Monthly Archives: March 2011

Nowhere to hide - Killer cop Korkoneas gets a small taste of what he deserves
Leave a comment
Disciplinary sentence to Bolano
On Thursday 23/03 comrade D.Bolano was called by the public prosecutor in the prisons of Domokos, regarding the beating of murderer cop Korkoneas. The only statement that he made (denying it is written in the proceedings since he did not want to apologize) is that as an anarchist rebel he had a duty to smash the face of the murderer of a comrade.The disciplinary sentence that was imposed on him is one year without pay days.
It should be mentioned that in the room was also Korkoneas in order to testify guarded by 3 screws. During the procedure there was intensit y since the comrade constantly attacked him phrasally.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Nowhere to hide – Killer cop Korkoneas gets a small taste of what he deserves

A few days ago, D.M., one of the comrades arrested and charged with belonging to CCF gave Korkoneas, the cop murderer of Alexis Grigoropoulos – that was in the same wing in Domokos prison – a small part of what he deserves.
The screws apparently fell on them to divide them and save the murderer and eventually took him to another wing.
 
Good strength comrade.
Struggle inside and out of the prisons
UPDATE ON C.C.F. TRIAL 24/3/2011
Leave a comment

UPDATE ON C.C.F. TRIAL
24/3/2011
Panagiotis Masouras returned to the trial today after being released a few days ago, having served 18months without being sentenced (the greek law states that if your on remand for 18months without being sentenced you are released).

Although the comrade so far has abstained from the procedure, he appeared today in the court and took a seat in the defendants stand. But he did not make clear if he will participate in the procedure, neither if he is “here” in the legal sense.
His lawyer did not appear but Panagiotis said he remains his lawyer he just could not come today. The trial continued with the testimonies of the defence witnesses. First the owners of the apartments that G.Nikolopoulos rented in Exarxia from september 2007 to january 2009. The owners spoke of a perfect tenant that completed all his responsibilities.

After that testified the mother of M.Giospas who is also H.Hadjimihelakis aunt. She lives on the 1st floor, above the house that was later called a “safe house”. Describing the people visiting her nephews house, she spoke of people who gathered to watch movies, play video games and have conversations without taking any precaution measures, with the windows always open and everything “out in the open”, as she said. She mentioned that she entered her nephews house many times and she never saw any, as she said, suspicious objects such as pots or wires.
Finally, describing the day the cops of the anti-terrorist force raided her house and the one below hers, she said it was the worst experience of her life.
“Men with masks and guns obliged me to remain under ‘house arrest’ for three days, while they searched both houses. They didn’t allow me to come into contact with anyone outside, neither to communicate with my son who they arrested without a lawyer”.

The theatre continues next Thursday.

PANAGIOTIS MASOURAS IS RELEASED LETTER FROM PRISON BY THE ANARCHIST PANAGIOTIS MASOURAS ACCUSE FOR THE CONSPIRACY OF CELLS OF FIRE '''CASE''

PANAGIOTIS MASOURAS IS RELEASED (greece)- AND OLGA ECONOMIDOU MEMBER OF THE Conspiracy Cells of Fire(greece)

Leave a comment






 23/3/11
Olga Ekonomidou, arrested on March 14th in an apartment in Volos in another operation of the anti-terrorist police, has taken responsibility for her participation in the R.O. Conspiracy Cells of Fire with a short letter along with a part of the court papers describing how the cops got to find them from a phone call from an anonymous “hero” who called the secure line of the anti-terrorist police and pointed out which house the fugitive comrades were staying in.


Good journey to those who choose the hard but adventurous path of  refusal,of not quiting the REVOLUTION 

OLGA ECONOMIDOU
MEMBER OF THE   Conspiracy Cells of Fire

PRISON THIBA PTERIGA E’ 





22/3/2011


P.Masouras has been released because the 18th month period before being charged has expired.
In his proposal to the Court Council the responsible Public prosecutor Judge of appeals asked to impose on Masouras the restrictive terms of appearance each five days in the police department of his area, to reside in the house of his parents, which is the address he has declared and to prohibit him to exit Attica or the country.
The Council set for the release the obligatory appearance two times a month in the police department and prohibition of leaving the country.

Giorgos Voutsis-Vogiatzis: An Extract from Diary of a Bomb-Thrower*

Giorgos Voutsis-Vogiatzis: An Extract from Diary of a Bomb-Thrower*

Leave a comment


http://thisisourjob.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/giorgos-voutsis-vogiatzis-an-extract-from-diary-of-a-bomb-thrower/

20032011

In early April 2010, Greek anarchist prisoner Giorgos Voutsis-Vogiatzis (now released) wrote this text in solidarity with the people being charged in the Fire Cells Conspiracy case. Many thanks to the comrades who included it in their Spanish-language Fire Cells Conspiracy compendium entitled Blowing Up the Existent: Reflections on Minority Combat.
I’m no good at saying goodbye, especially final goodbyes. I get uncomfortable when the curtain goes down. Goodbyes are the worst, particularly when emotion gets in the way, causing a strange chill as it crashes into the obligatory “forced goodbyes.” Generally, I consider emotional hysteria useless when it has an expiration date, since it depends on timing. Most of the time it’s fake, happening at just the right moment by pure luck, like a scene from a movie whose director is responsible for cutting it into the story in a specific way—when a soldier boards his train, when a prisoner goes back to prison after being on leave, when a couple breaks up. At these moments, a small death is consummated, and only at such moments do people come into contact with the vastness of death.
I suppose that, on the contrary, I’m good at leaving bombs. I don’t mean “placing” them. That’s something anyone can do with great ease, more or less. The life of a bomb-thrower is a life filled with selflessness, pain, vengeance, justice, war, love, hate. We can find such elements in anyone’s heart, but in a bomb-thrower’s life, there is a particular weight and intensity to these concepts’ coexistence. You live with them every day. The deepest emotions overwhelm you. Like a philosopher of action, you flirt with death and freedom, but also with their negations. You prefer to say goodbye to bombs instead of people. A bomb-thrower is a most contradictory person, but not in the usual sense of contradiction. She is not contradictory as a result of the prevailing societal confusion. She is no chameleon changing colors at will.
Her love for life and contempt for death motivate her actions. She arms herself with a love of justice in order to hate injustice. She arms herself with a passion for life in order to kill.
The moment of leaving a bomb is occasion for an extraordinary goodbye. You don’t count down the minutes until you can see her again. You count down the minutes until she explodes. You never want to see her again, because if you do, it means your action has failed.
Saying goodbye to a bomb is like waiting for a metamorphosis. Success or failure. EXPLOSION OR SURRENDER. Orgasm or dysfunction. In the end, the most pleasant goodbyes involve those who sow chaos without loving chaos.
Notes on taking part in radical struggle
The act of taking part in radical struggle is a true rejection of dominant ideology and modern lifestyle. Through revolutionary violence and a deep belief in the righteousness of her actions and the defense of her ideals, a fighter walks a path where selflessness nullifies confusion and determination destroys cowardice. The act of participating in the struggle is a fighter’s demonstration of coherence and commitment to ideals as well as comrades. A demonstration that revolution is not a cause removed from everyday life, is not a hobby or an activity on which to while away the time we live under capitalism. It’s not a youthful indiscretion that, when repression escalates and the going gets tough, one abandons like a summer fling while alarm clocks start ringing again throughout the metropolis. Revolution says: “I was, I am, and I will be.”
IMMEDIATE LIBERATION FOR COMRADES P. MASOURAS, M. YIOSPAS, AND H. HATZIMICHELAKIS, CHARGED WITH MEMBERSHIP IN THE FIRE CELLS CONSPIRACY ORGANIZATION EVEN THOUGH THEY THEMSELVES DENY THE CHARGES.
IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF ALL ARREST WARRANTS PERTAINING TO THE SAME CASE.
—Giorgos Voutsis-Vogiatzis; from prison; April 5, 2010
*Said book still doesn’t exist.
Note: Haris Hatzimichelakis no longer denies the charge of membership in the Fire Cells Conspiracy, and has openly admitted to his participation in the group.

New arrests in the Fire Cells Conspiracy case 2011

New arrests in the Fire Cells Conspiracy case

Leave a comment


17 03 2011

On the morning of Monday, March 14, an operation coordinated between the Special Violent Crime Response Division (DAEEB) and the Special Antiterrorist Unit (EKAM) raided and searched two homes—one in Nea Ionia on the outskirts of Volos, and one in the northern Athens neighborhood of Cholargos. Five people were arrested in Nea Ionia, three of whom had warrants out for their arrest on charges of belonging to the Fire Cells Conspiracy: 25-year-old Giorgos Nikolopoulos (in hiding since October 2009, he is the brother of Michalis Nikolopoulos, who was arrested on January 19, 2011 and later admitted to being a member of the Fire Cells Conspiracy), 24-year-old Damiano Bolano (in hiding since October 2009, he is the only non-Greek who has been arrested on charges related to the Fire Cells Conspiracy, and the right-wing press is been making a fuss over his Albanian origins), and 32-year-old Christos Tsakalos (in hiding since early November 2010, one week after his brother Gerasimos Tsakalos was arrested alongside Panayiotis Argyrou on charges of mailing package-bombs). All three are being charged with “membership in a terrorist organization,” “supply, manufacture, and possession of explosive material and explosive devices in a conspiracy to cause public danger to third-party entities and a danger to people,” and “detonation, after using explosive material, which could have caused  public danger to third-party entities and a danger to people.” Some time ago, all three were already being singled out as “ringleaders of the Fire Cells Conspiracy.”
The other two people arrested in Nea Ionia were 31-year-old Olga Economidou and 29-year-old Giorgos Polydoras. According to police sources, in the Nea Ionia apartment they found three AK-47s, seven handguns, one .38 caliber revolver, 5000 bullets, two .6 kg sticks of TNT, several police uniforms, wigs, walkie-talkies, seven fake ID cards, two pairs of fake license plates, four miniature cameras, a laminating machine, adhesive, and other materials for forging documents. On one of the computers they supposedly found drafts and final versions of communiqués and texts (the “International Call,” etc.), as well as the logo used recently by the Fire Cells Conspiracy. Additionally, a car with fake plates was found quite close to the apartment. The car had been stolen two nights prior. On Monday afternoon, the usual police raids on the homes of the parents of the arrestees (six homes raided, nothing found) were accompanied by the search of a Kallithea apartment rented one month ago by Christos Tsakalos using a fake ID. There, pigs seized 35 suitcases full of clothing and tools, two fake ID cards, three laptops, a handgun, five miniature cameras, and another laminating machine.
Meanwhile, in Cholargos the pigs arrested two people, one of whom was released shortly thereafter due to a lack of evidence. The other arrestee was 26-year-old Constantinos Papadopoulos.
Naturally, the press are celebrating with headlines like: “Cells Leaders Caught,” “Cells Triad in Handcuffs,” “They Were Planning Bombings and Robberies,” etc. Based on the little information offered by the Police (who for the moment are “continuing the investigation” and not jumping to pompous conclusions), the press are making up their own script, pointing out other people, and insinuating connections with other groups like the Revolutionary Sect and the Revolutionary Brigade (who carried out 12 bombings between 2006 and 2008). The six arrestees also seem to be in danger of being charged with several bank robberies carried out in recent years by people wearing police uniforms. Ballistic analysis has confirmed that all the weapons found are “clean,” meaning that they haven’t been used in any attack carried out in recent years.
At noon on Tuesday, all six arrestees were brought before the prosecutor. They were transferred from Police Headquarters to the Athens Supreme Court, where there was a small demonstration of about 20 family members and people showing solidarity. Despite the suffocating police presence, slogans were shouted when the Antiterrorist Unit convoy arrived and entered the building’s garage. Comrades in Nea Ionia also held a spontaneous demonstration on Monday that attracted about 50 people to the same neighborhood where our comrades were arrested.
Lawyers condemned the mistreatment (beatings, cigarrette burns) experienced by the arrestees on the 12th floor of Athens Police Headquarters, which is where the Antiterrorist Unit has its offices. Giorgos Polydoras and Christos Tsakalos are also being charged with the Fire Cells Conspiracy package-bomb mailings of November 1, 2010, while Damiano Bolano and Giorgos Nikolopoulos have already been brought to prison. On March 16, all six were again brought before the prosecutor to give statements about the weapons that were found. Constantinos Papadopoulos said he had nothing to do with the Fire Cells Conspiracy, but he stated that he was an anarchist. He was released on bail of 10,000 euros, but he is prohibited from leaving the country and will have to sign in at his neighborhood police station three times a month. The five Nea Ionia arrestees again refused to participate in the proceedings and said nothing. They were ordered to be placed in preventive detention. Right now, all five are being charged with membership in the Fire Cells Conspiracy, and they also all have “weapons possession” charges. We will publish contact information for the five comrades as soon as it is available.

15/3/2011, UPDATE ON C.C.F. TRIAL

UPDATE ON C.C.F. TRIAL, 15/3/2011

Leave a comment

“in the sphere of politics”, as he said, included G.Arsenis (ex-minister of education), the incendiary device explosion in September 2009 outside the apartment, where he lives with his wife Louka Katseli, testifying in the trial.
The explosion was on the 23d of September of 2009, amidst an election period, and the same day the cops raided H.Hadjimihelakis house which led to the arrests of the comrades. He said that the explosion was not big but there was thick smoke in the apartment block. He also said that the windows broke but the prosecutor reminded that the fire brigade broke them in order to let the smoke out.

“this surely is not positive for the country” 
He added, though, that the state is too strong to be shaken with such acts, although they do “create an insecurity to the citizens”.

 To a question by the defence lawyer if in these actions, the “alleged victim gains politically”, because of the sympathy of the citizens –especially since it happened just before an election- , the ex-minister answered “it is very likely”.
He added, though, that from the first moment, the intention he and his wife and also Pasok (ruling party now), was not to exploit the situation, but to demean it, as you can tell by their statements that period.

THE COPS GIVE BIRTH TO BAGS!
The garbage bags with the “suspicious content”, which are the basic evidence of the case, from three became four, and later were multiplied. However, the superiors of the Office of Information and research of the domestic terrorism section of the antiterrorist force, who were examined by the court on Tuesday, stated they didn’t know why the number keeps going up.
Specifically, according to what was read in the court room, the cops that found the bags in the bin testified that they transferred three bags, not especially full. The superior in the Research office, as well as the superior of the Information office of the antiterrorist also spoke of three bags. One of these bags had a logo on it saying “I don’t harm the environment”.

On September 21st 2009, the confiscation report that was written by cops of the Research office mentions that three bags are confiscated. But, on September 22nd, the document that accompanies the sending of the evidence to the criminology labs of the police describes four bags, which contain 18 extra bags and nine bags with the with the indication “I don’t harm the environment”. 

The basic evidence of guilt against comrade K.Karakatsani was her print that was found on a bag with the indication “I don’t harm the environment”, which contained ingredients for an explosive device. When the comrades advocate asked the superior of the Research Office how it is possible “that the bags multiplied in the police offices” and how it is possible inside three half full bags to find “so many small bags that you could fill a small truck”, he answered he does not know why the number kept going up, however he stated with certainty that in his office “there is no way someone ‘filled in’ the bags”.

The superior of the research lab admitted that there were no reports made of evidence findings.
The superior of the Information office mentioned that during the surveillance of the house in Halandri, which was later baptized a “safehouse”, there was no document proving what time and who had shifts outside the house, while he destroyed the notes he had kept.

The testimonies of friends and fellow students of the accused, spoke of a normal student house, in which they had noticed nothing unusual.
The theatre continues on Thursday 17th March


Uncategorized
Leave a comment

Panayiotis Masouras: Statement in Solidarity with the “Bombings Case” Prisoners in Chile

13 03 2011http://thisisourjob.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/panayiotis-masouras-statement-in-solidarity-with-the-%E2%80%9Cbombings-case%E2%80%9D-prisoners-in-chile/

 
From Culmine (March 7, 2011) via Indymedia Barcelona (March 7, 2011):
On March 2, Panayiotis Masouras released the following letter in solidarity with the hunger strike being carried out by the imprisoned “Bombings Case” comrades in Chile.
In a world where most people exhaust themselves over the petty-bourgeois dilemmas produced by modern capitalism, and their common ethical code of self-interest celebrates the importance of saving their own skin, direct solidarity is a way to connect with people we’ve never met face-to-face and yet have fought and are fighting with on the same side: the side whose objective is true rejection of this society and its prevailing structures and perceptions.
It is an attempt to recover time and space, to stand firm beside one’s comrades. It is a permanent commitment to create alternative escape routes while consciously maintaining direct collaboration to spread revolutionary discourse and subversive practice as a necessary intensification of the struggle.
In the war being waged, we have known victory, we have confronted defeat, we have experienced joy, and we have tasted the bitterness of difficulty. In the trenches, between revolutionary forces and the regime’s machinery, losses come as the result of injuries on both sides. Of course, an inseparable part of the revolutionary movement comprises political prisoners, and it is inseparable because it makes us reflect on whether a war without losses can be called a war at all.
The captives express their opinion on how things are going, they take action, they propose solutions, they encounter dead ends, they communicate, and they are affected by severe doubts and anxieties. The discourse they articulate from behind the walls is a way for them to cut through the immovable wire fence and join the polymorphic subversive struggle.
Behind different walls, surrounded by different fences, locked up in cells far away from one another, what we share is the desire for liberation and the intensification of the radical subversive struggle for total disruption.
We continue to be among those decisive minorities that reject the dominant morality. We discover our commonalities in the context of struggle, spreading our ideas and completely rejecting the era we were destined for.
We raise a global barricade against the structures of Domination, and we fight on the side of revolution. We fight until victory.
I send my Solidarity to comrades Andrea Macarena Urzúa Cid, Camilo Nelson Pérez Tamayo, Carlos Luis Riveros Luttgue, Felipe Guerra Guajardo, Francisco Solar Domínguez, Mónica Andrea Caballero Sepúlveda, Pablo Hernán Morales Führmann, and Rodolfo Luis Retamales Leiva, who are captives of the Chilean regime and began a hunger strike on February 21, 2011, demanding the immediate release of all comrades being charged in their case.
—Panayiotis Masouras, political prisoner, Korydallos Prison
Note: The above statement doesn’t mention comrades Vinicio Aguilera and Omar Hermosilla, likely because news hadn’t yet reached Greece that Aguilera and Hermosilla were back in prison and had immediately joined the hunger strike. Another error is the mention of Pablo Morales as one of the hunger strikers, when in actuality he is the only one who has not joined.

Athens, Responsibility claim for arson attack in Kolonaki

Responsibility claim for arson attack in Kolonaki, Athens.

Leave a comment
Our brothers fight…
They do not quit, they are not subjugated.
Our brothers by day conspire in the nights move like shadows.
They sow destruction, they make passages, this is how they live.
They are not crawling ass-licking for the bread of the boss…
Our brothers seek comrades to become one,
they do not spend themselves on ephemeral relations, they look us deep in the eyes…
Our brothers stand up to the enemy since it does not frighten them. They are not afraid…
Fear is for bourgeois and snitches.
Our brothers stand proudly also in prison…
They do not regret, they do not comply with judges and people guards.
Our brothers do not beg for life.
They search for Freedom and go to the end.
Lambros Foundas is our brother, warrior of Freedom, member of Revolutionary Struggle, he fell in the battle, with a gun in his hand.
Tears do not suit our brothers, continuity of Struggle and attack suits them.
As a minimal token of honor we attacked the “emporiki” bank on Skoufa street, in Kolonaki square, the early hours of Sunday 6th March.
We look up high, there where with other rare and beautiful makes plans. Grins to those that continue, to those that do not forget,
to those that look at death and shout: Death does not exist!
HONOUR FOR EVER
Solidarity to the hostage Guerillas of the r.o. Conspiracy Cells of Fire, the r.o. Revolutionary Struggle, the r.o. 17th November.
Solidarity to the hostages of war that do not bow the head behind the bars of democracy.
Solidarity to the hunger striker of the “bombs case” in Chile.
We raise our fists those that continue the hostilities…
FREEDOM TO ALL OF US
GUERILLA FORMATION
LAMBROS FOUNDAS
LETTER FROM K.KARAKATSANI (greece)

LETTER FROM K.KARAKATSANI (greece)

Leave a comment


LETTER FROM K.KARAKATSANI

 1. About the “Agreement” 

 Avoiding public controversy, I could not answer the statement of those who claim my attitude in order to put together the pieces of their scattered obtuseness. 

But I am doing it, to be consistent in my commitment to the wider struggle. I do not intend to step on the backs of others to rise seemingly, either way I have things to say.
But it would be very cheap and also would not help the political situation, to limit myself to what we said and what we did not say with some. The essential ruptures liberate so now I have no hesitation to break the taboo of public criticism of fighting actions. And of course, since some spoke more than they deserve, I have to mention issues that I would otherwise consider have no place in a public text. First, therefore, I will clarify my position, but i seek also to give food for thought from the moment we stand embarrassed in front of unfamiliar situations. 
I will begin with the matter of the “agreement” that supposedly I made with my co-defendants. They wrote that they “talked seriously about the possibility of the trial to happen behind closed doors and how they would react to this possibility. From my side, I never participated in such discussions did not move on any pre-planned common action. The only thing mentioned to me, was the matter of the audience, ie not to let cops occupy seats so the largest possible number of people in solidarity can enter the room. This was the only thing we had reached an agreement on and all other requests came suddenly into the spotlight. Which means, their claim was not the product of an understanding or at least I did not know such a thing. Of course I did not express any objections to any demands and what happened the first day had my consent. Certainly for a moment I viewed the withdrawal as a gesture of protest because no one knew of the possibility of a trial in absentia. From the moment we were informed about it, everything came under discussion again and while I was possessed with skepticism, I avoided making hasty moves and statements that I could not process, within the very tight time frame. So, I did not commit to something, leaving temporarily a gap in my attitude. And because i functioned completely individually, like I intended, I did not communicate my thoughts to anyone. So, if I left room for misinterpretation, it was my fault and I accept it of course. Between that I agreed to enter demands and that I agreed to be tried in absentia, is a great distance. That I was asked and “assured that I still agree” and other such things that were written, is obscene lies.On the contrary they knew that I have not told my lawyers that i will cease them. But anyway, since the beginning of this case up to now I move completely independently, so I think I have not given any impression to my co-defendants, so they can imagine such agreements, that prerequisite proper consultation, the intention of fighting coexistence and comrade feeling. Concepts certainly that do not characterize our relations .. and made it clear to them, by telling them in the holding cells from the start: “you should know that i do not feel any unity with any of you”. 
Meanwhile, in the intervening week until the next court, it should have been to everyone visible my differentiation from this situation: my lawyers do not participate in the press conference, my parents do not sign the text of the other parents, I do not align myself with texts and statements of the others. It is therefore obvious that I am handling this case alone and I will never proceed to cooperate with some, that as more suspicious now, I think that perhaps they wanted to turn the trial into a spectacular blockbuster and would find a reason either way to do so. (To be honest I do not think they all had the same intention)
2.about the court

In a previous letter I have already referred briefly to the reasons I chose not to leave the trial. We have as first fact, a court in full alignment with the regime’s totalitarianism. This is anything but surprising, as it is included in the overall context of the “special treatment” of dissidents, where everything is converted to “special”. Transport conditions, conditions of detention, conditions of litigation. And we experience it as “special” arrested, imprisoned, accused. Through this, expressions such as “legitimizing the practice of the judges” is the definition of a superficial approach. Nobody goes voluntarily to a court. So when any revolutionary is in a court with “special” features he/she “legitimizes” its practices, and therefore its existence? When they transfer you with bulletproof vests and stretched out automatic machine guns, you legitimize this process, and hence the existence of the anti-terrorist police? When we were in the offices of the prosecutors, did we “legalize” them as well? When you are a prisoner, again against your will, do you “legitimize” the existence of prisons? And because we are in places that naturally have hostile characteristics (holding cells, courts, prisons), generally what we do is to “legitimize” state terrorism? Eventually, everyone can experience in our time such procedures, but the question is how we stand in them. And if anyone still believes that the presence in court means “legalization “, then they would do well not to attend any proceedings for this case, nor another, nor to the appeals courts. Because the id cards will continue to be held and generally the same conditions will not cease to exist. We will be here. No one else, except time will decide who is consistent in his choices. To not attend a trial demeaning it, is a respectable choice of denial. Not going to a trial because you wanted to do something and it did not work out and you are trapped in your own selfishness is a result of bad strategy.

As for me, I’ll be there in order not to become a spectator of my conviction, especially when it is a case in which I do not accept the charges and my prosecution in general. And of course, every trial of such type can not but target from our side to the confrontation with the state, the emergence and diffusion of subversive ideas. And not to consume the insurrection of each one, creating a force field although strong, ineffective. 

3

.about the hunger strike.

Soon the situation slipped from the bipolar of presence or absence from the trial. It took other dimensions, when it was decided by some to start a hunger strike, in order to return to the trial after their demand concerning the holding of the identities is met, something which was obviously impossible. If the mobilization was decided considering no one will go to the trial (as they said), then the trial would finish rapidly. The strike would not have had time to evolve, the sentences would be announced, the state would have ignored this mobilization and it would have been permanently exempted from the  Halandri case, without any discomfort. And on the other hand we dispersed in prisons all over the place with a sense of dissatisfaction on our consciences. With these facts, it is worth wondering where they base the assertion “we could have achieved a significant victory”. Not only  there was no chance of victory, but in my opinion, the matter was also placed on a wrong base. The defeat was prescribed and that is why there was an attempt to avoid the strike. In the end it started a week late, for selfish reasons, just because it was announced. 

And in the end, my presence at the trial marked the gaining of time. 

If the hunger strikers had taken their task seriously, they could see this as an opportunity to carry out their struggle. To exploit the duration of the trial, bringing the strike to the point where their health would put more pressure, and hopefully on the horizon would appear a promising prospect. But since they gave up, probably its not me who cannot take the weight! Personally I was not interested in any way to occupy myself with this move, since I saw from the beginning the unsuited exaggeration and non-productivity, so I cannot be attributed with any role of influence to it. The state is pressured by those who strike not those eating.
And to finish with the games to impress, let it be clear that these individuals, although they perceived the dead-end of this option, they thought they could not backtrack to not look like they are retreating and so they found in me a perfect excuse to retreat . And of course, when they were in front of their responsibilities, in order to not recognize that they were trapped by their wrong handling, attempted my moral and political obsolescence, in order for their own credibility to remain intact. 
Besides, my attitude was which suited everyone. First: me who I said clearly I did not want to be tried in absentia, nor did I agree to it, second, the piece that also did not want, but expected the divisive factor Karakatsani to take the blame, but also the remaining piece looking for a smooth exit from the hunger strike. This is the piece that unloaded on me all the responsibilities in the review of a political failure of hunger strikers. Which better not be historically recorded as such, but as a result of a political imbalance, because then it reaches the point of commoditization of the instrument, its individual goals and achievements. To not historically be recorded as such, since the movement’s legacy remains alive the vivid memory of the hunger striker Christophoros Marinos in 1995 for his liberation, of the Turkish political prisoners in 2000 who were on strike for the white cells dropping dead one after another, the hunger striker Holger Meins exterminated by the German state after forced feeding in 1974, etc. Remain alive the memories to remind us that the strike is not a simple painless instrument but means of struggle in which is compromised the health and life of those who decide to use it. Alive or Dead. Either a winner and standing or a loser and lying down. A middle situation does not exist and no Karakatsani is an excuse to retreat. So lets be a little more modest. An honest self-criticism would have more chances to win the respect, unlike the responsibility feared backlash move, which cast the burden on my shoulders.

I am and I will remain INCONSISTENT for those who trivialize practices and demean forms of struggle that have historically been landmarks of struggles in revolutionary procedures.
INCSINCERE for those who shift their responsibilities to others, relegating even any sense of self criticism . I am and always will be DISRUPTIVE for those who choose moves that are on the verge of self victimization and give reasons to useless subjects to speak of me politically, who sabotage the revolutionary vision, more efficiently than dominance itself. (referring only to the arson in the Law school). And honorably, I am and I will be in the future ENRAGED, for those who adopt attitudes and behaviors that are not recognized within the scope of my political assessment. Also among other things, I will also be a traitor, to anything that does not coincide with my value and fighting positions.

Honest I will be only with those who consciously honour their value codes. My robust respect and consistency therefore will only be enjoyed by those who feel comradeship as the highest good. A concept that should be worn as a crown on our heads, because it is also the lobby of the post-revolutionary order.

P.S.: The reason I sent the last letter was very specific. I wanted to say a few words about the trial, but mainly intended to block some journalists who over did it on my attitude, in order for obvious reasons to promote the “rupture of the accused”. A crack that existed anyway, I just thought that i should treat it as an internal matter (of those who sit in the same dock), protecting it from any kind of enemies, visible and invisible, who are flattered by such statements, and not to expose it before all for cannibalism. As it seems, however, I was the only person who respected this value rule. 


P.S.2: In the text of my co-defendants I could see that with a very petty political practice they tried to turn against me also those who stand in solidarity, writing that “I legalize the court’s decision to register the people”. Obviously i consciously discredit those who deliberately swallow, without chewing, these words. Whatever I say is for those who enroll themselves in the direction of building a strong revolutionary movement with healthy terms that will not step over respect, but promote it, will not cover up its political mistakes, but will learn from them. 
As long as these situations find support within the movement, so long will they destabilize it, disintegrating it from within. 
KOSTANDINA KARAKATSANI 
-female prisons of Koridallos. 25/2/2011


boubouras translations

Uncategorized
Leave a comment

LETTER FROM K.KARAKATSANI (greece)
LETTER FROM K.KARAKATSANI

 1. About the “Agreement” 

 Avoiding public controversy, I could not answer the statement of those who claim my attitude in order to put together the pieces of their scattered obtuseness. 

But I am doing it, to be consistent in my commitment to the wider struggle. I do not intend to step on the backs of others to rise seemingly, either way I have things to say.
But it would be very cheap and also would not help the political situation, to limit myself to what we said and what we did not say with some. The essential ruptures liberate so now I have no hesitation to break the taboo of public criticism of fighting actions. And of course, since some spoke more than they deserve, I have to mention issues that I would otherwise consider have no place in a public text. First, therefore, I will clarify my position, but i seek also to give food for thought from the moment we stand embarrassed in front of unfamiliar situations. 
I will begin with the matter of the “agreement” that supposedly I made with my co-defendants. They wrote that they “talked seriously about the possibility of the trial to happen behind closed doors and how they would react to this possibility. From my side, I never participated in such discussions did not move on any pre-planned common action. The only thing mentioned to me, was the matter of the audience, ie not to let cops occupy seats so the largest possible number of people in solidarity can enter the room. This was the only thing we had reached an agreement on and all other requests came suddenly into the spotlight. Which means, their claim was not the product of an understanding or at least I did not know such a thing. Of course I did not express any objections to any demands and what happened the first day had my consent. Certainly for a moment I viewed the withdrawal as a gesture of protest because no one knew of the possibility of a trial in absentia. From the moment we were informed about it, everything came under discussion again and while I was possessed with skepticism, I avoided making hasty moves and statements that I could not process, within the very tight time frame. So, I did not commit to something, leaving temporarily a gap in my attitude. And because i functioned completely individually, like I intended, I did not communicate my thoughts to anyone. So, if I left room for misinterpretation, it was my fault and I accept it of course. Between that I agreed to enter demands and that I agreed to be tried in absentia, is a great distance. That I was asked and “assured that I still agree” and other such things that were written, is obscene lies.On the contrary they knew that I have not told my lawyers that i will cease them. But anyway, since the beginning of this case up to now I move completely independently, so I think I have not given any impression to my co-defendants, so they can imagine such agreements, that prerequisite proper consultation, the intention of fighting coexistence and comrade feeling. Concepts certainly that do not characterize our relations .. and made it clear to them, by telling them in the holding cells from the start: “you should know that i do not feel any unity with any of you”. 
Meanwhile, in the intervening week until the next court, it should have been to everyone visible my differentiation from this situation: my lawyers do not participate in the press conference, my parents do not sign the text of the other parents, I do not align myself with texts and statements of the others. It is therefore obvious that I am handling this case alone and I will never proceed to cooperate with some, that as more suspicious now, I think that perhaps they wanted to turn the trial into a spectacular blockbuster and would find a reason either way to do so. (To be honest I do not think they all had the same intention)
2.about the court

In a previous letter I have already referred briefly to the reasons I chose not to leave the trial. We have as first fact, a court in full alignment with the regime’s totalitarianism. This is anything but surprising, as it is included in the overall context of the “special treatment” of dissidents, where everything is converted to “special”. Transport conditions, conditions of detention, conditions of litigation. And we experience it as “special” arrested, imprisoned, accused. Through this, expressions such as “legitimizing the practice of the judges” is the definition of a superficial approach. Nobody goes voluntarily to a court. So when any revolutionary is in a court with “special” features he/she “legitimizes” its practices, and therefore its existence? When they transfer you with bulletproof vests and stretched out automatic machine guns, you legitimize this process, and hence the existence of the anti-terrorist police? When we were in the offices of the prosecutors, did we “legalize” them as well? When you are a prisoner, again against your will, do you “legitimize” the existence of prisons? And because we are in places that naturally have hostile characteristics (holding cells, courts, prisons), generally what we do is to “legitimize” state terrorism? Eventually, everyone can experience in our time such procedures, but the question is how we stand in them. And if anyone still believes that the presence in court means “legalization “, then they would do well not to attend any proceedings for this case, nor another, nor to the appeals courts. Because the id cards will continue to be held and generally the same conditions will not cease to exist. We will be here. No one else, except time will decide who is consistent in his choices. To not attend a trial demeaning it, is a respectable choice of denial. Not going to a trial because you wanted to do something and it did not work out and you are trapped in your own selfishness is a result of bad strategy.

As for me, I’ll be there in order not to become a spectator of my conviction, especially when it is a case in which I do not accept the charges and my prosecution in general. And of course, every trial of such type can not but target from our side to the confrontation with the state, the emergence and diffusion of subversive ideas. And not to consume the insurrection of each one, creating a force field although strong, ineffective. 

3

.about the hunger strike.

Soon the situation slipped from the bipolar of presence or absence from the trial. It took other dimensions, when it was decided by some to start a hunger strike, in order to return to the trial after their demand concerning the holding of the identities is met, something which was obviously impossible. If the mobilization was decided considering no one will go to the trial (as they said), then the trial would finish rapidly. The strike would not have had time to evolve, the sentences would be announced, the state would have ignored this mobilization and it would have been permanently exempted from the  Halandri case, without any discomfort. And on the other hand we dispersed in prisons all over the place with a sense of dissatisfaction on our consciences. With these facts, it is worth wondering where they base the assertion “we could have achieved a significant victory”. Not only  there was no chance of victory, but in my opinion, the matter was also placed on a wrong base. The defeat was prescribed and that is why there was an attempt to avoid the strike. In the end it started a week late, for selfish reasons, just because it was announced. 

And in the end, my presence at the trial marked the gaining of time. 

If the hunger strikers had taken their task seriously, they could see this as an opportunity to carry out their struggle. To exploit the duration of the trial, bringing the strike to the point where their health would put more pressure, and hopefully on the horizon would appear a promising prospect. But since they gave up, probably its not me who cannot take the weight! Personally I was not interested in any way to occupy myself with this move, since I saw from the beginning the unsuited exaggeration and non-productivity, so I cannot be attributed with any role of influence to it. The state is pressured by those who strike not those eating.
And to finish with the games to impress, let it be clear that these individuals, although they perceived the dead-end of this option, they thought they could not backtrack to not look like they are retreating and so they found in me a perfect excuse to retreat . And of course, when they were in front of their responsibilities, in order to not recognize that they were trapped by their wrong handling, attempted my moral and political obsolescence, in order for their own credibility to remain intact. 
Besides, my attitude was which suited everyone. First: me who I said clearly I did not want to be tried in absentia, nor did I agree to it, second, the piece that also did not want, but expected the divisive factor Karakatsani to take the blame, but also the remaining piece looking for a smooth exit from the hunger strike. This is the piece that unloaded on me all the responsibilities in the review of a political failure of hunger strikers. Which better not be historically recorded as such, but as a result of a political imbalance, because then it reaches the point of commoditization of the instrument, its individual goals and achievements. To not historically be recorded as such, since the movement’s legacy remains alive the vivid memory of the hunger striker Christophoros Marinos in 1995 for his liberation, of the Turkish political prisoners in 2000 who were on strike for the white cells dropping dead one after another, the hunger striker Holger Meins exterminated by the German state after forced feeding in 1974, etc. Remain alive the memories to remind us that the strike is not a simple painless instrument but means of struggle in which is compromised the health and life of those who decide to use it. Alive or Dead. Either a winner and standing or a loser and lying down. A middle situation does not exist and no Karakatsani is an excuse to retreat. So lets be a little more modest. An honest self-criticism would have more chances to win the respect, unlike the responsibility feared backlash move, which cast the burden on my shoulders.

I am and I will remain INCONSISTENT for those who trivialize practices and demean forms of struggle that have historically been landmarks of struggles in revolutionary procedures.
INCSINCERE for those who shift their responsibilities to others, relegating even any sense of self criticism . I am and always will be DISRUPTIVE for those who choose moves that are on the verge of self victimization and give reasons to useless subjects to speak of me politically, who sabotage the revolutionary vision, more efficiently than dominance itself. (referring only to the arson in the Law school). And honorably, I am and I will be in the future ENRAGED, for those who adopt attitudes and behaviors that are not recognized within the scope of my political assessment. Also among other things, I will also be a traitor, to anything that does not coincide with my value and fighting positions.

Honest I will be only with those who consciously honour their value codes. My robust respect and consistency therefore will only be enjoyed by those who feel comradeship as the highest good. A concept that should be worn as a crown on our heads, because it is also the lobby of the post-revolutionary order.

P.S.: The reason I sent the last letter was very specific. I wanted to say a few words about the trial, but mainly intended to block some journalists who over did it on my attitude, in order for obvious reasons to promote the “rupture of the accused”. A crack that existed anyway, I just thought that i should treat it as an internal matter (of those who sit in the same dock), protecting it from any kind of enemies, visible and invisible, who are flattered by such statements, and not to expose it before all for cannibalism. As it seems, however, I was the only person who respected this value rule. 


P.S.2: In the text of my co-defendants I could see that with a very petty political practice they tried to turn against me also those who stand in solidarity, writing that “I legalize the court’s decision to register the people”. Obviously i consciously discredit those who deliberately swallow, without chewing, these words. Whatever I say is for those who enroll themselves in the direction of building a strong revolutionary movement with healthy terms that will not step over respect, but promote it, will not cover up its political mistakes, but will learn from them. 
As long as these situations find support within the movement, so long will they destabilize it, disintegrating it from within. 
KOSTANDINA KARAKATSANI 
-female prisons of Koridallos. 25/2/2011


boubouras translations