GHASSAN TOUMA : SAMIR GEAGEA IS INNOCENT
ME
SAMIR GEAGEA IS INNOCENT
In an interview, Ghassan Touma, former head of the security apparatus of the
now-disbanded Lebanese Forces and second-in-command in the organization,
affirmed his reasons for stating that the trials of the former head of the
LF, Samir Geagea, were show trials from first to last. Geagea was tried and
sentenced for involvement in the murder of Dany Chamoun and members of his
family in 1990, and in the murder of Elias Zayek, a member of the LF. He has
also been tried in the case of the bombing of a church in Zouk Mekayel, for
which a verdict is expected on July 13. Touma was accused of involvement in
three cases: an attempt on the life of Michel Murr, now minister of the
Interior; the bombing of the Greek Catholic bishopric in Zahle; and the
assassination of Zayek. The conversation was conducted in a café located in
a suburb of Oklahoma City in the United States. Here is a translation of the
interview:
On May 20 of this year Samir Geagea, Tony Obeid and yourself were sentenced
to death for the murder of Dr. Elias Zayek, a sentence which was
subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. What is your comment on the
court's verdict of guilty and its sentences of death, in view of the fact
that the court whichpronounced them was not the same tribunal which issued
verdict and sentence in the case of the murder of Dany Chamoun and his
family?
Until now, all decisions taken by the authorities against the Lebanese
Forces, its officials and members, have been taken with the objective of
taking revenge for political reasons.They have nothing to do with the
principle of due process of law adhered to in democratic nations. That is
why we and many others consider them null.
You have stated before that the murder of Dr. Zayek took place because of
the «Captagone» [a prohibited medical substance in which Zayek and others
were alleged to be trafficking: ed]. How do you reply to the statement by
Rafik Saade to the intelligence service and the investigating magistrate,
later reiterating his statement in court, that you had instigated the
murder?
I assure you that the Lebanese Forces had nothing to do with the case of
Zayek. After I had spoken previously about some information we had got
concerning the Captagone and the involvement of some officials and the
Kataeb Party in this matter, the «ghosts» intervened to conceal essential
information in such a way that it would be possible for the political trials
to take the course which had from the beginning been traced out for them
with the object of condemning Samir Geagea and the Lebanese Forces, and to
do so at any price and by any means. I should mention at this point that
someone received from Zayek the sum of 25,000 dollars by the intermediary of
someone whose name I shall not divulge. Zayek's associates accused him of
pocketing a large part of the money obtained from transactions in Captagone,
something which led to a serious disagreement between him and them, during
which Zayek threatened to make the whole matter public, so that his accusers
would - despite the importance of some of them - be implicated in the crime
along with him. If he went down, he told them, he would take them with him.
I apologize to the Zayek family for having to mention this information
concerning someone dear to them who is now deceased, but my duty is to tell
the truth no matter how hard it is on some people. As to Rafik Saade, he is
miserable and I feel sorry for him. But I understand how, after having
endured pressures and torture, he agreed to play the game of the promoters
of loans and transactions. He was hoping, and still is, to be released
sooner or later, even though his testimony would mean an unjust condemnation
of the Lebanese Forces and of Samir Geagea.
In Zayek's file are some depositions by André Obeid stating that you
yourself asked him personally to watch Zayek and finish him off because he
had "deviated from the line". What is your answer, especially in view of the
fact that André Obeid is still in the country and has not been pressured? He
gave his testimony in an atmosphere of normality. Why were they able to
obtain such statements from Obeid and from Rafik Saade?
André Obeid lied. He is not in Lebanon; he left some time ago and won't be
back. An influential friend of his constrained him to give himself up. When
he had done so, he signed a legal statement drawn up in advance, in return
for signing which he would be released. And so it happened. The relationship
between him and this influential person went back to the beginning of 1995,
when this person, on an official visit to Paris, spent the night at Obeid's
apartment there, and they spent evenings together. Subsequently, the wife of
the influential person joined him in Paris and was in touch with André, who
provided transport around Paris for her.
During the trial of the Zayek case, mention was made of a person called
Raymond Gerges, who is wanted by the judicial authorities. Do you know this
person, and can you say why he doesn't appear to confirm or deny, since he
is the person accused of opening fire on Zayek?
Yes, I do know Raymond Gerges, and I also know many other members of the LF
who could be listed in this dossier as well as that of Gerges. I know that
more than 1,500 young men of the Lebanese Forces have left Lebanon,
accompanied by their families over the last few years, either after having
been arrested and tortured, or to escape such treatment, Raymond Gerges
being one of them. I don't think that anyone expects them to come back and
submit themselves to the hangman, or to put themselves in a position where
they are forced to sign false statements and betray their principles. The
police techniques used by certain agencies against members of the Lebanese
Forces are now well known to international instances, and the most important
international human rights organizations have denounced and condemned the
practices of security agencies and other bodies. For three years - 1994,
1995 and 1996 - the US State Department published scores of pages about
Lebanon describing violations committed by certain services such as issuing
blank warrants which had been signed and which were to be "filled in" later
as the need arose; such as the way in which persons were detained and
tortured; such as the political and security pressure exerted on official
institutions; and in the repression of political freedom.
In earlier statements made by you, and in the context of the attempt to
assassinate Michel Murr, now deputy premier and minister of the Interior,
you said that a person once advised you to leave the country, which you then
did. Why, in your opinion, didn't Samir Geagea leave like other LF officials
such as Joseph Rizk, Raji Abdo, Akram, Ghassan Menassa, yourself... Didn't
Samir Geagea get the same message? Or didn't he think the message was
directed to himself personally?
Let's recall what happened in 1991 and 1992. There were a number of tempting
offers made to induce the Lebanese Forces to take part in the Administration
in order to ensure that it had a Christian "cover" - that was the objective
of these offers -, and to make possible a dilution of the Taef Agreement by
applying faulty political practices which went against the aspirations of
the people. Following failure of the attempts to draw the Lebanese Forces
into the circle of power, and the repeated LF rejection of official offers
which would perhaps have ensured the security of the Forces' institutions in
material terms but only at the price of betraying the principles of their
long struggle and the blood of their martyrs - following this, the
authorities decided to use the tactic of the stick. They proceeded to carry
out the assassination of Suleiman Akiki and Nadim Abdennour and to
perpetrate unjustified attacks on members of the LF. Despite all this, Dr.
Geagea continued to confront the pressures by means of political contacts in
a democratic way, even when LF officials began to be watched, to be abused
at checkpoints, and to be the objects of slanderous allegations in the
media. They even began getting threatening letters "advising" them they had
the choice of either leaving the country or being thrown in prison. The
message intended by these letters was clear: they wanted to deprive Dr.
Geagea of all his colleagues to make him submit and surrender. So we left,
hoping that our departure would cause an easing of the pressures on him.
Everyone knows what happened subsequently, beginning with the attack on our
headquarters in the Karantina and ending with the pressures exerted to
prevent Dr. Geagea from acceding to the presidency of the Kataeb Party by
democratic means during party elections. And for the record, some of us
returned to Lebanon intending to stay for good. But the pressures on us
began again, to the point where we were prevented, in the summer of 1993,
from returning definitively (the dates of the entries and departures stamped
in our passports prove this). After this, there was the explosion in the
Kataeb headquarters in Saifi at the end of 1993, which they tried, by means
of some of those they arrested, to blame the LF. This didn't work, however.
Then there was the attack on the church of Our Lady of the Deliverance at
Zouk in February, 1994, following which they fabricated the story that
everyone now knows to reach the political objectives they had set for
themselves. After the bombing came the encirclement by troops of the LF
headquarters at Ghodress, and a threat to hang the Doctor unless he agreed
to leave the country. But he refused to go into exile, preferring prison and
even the gallows to dishonoring his cause and betraying his martyred
comrades.
On July 13 we expect delivery of the verdict on the Zouk case which led to
the arrest of Samir Geagea and his comrades, the dissolution of the LF, and
the opening of other dossiers. What do you have to say on this subject, in
view of the fact that those accused of carrying out the bombing were members
of the LF security apparatus directed by you?
I have something to say about the indictments and the verdicts - which are
in general mere copies of the indictments -, whose forms throw light on the
intentions of the authorities. In each one of them, we find preambles and
other passages having a political color whose sole purpose is to justify the
issuing of these indictments by covering up the facts, the evidence, and the
pleading of the defense. We note also the weakness of the prosecution's
arguments, especially that adduced on the pretended cooperation with the
Israeli enemy. The Forces were accused of wanting to sabotage the Taef
Agreement, while everyone knows it was they who made it possible for the
accord to come into existence in order to end the war and enter the era of
«civil peace» which they are themselves praising today. They also accused
the Forces of working for the partition of the country, while everyone knows
that what the LF advocated was federalism, and that it was on the basis of
this concept that the State gave the Forces the right to take part in
political life. Anyone who knows anything about the law is well aware of the
difference between partition and federalism. They have heard the Declaration
of the Synod for Lebanon [held at the Vatican last year] and its resolutions
in regard to the cultural and civilizational pluralism which is one of the
bases of federalism. In addition, I want to cite certain errors and
contradictions in the charge made by the public prosecutor, Adnan Addoum. He
claimed that Geagea had hidden the material for the explosion in certain
places, and queried him why he had told Gerges Khouri to bring the explosive
material - which in the result he never brought - from Israel for the
purpose of blowing up the church. On another occasion the prosecutor spoke
of a visit to Lebanon by the pope, and of the party whose interests would be
harmed by such a visit - an allusion to Dr. Geagea the point of which we
didn't understand. Then at another point in the trial, he didn't appreciate
the deposition made by Father Michel Oweit because it was not in keeping
with what he wanted. I just want to say this: Everybody knows that the
Christians would not be inconvenienced or annoyed by a papal visit. On the
contrary, they were suffering from great frustration and ardently hoped for
a visit by the Holy Father. In re-reading the statements made at that
period, we easily understand who it was that would have been inconvenienced
by such a visit. In regard to Gerges Khouri, the arrest of his mother and
sister, the prosecutor - a veteran lawyer - used the word "detention". This
signified that he was stating, unconsciously, that the detentions had taken
place, which was contrary to what he stated about other cases. The word
"detention" simply means depriving someone of freedom without legal warrant.
Everyone remembers that Gerges Khouri refused to be defended by an attorney
before the indictment was pronounced, and that afterwards he asked for a
defense attorney as soon as the indictment was given. The reason is clear:
they had promised not to prosecute him, and they did not keep the promise.
That was when a serious mistake was made by those who supervised the
investigations and directed the business. Gerges was initially not to have
been prosecuted; instead, he was to have testified as a witness for the
prosecution, as did many of those implicated in the case of Dany Chamoun's
murder. If this scenario had gone ahead, Khouri would have accepted to
maintain his first deposition and to have incriminated the LF in the crime.
But the fact that the director of the play incriminated Khouri in the
indictment caused the latter to go back on his deposition and speak the
truth, after having lost confidence in those who "made proposals". The
prosecutor also insisted on speaking of meetings held at LF headquarters,
while those responsible for security at the building, as well as its
occupants, stated in the clearest way that they had never even once seen the
accused inside the building. They also stated that the names of those who
did enter were written in a special register kept at the entrance, and this
register was confiscated. Naturally, if the name of any one of the accused
had been found there, the register would have been placed before the court.
Further, documents were presented to the court attesting that Tony Obeid had
left for Australia, with the date of his arrival in that country and the
length of his stay being registered, as well as the dates on which he
visited doctors offices and public buildings. Rushdi Raad and Jean Shahin,
who were in Canada and Australia, respectively, presented similar
attestations. If the Lebanese authorities had wanted to know the truth, they
would have coordinated their action with the Canadian and Australian
authorities in order to know the names of those arriving in and departing
from Lebanon in the period preceding the attack on the church. But it was
not so much the truth that was sought as the head of Samir Geagea and the
LF, which they were determined to have in any way possible.
THE MALEK AFFAIR
In addition, there are details relative to the Fuad Malek affair, his
confrontation with his lawyers and his son, and his retraction after his
first deposition to tell the truth. Nor must we forget Gerges Khouri and his
denial of his first deposition and his rejection of the intervention of
influential persons like Frayha and Oweidat. And even a child could
criticize the logic of suspecting that those accused in this matter could
have given an important role in it to a person who would end up by giving
testimony against them. What kind of logic can this be? Thus, it is obvious
that all the arrests, investigations, interrogations and pleadings had the
purpose of doing the following:
a) Proving that Samir Geagea was the all-powerful master of the Lebanese
Forces.
b) Taking from the witnesses' testimony and the other evidence what suited
their needs and ignoring anything that didn't suit their purpose - and not
forgetting the statements extracted by threats.
c) Demonstrating that the accused were members of the LF security apparatus,
and proving that they had received their orders from me, either directly or
through the chain of command. d) The Doctor being the "absolute master", all
orders would have come from him through me; it would then be possible to try
and convict him.
GEAGEA ABOVE SUSPICION
Even supposing that confessions are extracted from suspects even in the
best-maintained Swiss prisons, it is apparent that: 1) Tony Obeid's
testimony was not given in a logical sequence (I apologize to Tony for
saying this, since I know he's innocent).
2) None of the suspects received any order or instructions from me.
3) None of the suspects received any order or instruction from Dr. Geagea.
This invalidates - twice and on two levels - any suspicion as to the
possibility of Samir Geagea having any role in the matter. The file - even
if we suppose the facts and data are true - does not lead to the conclusion
that I, Ghassan Touma, am in any way implicated as the direct superior of
Tony Obeid. But I don't know how can a jurist with the least amount of
logic, not to say experience, allow himself to jump from the testimony of a
witness, no matter how it was taken, to an accusation of Dr. Geagea,
forgetting about the third element (Tony and his testimony) and the absence
of the second element (Ghassan Touma and his testimony) only to attain the
first element? In spite of all this, and for known political reasons and
under various pressures, there was a flagrant disregard of facts, evidence,
the statements of a large number of witnesses, and the logic of the defense.
APPEAL TO THE POPE AND THE MARONITE BISHOPS
Your name wasn't mentioned in the case of the church explosion. What was the
reason? Surely, if there had been any attempt at a frameup, your name would
have been included like the others, e.g. Tony Obeid and Rushdi Raad. This is
an especially reasonable assumption in view of the fact that the same
examining magistrates worked on the cases of the church bombing, Zayek, Dany
Chamoun and Michel Murr. How do you explain the fact that your name is not
in all the dossiers?
I will not repeat what I've said and will not elaborate in explaining the
testimonies, pleadings, meetings, and media comments. But I would like,
before the sentence is pronounced on the matter of the church (which has led
to the opening of new dossiers), to appeal to:
a) The conscience of the judges who are trying a case which concerns all the
Lebanese.
b) Cardinal-Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir and the Assembly of Maronite Bishops,
who are directly concerned in the matter of the church explosion, to ask
that the justice be done to members of their religion.
c) The pope and those responsible for the Christian matters in Lebanon after
they announced their position through the communiqué of the Synod, and in
view of the fact that an event like the bombing is one with which they
especially should be concerned. I say the following:
1) Any one following up the trials can easily conclude that I, Ghassan
Touma, am the key personality in any attempt to convict Samir Geagea or
prove his innocence. Ghassan Touma is supposed to be the link between the
one who gave the orders and the ones who carried them out.
2) All neutral observers, inside and outside Lebanon, have affirmed that all
defendants who confessed their involvement in all crimes alleged to have
been committed by the LF were framed just because they were members of the
LF's Security Agency. Some were forced to make confessions prepared by
interrogators and others were bribed to do so.
3) The US State Department and many other international organizations have
affirmed many times that freedoms in Lebanon are being oppressed, arrests
are made haphazardly, and political interference and torture during
investigations are frequent. Some persons held in custody have died of
torture.
4) Decision-makers in Lebanon have decided to use LF trials for political
ends; thus, legal procedures in the trials were neglected and the testimony
favorable to the defendants was ignored.
5) We have full trust in Pope John Paul II and urge him to send a delegate
to Lebanon to discuss with the Lebanese authorities the formation of a
special committee that includes representatives of the Holy See, the
Lebanese judiciary and the Maronite Patriarchate. If this is done, I will
turn myself in to the Lebanese authorities.
My conditions are:
a) This committee must make sure the prisons where I and my comrades, the
other defendants, are held will be suitable.
b) There should be a new inquiry, carried out in the presence of a
representative of the Holy See, into the crimes imputed to the Lebanese
Forces. This inquiry should take place in the absence of any non-judicial
person, in view of the importance of preventing any of the inhuman practices
which accompanied the previous inquiries.
c)All witnesses, defense attorneys and defendants should be given a free
atmosphere to say what they like, present the documents they want, and
invite the persons they want from abroad to prove their innocence.
d) Once the LF and Samir Geagea are proved to be innocent, all LF members
should be released and the LF party should be given the right to free
political activity. The real culprits, irrespective of their nationality or
orientation, should be prosecuted.
Georges Sader, Oklahoma City, June 30, 1996