The Department of State Security has launched a revolt against the Republic of Lithuania

0

The DSS rebellion against the Republic of Lithuania
llredakcija@gmail.com 5 April, 2024 0

Aurimas Drižius

Yesterday’s statement by the DSS (Department of State Security) that the Seimas Commission’s conclusion on the crimes of the head of the DSS, Jauniškis, is unfounded, „politicised”, false, etc. means only one thing – the State Security Department has staged a rebellion against the Republic of Lithuania.
The SSD is a statutory organisation and it is not its competence to assess the work of the Seimas, especially when the Seimas has for the first time assessed this terrorist organisation as a criminal structure acting against the Republic of Lithuania. Although the DSS has been engaged in criminal activities for more than 30 years, this is the first time that it has been publicly named by a Seimas commission.
The DSS chief Jauniškis, who has been collecting kompromat about the current President of the country, Gitanos Nausėda, and possibly blackmailing him by collecting data on Nausėda’s opaque finances, should have been in a cell for a long time now, giving detailed testimony about his alleged crimes.
Instead, the DSS formally refused to obey the Parliament, attacked him and called its findings false.
This means that, for the first time, the Parliament has taken the right, albeit small, step in decriminalising this organisation.
The rebellion of the DSS means one thing – if, for example, in wartime, a soldier refuses to obey an order and sends his commander after a Russian ship because he does not like the order. In wartime, the commander has the right to shoot such a soldier, or to court-martial him.
The DSS pointed out that the conclusions of the Seimas „constitute a potentially unlawful influence on the activities of the intelligence services and other law enforcement agencies” and that the Commission deliberately ignored and unjustifiably disregarded the information (including classified information) provided by the DSS, the written explanations, and the attached relevant documents. „The Commission’s conclusion is therefore unjustified and unreasoned, based on assumptions and interpretations, and on information provided by the whistleblower Tomas Gailius (hereinafter referred to as the whistleblower), which has not been assessed in the light of the other evidence gathered during the Commission’s investigation. The arguments and assessments presented in the Opinion contradict the factual material in the possession of the DSS and submitted to the Commission, the legal framework, the assessments made by the Intelligence Ombudsmen’s Office in accordance with the Commission’s terms of reference, and the testimonies of competent intelligence officers,” Jauniškis said.

DHS-arguments-participating in the CommissionSend to

I remind you that the Seimas investigation revealed that the DSS illegally collected any compromising information about Nausėda and his advisors and supporters. In order to collect such data and to follow these people, listen to their conversations, etc., the DSS had to obtain a court authorisation.
The young man did not have such a sanction, he acted arbitrarily, kept the compromises he collected to himself and did not pass them on to anyone. Although the DSS is supposedly a statutory organisation, subject to and accountable to the civil authorities, General Jauniškis acted like a dictator in a banana republic, keeping the elected government on a short leash.
Therefore, the above-mentioned statement by the DSS should be regarded as a betrayal of the state, a refusal to obey the Parliament, which is a democratically elected government.
The fact that Chief Field Marshal Nausėda is as silent as a fish and does not react in any way to such attacks by the DSS means only one thing: the President is deeply hung up on the DSS compromise.
That the DSS ? It is a criminal organisation whose function was to neutralise any danger to the Landsberg family that has ruled Lithuania for 30 years. This was particularly evident in the way in which the DSS forced the hand of the democratically elected President Rolandas Paksas. They wrote false certificates and Paksas fell.
Since then, the DSS has felt omnipotent – building secret prisons, taking bags of dollars in bribes from the Americooks who transported their prisoners here to be tortured. What is more, I am convinced that the DSS is responsible for the murders, that is to say, that this organisation apparently organised the murder of its employee, Colonel Vytautas Pociunas. This man still had a conscience, he saw what this criminal organisation had become, he said that he would ‘no longer remain silent’, and he was killed, first by being sent to Belarus and then by being thrown out of a hotel window. The fact that VD’s ears were sticking out here became apparent very quickly, because then an article by the journalist Vyšniauskaitė appeared in ‘Lietuvos rytas’, saying that Pociunas had fallen out of the hotel window while urinating. Later, a Seimas commission found that before publishing this article, journalist Vyšniauskaitė had spent several hours in the office of the then head of the DSS, Arvydas Pociaus. That is when it was revealed that the DSS had defamed its own murdered colonel, apparently in order to cover its tracks. It is even more unfortunate that Pociunas’s death was never solved, even though Lukashenko knows perfectly well who did it, because there were KGB video cameras everywhere in the hotel rooms. It is even more regrettable that the Landsberg family has rewarded all those who contributed to the suppression of the investigation into the murder of Pociunas – there was a commission specially set up to investigate Pociunas’ murder, and the chairman of the commission, Alishauskas, was appointed ambassador to the Vatican for suppressing the work of the commission, and Pociunas’ widow, Liudvika Pociuniene, has become a member of the Patriotic Union’s faction in the Seimas, apparently in order to avoid causing a fuss, and is now meekly carrying out the will of the Landsbergs.
The DSS is a well-known terrorist organisation in Lithuania that collects compromising information on politicians, but the DSS bosses were caught out when the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that the DSS leaders had pocketed millions of US dollars in cash, which had been brought in on a plane with foreign nationals by employees of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The CIA had even opened two prisons in Lithuania between 2002 and 2004, where it secretly held and tortured people whom the Americans accused of organising terrorism. It was known that people who were tortured would confess to anything, so torture was used to try to extract secret information. The black work was done by the DHS officers, who monitored the tortured people, while the CIA officers just gave the commands.
What is much more terrible is that the DSS chiefs also shared the approximately five million dollars in cash brought by the CIA – the Americans thought that they could use the money to ensure that the Lithuanian special services would serve them. And so it happened, immediately after the distribution of the millions of dollars, President Adamkus’s national security advisers bought expensive cottages in Valakampiai.
The press recalls that the book „The Whistleblower and the President” mentions a whistleblower, Tomas Gailius, a former deputy head of the DSS, who, even before the presidential elections, had been verbally instructed by the head of the DSS, D. Jauniškis, to follow and collect a kompromat on Gitanos Nausėda.
The whistleblower presented all the information gathered to D.Jauniški. According to the book, when Jauniškis saw the „kompromat”, „the director appeared a little confused to the informant.
-‘So how do we do this now,’ said Jauniškis, reading the secret information brought by the Whistleblower, ‘Maybe I won’t tell him what is written here, because he doesn’t have permission, but I will just tell him what is bad and what is good.
From such clues, the Whistleblower began to understand that the inspections were not carried out on the Department’s initiative, but at the request of an outsider. And the requester and the person submitting the lists are not authorised to handle classified information. Therefore, it was not a Member of the Parliament that the Rapporteur was referring to, as he had a clearance. The rapporteur never understood who had ordered the checks, but the Director’s hints suggested that there were only two possibilities: either the candidate himself or his political opponents had requested them. Either way, the matter seemed dirty, as the use of the Department’s information is strictly regulated and audited by special systems, and the information cannot be passed on to outsiders in any way. „I had an idea before,” said the Whistleblower, „that we might check the staffs of all the candidates, but I realised during my conversation with the Director that it was someone’s personal interest.”

This came as a big surprise to Mr Gailius, but he carried out the assignment. At the same time, he contacted Vytautas Bakas, the then Chairman of the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence, and told him about the DSS’s methods to compromise politicians. Bakas also knows what compromise the SSD has against Gitanos Nausėda, so that he does not raise any questions about the secret CIA prison and the bribes to Lithuanian security.

Nausėda stands behind the DSS that followed him – what „kompromat” does D. Jauniškis have on the President?

This is what „Laisvas laikras newspaper” wrote in its issue of 5 March 2020: „When it turned out that the DSS had been tracking and collecting „kompromat” on the team of presidential candidate Gitanas Nausėda and on himself, the President stood up for the DSS, which had been following him and apparently already controlled him through blackmail. The guarantor of the Constitution, G.Nausėda, believes that although the Constitution forbids the collection of private information about citizens without a court order, the DSS has done so for 80,000 people. Such a scale of surveillance is unbelievable, as the DSS has practically collected data on all Lithuanian citizens who are even slightly active. This surveillance was carried out for one purpose – to gather „compormato” about them so that they could be blackmailed. What is even scarier is that the DSS is now in full control of Gitan Nausėda, who promised to „restore justice” before the elections. Now these promises are no longer in evidence, and the DSS dunderheads are publicly boasting that they have followed 80,000 people. Lithuanian citizens. After Vytautas Bakas, former chairman of the National Security and Defence Committee (NSDC), called on the President to remove the Director of the State Security Department (DSS), Darius Jauniškis, and his deputy, Remigijus Bridikis, the Presidential Office stated that Nausėda had full confidence in Jauniškis, the head of the DSS, who had been following him.

The only question now is: what compromises does the DSS have on Nausėda? After all, it seems that our Excellency has not yet managed to get anywhere and is looking for privatisation. The only weakness is Nausėda’s „cube” in Pavilniai Regional Park. LL sources say that Nausėda was only able to coordinate his house project in Pavilniai Regional Park with bribes, because the park’s management had refused to grant Nausėda permission to build this „cube”. „Nausėda took us to court, demanding that the technical design of his house be legalised, and we went to court with great courage, knowing that we were right and that the law was on our side,” Vida Petiukonienė, former head of the Pavilniai Regional Park, told the editorial board.

„The President sees the recent events as an irresponsible politicisation of the activities of the special services, which in its pattern resembles the artificial scandal created during the presidential election campaign regarding the manipulation of the interbank interest rate index Vilibor. In the President’s opinion, irresponsible dissemination of information, misleading interpretation of facts and political escalation of the situation should be treated as an attempt to discredit the most important institutions of the state”, says A. Zabarauskas, the chief advisor of the lying Nausėda who has been providing false certificates even to the court.

He recalls that the material provided by Mr Bakas has already been assessed by the relevant authorities and no criminal offence has been established. Also, he points out, the relevant authorities had informed the President about the investigation into the activities of the DSS. „The STT and the General Prosecutor’s Office had informed the President about the investigation into the activities of the DSS and presented its results. According to their assessment, the investigation has established that there is no element of a crime. These institutions had all the information necessary to reach such a conclusion, and the President has no reason to doubt it,” the Presidential Adviser said.

This seems to be a golden opportunity for the Seimas and the Peasants to purge all the power thugs from the power structures. Because after the revelation that the DSS illegally spied on 80,000 people in the country, they are not going to be able to find out what they are doing. It has also been revealed that the heads of both the Prosecutor General’s Office and the STT knew about it for nine months. They knew, but they hid these crimes.

According to the head of the DSS, in 2019, some 80 000 people were „checked” and the DSS presented its findings on them. It seems that the head of the DSS has never read the Constitution or the laws, because Article 22 of the Constitution clearly says :

A person’s private life is inviolable. Personal correspondence, telephone conversations, telegraphic messages and other communications are inviolable. Information about a person’s private life may be collected only by reasoned court decision and only in accordance with the law.

However, even knowing that the „whistleblower”, Deputy Head of the DSS Tomas Gailius, had been following Nausėda, the President rewarded him. At the beginning of the year 2020, a Member of the Seimas, Vytautas Bakas, saw the list of officials who would be awarded the prize, and he wrote a message to the whistleblower congratulating him on the award. For Bak, this seemed to be a good sign: if President Gitanas Nausėda was awarding the Speaker, he did not suspect anything.

According to the book „The Whistleblower and the President”, at that time Bakas had already lost his position as Chairman of the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence. Angry with the leaders of the Lithuanian State Farmers’ and Green Union for admitting non-transparent politicians into the ruling coalition, Bakas left the group and joined a mixed group of MPs. Dainius Gaižauskas, a former police officer from Marijampolė, who helped pass the spy exchange law, was appointed the new chairman of the Committee.

Despite this, Bakas remained interested in law enforcement actions in relation to the information provided by the Whistleblower, and regularly asked the Prosecutor General Evaldas Pasilis about the situation, but no concrete answers were given in ten months. Bak suspected that sooner or later the law enforcement investigation would become stuck, as the actions of the State Security Department leaders were made in the past and it was difficult to find irrefutable evidence now. If the law enforcement investigation stalled, Bak was preparing to initiate a parliamentary inquiry on the basis of the Rapporteur’s information. „In this case,” Bak said, „it would be possible to publicly question the heads of the Department, the President, his entourage and some members of the Parliament.”

In January 2020, Bak called the Prosecutor General again and learned that the decision had been taken not to open a pre-trial investigation. In order to obtain written confirmation, he emailed the General Prosecutor’s Office and asked for information about the decision. On 26 January, he received a reply stating that the Special Investigation Service (STT) had not detected any criminal offences or official misconduct. However, the reply did not say what the decision was. Bakas suspected that the prosecutors were trying to protect themselves from a possible appeal by using a legal ploy: if it had been stated directly that it had been decided not to open a pre-trial investigation, such a decision could have been appealed in court. This was not possible now, as there was no specific decision. In any case, it was clear that law enforcement was not going to do anything.

Bakas decided to turn to his fellow MEPs and try to set up a temporary commission to undertake a parliamentary investigation. However, this was not as easy to do now as it was in April 2019, when he met the Rapporteur. His political position was now considerably diminished, his relations with his former colleagues, the Peasants, were strained, and his relations with the new Chairman of the Committee, Mr Gaižauskas, were openly confrontational. There was little chance of support from the opposition, as the information provided by the rapporteur also mentioned the conservative Žygimantas Pavilionis.

In order to launch a parliamentary inquiry, Bakas had two choices: either to collect signatures from a quarter of the Seimas and establish a temporary commission of inquiry on that basis, or to persuade the Seimas Board to do so. The first option seemed unrealistic, as it would require the disclosure of secret details to the members of the Seimas. Going to the Seimas Management Board seemed more logical, if only because the Rapporteur’s information would have to be presented to a total of seven politicians – the Speaker of the Seimas and his deputies. The latter included both ruling and opposition representatives. Moreover, all of them had the right to work with classified information.

Bakas wrote to the Seimas Management Board, stating that he had information about the illegal interference of a national security institution in elections, internal political processes, and the illegal collection and use of information. He did not give specific names. He also asked to be given the opportunity to elaborate on this situation at one of the Wednesday meetings of the Seimas Board.

The meeting took place on Wednesday morning, 19 February 2020. Not only politicians and civil servants, but also journalists gathered in the Aleksandras Stulginskis Hall in the First Chamber of the Seimas. Bakas was seated at a round table where the President of the Seimas, Viktoras Pranckietis, and his deputies were discussing current parliamentary affairs. During the public part of the meeting, which was broadcast on the internet, Bak was not asked about the information available to him, but about his decision to address the Seimas Management Board.

-„You know very well the conditions for setting up a temporary commission of inquiry,” said Rima Baškienė, a peasant. – I do not quite understand why you think that it is the Board that should take this initiative?

-That is my suggestion,” replied Bakas. – This issue is about the protection of human rights and our national security interests. I believe that only the top leaders of the Parliament here can take such a decision.

-In your opinion, which members of the Seimas could serve on such a temporary commission of inquiry? – Arvydas Nekrošius, a peasant, asked.

Bakas thought for a moment.

-Those who would be able to answer the questions.

-„I am convinced,” Pranckietis commented. – If the elections, the political process, have been influenced, it is serious enough.

-We have not received any concrete information,” said Sabatauskas. – A parliamentary inquiry could be very big, or it could be the other way around – nothing could be investigated.

Bakas refrained from commenting further.

-„I did my duty,” he said. – I have provided important information to the Seimas Board. And now they have to take a decision.

Bak’s statements were discussed both behind the scenes in politics and in the media, but nobody knew the specific details, so the assessments were more limited to hunches and political sympathies.

The following Tuesday, 25 February, the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence held an extraordinary meeting, to which the Prosecutor General Pashilis and the Director of the STT, Žydrūnas Bartkus, were invited. They did not talk to the Committee about the information provided by the Rapporteur, but about the Bako appeal and other irrelevant circumstances. After leaving the Chamber, Pasilis and Bartkus answered the journalists’ questions in an abstract manner, while politicians offered their own interpretations. Gaižauskas, the chairman of the Committee, claimed that after listening to the law enforcement officers’ account, Bakas’s claims fell apart. Bakas retorted that Gaižauskas did not understand what he was saying because he did not know the information in question. The open hostility between the former and current Chairmen of the Committee intrigued the journalists perhaps even more than the abstract talk about the interference of the institutions in domestic politics and elections. The disappearance of the heads of the law enforcement agencies only created a cloud of political gossip in the corridors of Parliament.

The next morning, the Seimas Board decided not to open a parliamentary inquiry. The matter should be discussed in the Committee on National Security and Defence, so there was no need for the Seimas Board to intervene. Bakas realised that this would definitively prevent a parliamentary inquiry. He also did not want to collect signatures because he felt he did not have political support. On the same Wednesday, he invited journalists working in the Seimas to a press conference.

-„I was and am convinced,” Bakas read from a sheet of paper, „that during a certain period, the private lives of a large number of the country’s unsuspecting citizens were interfered with. There were also efforts by individuals to exert, in my view, undue influence on the democratic electoral process.

He said that last year he had passed on this information to the General Prosecutor’s Office, with specific names, positions and other contextual details. He claimed that the information had no classification, but now prosecutors have decided to classify it.

-„This can only mean one thing: the aim is to keep data on the potentially illegal collection of personal data and interference in elections out of the public domain,” Bakas said.

He openly criticised Prosecutor General Pasilis for not taking a concrete decision on the pre-trial investigation.

-„In my opinion,” Bakas said, „this behaviour may confirm that influential Lithuanian politicians and officials may have exploited the institutions responsible for ensuring national security for their own narrow political purposes or to gain an advantage over political rivals.

Parašykite komentarą

El. pašto adresas nebus skelbiamas. Būtini laukeliai pažymėti *

0
    0
    Jūsų krepšelis
    Jūsų krepšelis tuščias