giulietto chiesa: si deve vendere l'italia

.
http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Politica/2014/3/5/RETROSCENA-Giulietto-Chiesa-Renzi-lo-hanno-voluto-gli-Usa-per-vendere-l-Italia/475958/

RETROSCENA/ Giulietto Chiesa: Renzi lo hanno voluto gli Usa per vendere l'Italia  

5 marzo 2014

Intervista a Giulietto Chiesa

"È tutto spettacolo". Così Giulietto Chiesa, giornalista e politico storicamente di sinistra, commenta l'operazione Renzi, spinto a Palazzo Chigi dalla mano degli States per rispondere agli interessi di Wall Street e per amicarsi Italia, preziosa pedina, nello scacchiere che vede contrapposti gli Usa alla Germania della Merkel. "Io credo che Renzi sia la persona più adatta per fare una politica filoamericana. D’altronde lo ha rivelato lui stesso quando si è paragonato a Tony Blair, che è stato un servo degli Stati Uniti" continua Chiesa.

Dietro l’ascesa di Matteo Renzi a Palazzo Chigi non c’è solo De Benedetti. Pare che una spinta importante sia arrivata anche dagli States, direttamente dalla Casa Bianca…

Io credo che Renzi sia la persona più adatta per fare una politica filoamericana. D’altronde lo ha rivelato lui stesso, senza esitazioni, quando si è paragonato a Tony Blair, che è stato un servo degli Stati Uniti: se lo vuole imitare vuol dire che ha questa intenzione. Del resto il personaggio, per come si presenta, punta molto in alto e siccome i padroni universali stanno là, dalle parti di Wall Street, immagino che voglia puntare proprio verso quella direzione. È dunque facile capire perché Obama è ben felice che Renzi sia al potere (e che possibilmente vi rimanga).

Prima c’era Letta che è sempre stato etichettato come l’uomo delle banche; a un certo punto non è più andato bene. Perché?

Enrico Letta era un uomo della vecchia guardia. Bisogna fare attenzione ai particolari: Letta, a differenza di Obama, è andato a Sochi. Queste cose, per chi ha il comando, sono molto interessanti; si misurano tra di loro con i dettagli. Letta ha fatto un errore a partecipare alle Olimpiadi invernali in Russia: ma come? Cosa ci è andato a fare? Non si devono fare queste cose... Renzi non ci sarebbe mai andato, ecco la differenza. Da queste piccole cose si possono capire le preferenze dei padroni del vapore, che un tempo erano più duttili e civili e adesso, invece, stanno diventando sempre più prepotenti, pretendendo servitori molto più fedeli.

Renzi, come uomo "scelto" dagli Stati Uniti, va collocato nel puzzle dello scontro politico economico Germania-Usa? Obama, più volte, ha criticato la linea Merkel…

Io penso che lo scontro Germania-Stati Uniti sia in corso da tempo ed entrambi i Paesi fanno i propri rispettivi interessi. Siccome la Germania è molto forte in Europa, se io fossi al posto di Obama cercherei di accerchiarla, togliendole ogni aiutante di campo, isolandola. È un’operazione, ripeto, in corso da tempo. Per esempio...

Prego.

La guerra di Libia è stato un episodio in cui i grandi alleati americani, Francia e Gran Bretagna, si sono messi in campo, mentre la Merkel non è andata in Libia a combattere al fianco degli Usa e della Nato. Il terzo protagonista europeo – di un certo peso economico e storico – è l'Italia. Conquistare pienamente l'Italia in una visione esclusivamente atlantica è una mossa che può avere un grande significato per il futuro. E io credo che a Washington stiano pensando proprio a questo.

Dunque Renzi come pedina fondamentale in questo scacchiere di rapporti di forza?

Io non ho un solo documento a sostegno di questa tesi – sono cose che rimangono all’interno di colloqui segretissimi –, ma la mia impressione generale è che se Enrico Letta fosse uguale a Renzi non lo avrebbero certo cambiato; lo hanno fatto perché Renzi è molto più filo-americano.

Dovrà dare qualcosa in cambio?

È al potere con tutti i vantaggi del caso. Lo scambio è: "tu stai al potere e noi facciamo quello che vogliamo fare". In questi casi non è mai questione di gratitudine: quanto dai, tanto avrai…

Qualche settimana fa il Financial Times e il Wall Street Journal hanno speso belle parole per Renzi. Ultimamente il fondo (americano) Blackstone ha acquistato partecipazioni in Versace e Intesa San Paolo e il magnate (americano) George Soros il 5% di Immobiliare grande distribuzione. È un caso?

Mi sembra che, appunto, siano tutti elementi che vadano in questa direzione. I grandi proprietari universali – come li chiama Luciano Gallino – si consultano, si parlano e si danno segnali. Ecco, questi sono tutti segnali in questo senso: maggiore simpatia e sicurezza verso un governo (meno tedesco e più americano) che dà garanzie più precise e complete.

Quello degli Stati Uniti potrebbe essere una sorta di nuovo "Piano Marshall"?

Ma qui non c'è alcuna politica di investimenti a difesa della libertà. Adesso si devono fare le privatizzazioni, a questo starà pensando il nostro premier. Si deve vendere l'Italia: questo è il progetto. I grossi pescecani della finanza aspettano proprio questo. A dire il vero, lo aveva detto anche Letta, ma siamo al discorso di prima: ci sono quelli che eseguono gli ordini senza tirare le briglie e chi – poco gradito – le tira. Semmai...

Dica.

L’unico Piano Marshall possibile in questo momento sarebbe cambiare le regole della finanza internazionale: mettere fuori legge gli off-shore, congelare per i prossimi 50 anni un'ingente massa di derivati e così via. Insomma, tutta una serie di medicine – inevitabili e inesorabili – che naturalmente modificherebbero il quadro degli equilibri finanziari a svantaggio di Wall Street, motivo per il quale non si faranno mai.

Cosa si farà invece?

All’ordine del giorno, ribadisco, ci sono le immediate privatizzazioni di quasi tutto il patrimonio industriale (e anche immobiliare e artistico-culturale) italiano: è questo che ci dobbiamo aspettare secondo la strategia dei 50 miliardi del Fiscal Compact. Gli orizzonti sono questi. Renzi è qui per eseguire i compiti che furono assegnati a Mario Monti.

È un bene o un male per l’Italia?

Se ci si riferisce alla finanza internazionale è un bene, ma se ci si riferisce alla condizione umana e materiale del popolo italiano è un male. Non può essere un fatto positivo, la gente si aspetta tutt'altro. Naturalmente molti non hanno ancora capito, perché le dinamiche mediatiche con le quali si promuovono queste operazioni convincono milioni di persone che questo sia un uomo nuovo, giovane e affascinante che mette otto donne del governo. Figuriamoci...

Il suo giudizio è dunque negativo.

È tutto uno spettacolo, e la gente, che non ne conosce le regole, ci casca. Poi piange, a danno fatto. Nell'immediato Renzi prenderà un sacco di voti, tutti dovuti alla speranza disperata della gente di cavarsela. Una volta per svelare gli altarini ci volevano 5 o 6 anni, oggi in molto meno tempo: fra un anno saremo già lì a fare i conti. L’accelerazione della crisi rende il tutto molto trasparente...

Fabio Franchini

italia: e ora legalizzare la cannabis

.
http://ilmanifesto.it/una-sentenza-stupefacente/
http://www.radicali.it/rassegna-stampa/una-sentenza-stupefacente

Una sentenza stupefacente

Eleonora Martini,
12.2.2014

La Consulta boccia la Fini-Giovanardi: incostituzionale. Illegittima la conversione parlamentare del decreto sulle Olimpiadi di Torino. «E ora legalizzare la cannabis» Lo chiedono i Radicali mentre il Pd apre a una vera riforma della legislazione sulle sostanze

  Inco­sti­tu­zio­nale. La legge Fini-Giovanardi è stata spaz­zata via dalla Con­sulta e non, come avrebbe dovuto essere, dalla poli­tica, dopo otto anni di pene abnormi che nes­suno potrà ripa­gare. Otto anni di sof­fe­renze per migliaia di per­sone entrate nel cir­cuito penale e san­zio­na­to­rio, recluse, morte per­fino, a causa del furore ideo­lo­gico delle destre e dell’ignavia del cen­tro­si­ni­stra (solo il mini­stro Paolo Fer­rero, con l’ultimo governo Prodi, tentò inu­til­mente di can­cel­larla), e a tutto bene­fi­cio dei nar­co­traf­fi­canti. La Corte costi­tu­zio­nale ieri ha dichia­rato ille­git­tima la legge 49/2006 «per vio­la­zione dell’art. 77, secondo comma, della Costi­tu­zione, che regola la pro­ce­dura di con­ver­sione dei decreti-legge». Un qua­dro nor­ma­tivo che, come ha già ricor­dato il mani­fe­sto in que­sti giorni, venne intro­dotto for­za­ta­mente — ricor­rendo al voto di fidu­cia — durante l’iter par­la­men­tare di con­ver­sione del decreto sulle Olim­piadi inver­nali di Torino con gli arti­coli 4–bis e 4–vicies ter, dichia­rati inco­sti­tu­zio­nali ieri dagli ermel­lini, e che riscrisse com­ple­ta­mente gli arti­coli 73, 13 e 14 del Testo unico sugli stu­pe­fa­centi, il dpr 309/90. Per entrare nei det­ta­gli biso­gnerà atten­dere le moti­va­zioni della Corte che saranno scritte dal giu­dice rela­tore Marta Car­ta­bia, ma è chiaro fin d’ora che l’equiparazione delle sostanze leg­gere a quelle pesanti, poste in un’unica tabella nella Fini-Giovanardi, e delle con­dotte — la deten­zione per uso per­so­nale assi­mi­lata allo spac­cio – sono ormai carta strac­cia. Per­ché torna a rivi­vere la pre-esistente nor­ma­tiva, la Jervolino-Vassalli emen­data dal refe­ren­dum pro­mosso dai Radi­cali nella pri­ma­vera del 1993, secondo la quale non è puni­bile la deten­zione a scopo di uso per­so­nale, qual­siasi sia il quan­ti­ta­tivo (venne abo­lita la «dose media gior­na­liera» che era la soglia per la con­fi­gu­ra­zione del reato di spac­cio) e per qual­siasi sostanza.  La col­ti­va­zione di mari­juana però resta ancora un reato puni­bile con san­zioni penali ele­vate, per­ché anche per la Jervolino-Vassalli viene equi­pa­rata allo spac­cio. Le pene però sono ridotte da 2 a 6 anni di car­cere (per la Fini-Giovanardi erano da 6 a 22), men­tre per il traf­fico di cocaina, eroina o dro­ghe sin­te­ti­che sono pre­vi­sti dagli 8 ai 20 anni di reclu­sione. Ora si spera che la dif­fe­ren­zia­zione dei reati e delle pene fac­cia tor­nare rapi­da­mente ad un mer­cato sepa­rato tra sostanze leg­gere e pesanti, come era prima del feb­braio 2006. Anche se in Par­la­mento giac­ciono già alcuni dise­gni di legge — in par­ti­co­lare quello del depu­tato di Sel, Daniele Farina, che pre­vede la depe­na­liz­za­zione delle dro­ghe leg­gere, giunto in com­mis­sione Giu­sti­zia — la segre­ta­ria dei Radi­cali ita­liani, Rita Ber­nar­dini, sol­le­cita la lega­liz­za­zione della can­na­bis. «Per quanto mi riguarda, da plu­ri­pre­giu­di­cata come Pan­nella e altri radi­cali, con­ti­nuerò a disob­be­dire fino a che i malati e i con­su­ma­tori saranno costretti dalla legge a rifor­nirsi al mer­cato cri­mi­nale», aggiunge Ber­nar­dini che si è auto denun­ciata a Fog­gia per la col­ti­va­zione di alcune piante di mari­juana senza però aver otte­nuto l’arresto. D’altronde, se Mat­teo Renzi man­tiene la parola — «Lega­liz­zare l’erba? Prima via la Fini-Giovanardi», aveva detto poco più di un mese fa — i tempi sono maturi. Nel Pd, per esem­pio, in molti hanno chie­sto ad Enrico Letta di giu­sti­fi­care la scelta di schie­rare l’avvocatura dello Stato davanti alla Con­sulta a difesa della legge più car­ce­ro­gena di que­sti tempi.  Basti pen­sare infatti che circa il 40% dei dete­nuti, 24.273 per­sone al 31 dicem­bre 2013 sono in car­cere per vio­la­zione della legge inco­sti­tu­zio­nale. Men­tre 8.657 sono in custo­dia cau­te­lare e 59 inter­nate, come risulta dalla rela­zione al Par­la­mento della mini­stra di Giu­sti­zia, Anna­ma­ria Can­cel­lieri. Numeri più o meno sta­bili dal 2007 in poi: secondo i dati del Dap, il picco di dete­nuti per reati legati agli arti­coli 73 e 74 della legge si è avuto nel 2011, con 27.459 reclusi. Anti­gone però stima che attual­mente i car­ce­rati per deten­zione per­so­nale di dro­ghe leg­gere siano circa 10 mila.  Cosa suc­ce­derà a que­sto eser­cito di per­sone? Secondo alcuni giu­ri­sti, come l’avvocato Michele Pas­sione dell’Osservatorio car­cere dell’Unione delle Camere penali ita­liane, non c’è nes­sun auto­ma­ti­smo nell’esecuzione della sen­tenza della Con­sulta, ma i con­dan­nati in vio­la­zione della legge Fini-Giovanardi potreb­bero chie­dere il rical­colo della pena con la nor­ma­tiva pre esi­stente. Non la pensa così l’avvocato Gio­vanni Maria Flick (vedi inter­vi­sta in que­ste pagine). Un lavoro che rica­drebbe sulle spalle dei giu­dici dell’esecuzione, senza dover ricor­rere a un nuovo dibat­ti­mento, ma che comun­que inta­se­rebbe ulte­rior­mente i tri­bu­nali. Ecco per­ché i Radi­cali — e non solo — tor­nano a chie­dere l’amnistia e l’indulto, «ora neces­sari più che mai».

http://www.agi.it/politica/notizie/201402121635-pol-rt10198-droga_pannella_renzi_ha_fatto_come_il_pci_con_il_divorzio

Droga: Pannella, "Renzi? Ha fatto come il Pci con il divorzio..."

(AGI) Roma, 12 feb. 

"Noi Radicali abbiamo raccolto le firme per abrogare con un referendum la legge Fini-Giovanardi, su cui ora e' intervenuta la Corte costituzionale, che pero' ha sollevato soprattutto questioni che non riguardano il merito della normativa". Marco Pannella mette i puntini sulle i e rimprovera "il 'Grande Renzi'" che "invece, ostentatamente, non ha firmato i nostri referendum che avremmo potuto vincere, affermando che e' il Parlamento a dover decidere". E all'attuale segretario Pd tocca questa reprimenda: "Proprio come fece il Pci all'epoca del referendum sul divorzio, perche' per il Pci il referendum era una jattura". Sempre dai microfoni di Radio Radicale, intervistato sulla sentenza con cui la Corte Costituzionale ha bocciato la legge Fini-Giovanardi sulla droga, Pannella ricorda, inoltre, che "tra le firme raccolte dai Radicali sugli ultimi quesiti referendari c'e' stata, invece, anche quella di Silvio Berlusconi". "Nel 1993, quando vinse il nostro referendum sulla legge Jervolino-Vassalli, su cui avevamo raccolto le firme grazie al Coordinamento radicale antiproibizionista, si espressero a favore di un appello per il 'si'' anche personalita' della Lega come Calderoli, per non parlare di esponenti del Partito liberale come Alfredo Biondi e Paolo Battistuzzi. Ora che ci si interroga sulla eventuale 'staffetta' tra Letta e Renzi - e' la considerazione dello storico leader Radicale - c'e' davvero qualcuno in grado di dire quali siano le differenze tra visioni e obiettivi? Come ha detto giustamente il presidente Napolitano, e' il Pd che deve decidere, ma la verita' e' che il confronto e' sul nulla".

http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/1403779/Governo-Pannella-direzione-Pd-e--stata-un-disastro.html

Governo: Pannella, direzione Pd e' stata un disastro

Roma, 13 feb. (Adnkronos)

"L'andamento della direzione del Pd costituisce la prova di un disastro: non c'è nulla di quello che, nell'esercizio di supremo garante del diritto e dei diritti nel nostro Paese, il presidente della Repubblica ha indicato non come doveri ma obblighi rispetto ai quali non c'è un solo giorno da perdere". Lo ha detto Marco Pannella a Radio Radicale. "Non c'è in tutto il dibattito un solo accenno a questo, al fatto che il nostro stato è da decenni considerato dalle istanze democratiche internazionali e dalla giurisdizione - ha proseguito Pannella - uno stato tecnicamente in flagranza criminale rispetto a tutto il diritto positivo contemporaneo e della Costituzione italiana".  "E' un disastro (...) c'è un requiem che va registrato, quello che ha recitato il grande maieuta fiorentino, il compagno Matteo Renzi che ha rifiutato la firma ai dodici referendum civili, democratici, dei quali Berlusconi aveva pubblicamente dichiarato, salvo poi il suo partito fotterlo anche lui", conclude Pannella.

http://www.radioradicale.it/pd-pannella-direzione-e-stata-un-disastro

Domani (...) presenteremo formale incriminazione dello stato italiano per violazione di tutti i diritti positivi teoricamente vigenti , da quelli internazionale, a quello europeo a quello nazionale”. Lo ha detto questa sera a Radio Radicale Marco Pannella

behind grillo: bilderberg, aspen institute & amcham

.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/21/290090/italy-risks-new-round-of-destabilization/

Berlusconi targeted, overthrown by CIA?

Webster G. Tarpley
Feb 21, 2013

This coming Sunday and Monday, Italians will go to the polls to choose a new parliament and thus a new prime minister, while setting the stage for the election of a new president of the republic shortly thereafter.

Most indications are that the most numerous faction in the coming parliament, with just over one third of the votes, will be the Common Good coalition, composed of the Democratic Party (the remains of the old Italian Communist Party), the Left Ecology Freedom movement of Nichi Vendola, which includes various paleocommunists, and some smaller forces. This coalition is led by Pier Luigi Bersani, a colorless bureaucrat. Ironically, despite its leftist rhetoric, the Common Good is the formation most likely to continue the austerity policies which are currently tearing Italy apart.

Coming in second with almost 30% should be the center-right coalition around the People of Freedom, the party of the irrepressible former prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, joined by the Northern League of Umberto Bossi, a xenophobic group which also articulates the resentments of northern Italy against the south, the Mezzogiorno.

Another important leader is Giulio Tremonti, the former Minister of Economics and Finance. Berlusconi, a wealthy businessman and three-time prime minister, was most recently in power from 2008 to November 2011. Berlusconi’s fall had been prepared through a series of lurid revelations about his personal life, including an attack by the CIA document dump known as Wikileaks. Berlusconi’s second-place status represents a remarkable comeback, and the last polls show him closing on Bersani.

Third place with almost 20% is likely to belong to a new and unorthodox political formation, the Five Star Movement (5SM), where the dominant personality is the former Genoese comedian Beppe Grillo, a colorful and talented demagogue. The 5SM is anti-politician, anti-euro, anti-infrastructure, anti-tax, and anti-mainstream media. Like the GOP, they want to reduce the public debt, meaning they want deflation. Grillo proposes a guaranteed annual income for all Italians, a 30-hour work week, and a drastic reduction of energy consumption and of production. He demands free Wi-Fi for all. Without modern production, how can these benefits be provided?

Grillo wants to abort the infrastructure projects - like the new high-speed train tunnel between Turin and France and the bridge between Calabria and Sicily - upon which Italy’s economic future depends. He is long on petty bourgeois process reforms like term limits, media reform, corporate governance, and banning convicted felons from parliament, but short on defending the standard of living for working people. On a bizarre note, he has praised the British response to the 2008 banking crisis. As many as 100 members of the 5SM, many of them total political novices, and more than a few adventurers who have jumped on board Grillo’s bandwagon, may now enter parliament, with predictably destabilizing consequences. Grillo could be the vehicle for an Italian color revolution along the lines of Ukraine or Georgia.

In fourth place, with less than 10%, is expected to be the current prime minister of Italy, Mario Monti, a former eurocrat of the Brussels Commission who has led a brutal technocratic austerity regime since coming to power in November 2011 through a coup d’état sponsored by the International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank, and executed by Italian President Giorgio Napolitano with help from Mario Draghi at the European Central Bank.

Both Monti and Draghi are former employees of Goldman Sachs, the widely hated zombie bank. When Monti seized power, he was widely acclaimed as a savior and enjoyed an approval rating of 70%; his approval has now fallen to about 30%. Like Gorbachev, he is unpopular at home but remains the darling of foreign leaders. Even the London Financial Times is bearish on Monti, accusing him of starting his austerity regime when Italy was already in recession.

Among the also-rans are Civic Revolution of Antonio Ingroia, a merger of the Greens with Antonio Di Pietro’s anti-corruption forces left over from the “Clean Hands” movement of the early 1990s, which targeted politicians but did very little to attack the larger corruption of the Bank of Italy and the big banks.

Another smaller list is Stop the Decline, led by the strange Oscar Giannino, backed up by a clique of US-educated professors of neo-liberal austerity economics. This list was paid to poach votes from Berlusconi. But now Giannino has been hit with a scandal based on his false claim of holding a master’s degree from a Chicago university.

The Italian political landscape is extremely fragmented, so public opinion polls - which cannot by law be published after February 8 - are more than usually unreliable. Under the Italian system, the political force which comes in first gets 54% of the seats in the lower house. Multi-party coalitions must get 10% to enter parliament. If the 10% is not achieved, the individual parties fall back under the rule which prescribes that parties not in a coalition must get 4% to win seats.

Italian politics, which for many decades after World War II had eight parties, has undergone massive Weimarization, especially since Monti’s coup. There are now no fewer than 25 political parties or organizations. This time around, there are four new parties, including those of Monti and Grillo. Two parties, including one led by Gianfranco Fini, the president of the Chamber of Deputies, and another by former Defense Minister Ignazio LaRussa, have split from Berlusconi. Two parties have also split from the Democratic Party, including the libertarian Radicals of Marco Pannella and Emma Bonino.

Banks hope for Bersani-Monti regime to continue austerity

The banking community, as represented by Mediobanca and others, is hoping for a Bersani-Monti coalition government to continue the savage austerity policies that Monti’s technocratic ministers have been imposing over the last 15 months. Bersani’s party and its predecessors have always seen their business model as begging the big banks to let them join the government, in exchange for which they will break the labor movement, suppress strikes, and impose budget austerity across the board. Incredibly, Bersani has been one of Monti’s warmest admirers. Bersani has not learned the lesson of Weimar Germany, when the Social Democrats (SPD) supported Hunger Chancellor Heinrich Brüning’s austerity program, wrecking the economy and the political system, and opening the door to National Socialism.

Mediobanca concedes that a Bersani-Monti tandem will be weak, and might need more support from smaller parties, leading to instability with early elections likely in the short term. Although the Common Good will have a majority in the Chamber of Deputies due to the majority bonus, there is no bonus in the Senate, where most members are directly elected by winning their districts. This is where the Common Good plus Monti may fall short.

Some might say that Italians can choose among a genocidal professor, a party hack, a genial satyr, and a scurrilous clown. How did the current situation arise?

During the Obama years, the first goal of the US intelligence community has been to destroy the Berlusconi government, for geopolitical reasons. Based on Berlusconi’s close personal relationship with Putin, he had secured for Italy an important role in the construction of the Nordstream pipeline, and an even more important participation in the Southstream pipeline -- both projects which Washington wanted to sabotage.

Berlusconi also made overtures to President Lukashenko of Belarus, much demonized in Foggy Bottom. The State Department wants to turn the European Union against Putin’s Russia, but the pro-US eurocrats and eurogarchs complained that Italy was becoming an advocate for Moscow within the Brussels bureaucracy. Lucia Annunziata wrote in La Stampa of May 25, 2009 under the title “The Shadow of a Plot” that center-right circles believed US-Italian relations were being hurt by “the excessive closeness of premier Silvio Berlusconi to the Russian Prime Minister Putin.”

The London Economist commented: Italy is one of the countries which have gotten much closer to Moscow than Washington desires, starting from the [August 2008] crisis in Georgia. By 2010 at the latest, US agencies were fully mobilized to overthrow Berlusconi.

State Department campaign to topple Berlusconi, 2008-2011

One part of this effort involved Gianfranco Fini, the former neofascist whom Berlusconi had made President of the Chamber of Deputies in 2008. Fini had been a member of the official neofascist party. In July 2010, after a faction fight, Fini was expelled from Berlusconi’s party, managing to take with him 34 deputies and 10 senators in a move which weakened, but did not destroy, Berlusconi’s governing majority. It was later revealed that Fini’s actions had been closely coordinated with the US embassy in Rome.

During 2009, David Thorne took over as US ambassador to Italy. Thorne was a Yale roommate of John Kerry, who has just become US Secretary of State. Thorne, like Kerry and the Bushes, is a member of the infamous Skull and Bones secret society, and is the twin brother of Kerry’s ex-wife. Thorne’s first meeting on becoming ambassador was with Fini, and not with Berlusconi. Fini is also reported to be a close personal friend of Nancy Pelosi, when Speaker of the House had the same job as Fini. (Il Fatto Quotidiano, September 15, 2010)

Fini, true to form, is now a part of the pro-austerity With Monti For Italy coalition. Bur despite his US backing, Fini may be close to the last hurrah. He had rented a theater in Agrigento, Sicily for a major appearance, but found the premises empty except for a few dozen supporters.

When the Fini operation failed, the CIA turned to exposés of the wild parties at Berlusconi’s mansion in Arcore, near Milan, feeding an immense international propaganda campaign. In December 2009, Berlusconi was struck on the face and seriously injured by an alabaster model of the Milan Cathedral. Italian judges, some of them politically motivated, pursued scores of legal actions against Berlusconi. One of these judges, Ilda Boccassini, was a sympathizer of the left countergang Lotta Continua well into the 1980s. Wikileaks documents made public in December 2010 confirmed the deep hostility of the State Department to Berlusconi.

Giorgio Napolitano, Henry Kissinger’s favorite communist

The coup that finally ousted Berlusconi in November 2011 was managed by Giorgio Napolitano, the president of the Italian Republic and thus the head of state. The Italian presidency has often been almost a ceremonial office, but it acquires significant powers when governments fall, which is frequently. Napolitano has vastly expanded these powers.

For most of his life, Napolitano has been an active member of the Italian Communist Party. He belonged to the right-wing faction around Giorgio Amendola - Napolitano was known as Skinny Giorgio, and Amendola as Fat Giorgio. It has recently been revealed that between 1977 and 1981, Napolitano conducted secret meetings with the Carter administration’s ambassador to Rome, Richard Gardner of the Trilateral Commission. These meetings only became public knowledge in 2005, with the publication of Gardner’s memoirs, Mission Italy. This puts Napolitano in contact with the US embassy during the kidnapping and murder of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, in whose death US intelligence agencies played an important role.

Henry Kissinger once called Napolitano “my favorite communist.” Business Week referred to him as the point man in Italy for the New York Council on Foreign Relations. The Italian press has dubbed him King George. But thanks in large part to Putin’s support for the Italian prime minister, it took the CIA two years to overthrow Berlusconi. In the end, only economic and financial warfare, plus Napolitano’s treachery, would prove decisive. 
 

Mario Monti: Bilderberg, trilateral, Goldman Sachs

In October 2011, the Yale-educated economist Mario Monti, a eurogarch of the Brussels Commission from 1994 to 1999, was president of the Bocconi University of Milan, a business school. He had worked on the Santer, Prodi, and Barroso commissions in Brussels. He was and remains the European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller, as well as a member of the secretive Bilderberg group. He was also a consultant for Goldman Sachs and Coca-Cola.

While Berlusconi was under siege by the Anglo-Americans, Napolitano plotted for months to make Monti the kingpin of a regime of technocrats - supposedly nonpartisan experts who did not represent any political party and could therefore more readily impose pitiless austerity. This was a formula the International Monetary Fund had been trying to force on Italy for 30 years and more.

A modern coup d’état using spreads, not tanks

The indispensable ingredient in the Napolitano-Monti coup was a broad-based and coordinated attack on Italian government bonds by Wall Street, the City of London, and their European satellites. This attack involved threats by ratings agencies to downgrade Italian debt, backed up by massive derivatives speculation against the bonds using credit default swaps (CDS) to increase the interest-rate premium - or spread - paid by Italy compared to Germany in borrowing. (The agencies were later investigated for fraud by Judge Michele Ruggiero of Trani.) Of course, the European Central Bank could at any time have wiped out the speculators by purchasing large quantities of Italian bonds in the open market and driving up the price.

But Napolitano and Monti knew that they could count on the new boss of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi to sabotage the Italian bonds. Draghi took over from the Frenchman Trichet in the night of Halloween 2011, and the attack on Italy began immediately on November 1.

During the summer of 2011, Berlusconi had resisted demands for draconian austerity, perhaps because he knew that Italy was too big to fail and that sooner or later Wall Street and London would have to back off. He was vilified for a lack of civic virtue. During the final attack on Berlusconi, Italian bond yields reached 7%, and the famous spread peaked at 575 basis points over the rate on German bonds. The New York Times cited reports that Draghi “had restricted… purchases of Italian bonds to put more pressure on Mr. Berlusconi to quit” and to extort more austerity from Italy. “If so, the pressure worked.” (NYT, November 9, 2011) The parliament was in panic.

On November 8, 2011 Napolitano appointed Monti, who had never been elected to any public office, as senator for life. This also meant immunity from prosecution for life, unless and until the Italian Senate voted to take this parliamentary immunity away. Also on November 8, Berlusconi concluded that he had lost his parliamentary majority. On November 10, 2011, the new senator for life Monti met with Napolitano at the Quirinal Palace for a two-hour discussion of economic “growth” by means of “structural reforms.” Napolitano still ridiculed rumors that he would make Monti the next prime minister. On the same day, Obama called Napolitano to assure him of US support in his management of the post-Berlusconi crisis. Just this month, Napolitano visited Obama with the obvious goal of getting more US support for Monti.

Berlusconi and other politicians like the anti-corruption activist Di Pietro were pressing for early elections to let the Italian people show what they wanted. But Napolitano was intent on carrying out his cold coup: “markets trumped traditional democratic processes,” wrote the New York Times on December 2, 2011. On November 13, Napolitano officially charged Monti with forming a government of non-party austerity technocrats, and Monti won a vote of confidence in the Chamber of Deputies by 556 to 61. Only the Northern League opposed Monti. This lopsided vote recalled a similar one carried out in the resort town of Vichy, France on July 10,1940 in which the National Assembly voted dictatorial powers for Marshal Pétain, effectively replacing the Third French Republic with a fascist regime. On that day, the vote -- managed by the infamous Pierre Laval -- had been 569 in favor, 80 against, and 18 abstentions.

Monti’s cabinet was composed of little-known figures, mainly from northern Italy, with Catholic, academic, or military backgrounds. One who has become infamous is Labor Minister Elsa Fornero, a professor who cried in public over her own cruelty when she presented her anti-retiree measures. There was the impression that the Monti cabinet were bit players reading lines that had been written by the IMF and the ECB.

Presidential powers from von Hindenburg to Napolitano

Napolitano was following in the footsteps of German Reich President Field Marshal von Hindenburg, who pushed aside the Reichstag (parliament) as the maker of governments when he named the austerity enforcer Heinrich Brüning as chancellor in March, 1930. After this point, no German government could obtain a governing majority, and all relied on Hindenburg’s emergency powers to stay in office -- including von Papen, von Schleicher, and finally Hitler in the first weeks of 1933. These were all called presidential governments, as Monti’s has been. By relegating the parliament to irrelevance, von Hindenburg contributed mightily to the atrophy and death of German democracy.

At the time, I called attention to the obvious coup d’état by Goldman Sachs and its allies, with a similar operation in Greece around the same time. Paolo Becchi, Professor of the Philosophy of Jurisprudence at the University of Genoa, noted that Napolitano “telling a technocrat from Brussels to form a government is nothing but a coup d’état ordered by powerful forces, partly from outside Italy, and managed by the President of the Republic.” Up until now, the bankers had been willing to govern indirectly, masking their power with the faces of politicians.

Now, the bankers wanted to seize power directly: “But it was necessary at least to keep up appearances. With an attitude which is typical of all the followers of Cataline [who attempted a coup against the Roman Republic in the time of Cicero], Monti’s main concern was to seize power with legal means.” Becchi added: “In the moment when political power is brought down to the level of financial power, a coup d’état is always possible, and so easy to carry out that almost nobody realizes it.” (Libero, December 1, 2011)

Monti’s economic measures aimed at shifting an initial €24 billion over three years of the cost of the economic depression away from bankers and speculators and onto the shoulders of working people. The minimum of years on the job to obtain a pension was raised from 40 years to 42 years and one month for men. The minimum age for old-age pensions was raised from 60 years to 62 and then to 66 in 2018. Increases in pension payments would generally be frozen. The property tax (IMU) was increased by 30% and extended to resident homeowners, who had previously been exempt. The value added tax (IVA) was raised from 21% to 23%. As camouflage, a luxury tax on yachts, private planes, and Ferraris was introduced. Only the Northern League and Di Pietro voted against these measures.

Then came a push to make Italy a hire and fire society on the American model, striking down protections that had been in place for decades. Taxi drivers, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, and notaries were deprived of minimum fees for their services, and their professions were deregulated.

Thanks to Monti’s measures, the Italian unemployment rate has risen from 8.5% in November 2011 to 11.2% in February 2013, the worst in 13 years. Almost 3 million Italians are out of work, with 644,000 or 29% of them laid off on Monti’s watch. Youth unemployment is now at an all-time record of 37%. By December of 2012, industrial production, after falling every months since Monti took power, was down by 7% compared to December 2011.

Grillo: Endless referendums, endless instability

The early Northern League told Italians and foreigners and southerners were responsible for their problems. Grillo blames politicians and political parties. Bersani’s support for Monti’s austerity, combined with Berlusconi’s personal excesses, has focused new attention on the comedian Beppe Grillo and his 5SM. Grillo may well emerge as the big winner of these elections. Grillo has a recent precedent: the comedian Guglielmo Giannini, who in 1944 founded the Man In the Street (uomo qualunque) movement, an Italian precursor of French poujadisme.

Giannini appealed to the angry postwar petty bourgeoisie with populist themes of anti-politics, anti-politicians, anti-corruption, anti-government, deregulation, and anti-taxes. Grillo uses many of the techniques of Giannini, such as obscene and abusive slogans, or mocking the names of his opponents: for Grillo, Monti becomes Rigor Montis.

Grillo, ignoring the lessons of the Weimar Republic, recommends hyper-democracy as a method of governing. The basic approach to all controversies is to organize a referendum. This can work at the level of local government, where some of Grillo’s supporters started, but might lead to chaos if applied nationwide. Grillo wants a referendum on whether Italy should stay in the euro, an idea which appeals in Italy to a few ultra-lefts, but mainly to reactionaries. Grillo (like the framers of Weimar) focuses on the need of government to make sure that all voices receive representation, but neglects the equally imperative need on to promote majorities capable of deciding issues and exercising power.

Grillo mayor fails to solve pre-school issue in Parma

The first big success for Grillo came in Parma, traditionally the turf of the PCI/Democratic Party. Here Grillo’s candidate took over as mayor early in 2012. Within less than a year, Grillo was greeted by protests over the rising cost of living, especially for the mayor’s raising of the price of pre-school for working families, while eliminating multi-child discounts. Up to this point, Grillo had enjoyed all the advantages of the Muslim Brotherhood under Mubarak, or of Jesse Ventura running for governor of Minnesota, meaning the ability to criticize without any responsibility.

When confronted with an attack on his own record, Grillo responded with petulance, suggesting he cannot take criticism. Grillo has been declining television interviews, preferring to give speeches to large crowds in the piazza of many cities. But observers note that this is also a way to avoid probing questions from hostile journalists. In any case, big crowds do not necessarily indicate election majorities. Grillo portrays himself as a victim of the mass media, even though enjoys extensive coverage in the current phase. He is rich, but campaigns in a mini-van to increase his populist appeal.

According to Elisabetta Gualmini and Piergiorgio Corbetta in their survey of the Grillo movement entitled Il Partito del Grillo (Bologna: Il Mulino/Istituto Cattaneo, 2013), about 60% of Grillo’s support comes from angry, male, sometimes unemployed generation X technicians, IT and software personnel, and small businessmen born between 1969 and 1978, and thus aged between 35 and 44. There are few pensioners, few housewives, few women of any background. Over 50% describe themselves as extreme left, left, or center-left, while about 30% self-described as center-right to right. Grillo represents a protest movement that cuts across the other political parties.

An ominous symptom is the dictatorship of Grillo inside the party. In recent weeks, Grillo has ousted a regional councilor from Emilia-Romagna for complaining on television of the lack of democracy inside the 5SM. He also expelled a Bologna city councilwoman for taking part in Ballaró, a widely viewed television talk show, after Grillo banned such appearances, presumably to keep the spotlight on himself. Previously, he had expelled three candidates from Bologna and a member of the Ferrara city council. Grillo considers the 5SM is a trademark which he owns. The dissidents are generally excommunicated by means of a tweet. Does Grillo write the tweets, blog, scripts, and speeches by himself, or is he controlled and supported by a syndicate?

Grillo’s Svengalis: Casaleggio associates

Some say Grillo is a synthetic candidate. According to published accounts, Grillo’s Svengali and teleprompter is political consultant Gianroberto Casaleggio, 58, of Casaleggio Associates, a company specialized in political and media consulting and strategies for Internet marketing - more or less the methods which have put Grillo where he is today.

Casaleggio and Grillo confer by telephone on average three times a day. Casaleggio, like Grillo, sports the hair style of an aging freak, trying to look like John Lennon, but unlike Grillo usually wears a suit. (Tommaso Caldarelli, Giornalettismo, May 25, 2012) Casaleggio’s office is near Piazza Scala in Milan. The dominant partner at Casaleggio Associates is Enrico Sassoon, currently the director of the Italian edition of the Harvard Business Review.

Sassoon has worked for Pirelli, and is currently a leading light of the American Chamber of Commerce in Italy. Sassoon is also on the board of the Italian branch of the Aspen Institute, where his colleagues are mostly members of the Bilderberg group. Giampietro Zanetti, a Berlusconi backer, writes in his blog: “Who is behind Grillo? Bilderberg and the Aspen Institute!”

Casaleggio, who once advised Di Pietro and Olivetti, believes that “by 2018 the world will be divided into: the West with direct democracy and free access to the Internet, and the enemies of freedom like China-Russia-Middle East.” In 2020 there will be a new world war, with the population reduced by a billion, then catharsis, and finally rebirth in the name of Gaia, and world government.” (Marco Alfieri, La Stampa, May 26, 2012) Is this really what Grillo’s voters want?

Grillo and Casaleggio are the authors of a book called We Are At War - meaning that Grillo is the Guy Fawkes or Ludendorff of a war against political parties as such. The need to destroy political parties is one of the favorite themes of various disinformation channels of the US intelligence community, who see this as part of the effort to smash the national states and impose the Empire. A coincidence?

In 2012, the big political news from Europe was the emergence of Alexis Tsipras and Syriza to fight austerity in Greece with program, leadership, organization, and strategy, and not with utopias of participatory democracy. Grillo is the opposite of Syriza on most points, meaning that Italy now risks a new round of destabilization. Which method will prevail? 

italian top judge imposimato: icc to investigate 911

.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012-September---Imposimato-letter.pdf

http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-of-italys-supreme-court-to-refer-911-crimes-to-international-criminal-court/

President of Italy’s Supreme Court To Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court

Journal of 9/11 Studies
September 2012

Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and a
former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations. He is
the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and
related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy.


The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it briefly, the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.

Italy too was a victim of the “strategia della tensione” of the CIA, enacted in Italy from the time of the Portella della Ginestra massacre in Sicily in 1947 until 1993.

There is much evidence of this strategy, both circumstantial and scientific.

The reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), November 20, 2005, set forth the following conclusions. The airplanes that struck each of the twin towers caused a breach as well as an explosion evidenced by a giant fireball. The remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the fires deformed the building structures and both towers collapsed completely from top to bottom. Very little that was of any size remained after these events except steel as well as aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors.

World Trade Center 7 also collapsed--in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. The final NIST report claimed that the plane strikes against the twin towers were responsible for all three building collapses: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.

The NIST report does not analyze the actual nature of the collapses. According to experts at the Toronto Hearings (Sept. 8-11, 2011), the collapses had features that indicate controlled explosions. I agree with architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, both highly experienced professionals, who have arrived at their conclusions through reliable tests, scientific proof, and the visual testimony of people above suspicion, including firefighters and victims. The authoritative theologian David Ray Griffin has described very precisely why the hypothesis of controlled demolition should be taken into consideration. Various witnesses heard bursts of explosions.

According to NIST the collapse of Building 7 was due to fires provoked by the collapse of the twin towers. Chemist and independent researcher Kevin Ryan, however, has demonstrated that NIST gave contradictory versions of the collapse of Building 7. In a preliminary report NIST declared that WTC7 was destroyed because of fires provoked by diesel fuel stored in the building, while in a second report this fuel was no longer considered the cause of the building’s collapse. Additional comments on the NIST version of events have been made by David Chandler, another expert witness at Toronto Hearings. Despite NIST’s claim of three distinct phases of collapse, Chandler pointed out that many available videos show that for about two and a half seconds the acceleration of the building cannot be distinguished from freefall. NIST has been obliged to agree with this empirical fact as pointed out by Chandler, and now understandable by everyone.

Peter Dale Scott, another witness at the Hearings, demonstrated that there was a systematic CIA pattern of withholding important information from the FBI, even when the FBI would normally be entitled to it. Furthermore, there is additional evidence against George Tenet and Tom Wilshire. According to the former White House chief of antiterrorism, Richard Clarke (interview given on French and German TV as part of a documentary by Fabrizio Calvi and Christopf Klotz, August 31, 2011 as well as the interview with Calvi and Leo Sisti, “il fatto quotidiano”, Aug. 30, 2011) the CIA was aware of the imminent attack of 9/11.

Moreover, since 1999 the CIA had investigated Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi, both Saudis who were associated with the American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon. The CIA had been informed that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi had arrived in the USA in early 2000. It is legitimate to deduce that Tenet, chief of the CIA, and Wilshire, according to Peter Dale Scott a “key figure” in Alec Station blocked the efforts of two FBI agents—Doug Miller and Mark Rossini—to notify the FBI center that one of the participants in the Kuala Lumpur meeting, al-Mihdhar, got a US visa through the United States consulate in Jeddah. Professor Scott, basing himself on Kevin Fenton’s research, mentions 35 different occasions when the hijackers were protected in this fashion, from January of 2000 to September 5, 2001. With reference to the earlier of these incidents, the motive of this protection was evidently, according to Fenton, “to cover a CIA operation that was already in progress.”

Further circumstantial evidence against Tenet and Wilshire is the following. On July 12, 2001 Osama bin Laden was in American Hospital in Dubai. He was visited by a CIA agent. This information was given to Le Figaro, which also reported that bin Laden had been operated on in this hospital, having arrived from Quetta, Pakistan. This information was confirmed by Radio France International, which disclosed the name of the agent who met bin Laden—Larry Mitchell. Tenet and Wilshire, aware of the presence of bin Laden in the United Arab Emirates, failed to have him arrested and extradited, although FBI and CIA documents held him responsible for massacres in Kenya and Tanzania.

Insider trading is further strong evidence against the CIA, FBI and the US government. Articles by Professor Paul Zarembka, as well as by Kevin Ryan and others, prove such insider trading took place in the days immediately prior to the attacks. Yet this insider trading has been denied by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission.

Additional evidence against the CIA and the US administration is the following. Atta, at least since May 2000, was under CIA surveillance in Germany, according to the 9/11 Commission, both because he was accused since 1986 of attempts against Israel and because he had been surprised while purchasing great quantities of chemical products for use in explosives in Frankfurt (The Observer, Sept. 30, 2001). He was investigated by the Egyptian Secret Service and his cellular phone tapped. On November of 1999 Mohammed Atta left Hamburg, went to Karachi, Pakistan and then to Kandahar. Here he met bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Saeed (Homeland Security Global Security.org, “Movements of Mohammed Atta”). After June 2000 the USA continued to monitor Atta, intercepting his conversations with Sheikh Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the director of 9/11, who lived in Pakistan.

Strong evidence that the CIA was aware of Atta’s irregular movements from the USA to Europe and within the USA is the declassified CIA document sent by the Agency to G.W. Bush (President’s Daily Brief). This document, dated August 6, 2001, says: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” It continues:

“Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the United States. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, and ‘bring the fighting to America.’

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a foreign intelligence service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad operative told an agent of a foreign intelligence service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike….

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

This document proves that the CIA, FBI, as well as President Bush, knew by August 6, 2001, who had operative access: Atta. No one enjoyed such access to the US as Atta. But the CIA, FBI and Bush did nothing to stop him.

I have collected in Italy evidence that the Iraq War was decided on by the U.S. government before the 9/11 attacks with the help of the Italian Secret Service. According to Michel Chossudovsky, the 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for war, having had as background the many years of CIA creation of, and support for, the terrorist network now known as al Qaeda. Today there is a danger of a new “preventive war” against Iran by the USA. This could be terrible for the people of the world and could even destroy a large part of humanity.

The only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the best evidence concerning the involvement of specific individuals in 9/11 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and ask him to investigate according to the articles 12, 13, 15 and 17, letters a and b, of the Statute of the ICC, recalling also the preamble of the Statute:

Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and the well being of the world,
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,
Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and
thus to contribute to the prosecution of such crimes,
Recalling that the duty of every state to exercise its jurisdiction over those
responsible for international crimes, …

Ferdinando Imposimato

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth Member to Refer 9/11 to International Criminal Court

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.antimafiaduemila.com/2012091138825/crisi/imposimato-a-11-anni-da-quell11-settembre-era-strategia-della-tensione.html

Imposimato: a 11 anni da quell'11 settembre: era Strategia della Tensione

di Ferdinando Imposimato

11 settembre 2012

Gli attentati dell'11/9 sono stati un'operazione globale di terrorismo di Stato consentita dall'amministrazione degli USA, che sapeva già dell’azione ma è rimasta intenzionalmente non reattiva al fine di fare la guerra contro l'Afghanistan e l'Iraq. Per dirla in breve, gli eventi dell'11/9 erano un caso di Strategia della Tensione messa in atto dai poteri politici ed economici negli Stati Uniti per perseguire vantaggi in capo all'industria petrolifera e delle armi.

Anche l'Italia è stata una vittima della "Strategia della Tensione" della CIA, attuata in Italia dai tempi della strage di Portella della Ginestra, in Sicilia, nel 1947, fino al 1993.

Ci sono molte prove di una tale strategia, sia circostanziali che scientifiche. Le relazioni del National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), del 20 novembre 2005, hanno sancito le conclusioni di seguito esposte.

Gli aerei che hanno colpito ciascuna delle torri gemelle hanno causato tanto una breccia quanto un'esplosione evidenziata da una gigantesca palla di fuoco. Il carburante rimanente fluiva verso i piani inferiori, alimentando gli incendi. Il calore degli incendi deformava le strutture degli edifici così che entrambe le torri sono crollate completamente da cima a fondo. Molto poco è rimasto di quanto era di qualsiasi dimensione dopo questi eventi, a parte i frammenti in acciaio e in alluminio e i detriti polverizzati provenienti dai pavimenti in cemento. Anche l’edificio 7 del World Trade Center crollò: lo fece in un modo che risultava in contrasto con l'esperienza comune degli ingegneri.

Il rapporto finale del NIST ha affermato che gli attacchi aerei contro le torri gemelle erano la causa dei crolli per tutti e tre gli edifici: WTC1, WTC2 e WTC7.

Tutti e tre gli edifici sono crollati completamente, ma l'edificio 7 non fu colpito da un aereo. Il crollo totale del WTC7 ha violato l'esperienza comune ed era senza precedenti.

Il rapporto del NIST non analizza la reale natura dei crolli. Secondo gli esperti intervenuti nel corso delle Udienze di Toronto (“Toronto Hearings”, 8-11 settembre 2011), i crolli avevano caratteristiche che indicano esplosioni controllate. Sono d'accordo con l’architetto Richard Gage e l’ingegnere Jon Cole, entrambi professionisti di grande esperienza, che sono arrivati alle loro conclusioni attraverso test affidabili, prove scientifiche, e la testimonianza visiva di persone insospettabili, tra cui i vigili del fuoco e le vittime.

L'autorevole teologo David Ray Griffin ha descritto con grande precisione perché l'ipotesi di demolizione controllata dovrebbe essere presa in considerazione. Vari testimoni hanno sentito raffiche di esplosioni.

Secondo il NIST il crollo dell'edificio 7 è stato causato da incendi provocati dal crollo delle torri gemelle. Il chimico e ricercatore indipendente Kevin Ryan, tuttavia, ha dimostrato che il NIST ha dato versioni contraddittorie del crollo dell'edificio 7. In un rapporto preliminare del NIST dichiarava che il WTC7 fu distrutto a causa di incendi provocati da gasolio conservato nel palazzo, mentre in una seconda relazione questo combustibile non era più considerato come la causa del crollo dell'edificio. Ulteriori commenti sulla versione degli eventi data dal NIST sono stati formulati da David Chandler, un altro testimone esperto intervenuto nel corso delle Udienze di Toronto. Nonostante la presunzione del NIST in merito a tre distinte fasi di crollo, Chandler ha sottolineato che molti video disponibili dimostrano che per circa due secondi e mezzo l'accelerazione dell’edificio non può essere distinta da una caduta libera. Il NIST è stato costretto a concordare con con questo fatto empirico come sottolineato da Chandler, e ora comprensibile per chiunque.

Peter Dale Scott, un altro testimone alle Udienze di Toronto, ha dimostrato l'esistenza di un modello d’azione sistematico della CIA volto a bloccare importanti informazioni nei confronti dell'FBI, anche quando l'FBI avrebbe normalmente diritto di ottenerle. Inoltre, ci sono ulteriori elementi di prova contro George Tenet e Tom Wilshire. Secondo l'ex capo dell’antiterrorismo della Casa Bianca, Richard Clarke (intervista rilasciata alla televisione francese e tedesca come parte di un documentario di Fabrizio Calvi e Christopf Klotz ,31 agosto 2011, nonché l'intervista con Calvi e Leo Sisti, "Il Fatto Quotidiano ", 30 agosto 2011) la CIA era a conoscenza dell’imminente attacco dell’11/9.

Inoltre, dal 1999 la CIA aveva indagato Khalid al-Mihdhar e Nawaf al-Hamzi, entrambi sauditi, che sono stati associati con l'aereo della American Airlines che ha colpito il Pentagono. La CIA era stata informata che Khalid al-Mihdhar e Nawaf al-Hamzi erano arrivati negli Stati Uniti all'inizio del 2000. È legittimo dedurre che Tenet, capo della CIA, e Wilshire, secondo Peter Dale Scott una "figura chiave" nella Alec Station, bloccarono gli sforzi di due agenti dell'FBI, Doug Miller e Mark Rossini, intesi a notificare al centro FBI che uno dei partecipanti alla riunione di Kuala Lumpur, al-Mihdhar, aveva ottenuto un visto USA attraverso il consolato degli Stati Uniti a Jeddah. Il professor Scott, basandosi sulla ricerca di Kevin Fenton, cita 35 occasioni in cui i dirottatori sono stati protetti in questo modo, a partire dal gennaio del 2000 al 5 settembre 2001. Con riferimento al precedente di questi incidenti, il motivo di questa protezione era evidentemente, secondo Fenton, «per coprire un'operazione della CIA che era già in corso.»

Ulteriore prova indiziaria contro Tenet e Wilshire è la seguente. Il 12 luglio 2001 Osama bin Laden si trovava nell’ospedale americano di Dubai. Fu visitato da un agente della CIA. Questa informazione è stata data a Le Figaro, che ha anche riferito che bin Laden era stato operato in questo ospedale, essendo arrivato da Quetta (Pakistan). Questa informazione è stata confermata da Radio France International, che ha rivelato il nome dell'agente che ha incontrato bin Laden: Larry Mitchell. Tenet e Wilshire, consapevoli della presenza di bin Laden negli Emirati Arabi Uniti, non sono riusciti a farlo arrestare né estradare, anche se i documenti dell'FBI e della CIA lo ritenevano responsabile di massacri in Kenya e Tanzania.

L'insider trading è una forte ulteriore prova contro la CIA, l’FBI e il governo degli Stati Uniti.

Gli articoli del professor Paul Zarembka, così come da Kevin Ryan e altri, dimostrano che tali casi di insider trading hanno avuto luogo nei giorni immediatamente precedenti rispetto agli attentati. Eppure questi casi di insider trading sono stati negati dall'FBI e dalla Commissione d’inchiesta sull’11/9.

Ulteriore prova contro la CIA e l'amministrazione degli Stati Uniti è la seguente. Mohammed Atta, almeno a partire dal maggio 2000, era sotto sorveglianza della CIA in Germania, secondo la Commissione sull’11/9, sia perché era accusato sin dal 1986 di attentati contro Israele, sia perché era stato sorpreso mentre acquistava grandi quantità di prodotti chimici per l'uso in esplosivi a Francoforte (The Observer, 30 settembre 2001). È stato indagato dal servizio segreto egiziano e il suo telefono cellulare era sotto controllo. Nel novembre del 1999 Mohammed Atta lasciò Amburgo, andò a Karachi, in Pakistan, e poi a Kandahar. Qui ha incontrato bin Laden e lo sceicco Omar Saeed (secondo la rivista specializzata in questioni di sicurezza interna GlobalSecurity.org, alla voce "Movements of Mohammed Atta"). Dopo giugno 2000 gli USA hanno continuato a monitorare Atta, intercettando le sue conversazioni con Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considerato il regista del 9/11, che ha vissuto in Pakistan.

Una forte prova del fatto che la CIA era a conoscenza dei movimenti irregolari di Atta dagli Stati Uniti verso l'Europa e all’interno degli Stati Uniti è il documento declassificato della CIA inviato dall'Agenzia a G.W Bush (President’s Daily Brief – Ndt: “relazione breve giornaliera per il presidente”). Questo documento, del 6 agosto 2001, dice: «Bin Laden determinato a colpire in USA.» E continua: "relazioni di provenienza clandestina, di governi stranieri, e dei media indicano che bin Laden sin dal 1997 ha voluto condurre attacchi terroristici negli Stati Uniti. Bin Laden ha inteso in interviste a televisioni statunitensi nel 1997 e nel 1998 che i suoi seguaci avrebbero seguito l'esempio dell’attentatore del World Trade Center Ramzi Yousef, e avrebbero “portato i combattimenti in America”.»

Dopo gli attacchi missilistici degli Stati Uniti sulla sua base in Afghanistan nel 1998, bin Laden disse ai seguaci che voleva infliggere una rappresaglia a danno di Washington, secondo un servizio di intelligence straniero. Un membro operativo egiziano della Jihad islamica ha rivelato a un agente di un servizio segreto straniero, nel frattempo, che bin Laden aveva intenzione di sfruttare l'accesso operativo agli Stati Uniti per organizzare un attacco terroristico ...

Una fonte clandestina ha affermato nel 1998, che una cellula di bin Laden a New York stava reclutando giovani musulmani americani per gli attentati.

Questo documento dimostra che la CIA, l’FBI, così come il presidente Bush, conoscevano già dal 6 agosto 2001 chi aveva un accesso operativo: Atta. Nessuno ha goduto di un tale accesso negli Stati Uniti quanto Atta. Ma la CIA, l’FBI e Bush non hanno fatto nulla per fermarlo.

In Italia ho raccolto prove che la guerra in Iraq è stata decisa dal governo degli Stati Uniti prima degli attacchi dell'11/9 con l'aiuto dei servizi segreti italiani. Secondo Michel Chossudovsky, gli attacchi dell'11/9 sono stati usati come pretesto per la guerra, avendo avuto come sfondo i molti anni in cui si è avuta la creazione e il sostegno da parte della CIA della rete terroristica ora conosciuta come al-Qa’ida. Oggi c'è il pericolo di una nuova "guerra preventiva" contro l'Iran da parte degli Stati Uniti. Questo potrebbe essere terribile per la gente di tutto il mondo e potrebbe anche distruggere una gran parte dell'umanità.

L'unica possibilità per avere giustizia è quello di presentare le migliori prove relative al coinvolgimento di singoli individui nei fatti dell’11/9 al Procuratore della Corte penale internazionale chiedendogli di indagare in base agli articoli 12, 13, 15 e 17, lettere a e b, dello Statuto della Corte penale internazionale, ricordando anche il preambolo della Statuto:

• Riconoscere che tali gravi reati minacciano la pace, la sicurezza e il benessere del mondo,

• Affermare che i reati più gravi che sono motivo di allarme per la comunità internazionale nel suo insieme non debbano rimanere impuniti e che la loro repressione debba essere efficacemente garantita mediante provvedimenti adottati a livello nazionale ed attraverso il rafforzamento della cooperazione internazionale,

• Essere determinati a porre fine all'impunità degli autori di tali crimini e quindi di contribuire al perseguimento di tali reati,

• Ricordare il dovere di ogni Stato di esercitare la propria giurisdizione nei confronti dei responsabili di reati internazionali ...
  
  

Ferdinando Imposimato, settembre 2012.

Fonte: http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012-September---Imposimato-letter.pdf.

Il testo in inglese è stato trascritto anche QUI.

Traduzione per Megachip a cura di Pino Cabras.

Ferdinando Imposimato è presidente onorario aggiunto della Suprema Corte di Cassazione ed ex senatore e deputato. A lungo ha fatto parte della Commissione bicamerale Antimafia.

Da magistrato ha istruito alcuni tra i più importanti processi sul terrorismo (il caso Aldo Moro, l'attentato al papa Giovanni Paolo II, il caso Bachelet). Ha scoperto la “pista bulgara” e altre connessioni terroristiche internazionali. Innumerevoli i processi contro mafia e camorra. Tra gli altri, ha istruito il caso Michele Sindona e il processo alla Banda della Magliana.

È autore o co-autore di sette libri sul terrorismo internazionale, la corruzione statale, e di questioni connesse, nonché Grand'Ufficiale dell'Ordine al merito della Repubblica Italiana.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reopen911.info/News/2011/11/15/justice-le-juge-italien-imposimato-explique-comment-et-pourquoi-il-va-denoncer-ladministration-bush-et-la-cia-devant-la-cour-penale-internationale-de-la-haye-video/

video in italiano at link with french subtitles

Imposimato sur Pandora TV : "11 Septembre : jusqu’à aujourd’hui aucun procès, aucune vérité. Nous, nous allons essayer."

publié sur Megachip, le 4 nov. 2011

Traduction GV pour ReOpenNews

Lors d’une interview effectuée par le journaliste et ex-député européen Giulietto Chiesa sur PandoraTV.it, le Président honoraire de la Cour de Cassation Ferdinando Imposimato confirme son intention de présenter une plainte devant la Cour pénale internationale de La Haye afin de pouvoir lancer un procès à charge contre les institutions qui ont contribué à la tragédie du 11 septembre 2001.

M. Imposimato avait déjà annoncé ce projet retentissant. Mais pratiquement aucun média ne s’en est fait l’écho jusqu’ici. Il en [a de nouveau] parlé à l’occasion de la conférence de presse [qui a réuni ZERO journalistes et ZERO parlementaires, hormis les 3 qui l’organisaient – NdT] le 3 novembre dernier, en compagnie de l’ex-sénateur US Mike Gravel, celui qui révéla devant le Congrès américain les Pentagon Papers, sorte de Wikileaks des années 60 concernant les secrets de la guerre du Vietnam.

Le magistrat italien a participé, en tant que juge d’instruction, aux procès d’affaires de terrorisme parmi les plus importantes de l’histoire italienne, comme celle de l’affaire Aldo Moro, ou de la tentative d’assassinat contre Jean-Paul II, révélant pour le coup l’interférence diffuse entre le terrorisme en Italie et les services secrets de différents pays, y compris ceux israéliens et russes.

Dans cette interview conduite par Giulietto Chiesa, Imposimato insiste sur l’insuffisance absolue des enquêtes officielles menées jusqu’à aujourd’hui sur les attentats du 11/9, sans aucun respect des règles « standards » communément appliquées lors des « Dual Process » anglo-saxons. Le magistrat évoque le cas de l’effondrement des Tours, au cours duquel ces dernières ce sont littéralement désintégrées en quelques secondes, un phénomène analysé officiellement uniquement par des agences spécialisées liées au gouvernement US, comme le National Institute of Standards & technology (NIST).

« Pour des cas comme celui-là – explique Imposimato – dans n’importe quel pays du monde, d’abord il y a un procès public, contre les responsables », autrement dit le vaste réseau des complices des présumés pirates. « Au cours de ce procès public, il faudrait donner la possibilité aux victimes, aux familles de victimes du 11/9, d’apporter leur contribution, leur savoir, au travers de leurs propres experts. Car d’après les règles du "Dual process of Law", qui ont été définies justement aux États-Unis, un pays de "Common Law", il ne faut pas que ces vérifications soient faites par une seule autorité, celle qui défend l’État, qui est potentiellement responsable de ces faits, mais qu’elles soient menées de façon contradictoire. D’un côté, vous avez l’expert du Ministère public, du prosecutor, et de l’autre vous avez l’expert nommé par les familles de victimes .»

Chiesa demande à Imposimato s’il ne lui semble pas étrange qu’à part le procès de Moussaoui – lequel n’a pas participé aux attentats puisque le 11 septembre 2001 il était en prison – aucun procès n’ait eu lieu concernant cette tragédie. « C’est l’indice d’une volonté de dissimuler les attentats qui ne s’est pas vue ailleurs dans le monde. » s’insurge Imposimato, qui ajoute : « nous ne pouvons pas accepter une vérité qui nous vient du NIST. » Dans la suite de l’entretien, Imposimato réduit en miettes, juriquement parlant, les bribes d’investigations menées jusqu’à maintenant, comme les « aveux » extorqués sous la torture au cerveau présumé des attentats, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, qui sont parfaitement inutilisables lors d’un procès, quel qu’il soit.

Le magistrat, auteur du livre «Terrorismo internazionale, la verità nascosta » (Koiné, 2002) (Terrorisme international, la vérité cachée) explique que les règles de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) s’appliquent même aux pays qui n’ont pas ratifié la convention ni reconnu formellement sa juridiction : ce fut le cas, par exemple, pour la Libye de Kadhafi, et juridiquement parlant, c’est exactement la même chose pour l’Administration américaine. La plainte ne pourra donc pas être prise à la légère

TRANSCRIPT DE L’INTERVIEW DE FERDINANDO IMPOSIMATO par GIULIETTO CHIESA

Ferdinando Imposimato : En fait, je m’occupe du 11-Septembre depuis presque 11 ans. Paradoxalement, j’ai commencé à m’intéresser à la possibilité d’un attentat sur le territoire des États-Unis depuis 2000, pour la simple raison que j’avais lu dans plusieurs journaux ou documents des déclarations d’Oussama Ben Laden sur la possibilité d’un attentat sur le sol américain. Le 11 septembre 2001, je devais être aux USA, pour représenter une ONG qui s’occupe de lutte antidrogue, mais je n’y suis pas allé parce que je craignais que ne se produise précisément ce genre d’événement. Ça avait été annoncé plusieurs fois, je ne suis pas magicien, j’étudie simplement les indices et finalement je n’y suis pas allé. Je suis surpris que la Commission qui a enquêté sur les faits du 11/9, l’une des 2 commissions, ait dit que ces attentats furent une surprise. Comment peuvent-ils dire que ce fut une surprise si moi, modeste juge, ex-juge d’instruction du Tribunal de Rome, j’ai pu avoir cette sensation à partir des éléments qui émergeaient publiquement, et eux parlent de surprise, au moment où les autorités US avaient reçu une multitude d’informations qui laissaient entrevoir un attentat de ce type.

Giulietto Chiesa : Vous dites qu’il y a eu "Participation active à une tragédie" d’une partie des autorités.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Les faits sont les suivants : la CIA savait pertinemment que Mohammed Atta préparait des attentats, et la CIA suivait et surveillait Atta depuis 1998 en Allemagne, à Hambourg. Même la Commission reconnait ce fait. La CIA a pisté Mohammed Atta, au moyen d’écoutes téléphoniques en Allemagne jusqu’au 2 juin 2000. Mohammed Atta part alors de Hambourg pour Venice (Floride), et commence son entrainement à l’école de pilotage Huffman.

Ici, il faut évoquer une série de faits qui se sont produits : Mohammed Atta ne possédait pas de visa en règle de type M1, ce qu’il aurait dû avoir. Il a obtenu un visa du Consulat de Djeddah (Émirats Arabes Unis), lequel était géré par la CIA, comme l’ont dit plusieurs témoins. Donc la CIA contrôlait parfaitement toutes les personnes qui délivraient les visas. Cela constitue le "vice" de cette affaire, car au consulat de Djeddah, ont été fournis des visas et des passeports qui n’auraient pas dû l’être, puisqu’ils concernaient des terroristes qui avaient déjà été signalés comme terroristes par l’Arabie Saoudite. Ces individus sont partis en janvier 2001, le 15 janvier 2001, pour Los Angeles. La CIA le savait pertinemment, puisque c’est elle qui avait délivré les visas, vu qu’elle est présente au consulat de Djeddah, pourtant, la CIA n’a pas averti le FBI.

Giulietto Chiesa : Dr. Imposimato, excusez-moi, mais non seulement la CIA savait, mais le FBI savait aussi, puisque selon l’enquête officielle numéro 1, qui était secrète, mais que nous commençons à mieux connaître, ces documents sont parvenus à la 2e Commission, la Commission officielle sur le 11/9, et que mis à part Mohammed Atta, deux autres terroristes ont habité pendant 10 mois, à partir du 15 janvier 2001, à San Diego en Californie, chez un agent du FBI, Abdus Sattar Shaikh De plus, ils ont reçu de l’argent d’un autre agent du FBI, al-Bayoumi.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Attention, il faut faire la distinction. Certains agents du FBI ont dénoncé ces faits. L’un d’eux est Kenneth Williams, qui est cité dans le livre de Jesse Ventura. Il faut lire attentivement ces documents, dans lesquels il est écrit que des agents ont fait leur devoir en avertissant le siège. Le chef du FBI était alors Robert Mueller, je crois. Et bien, il existe une règle de droit internationale qui dit que si une autorité a connaissance d’actes qui sont sur le point de se produire, et qu’elle n’agit pas pour les empêcher, cette autorité, cette personne, ce sujet "participe" aux attentats. C’est écrit dans le Code pénal italien, article 40.

Ne pas empêcher un acte que le devoir demande d’empêcher équivaut à le perpétrer. Article 40 du Code pénal italien. On retrouve cette règle dans le Code pénal fédéral des États-Unis, qui parle de « causes », et qui s’applique aussi bien à la participation active qu’à celle par omission.

Tout cela en considérant la meilleure des hypothèses, à savoir que la CIA savait, mais n’a rien fait pour empêcher l’événement. Il faut aussi examiner, approfondir, une autre hypothèse, celle où la CIA aurait soutenu activement ces terroristes, car elle les a aidés en leur fournissant des visas alors qu’elle n’aurait pas dû, puisqu’il s’agissait de personnes déjà soupçonnées de terrorisme, et en leur permettant de demeurer sur le territoire des USA et de s’entrainer dans les écoles de pilotage, et là c’est un comportement actif. Nous avons donc d’un côté un comportement par omission, pour ne pas avoir empêché les attentats, bien qu’ils aient su à l’avance, et d’autre part un comportement actif, par la délivrance des visas, mais aussi par le financement de Mohamed Atta et des autres, à travers un certain Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, un individu bien connu de la CIA, un citoyen anglais qui était en contact avec l’ISI, les services secrets pakistanais, et le chef de l’ISI est précisément celui qui, d’après des informations provenant du FBI, aurait ordonné, le chef de l’ISI à ce Sheikh Omar, le versement de 120.000 dollars à Mohammed Atta.

Un an avant l’attaque contre les Tours Jumelles, [Atta] aurait reçu cette somme par l’intermédiaire d’une banque située aux Émirats arabes unis. Ceci est un fait reconnu, et qui a mené à la démission du chef de l’ISI. Mais d’après le Code pénal de n’importe quel pays, cette personne aurait dû être inculpée ! pour "complicité de crime". La connaissance du financement par le chef de l’ISI imposait à toute autorité judiciaire dans le monde d’inculper le chef de l’ISI de "complicité de crime", de "complicité morale".

Ce ne sont que des exemples pour montrer que sur ces faits, il fallait, et il faut investiguer, car ce sont des faits qui exigent une enquête de la part des autorités judiciaires américaines. Si ces autorités ne font pas cette enquête, quelqu’un d’autre devra le faire à leur place.

Giulietto Chiesa : Je voudrais vous poser une question : pourquoi selon vous la Commission sur le 11/9 n’a pratiquement pas abordé ces points.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Il y a visiblement eu une volonté de dissimuler ces faits extrêmement embarrassants. Je ne parle pas d’accusations génériques contre toute l’administration américaine, ou contre l’Amérique, je parle de faits précis qui concernent des personnes dans les hautes sphères de la CIA, et du chef du FBI. Car le chef du FBI a été régulièrement informé par des rapports envoyés les 6 juillet, 10 juillet, 15 juillet, 6 août par de courageux et loyaux agents du FBI. Et aucune suite n’a été donnée à ces informations.

Giulietto Chiesa : Bien. Vous faites référence aux 3 Tours détruites ce matin-là. Enfin, 2 le matin, frappées par les avions, et l’autre l’après-midi, sans qu’aucun avion ne la percute. Il me semble avoir compris que vous croyez à une certaine préparation qui irait au-delà de l’activité de supposés terroristes, car pour faire s’effondrer les Tours en les minant à l’avance, il faut que quelqu’un l’ait fait, et ce ne sont pas les terroristes qui ont pu faire cela.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Je ne suis pas un scientifique, et pour ces aspects, le juge, le Ministère public (prosecutor) doit s’en remettre à un scientifique. Il ressort de l’analyse faite par ces scientifiques, il apparait clairement qu’il est impossible qu’un bâtiment doté de structures métalliques, extrêmement robustes, dans une partie au moins de l’édifice, puisse se désagréger et s’effondrer en quelques secondes. J’ai moi-même vu tomber cette tour, et qui se désintégrait en quelques secondes. Car cela est en contradiction avec la présence d’une structure en acier à l’intérieur.

Alors pour moi, dans ces cas-là, dans n’importe quel pays du monde, d’abord il y a un procès public, contre les responsables, Moussaoui, le chef de l’ISI, contre ceux qui sont identifiés comme complices des [pirates] qui sont morts. Au cours de ce procès public, il faudrait donner la possibilité aux victimes, aux familles de victimes du 11/9, d’apporter leur contribution, leur savoir, au travers de leurs propres experts. Car d’après les règles du "Dual process of Law" qui ont été définies justement aux États-Unis, un pays de "Common Law", il ne faut pas que ces vérifications soient faites par une seule autorité, celle qui défend l’État, qui est potentiellement responsable de ces faits, mais qu’elles soient menées de façon contradictoire. D’un côté, on a l’expert du Ministère public, du prosecutor, et de l’autre vous avez l’expert nommé par les familles de victimes.

Giulietto Chiesa : Vous ne trouvez pas bizarre que durant ces 10 années, à part le procès Moussaoui qui n’a pas participé aux attentats puisqu’il était en prison, aucun procès n’ait eu lieu aux USA, personne n’a été jugé.

Ferdinando Imposimato : C’est très surprenant, et c’est surtout l’indice d’une volonté de dissimuler les attentats qui ne s’est pas vue ailleurs dans le monde. D’après moi, il faudrait un procès public aux États-Unis, pour donner la possibilité aux parties intéressées, sans parler du recours collectif qui peut s’appliquer à tous les citoyens, mais surtout pour permettre aux familles de victimes de connaitre la vérité, qui n’est pas celle officielle. Car nous ne pouvons pas accepter une vérité qui nous vient du NIST.

Giulietto Chiesa : Laissez-moi vous poser une question sur l’aspect juridique. Quelle est la valeur des témoignages de ces personnes qui ont été, comme Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, soumises à de multiples séances de "Waterboarding" ?

Ferdinando Imposimato : Aucune valeur.

Giulietto Chiesa : Même aux USA ?

Ferdinando Imposimato : Oui, même aux USA, car il existe des règles universelles sur le procès juste. Rappelez-vous que les USA ont signé des conventions internationales, j’en citerai une : Le pacte international des droits civils et politiques, signé à New York en décembre 1966, a été ratifié par les USA. Dans cette convention, les USA s’engagent à respecter les règles du "procès juste", de respecter les témoins, les accusés, et si l’on force quelqu’un et que cela porte atteinte à la crédibilité d’une version, d’un témoin, qui ne parle pas spontanément, qui collabore avec la justice, mais de façon forcée et non spontanée, cette collaboration n’a pas de valeur, d’autant que cette collaboration s’est faite hors de toute présence des défenseurs des parties civiles. Ce témoignage n’a absolument aucune valeur.

Giulietto Chiesa : Nous sommes à 1000 lieues de cela, puisque les deux coprésidents de la Commission d’enquête ont écrit un livre où ils expliquent qu’ils n’ont rien vu de ces interrogatoires, et même la Commission d’enquête n’a pas eu accès ni aux enregistrements, ni les procès-verbaux de l’interrogatoire. Et donc, c’est le noir le plus total.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Oui, mais il est possible de mettre tout cela au clair. D’abord parce que le secret d’État, par rapport à des faits relevant d’une tragédie, ne peut pas être utilisé. Ceci est une règle universelle qui vaut pour l’Italie, pour les États-Unis. Et donc, il n’est pas possible d’invoquer le secret d’État pour empêcher la divulgation de documents cruciaux pour l’enquête

Giulietto Chiesa : Même aux USA ?

Ferdinando Imposimato : Oui, même aux USA. Car cela s’applique à la sécurité, mais quelle sécurité ? Nous parlons ici de la nécessité de savoir la vérité sur des faits qui ont vu la mort de 3000 personnes. Le secret d’État doit être écarté, d’abord parce qu’il est anticonstitutionnel et contraire aux conventions internationales. Ensuite, le statut de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI, ci-contre) établit des règles qui selon moi s’appliquent à tous les pays, même ceux qui ne l’ont pas signé.

Giulietto Chiesa : Selon vous, pourquoi est-ce que l’administration Obama, qui est arrivée après l’administration Bush qui est mise en cause dans cette tragédie, n’a-t-elle rien fait pour éclaircir cette affaire ?

Ferdinando Imposimato : D’après moi, il y a d’abord le problème qu’il n’est pas bien informé sur le sujet. Car les gens ont pratiqué la désinformation. Ici il y a eu une opération continue de désinformation. Car si vous regardez ce qui s’est passé après le 11-Septembre, à propos du Nigergate(*), vous vous rendez compte que cette affaire du Nigergate, consistant à construire toute une série de mensonges éhontés pour justifier de l’intervention armée en Irak, on la doit à la désinformation pratiquée par certains journaux, et à certains journalistes, comme Judith Miller, ou d’autres journaux, le Washington Post, le New York Times, et malheureusement aussi La Repubblica, qui a écrit avant même le début de la guerre en mars 2003, des choses qu’elle a dû démentir par la suite. Quand on a découvert tous ces mensonges, après la guerre, c’était devenu inutile… D’abord, ils ont alimenté la théorie de la nécessité de la guerre préventive, ensuite il y a eu la guerre, et seulement après ils ont reconnu leur erreur, mais c’était inutile. Et puis la guerre a continué pendant 7 ans.

Giulietto Chiesa : …et encore aujourd’hui

Ferdinando Imposimato : Alors, selon moi, Obama n’a pas une connaissance parfaite, car même Obama ne sait pas tout, il lit les journaux. J’ai moi-même lu les articles dans le Corriere della Sera, de personnages qui sont venus en Italie pour théoriser la nécessité de la guerre préventive. Et cela a mené à une désinformation totale, car nos journaux se sont prêtés au jeu, et ont servi de caisse de résonance aux fausses informations diffusées aux USA.

Giulietto Chiesa : Mais quand le Secrétaire d’État Collin Powell, devant le conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU, déclare en public "nous avons les preuves" et montre une fiole noire en disant "nous avons les preuves que Saddam Hussein a des armes de destruction massive", n’est pas aussi une sorte de crime ?

Ferdinando Imposimato : C’est à mi-chemin entre la stupidité et la mauvaise foi. On ne sait pas bien, car ce n’est pas une flèche ce Colin Powell. J’opterais plus pour la stupidité que pour la mauvaise foi, car on ne dit pas comme ça qu’on a les preuves… Bush lui-même a déclaré, après la guerre, qu’il s’agissait d’une erreur. Ce n’était pas une erreur. C’était préparé. Et une dernière chose, extrêmement grave. Lors de l’instruction menée par la Commission sur le 11/9, il est mentionné que la CIA a établi un lien entre le 11-Septembre et Saddam Hussein. Ceci est un mensonge éhonté qui a été démenti par cette même commission, mais cela signifie que la CIA a tenté de construire ce lien pour attribuer la responsabilité à Saddam Hussein, et pour justifier la guerre. Alors, comme vous le voyez, on ne peut pas regarder de façon isolée les faits du 11/9. il faut regarder ce qui s’est passé avant, et après.

Giulietto Chiesa : Entièrement d’accord, aucun doute là-dessus. Résumons : vous vous proposez de porter ces faits à l’attention de la Cour pénale internationale de La Haye. Cela m’amène à deux questions : d’abord, les États-Unis ne reconnaissent pas la "territorialité", l’intervention de ce tribunal sur les affaires internes aux USA. Il y a eu bien sûr des implications internationales gigantesques. Juste après le 11/9, les USA ont demandé une réunion de l’OTAN, qui a eu lieu le 1er octobre 2001, et les États-Unis se sont présentés à Bruxelles en disant "nous avons les preuves". Or ces preuves n’ont jamais été rendues publiques. Et donc, c’est aussi une affaire européenne. Cela s’est passé en Europe dans le cadre de l’Alliance atlantique, avec une affirmation qui n’a pas été suivie de faits. Reste le point sur lequel je voudrais insister : La Cour pénale internationale de La Haye, que peut-elle faire, et selon vous, comment pourrait-elle réagir à une initiative de ce type qui a des répercussions mondiales, puisque l’histoire de ces 10 dernières années, si vous avez raison, et je pense que c’est le cas, doit être entièrement réexaminée.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Alors, nous avons le droit et le devoir de connaître la vérité, car ce qui s’est produit le 11-Septembre ne concerne pas seulement les USA, cela concerne l’humanité tout entière. Car, de cet événement, sont nées deux guerres. Et cela a déclenché la crise mondiale que nous vivons, qui a pris ses racines dans les événements du 11/9. Ce n’est donc pas une affaire qui relève de la curiosité historique et basta, c’est une obligation pour éviter que ne se produisent d’autres guerres préventives de ce genre, car ce risque existe bel et bien. Donc, nous avons le devoir de demander, et nous l’avons fait officieusement, aux autorités américaines d’enquêter sur ces faits précis. Si les autorités US ne font rien, comme je le crains, nous devrons nous adresser à La Haye, à la Cour pénale internationale de La Haye. Cette Cour, peut selon moi, et selon l’usage, intervenir même à l’encontre de pays qui n’ont pas ratifié les statuts de la Cour pénale internationale. Par exemple, Kadhafi n’a pas signé ces statuts, pourtant ils ont lancé un mandat d’arrêt contre lui. Cela montre bien que la Cour pénale internationale n’a pas besoin de la ratification d’un pays pour intervenir à son encontre. Si la CPI a pu lancer ce mandat d’arrêt contre Kadhafi, le chef d’un État qui n’était pas signataire des statuts, cela signifie que la CPI peut intervenir, et c’est logique. Car il existe des pays où les droits humains sont violés, où sont commis des crimes contre l’humanité, sur lesquels la CPI est compétente comme le stipule l’article 7 des statuts. Et bien, lorsque de tels crimes sont commis, la CPI peut intervenir, même par la force, pour réprimer ces crimes. Par conséquent, même si l’Amérique n’a pas ratifié les statuts de la CPI, cela ne constitue pas un obstacle à l’affirmation de la juridiction de la CPI vis-à-vis des États-Unis. Bien sûr, c’est un pays démocratique, très puissant, mais les règles sont ce qu’elles sont. Je voudrais d’ailleurs rappeler une chose. Il y a eu récemment la dénonciation par un citoyen contre le Vatican. Le Vatican n’a pas ratifié non plus [ces statuts]. Et donc, la CPI, après avoir procédé à toutes les vérifications, recueilli et évalué toutes les preuves, peut tout à fait intervenir même dans les pays dans lesquels la justice n’est pas assurée, lorsque se produit une violation des droits humains, et les juger pour crimes contre l’humanité.

Giulietto Chiesa : Comment comptez-vous procéder techniquement vis-à-vis du tribunal, et quelles sont les possibles réactions "techniques", et pas seulement politiques que le tribunal est tenu de suivre ?

Ferdinando Imposimato : Nous allons nous adresser au Procureur de la CPI et lui remettre notre plainte la plus documentée possible, dans laquelle nous exposerons les faits, qui selon nous constituent une complicité de crime contre l’humanité, complicité active ou complicité par omission, et nous lui demanderons d’approfondir, de vérifier les faits, en écoutant les témoins que nous lui indiquerons, en examinant les documents, et en exigeant l’abolition du Secret d’État, puisque nous-mêmes n’avons pas eu accès à ces documents, tout comme la Commission. En somme, mener une instruction complète, afin d’établir s’il existe des éléments pour condamner, ou du moins pour juger les personnes responsables de ces faits.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Nous avons les idées claires. Nous voulons rassembler le maximum de données, de documents, de toute provenance, y compris de la presse sérieuse et responsable, et d’organismes officiels d’investigation. Et même de livres comme celui de Jesse Ventura, mais aussi des enquêtes. etc. Nous allons recueillir toutes les preuves et les indices pouvant être utiles pour reconstruire la dynamique des événements, et aussi les responsabilités de ceux qui avaient le devoir d’intervenir et qui ne l’ont pas fait, ou de ceux qui ont aidé les terroristes à accomplir les attentats du 11/9.

Giulietto Chiesa : Combien de temps peut prendre la réponse ? Y a-t-il un délai maximum ?

Ferdinando Imposimato : Non, pas de délai maximum. Ce n’est pas un délit contre une personne qui peut être poursuivie pour querelle partisane. Ce crime contre l’humanité, le 11-Septembre, comme d’autres, est un crime imprescriptible. Il peut être dénoncé à tout moment. Nous devons d’abord réunir tous ces documents, puis il faudra les trier, car on ne peut pas donner tout cela d’un seul coup, et enfin nous déposerons cette plainte que je signerai, en demandant à tous ceux qui voudront signer avec moi de le faire, après l’avoir lue, examinée, validée. Et donc, d’ici quelques mois, nous irons déposer cette plainte.

Giulietto Chiesa : Merci beaucoup.

Ferdinando Imposimato : Merci à vous.