The Martyr: Jean Bastien-Thiry and the Assassination Attempt of Charles de Gaulle
www.newyorkethnicfood.com » Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry, model for the Jackal
But witnesses at the hearings and other sources have also made new disclosures about sensitive U. Galvin's company - the first Marine special ops unit ever deployed to combat - moved into Jalalabad Airfield in Nangarhar Province in February However, Galvin was ordered to do "special reconnaissance" on drug traffickers and other insurgents instead of going after the top-priority targets. Defence sources said that the head of the special forces had intervened to demand a new no-identity policy because of concerns that morale was being damaged.
They made it clear that having been obliged to maintain absolute secrecy about the role of their husbands, fathers or other relatives, it was unacceptable for names to be published after their deaths, making them vulnerable to unwelcome media attention Considering the recent reported history has me wondering if Blackwater has an integral role in this. I know first hand that US military special ops personnel take training at Blackwater's huge, private corporate North Carolina property. On September 1, , you began a day phaseout retiring from the CIA. Then came the horrific day of 8: All our lives changed.
You were asked to stay on at the CIA. What did he tell you? What was your mission? The mission was to--the first part of it was to go in and link up with the Northern Alliance, formerly headed by Ahmed Al-Massoud, and to win their confidence and their agreement to cooperate militarily with us. They were the only armed force on the ground in Afghanistan opposing the Taliban.
The second part of it was, once the Taliban were broken, to attack the al-Qaeda organization, find bin Laden and his senior lieutenants and kill them. I don't think at that point that the--I think the administration had gotten to the point where bin Laden and his guys were fair game.
Black gave you specific instructions on what he wanted you to bring home. He did ask that once we got bin Laden and killed him, that we send his head back in a cardboard box on dry ice so that he could take it down and show the president. That's what I mentioned to him. I said, "Cofer, I think that I can come up with pikes to put the heads of the lieutenants on," which is the second part of what he wanted done. Erik Prince, 37, Blackwater's ambitious founder and sole owner, could have taken over his father's billion-dollar auto-parts empire.
But he was attracted to the battlefield from a young age. He enrolled in the Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md. He served in Haiti, Bosnia and the Middle East. In , when his father died, Prince left the Navy and returned to Michigan. With the war on terrorism, however, a new niche business developed.
The State Department did not have the internal resources or Marines to protect all of its diplomats and overseas embassies, but Blackwater had access to a deep roster of former special-forces soldiers who, it argued, could do the job. It wasn't long before Prince was offering a broad range of services, from protection by bodyguards to aerial surveillance, for the State Department, the Pentagon and U. In , Blackwater landed its first truly high-profile contract: Prince's political connections may well have helped his company win these crucial contracts from the Bush Administration.
He was a White House intern under George W. His family have long been G. And Blackwater has hired U. Cofer Black, the onetime head of counterterrorism at the cia, and Joseph Schmitz , a former Pentagon inspector general whose duties included investigating contractual agreements with firms like Blackwater. The Pentagon didn't plan for the contractors going so heavily into the war theater, says Lawrence Korb, Department of Defense manpower chief under President Ronald Reagan. This thing grew far beyond where anybody thought it would. The highest-paid independent contractors are known as tier-1 personnel.
These are the former U. When Helvenston was killed, Blackwater was expanding its business in Iraq from being just bodyguards. The company wanted to make a bid to take over security for convoys delivering kitchen supplies to U. Stepping into a potential political minefield, Blackwater USA is offering itself up as an army for hire to police the world's trouble spots. Cofer Black, vice chairman of the Moyock, N. Until now, the eight-year-old company has confined itself to training military and police personnel and providing security guards for government and private clients.
Under Black's proposal, it would take on an overt combat role. After the September attacks, pressure to locate and nab potential terrorists, even in the most obscure parts of the world, bore down hard on one CIA office in particular, the Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, located until recently in the basement of one of the older buildings on the agency's sprawling headquarters compound.
With operations officers and analysts sitting side by side, the idea was to act on tips and leads with dramatic speed. The possibility of missing another attack loomed large. If one of them gets loose and someone dies, we'll be held responsible," said one CIA officer, who, like others interviewed for this article, would speak only anonymously because of the secretive nature of the subject.
To carry out its mission, the CTC relies on its Rendition Group, made up of case officers, paramilitaries, analysts and psychologists. Their job is to figure out how to snatch someone off a city street, or a remote hillside, or a secluded corner of an airport where local authorities wait. Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure: Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema and sleeping drugs.
They outfit detainees in a diaper and jumpsuit for what can be a day-long trip. In the months after the Sept. The staff ballooned from to 1, nearly overnight. Thousands of tips and allegations about potential threats poured in after the attacks. Stung by the failure to detect the plot, CIA officers passed along every tidbit. The process of vetting and evaluating information suffered greatly, former and current intelligence officials said.
Colleagues recall that he would return from the White House inspired and talking in missionary terms. Black, now in the private security business, declined to comment Last March 31, , I covered the Christian right's war on public education and a Department of Education commissioned study that revealed public schools, if anything, outperform their private school counterparts.
But, does Amway fortune heir Dick Devos care, or does he view institutions of public education, that Jefferson saw as integral to American Democracy, as obstacles in the way of a long range scheme to undermine democracy? In a Heritage Institute address Devos, a leader in the war on public education who wants Intelligent Design in schools, is associated with Christian Reconstructionist views, and has been a significant funder of the "Council On National Policy" and served as the CNP's president in the late 's, outlined a "stealth strategy" for eliminating public schools.
If DeVos succeeds in his jihad against public schools and American Democracy, maybe his brother-in-law Erik Prince, who owns Blackwater USA, the subject of a new expose by Jeremy Scahill and possibly the most powerful private mercenary army in the world, could help out with the ensuing anarchy See Nation article on Blackwater, or full story for video with Jeremy Scahill Schmitz, the Defense Department's inspector general, is suspected of blocking investigations of.
Schmitz's new job will be chief operating officer and general counsel for the Prince Group, a firm that's divided between Michigan-based Prince Manufacturing and North Carolina-based Blackwater Paul Behrends, a spokesman for Blackwater, said he is unaware of Schmitz's office undertaking any investigations of the company.
There's no conflict of interest," he said. But Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, said, "The inspector general is a standard-bearer for ethics and integrity for the Pentagon. To see a person who has been holding that position cash in on his public service and go work for one of their contractors is tremendously disappointing," she said I think you are correct in directing attention to the military and Predator, as the whole CIA thing, I think, is a ruse.
The CIA Cowboys can plan to set up operations like this for years and never use them, but the Navy and other special ops boys are already on line and in action, "we don't need no badges. As other articles have already pointed out, the CIA team was designed after the Mossad posse that went after Carlos the Jackel and his cohorts, but ended up killing an innocent waiter instead.
And the British unit that contributed to the Task Force 88 counter-al Quada unit in Iraq mission accomplished , lost one soldier in that operation, which put a damper on using these units at all, especially when they can just hit them with a missile from a Predator without any losses at all. He is operationally very good, but unlike those mentioned in your article, who don't want their special ops role revealed after death, my experience with these guys - that is playing pool and drinking with them - is they are very egotistical and proud and unlikely that they would want their heroics kept secret forever.
Nor do they allow anyone to say they were a Navy SEAL if they weren't and send guys out to straighten the false braggarts out. Just as these special ops units are based on the British SAS models, there was Ian Fleming's British Naval Intelligence Special Ops Unit - he called his "Red Indians," who were sent in behind the lines in advance of Allied troops to capture enemy officers and civilian leaders and valuable documents. While the military always maintains the capabilities these types of special units offer, they change their names.
But you can be sure it still exists. My friend was also recruited by Blackwater, but he's retired, over the hill and doesn't need the money. I don't believe that they would outsource an assassination squad to such a Yahoo Cowboy outfit like Blackwater, who shot themselves in the foot at the OK Corral in Iraq. It now seems that in , George Tenet terminated a secret program to develop hit teams to kill al-Qaida leaders, but his successors resurrected the plan, according to former intelligence officials.
Porter Goss, who replaced Tenet in , restarted the program. We can now see why this is still a sensitive subject for those CIA officers who were around in the early s. You will be able to leave a comment after signing in. Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2. Posted July 13, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites. Posted July 14, Posted July 14, edited.
The CIA learned most of what they know about assassination from the British. And then I thought of the case of Admiral Darlin. Posted July 15, edited. Bill and John, I know a little bit about predator drones offensive operations because I have a member of my household who has worked closely with the Air Force special ops combat air traffic controllers in these two, as well as other engagements: I don't think the predator drone is at the center of this latest disclosure because of my impression of the number of participants who would have to be "read in", if the predator was the routine weapon of choice.
First, a couple of curious bits of reporting: Galvin quickly capitalized on his CIA contacts, the source said Wasn't it illegal for us to kill foreign leaders? As part of war? As part of war. Where would you find the dry ice in Afghanistan? Blackwater Becomes a Player Erik Prince, 37, Blackwater's ambitious founder and sole owner, could have taken over his father's billion-dollar auto-parts empire.
Such a role would be a quantum leap for Blackwater and raises a host of policy questions. The Counterterrorist Center After the September attacks, pressure to locate and nab potential terrorists, even in the most obscure parts of the world, bore down hard on one CIA office in particular, the Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, located until recently in the basement of one of the older buildings on the agency's sprawling headquarters compound.
By Bruce Wilson Tue Mar 27, at Education and Public Schools section: Public Education Last March 31, , I covered the Christian right's war on public education and a Department of Education commissioned study that revealed public schools, if anything, outperform their private school counterparts. Schmitz told staffers this week that he intended to resign as of Sept. The resignation comes after Sen.
Grassley R-Iowa sent Schmitz several letters this summer informing him that he was the focus of a congressional inquiry into whether he had blocked two criminal investigations last year. Schmitz, the Defense Department's inspector general, is suspected of blocking investigations of senior Bush officials Posted July 16, Tom, I think you are correct in directing attention to the military and Predator, as the whole CIA thing, I think, is a ruse. The Army is at the moment deeply uneasy, and a great number of officers are terminating or trying to terminate their military careers.
What applies to the Army also applies, to some degree, to all senior branches of the civil service. The French citizen today is isolated, confused and helpless and he no longer knows what he can rely on or trust in. He would easily be drawn to dangerous ventures. The views professed by the Head of State himself on the subject of historical evolution are very close to Marxism, as we have noticed through the justification he tried to provide concerning his Algerian policy.
According to some of our friends, he has said in private that he thought the final victory of Communism was unavoidable, which means that he actually accepts it. He is the instigator of our country's isolation policy, which is both vain and anachronistic. As a pilot and a technician I must mention the serious disappointments to which the nation would be exposed if she relied on the strike force 3 to maintain this policy of isolation, disappointments which could be similar to those encountered in , when we relied on the Maginot Line to ensure the safety of our country.
Two years ago, I wrote on the subject of the strike force a report which was transmitted to the Department of Air Defence. This report is at your disposal. We easily come to the conclusion that this so-called "deterrence force" will be, in fact, useless in dissuading the enemy and will rather be likely, due to its very existence within our frontiers, to bring on our country some nuclear aggression to which we would indeed be unable to respond.
Furthermore, I have never heard in the Air Force of any general who disagreed with me on this issue, except for one who was employed by the firm which builds the bombers. I would like to stress the fact that one of the reasons for my opposition to the Gaullist policy lies precisely in the aberrant nature of this national autonomy attitude based on an illusory military tool, to which the entire national security policy has been sacrificed.
This is totally unrealistic. This will be the result of renouncing the spiritual, moral and national values which in the past made up the framework of our country and the preservation of which should remain the essential condition of our national survival. This law is the Constitution. The enforcement of the Constitution is incumbent upon all, and in the first place upon the Head of State who is, by definition, its guardian and protector. The Head of State who transgresses it places himself above the laws of the nation and is, therefore, guilty of felony and must be brought before the High Court.
Many people said before us that the current Head of State had transgressed and violated the Constitution. This Constitution, in our opinion, was violated not only in its essence, but also in its spirit and in its letter. The Constitution was violated in its essence, because the essence of the Constitution is to express the twofold law of national survival and unity. National unity is the conservation and defence of the national heritage, that is to say the heritage of all French people wherever they might be.
It is precisely this national unity that was shattered and it is the national heritage that was sacrificed in Algeria by the Head of State, out of his own free will and on his initiative, without the excuse of any external pressure. Furthermore, the conditions for the nation's survival are no longer guaranteed as a result of the skillful endeavour to weaken patriotic feelings in public opinion which has been pursued for four years. It is the nation's moral framework which has been destroyed. The Constitution was violated in its spirit, because what makes up the spirit of the Constitution is a certain number of moral and human principles: These principles indeed forbid to impose, through violence and against their will, their destiny on a part of the nation.
For the French people in Algeria, these principles have been outrageously mocked. The principle of the separation of powers, judicial, executive and legislative, has also been constantly infringed. And finally, the principle according to which the Head of State must be an arbiter between different forces and not an autocrat making all decisions and conducting the policy of the nation according to his own will, has also been contravened. The Constitution was violated in its letter, for many of its principles have been, for years, ignored and transgressed, in particular article 89, the infringement of which motivated a public accusation of felony against the Head of State.
- Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry.
- iTunes is the world's easiest way to organize and add to your digital media collection.?
- Majestic and Wild: True Stories of Faith and Adventure in the Great Outdoors.
- Jean Bastien-Thiry - Wikipedia.
- Porto (GUIDE DE VOYAGE) (French Edition)?
- Emblems Of Elegance (Degavolver Book 1)!
The consequences of this violation of the Constitution in its essence, its spirit and its letter are that we are no longer under a republican system, but under a system of de facto dictatorship. The characteristics and nature of the Gaullist dictatorship are similar to those of a good number of dictatorships: Our Pied-Noir and Moslem brothers were entitled to live on the land of their forefathers.
They were entitled to recognition of themselves as individuals, of their property and of their freedom. These rights were abominably mocked, in contradiction of every law and principle. In France, the majority of citizens are, due to the dictatorship, deprived of an essential right of free men as members of a democracy: The circulation figures of the press and the readership of newspapers are definitely higher in the United Kingdom for example, than in France. On the other hand, the government controls the State radio and television which are essential means of pressure on public opinion.
The numerous messages and speeches of the present Head of State are similar and have the same purpose as Hitler's harangues broadcast on the radio or the speeches of Fascist dictators addressing the crowds from their balconies. Delivered to a public which is credulous and deprived of information, they have the same effect. We are aware of the part played by State radio and television in the implementation of the Algerian policy, especially in referendums.
The second sign of the dictatorship is the methods used by the police force and the justice system. We personally, in the "Petit-Clamart" affair, wish to speak of the conditions in which we and some members of our families were arrested, kept in police custody and detained. We also wish to get to the bottom of the tragic death of our friend Commandant Niaux. My presence in this dock bears witness to the efficiency of the police custody methods, and our presence before your special jurisdiction bears testimony to the infringement of legal principles. Finally, another sign of this dictatorship, found in all dictatorships, is the extraordinary submissiveness displayed by so many people, especially so many politicians in the service of a policy which is obviously a very bad national policy.
Only a dictatorship able to force and compel the conscience of weak, self-interested and irrational men can explain this submissiveness. In consequence, the Gaullist dictatorship, just like the Hitlerian and Communist dictatorships, is based both on the control of opinion, therefore on lies and violence, and on coercive methods used against opponents. Like the Hitlerian and Communist dictatorships, it is based more on lies than on violence. What can free men, free citizens do, who have become aware of the reality of this dictatorship and who have weighed up its harmful and lethal consequences on the whole nation or on part of it?
The wishes of the Prince are no longer relevant, since there is a Constitution, a republican law and if the Head of State breaks this law, the Constitution allows the citizens to fight the dictator. There is in the Constitution and in the basic and universal rights of men an inalienable right: And it is in the name of this right, that is in the name of the true republican law, that we initiated this act of violence against the man who placed himself above the laws.
For, if the Head of State having placed himself above the law, kills or does nothing to prevent people in his care from being killed, or if he is responsible, and he alone, for a national disaster, he must be prevented by force from continuing to exercise his de facto power. And this is what we attempted to do in the name of the law. What was noticed indeed by the members of the CNR was the reality of the Gaullist dictatorship, and especially the fact that, on the occasion of the last referendums, and with the control of the media, the people's approval was usurped through immoral and illegal means.
A lot of French citizens believed, in good faith, that in giving a positive response, they would bring peace back to Algeria and ensure a peaceful coexistence between the different communities, whereas in fact their positive response was an invitation to massacres, chaos and a poverty far worse than that which previously existed. This is the reason why we cannot say that these illegal and immoral referendums really expressed the will of the French people. Furthermore, even if the French people approved the Evian agreements, they did not approve the fact that these agreements were not enforced, and so did not approve the destruction and the scattering of communities of French descent, and the genocide of French Moslems.
Once we acknowledge the reality of the Gaullist dictatorship, what can we say about its performance? This country has undoubtedly, like others, already been subject to other dictatorships before, and also to other forms of autocratic power, but never before as is the case today have all the methods at the disposal of a dictatorship, namely violence, conditioning of the masses, and means of repression, been employed exclusively against part of the French population, to force upon them a fate they were rejecting, and to weaken our national heritage.
On the contrary, the main outcome of de Gaulle's dictatorship and its main goal was to destroy the unity of French people and national cohesion, without any compensation whatsoever as far as France's general policy was concerned. This dictatorship is consequently contrary to the honour and interests of France. This right is in the heart of men, it merely expresses their will to live and survive. It is the right to self-defence, at the community level, just as there is a right to self-defence at the individual level against thieves and murderers.
In accordance with this right, we can and we must stand up for our brothers, robbed and murdered because of the policy and the personal action of the dictator. For I wish to stress the fact that the non-observation of the Evian agreements is solely the result of the will of the de facto Head of State. These free citizens are not answerable to the laws of the Republic, with which they comply, any more than an ordinary citizen who comes to the defence of his sister, threatened with rape or murder.
We ourselves, being here, are not subject to republican laws, we have transgressed no criminal law, because we only came to the defence of our brothers and sisters threatened with rape and murder. Since we are, hypothetically, being tried in accordance with the law, as it is written in page 41 of the account of facts that you handed over to us, you must find us not guilty. On this point, as on many others, criminal and constitutional laws on the one hand, moral laws on the other hand, are in full agreement.
We will be careful not to turn this trial into a religious trial. But we are anxious to remind you that as Christians, we would only be criminals if we had seriously infringed one of God's Commandments. We are aware of the existence of a Fifth Commandment which forbids the use of force, except in specific situations which have been studied and defined by the Church. As there are also a Second and an Eighth Commandment which forbid everyone, and especially Heads of State, from committing perjury and telling lies in order to mislead one's fellow citizens.
But we do know that the First Commandment, the greatest of all, commands us to be charitable and compassionate with our brothers who are facing adversity. This is why it has always been accepted in Christendom that, under certain conditions, an act of force could be an act of love. And this is why, in accordance with traditional teaching, acts of force directed against those who have lost their moral and human values, and who plunge into misfortune those [people] they are supposed to protect and stand for, are considered legitimate acts. If the action we took, in agreement with the elite of the nation, had been successful, one of the first expected outcomes would have been the cessation of the genocide in Algeria.
The current Head of State could have stopped this genocide by giving one single order, which he did not give and, in our opinion, he will carry the responsibility for it forever. Saint Thomas Aquinas said: Those who set people free from a tyrannical power are praiseworthy. Thomas, the first duty of the Head of State is to lead his people in accordance with the rules of Law and Justice, with the common good of the community in mind. If, losing track of the reason why he is exercising this power, he uses it for his own interest and to satisfy his own passions and designs, he only reigns over a herd of slaves.
He himself is no longer a leader, but a tyrant. Therefore, we believe that the eminent clergymen we consulted and who did not advise us against this action, have only been reminding us of the Commandments of God, of the principle and right to self-defence and of the traditional moral code taught by the Church through one of Her greatest philosophers. There is no room here for theological quibbles. The tyranny of General de Gaulle does not belong to this type of "soft" tyranny which some of the Fathers of the Church advise us to bear patiently in a spirit of Christian mortification.
It is a violent, bloody tyranny which divides, which destroys and which is responsible for the death of countless victims. In our opinion, moral and constitutional rules concur with regard to our action. On this point St. Thomas Aquinas only transposed and sublimated to the level of Christian morals the principles of the Greek City-State established by the Greek philosophers in general and by Aristotle in particular.
The principles of the City-State can be found in Roman law, which our own constitutional principles have inherited. It was finally nothing more than a legitimate and natural reaction of a great number of officials and members of the elite of the nation against the Gaullist policy. The CNR 4 is a political organization, it is a political authority and its actions stand within the constitutional framework, in accordance with the laws of the nation. The CNR is aware of the fact that the "profound legitimacy" no longer belongs to General de Gaulle, assuming it ever did, for the dictator can no longer represent the honour and the real interests of the nation.
This profound legitimacy actually belongs to the elite, who are aware of all the wrongs caused to France by the Gaullist policy, and who want to serve the real interests of the nation, and restore her honour. We are not anti-Gaullist maniacs, because we know that the Gaullist dictatorship is merely an accident in the national life, an accident which was made possible by the present conditions which, we hope, will soon be modified. This is why our national resistance can presently rely on some active help amongst the highest ranks of the State, in the Army, in the civil service, in all levels of society, especially in the humble and working classes.
This is why the leaders of the national resistance will be led to come to an agreement with all men of good will who are patriots, republican and opposed to totalitarianism as well. This is why the national resistance is proposing to unite all French people of goodwill. We do not have to explain here the political programme put forward by the CNR. This programme is set within the theoretically current Constitutional framework, and its nature is essentially human. We do not belong to this right-wing which is not only the most stupid but also the most cowardly in the world and has failed.
We are deeply aware of the national injustice which currently exists these days in France, as a consequence of the narrow-mindedness of some wealthy owners and because of certain immoral forms of capitalism. We are aware of the important reforms that have to be implemented in order to achieve greater social justice. We are in favour of Europe, because we believe that France can become integrated into Europe without giving up what made up her past glories, and makes up her moral and spiritual heritage.
We are in favour of NATO because we believe that faced with the constant and overwhelming threat of communist subversion, the Free World must not be divided and must strongly support America.
Jean Bastien-Thiry
Concerning Algeria, it is our duty to assert publicly that it is impossible to consider that the Algerian issue has been settled in any respect through the shameful agreements signed in Evian, which have not been honoured. Our country has rights and responsibilities in Algeria. They are everlasting and inalienable rights and responsibilities. The future of Algeria, of this land which was French for over years, can only be achieved in union with France. The French community in Algeria must become flourishing and numerous again. What is left of the French Moslem communities must be protected and it is the duty of France to serve the interests of all Moslem Algerians who were by her side for such a long time and not to abandon them to totalitarianism.
This minority group was the French Moslem community and the community of French descent in Algeria; and it still is the French and French Moslems from Algeria. But it is also the minority group made up of thousands and thousands of metropolitan French people who, putting into practice the great principle of human solidarity, stood up for their fellow citizens. Apart from the serious violation of the Constitution which is the attack on the basic rights and freedoms of this French minority, the CNR also had to note other serious violations of the Constitution by the de facto Head of State.
The CNR noted that this betrayal of the minorities in Algeria by the de facto Head of State had not been approved by the French nation, because it had been carried out in breach of the Evian agreements. These agreements were approved by the metropolitan French and not by the minorities in Algeria, but the violation of these agreements has been approved neither by the metropolitan French, nor by the minorities in Algeria. Therefore, the de facto Head of State alone is responsible for the violation of these agreements.
The outcome of the violation of these agreements is what is commonly known as a genocide.
Покупки по категориям
There is a genocide when some human communities, which, as communities, had a separate life and existence and which therefore had an identity, are destroyed and scattered. The CNR noted, in short, what any man and any honest Frenchman can also note, that the de facto Head of State was guilty of serious violation of the Constitution, which means that he was guilty of felony. This order would have been to enforce the Evian agreements. I should add that besides, the de facto Head of State is guilty of a crime which, contrary to the previous crimes, is not punishable by law.
It is the crime of infamy, for there is no greater infamy than abandoning to their murderers men who had trusted in France and rallied to her flag. Had there only been in Algeria one other Captain Moureau, the de facto Head of State would still have been guilty of infamy. But there are thousands and thousands of them. There were thousands of martyrs handed over to their torturers, as there are thousands of Frenchmen and French women left into the hands of the FLN men, to dispose of as they wish.
It is from the knowledge that General de Gaulle is guilty of crimes of felony, high treason and of being an accomplice in a genocide, that we acted in accordance with the options we had within the legal framework.
We believe that this action was just, because the motives for it are those imposed by the moral code, by legal principles and by human reasoning. The moral code, legal principles and human reasoning agree that the policy of General de Gaulle is immoral, illegal, aberrant, and infamous. The decisions made by the CNR are only related to the actions of General de Gaulle over the past four years. Regarding his previous actions, I will however make a personal comment. The men of my generation, who did not have to take sides in internal political struggles, or join factions which divided the country during the last war, realize that regarding some events which occurred in the course of that war, some myths were built up by those who participated in these events and who profited from them.
With some hindsight, historians will be able to say from where, at that time, the wind which divided the French people was blowing. Historians will also tell that after the Liberation, French people of goodwill could have been united through reconciliation, but that this unity was not achieved. That, on the contrary, one of the bloodiest purges in our History occurred, even bloodier than the French Revolution. That instead of a national reconciliation we witnessed a return in strength of the Communists, inside and at the head of the State.
Therefore, I believe History will refute certain myths. What has been expounded concerning the grounds for our action, explains what was expected from the success of this action. We did not expect to trigger off a civil war, for it would be absurd to say that the conditions required for a civil war would have then existed. The outcome we expected was essentially the restoration of a truly republican and national rule of law, the condition necessary to realize the union of all national and republican French citizens opposed to totalitarianism. This restoration of the republican rule of law would have allowed, in the first place, the enforcement of the agreements ratified by France, which would have meant putting an end to a genocide, and saving thousands of human lives, and putting an end to or at least alleviating cruel and countless sufferings: We were certain that France would then have started to fulfill its duty once again, which is to protect all her children.
Secondly, we believed that this action would have set the conditions for a national regeneration, which could have been carried out on the basis of the principles we have outlined, in a nation at peace with herself. We tried to find some historical precedents to the application of the right to resist oppression in the way we did, and we found many indeed.
There are precedents in the Sacred History, there are precedents in Ancient Greek and Roman history and in the history of modern states one of which examples occurred nineteen years ago in a neighbouring country. In July , some officers who represented the elite of the German Army carried out against dictator Adolf Hitler an action which, though very different in practice from ours, displayed, we believe, certain similar motives.
In both cases it was about dictators driven by the same immoderate and insane arrogance, and the same desire for power over their fellow men. These characteristics affect the judgment, lead the dictators to wrongly identify themselves with the nation they claim to personify, lead them to build up a mistaken idea of what they call their historic role, drive them to hate and destroy their opponents and lead them to equally despise men and human dignity. In , what dictator Hitler exalted was contempt for the weak and a taste for violence and power, while the feelings dictator de Gaulle appealed to in the French people in are, as we have already noted, a strong inclination towards materialism, individual and collective selfishness, loss of the sense of civic duty, and political irresponsibility.
In both cases, it is a matter of cynical exploitation of certain natural human tendencies, for the dictators exploit to their advantage what is low and evil in the human soul, which enables them to realize easily enough the mental enslavement of the nation. What determined Field-Marshal Rommel, Lieutenant-Colonel Von Stauffenberg and their companions to take action was undoubtfully the fear that their country would be materially destroyed and given over, completely or partly, to Communism as a result of the insane policy of the dictator.
I need not say that our motives are the same, provided the risk of the material destruction of Germany in is replaced with the present risk of the moral and spiritual destruction of France. These officers must also have been as greatly stricken by Hitler's Jewish genocide as we ourselves are shocked by de Gaulle's genocide of the French Moslems. This is why the moral dilemma for these German officers in a Germany at war may have been more difficult than ours. These officers, after having been sentenced by a Special Court, are today honoured in Germany by their fellow citizens and by political and moral authorities.
This thought has been an encouragement in our action. At the end of this long statement, I would like to stress that we were keen to explain the reasons and circumstances which drove us to take action. We have explained why we took action, and we are ready to explain the details of our action. But the explanations we have given are not a justification for, as General Salan said before us, we do not have to justify ourselves before this Court of Law for having fulfilled one of the most sacred duties of men, the duty to defend populations which were the victims of an insane and barbaric policy.
We only owe an explanation to these populations, to the French people and to our children. In favour of these populations we exercised the right which is at the heart of mankind, the right which expresses the desire to live and to survive and which is the right to self-defence. We have broken neither moral nor constitutional laws by acting against a man who placed himself above all laws: That is why, if you conform to the laws of the Republic, you must find us not guilty.
Through this law alone could those who acted against the dictator be sentenced, considering that he is a dictator. Even then, this law could not be applied to us in accordance with the non-retroactivity of laws. As for us, we acted against Charles de Gaulle the citizen, answerable as all French citizens are to the laws of the nation. As a citizen, he is responsible for a great number of deaths and tremendous sufferings.
As a citizen, he is responsible every day for more murders and more sufferings, and we acted on the grounds that it was our right, and we considered that it was our duty to legitimately protect the victims of these murders and sufferings. We stand by Lieutenant Degueldre who kept his oath of an officer to fight so that Algeria would not be given over to the FLN, and who died.
================================
We stand by all those who, in jails, underground, in France or in foreign countries, in public positions, or at various levels within the population, make up the French resistance to desertion and to dictatorship. The French national resistance is one and it will not be divided. It will stand up as long as dictatorship and desertion last.
We believe that we have told the truth, after so many men told it before us in many speeches and numerous writings. We think that, sooner or later, French people will become aware of this truth and that it will prevail over the deception and lies of the officials, over the appeasing statements of many and over the collusive blackout of the State radio and television and of some of the newspapers.
Maybe our words will be twisted by the State radio and television and by these newspapers as they were twisted when we were arrested. But nothing will prevent them from being the expression of the truth. In spite of the extraordinary dishonesty of the men in power, in spite of their extraordinary cynicism, it is the truth that there were, that there still is in France and in Algeria thousands of dead and martyrs, that there are thousands of missing persons and hundreds of thousands of exiles, that there are detention and torture camps, that there were many rapes and many murders, that there are many French women forced into prostitution in the FLN camps.
But it is also the truth that it did not want to. It is the truth that the man against whom we took action is at all times answerable to the High Court and it would only take a minimum amount of clear-sightedness and courage from the members of Parliament to bring him before this High Court. There is a record of his felonies, of his crimes and of his betrayals, and thousands of men are prepared to testify to the reality of these felonies, of these crimes and of these betrayals.
We only made use of our right to self-defence against one man on behalf of his victims, on behalf of our fellow citizens and on behalf of our children. This man is covered with French blood and he is a disgrace to France. It is not wise, it is not moral, it is not legal for this man to remain for too long a time the leader of France.