Praljak, Orwell and a revolutionary act (EN)

George Orwell once wrote that “in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” It was true when he published his masterpiece, “1984”, during the Second World War, and it is true today, when its chilling predictions have long since come to pass: omnipresent government surveillance, an atmosphere of “thought crimes” and “groupthink”, cult of personality, and public manipulation by the “organs of power’. Some said the book was a warning against fascism, and others, against Communism. As an American high school student in the 60s, I saw it as a call to oppose all forms of government misconduct, hypocrisy, and institutional injustice, and what better way than telling the truth, loudly and forcefully? Those who remained silent were the sycophants, the dishonorable, the cowardly, the hypocrites, not a group to which any self-respecting person wished to belong. We young Americans were taught to question, not bow down to authority, to challenge monolithic “facts”, to exercise freedom of speech, expose the lies. It was a badge of honor to do so. This responsibility included all institutions of power, and especially the justice system. 

Back then, the Vietnam war was raging, and the growing civil rights movement posed a serious problem for law enforcement: black power, Native American activism, women’s rights. The government reaction was often an egregious abuse of power, which not infrequently led to the imprisonment of innocent people who had not received a fair trial - the right of every citizen as stated in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There were scores of miscarriages back then, and they continue today. We read all the time in the media that this or that person convicted of this or that crime was denied a fair trial, and many have been freed as a result. But the case of the Native American activist , Leonard Peltier, has garnered perhaps the most attention. Although convicted by the American courts for the deaths of two FBI agents during a raid on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation in South Dakota, Peltier’s supporters charge that he has spent over 40 years in prison (15,382 days) for a crime he did not commit, that prosecutors and federal agents manufactured evidence against him (including the so-called “murder weapon”); hid proof of his innocence; presented false testimony obtained through torturous interrogation techniques; ignored court orders; and lied to the jury. 

For four decades now, an international campaign has been waged for his release, presidential clemency, or, at the least, a new, fair trial. The campaign has gained widespread support from an impressive array of individuals and organizations: the U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights, Members of the U.S. Congress, Amnesty International, The European Parliament, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, British House of Commons, German Bundestag, and so on. Among the prominent individuals who have given support include Nobel Prize winners, Desmond Tutu, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dalai Lama, the late Nelson Mandela, the late Mother Teresa, Rigoberta Menchu, and Mairead McGuire, as well as artists, writers and celebrities such Kurt Vonnegut, William Styron, Carlos Santana, Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Barbara Streisand. Robert Redford filmed a prize-winning documentary on Leonard Peltier, Incident at Oglala, and the actress Winona Ryder was regularly photographed wearing a Free Leonard Peltier! T-shirt. 

And even though Leonard Peltier remains in an American prison, in spite of these efforts, the campaign continues. Not because his supporters live under the illusion he will be freed, but because when a grave injustice has been done, when one's constitutional right to a fair trial has been denied, the fight must go on!
Over twenty years ago, Croatians fought for and gained their independence, and with it, won the right to do what citizens in democratic countries have always done: challenge their governments, criticize acts of injustice, and expose lies and manipulation by official bodies – domestic or international – without fear of arrest or imprisonment. No more decades of prison for disseminating harmless „enemy propaganda“ or reading „emigre press“, singing traditional songs, exhibiting the Croatian coat-of-arms. Down with Orwellian „groupthink“, down with „thought crimes!“ It was thus to be expected that the entire pantheon of now permitted, well-funded Croatian human rights groups would rise up in outrage at all kinds of violations against Croatian citizens; for example, Slobodan Praljak! 

He, too, was guaranteed the right to a fair trial under the Croatian constitution (Svatko ima pravo da zakonom ustanovljeni neovisni i nepristrani sud pravično i u razumnom roku odluči o njegovim pravima i obvezama, ili o sumnji ili optužbi zbog kažnjivog djela), and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Freedom, but he was denied this basic right. Those embarrasingly few individuals who have investigated and followed the case - especially General Praljak's attorney of 17 years, Nika Pinter - have repeatedly objected to the gross violations of General Praljak's right to a fair trial at the Hague Tribunal. A few examples: the Court allowed the prosecution to submit documents without seals or signatures, yet this was denied General Praljak; the Court limited to 20 the number of statements the defense was allowed to submit, but the prosecution had no limit whatsoever; extensive hearsay evidence was admitted, which would be disallowed in the majority of home, democratic countries as this denies the right of the defendant to confront his accusers; „opinions“, „impressions“, and „understandings“ from international observers were accepted as „proof“, and outrageous mistakes in translation were an everyday occurrence. One glaring example was the city of Prozor rendered into English by court translators as the noun, „window“, while Rama (and the Rama valley) were translated as „frame“, completing the false and confusing image of a window accompanied by a frame, instead of preserving the original city names so that their crucial importance in the trial could not be misunderstood. One wonders whether the U.S. state of New Jersey, had it been part of the testimony, would have appeared as Novi Dzemper. Or, say, Maryland as Marijina zemlja. No wonder the judges, most of them totally unqualified by training, experience, or education to sit in the Hague, were totally lost. 

Since much of this information was available to the public, it was to be expected that campaigns similar to that of Peltier's would be initiated in Croatia. After all, one didn't go to prison anymore for such activities, Croatians were now free! But to do what? Apparently to remain silent, or even worse, to attack those who expressed their freedom of speech by questioning the guilt of General Praljak or criticizing the Hague Tribunal! Criticizers of free speech exercising their right to free speech by criticizing those who are exercising their right to free speech! One explanation for this alarming transvaluation can by paraphrasing a passage from Dostojevsky's Grand Inquisitor: 
True freedom comes with the burden of responsibility – for our choices and actions, for the creation of meaning, for our defining ‘right and wrong’ and for our being our own moral compass. 

Is freedom simply too great a burden for the post-Communist Croatians?