by J. Smith
Brigitte Mohnhaupt
Stammheim, December 4, 1984
_____________
1 The U.S. battleship New Jersey bombarded Beirut in 1983.
2 “Marcel” Salvador Cayetano Carpio was a cofounder of the FPL (Fuerzas Populares de Liberació;n—Popular Forces for Liberation), the largest of the five guerilla groups that made up the FMLN in El Salvador.
3 Caspar Weinberger was, at the time, secretary of defense for the Republican Reagan administration in the United States.
4 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik.
5 Bundeskanzleramt.
6 Gerhard Stoltenberg (CDU) was federal minister of defense from 1982 until 1989. Richard von Weizsäcker (CDU) was president from 1984 until 1994.
7 At the time, Joachim Zahn (CDU) was the chairman of Mercedes-Benz. Berthold Beitz was a prominent industrialist in the mining sector and a member of the German Olympic Committee. Heinz Oskar Vetter (SPD) was chairman of the Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund (German Association of Trade Unions).
8 Rapid Deployment Forces are specialized military units that receive advanced training and armaments.
9 Karl Schiller (SPD) was federal finance minister from 1966 until 1972, and federal minister of finance in 1971 and 1972.
10 Willy Brandt was elected chancellor as part of the first Social-Liberal coalition, in 1969; in 1970 the government decreed an amnesty for those arrested for minor infractions in the context of the APO; 5,868 people were affected. (Jutta Ditfurth, Ulrike Meinhof: Die Biographie [Berlin: Ullstein, 2007], 266.) See also Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 41-42, 44.
11 Bruno Kreisky was, at this time, the chairman of the SPÖ (Austrian Social Democratic Party) and the chancellor of Austria.
12 George Shultz was, at this time, the U.S. secretary of state.
13 Foreign Policy is the official organ of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank based in Washington, DC.
14 Egon Bahr (SPD) was, at that time, minister for economic cooperation and development. Prior to this, he is credited with having crafted Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitk.
15 The Friedrich-Ebert-Stifung (Friedrich Ebert Endowment) is a German social democratic think tank and charity organization.
16 Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the president of France in 1977.
17 James Callaghan, the prime minister of Great Britain in 1977.
18 Eberhard von Brauchitsch was, at the time, the general business manager of the Flick Corporation, one of Germany’s key steel-producing companies.
19 Leopards are a kind of military tank.
20 Helmut Kohl (CDU) was the leader of the opposition in 1977. He had previously been president and by the time of this statement had been elected chancellor.
21 Hans Friderichs (FDP) was a former finance minister and, at the time, the president of the Dresdner Bank, having replaced Ponto after he was assassinated by the RAF in 1977.
22 On March 16, 1978, the Red Brigades kidnapped Italy’s Christian Democratic leader and former prime minister Aldo Moro, demanding the release of imprisoned members of their organization. The government refused to negotiate, and, after 55 days, the Red Brigades executed Moro. On December 17, 1981, the Red Brigades kidnapped U.S. General James Lee Dozier. He was freed by a NOCS (Italian counterinsurgency) unit 42 days later, on January 28, 1982. Besides a paramilitary response, the Italian state also implemented a judicial counterinsurgency assault, which took form as a law named after Minister of Internal Affairs Francesco Cossiga, “introducing temporary [provisional] detention in police custody, extending search powers without a mandate from the competent judge, further increasing the length of preventative imprisonment, and introducing the criminal offence of subversive association. The Cossiga law also introduced sentencing discounts for ‘terrorists’ who choose to cooperate; this was the first special law on ‘repentance’ that entered the Italian legal order.” Italo di Sabato (Osservatorio sulla Repressione), “Italy: The never-ending emergency,” Statewatch Bulletin 19, no. 1, January-March 2009.
23 Robert Kupperman was a leading U.S. counterinsurgency expert. After leaving the government he worked for the Center for Strategic and International Studies until his death in 2006, authoring several books on “terrorism.”
24 From 1971 to 1990 Alfred Stümper was the superintendent of police for the Land of Baden-Württemberg.
25 From 1981 to 1990 Heinrich Boge was the president of the BKA.
26 From 1982 to 1985 Heiner Geißler was the general secretary of the CDU.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Conclusions of the Third Russell Tribunal
The Third Russell Tribunal on Human Rights in West Germany completed its work with a Second Session held in Cologne on January 3-9 1979. Its judgement on questions of Censorship, the Rights of Defence and the activities of the domestic secret service, the Verfassungsschutz, were presented at a press conference in Bonn on January 10.
PREAMBLE
The primary characteristic of a free democracy is the existence of an unrestrained exchange of information and ideas, regardless of the nature or popularity of the latter. The history of the past 200 years teaches that democracy thrives on popular vigilance. Such a society has unlimited potential for change and growth in conformity with mankind’s continuously evolving understanding of itself and the world in which it lives, subject only to one restriction: democratic means.
The way a society organizes its restrictive apparatus determines the degree of freedom in a given society. This is especially true for the organization of the police in general, and the secret services. An additional indicator of the freedom in a society is the state of criminal justice, which is an exclusive concern of the state. Because criminal laws have traditionally been tools of repression and because successful prosecution results in a deprivation of a person’s liberty, every free society requires that the criminal laws be applied universally, impartially and publicly.
These principles are reflected in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany:
All State Authority emanates from the people—Art. 20(2)
The dignity of man shall be inviolable—Art. 1(1)
The Liberty of the individual shall be inviolable. These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to law—Art. 2(2)
All persons shall be equal before the law—Art. 3(1)
Everyone shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinion… there shall be no censorship—Art. 5(1)
It is axiomatic that any effort, particularly by government, to restrict or inhibit public debate or to further strengthen the power of the state vis-à-vis the accused in a criminal case is antithetical to the notion of a free and democratic society.
Because of the leadership role of the Federal Republic of Germany and the influence its policies have on governments in other countries in Western Europe and elsewhere, any signs that there is, within the Federal Republic, a slippage from a liberal democratic state to a more authoritarian or repressive country, should be of concern to us all.
CENSORSHIP
Conclusions
The practices of censorship described below constitute, among other things, the objective conditions to which individuals and groups react in anticipation, by exercising self-censorship.
In this respect, self-censorship is not at all an overreaction of some intimidated people. It is rather the appropriate reaction, to measures of censorship, of those who wish to keep their jobs, gain promotion, or simply find employment.
As measures of censorship threaten to narrow increasingly the range of officially and semi-officially permitted expression of opinion, the danger of a further division of society emerges. The normal, dominant part conforms. The minorities are marginalized. In view of this situation, it is not surprising that escapist responses are ever more frequent, particularly in the younger generation, ranging from drug addicts, who in their helplessness exercise terror against themselves, to those who take refuge in terrorist acts a
gainst others. The social background of this escapism can be clearly defined. Censorship has an essential part in it.
If one is talking about censorship, this normally means encroachment upon the freedom to express oneself in speech and in writing, and to divulge one’s opinion in print. But there are two sides of censorship: a positive and a negative one. A positive censorship, which serves to protect minorities from discrimination, is not at all directed against democracy; rather, it serves to create and maintain it. Negative censorship, however, consists in measures, by public and private bodies, which drastically curtail the right of freedom of expression, especially with respect to minorities, and render them powerless vis-à-vis powerful authorities.
This shows that censorship in the negative sense of the word aims at preventing the criticism which groups and individuals of all kinds must be allowed to exercise among each other.
To condemn censorship is not to condemn criticism. We must rather attack the authorities who prevent those in a less powerful position expressing their opinion.
There is no censorship—or so it is stated on the basic law. And indeed, there is no official instance of censorship in the Federal Republic. Nevertheless, censorship is daily exercised in many areas.
An important tool of the state in practicing this unofficial censorship is the new laws enacted in the 1970s, for instance para. 88a and para. 130a of the criminal code, which were intended to serve “public order”, but in fact allow even scientific and literary statements about violence to be considered criminal. But not only are these recently enacted laws an invitation to abuse by the state. An additional way to suppress is based on a special German characteristic: holding the state to be the first and supreme individual person, who is permanently sensitive and vulnerable to slander (para. 90a of the criminal code). Other paragraphs of the criminal code, which primarily threaten to penalize use of journalistic freedoms, have a similar function of suppressing criticism (see para. 353c of the criminal code).
FACTS
Censorship is practised in the following manner:
In the sphere of technical media—through political influence exercised by the supervisory boards, which have been conceived for the purpose of control and not for actual influence over the programmes themselves. In this way, the broadcasting law, which defines the technical media as “institutions under public law”, intending to hand responsibility over to the citizens, has been weakened.
In the sphere of public libraries—pressure is exerted by the authorities concerning the purchase of books, the placing of books on the shelves to which the public has access, employment policies and control of reading habits.
in the sphere of the theatre—influence is exercised by local and state (Länder) authorities on the repertoires of municipal and state theatre. Children’s and youth theatres are especially afflicted, because as independent groups they often have no facilities of their own.
in the spheres of the press, book stores, universities, and critical art, e.g.—there are tendencies to attack art if it is more than “just” art; to restrict the freedoms of scientific research, of teaching and learning if social activity does not fit the normal pattern; to bury publishing houses and book stores in law suits and searches, to the extent of endangering their economic existence, merely because they had published and distributed unfavoured books; to threaten journalists with punishment for passing on information which they had obtained in a quite legal manner; etc., etc.
RIGHTS OF DEFENCE
Conclusions
It is the Jury’s opinion that recently enacted laws and measures adopted in connection with the cases of alleged terrorism described in some detail under the heading “facts” constitute a serious threat to human rights. The Jury finds that there are intrusions into the relationship between attorneys and clients, whose rights of comprehensive and sufficient defence by a defender of choice must never be violated. There are encroachments upon defendants’ rights to a full hearing by the court, and in some cases detention conditions exist which more likely result in physical injury or psychological deterioration, thus violating the defendant’s right to a fair trial and humane treatment. Since there is a danger of extension to other criminal proceedings there is also a possible danger to each individual citizen of the Federal Republic.
Facts
An effective defence is hindered by measures which presume a general suspicion of complicity between the attorney and his client. We list a few of these measures:
By controlling the correspondence, by frequent house searches and confiscation of defence files, and by setting up glass partitions for prison conversations, the absolutely essential trust and confidentiality of communication between attorney and his client is hampered in so-called terrorist trials. There are examples in which, through manipulation of the charge, these restrictions are extended to other trials with a political background.
A zealous defence which is required by law is endangered, as in some cases defence attorneys were excluded from the trials because they had strongly supported their client’s interests regarding the conditions of detention, which was interpreted by the courts as complicity with the accused. Another danger results from the fact that criminal and court of honour proceedings were instituted against defence counsellors because of vigorous argumentation on behalf of their clients in general.
Defence counsellors in so-called terrorist trials have to put up with degrading body cavity searches; upon their refusal to submit, they are charged substantial sums for “costs”.
In several cases the telephones of defence lawyers were intercepted and confidential conversations between attorney and client were monitored by hidden microphones.
On account of the so-called Contact Ban Law, contact between the defendant and his attorney may be interrupted for an unlimited period of time, or even prevented from the very beginning. On the other hand, the prosecution is allowed to see and question the prisoner practically at any time. By these measures an effective defence can be not only impeded but even made completely impossible.
Furthermore, the prohibition of collective defence constitutes a serious impediment for an effective representation of the defendants. An attorney who has represented one member of an alleged criminal group is not permitted to represent another alleged member of the same group in a subsequent trial; although prosecutors are permitted to gain a growing expertise by prosecuting an unlimited number of accused persons.
Certain accused persons, alleged to be members of a terrorist organization, are subject to imposition of total isolation and sensory deprivation, which results in serious physical and psychological damage. We call your attention to the evaluation of such a treatment, from a report by Amnesty International, dating from 1973:
“Every investigative procedure which has as purpose or consequence to cause a deterioration or malfunction of the mental processes of a human being is just as heavy an attack on the inherent dignity of the person as the more traditional physical techniques of torture.”
Accused persons who are treated in this manner, and therefore are not fit to stand trial, find that the proceedings continue in their absence. This is based on the rationalization that defendants themselves are responsible for the (detention) conditions they are subjected to. This practice is a violation of the defendant’s right to legal hearing.
THE DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (VERFASSUNGSSCHUTZ)
Conclusions
In any free democracy the rights of individuals or groups of citizens are threatened by the existence of a domestic secret service. In the FGR this threat is substantial because of the installation by its domestic secret service, the Verfassungsschutz, of a vast network of information gathering, storage and dissemination.
Far from protecting the Constitution, the Verfassungsschutz today is the crucial component of a vast machine which, by a system of secret collection and distribution of information (and misinformation)—of which the individual has no knowledge and to which the individual
has no access—has destroyed the livelihoods and reputations of innocent German citizens (and sometimes has caused them to be imprisoned) and threatens to exercise this power over the lives of countless others. In many cases the victims are those with no explicit political views, and in others, the people affected have done no more than exercise their democratic right to express individual political opinions.
The growth and practices of the Verfassungsschutz are totally out of proportion to any actual threat to the state. The Verfassungsschutz has its own momentum which not only is not controlled by Parliament but which actually defines the security needs of the state without adequate and efficient Parliamentary control. Indeed, the Verfassungsschutz itself constitutes the largest threat to a free democracy because it can become a kind of “secret” government.
Some Salient Facts
According to the statute regulating the Verfassungsschutz, the task of the Federal and State (Länder) Authorities for Verfassungsschutz is to “collect and evaluate intelligence, news and other material concerning efforts which aim at an abolition, change or infringement of the Constitutional order of the Federal German Republic or in one of the states, or at an illegal encroachment on the work of members of Constitutional organs and institutions of the FGR or a state”.
Secrecy surrounds the Verfassungsschutz, thereby ensuring that much information about it is limited to little more than approximations. In the 10 years 1969-1978, the budget of the Verfassungsschutz increased more than three-fold from 29.9 million DM to over 100 million.
By 1975 the Verfassungsschutz had created computerized files on over 2 million citizens of the FGR and an additional 190,000 in West Berlin, where these files represented 10 per cent of the population.
