25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #15 Sibiu, the Fiefdom of Nicolae Ceausescu’s son Nicu Continues/Initiates the Counterrevolution
Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on December 23, 2014
(purely personal views based on two decades of prior research and publications)
(punct de vedere STRICT PERSONAL, va multumesc)
By far, some of the worst, most disgusting (Securitate-inspired or Securitate-serving) revisionism is in connection, not by accident, with Sibiu, Nicu Ceausescu’s fiefdom. An admittedly, below, scattershot compendium of my previous writings/posts on Sibiu (apologies for the dezordine si haos!)!
Both of the previous two above videos posted on youtube by Tioluciano
“Cuvinte pentru Gloante III (Sibiu),” Colonel Gh. Vaduva, nr. 21 (76) 22-28 mai 1991, “Armata Romaniei”
dupa 15:00 22 decembrie 1989
“S-a mai tras?”
Cpt. Cristian Teodorescu:
Nu. Dar in momentul cind noi am tras focul de avertisment au fost raniti doi tinerei. In nici un caz de focurile noastre. Gloantele au venit din spate, nu din directia noastra si nici de sus. Unuia dintre ei i-a explodat in umar. Veneau oameni la mine si imi spuneau ‘La mine in pod este cineva de doua zile. Mi-a fost frica sa urc sa vad ce-i acolo.”
Dan Mititi, elevul:
S-a tras din toate punctuale asupra scolii…Eu am adunat plutonul din coada care se retrasera in cazarma, au trecut pe platou (?) unde erau retinuti trei indivizi in salopete si cu cite doua pistole si mi-am dus cu elevii in dormitor. Nu s-a tras intimplator, ci ochit si foarte precis.
In batalion am avut un mort si 14 raniti. Din fericire, cei raniti au fost recuperati. Se trageau cu un anumit fel de gloante. Am adunat multe gloante din acelea. Le-am dat comisi de procurori. Au disparut. Ca multe alte probe.
Dan Badea, “Secretele Revolutiei,” Expres, nr. 22 (7-13 iunie 1994), pp. 8-9
“Secretele Revolutiei” (Dan Badea, Expres, 7-13 iunie 1994)
from Orwellian…Positively Orwellian (2006)
Lt. Col. Aurel Dragomir, former commander of the “Nicolae Balcescu” Military Officers School in Sibiu, described in 1994 those killed as “terrorists” in Sibiu in December 1989:
…On the morning of 22 December…I was informed that on the rooftops there were some suspicious persons. I saw 2-3 people in black jumpsuits. The Militia told me that they weren’t their people. At noon there appeared 10 to 15 people in black jumpsuits who opened massive gunfire on the crowds and soldiers. I ordered them to respond with fire. I headed to the infirmary—the reserve command site, and col. Pircalabescu [head of the Patriotic Guards] called and asked me “why was there gunfire?” I told him we were being attacked. He told me to cease fire. Ilie Ceausescu [Ceausescu’s brother, and an Army General] told me to surrender. I slammed the telephone down. Then [Army General] Stanculescu called. I told him that we are under attack. Stanculescu said to me: ‘Defend yourselves!’….The attackers had on black jumpsuits under which they had on civilian clothes….Weapons and ammunition that weren’t in the arsenal of the Army were found, guns with silencers were found, that aren’t in the Army’s arsenal….After the events declarations given to the investigating commissions disappeared, notebooks filled with the recordings of officers on duty (ofiterii de serviciu), and a map that noted from which houses gunfire came. The dead who were in jumpsuits and had several layers of clothing were identified: they were cadre from the Sibiu Interior Ministry (Militia and Securitate)…. (“black jumpsuits” emphases and “weapons and ammunition…” emphasis added; rest in original)[57]
Armata Poporului, “Sub tirul incrucisat…(II)” interviu cu Aurel Dragomir, nr. 46, noiembrie 1990 p. 3.
Finally, in this context, the comments of a Codrut H. in July 1990 about what he and other civilians found when they occupied Securitate headquarters in Brasov on the night of 22 December: “What appeared suspicious to me was that the Securitate there appeared to have been prepared [for something]…. Out front of the building there was a white ARO [automobile] in which there were complete antiterrorist kits [emphasis added].” What else did the civilians find there?…combinezoane negre. [58]
Sibiu, 19-22 December 1989
In Sibiu, Siani-Davies tells us:
Controversy also continues to surround a commercial TAROM flight, which is alleged to have brought up to eighty USLA troops from Bucharest to Sibiu on December 20, 1989. It is not clear if the USLA forces were actually on the airplane, or, even if they were, what they actually did in Sibiu…[Serban] Sandulescu (c1996), 57-58…suggests they were not members of USLA but the DIA [Army’s Intelligence Unit].[151]
From the standpoint of Siani-Davies’ unsuspecting reader such a conclusion may seem not only credible, but judicious. But one of Siani-Davies’ habits—identified negatively by even those who praise the book—is his tendency to draw negative equivalencies: i.e. there is about as much evidence to support x as there is to support y, in order to disprove or discount both propositions. In a review, Doris Mironescu writes:
“Very common are claims such as the following: ‘Finding the proof to sustain such an explanation of the events [that the Army’s Intelligence arm, the DIA simulated the “terrorist diversion,” to permit the Front’s takeover and a possible Warsaw Pact invasion of the country] is as difficult as proving that special units of the securitate took up arms against the revolution’ (p. 154). Mutually contradictory hypotheses are invoked in order to negate each other, not so much because of the weight of the claims, but through the ideological similarity of both.”[152]
This tendency definitely affects Siani-Davies’ analysis of the “terrorists” and its accuracy. To begin with, in the very book (Sandulescu) invoked by Siani-Davies, the head of the DIA (Battalion 404 Buzau), Rear Admiral Stefan Dinu, is quoted as having told the Gabrielescu commission investigating the December events (of which Sandulescu was a member) that “we hardly had 80 fighters in this battalion.”[153] It is known that 41 of them were in Timisoara from the morning of 18 December and only returned to their home base in Buzau on 22 December.[154] This makes it highly unlikely that they were on the 20 December TAROM flight to Sibiu that is in question.[155]
Contrast this with the signs that exist pointing to the mystery passengers as having been from the Securitate/Interior Ministry, in particular the USLA. Nicu Silvestru, chief of the Sibiu County Militia, admitted in passing in a letter from prison that on the afternoon of 19 December 1989, in a crisis meeting, Nicolae Ceausescu’s son, Nicu, party head of Sibiu County, announced that he was going to “call [his] specialists from Bucharest” to take care of any protests.[156] Ceausescu’s Interior Minister, Tudor Postelnicu, admitted at his trial in January 1990 that Nicu had called him requesting “some troops” and he had informed Securitate Director General Iulian Vlad of the request.[157] If they were, indeed, DIA personnel, why would Nicu have called Postelnicu, and Postelnicu informed Vlad of the request—would such a request not have been relayed through the Defense Minister?
The first two military prosecutors for Sibiu, Anton Socaciu and Marian Valer, identified the passengers as USLA. Even Nicu Ceausescu admits that this was the accusation when he stated in August 1990:
“…[T]he Military Prosecutor gave me two variants. In the first part of the inquest, they [the flight’s passengers] were from the Interior Ministry. Later, however, in the second half of the investigation, when the USLA and those from the Interior Ministry began, so-to-speak, to pass ‘into the shadows,’ – after which one no longer heard anything of them – they [the passengers] turned out to be simple citizens…”[158]
Beginning, at least as early as August 1990, with the allusions of Major Mihai Floca, and later seemingly indirectly confirmed by former USLA officer Marian Romanescu, it was suggested that when USLA Commander Ardeleanu was confronted at the Defense Ministry on the night of 23/24 December 1989, Ardeleanu reportedly admitted that “30 were on guard at [various] embassies, and 80 had been dispatched to Sibiu with a Rombac [aircraft] from 20 December 1989 upon ‘orders from on-high’.”[159] Finally, and along these lines, we bring things full circle—and recall our “phantoms in black” again in the process—with the testimony of Army officer Hortopan to the same Serban Sandulescu at the Gabrielescu Commission hearings:
Sandulescu: About those dressed in black jumpsuits do you know anything, do you have any information about whom they belonged to?
Hortopan: On the contrary. These were the 80 uslasi sent by the MI [Interior Ministry], by General Vlad and Postelnicu to guard Nicolae Ceausescu [i.e. Nicu]. I make this claim because Colonel Ardelean[u] in front of General Militaru, and he probably told you about this problem, at which I was present when he reported, when General Militaru asked him how many men he had in total and how many were now present, where each of them was: out of which he said that 80 were in Sibiu based on an order from his commanders. Thus, it is natural that these are who they were.[160]
Bringing us up to the morning of 22 December 1989, and setting the stage for what was to come, Lt. Col. Aurel Dragomir told the Army daily in November 1990:
Dragomir: Events began to develop quickly on 22 December. In the morning some of the students posted in different parts of the town began to observe some suspect individuals in black jumpsuits on the roofs in the lights of the attics of several buildings.
Reporter: The same equipment as the USLAsi killed out front of the Defense Ministry…
Dragomir: And on the roof of the Militia building there were three or four similar individuals…[161]
Of course, the fact that these individuals were posted on the top of the Militia building on this morning, speaks volumes in itself about their affiliation. Indeed, in a written statement dated 28 January 1990, Ioan Scarlatescu, (Dir. Comm. Jud. Sibiu), admitted that he was asked by the Army on that morning if the unknown individuals “could be from the USLA?”[162]
Armata Romaniei, “N-am nimic de ascuns,” nr. 22 (233), 1-7 iunie 1994, p. 7.
related:
IATA DE CE N-A INTELES GORBACIOV PROVOCAREA ‘SUBTILA’ SI ‘MINUNATA’ A LUI GRIGORE CARTIANU DE LA ADEVARUL…DOVADA CLAR CA HABAR N-ARE NICI NASUL DE LA BASE1TV RADU MORARU NICI GRIGORE CARTIANU DESPRE IDENTITATEA REALA A ‘TURISTILOR RUSI’ IN DECEMBRIE 1989
http://www.adevarul.ro/grigore_cartianu/Iliescu_si_Gorbaciov_7_244245575.html
http://www.adevarul.ro/actualitate/eveniment/O_enigma-_-Avionul_ROMBAC_0_244176081.html
Revine in actualitate faimoasa, mult-vestita “geanta diplomat” cu pistolul gasita in Sibiu in decembrie 1989…ha ha ha, fraieri, spun majoritatea romanilor–sau asa se pare–TVR-ul, armata, si ziarele de atunci au facut mare caz de aceasta misterioasa “geanta diplomat” pentru a intari “dezinformarea” cruda despre “asa-zisii teroristi” care toata lumea cu bunul simt stie acum n-au existat deloc…totul a fost diversiune…si in plus “s-a dovedit” ca “pistolul din geanta diplomat” a fost tras numai o singura data si nu in decembrie 1989…si, in sfarsit, problema este ca nu mai exista “proba” aceasta la procuratura militara (nici documentele despre cazul)…care insemna ca nu exista oficial…si, de aceea, poate ca n-a existat niciodata, dle…
Bine, deci sa incepem cu cea mai noua mentiune a cazului de fata:
Pentru a scăpa cu viaţă, cadrele MI rămase în cele două sedii se adăpostiseră la subsolul Miliţiei, abandonându-şi armamentul şi muniţia în fişetele din birouri. Imediat după încetarea focurilor (în jurul orei 16.30), mai mulţi civili aflaţi în zonă au pătruns în sediul Miliţiei, unde au devastat birourile şi s-au înarmat cu pistoalele-mitralieră pe care le-au găsit în respectivele încăperi. „Dintr-un dulap tip rastel eu am luat o geantă diplomat în care se afla un mecanism cu pistol”, a declarat Frohlich Adolf Horst, unul dintre civilii pătrunşi în incintă, atunci când a fost audiat de Procuratura Militară pentru „Dosarul Revoluţiei”.
http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-decembrie-89/enigmele-neelucidate-ale-revolutiei-sibiene-528001.html
ANCHETA
La scurt timp după restabilirea liniştii, cercetarea evenimentelor de la Sibiu a fost preluată de anchetatorii Parchetului Militar Braşov, conduşi de către procurorul Socaciu. Revoluţionarul Ioan Nemeş ne-a declarat că în acea perioadă a adunat tot felul de gloanţe din zidurile caselor în care s-a tras, precum şi părţi componente ale unor puşti cu lunetă, găsite prin poduri. Alţi localnici afirmă că mai multe simulatoare de foc, găsite în imobilele amplasate în jurul unor unităţi militare, au fost predate comisiei de anchetă, conduse de acelaşi Socaciu.
Tot acolo s-a predat şi o ciudată geantă diplomat în interiorul căreia era mascat un revolver cu care se putea deschide focul în mod discret. Imaginea acelui dispozitiv a apărut în mai multe ziare. După doi ani, anchetatorii au anunţat că toate aceste probe, alături de mai multe declaraţii de martor, au dispărut fără urmă şi nu au mai fost găsite niciodată.
NUMAI CA E FOARTE INTERESANT SA NE AMINTIM CINE AU CALATORIT CU SI AU ADUS IN SIBIU “GENTI DIPOMATI” IN ACESTE ZILE: USLASII (“turisti rusi”) COMANDATI DE CATRE PRINTISORUL, NICU CEAUSESCU, CARE AU VENIT CU ROMBAC-UL IN SEARA DE 20 DECEMBRIE 1989:
Monica N. Marginean: Sa revenim la datele concrete ale regiei de care vorbeam anterior. Cum arata, de pilda, povestea atit de dezbatuta la procesul lui Nicu Ceausescu a cursei ROMBAC, daca o privim din perspectiva Comisiei de ancheta?
fostul procuror Marian Valer: In mod normal, cursa de avion Bucuresti-Sibiu trebuia sa decoleze de pe aeroportul Baneasa, la orele 17,10 folosindu-se pe acest traseu avioane marca Antonov. In dupa-amiaza zilei de 20 decembrie, insa, in jurul orelor 17, deci in apropierea orei prevazute pentru decolarea cursei obisnuite, pasagerii pentru Sibiu au fost invitati si dusi la Aeroportul Otopeni unde au fost imbarcati intr-un avion marca ROMBAC care a decolat in jurul orelor 18,30 si a aterizat pe aeroportul Sibiu in jur de ora 19. Fac precizarea ca in dupa-amiaza aceleiasi zile, cu aproape 2 ore inaintea decolarii acestei curse, a aterizat pe aeroportul Otopeni avionul prezidential cu care Ceausescu s-a reintors din Iran. Conform datelor furnizate de agentia TAROM Bucuresti, in avionul respectiv spre Sibiu au fost imbarcati 81 pasageri. In radiograma cursei sint consemnate domiciile doar la o parte din pasageri, cu mentiunea ca unele sint incomplete, lipsind fie localitatea, fie strada, fie numarul, iar la restul pasagerilor figureaza doar mentiunile ,rezervat’ sau Pasaport RSR. In urma investigatiilor efectuate, au putut fi identificati doar 44 de pasageri, majoritatea avind domiciliul in municipul si judetul Sibiu, stabilindu-se ca au fost persoane trimise in delegatie la foruri tutelare din capitala, sau studenti plecati in vacanta, iar citiva domiciliati in judetul Alba. Mentionez ca asupra acestor persoane nu planeaza nici un dubiu. Dubiile sint create insa in primul rind de faptul ca mai multi pasageri figureaza cu domiciliul in municipiul Bucuresti, dar in realitate nu domiciliaza la adresele consemnate, iar la unele adrese sint intreprinderi. Un alt element creator de dubii il constituie prezenta in avionul respectiv a unui inspector de la Departmentul Aviatiei Civile, cu numele de Nevrozeanu, care nu figureaza pe lista pasagerilor si cu privire la care s-a stabilit ca, in trecut, se deplasa cu avionul in cazuri speciale doar pe relatia Moscova, fiind un bun cunoscator al limbii ruse. Mai multi pasageri sustin ca in partea dreapta din fata a avionului au sesizat un grup de barbati, mai inalti, atletici, imbracati sportiv, multi dintre ei fiind blonzi, grup care li s-a parut suspect. Aceste afirmatii se coroboreaza cu faptul ca in zona respectiva a avionului nu a stat nici unul din pasagerii identificati. Mai mult, verificindu-se la hotelurile din municipiul Sibiu persoane care aveau numele celor 37 de persoane neidentificate, s-a constatat ca doar un pasager neidentificat care figureaza pe listele TAROM-ului cu domiciliul in municipiul Bucuresti, care nu exista la adresa respectiva din localitate, a fost cazat la hotelul Bulevard, dar in registrul de evidenta figureaza cu un alt domiciliu din Bucuresti. Ambele domicilii, si cei din diagrama TAROM si cel de la hotel sint false. Cu ocazia acelorasi verificari s-a constatat ca in perioada respectiva in hotelurile din Sibiu au fost cazati multi turisti sovietici, in special la Imparatul Romanilor, Continental, si Bulevard, situate in zona centrala a municipiului. Fac mentiunea ca din hotelurile respective s-a tras asupra manifestantilor si a armatei. Am omis sa precizez ca pe aeroportul Otopeni, in avionul ROMBAC au fost incarcate sute de colete identice ca format, dimensiuni si culoare, de marime apropriata unei genti diplomat, precum si ca, cu citeva minute inaintea decolarii cursei spre Sibiu, de pe acelasi aeroport au decolat curse ROMBAC spre Timisoara si Arad. Consider ca, in legatura cu pasagerii neidentificati, sint posibile doua versiuni, respectiv sa fie au fost luptatorii U.S.L.A. trimisi in sprijinul lui Nicu Ceausescu, fie au fost agenti sovietici trimisi sa actioneze in scopul rasturnarii regimului Ceausescu.
Monica N. Marginean: Ce alte demersuri a facut Comisia de ancheta pentru elucidarea misterului celor 37 de pasageri neidentificati?
Marian Valer: Am luat contact cu unul din loctiitorii comandamentului trupelor U.S.L.A. din capitala, caruia i-am solicitat sa-mi puna la dispozitie pe cei trei insotitori U.S.L.A. ai avionului ROMBAC. Loctiitorul mi-a spus ca acestia au fost audiati de un procuror militar si nu mai este de acord sa fie audiati inca o data.
Monica M. Maginean: “MARIAN VALER: Asistam la ingroparea Revolutiei,” Expres nr. 33, septembrie 1990, p. 2.
Monica N. Marginean, “MARIAN VALER: Asistam la ingroparea Revolutiei,” Expres, nr. 33 (septembrie 1990), p. 2.
Sa continuam dialogul inceput acum citeva saptamini prin limpezirea unor aspecte din evenimentele lui decembrie 1989 la Sibiu, aspecte pe care dubla calitate de procuror si membru al Comisiei de ancheta va impiedicau sa le dati publicitatii. Deci, de fapt, ce a putut afla, in ciuda obstructiilor si piedicilor de tot felul, fostul procuror Marian Valer, despre implicarea unor elemente ale fostei securitati si militii in evenimentele singeroase din Sibiu?
In urma anchetelor desfasurate la Sibiu, rezulta ca la data evenimentelor din decembrie 1989, organele Ministerului de Interne aveau adoptate doua planuri de actiune in cazul aparitiei unei defectiuni antiregim sub forma revoltei sau manifestatiei anti-ceausiste ale populatiei, ori sub forma unei tentative de lovitura de stat militara. Astfel, in primul rind, pe baza ordinului ministrului de interne nr. 02600/1988, la data respectiva functia sus mentionata fiind detinuta de Tudor Postelnicu, ordin emis ca urmare a manifestatiilor anticeausiste de la Brasov, din 15 noiembrie 1987, s-a adoptat la nivelul Inspectoratului judetean Sibiu al M.I. un plan unic de actiune si interventie in cazul unor manifestatii, in care urmau sa fie implicate securitatea, militia, trupele de securitate si cele de pompieri din cadrul Ministerului de Interne. Intr-o asemenea eventualitate, un rol deosebit urmau sa detina plutoane de interventie special constituite, respectiv plutoantele Scutul, Soimii si U.S.L.A. In al doilea rind, in urma investigatiilor efectuate a rezultat ca organele M.I. mai aveau un plan secret de actiune impotriva unitatilor Ministerului Apararii in cazul unei tentative de lovitura de stat militara sau a altei atitudini antiregim a armatei. Probabil ca acest plan era in conexiune cu planul Z-Z, la care facea referire Ion Dinca in cazul procesului sau si care consta in acorduri secrete incheiate de Ceausescu cu 5 state arabe pentru acordarea de asistenta militara directa in cazul unui puci militar in Romania. In acest sens, in timpul evenimentelor din decembrie 1989 din Sibiu, armata a gasit o harta cu casele conspirative ale Securitatii din jurul unitatilor militare din municipiu, in care urmau sa fie plasate cadre de securitate care sa actioneze impotriva acestora, in eventualitatea dezicerii armatei de regimul ceausist. In urma investigatiilor efectuate, s-a constatat ca din asemenea case s-a actionat cu foc asupra unor unitati militare, incepind cu dupa-amiaza zilei de 22 decembrie 1989, deci dupa rasturnarea dictaturii. S-a mai constatat ca, in general, in casele respective locuiau foste cadre de securitate sau militie, care se pensionsera sau trecusera in rezerva, sau informatori al securitatii, precum si ca, dupa inceperea manifestatiilor anticeausiste la Sibiu, la casele respective au intrat autoturisme care aveau numere de inmatriculare din alte judete, de exemplu Constanta, Iasi, Bacau. Astfel asupra U.M. 01512, s-a tras din imobilul nr. 7 din str. Stefan cel Mare, situat vis-a-vis de pavilionul central ai acesteia, in care locuiau familii ale unui fost comandant al securitatii din Sibiu si un informator al securitatii, precum si din imobilele situate in str. Moscovei, paralela cu unitatea militara. Asupra U.M. 1606, s-a tras din imobilul cu nr. 47 de pe str. Moldoveanu, in care locuiau un fost sef al militiei judetului Sibiu, iar asupra U.M. 01080 s-a tras din vila Branga, de pe Calea Dumbravii, in care locuia cu familia un mare crescator de oi, precum si din vila unui medic. A mai rezultat ca locatarii imobilelor respective au lipsit de la domiciliu in timpul evenimentelor, parasindu-le cu citeva zile in prealabil, precum si ca in unele din aceste case nu s-au gasit urme de mobilier sau de obiecte casnice. Harta caselor conspirative ale securitatii si militiei a ajuns in posesia locotenent-colonelului Dragomir, comandantul garnizoanei Sibiu, dar acesta, fiind solicitat sa o depuna la comisia de ancheta, a motivat ca nu o mai gaseste.
UN REVOLUTIONAR SIBIEN DESPRE ISPRAVA USLASILOR IN ZILELE ACESTE:
- mirceabozan
- Membru nou
Offline- Posts: 35
« Reply #623 on: March 11, 2010, 14:16:55 PM »
Lovitura de stat cu spectatori, cum zice Cornel Dinu, a functionat atata timp cat au avut nevoie pentru a pune mana pe putere acesti derbedei bolsevici-kaghebisti.
Celebra “arma secreta” a securitatii din Sibiu, de care au facut atata caz inclusiv cei de la procuratura militara, era de fapt un simplu pistolet introdus intr-o geanta tip diplomat, folosit de catre cei de la USLA in misiuni de insotire. “Inventie” pur romaneasca, pistoletul avea adaptat un mecanism, care il facea utilizabil printr-o simpla apasare intr-un anume loc al manerului.
Cazul SIBIU
Monica N. Marginean, “MARIAN VALER: Asistam la ingroparea Revolutiei,” Expres, nr. 33 (septembrie 1990), p. 2.
Sa continuam dialogul inceput acum citeva saptamini prin limpezirea unor aspecte din evenimentele lui decembrie 1989 la Sibiu, aspecte pe care dubla calitate de procuror si membru al Comisiei de ancheta va impiedicau sa le dati publicitatii. Deci, de fapt, ce a putut afla, in ciuda obstructiilor si piedicilor de tot felul, fostul procuror Marian Valer, despre implicarea unor elemente ale fostei securitati si militii in evenimentele singeroase din Sibiu?
In urma anchetelor desfasurate la Sibiu, rezulta ca la data evenimentelor din decembrie 1989, organele Ministerului de Interne aveau adoptate doua planuri de actiune in cazul aparitiei unei defectiuni antiregim sub forma revoltei sau manifestatiei anti-ceausiste ale populatiei, ori sub forma unei tentative de lovitura de stat militara. Astfel, in primul rind, pe baza ordinului ministrului de interne nr. 02600/1988, la data respectiva functia sus mentionata fiind detinuta de Tudor Postelnicu, ordin emis ca urmare a manifestatiilor anticeausiste de la Brasov, din 15 noiembrie 1987, s-a adoptat la nivelul Inspectoratului judetean Sibiu al M.I. un plan unic de actiune si interventie in cazul unor manifestatii, in care urmau sa fie implicate securitatea, militia, trupele de securitate si cele de pompieri din cadrul Ministerului de Interne. Intr-o asemenea eventualitate, un rol deosebit urmau sa detina plutoane de interventie special constituite, respectiv plutoantele Scutul, Soimii si U.S.L.A. In al doilea rind, in urma investigatiilor efectuate a rezultat ca organele M.I. mai aveau un plan secret de actiune impotriva unitatilor Ministerului Apararii in cazul unei tentative de lovitura de stat militara sau a altei atitudini antiregim a armatei. Probabil ca acest plan era in conexiune cu planul Z-Z, la care facea referire Ion Dinca in cazul procesului sau si care consta in acorduri secrete incheiate de Ceausescu cu 5 state arabe pentru acordarea de asistenta militara directa in cazul unui puci militar in Romania. In acest sens, in timpul evenimentelor din decembrie 1989 din Sibiu, armata a gasit o harta cu casele conspirative ale Securitatii din jurul unitatilor militare din municipiu, in care urmau sa fie plasate cadre de securitate care sa actioneze impotriva acestora, in eventualitatea dezicerii armatei de regimul ceausist. In urma investigatiilor efectuate, s-a constatat ca din asemenea case s-a actionat cu foc asupra unor unitati militare, incepind cu dupa-amiaza zilei de 22 decembrie 1989, deci dupa rasturnarea dictaturii. S-a mai constatat ca, in general, in casele respective locuiau foste cadre de securitate sau militie, care se pensionsera sau trecusera in rezerva, sau informatori al securitatii, precum si ca, dupa inceperea manifestatiilor anticeausiste la Sibiu, la casele respective au intrat autoturisme care aveau numere de inmatriculare din alte judete, de exemplu Constanta, Iasi, Bacau. Astfel asupra U.M. 01512, s-a tras din imobilul nr. 7 din str. Stefan cel Mare, situat vis-a-vis de pavilionul central ai acesteia, in care locuiau familii ale unui fost comandant al securitatii din Sibiu si un informator al securitatii, precum si din imobilele situate in str. Moscovei, paralela cu unitatea militara. Asupra U.M. 1606, s-a tras din imobilul cu nr. 47 de pe str. Moldoveanu, in care locuiau un fost sef al militiei judetului Sibiu, iar asupra U.M. 01080 s-a tras din vila Branga, de pe Calea Dumbravii, in care locuia cu familia un mare crescator de oi, precum si din vila unui medic. A mai rezultat ca locatarii imobilelor respective au lipsit de la domiciliu in timpul evenimentelor, parasindu-le cu citeva zile in prealabil, precum si ca in unele din aceste case nu s-au gasit urme de mobilier sau de obiecte casnice. Harta caselor conspirative ale securitatii si militiei a ajuns in posesia locotenent-colonelului Dragomir, comandantul garnizoanei Sibiu, dar acesta, fiind solicitat sa o depuna la comisia de ancheta, a motivat ca nu o mai gaseste.
Monica Marginean: Intr-o convorbire telefonica de saptamina trecuta, va plingeati de unele afecte nedorite ale demisiei dumneavoastra. De fapt, despre ce este vorba?
Marian Valer: Am simtit la scurt timp dupa publicarea demisiei ca beneficiez de serviciile organizatiei domnului Virgil Magureanu….Revin ca sa arat ca la Satu Mare am fost urmarit in modalitati mai mult sau mai putin insidioase, de asemenea, in primele zile, la domiciliul parintilor mei s-au deplasat in mai multe rinduri indivizi care s-au interesat de soarta mea.
(”Asistam la ingroparea Revolutiei” Expres, nr. 33 septembrie 1990, p. 2)
“Dupa evenimente au disparut niste declaratii date la comisiile de ancheta, au disparut caietele brute de inregistrare de la ofiterii de serviciu, plus o harta in care am insemnat casele de unde s-a tras. Mortii care erau in combinezoane si aveau mai multe haine dedesubt i-am identificat: erau cadre ale M.I. din Sibiu (Militie si Securitate)….S-au gasit arme si munitii care nu sint in dotarea armatei, s-au gasit pistoale cu amortizor, care nu sint in dotarea noastra etc.”
(Aurel Dragomir cu Dan Badea, “Secretele Revolutiei,” Expres, nr. 22 ( 7-13 iunie 1994), pp. 8-9.)
SIBIU, 21 decembrie 1989
Doua autoturisme ARO si un autoturism Dacia au inconjurat grupul Piata Mare, facand arestari. Militienii din ARO albastru au facut 3 arestari, placand in viteza. Autoturismul 1-SB-3634 a demarat in viteza printre oameni, solicitand respectarea linistii si ordinei publice. ARO cu numarul 1-SB-1425 a fost intors cu rotile in sus si a fost incendiat de o tanara.
http://apcemrdec1989sb.portalulrevolutiei.ro/index.php?cat=1989.
SIBIU
PROCESUL DE LA SIBIU
La locuinta lui Nicu Ceausescu din Sibiu
Astfel, din adresele numărul 68 000 07 din 7 ianuarie 1990 şi numărul 68000171 din 28 februarie 1990 ale Serviciului Independent Arme-Muniţie şi Substanţe Toxice din cadrul Inspectoratului general al Poliţiei rezultă că, inculpatul figurează în evidenţa deţinătorilor legali de arme, cu pistolul marca STAR calibrul 7,85mm şi 12 cartuşe acelaşi calibru. Pentru celelalte arme găsite în locuinţa din Sibiu şi anume:pistolul mitralieră AKM , calibrul 5,6 mm, pistolul SCHMIDT, carabină automatic marca G ARM, calibrul 5,5mm, carabina 7 x 64 SAKO, carabină BROWING şi puşcă de vânătoare cu alice, semiautomată,calibrul 12 mm, cât şi pentru muniţia:6 cartuşe –357 MAGNUM, 214 cartuşe calibul 12 mm , 66 cartuşe-300 V.I.N. , 140 cartuşe-7×64mm şi 506 cartuşe.
http://www.memorialulrevolutiei.ro/baza_de_date/procese/sibiu/Sedinta%201.doc
23 decembrie 1989
Ion Neata: “…Avea cartus inauntru, l-am extras imediat si am inceput sa studiez arma, stiti, eu sint la maistri militari, specialitatea armament. Mi-au trecut multe pusti prin mina, dar asa ,bijuterie’ inca nu am vazut. Este vorba de un Browning de mare precizie, calibru 5,6 mm de productie belgiana….Controlindu-l am gasit asupra sa urmatoarele: buletin de identitate pe numele Fanea Nicolae, legitimatie de serviciu, pe acelasi nume, din care rezulta ca este inginer la I.P.A.S….si o statie de emisie-receptie de tipul celor de la militie.”
[“On 23 December 1989 in Sibiu, a soldier participated in the capture of one Fanea Nicolae who was carrying a Belgian-made 5.6 mm Browning and “a radio transmitter-receiver of the type used by the Romanian ‘Militia’.
Ion Neata, interview by Major Mihai Floca, “Unde sint teroristii?,” Armata Poporului, no. 30 (25 July 1990), p. 3.”
http://homepage.mac.com/khallbobo/RichardHall/pubs/Voineaswar091706.html.]
BUCURESTI
PROCESUL DE LA SIBIU
La locuinta lui Nicu Ceausescu din Bucuresti
De asemenea, la locuinţa inculpatului situată în Bucureşti,strada Cosmonauţilor nr.2-4, a fost găsit un pistol cu aer comprimat calibrul 4,5 mm , 23 cartuşe calibrul 7×64mm, un cartuş 300 V.I.N., 44cartuşe-357 MAGNUM, 3 cartuşe calibrul 12 mm, 498 cartuşe-calibrul 5,6mm, 50 cartuşe-calibrul 9mm lung, 27 cartuşe-calibrul 6,35mm, două cutii cu diaboluri –calibrul 4,5mm pentru care nu a posedat autorizaţie legală, aşa cum prevede articolul 2,litera f din decretul numărul 367/1971.
http://www.memorialulrevolutiei.ro/baza_de_date/procese/sibiu/Sedinta%201.doc
La locuinta lui Nicolae Andruta Ceausescu din Bucuresti
“arma cu luneta si 695 gloante calibru 5,6 mm”
[Victor Dinu, Romania Libera, 12 April 1990, p. 2.
During the trial of Nicolae Ceausescu’s brother, Nicolae Andruta Ceausescu, head of the Securitate’s Baneasa training academy, it was disclosed that at his home “a gun with an infra-red scope and 695 cartridges of 5.6 mm bullets were found.”
http://homepage.mac.com/khallbobo/RichardHall/pubs/Voineaswar091706.html. ]
Nicu Ceausescu, Arme de 5,6 mm, Directia V-a a Securitatii, si Decembrie 1989
Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on January 5, 2009
http://www.memorialulrevolutiei.ro/baza_de_date/procese/sibiu/Sedinta%202.doc.
Şedinţa a doua
Continuare –declaraţia inculpatului Nicu Ceauşescu
Pr.-În legătură cu cea de a doua învinuire şi anume deţinerea, fără drept sau în condiţii nelegale, a mai multor arme de foc şi a muniţiei aferente acestora, a muniţiei în general, ce aveţi de spus? Deci aţi deţinut, şi câte astfel de arme, în ce condiţii?
In.-Da.
Pr.-Ce aveţi de relatat vizavi de această învinuire ?Deci, în primul rând, ce arme aţi deţinut la locuinţele dumneavoastră?
In.-Domnule preşedinte , acuma trebuie, ţin să specific acelaşi lucru-armele nu au fost găsite la locuinţa mea din Sibiu.Nici armele, nici muniţia. Armele au fost găsite la Centrul de Dresaj-Câini.
Pr.-Da.
In.-Armele erau proprietatea tatălui meu pe care le foloseam şi eu.
Pr.-Deci, care sunt aceste arme?
In.-Poftiţi?
Pr.-Care sunt aceste arme? Să-ncepem unde le-aţi deţinut şi cu ce titlu, să ne spuneţi.
In.-Aşa. Aceste arme, deci-nu ştiu exact denumirile…
Pr.-Citind rechizitoriul, aţi citit rechizitoriul?
In.-Da.
Pr.-Cele din rechizitoriu corespundeau, ca să putem să vă facilităm…
In.-Da,da,da.
Pr.-Atunci aţi posedat un pistol mitralieră,fără serie, confecţionat tip CUGIR…
In.-Da.
Pr.-de 5,6 calibru?
In.-Da.
Pr.-Unde s-a aflat acest …
In.-Acest pistol mitralieră s-a aflat o perioadă la taică-miu, o perioadă la mine, o perioadă la Şcoala de câini.
Pr.-Când anume, de ce a ajuns la Şcoala de Câini?
In.-Păi, la Şcoala de Câini a ajuns în ziua de 22, când am spus, existând pericolul…
Pr.-Deci, până în 22, unde a fost?
In.-Păi,la…depinde de când?
Pr.-Deci, de-atuncia…
In.-Bun. La Sibiu ,deci, de 2 ani de zile ca să nu mai…la mine!
Pr.-Era al dumneavoastră?
In.-Nu!
Pr.-Dar?
In.-Era al lui taică-miu, io-l foloseam. De fapt, ar…ăăă…regimul era în felul următor(puţin mai complicat),deci în fosta Direcţie 5 a fostului Departament al Securităţii Statului avea, din câte cunosc eu, toate armele înregistrate. Ea se ocupa de înregistrarea lor, deci,practic trecerea lor în registru sau în … asta de port-armă, muniţie, întreţinere, toate celelalte probleme. Am avut două discuţii, în legătură cu aceste arme, cu fostul şef al Direcţiei a 5-a ,respectiv fost general sau actual general-Marin Neagoe.
Şi l-am întrebat: toate armele sunt normale?(armele care erau în posesia mea). Mi-a spus:„Nu e nici o problemă, toate armele sunt trecute în evidenţa miliţiei şi există un permis general pe ele).
Pr.-Deci aţi auzit că există un permis general pe aceste arme?
In.-Pe fiecare, adică toate sunt trecute pă un singur permis.
Pr.-Aparţinând cui?
In.-Aşa.
Pr.-Deci există un permis ! Ce fel de permis?
In.-Un permis de arme în care sunt trecute toate armele care există în casă…
Pr.-Un permis pe numele cui? Sau pentru cine?Sau al cui?
In.-Această întrebare n-am pus-o.
Pr.-Nu vi se pare nefiresc că n-aţi pus-o?
In.-Nu!
Pr.-Şi că v-aţi mulţumit?…Da.
In.-Nu mi se … ştiţi de ce? Să vă spun foarte sincer –datorită faptului că era Departamentul Securităţii Statului.
Pr.-Acest pistol-mitralieră, de tip CUGIR, calibrul 5,6, de cât timp se află în detenţia dumnea, în deţinerea dumneavoastră?
In.-Doi ani jumate.
Pr.-„Am deţinut un pistol mitralieră-calibrul 5,6, tip Cugir, primit în urmă cu circa doi ani, de la tatăl meu…”. Pistolul SCHMIDT, unde l-aţi avut, tot la Sibiu? Pistol Schmidt?
In.-Pe care aveam permis de port-armă sau…?
Pr.-Pistolul SCHMIDT ca atare, şi pe urmă cu permisul…
In.-Păi, nu ,dar nu ştiu care este, vă rog să mă scuzaţi, da’ io nu ştiu exact, după denumire, cum arată, asta e partea mai…ăăă…
Pr.-Problema aceasta de tip de arme militare sau nu şi de mărci , nici nouă nu ne este foarte familiară, dar…
In.-În rechizitoriu spune că io-am avut permis de port –armă cu un singur pistolet.
Pr.-Câte pistoale aţi avut atunci? Câte pistoale,pistolete aţi deţinut?
In.-SCHMIDT? Păi, dacă-i aici e…tot de 2 ani de zile.
Pr.-Ca număr vă întreb.
In.-Păi, câte sunt în rechizitoriu.
Pr.-Nu, nu! Câte aţi avut dumneavoastră? Nu ştiaţi câte arme?
In.-Nu!
Pr.-„Nu pot preciza câte pistolete am deţinut…”
Dar, la Bucureşti, câte v-au fost găsite în maşină?
„…dar,la Bucuresti, au fost găsite în maşina cu care călătoream 2 pistolete,…”. Vă aparţineau acestea ?
In..-Da.
Pr.-„…care îmi aparţineau .” Câte carabine aţi avut?
In.-Două.
Pr.-Două sau trei?
In.-Două puşti de vânătoare şi două de 5,6 fiindcă şi…
Pr.-Deci două? Două cu lunetă şi două fără?
In.-Da.
Pr.-„Am mai deţinut 2 carabine cu lunetă şi 2 puşti de vânătoare”. Toate acestea la Sibiu, ce-am discutat?…
Pr.-Toate acestea la Sibiu, ce-am discutat până acuma?
In.-Da.
Pr.-„Toate acestea în locuinţa mea, din Sibiu, până la data de 22 decembrie…”
Cine a dispus să fie duse la Şcoala de Câini? Când,înainte de a pleca spre aeroport?
In.-Nu! Dimineaţa la şapte.
Pr.-„…când, dimineaţa, eu am dispus să fie transportate la Şcoala de Creştere şi Dresaj-Câini”. În locuinţa din Cosmonauţilor aţi deţinut un pistol de tip aer comprimat?
In.-Cred că da. Da!
Pr.-„Am deţinut la locuinţa din Bucureşti, strada Cosmonauţilor, un pistol de tir, cu aer comprimat, marcă germană”.
Contestaţi muniţia şi tipul de muniţie şi numărul din procesele verbale, care le-aţi văzut la dosar?
In.-Nu,păi…
Pr.-Că s-ar fi găsit la locuinţa dumneavoastră, că vă aparţineau?
In.-A, tot ce se poate! Acuma, singurul lucru, care pot să spun io , e că n-am văzut procesul verbal de percheziţie, da’, merg pe bună credinţă, înseamnă că aşa e.
Pr.-Da, atuncia ne puteţi dumneavoastră spune câte anume?
In.-Nu!Nu.
Pr.-„Am deţinut muniţie atât la locuinţa mea din Sibiu,…
In.-La Sibiu toată a fost dusă la…
Pr.-…care a fost, şi ea, transportată, la Centrul de Creştere şi Dresaj-Câini…”
La Bucureşti aţi avut muniţie? În Cosmonauţilor?
In.-Cred că da. Dacă spun c-am avut …
Pr.-„…şi cred c-am avut muniţie şi la locuinţa din Bucureşti”.
In.-Am înţeles că s-a găsit un cartuş, două cartuşe,mă rog.
Pr.- „Nu pot reda numeric şi, ca tip, muniţia deţinută , dar consider reale menţiunile din actele de la dosar”. Acestea v-au fost,în parte, date de tatăl dumneavoastră sau le-aţi primit dumneavoastră personal,sau cum? Aceste arme : carabine, puşti cu lunetă, pistoale?
In.-Da. Adică, am încercat de la început să explic un lucru. Deci nu numai astea le-aveam. Aveam la Direcţia 5-a mai multe.
Pr.-Nu. Asupra dumneavoastră şi-n locuinţele dumneavoastră?
In.-Bun!Asupra mea s-a găsit un pistol.
Pr.-Aşa.
In.-Dar…ăăă…problema care e – ei se ocupau de toate problemele astea.
Pr.-De unde aţi primit acestea despre care am vorbit?
In.-Aa, bun! O parte, de exemplu, o parte le-am primit şi eu, o parte erau de la tată-miu.
Pr.-„O parte din aceste arme le primisem de la tatăl meu , altele le primisem în mod direct.”
In.-Aşa. De exemplu, pistol…
Pr.-„Cert este că generalul Neagoe îmi comunicase că, pentru toate aceste arme există înregistrări legale , precum şi un permis general, iar eu nu am cerut alte precizări.”
Consideraţi că le deţineţi legal,practic?Consideraţi că sunteţi în deţinerea legală a acestor arme şi a acestor muniţii?
In.-Foarte greu de spus.Adică, domnule preşedinte, vă daţi seama că, în funcţia pe care o aveam io, ca să deţin permis, adică să obţin permis de port-armă şi muniţie aferentă era un lucru foarte simplu.Era, practic îl chemam pe cel de la…
Pr.-În funcţia în care…
In.-Era…
Pr.-…aţi deţinut-o, multe probleme le puteaţi rezolva foarte simplu,dar, aicea, este altă problemă.
In.-Bun, io-am…
Pr.-Tocmai în funcţia pe care o deţineaţi, eraţi dator să cunoaşteţi dispoziţiile legilor şi legislaţiei române.
In.-…am plecat de la buna…
Pr.-Vizavi de această legislaţie…
In.-Da?
Pr.-…dumneavoastră vă consideraţi un om cu studii superioare şi cu o anumită…deci, din acest punct de vedere consideraţi legală, privitor la legea română ?
In. -Am de făcut 2 precizări: nu cunosc legea din ` 71 privind regimul armelor …
Pr.-Deci nu cunoaşteţi această lege?
In.-Da.Aşa. Şi…ăăă…la momentul respectiv, consideram legal, dacă era vorba de…
Pr.-„Nu cunosc legea, actul normativ din 1971, privind regimul armelor şi muniţilor…”
In.-Da’ , acuma cunoscând, ştiu că nu-i legal.
Pr.-Şi deci, atunci, apreciaţi că sunteţi în cadrul unei deţineri legale?
In.-Nu,acuma…
Pr.-Nu acuma. Atunci ?
In.-Atuncia? Atuncia da, fiind…
Pr.-„…şi am considerat, în permanenţă, că mă aflu într-o deţinere legală a armamentului şi muniţiei, abia acum realizând că am încălcat dispoziţiile legale.”
Aţi avut,totuşi, un permis de port-armă ?
In.-Da.
Pr.-Şi la acest permis de port-armă, ce armă era trecută?
In.-Un pistol .
Pr.-Cine, de ce vi s-a dat? L-aţi solicitat dumneavoastră sau…?
In.-Nu! Era singura armă care nu provenea de la Direcţia 5.
Pr.-Da.
In.-Şi provenea direct de la Postelnicu. Şi-atuncia, când am zis , mi-au dat arma…
Pr.-Nu vi s-a părut normal că pentru acest pistol aveţi permis de port-armă, iar pentru toate celelalte-şi pe numele dumneavoastră categoric-?
In.-Dupa-ceea. Ăsta a fost şi motivul pentru care l-am întrebat pe Neagoe.
Pr.-E clar!
„Eu am primit un pistolet de la…direct de la Tudor Postelnicu şi un permis pentru acest pistolet, şi atunci l-am întrebat pe generalul Neagoe despre situaţia celorlalte arme, aflând despre ceea ce am numit un permis general”. În legătură cu aceste probleme, legate de învinuirea , în legătură cu armamentul şi muniţia mai aveţi ceva de declarat?
In.-Nu. Nu.
Pr.-În conformitate cu dispoziţiile legale, dacă aţi relatat tot ceea ce-aţi avut de relatat în legătură cu învinuirea, Instanţa vă va adresa câteva întrebări.
Decembrie 1989, gloante de calibru 5, si teroristii: Dupa Sibiu si Bucuresti (Piata Palatului), astazi Brasov, Braila, si zona Televiziunii (Bucuresti)
Decembrie 1989: Si totusi forumistii stiu cite ceva. Sibiu, Bucuresti, munitie atipica, si teroristii
from “Orwellian…Positively Orwellian”
http://homepage.mac.com/khallbobo/RichardHall/pubs/Voineaswar091706.pdf.
Did the black-suited ones have any affiliation to any institution? After all, is it not odd that so many of them would appear to be dressed in the same garb? In 1990, an engineer, Mircea Georgescu, expressed his frustration about the post-December disappearance of the “terrorists” in Sibiu, Nicu Ceausescu’s fiefdom, as follows:
“Who fired from the attics of Sibiu on 21-22 December 1989? Who are the so-called terrorists? Where are their guns with scopes and unmistakable cadence? Silence on all fronts:…
c) A fighter from the guards, along with his brother, captured in these days (23-25 dec.) some 8 securisti among whom: one about 45-50 years old, at the State Theater Sibiu, we surrendered him to the Commander at the Army House. He was taken under guard by 4 civilian fighters (one in front had a club in his hand) and by a soldier with a gun at his side. He was dressed in a vest (like a smith’s) and a pant-suit (combinezon) that was black or a very dark grey…brown with short hair, well-built and 1,70-1,75 m tall….What, nobody knows anything about this guy either?…[emphases added]”[56]
Lt. Col. Aurel Dragomir, former commander of the “Nicolae Balcescu” Military Officers School in Sibiu, described in 1994 those killed as “terrorists” in Sibiu in December 1989:
…On the morning of 22 December…I was informed that on the rooftops there were some suspicious persons. I saw 2-3 people in black jumpsuits. The Militia told me that they weren’t their people. At noon there appeared 10 to 15 people in black jumpsuits who opened massive gunfire on the crowds and soldiers. I ordered them to respond with fire. I headed to the infirmary—the reserve command site, and col. Pircalabescu [head of the Patriotic Guards] called and asked me “why was there gunfire?” I told him we were being attacked. He told me to cease fire. Ilie Ceausescu [Ceausescu’s brother, and an Army General] told me to surrender. I slammed the telephone down. Then [Army General] Stanculescu called. I told him that we are under attack. Stanculescu said to me: ‘Defend yourselves!’….The attackers had on black jumpsuits under which they had on civilian clothes….Weapons and ammunition that weren’t in the arsenal of the Army were found, guns with silencers were found, that aren’t in the Army’s arsenal….After the events declarations given to the investigating commissions disappeared, notebooks filled with the recordings of officers on duty (ofiterii de serviciu), and a map that noted from which houses gunfire came. The dead who were in jumpsuits and had several layers of clothing were identified: they were cadre from the Sibiu Interior Ministry (Militia and Securitate)…. (“black jumpsuits” emphases and “weapons and ammunition…” emphasis added; rest in original)[57]
According to the Army’s semi-official account of the December events, in the area of the Cernica and Pustnicu forests and the Brick Factory in Bucharest (apparently in the vicinity of vilas of Postelnicu and Valentin Ceausescu), a tank unit under the command of Captain Ion Anghel “engaged in battle with terrorist elements that were on foot and in ABIs,” the latter being a vehicle exclusively belonging to the USLA, as was noted earlier.[134]
Sibiu, 19-22 December 1989
In Sibiu, Siani-Davies tells us:
Controversy also continues to surround a commercial TAROM flight, which is alleged to have brought up to eighty USLA troops from Bucharest to Sibiu on December 20, 1989. It is not clear if the USLA forces were actually on the airplane, or, even if they were, what they actually did in Sibiu…[Serban] Sandulescu (c1996), 57-58…suggests they were not members of USLA but the DIA [Army’s Intelligence Unit].[151]
From the standpoint of Siani-Davies’ unsuspecting reader such a conclusion may seem not only credible, but judicious. But one of Siani-Davies’ habits—identified negatively by even those who praise the book—is his tendency to draw negative equivalencies: i.e. there is about as much evidence to support x as there is to support y, in order to disprove or discount both propositions. In a review, Doris Mironescu writes:
“Very common are claims such as the following: ‘Finding the proof to sustain such an explanation of the events [that the Army’s Intelligence arm, the DIA simulated the “terrorist diversion,” to permit the Front’s takeover and a possible Warsaw Pact invasion of the country] is as difficult as proving that special units of the securitate took up arms against the revolution’ (p. 154). Mutually contradictory hypotheses are invoked in order to negate each other, not so much because of the weight of the claims, but through the ideological similarity of both.”[152]
This tendency definitely affects Siani-Davies’ analysis of the “terrorists” and its accuracy. To begin with, in the very book (Sandulescu) invoked by Siani-Davies, the head of the DIA (Battalion 404 Buzau), Rear Admiral Stefan Dinu, is quoted as having told the Gabrielescu commission investigating the December events (of which Sandulescu was a member) that “we hardly had 80 fighters in this battalion.”[153] It is known that 41 of them were in Timisoara from the morning of 18 December and only returned to their home base in Buzau on 22 December.[154] This makes it highly unlikely that they were on the 20 December TAROM flight to Sibiu that is in question.[155]
Contrast this with the signs that exist pointing to the mystery passengers as having been from the Securitate/Interior Ministry, in particular the USLA. Nicu Silvestru, chief of the Sibiu County Militia, admitted in passing in a letter from prison that on the afternoon of 19 December 1989, in a crisis meeting, Nicolae Ceausescu’s son, Nicu, party head of Sibiu County, announced that he was going to “call [his] specialists from Bucharest” to take care of any protests.[156] Ceausescu’s Interior Minister, Tudor Postelnicu, admitted at his trial in January 1990 that Nicu had called him requesting “some troops” and he had informed Securitate Director General Iulian Vlad of the request.[157] If they were, indeed, DIA personnel, why would Nicu have called Postelnicu, and Postelnicu informed Vlad of the request—would such a request not have been relayed through the Defense Minister?
The first two military prosecutors for Sibiu, Anton Socaciu and Marian Valer, identified the passengers as USLA. Even Nicu Ceausescu admits that this was the accusation when he stated in August 1990:
“…[T]he Military Prosecutor gave me two variants. In the first part of the inquest, they [the flight’s passengers] were from the Interior Ministry. Later, however, in the second half of the investigation, when the USLA and those from the Interior Ministry began, so-to-speak, to pass ‘into the shadows,’ – after which one no longer heard anything of them – they [the passengers] turned out to be simple citizens…”[158]
Beginning, at least as early as August 1990, with the allusions of Major Mihai Floca, and later seemingly indirectly confirmed by former USLA officer Marian Romanescu, it was suggested that when USLA Commander Ardeleanu was confronted at the Defense Ministry on the night of 23/24 December 1989, Ardeleanu reportedly admitted that “30 were on guard at [various] embassies, and 80 had been dispatched to Sibiu with a Rombac [aircraft] from 20 December 1989 upon ‘orders from on-high’.”[159] Finally, and along these lines, we bring things full circle—and recall our “phantoms in black” again in the process—with the testimony of Army officer Hortopan to the same Serban Sandulescu at the Gabrielescu Commission hearings:
Sandulescu: About those dressed in black jumpsuits do you know anything, do you have any information about whom they belonged to?
Hortopan: On the contrary. These were the 80 uslasi sent by the MI [Interior Ministry], by General Vlad and Postelnicu to guard Nicolae Ceausescu [i.e. Nicu]. I make this claim because Colonel Ardelean[u] in front of General Militaru, and he probably told you about this problem, at which I was present when he reported, when General Militaru asked him how many men he had in total and how many were now present, where each of them was: out of which he said that 80 were in Sibiu based on an order from his commanders. Thus, it is natural that these are who they were.[160]
Bringing us up to the morning of 22 December 1989, and setting the stage for what was to come, Lt. Col. Aurel Dragomir told the Army daily in November 1990:
Dragomir: Events began to develop quickly on 22 December. In the morning some of the students posted in different parts of the town began to observe some suspect individuals in black jumpsuits on the roofs in the lights of the attics of several buildings.
Reporter: The same equipment as the USLAsi killed out front of the Defense Ministry…
Dragomir: And on the roof of the Militia building there were three or four similar individuals…[161]
Of course, the fact that these individuals were posted on the top of the Militia building on this morning, speaks volumes in itself about their affiliation. Indeed, in a written statement dated 28 January 1990, Ioan Scarlatescu, (Dir. Comm. Jud. Sibiu), admitted that he was asked by the Army on that morning if the unknown individuals “could be from the USLA?”[162]
Gheorghe Cocos povesteste cum el si sotia sa au fost impuscati cu gloante DUM-DUM “care se spune ca nu exista, dar totusi exista”
Vedeti clip-ul 4:55-6:23
posted by tioluciano on youtube on 22 December 2009 cu cuvintele aceste
“Documentarul “SIBIU 1989” LDTV(comprimat 15,4 MB, format WMV, 212kbps, 384 x 288 pixels,13 fps)
Documentar lansat într-o proiectie publica in data de 21 decembrie 2009, de la ora 18.00, la Casa de Cultura a Sindicatelor Sibiu, Sala STUDIO
Producator versiune originala : Octavian Repede ( sibiuvideo@gmail.com , sau Octavian Repede-0747/990495)
———————————————————————-
mai mult despre gloantele DUM-DUM in decembrie 1989:
full pdf file
from Orwellian, Positively Orwellian (2006)
MEN IN BLACK: The Recurring Theme of “Black Jumpsuits”
Part of the great riddle of the “terrorists” concerns their clothing. In Brasov, it was noted the individual arrested on 23 December firing a 5.65 mm Thomson automatic was wearing a “black jumpsuit.” The descriptions go by different names—“combinezoane negre,” “salopete negre,” or “de culor inchis,” for example—but they all note the black or dark outfits of many of those suspected of being “terrorists.”
It is critical to note that we have evidence that the focus on the black clothing of those identified as “terrorists” occurred among participants at the time, and is not merely some ex post facto artifact. Major A.D. of Directorate V-a (probably Major Aurel David) recounted in early 1991 that while under arrest on 27 December 1989, the Army soldiers guarding him asked “If” as Major A.D. had sought to convince them, “it isn’t Ceausescu’s guard [i.e. V-a]” who was firing, “then who are the black-shirted ones [emphasis added]?”[52] The report of the SRI [the Securitate’s institutional successor] on Timisoara indirectly confirms Army suspicion when alleging that Army Colonel Constantin Zeca gave the order after 22 December 1989, to shoot at anybody “in a blue, navy blue, or black jumpsuit.”[53] Why this clothing in particular, and why the suspicion then?
Some of those shot as “terrorists” turn out to have been wearing “black jumpsuits.” Bucking the hegemony of official, elite interpretations denying the very existence of the “terrorists,” a poster calling himself “Danka” posted the following on the Jurnalul National web forum in April 2006:
“22 decembrie 1989, military unit 010_ _ at the edge of the Branesti forest.
The Branesti forest houses one of the largest munitions depots around the capital. It is said that an explosion at this depot would destroy the Pantelimon neighborhood from the beginning of the no. 14 tram [route]. Towards evening gunfire opened on the unit from the railroad. Everything was a target, [and] small caliber arms and semi-automatic weapons were being used [emphasis added; note: possible reference to 5 mm weapons]. Based on the flashes from the gun-barrels it appeared that there were 3 persons hiding among the tracks who opened fire with the goal of creating panic. The soldiers came out of their barracks and set up in the car-park under trucks. They couldn’t stay inside the buildings, “the terrorists” were shooting the windows [out]. Even though an alert had been given earlier in the day, nobody was prepared to respond except those on duty. A group of soldiers with officers and n.c.o.s equipped with AK-47s, and TT pistols launched an attack from the surrounding area. All reached their destined locations without problem by nightfall, in part because the intruders were preoccupied with maintaining a continuous gunfire on the unit. At a given moment, the soldiers opened fire, the gunfight lasted less than 10 minutes. Their little UZIs weren’t equipped for long-distance and thus could not stand up to the renowned AK 47. One of the terrorists was shot in the head, while the other two were wounded when they tried to flee through a field leading away from the military unit. The three were transported to the guard post where the lights were turned on (until then the unit had been in complete darkness) and we realized that one of the two survivors was in fact a woman. All three were olive-skinned, clothed in black jumpsuits [emphasis added] and the two wounded survivors struggled to say something in Arabic. After a half hour an ARO [vehicle] of the Army arrived saying they had come from the Chief of Staff’s Division and they took all three. After a few days all the soldiers who participated in the activities of that night were made to sign a declaration pledging not to divulge anything about what had happened. All of this is true and can easily be verified.”[54]
Another small group of people wearing “black jumpsuits” held a military convoy under fire near the city of Buzau. On the evening of 23 December 1989, a military convoy from Piatra Neamt en route to Bucharest reached the community of Maracineni near Buzau. Members of the local military unit told the soldiers from Piatra Neamt that
…the unit had been attacked by two people, a civilian and Militia NCO, who disappeared with an Oltcit [car] and an ABI vehicle [an armored transport used exclusively by the Securitate’s USLA]. Shortly after [being told] this, gunfire opened on the convoy. And gunfire reopened on the local military unit….those from the unit fired back with ordinance that lit the sky, in this way enabling them to observe a group of 3-4 armed people, wearing black jumpsuits (“salopete negre”) who were shooting while constantly changing position. At the same time, on the radio frequencies of the convoy, they received messages about coming devastating attacks, and even Soviet intervention. All of these proved to be simple disinformation. The next day, in a moment of calm, villagers brought the soldiers food, and related how the terrorists had occupied attics of their houses. They said they [the occupiers] were Romanians and that in a few words they had ordered [the villagers] to let them into the attics of their houses….In general, they shot at night, but on 25 December the cannonade continued during the day…. Curiously, the ‘fighting’ in Maracineni continued until 30 December. Who and for whom were they trying to impress? [emphasis added][55]
Indeed, there are three key aspects here: 1) this was not a heavily populated area, thereby undermining arguments about “operetta-like” fake warfare to impress the population, 2) it is difficult to explain this episode as the result of “misunderstandings” between units, and 3) the gunfire lasted well over a week, a fact that is difficult to ascribe to confusion.
Did the black-suited ones have any affiliation to any institution? After all, is it not odd that so many of them would appear to be dressed in the same garb? In 1990, an engineer, Mircea Georgescu, expressed his frustration about the post-December disappearance of the “terrorists” in Sibiu, Nicu Ceausescu’s fiefdom, as follows:
“Who fired from the attics of Sibiu on 21-22 December 1989? Who are the so-called terrorists? Where are their guns with scopes and unmistakable cadence? Silence on all fronts:…
c) A fighter from the guards, along with his brother, captured in these days (23-25 dec.) some 8 securisti among whom: one about 45-50 years old, at the State Theater Sibiu, we surrendered him to the Commander at the Army House. He was taken under guard by 4 civilian fighters (one in front had a club in his hand) and by a soldier with a gun at his side. He was dressed in a vest (like a smith’s) and a pant-suit (combinezon) that was black or a very dark grey…brown with short hair, well-built and 1,70-1,75 m tall….What, nobody knows anything about this guy either?…[emphases added]”[56]
Lt. Col. Aurel Dragomir, former commander of the “Nicolae Balcescu” Military Officers School in Sibiu, described in 1994 those killed as “terrorists” in Sibiu in December 1989:
…On the morning of 22 December…I was informed that on the rooftops there were some suspicious persons. I saw 2-3 people in black jumpsuits. The Militia told me that they weren’t their people. At noon there appeared 10 to 15 people in black jumpsuits who opened massive gunfire on the crowds and soldiers. I ordered them to respond with fire. I headed to the infirmary—the reserve command site, and col. Pircalabescu [head of the Patriotic Guards] called and asked me “why was there gunfire?” I told him we were being attacked. He told me to cease fire. Ilie Ceausescu [Ceausescu’s brother, and an Army General] told me to surrender. I slammed the telephone down. Then [Army General] Stanculescu called. I told him that we are under attack. Stanculescu said to me: ‘Defend yourselves!’….The attackers had on black jumpsuits under which they had on civilian clothes….Weapons and ammunition that weren’t in the arsenal of the Army were found, guns with silencers were found, that aren’t in the Army’s arsenal….After the events declarations given to the investigating commissions disappeared, notebooks filled with the recordings of officers on duty (ofiterii de serviciu), and a map that noted from which houses gunfire came. The dead who were in jumpsuits and had several layers of clothing were identified: they were cadre from the Sibiu Interior Ministry (Militia and Securitate)…. (“black jumpsuits” emphases and “weapons and ammunition…” emphasis added; rest in original)[57]
Finally, in this context, the comments of a Codrut H. in July 1990 about what he and other civilians found when they occupied Securitate headquarters in Brasov on the night of 22 December: “What appeared suspicious to me was that the Securitate there appeared to have been prepared [for something]…. Out front of the building there was a white ARO [automobile] in which there were complete antiterrorist kits [emphasis added].” What else did the civilians find there?…combinezoane negre. [58]
Sibiu, 19-22 December 1989
In Sibiu, Siani-Davies tells us:
Controversy also continues to surround a commercial TAROM flight, which is alleged to have brought up to eighty USLA troops from Bucharest to Sibiu on December 20, 1989. It is not clear if the USLA forces were actually on the airplane, or, even if they were, what they actually did in Sibiu…[Serban] Sandulescu (c1996), 57-58…suggests they were not members of USLA but the DIA [Army’s Intelligence Unit].[151]
From the standpoint of Siani-Davies’ unsuspecting reader such a conclusion may seem not only credible, but judicious. But one of Siani-Davies’ habits—identified negatively by even those who praise the book—is his tendency to draw negative equivalencies: i.e. there is about as much evidence to support x as there is to support y, in order to disprove or discount both propositions. In a review, Doris Mironescu writes:
“Very common are claims such as the following: ‘Finding the proof to sustain such an explanation of the events [that the Army’s Intelligence arm, the DIA simulated the “terrorist diversion,” to permit the Front’s takeover and a possible Warsaw Pact invasion of the country] is as difficult as proving that special units of the securitate took up arms against the revolution’ (p. 154). Mutually contradictory hypotheses are invoked in order to negate each other, not so much because of the weight of the claims, but through the ideological similarity of both.”[152]
This tendency definitely affects Siani-Davies’ analysis of the “terrorists” and its accuracy. To begin with, in the very book (Sandulescu) invoked by Siani-Davies, the head of the DIA (Battalion 404 Buzau), Rear Admiral Stefan Dinu, is quoted as having told the Gabrielescu commission investigating the December events (of which Sandulescu was a member) that “we hardly had 80 fighters in this battalion.”[153] It is known that 41 of them were in Timisoara from the morning of 18 December and only returned to their home base in Buzau on 22 December.[154] This makes it highly unlikely that they were on the 20 December TAROM flight to Sibiu that is in question.[155]
Contrast this with the signs that exist pointing to the mystery passengers as having been from the Securitate/Interior Ministry, in particular the USLA. Nicu Silvestru, chief of the Sibiu County Militia, admitted in passing in a letter from prison that on the afternoon of 19 December 1989, in a crisis meeting, Nicolae Ceausescu’s son, Nicu, party head of Sibiu County, announced that he was going to “call [his] specialists from Bucharest” to take care of any protests.[156] Ceausescu’s Interior Minister, Tudor Postelnicu, admitted at his trial in January 1990 that Nicu had called him requesting “some troops” and he had informed Securitate Director General Iulian Vlad of the request.[157] If they were, indeed, DIA personnel, why would Nicu have called Postelnicu, and Postelnicu informed Vlad of the request—would such a request not have been relayed through the Defense Minister?
The first two military prosecutors for Sibiu, Anton Socaciu and Marian Valer, identified the passengers as USLA. Even Nicu Ceausescu admits that this was the accusation when he stated in August 1990:
“…[T]he Military Prosecutor gave me two variants. In the first part of the inquest, they [the flight’s passengers] were from the Interior Ministry. Later, however, in the second half of the investigation, when the USLA and those from the Interior Ministry began, so-to-speak, to pass ‘into the shadows,’ – after which one no longer heard anything of them – they [the passengers] turned out to be simple citizens…”[158]
Beginning, at least as early as August 1990, with the allusions of Major Mihai Floca, and later seemingly indirectly confirmed by former USLA officer Marian Romanescu, it was suggested that when USLA Commander Ardeleanu was confronted at the Defense Ministry on the night of 23/24 December 1989, Ardeleanu reportedly admitted that “30 were on guard at [various] embassies, and 80 had been dispatched to Sibiu with a Rombac [aircraft] from 20 December 1989 upon ‘orders from on-high’.”[159] Finally, and along these lines, we bring things full circle—and recall our “phantoms in black” again in the process—with the testimony of Army officer Hortopan to the same Serban Sandulescu at the Gabrielescu Commission hearings:
Sandulescu: About those dressed in black jumpsuits do you know anything, do you have any information about whom they belonged to?
Hortopan: On the contrary. These were the 80 uslasi sent by the MI [Interior Ministry], by General Vlad and Postelnicu to guard Nicolae Ceausescu [i.e. Nicu]. I make this claim because Colonel Ardelean[u] in front of General Militaru, and he probably told you about this problem, at which I was present when he reported, when General Militaru asked him how many men he had in total and how many were now present, where each of them was: out of which he said that 80 were in Sibiu based on an order from his commanders. Thus, it is natural that these are who they were.[160]
Bringing us up to the morning of 22 December 1989, and setting the stage for what was to come, Lt. Col. Aurel Dragomir told the Army daily in November 1990:
Dragomir: Events began to develop quickly on 22 December. In the morning some of the students posted in different parts of the town began to observe some suspect individuals in black jumpsuits on the roofs in the lights of the attics of several buildings.
Reporter: The same equipment as the USLAsi killed out front of the Defense Ministry…
Dragomir: And on the roof of the Militia building there were three or four similar individuals…[161]
Of course, the fact that these individuals were posted on the top of the Militia building on this morning, speaks volumes in itself about their affiliation. Indeed, in a written statement dated 28 January 1990, Ioan Scarlatescu, (Dir. Comm. Jud. Sibiu), admitted that he was asked by the Army on that morning if the unknown individuals “could be from the USLA?”[162]
Specialistii lui Nicu…
Nicu Silvestru, chief of the Sibiu County Militia, admitted in passing in a letter from prison that on the afternoon of 19 December in a crisis meeting, Ceausescu’s son announced that he was going to “call [his] specialists from Bucharest” to take care of any protests (“Baricada,” no. 45, 1990). Ceausescu’s Interior Minister, Tudor Postelnicu, admitted at his trial in January 1990 that Nicu had called him requesting “some troops” and he had informed Securitate Director General Iulian Vlad of the request (“Romania Libera,” 30 January 1990.)
The rewriting of the story of the Revolution, the “tourists,” and the “terrorists” was already in full swing, when in August 1990, Nicu wryly observed:
“…[T]he Military Prosecutor gave me two variants. In the first part of the inquest, they [the flight’s passengers] were from the Interior Ministry. Later, however, in the second half of the investigation, when the USLA and those from the Interior Ministry began, so-to-speak, to pass ‘into the shadows,’ — after which one no longer heard anything of them — they [the passengers] turned out to be simple citizens…” (interview with Nicu Ceausescu in “Zig-Zag,” no. 20, 21-27 August 1990).
- mirceabozan
- Membru nou
- Offline
- Posts: 35
Acesti emanati, aceste lichele, nu-si puteau face jocurile, acapararea puterii totale, precum si inaintasii lor Dej si Ceausescu, decat prin forta represiunii armate. Parte din armata a reactionat pasnic, datorita onor ofitzeri care au dovedit mai multa logica, parte din armata a jucat rolul de dusman al romanilor. La Sibiu, avem tot mai multe date care intaresc teoria ca Dragomir a fost teroristul Nr. 1 in acele zile, ajutat si de grupul USLA trimis de la Bucuresti la Sibiu, pentru protectia lui NC, si care s-au reantors la “locul faptei” dupa ce l-a pus pe Nicu in siguranta. Ei au fost aceia care au comis executiile din Piatza Mare in ziua de 21 decembrie ora 11,45 cu primele victime ucise sau ranite. Au fost repartizati in patru puncte ale pietii: In podul Casei Albastre, in podul actualei Primarii, in podul de deasupra Tunelului Generalului si in podul de deasupra magazinului Moda. De aici, au deschis foc inspre demonstranti. Au deschis foc si pe data de 22 decembrie inspre hotelul Imparatul Romanilor din acelasi pod de deasupra Tunelului Generalului care avea corespondent cu celelalte poduri dinspre magazinul Covorul. Aceste grupe ale USLA nu aveau insemne de grad sau arma, nu purtau boneta militara si aveau la dispozitie doua microbuze ale unitatii 01512 care i-a transportat in tot acest timp. Un grup al USLA era incepand din ziua de 21 decembrie ora 07 la sediul Judetenei de partid, ocupand garajul din curtea din sapate cu munitie si armament special. Se poate descoperi foarte repede, numele persoanelor care au fost trimise la SIBIU cu Rombacul in dupa-amiaza zilei de 20 decembrie, ca urmare a convorbirilor indelungate purtate de Nicu si Bucuresti, despre demonstratia anuntata pentru dimineata zilei de 21 decembrie de la Mag Dumbrava. In timpul convorbirii telefonice, in biroul lui Nicu se afla Traian Popsa, fostul director de la IJIM Sibiu, maiorul Dragomir, seful Garzilor judetene Pescaru, secretar al CJPCR Sibiu si Niculae Hurubean, prim secretar la Alba care se afla in trecere prin Sibiu. Aceste trupe USLA au purtat alternativ, combinezoane negre, uniforma militara sau haine civile…
The Archive of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989 
Leave a Reply