In the court of Finland`s capital is in progress a judicial farce. A certain Finnish ambassador has to seek justice, against the Finnish Security Police, SUPO, in the same court which already made a political judgement to conceal the lists of former Finnish STASI spies, including expectedly very high-ranking, active political name. Finland has always declared belonging to the hard core of the EU, but this decision points more to the communist system only left in Europe. Now Finland presents a show, that the lists are opening up to scholars who will tell that all the names are harmful.
SUPO`s tactics in the trial reveals rather clearly, that the ambassador became a victim of political plot where originally the government of that time, in spring 2002, had to seek a some electoral weapon as a counterbalance for the stunning news; the invaluable state company SONERA had been wrecked, vast billions were lost suspiciously in German by the government. However the sensation of SONERA did not last long, as SUPO confirmed soon much bigger sensation by the help of social democratic YLE-media, the spying case of the centrist MP candidate. Today we know also that the grounds of SUPO were non existent.
The farseeing tactics of SUPO has been, in the worst threatening case of it that points to the aggravated crime in the office - to prevent the key witness from testifying in court. That key witness knows the right answers and the right question produces the right answer in the court. The right question might be: which of the leading politicians of the Social Democratic Party knew before all the others that Alpo Rusi will get into the investigation of the Security Police ?
The concerned testimony is a very threatening to the SUPO because the key witness could not take the risk of lying which could possible bring to him later a prison sentence of a one year for committing perjury. At least the audience will see, whether the key witness is as able to testify as he has been giving the last interview in the YLE-media. Not so long ago. A honest SUPO policy would mean that the key witness would testify openly.
SUPO`s tactics in the trial reveals rather clearly, that the ambassador became a victim of political plot where originally the government of that time, in spring 2002, had to seek a some electoral weapon as a counterbalance for the stunning news; the invaluable state company SONERA had been wrecked, vast billions were lost suspiciously in German by the government. However the sensation of SONERA did not last long, as SUPO confirmed soon much bigger sensation by the help of social democratic YLE-media, the spying case of the centrist MP candidate. Today we know also that the grounds of SUPO were non existent.
The farseeing tactics of SUPO has been, in the worst threatening case of it that points to the aggravated crime in the office - to prevent the key witness from testifying in court. That key witness knows the right answers and the right question produces the right answer in the court. The right question might be: which of the leading politicians of the Social Democratic Party knew before all the others that Alpo Rusi will get into the investigation of the Security Police ?
The concerned testimony is a very threatening to the SUPO because the key witness could not take the risk of lying which could possible bring to him later a prison sentence of a one year for committing perjury. At least the audience will see, whether the key witness is as able to testify as he has been giving the last interview in the YLE-media. Not so long ago. A honest SUPO policy would mean that the key witness would testify openly.
Vastaukset 1
Vanhimmat
That this is a classic case where police is investigating police.
Now, if you could decide yourself in court where you would be the prosecuted, but *also* the judge and jury, what would you say?
If the guys investigating SUPO are part of SOPU, as well and everything they discover is also conviniently classified(to which they can always point out in court, thus negating the testimony at hand) as well as just saying they had an anonymous tip.
Rusi wins, even if he loses. The German expert,-who again conviniently couldn't arrive at court, because the court wouldn't allow to postpone the courtdates so the man could come to testify-, said in two Finnish newspapers(Turun Sanomat & Aamulehti), that SUPO had known for a long time that Alpo Rusi couldn't be guilty and wasn't even near Finland at the time of alledged accusations.
Of course, that makes things twice as interesting, especially when SUPO can say whatever they want to and withold all documents based on their right to do so, written in the finnish law.
Of course, who can say who speaks the truth and if the government really has done something shady.. but it *does* smell fishy. =)
-My opinion. Not yours.-