ABSTRACT: The Radical Party's action to obtain the release of Judge Giovanni D'Urso, kidnapped by the "Red Brigades" on 12 December 1980, and to oppose that group of political and press officials who advocate his death to justify the imposition in Italy of an "emergency" government composed of "technicians". On 15 February 1981, Judge D'Urso was released: "The party of intransigence was organizing and is still organizing a coup d'état: for this fascism, as for the fascism of 1921, it needs victims; but this time, unlike what happened with Moro, it has been temporarily defeated. For once, the Red Brigades have not served the purpose. The campaign conducted by Radio Radicale successfully interrupts the blackout on information ordered by the press.
("The life of Judge D'Urso", Who needed it, who sold it, how it was saved - edited by Lino Jannuzzi, Ennio Capelcelatro, Franco Roccella, Valter Vecellio - Supplement to Radical News n.3 - March 1981)
MARCO PANNELLA'S CONTROVERSY ON THE QUIRINAL AND ON THE COVERT COUP ATTEMPTED BY THE "PARTY OF INTRANSIGENCE"
Marco Pannella's statement of 15-1-1981:
"I accuse the Party of Intransigence of having attempted to implicate the President of the Republic in a putschist policy. The shameless and erratic reactions - filled with acrimony because D'Urso has been released - are a confession in themselves, and prove far more than what we had guessed or feared. D'Urso was needed dead. The continuous appeals to the President of the Republic on the part of the two editorial groups, the one connected to Sindona (1) and the other, which has gone so far as publishing self-interviews of the Red Brigades and the records of the infamous trials conducted by the terrorists to urge the President to intervene on an extraordinary basis in the life of institutions, this time could not rely on the infamy of the assassins, who have lost.
Scalfari (2) and Valiani (3) are eloquent today: the senator for life, plunged into the life of the institutions owing to a mistake which could reveal fatal, strongly advocates the creation, in Italy, of special courts shaped on that French security court which all French democratic forces denounce as an intolerable violation of the justice system of the Republic. Scalfari, who seems to have lost his mind, proves that the government he was aiming at would have had special and dictatorial powers against the radical opposition. My opinion is the following: the party of intransigence was organizing a coup d'état; for this fascism, as for the fascism of 1921, it needed victims, but this time, unlike what happened with Moro, it has been temporarily defeated: for once the Red Brigades have not served the purpose".
ANSA communiqué of 13:27 of January 15: "In the circles of the Quirinal..."
The President of the Republic, Sandro Pertini (4), has sent the family of the kidnapped magistrate the following telegram: "I sympathize with you fraternally at this moment of newly found serenity. I wish to express my human support to Judge D'Urso".
The circles of the Quirinal underline that the magistrate's release has not eliminated the subversive threat which targets the republican institutions, and which is a source of great concern for the Head of the State. In fact, these same sources state that the President is following the debate in Parliament on terrorism with extreme interest, also because he believes that the D'Urso affair could give useful indications to develop a more effective strategy to fight terrorism.
Marco Pannella's statement of 15-1-1981 (18:30): concerning the communiqué attributed to "sources of the Quirinal":
"At 13:27, the ANSA agency circulated an odd communiqué and an odd piece of information. What does "sources of the Quirinal" mean? What does it mean to say, when it states that "The Head of the State is following the debate in Parliament with extreme interest? Is it a leak? Especially with respect to the President of the Republic? Is it a gratification? Is it a warning? Also, aren't the other sessions of Parliament equally useful to draw "useful lessons" to "develop a strategy, etc..."?
We waited for a confirmation or a denial for hours. Now we have to publicly express the questions we can find no answers for, hoping no one will dare to do anything that is less than honest with respect to President Pertini".
Marco Pannella's statement of 16-1-1981: I continue to believe that someone yesterday tried to implicate President Pertini in a dubious manoeuvre. The communiqué of the Presidency of the Republic's press office further aggravates the questions we raised yesterday.
The ANSA states that authorized "sources" - institutionally authorized sources of the Presidency of the Republic - re at the origin of the press note divulged yesterday afternoon at 13:27, which no one denied until my statement of 18:30, that is, after about four hours. It took two hours or more for the Quirinal's press office to intervene, clarifying nothing but simply confirming something we already knew: that it was neither an "officious note" of the Presidency nor a communiqué.
I therefore reiterate, with even greater alarm, the questions I raised yesterday: who gave the ANSA agency the information the ANSA itself confirms, and why? Why did someone judge it appropriate and necessary to inform that President Pertini is following the parliamentary debate with "extreme interest" since the day before, prompting unanimous albeit not univocal political interpretations which have to some extent influenced the debate itself? In what sense does the debate give new indications on the battle against terrorism?
Doesn't the Presidency's "source" realize it has committed an indiscretion and a tactless action with regard to the President, and given cause to believe that this was an attempt to answer the patent attempts to implicate the President in a biased political campaign, to respond to it by giving credit to this campaign and its obscure objectives?
For all these reasons, we judge it necessary to investigate the matter. Has the "source" been specifically authorized for the circumstance? Does the silence on this point mean an assent? We refuse to believe it".
Marco Pannella's statement of 16-1-1981 (afternoon). The "mystery" surrounding the Quirinal. The agencies censor to avoid the President from knowing...
"At about 13:00 I divulged a new communiqué relative to the "mystery" (at this point there is no other way to call it) of the note-non-note divulged yesterday afternoon by the ANSA agency, and which the ANSA then declared to have been drafted after having recorded the statements of a "source" of the Presidency of the Republic. At 17:10 such communiqué was circulated neither by the ANSA nor by ITALIA: only the ADN-Kronos gave extracts of it at 13:47. The ANSA has censored the news for the moment. At this stage, it is hard to believe that it is not legitimate to believe that someone, in the circles of the Quirinal, is trying to prevent the President from knowing and ascertaining the responsibilities. The reaction of the two agencies is alarming. The ANSA simply informed that I touched on the subject subsequently, during a press conference.
If the Presidency of the Republic knows nothing of this last part of the affair, then I believe the censorship worked in all senses.
But the questions I raised now call for an answer. Otherwise, we will have to ask the public opinion to urge it, after having informed it by means of the free and democratic media".
Marco Pannella's statement of 17-1-1981: we are concerned about the "sources" that originate out of the blue, the "moles" that dig, the liars that besiege the Quirinal.
"We will answer Minister Sarti and Eugenio Sarti elsewhere, since they are united and equivalent in style and objectives. I simply wish to point out that this morning Giovanni D'Urso quite correctly defended the investigatory secrecy, whereas this minister of justice made public the Red Brigades' judgement on myself, which he had been told - so it seems - by D'Urso.
"Viribus unitis": from the Red Brigades to the terrorists of information and of the Christian Democratic Party, from the terrorists of Sindona to the terrorists in power, they march separated but they strike together when a radical is in sight.
But the most alarming thing is these people's persistence in the attempt to submerge and occupy the Quirinal.
It is beyond question (and it is proven by the onset of "sources" and "circles" pointed out by the ANSA) that there is more than one mole, at the Quirinal, working for the 2nd Republic versus the Republic which Pertini contributed to creating - the constitutional and antifascist republic. But it is intolerable that "La Repubblica" is left free to boast credit and information, as if it were the President's Officious Gazette, to the point that soon it will be publishing real or false presidential drafts and the collection of texts of alleged messages and written letters, thought but nor made public. We hope President Pertini will not be forced one day to realize, as he did when he was President of the Chamber, that he was surrounded by dangerous and intolerable people and methods".
The communiqué of the Radical Party and Parliamentary Groups which asked to be received by the President of the Republic (18 January)
On 18 January, the Radical Party and the radical parliamentary groups of the Senate and of the Chamber decide to ask the President of the Republic, Sandro Pertini, to receive them. They wanted above all to express the deep and complete confidence with which the radicals regard him, and thank him for all he has done for the life of the Republic and for all its citizens, and for the intransigence with which he embodies and respects the Constitution. But there is also another reason for this visit: that of providing the President with ample documentation on the facts that deeply worry the radicals and the citizens they represent, which, they fear, he has not been informed of.
The following documentation (which consists of statements by Marco Pannella between 15 and 17 January) is part of the "dossier" given to the President, and clarifies the situation which has determined the request to be received.
On the other hand, the radical interrogation addressed to the Prime Minister, containing the request to be informed of the Government's considerations and intentions with regard to the severe censorship repeatedly and officially used by the ANSA agencies on the communiqués and declarations of political stance of a radical member of the European Parliament, Marco Pannella, whom the ANSA or any other can hardly deny political responsibility and relevance, is emblematic.
Marco Pannella's censored statements concerned statements and serious questions relative to dishonest and instrumental behaviours on the part of persons operating in the offices or in the headquarters of the Presidency of the Republic. Similar albeit less explicit fears had been expressed almost simultaneously by the official press organ of the Socialist Party, "L'Avanti!". Incidentally, the radical MPs who advocated an urgent reply on the part of the Government, considering the gravity of the facts, have once again been "deceived". The arrogance and the violence of those who are in "power" contain not a grain of decency.
Translator's notes
(1) Michele Sindona (1920-1986): Italian financier. Between 1969 and 1974 he established a vast financial empire, to avoid the collapse of which he fled to the U.S. Implicated in a new scandal, he was arrested and convicted. He died in the prison of Voghera under mysterious circumstances.
(2) Eugenio Scalfari (1924): Italian journalist. Editor of L'Espresso (1966-68), founder and editor of the daily paper La Repubblica (1976).
(3) Leo Valiani (1909): Italian politician, historian and journalist. Among the founders of the Partito d'Azione (1943) and leader of the Resistance. Senator for life since 1980.
(4) Sandro Pertini (1896-1990): Italian politician. A socialist, he was imprisoned and exiled during fascism. From 1943 to 1945 he took part in the Resistance. President of the Chamber of Deputies ('68-76), President of the Republic (1978-85).
