo condotta dagli Usa, e il 57% considera negativo il
ruolo americano allo sviluppo dell'economia mondiale. I paesi che
registrano la [maggiore] percentuale di simpatia nei confronti degli
Stati Uniti sono l' Albania con il 95%, il Kosovo con l' 89%, Israele
con l' 84% e l'Afghanistan con l' 80%.(ANSA). COR
13/10/2004 14:07
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/grecia/20041013140733116375.html
PIER FERDINANDO CASINI OSPITE DEI TERRORISTI
Al Signor Pier Ferdinando Casini
Presidente Camera dei Deputati
Roma,
Signor Presidente,
nei giorni 28 e 29 ottobre Lei e l’Onorevole Marco Follini
parteciperete ad un’incontro seminario intitolato “Cuba e democrazia”.
Vogliamo portare alla Sua attenzione il fatto che il moderatore del
dibattito di cui sopra, è Jorge Mas Santos, Presidente della FNCA e
figlio del suo fondatore, Jorge Mas Canosa.
L’FNCA è l’organizzazione terroristica di Miami, che ha finanziato –
per ammissione al New York Times dell’organizzatore di tali azioni, il
terrorista Luis Posada Carriles – la campagna terroristica a La Habana
che ha visto la collocazione di diversi ordigni negli alberghi della
capitale cubana.
In uno di questi attentati, nel 1997, venne ucciso il giovane
imprenditore italiano Fabio Di Celmo.
Signor Presidente La preghiamo di non partecipare a tale incontro
perché ciò sarebbe in forte contrasto rispetto alla linea politica che
il nostro Paese sostiene di perseguire contro il terrorismo
internazionale. Significherebbe, altresì, dare credito e lustro a
questa organizzazione terrorista che tra l’altro si è macchiata oltre
che dei delitti di cui sopra anche del sequestro del piccolo naufrago
cubano Elian Gonzalez di cui Ella certamente ricorderà la vicenda
nonché di una clamorosa frode fiscale e di numerosi attentati in
territorio cubano.
Certi della Sua attenzione
Distinti saluti
Direttivo Circolo di Roma
Associazione Nazionale diAmicizia Italia-Cuba
Al Signor Pier Ferdinando Casini
Presidente Camera dei Deputati
Roma,
Signor Presidente,
nei giorni 28 e 29 ottobre Lei e l’Onorevole Marco Follini
parteciperete ad un’incontro seminario intitolato “Cuba e democrazia”.
Vogliamo portare alla Sua attenzione il fatto che il moderatore del
dibattito di cui sopra, è Jorge Mas Santos, Presidente della FNCA e
figlio del suo fondatore, Jorge Mas Canosa.
L’FNCA è l’organizzazione terroristica di Miami, che ha finanziato –
per ammissione al New York Times dell’organizzatore di tali azioni, il
terrorista Luis Posada Carriles – la campagna terroristica a La Habana
che ha visto la collocazione di diversi ordigni negli alberghi della
capitale cubana.
In uno di questi attentati, nel 1997, venne ucciso il giovane
imprenditore italiano Fabio Di Celmo.
Signor Presidente La preghiamo di non partecipare a tale incontro
perché ciò sarebbe in forte contrasto rispetto alla linea politica che
il nostro Paese sostiene di perseguire contro il terrorismo
internazionale. Significherebbe, altresì, dare credito e lustro a
questa organizzazione terrorista che tra l’altro si è macchiata oltre
che dei delitti di cui sopra anche del sequestro del piccolo naufrago
cubano Elian Gonzalez di cui Ella certamente ricorderà la vicenda
nonché di una clamorosa frode fiscale e di numerosi attentati in
territorio cubano.
Certi della Sua attenzione
Distinti saluti
Direttivo Circolo di Roma
Associazione Nazionale diAmicizia Italia-Cuba
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
Milosevic : "rendez-moi mon droit à me défendre"
1. Procès Milosevic: les juges pourraient intimer à certains témoins de
déposer (AFP, 18 octobre)
2. Milosevic : "rendez-moi mon droit à me défendre" (AFP, 21 octobre)
3. Le procès Milosevic ajourné jusqu'au 9 novembre faute de témoins
(AFP, 22 octobre)
4. Le Monde : Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic tourne à l'imbroglio (23
octobre 2004)
5. UN OUVRAGE CHOC, UN DOCUMENT DE RÉFÉRENCE :
le texte intégral de l'exposé fait par Slobodan Milosevic au Tribunal
pénal international de La Haye, le 31 août et le 1er septembre 2004
[ Nota: LA TRADUZIONE INTEGRALE IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELL'APERTURA
DELL'AUTODIFESA DI SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC E' STATA DA NOI GIA' EFFETTUATA.
IL TESTO E' IN VIA DI CORREZIONE, E PRESTO SEGNALEREMO LA URL ALLA
QUALE ESSO SI POTRA' LEGGERE. ICDSM-Italia ]
SOURCE:
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
---( 1 )---
Procès Milosevic: les juges pourraient intimer à certains témoins de
déposer
AFP, 18 octobre
LA HAYE (AFP) - Les juges du Tribunal pénal international (TPI) pour
l'ex-Yougoslavie ont assuré lundi qu'ils n'hésiteraient pas à lancer
des citations à comparaître dans le procès de Slobodan Milosevic,
environ la moitié des témoins à décharge pour le dossier Kosovo
refusant de se présenter.
Ces témoins récalcitrants protestent ainsi contre la décision du TPI
d'assigner deux avocats à l'ancien président yougoslave contre son gré.
"Bien sûr, une citation à comparaître est le dernier recours, mais si
toutes les procédures sont épuisées, la Chambre émettra des citations à
comparaître", a déclaré le juge Patrick Robinson lors d'une audience de
procédure.
"Nous devons montrer aux témoins que ce procès est d'une importance
fondamentale", a-t-il ajouté.
Les juges ont déjà, dans la phase consacrée à l'accusation, contraint
certains témoins à faire le voyage de La Haye.
Environ la moitié des 138 témoins retenus par la défense de M.
Milosevic pour le dossier Kosovo ne veulent pas venir à la barre tant
que l'ancien chef d'Etat ne mènera pas sa défense lui-même, a indiqué
le juge Robinson, se basant sur des informations fournies par les
avocats commis d'office.
Ces personnes sont des experts, des anciens membres du régime de
Slobodan Milosevic appelés communément "initiés", des fonctionnaires
internationaux ayant servi dans les pays de l'ex-Yougoslavie ou encore
des témoins d'ordre général sur les événements dans la province du
Kosovo.
Les juges espèrent que la décision sur l'appel interjeté contre la
désignation des avocats permettra de débloquer la situation et
convaincra certains témoins récalcitrants de venir à la barre
volontairement.
La Chambre d'appel du TPI entendra jeudi les arguments des parties pour
et contre la désignation des deux avocats. Elle devrait rendre sa
décision ultérieurement.
Certains experts juridiques doutent qu'une injonction à témoigner
puisse améliorer le déroulement du procès, si les juges d'appel
maintiennent les deux avocats commis d'office.
"Un fonctionnement au forceps n'est guère réjouissant", remarquait à ce
sujet Joël Hubrecht, expert à l'Institut (français) des hautes études
sur la justice.
"Les citations à comparaître ne sont pas vraiment une solution car les
juges sont dépendants de la volonté des Etats pour les faire appliquer,
ou du Conseil de sécurité, or dans le passé on a vu que les Etats
coopèrent plus ou moins bien", explique à l'AFP Heikelina Verrijn
Stuart, une juriste néerlandaise qui suit le procès comme experte pour
des médias nationaux.
Elle regrette que les témoins "choisissent de ne pas se présenter pour
des raisons politiques" mais estime que la désignation des avocats n'a
pas apporté de véritable amélioration dans le déroulement du procès.
"Les juges semblent obsédés par la célérité du procès mais ce n'est pas
l'argument le plus important", affirme-t-elle en estimant que Slobodan
Milosevic ne conduisait pas si mal sa défense.
Les juges ont nommé le 2 septembre deux avocats britanniques pour
assister l'ancien président, alors que le procès avait été interrompu à
de nombreuses reprises en raison des problèmes de santé de l'accusé qui
présentait lui-même sa défense.
Slobodan Milosevic comparaît depuis le 12 février 2002 afin de répondre
de plus de 60 accusations de génocide, crimes contre l'humanité et
crimes de guerre pour son rôle dans les trois conflits majeurs qui ont
déchiré les Balkans dans les années 1990: Croatie, Bosnie et Kosovo.
Ces trois guerres ont fait plus de 200.000 morts.
---( 2 )---
Milosevic : "rendez-moi mon droit à me défendre"
AFP, 21 octobre
L'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic a réclamé jeudi que la
chambre d'appel du Tribunal pénal internationalpour l'ex-Yougoslavie
lui rende son droit à se défendre personnellement, soutenu par ses
avocats commis d'office qui ont dit leur incapacité à faire leur
travail.
"Ce que je veux, c'est qu'on me rende le droit de me défendre,
d'appeler les témoins, de les interroger", a lancé l'ancien homme fort
de Belgrade. "Je ne peux accepter moins, car c'est une décision de
principe dont je ne démordrai pas".
M. Milosevic intervenait devant la chambre d'appel du TPI qui examinait
un recours contre la désignation d'office d'avocats. La cour a pris
cette décision début septembre, contre le gré de l'accusé, après des
rapports médicaux établissant qu'il n'était pas apte à assurer sa
propre défense. La chambre d'appel n'a fixé aucune date pour rendre sa
décision et les audiences régulières doivent reprendre mardi.
M. Milosevic a expliqué que l'assignation d'avocats était un élément
d'une "campagne qui dure depuis trois ans pour m'empêcher de parler.
"Aucun avocat n'est capable de me représenter, c'est un procès
politique", a-t-il déclaré. "C'est au-delà de la compétence d'un
avocat. La vérité sur les événements dans l'ex-Yougoslavie doit être
dite ici".
De son côté, l'avocat britannique Steven Kay, l'un des deux défenseurs
de M. Milosevic, a dit son impuissance. "Mon équipe et moi-même sommes
incapables de remplir nos fonctions", a-t-il déclaré. "On se leurre si
on croit que ce qui se déroule ici est une défense correcte".
"Le bricolage de dossier (en assignant des avocats, ndlr) me place dans
une situation éthique et professionnelle difficile", a-t-il ajouté,
évoquant notamment le "conflit" et "l'antagonisme" entre l'accusé et
lui-même et le refus de nombre de témoins de la défense de lui parler.
"J'ai essayé", a assuré Steven Kay, "mais c'est désormais vain". "Je ne
peux pas de manière efficace et correcte défendre ce dossier".
M. Milosevic a assuré un peu plus tard n'avoir "rien de personnel"
contre Me Kay.
"Si (Me) Kay démissionne, ce sera problématique", commentait à l'issue
de l'audience Ana Uzelac, qui suit ce procès pour la fondation
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR). "Théoriquement, il y a
pléthore d'avocats qui seraient heureux d'endosser le rôle, mais
pratiquement je ne vois personne capable de reprendre l'affaire sans
avoir besoin d'un long délai", a-t-elle ajouté.
L'acusation a quant à elle plaidé pour le maintien des avocats,
estimant que M. Milosevic utilisait son état de santé, aggravé par une
prise de médicaments hasardeuse, pour contrôler le déroulement du
procès.
Entamé en février 2002, le procès de Slobodan Milosevic a été suspendu
à une douzaine de reprises, l'accusé âgé de 63 ans souffrant notamment
d'hypertension.
"Qui dirige ce tribunal : l'accusé ou les juges embauchés pour faire ce
travail?", a demandé le procureur Geoffrey Nice.
M. Nice a dénoncé le comportement "irrationnel" de l'accusé, qui tient
des discours historico-politiques sans évoquer les faits qui lui sont
reprochés. "Cet homme n'est pas capable de se représenter lui-même",
a-t-il lancé.
---( 3 )---
Le procès Milosevic ajourné jusqu'au 9 novembre faute de témoins
AFP, 22 octobre
Les juges du Tribunal pénal international (TPI) pour l'ex-Yougoslavie
ont ajourné vendredi le procès de l'ancien président yougoslave
Slobodan Milosevic jusqu'au 9 novembre, la défense n'ayant plus de
témoins à faire déposer d'ici à cette date.
Cette décision fait suite à une déclaration de ses avocats selon
lesquels la défense «n'a plus de témoins pour la semaine du 26 au 28
octobre», a indiqué le tribunal dans un communiqué.
Les juges avaient déjà prévu une suspension du procès pour une semaine
à partir du 1er novembre, ce qui signifie que ce procès fleuve, qui a
débuté en février 2002, reprendra le 9 novembre au terme de deux
semaines d'interruption.
Environ la moitié des 138 témoins retenus par la défense de M.
Milosevic pour le dossier Kosovo ne veulent pas venir à la barre tant
que l'ancien président yougoslave n'assurera pas sa défense lui-même.
La chambre d'appel du TPI a examiné jeudi un recours contre la
désignation d'office d'avocats, que récuse M. Milosevic, soutenu par
ses avocats qui ont dit leur incapacité à faire leur travail. La
chambre d'appel n'a fixé aucune date pour rendre sa décision.
---( 4 )---
Le Monde, 23 octobre 2004
Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic tourne à l'imbroglio
Le regard sombre, surligné de la perruque blanche des avocats du
Commonwealth, Me Steven Kay a plaidé, jeudi 21 octobre, contre
lui-même. Avocat imposé à l'ex-président Slobodan Milosevic, le
Londonien a demandé à la chambre d'appel du tribunal pénal
international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY) de laisser à cet accusé
particulier le droit de se défendre seul dans le prétoire.
"Les témoins ne se présentent pas et l'accusé affirme que je ne défends
pas sa cause", a déclaré l'avocat, plaidant vigoureusement sa propre
répudiation. De fait, plusieurs centaines de témoins - appelés pour
défendre l'accusé - boycottent le tribunal par solidarité avec lui.
Tant et si bien que ce procès fleuve, intenté pour génocide, crimes
contre l'humanité et crimes de guerre, va de suspensions en reports.
Lors de l'audition des trois seuls témoins de la défense, M. Milosevic
a constamment semé le doute sur les performances de l'avocat,
l'accusant d'être, à dessein, contre-productif. Mais il a refusé la
proposition des juges de poser ses propres questions pour ne pas
"ramasser les miettes d'un droit" dont il se dit lésé. "La situation
est si conflictuelle entre l'accusé et mon équipe que nous ne sommes
d'aucune efficacité dans ce procès", a estimé Me Kay.
Le conflit s'est aussi déplacé hors du prétoire, depuis le dépôt d'une
plainte contre l'avocat auprès du conseil de l'ordre des Pays-Bas.
Cette procédure ne semble, cependant, pas perturber Me Kay, qui,
professionnel, continue de traduire en termes juridiques les arguments
politiques de l'accusé : "L'accusation est à bout et cherche à empêcher
l'accusé de retrouver ses droits, a-t-il dit, mais il serait bon de
cesser de nous tromper nous-mêmes, en faisant croire que ce qui est
présenté ici est une défense." Pour Me Kay, qui a déjà mené deux
affaires devant les tribunaux pour l'ex-Yougoslavie et le Rwanda, "le
risque couru est celui d'un déni de justice".
"QUI DIRIGE CE TRIBUNAL ?"
Bras croisés sur son pupitre, le procureur, Geoffrey Nice,
contre-attaque : "Qui dirige ce tribunal ?" "Nous sommes ici en
présence de pressions, de marchandage, et Me Kay agit comme un agent
entre les juges et l'accusé", dit-il. L'accusé fait "obstruction",
adopte un comportement "irrationnel" et profère des "insultes" à
l'égard du tribunal en le déclarant illégal. "C'est l'hôpital qui se
moque de la charité", s'offusque Steven Kay. "Nous ne sommes pas au
marché !", renchérit Slobodan Milosevic.
Le procureur a insisté pour que "la chambre d'appel ne se soumette pas
aux pressions" de l'accusé Milosevic : s'il "ne veut pas présenter à la
barre d'autres témoins, la présentation de ses moyens est terminée".
Les juges d'appel disposent de peu d'alternatives. Ils doivent trancher
entre "déni de justice" et menace sur l'autorité du tribunal. En
acceptant de laisser M. Milosevic conserver deux rôles dans le
prétoire, celui d'avocat et d'accusé, ils laisseraient à l'ancien
président yougoslave la possibilité de sortir victorieux de l'épreuve
de force. L'ex-homme fort de Belgrade deviendrait alors, pour ainsi
dire, le nouvel homme fort de La Haye.
Stéphanie Maupas
---( 5 )---
From: "louis dalmas" <lodalmas @ wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:49 PM
UN OUVRAGE CHOC, UN DOCUMENT DE RÉFÉRENCE
L'association "Vérité et Justice" publie, sous la forme d'un livre
format 18 x11 cm de 150 pages, le texte intégral de l'exposé fait par
Slobodan Milosevic au Tribunal pénal international de La Haye, le 31
août et le 1er septembre 2004, en introduction à sa "période de
défense".
Sous le titre "Ma vérité", il analyse le contexte de la dernière
décennie de guerre dans les Balkans.
Quelle que soit l'opinion qu'on peut avoir sur l'homme, il est
intéressant de connaître sa version des faits pour avoir une vue
d'ensemble du conflit.
Le livre peut être commandé directement à
CAP 8, BP 391, 75869 Paris cedex 18, France
par lettre, par fax au + 33 (0) 1 42 23 07 30
ou par e-mail à lodalmas @ wanadoo.fr
Le prix du livre est de 15 euros (10 euros pour les abonnés de B. I. et
les membres de l'association "Vérité et Justice".
Le numéro 93 (novembre 2004) de B. I.,
Le journal mensuel qui publie ce que vous ne lisez pas ailleurs, vient
de paraître.
Visitez son site web : <http://www.b-i-infos.com/>
pour le sommaire du numéro, ses principaux articles, les secrets de
l'actualité politique internationale, et comment vous abonner (si vous
ne l'êtes pas déjà).
Merci de faire suivre ce message au plus grand nombre possible de
destinataires.
EDITORIAL DU N° 93 (novembre 2004)
PRÉSUMÉ COUPABLE
Le système américain du "plaider coupable" a fait son entrée dans notre
droit. Il s'agit d'un "arrangement" par lequel l'accusé accepte une
sanction de son délit proposée d'avance, évitant ainsi d'aller devant
un tribunal. La justice économise les frais d'un procès ; le coupable
ne court pas le risque d'une sentence plus lourde.
A première vue, tout le monde y gagne. Sauf qu'il s'agit d'un déni de
principe, d'une dangereuse imprudence et d'un abus de pouvoir.
La présomption d'innocence, fondement de la légalité, disparaît, la
culpabilité étant considérée comme prouvée et punissable avant d'être
jugée.
Cette certitude de culpabilité n'est pas acquise au terme de longs
débats d'audiences, mais à la suite de simples enquêtes dont on sait
combien elles peuvent être bâclées et incomplètes, d'où un risque
d'erreur sérieusement accru.
Condamné d'avance, l'inculpé est soumis à une pression qui a plus à
voir avec l'ultimatum du plus fort qu'avec l'application de la loi. On
lui dit : "De toute façon, tu seras condamné. Ou tu marches avec nous
pour une peine réduite, ou tu seras matraqué par la cour."
Dans le langage ordinaire, ça s'appelle un chantage pur et simple.
Mais comment s'étonner de voir le procédé étrangler les individus alors
qu'il étrangle depuis longtemps les collectivités?
Car que fait-on d'autre qu'imposer le "plaider coupable" aux Serbes
quand la communauté internationale les invite à reconnaître les crimes
qui leur sont attribués, sous peine de connaître un sort encore plus
misérable ? On ne les a jamais présumés innocents. L'instruction de
leur cause a été basée pendant une décennie sur des mensonges
flagrants. Ils sont l'objet d'un chantage permanent qui conditionne
leur survie à leur obéissance.
Que fait-on d'autre qu'imposer le "plaider coupable" quand on force les
prisonniers du Tribunal pénal international de La Haye aux aveux et aux
dénonciations en échange d'une relative indulgence des magistrats ? Ils
sont coupables d'office. Tout les accuse. On les menace du pire s'ils
n'acceptent pas de coopérer.
Il arrive qu'un des condamnés d'avance refuse le marchandage. Il se
considère innocent et a le courage de vouloir le proclamer, au mépris
des conséquences. C'est le cas de Slobodan Milosevic.
Récemment, sur une de nos chaînes câblées, un épisode d'un feuileton
américain, consacré aux aventures d'un cabinet d'avocats, racontait
l'histoire d'une jeune fille de 17 ans arrêtée en possession de drogue
qu'elle cachait sous son oreiller, au cours d'une descente de police,
pour protéger son frère. Accusée d'être toxicomane elle-même, elle
risque 15 ans de prison. Au cours de la négociation du "plaider
coupable", on lui propose 10 mois de prison, puis 4, à la place de
cette lourde condamnation. Le juge, le procureur, ses avocats la
supplient d'accepter. Mais elle ne s'est jamais droguée, elle se sait
innocente, elle ne veut pas mentir, aller en prison pour un crime
qu'elle n'a pas commis Elle résiste à la pression, et affronte le jury.
Comme il s'agit d'un film américain, l'intégrité paie et elle est
déclarée innocente.
On souhaite à Milosevic de voir récompenser ainsi son courage, mais la
sinistre instance de La Haye n'est pas le décor d'un studio de cinéma
et le système du "plaider coupable" est d'une redoutable efficacité.
Avec l'ex-président yougoslave, les autres prisonniers de La Haye et
les Serbes en général, combien de ces présumés coupables cèderont au
chantage et s'accuseront de méfaits imaginaires, ou refuseront le
compromis sans connaître le dénouement heureux du feuilleton de
télévision ?
Louis DALMAS.
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
Milosevic : "rendez-moi mon droit à me défendre"
1. Procès Milosevic: les juges pourraient intimer à certains témoins de
déposer (AFP, 18 octobre)
2. Milosevic : "rendez-moi mon droit à me défendre" (AFP, 21 octobre)
3. Le procès Milosevic ajourné jusqu'au 9 novembre faute de témoins
(AFP, 22 octobre)
4. Le Monde : Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic tourne à l'imbroglio (23
octobre 2004)
5. UN OUVRAGE CHOC, UN DOCUMENT DE RÉFÉRENCE :
le texte intégral de l'exposé fait par Slobodan Milosevic au Tribunal
pénal international de La Haye, le 31 août et le 1er septembre 2004
[ Nota: LA TRADUZIONE INTEGRALE IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELL'APERTURA
DELL'AUTODIFESA DI SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC E' STATA DA NOI GIA' EFFETTUATA.
IL TESTO E' IN VIA DI CORREZIONE, E PRESTO SEGNALEREMO LA URL ALLA
QUALE ESSO SI POTRA' LEGGERE. ICDSM-Italia ]
SOURCE:
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
---( 1 )---
Procès Milosevic: les juges pourraient intimer à certains témoins de
déposer
AFP, 18 octobre
LA HAYE (AFP) - Les juges du Tribunal pénal international (TPI) pour
l'ex-Yougoslavie ont assuré lundi qu'ils n'hésiteraient pas à lancer
des citations à comparaître dans le procès de Slobodan Milosevic,
environ la moitié des témoins à décharge pour le dossier Kosovo
refusant de se présenter.
Ces témoins récalcitrants protestent ainsi contre la décision du TPI
d'assigner deux avocats à l'ancien président yougoslave contre son gré.
"Bien sûr, une citation à comparaître est le dernier recours, mais si
toutes les procédures sont épuisées, la Chambre émettra des citations à
comparaître", a déclaré le juge Patrick Robinson lors d'une audience de
procédure.
"Nous devons montrer aux témoins que ce procès est d'une importance
fondamentale", a-t-il ajouté.
Les juges ont déjà, dans la phase consacrée à l'accusation, contraint
certains témoins à faire le voyage de La Haye.
Environ la moitié des 138 témoins retenus par la défense de M.
Milosevic pour le dossier Kosovo ne veulent pas venir à la barre tant
que l'ancien chef d'Etat ne mènera pas sa défense lui-même, a indiqué
le juge Robinson, se basant sur des informations fournies par les
avocats commis d'office.
Ces personnes sont des experts, des anciens membres du régime de
Slobodan Milosevic appelés communément "initiés", des fonctionnaires
internationaux ayant servi dans les pays de l'ex-Yougoslavie ou encore
des témoins d'ordre général sur les événements dans la province du
Kosovo.
Les juges espèrent que la décision sur l'appel interjeté contre la
désignation des avocats permettra de débloquer la situation et
convaincra certains témoins récalcitrants de venir à la barre
volontairement.
La Chambre d'appel du TPI entendra jeudi les arguments des parties pour
et contre la désignation des deux avocats. Elle devrait rendre sa
décision ultérieurement.
Certains experts juridiques doutent qu'une injonction à témoigner
puisse améliorer le déroulement du procès, si les juges d'appel
maintiennent les deux avocats commis d'office.
"Un fonctionnement au forceps n'est guère réjouissant", remarquait à ce
sujet Joël Hubrecht, expert à l'Institut (français) des hautes études
sur la justice.
"Les citations à comparaître ne sont pas vraiment une solution car les
juges sont dépendants de la volonté des Etats pour les faire appliquer,
ou du Conseil de sécurité, or dans le passé on a vu que les Etats
coopèrent plus ou moins bien", explique à l'AFP Heikelina Verrijn
Stuart, une juriste néerlandaise qui suit le procès comme experte pour
des médias nationaux.
Elle regrette que les témoins "choisissent de ne pas se présenter pour
des raisons politiques" mais estime que la désignation des avocats n'a
pas apporté de véritable amélioration dans le déroulement du procès.
"Les juges semblent obsédés par la célérité du procès mais ce n'est pas
l'argument le plus important", affirme-t-elle en estimant que Slobodan
Milosevic ne conduisait pas si mal sa défense.
Les juges ont nommé le 2 septembre deux avocats britanniques pour
assister l'ancien président, alors que le procès avait été interrompu à
de nombreuses reprises en raison des problèmes de santé de l'accusé qui
présentait lui-même sa défense.
Slobodan Milosevic comparaît depuis le 12 février 2002 afin de répondre
de plus de 60 accusations de génocide, crimes contre l'humanité et
crimes de guerre pour son rôle dans les trois conflits majeurs qui ont
déchiré les Balkans dans les années 1990: Croatie, Bosnie et Kosovo.
Ces trois guerres ont fait plus de 200.000 morts.
---( 2 )---
Milosevic : "rendez-moi mon droit à me défendre"
AFP, 21 octobre
L'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic a réclamé jeudi que la
chambre d'appel du Tribunal pénal internationalpour l'ex-Yougoslavie
lui rende son droit à se défendre personnellement, soutenu par ses
avocats commis d'office qui ont dit leur incapacité à faire leur
travail.
"Ce que je veux, c'est qu'on me rende le droit de me défendre,
d'appeler les témoins, de les interroger", a lancé l'ancien homme fort
de Belgrade. "Je ne peux accepter moins, car c'est une décision de
principe dont je ne démordrai pas".
M. Milosevic intervenait devant la chambre d'appel du TPI qui examinait
un recours contre la désignation d'office d'avocats. La cour a pris
cette décision début septembre, contre le gré de l'accusé, après des
rapports médicaux établissant qu'il n'était pas apte à assurer sa
propre défense. La chambre d'appel n'a fixé aucune date pour rendre sa
décision et les audiences régulières doivent reprendre mardi.
M. Milosevic a expliqué que l'assignation d'avocats était un élément
d'une "campagne qui dure depuis trois ans pour m'empêcher de parler.
"Aucun avocat n'est capable de me représenter, c'est un procès
politique", a-t-il déclaré. "C'est au-delà de la compétence d'un
avocat. La vérité sur les événements dans l'ex-Yougoslavie doit être
dite ici".
De son côté, l'avocat britannique Steven Kay, l'un des deux défenseurs
de M. Milosevic, a dit son impuissance. "Mon équipe et moi-même sommes
incapables de remplir nos fonctions", a-t-il déclaré. "On se leurre si
on croit que ce qui se déroule ici est une défense correcte".
"Le bricolage de dossier (en assignant des avocats, ndlr) me place dans
une situation éthique et professionnelle difficile", a-t-il ajouté,
évoquant notamment le "conflit" et "l'antagonisme" entre l'accusé et
lui-même et le refus de nombre de témoins de la défense de lui parler.
"J'ai essayé", a assuré Steven Kay, "mais c'est désormais vain". "Je ne
peux pas de manière efficace et correcte défendre ce dossier".
M. Milosevic a assuré un peu plus tard n'avoir "rien de personnel"
contre Me Kay.
"Si (Me) Kay démissionne, ce sera problématique", commentait à l'issue
de l'audience Ana Uzelac, qui suit ce procès pour la fondation
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR). "Théoriquement, il y a
pléthore d'avocats qui seraient heureux d'endosser le rôle, mais
pratiquement je ne vois personne capable de reprendre l'affaire sans
avoir besoin d'un long délai", a-t-elle ajouté.
L'acusation a quant à elle plaidé pour le maintien des avocats,
estimant que M. Milosevic utilisait son état de santé, aggravé par une
prise de médicaments hasardeuse, pour contrôler le déroulement du
procès.
Entamé en février 2002, le procès de Slobodan Milosevic a été suspendu
à une douzaine de reprises, l'accusé âgé de 63 ans souffrant notamment
d'hypertension.
"Qui dirige ce tribunal : l'accusé ou les juges embauchés pour faire ce
travail?", a demandé le procureur Geoffrey Nice.
M. Nice a dénoncé le comportement "irrationnel" de l'accusé, qui tient
des discours historico-politiques sans évoquer les faits qui lui sont
reprochés. "Cet homme n'est pas capable de se représenter lui-même",
a-t-il lancé.
---( 3 )---
Le procès Milosevic ajourné jusqu'au 9 novembre faute de témoins
AFP, 22 octobre
Les juges du Tribunal pénal international (TPI) pour l'ex-Yougoslavie
ont ajourné vendredi le procès de l'ancien président yougoslave
Slobodan Milosevic jusqu'au 9 novembre, la défense n'ayant plus de
témoins à faire déposer d'ici à cette date.
Cette décision fait suite à une déclaration de ses avocats selon
lesquels la défense «n'a plus de témoins pour la semaine du 26 au 28
octobre», a indiqué le tribunal dans un communiqué.
Les juges avaient déjà prévu une suspension du procès pour une semaine
à partir du 1er novembre, ce qui signifie que ce procès fleuve, qui a
débuté en février 2002, reprendra le 9 novembre au terme de deux
semaines d'interruption.
Environ la moitié des 138 témoins retenus par la défense de M.
Milosevic pour le dossier Kosovo ne veulent pas venir à la barre tant
que l'ancien président yougoslave n'assurera pas sa défense lui-même.
La chambre d'appel du TPI a examiné jeudi un recours contre la
désignation d'office d'avocats, que récuse M. Milosevic, soutenu par
ses avocats qui ont dit leur incapacité à faire leur travail. La
chambre d'appel n'a fixé aucune date pour rendre sa décision.
---( 4 )---
Le Monde, 23 octobre 2004
Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic tourne à l'imbroglio
Le regard sombre, surligné de la perruque blanche des avocats du
Commonwealth, Me Steven Kay a plaidé, jeudi 21 octobre, contre
lui-même. Avocat imposé à l'ex-président Slobodan Milosevic, le
Londonien a demandé à la chambre d'appel du tribunal pénal
international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY) de laisser à cet accusé
particulier le droit de se défendre seul dans le prétoire.
"Les témoins ne se présentent pas et l'accusé affirme que je ne défends
pas sa cause", a déclaré l'avocat, plaidant vigoureusement sa propre
répudiation. De fait, plusieurs centaines de témoins - appelés pour
défendre l'accusé - boycottent le tribunal par solidarité avec lui.
Tant et si bien que ce procès fleuve, intenté pour génocide, crimes
contre l'humanité et crimes de guerre, va de suspensions en reports.
Lors de l'audition des trois seuls témoins de la défense, M. Milosevic
a constamment semé le doute sur les performances de l'avocat,
l'accusant d'être, à dessein, contre-productif. Mais il a refusé la
proposition des juges de poser ses propres questions pour ne pas
"ramasser les miettes d'un droit" dont il se dit lésé. "La situation
est si conflictuelle entre l'accusé et mon équipe que nous ne sommes
d'aucune efficacité dans ce procès", a estimé Me Kay.
Le conflit s'est aussi déplacé hors du prétoire, depuis le dépôt d'une
plainte contre l'avocat auprès du conseil de l'ordre des Pays-Bas.
Cette procédure ne semble, cependant, pas perturber Me Kay, qui,
professionnel, continue de traduire en termes juridiques les arguments
politiques de l'accusé : "L'accusation est à bout et cherche à empêcher
l'accusé de retrouver ses droits, a-t-il dit, mais il serait bon de
cesser de nous tromper nous-mêmes, en faisant croire que ce qui est
présenté ici est une défense." Pour Me Kay, qui a déjà mené deux
affaires devant les tribunaux pour l'ex-Yougoslavie et le Rwanda, "le
risque couru est celui d'un déni de justice".
"QUI DIRIGE CE TRIBUNAL ?"
Bras croisés sur son pupitre, le procureur, Geoffrey Nice,
contre-attaque : "Qui dirige ce tribunal ?" "Nous sommes ici en
présence de pressions, de marchandage, et Me Kay agit comme un agent
entre les juges et l'accusé", dit-il. L'accusé fait "obstruction",
adopte un comportement "irrationnel" et profère des "insultes" à
l'égard du tribunal en le déclarant illégal. "C'est l'hôpital qui se
moque de la charité", s'offusque Steven Kay. "Nous ne sommes pas au
marché !", renchérit Slobodan Milosevic.
Le procureur a insisté pour que "la chambre d'appel ne se soumette pas
aux pressions" de l'accusé Milosevic : s'il "ne veut pas présenter à la
barre d'autres témoins, la présentation de ses moyens est terminée".
Les juges d'appel disposent de peu d'alternatives. Ils doivent trancher
entre "déni de justice" et menace sur l'autorité du tribunal. En
acceptant de laisser M. Milosevic conserver deux rôles dans le
prétoire, celui d'avocat et d'accusé, ils laisseraient à l'ancien
président yougoslave la possibilité de sortir victorieux de l'épreuve
de force. L'ex-homme fort de Belgrade deviendrait alors, pour ainsi
dire, le nouvel homme fort de La Haye.
Stéphanie Maupas
---( 5 )---
From: "louis dalmas" <lodalmas @ wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:49 PM
UN OUVRAGE CHOC, UN DOCUMENT DE RÉFÉRENCE
L'association "Vérité et Justice" publie, sous la forme d'un livre
format 18 x11 cm de 150 pages, le texte intégral de l'exposé fait par
Slobodan Milosevic au Tribunal pénal international de La Haye, le 31
août et le 1er septembre 2004, en introduction à sa "période de
défense".
Sous le titre "Ma vérité", il analyse le contexte de la dernière
décennie de guerre dans les Balkans.
Quelle que soit l'opinion qu'on peut avoir sur l'homme, il est
intéressant de connaître sa version des faits pour avoir une vue
d'ensemble du conflit.
Le livre peut être commandé directement à
CAP 8, BP 391, 75869 Paris cedex 18, France
par lettre, par fax au + 33 (0) 1 42 23 07 30
ou par e-mail à lodalmas @ wanadoo.fr
Le prix du livre est de 15 euros (10 euros pour les abonnés de B. I. et
les membres de l'association "Vérité et Justice".
Le numéro 93 (novembre 2004) de B. I.,
Le journal mensuel qui publie ce que vous ne lisez pas ailleurs, vient
de paraître.
Visitez son site web : <http://www.b-i-infos.com/>
pour le sommaire du numéro, ses principaux articles, les secrets de
l'actualité politique internationale, et comment vous abonner (si vous
ne l'êtes pas déjà).
Merci de faire suivre ce message au plus grand nombre possible de
destinataires.
EDITORIAL DU N° 93 (novembre 2004)
PRÉSUMÉ COUPABLE
Le système américain du "plaider coupable" a fait son entrée dans notre
droit. Il s'agit d'un "arrangement" par lequel l'accusé accepte une
sanction de son délit proposée d'avance, évitant ainsi d'aller devant
un tribunal. La justice économise les frais d'un procès ; le coupable
ne court pas le risque d'une sentence plus lourde.
A première vue, tout le monde y gagne. Sauf qu'il s'agit d'un déni de
principe, d'une dangereuse imprudence et d'un abus de pouvoir.
La présomption d'innocence, fondement de la légalité, disparaît, la
culpabilité étant considérée comme prouvée et punissable avant d'être
jugée.
Cette certitude de culpabilité n'est pas acquise au terme de longs
débats d'audiences, mais à la suite de simples enquêtes dont on sait
combien elles peuvent être bâclées et incomplètes, d'où un risque
d'erreur sérieusement accru.
Condamné d'avance, l'inculpé est soumis à une pression qui a plus à
voir avec l'ultimatum du plus fort qu'avec l'application de la loi. On
lui dit : "De toute façon, tu seras condamné. Ou tu marches avec nous
pour une peine réduite, ou tu seras matraqué par la cour."
Dans le langage ordinaire, ça s'appelle un chantage pur et simple.
Mais comment s'étonner de voir le procédé étrangler les individus alors
qu'il étrangle depuis longtemps les collectivités?
Car que fait-on d'autre qu'imposer le "plaider coupable" aux Serbes
quand la communauté internationale les invite à reconnaître les crimes
qui leur sont attribués, sous peine de connaître un sort encore plus
misérable ? On ne les a jamais présumés innocents. L'instruction de
leur cause a été basée pendant une décennie sur des mensonges
flagrants. Ils sont l'objet d'un chantage permanent qui conditionne
leur survie à leur obéissance.
Que fait-on d'autre qu'imposer le "plaider coupable" quand on force les
prisonniers du Tribunal pénal international de La Haye aux aveux et aux
dénonciations en échange d'une relative indulgence des magistrats ? Ils
sont coupables d'office. Tout les accuse. On les menace du pire s'ils
n'acceptent pas de coopérer.
Il arrive qu'un des condamnés d'avance refuse le marchandage. Il se
considère innocent et a le courage de vouloir le proclamer, au mépris
des conséquences. C'est le cas de Slobodan Milosevic.
Récemment, sur une de nos chaînes câblées, un épisode d'un feuileton
américain, consacré aux aventures d'un cabinet d'avocats, racontait
l'histoire d'une jeune fille de 17 ans arrêtée en possession de drogue
qu'elle cachait sous son oreiller, au cours d'une descente de police,
pour protéger son frère. Accusée d'être toxicomane elle-même, elle
risque 15 ans de prison. Au cours de la négociation du "plaider
coupable", on lui propose 10 mois de prison, puis 4, à la place de
cette lourde condamnation. Le juge, le procureur, ses avocats la
supplient d'accepter. Mais elle ne s'est jamais droguée, elle se sait
innocente, elle ne veut pas mentir, aller en prison pour un crime
qu'elle n'a pas commis Elle résiste à la pression, et affronte le jury.
Comme il s'agit d'un film américain, l'intégrité paie et elle est
déclarée innocente.
On souhaite à Milosevic de voir récompenser ainsi son courage, mais la
sinistre instance de La Haye n'est pas le décor d'un studio de cinéma
et le système du "plaider coupable" est d'une redoutable efficacité.
Avec l'ex-président yougoslave, les autres prisonniers de La Haye et
les Serbes en général, combien de ces présumés coupables cèderont au
chantage et s'accuseront de méfaits imaginaires, ou refuseront le
compromis sans connaître le dénouement heureux du feuilleton de
télévision ?
Louis DALMAS.
DEMOCRAZIA REALE
<<... In Lettonia, il partito comunista è fin dall’inizio fuorilegge, e
i membri del Partito Comunista di Lettonia non hanno il diritto di
partecipare come candidati ad ogni tipo di consultazione elettorale,
non possono venire naturalizzati (*), e ottenere la cittadinanza della
Lettonia, non godono del diritto di esercitare qualsiasi impiego
statale, dal momento che, nella “democratica” Lettonia che fa parte
della “democratica” Unione Europea, si discriminano persone per le loro
convinzioni politiche. Avere a che fare con il nostro partito, che è
composto in prevalenza da ex membri del Partito Comunista di Lettonia,
è ritenuto sconveniente, o più semplicemente pericoloso: si può essere
licenziati e anche subire altre repressioni ...>>
Dall’intervento del Partito Socialista di Lettonia all’incontro dei
partiti comunisti e operai, Atene, 8-10 ottobre 2004
Fonte: http://www.vide.lv/lsp/ , mailto:treikals @...
in http://www.solidnet.org
Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma
(*) Ciò vale per gli appartenenti ad etnie diverse da quella lettone,
considerate di “serie B” dall’attuale regime dell’apartheid accettato,
senza obiezioni di rilievo, nell’Unione Europea. NdT
<<... In Lettonia, il partito comunista è fin dall’inizio fuorilegge, e
i membri del Partito Comunista di Lettonia non hanno il diritto di
partecipare come candidati ad ogni tipo di consultazione elettorale,
non possono venire naturalizzati (*), e ottenere la cittadinanza della
Lettonia, non godono del diritto di esercitare qualsiasi impiego
statale, dal momento che, nella “democratica” Lettonia che fa parte
della “democratica” Unione Europea, si discriminano persone per le loro
convinzioni politiche. Avere a che fare con il nostro partito, che è
composto in prevalenza da ex membri del Partito Comunista di Lettonia,
è ritenuto sconveniente, o più semplicemente pericoloso: si può essere
licenziati e anche subire altre repressioni ...>>
Dall’intervento del Partito Socialista di Lettonia all’incontro dei
partiti comunisti e operai, Atene, 8-10 ottobre 2004
Fonte: http://www.vide.lv/lsp/ , mailto:treikals @...
in http://www.solidnet.org
Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma
(*) Ciò vale per gli appartenenti ad etnie diverse da quella lettone,
considerate di “serie B” dall’attuale regime dell’apartheid accettato,
senza obiezioni di rilievo, nell’Unione Europea. NdT
41 parenti di vittime dell'11 Settembre, e piu' di cento attivisti ed
intellettuali statunitensi, chiedono una nuova inchiesta sulla tragedia
delle "due torri", che chiarisca le incongruenze della versione
ufficiale e faccia piazza pulita delle menzogne del regime dei
"neocons" ...
[ Sullo stesso argomento sono usciti anche in Italia diversi libri, tra
i quali "Il sacrificio", di M. Ragnedda (vedi:
http://www.criticalpoint.it/news.php?cod=4 ) ]
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
911 Truth Statement
HELP SPREAD
THESE WORDS!
Please contribute! We are
raising funds to place ads
featuring this 9/11 Truth
Statement in major New
York papers and media:
Donate Here!
Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding
Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11
NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) - An alliance of 100 prominent
Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today
announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate
inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may
have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The
Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of
New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously
failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of
incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or
ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and
hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive
defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an
immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,
Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly
independent citizens-based inquiry.
The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the
political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael
Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the
first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon
whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink co-founder
Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador
and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists
like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul
Hawken and Karl Schwartz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist
journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly
Patricia O'Meara.
The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times
#1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians,
and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and
actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.
The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The
organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot
Spitzer's Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on
Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group
representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first
criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.
The Statement
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American
political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly
half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York
state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks
and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66%
called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New
York Attorney General.
In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans
and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement,
which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that
suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have
deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.
We want truthful answers to questions such as:
Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked
airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly
deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school
visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the
schoolchildren?
Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for
the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of
multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested
foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in
tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have
knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order
requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed
judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back
towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the
FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the
alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses,
restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government
by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the
Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and
reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the
ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed
by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the
questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the
ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a
book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of
thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration,
a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of
the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace
and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green
Party.
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative
that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so
that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.
In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject
with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds
inflicted on that terrible day.
Signed,
Signatories
Note: All organizations are mentioned for identification purposes only.
Individuals have signed this statement as an act of their own
conscience, not to signify organizational endorsement.
Virginia Deane Abernethy, Ph.D., anthropologist, author, Population
Politics
Ed Asner, actor, activist
Marshall Auerback, international portfolio strategist for David W. Tice
& Associates, Inc.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush
administration
Keidi Obi Awadu, aka The Conscious Rasta, talk show host, LIBRadio
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President
Byron Belitsos, publisher, Origin Press, author Planetary Democracy
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, former deputy attorney general, Pennsylvania
Medea Benjamin, activist, author, co-founder, Global Exchange and Code
Pink
Dennis Bernstein, investigative reporter, radio host of KPFA's
Flashpoints
Steve Bhaerman aka Swami Beyondananda, author, political comedian
Brad Blanton, Ph.D., psychotherapist, author, Radical Honesty
Saniel Bonder, spiritual teacher and author, Great Relief
Dr. Robert Bowman, USAF Lt. Col. (Rtd.), founder, Institute for Space
and Security Studies
John Buchanan, author, candidate for the Republican Party Presidential
nomination, 2004
Gray Brechin, Ph.D., author, environmental historian, professor, UC
Berkeley
Fred Burks, presidential interpreter for Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and Gore
Norma Carr-Rufino, Ph.D., author, professor of management, San
Francisco State University
Angana Chatterji, Ph.D., scholar-activist and professor of anthropology
Paul Cienfuegos, co-founder, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
David Cobb, attorney, national presidential candidate, US Green Party
John Cobb, Ph.D., theologian, co-author, For the Common Good
Ernest Callenbach, founder/editor, Film Quarterly, author, Ecotopia
Kevin Danaher, Ph.D., author, speaker, co-founder, Global Exchange
Stephen Dinan, author, Radical Spirit
Ronnie Dugger, journalist/author, co-founder, Alliance for Democracy
Rachel Ehrenfeld, Ph.D., Director, American Center for Democracy,
author, Funding Evil
Daniel Ellsberg, author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon
Papers
Jodie Evans, co-founder, Code Pink
Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton
University
Michael Franti, musician, filmmaker, human rights worker
Janeane Garofalo, actress, comedienne, talk show host, Air America Radio
Jim Garrison, Ph.D., president, State of the World Forum, author,
America as Empire
Bruce Gagnon, Chair, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in
Space
Ric Giardina, author, consultant, speaker, former Director of
Trademarks and Brands for Intel
John Gray, Ph.D., #1 bestselling author, Men Are from Mars, Women Are
from Venus
Stan Goff, 25-year Army Special Ops veteran, author, Full Spectrum
Disorder
Melvin Goodman, senior fellow, Center for International Policy, author,
former Senior Analyst, CIA, professor, National War College
Morton Goulder, Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under
Nixon, Ford, and Carter
David Ray Griffin, Ph.D., theologian, author, New Pearl Harbor
Doris "Granny D" Haddock, campaign finance crusader, NH Democratic
candidate for Senate
Thom Hartmann, radio host; author, Unequal Protection
Richie Havens, singer, songwriter, performer, artist
Paul Hawken, bestselling author, environmentalist, entrepreneur,
founder of Smith & Hawken
Randy Hayes, founder, Rainforest Action Network, US National Director,
Direction Conservation
Richard Heinberg, author, The Party's Over, core faculty, New College
of California
Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Rob Kall, editor, OpEdNews.com, president, Futurehealth, Inc.
Georgia Kelly, executive director, Praxis Peace Institute
Sean Kelly, Ph.D., author, professor of philosophy and religion, CA
Institute of Integral Studies
John Joseph Kennedy, Democratic Write-in Presidential Candidate for 2004
Mimi Kennedy, actress, Dharma and Greg, progressive activist
Faiz Khan, M.D., Triage Emergency Physician on 9/11, Assistant Imam
David Korten, author, When Corporations Rule the World
Frances Moore Lappé, author, Diet for a Small Planet; founder, Small
Planet Institute
Scott M. Legere, 25 year radio broadcaster as Scott Ledger, Tampa FL
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN Magazine, author, Healing
Israel/Palestine
Michael Levine, bestselling author of Deep Cover, journalist, 25-year
veteran of the DEA
Joanna Macy, Ph.D., eco-philosopher, author
Enver Masud, founder, The Wisdom Fund, author, The Truth About Islam
John McCarthy, former Special Forces Captain, president, Veterans Equal
Rights Protection Advocacy
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, co-founder, Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity
Cynthia McKinney, five-term Congresswoman from Georgia
Ralph Metzner, Ph.D., author, professor, co-founder, Green Earth
Foundation
Mark Crispin Miller, media critic, author, professor, New York
University
Joseph W. Montaperto, New York City Fire Department
Leuren Moret, geoscientist, radiation specialist, environmental
commissioner
Ralph Nader, Independent candidate for President
Craig Neal, author, co-founder, The Heartland Institute, former
publisher, Utne Reader
Jeff Norman, executive director, Tour of Duty
Jenna Orkin, Esquire, World Trade Center Environmental Organization
Kelly Patricia O'Meara, investigative journalist, public relations
Michael Parenti, Ph.D., author, Superpatriotism and The Terrorism Trap
Edward L. Peck, former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq,
former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Peter Phillips, Ph.D., professor, Sonoma State University, director,
Project Censored
Henri Poole, Internet pioneer, board member, Free Software Foundation
Robert Rabbin, author, speaker, creator of TruthForPresident.org
Paul H. Ray, Ph.D., sociologist, author, The Cultural Creatives
John Renesch, business futurist, author, Getting to the Better Future
John Rensenbrink, professor emeritus, Bowdoin College, co-founder, US
Green Party
John Robbins, author, founder, EarthSave International
William Rodriguez, 9/11 rescue effort hero, founder, Hispanic Victims
Group
Neal Rogin, Emmy-award winning writer, performer, social observer
Allen Roland, Ph.D., psychotherapist, published author and peace
activist
Rosemary Radford Ruether, professor of feminist theology, Graduate
Theological Union
Michael Ruppert, publisher/editor, From The Wilderness, author,
Crossing the Rubicon
Chris Sanders, founder, Sanders Research Associates
Karl W. B. Schwarz, President, CEO, Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC
Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, author, Drugs, Oil, and War
Firefighter Kevin Shea, FDNY Hazmat Operations
Michelle Shocked, singer/songwriter, activist
Indira Singh, risk management and computer systems consultant
J. Michael Springmann, attorney, former Foreign Service Officer, US
Department of State
Douglas Sturm, Ph.D., university professor emeritus, Bucknell University
Marjorie Hewit Suchocki, Ph.D., theologian, author
Chuck Turner, Boston City Council
James W. Walter Jr., venture investor, philanthropist, founder of
Walden Three
Dan Whaley, E-commerce pioneer, founder of GetThere.com, acquired for
$750M
Burns H. Weston, J.S.D., Professor of Law Emeritus, Director, Center
for Human Rights, U-Iowa
Howard Zinn, professor, historian, author, A PeopleÕs History of the
United States
Family Members
1. Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
2. Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
3. Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
4. Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
5. Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th
floor
6. Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
7. Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
8. Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC,
105th floor
9. Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
10. Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd
floor
11. Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael DÕEsposito, WTC, 96th floor
12. Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th
floor
13. Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
14. Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
15. Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
16. Ilene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
17. Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
18. Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One,
95th floor
19. Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
20. Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard
Guadagno, Flight 93
21. John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
22. L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor,
KBW
23. Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
24. Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC
firefighter
25. Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in
WTC, Tower One
26. Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
27. Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
28. Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
29. Christopher Longing, husband of Laura M. Longing, WTC1
30. Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
31. Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
32. Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
33. Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
34. Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
35. James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W.
Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
36. Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
37. Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2,
84th floor
38. Kathleen A. Stanton, WTC South, Injured Survivor
39. Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September
2001
40. Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th
floor
41. David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Take action!
Send this information to your congresspeople and journalists, demanding
attention
Help New York citizens and 9/11 family members, beginning Thursday,
Oct. 28th, by signing an online petition in support of their formal
complaint to be filed with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Petition at www.justicefor911.org
Stay informed here at www.911truth.org and get active in local groups
at www.septembereleventh.org
=========== DEUTSCH ===========
Erklärung zu den Ereignissen des 11.September 2001
Vollstandig in Englisch
www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Eine Allianz von 100 prominenten Amerikanern und 40 Familienmitgliedern
der Todesopfer des 11.September hat die Veröffentlichung einer
Erklärung angekündigt..
Die Erklärung verlangt eine sofortige unabhängige Untersuchung von
Anhaltspunkten die darauf hinweisen, dass hochgestellte
Regierungsmitglieder die Terroranschläge vom 11.9.2001 vorsätzlich
zugelassen haben.
Die Umfrage des anerkannten Meinungsforschungsunternehmens Zogby, hat
Ende August dieses Jahres feststellt dass fast 50% der New Yorker
Bürger von einer Verstrickung der US Regierung in die Terroranschläge
ausgehen., 66% fordern eine neue Untersuchung des Falles.
Die Erklärung der Allianz konzentriert sich auf 12 Hauptfragen :
verdächtige Finanztransaktionen u.a. an Tatverdächtige, ausländische
Geheimdienst-Vorwarnungen etc.
Gefordert wird u.a. die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses in
New York unter dem Vorsitz von Generalstaatsanwalt Eliot Spitzer.
Die Liste der Unterzeichner schliesst Persönlichkeiten aus dem
öffentlichem Leben aus allen politischen Lagern ein.
Vollstandig in Englisch
www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
intellettuali statunitensi, chiedono una nuova inchiesta sulla tragedia
delle "due torri", che chiarisca le incongruenze della versione
ufficiale e faccia piazza pulita delle menzogne del regime dei
"neocons" ...
[ Sullo stesso argomento sono usciti anche in Italia diversi libri, tra
i quali "Il sacrificio", di M. Ragnedda (vedi:
http://www.criticalpoint.it/news.php?cod=4 ) ]
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
911 Truth Statement
HELP SPREAD
THESE WORDS!
Please contribute! We are
raising funds to place ads
featuring this 9/11 Truth
Statement in major New
York papers and media:
Donate Here!
Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding
Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11
NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) - An alliance of 100 prominent
Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today
announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate
inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may
have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The
Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of
New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously
failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of
incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or
ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and
hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive
defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an
immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,
Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly
independent citizens-based inquiry.
The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the
political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael
Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the
first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon
whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink co-founder
Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador
and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists
like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul
Hawken and Karl Schwartz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist
journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly
Patricia O'Meara.
The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times
#1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians,
and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and
actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.
The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The
organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot
Spitzer's Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on
Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group
representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first
criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.
The Statement
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American
political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly
half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York
state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks
and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66%
called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New
York Attorney General.
In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans
and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement,
which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that
suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have
deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.
We want truthful answers to questions such as:
Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked
airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly
deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school
visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the
schoolchildren?
Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for
the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of
multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested
foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in
tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have
knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order
requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed
judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back
towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the
FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the
alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses,
restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government
by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the
Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and
reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the
ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed
by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the
questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the
ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a
book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of
thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration,
a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of
the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace
and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green
Party.
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative
that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so
that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.
In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject
with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds
inflicted on that terrible day.
Signed,
Signatories
Note: All organizations are mentioned for identification purposes only.
Individuals have signed this statement as an act of their own
conscience, not to signify organizational endorsement.
Virginia Deane Abernethy, Ph.D., anthropologist, author, Population
Politics
Ed Asner, actor, activist
Marshall Auerback, international portfolio strategist for David W. Tice
& Associates, Inc.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush
administration
Keidi Obi Awadu, aka The Conscious Rasta, talk show host, LIBRadio
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President
Byron Belitsos, publisher, Origin Press, author Planetary Democracy
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, former deputy attorney general, Pennsylvania
Medea Benjamin, activist, author, co-founder, Global Exchange and Code
Pink
Dennis Bernstein, investigative reporter, radio host of KPFA's
Flashpoints
Steve Bhaerman aka Swami Beyondananda, author, political comedian
Brad Blanton, Ph.D., psychotherapist, author, Radical Honesty
Saniel Bonder, spiritual teacher and author, Great Relief
Dr. Robert Bowman, USAF Lt. Col. (Rtd.), founder, Institute for Space
and Security Studies
John Buchanan, author, candidate for the Republican Party Presidential
nomination, 2004
Gray Brechin, Ph.D., author, environmental historian, professor, UC
Berkeley
Fred Burks, presidential interpreter for Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and Gore
Norma Carr-Rufino, Ph.D., author, professor of management, San
Francisco State University
Angana Chatterji, Ph.D., scholar-activist and professor of anthropology
Paul Cienfuegos, co-founder, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
David Cobb, attorney, national presidential candidate, US Green Party
John Cobb, Ph.D., theologian, co-author, For the Common Good
Ernest Callenbach, founder/editor, Film Quarterly, author, Ecotopia
Kevin Danaher, Ph.D., author, speaker, co-founder, Global Exchange
Stephen Dinan, author, Radical Spirit
Ronnie Dugger, journalist/author, co-founder, Alliance for Democracy
Rachel Ehrenfeld, Ph.D., Director, American Center for Democracy,
author, Funding Evil
Daniel Ellsberg, author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon
Papers
Jodie Evans, co-founder, Code Pink
Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton
University
Michael Franti, musician, filmmaker, human rights worker
Janeane Garofalo, actress, comedienne, talk show host, Air America Radio
Jim Garrison, Ph.D., president, State of the World Forum, author,
America as Empire
Bruce Gagnon, Chair, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in
Space
Ric Giardina, author, consultant, speaker, former Director of
Trademarks and Brands for Intel
John Gray, Ph.D., #1 bestselling author, Men Are from Mars, Women Are
from Venus
Stan Goff, 25-year Army Special Ops veteran, author, Full Spectrum
Disorder
Melvin Goodman, senior fellow, Center for International Policy, author,
former Senior Analyst, CIA, professor, National War College
Morton Goulder, Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under
Nixon, Ford, and Carter
David Ray Griffin, Ph.D., theologian, author, New Pearl Harbor
Doris "Granny D" Haddock, campaign finance crusader, NH Democratic
candidate for Senate
Thom Hartmann, radio host; author, Unequal Protection
Richie Havens, singer, songwriter, performer, artist
Paul Hawken, bestselling author, environmentalist, entrepreneur,
founder of Smith & Hawken
Randy Hayes, founder, Rainforest Action Network, US National Director,
Direction Conservation
Richard Heinberg, author, The Party's Over, core faculty, New College
of California
Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Rob Kall, editor, OpEdNews.com, president, Futurehealth, Inc.
Georgia Kelly, executive director, Praxis Peace Institute
Sean Kelly, Ph.D., author, professor of philosophy and religion, CA
Institute of Integral Studies
John Joseph Kennedy, Democratic Write-in Presidential Candidate for 2004
Mimi Kennedy, actress, Dharma and Greg, progressive activist
Faiz Khan, M.D., Triage Emergency Physician on 9/11, Assistant Imam
David Korten, author, When Corporations Rule the World
Frances Moore Lappé, author, Diet for a Small Planet; founder, Small
Planet Institute
Scott M. Legere, 25 year radio broadcaster as Scott Ledger, Tampa FL
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN Magazine, author, Healing
Israel/Palestine
Michael Levine, bestselling author of Deep Cover, journalist, 25-year
veteran of the DEA
Joanna Macy, Ph.D., eco-philosopher, author
Enver Masud, founder, The Wisdom Fund, author, The Truth About Islam
John McCarthy, former Special Forces Captain, president, Veterans Equal
Rights Protection Advocacy
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, co-founder, Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity
Cynthia McKinney, five-term Congresswoman from Georgia
Ralph Metzner, Ph.D., author, professor, co-founder, Green Earth
Foundation
Mark Crispin Miller, media critic, author, professor, New York
University
Joseph W. Montaperto, New York City Fire Department
Leuren Moret, geoscientist, radiation specialist, environmental
commissioner
Ralph Nader, Independent candidate for President
Craig Neal, author, co-founder, The Heartland Institute, former
publisher, Utne Reader
Jeff Norman, executive director, Tour of Duty
Jenna Orkin, Esquire, World Trade Center Environmental Organization
Kelly Patricia O'Meara, investigative journalist, public relations
Michael Parenti, Ph.D., author, Superpatriotism and The Terrorism Trap
Edward L. Peck, former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq,
former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism
Peter Phillips, Ph.D., professor, Sonoma State University, director,
Project Censored
Henri Poole, Internet pioneer, board member, Free Software Foundation
Robert Rabbin, author, speaker, creator of TruthForPresident.org
Paul H. Ray, Ph.D., sociologist, author, The Cultural Creatives
John Renesch, business futurist, author, Getting to the Better Future
John Rensenbrink, professor emeritus, Bowdoin College, co-founder, US
Green Party
John Robbins, author, founder, EarthSave International
William Rodriguez, 9/11 rescue effort hero, founder, Hispanic Victims
Group
Neal Rogin, Emmy-award winning writer, performer, social observer
Allen Roland, Ph.D., psychotherapist, published author and peace
activist
Rosemary Radford Ruether, professor of feminist theology, Graduate
Theological Union
Michael Ruppert, publisher/editor, From The Wilderness, author,
Crossing the Rubicon
Chris Sanders, founder, Sanders Research Associates
Karl W. B. Schwarz, President, CEO, Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC
Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, author, Drugs, Oil, and War
Firefighter Kevin Shea, FDNY Hazmat Operations
Michelle Shocked, singer/songwriter, activist
Indira Singh, risk management and computer systems consultant
J. Michael Springmann, attorney, former Foreign Service Officer, US
Department of State
Douglas Sturm, Ph.D., university professor emeritus, Bucknell University
Marjorie Hewit Suchocki, Ph.D., theologian, author
Chuck Turner, Boston City Council
James W. Walter Jr., venture investor, philanthropist, founder of
Walden Three
Dan Whaley, E-commerce pioneer, founder of GetThere.com, acquired for
$750M
Burns H. Weston, J.S.D., Professor of Law Emeritus, Director, Center
for Human Rights, U-Iowa
Howard Zinn, professor, historian, author, A PeopleÕs History of the
United States
Family Members
1. Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
2. Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
3. Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
4. Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
5. Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th
floor
6. Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
7. Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
8. Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC,
105th floor
9. Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
10. Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd
floor
11. Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael DÕEsposito, WTC, 96th floor
12. Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th
floor
13. Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
14. Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
15. Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
16. Ilene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
17. Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
18. Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One,
95th floor
19. Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
20. Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard
Guadagno, Flight 93
21. John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
22. L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor,
KBW
23. Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
24. Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC
firefighter
25. Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in
WTC, Tower One
26. Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
27. Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
28. Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
29. Christopher Longing, husband of Laura M. Longing, WTC1
30. Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
31. Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
32. Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
33. Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
34. Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
35. James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W.
Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
36. Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
37. Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2,
84th floor
38. Kathleen A. Stanton, WTC South, Injured Survivor
39. Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September
2001
40. Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th
floor
41. David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Take action!
Send this information to your congresspeople and journalists, demanding
attention
Help New York citizens and 9/11 family members, beginning Thursday,
Oct. 28th, by signing an online petition in support of their formal
complaint to be filed with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Petition at www.justicefor911.org
Stay informed here at www.911truth.org and get active in local groups
at www.septembereleventh.org
=========== DEUTSCH ===========
Erklärung zu den Ereignissen des 11.September 2001
Vollstandig in Englisch
www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Eine Allianz von 100 prominenten Amerikanern und 40 Familienmitgliedern
der Todesopfer des 11.September hat die Veröffentlichung einer
Erklärung angekündigt..
Die Erklärung verlangt eine sofortige unabhängige Untersuchung von
Anhaltspunkten die darauf hinweisen, dass hochgestellte
Regierungsmitglieder die Terroranschläge vom 11.9.2001 vorsätzlich
zugelassen haben.
Die Umfrage des anerkannten Meinungsforschungsunternehmens Zogby, hat
Ende August dieses Jahres feststellt dass fast 50% der New Yorker
Bürger von einer Verstrickung der US Regierung in die Terroranschläge
ausgehen., 66% fordern eine neue Untersuchung des Falles.
Die Erklärung der Allianz konzentriert sich auf 12 Hauptfragen :
verdächtige Finanztransaktionen u.a. an Tatverdächtige, ausländische
Geheimdienst-Vorwarnungen etc.
Gefordert wird u.a. die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses in
New York unter dem Vorsitz von Generalstaatsanwalt Eliot Spitzer.
Die Liste der Unterzeichner schliesst Persönlichkeiten aus dem
öffentlichem Leben aus allen politischen Lagern ein.
Vollstandig in Englisch
www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook