Andreas Baader, born Munich, 1943.
Father: Historian. Presumed dead in war.
Brought up by mother and grandmother.
Abandoned art school in Munich.
From 1963 lives in Berlin.
Set fire to Frankfurt store in 1968.
Escaped from jail 1970.
Re-arrested 1972 in Frankfurt.
Gudrun Ensslin, born 1940.
Daughter of a Protestant clergyman.
Secondary School exchange pupil in USA.
Studiend German, English, Greek, philosophy in Tubingen, then Berlin.
State grant for exceptional ability.
Mother of one child.
Set fire to Frankfurt store in 1968 with Andreas Baader.
Arrested in 1972 in Hamburg.
Ulrike Marie Meinhof, born 1934.
Father: Historian. Mother: Leacher.
Parents died young. Briught up by foster-mother.
Studied pedagogy.
State grant for exceplional ability.
Edintor og journal 'Konkret'. Radio and TV journalist.
Mother of two children.
Met Baader and Ensslin during aeson trial.
Involved in freeing Baader 1970.
Arrested 1972 in Hanover.
Jan-Carl Raspe, born 1944.
Father: Businessman-died young. Grew up East Berlin.
Studied chemistry, then sociology in West Berlin. First class degree.
Member of German Socialist Students' Association.
Member of Red Army Faction from 1970.
Arrested 1972 in Frankfurt.
STAMMHEIM
The Trial of the Baader-Meinhof Group.
Original Music by Marcel Wengler
producers: Ju"rgen Flimm end Eberhard Junkersdorf.
Director: Reinhard Hauff.
The Baader-Meinhol trial began on May 21st, 1975, in Stuttgart-Stammheim.
It lasted over 2 years. The coirt sat on 192 days.
The action and dialogue are based on authentic documents and events
Andreas Bernd Baader, unemployed.
Gudrun Ensslin, student.
Ulrike Marie Meinhof, journalist.
Jan-Carl Stefon Raspe, sociolodist.
You are accused jointly in 9 independent actions..
Of killind 4 persons by means constituting a public menace...
and of attempting to kill 54 other persons...
and of causing explosions...
which endangered the lives and property of other persons...
and of forming an organization...
the aim of which was to perpetrate criminal acts.
Even after their arrest...
the accusted stuck to their goals.
I do not, as yet, have a defence counsel.
We do not accept the legalistic packaging of this event.
Defence is impossible when laws are constantly being changed.
We insist, however, on a legal platform...
to demonstrate the collapse of the bourgeois state's odeological arguments...
and to explain revolutionary politics.
You are free to call any lawyer you trist.
Not easy to find one who can stand the persecution of the State.
For 3 years the prosecution has vetted the defence's every word...
search low prastices, confiscating mail...
and bugging lawyers' cell visits.
We don't accept the Laws of the bourgeois state.
Bud if you kick them around, what then?
The Public Prosecutor barred 3 defence counsel...
less than 30 days before the trial began.
This smashed the defence.
Herr Baader is adequately defended...
by 2 state-appointed counsel.
Those lawyers were forced uron me.
They've never even spoken to me.
Someone's written "Off with his head".
Someone's written "Off with his head" on my microphone.
That's too deep for me.
Yes, counse!
These remarks compel me to state the following...
Don't speak for me!
I'm not speaking to Frau Ensslin.
Shut your trap!
It's not your turn to speak.
That creep should shut up!
- Frau Ensslin! - Stop babbling on!
I'm not babbling. Just listen.
You are incompetent!
Just a minute. Calm down!
You may not leave.
Please sit down.
Do you refuse thet too?
There's no rule saying they must sit.
Oh yes, there is.
In the interests of sedurity. The accised must be seated.
Resume your seats.
We shall of course not sit. The choice is yours.
Either the compulsory squad shuts up ot we force you to remove us.
All right. Remain standing for now
I understand them not wanting...
a court-appointed defence, but...
Dommint! Get us out of here!
If they speak, we disrupt proceedings.
I suggest you bur us from the court at such times...
to avoid these idioric scenes.
Make the pigs shut their snouts.
Whom d'you mean?
It's them or us!
If the court-appointed defence speaks...
you'll continue to obstruct?
The accused have no confidence it them.
They also call them who should keep their "snouts" shut.
That's exactly the tone they adopt for their own counsel out of court.
In writing they have repeatedly called them pigs, arseholes...
idiots, screwed-up people, etc...
Their lawysrs may accept it but not a state defence.
If clients call us arseholes, idiots, and we say similar things to them...
that is between the client and ourselves.
These points may seem absurd, bud they show this is a political trial.
It is laudable that these counsel...
are prepared ti defend the accused depsite the abuse they receive.
I abserve that one of these "laudable counsel" gas fallen asleep.
- Are you sure? - Yes, first on the left.
No expresson of mirth from the public, please.
Yes, Herr Baader.
You are staging a trial with psychogically broken prisoners.
That's why we insist on our own defence.
Even though it won't change the outcome.
Jidges sometimes turn down promotion to avoid cases like this.
Can you stay the course?
I hope so. Time will tell.
Is it a political or sriminal trial? How long will it last?
For us ot's a normal sriminal case...
althiugs we can't deny political motives will play a certain role
I connot assess how long it will take.
We shall conduct it az concisely az possible.
But that does not depend ot the doodwill ot the court alone.
The other parties must also be willing to co-operate.
I request a 10-day adjournment...
to prepare the case and study the material.
We'll decide that later
I don't even have the papers,
Get them from your barred colleagues.
We have no spare copies here
I'm sure his colleagues will help.
Can you credit it?
In this trial, millions have been spent on security.
Yet the court balks at providing my colleague with document.
For reasons of cost?
You cannot be taken seriously.
Yesterday a prison officer handed me an anonymous letter.
It urget me to use this.
It got past your censor.
I ordered the letter delivered; Not the noose.
Desist from further provocation
I said nothing.
Nothing to say, you mean?
It I misunderstood something. I don't need a chorus...
of 4 defence counsel.
If you wish to read the paper, kindly do so outside
4 p.m The accused cannot continue.
My learned friend is obstructing.
Anjournment refused
I shall retire at 4 p.m.
We cannot force you to stay. The court will proceed till 4.15.
The common room tap is broken.
How can it break when it's never used?
I assume something's being done?
I'll look info it.
The accused cannot continue.
As far as I'm concerned, the day is over.
The feeling my head is exploding.
The feeling my marrow is being pressed info my brain.
The feeling my brain is shrivelling like a prune.
The feeling I'm constantly alive with electricity, as if remote-controlled.
The feeling I'm pissing out my soul.
I wake up, open my eyes. The scell is moving.
In the afternoon, when the sub shines, it suddenly stops.
Impossible to stop the sensation of movement.
Impossible to say if I'm shivering with fever or cold.
Raging aggression with no outlet.
The worst thing is knowing I have no chance of survival.
With expensive nutrients...
we have done our best to improve the prisoners' health.
They were even diven dark glassed when visual disorders arose.
Did you know the aim of the hunger strike?
The aim?
I believe the aim was an improvement in prison conditions.
Can you be more specific?
Being together.
So, the aim was an end to isolation?
Yes, that was why they refused food and drink.
If conditions had improved...
would it have ended earlier?
You mean, would release from prison have reduced donger to life?
You're just repeating the lies...
propagated by the media...
that it was to gain their release.
We always said the hunger strike would end if isolation ended.
You're beind contentious.
Yos! Becouse I want the truth
I do too.
You said better conditions lead to better health?
And the reverse?
- I don't understand. - Is the opposite true?
That severe conditions can ruin a prisoner's health?
Obviously.
You've been a prison doctor for 20 years.
Have you even seen conditions like those in Stammheim?
No, never.
Are they fit?
The accused are fit to stand trial.
I declare I'm not fit
I'm in no condition to express clearly the things I wish to say.
It's absurd to thing that these past 3 years have not affected us.
We want independent medical examination.
And a maximum of 3 hours per day in court.
Requests denied.
I challenge the bias of this court.
It repearedly refuses to admit independent doctors
Trey would reveal the use of tortute against political prisoners.
The prosecution and intelligence services...
will only be satisfied when the prisoners are dead.
- Like justice in the Third Reich... - That comparison is an insult to this court.
Think of the insult your occupying that chair is to us.
Challenge dismissed.
They always say we're not isolated...
besause we have larger sells than other prisoners.
But the fasts remain.
Apart from the hunger strike, we've been in total isolation for 3 years.
When we talk to each other through a slit in the door...
someone stands outside and writes it down.
Herr Baader is out of order.
To quote a US Supreme Court ruling:
"Disrespect for iou courts of justice must not go unpunished."
"The indefinite disruption of a trial by the accused will not be tolerated."
"It debases our country and our system of justice..."
"if we allow our courts to be tyrannized, insulted, or humiliated."
All present should consider these words.
The defence would happily accept US law.
This trial would then be invalidated through prejudice...
as you remarks in court demonstrate.
It is not the role of the accused to judge the officers of justice.
You stand accused of multible murder.
The prosecution and court are at pains to meaintain...
the utmist objectivity.
This is the first oilitical trial in West Germany since 1945.
The authorities cannot see a victim in the object ot their destruction.
They see only a foe they want to crush.
This shows a basic difference with our struggle.
Even in a Fascist, we can see the victim of a system.
It's not we who are fanatics, bud the authorities.
They never answer our arguments. They are merely folmalistic.
State your grounds for rejesting this court.
In South Africa, political prisoners...
are interrodated for 3 months.
If they haven't talked by then, it's clear they will die under torture.
So they are shot
I'm not saying prisoners are treared more humanely in S. Africa.
What I mean is...
where torture fails as a means of extorting information...
all thet's left is death.
The purpose of detention is the death of the prisoner.
No suhe puprose exists in German low. I rule you out of order.
Superficial examination by the person doctor...
connot assess litness to stand trial.
We'll resume our defence when evidence is based on fact, not on expedients.
The trial will proceed in your absence.
We refuse to continue when the accused are not fit.
What's the meaning of this?
You should bar us!
Be seated!
Have us removed!
D' you want us to start screaming? Stop your nonsensem, idiot!
Be seated and porticipate in a peaceful fashion.
So you refuse ti sit?
So you wabt us to make a farmal protest?
Remove us!
If you continue to disrupt proceedings you'll be parred.
Do it, you old fool.
Are you all agrees?
Yes... are you deaf?
You refuse to remain?
The public must be seated ot leave the room.
The accused have disrupted proceeding and will be barred.
The witness may withdraw.
We shall move ot to the particulars of the accused.
They have to be present. Wring them in again... one by one.
First, Raspe. By force if need be.
Prease identify anyone in the public creating a disturbance...
so appropriate measures may be taken.
Please be seated - No.
- The evidence is about your preson. - I'm not interested.
- Speak about yourself. - I've been dragged here.
Use the microphone.
If you don't bar me. I'll jump...
The accused Raspe is barred.
Bring Frau Meinhof in.
Be seated.
No.
Will you use the microphone at least?
I don't want you to hear
I'm not fit to defend myself.
A statement about yourself?
Not under these circumstances. I want to leave.
- It's your duty to stay. - You can't force me, arsehole!
I note the fact you called the judge "arsehole".
Note it then!
The accused is barred from proceedings.
Be seated.
No, someone knocked my shair over.
Pick the shait up.
Please have me barred.
It's not a case of what you want.
Tell me some disruptive acts, then.
Must I insult you? I don't want to.
You force me ti stay?
I have to. I don't want to.
Want insults?
I'd rather you didm't utter abuse.
I'll stop your dirty manoeuvre.
It's not a dirty manoeuvre. I'm bound by procedural rules.
D' you want physical violence?
I want you to sit end take part calmly.
It's s dirly manoeuvre, dammmit! Forcing me to insist you bar me.
I just want to leave.
It's not a case of personal wishes. It's your duty.
Fine. Carry on with this silly procedure. I'll carry on disrupting.
You haven't disrupted yet.
Have me removed, or I'll have to insult you.
Want ot? You can have it in various ways.
I don't want it.
For instance, you're a Fascist arsehole.
Fascist arsehole, eh?
- Remove me. - Me too, you fat pig.
I hereby state you're an old Fascist arsehole.
Turn his mikrofone olt.
We're not in a fit state to defend ourselves. Pig!
You have disrupted proceedings and called me "pig". Is that correct?
And Herr Baader said "Fascist arsehole".
- You may speak about your person. - Dirty rat!
Remove the accused!
The court will retire to deliberate
11 o'clock news from Radio Stuttgart.
On the 39th day of the Baader-Meinhol trial in Stammheim...
reports were presented by 3 medical experts.
They conclude that the accused...
are suffering from debilyty, perception and articulation disorders...
weight loss, low blood pressure, and loss of concentration.
In Andreas Baader's case...
a low heart-rate was diagnosed.
And in Frau Meinhol's case, an inability to concentrate.
They are fit taje part 3 hours a day.
- Hear the radio? - The pigs finally caught on.
The trial will proceed without the accused on grounds of...
- Do not interrupt. - I wish to speake.
No one may speak at present.
We have a legal right to be heard.
You no longer have the right
I haven't spoken yet, you pig!
I will now give the grounds.
This is real brutality.
Stick your pig's head up your arse!
Remove Raspe!
Au inbelievably repressive act!
Remove the accused.
Request for adjournment refused.
After the medical report, you want to bar the accused...
because they are not fit to take part. It's outrageous!
You will not prevent us stating the grouds for our decision.
You merely reveal your manners.
Killer! Your purpose as a judge is to thin the ranks.
Remove Ensslin!
We shan't forger your role here.
Your trial of bent witnesses and false evidence will fail.
You can't escape the fact we're not fit, after 3 years of torture.
Remove Meinhof!
Imperialist pig!
You won't be forgotten, you swine!
Your time will come.
Now you can have your show trial.
The accused are considered unfit to take part in the proceedings.
An accused person cannot impede a trial...
by unfitness of his own causing.
Try the code for the protection of birds.
That is piece of impertinence.
So is your handling of this case.
The evidence will take a long time.
The prosecution has called 997 witnesses and 80 experts.
Limiting proceedings to 9 hours per week would make the trial too long.
The accused's hunger strike...
wolfully weakened their health.
Shame on you.
They may return when fit.
Incredible! Incredible!
You destroy the constitutional state.
My congratulations!
I was in the officers' mess, US headquarters I Frankfurt.
It went dark and we thougt a storm was brewing.
Then a flash, and s shattering sound.
The roof and everything caved in
I got out
I saw Col. Brooquist lying there.
Ne had a lump of glass from the door in his astery.
No one came to help. They were afraid other bombs would do off.
He lay with his face to the right.
To the right?
There was blood.. red blood.
Yes, blood is usually red.
Were you hurt?
No, I was shaken, that's all.
An American officer took me to his flat and tenden me.
I worked as an ambulance driver in the US hospital. Heidelberg
I was called to the computer centre at US headquarters.
I searched the rubble for survivors.
Under a window was a body, still moving.
I saw a second body under a Coca Cola machine... just his foot stuck out.
We moved the machine bud the man was dead.
I then saw an officer whose body was torn apart, only the top falf left.
The other bits were scottered in the lime trees nearby.
The soles of his feet were still on the ground - not a pretty sight.
We took a pillowcase and gathered up the bits of the body.
After the second bomb explosion...
there was an officer who looked like he'd been scalped.
We bandaged him and took him to hospital.
He called himsels "Erwin". Now I know he was Holger Meins.
Later he brought Jan-Carl Raspe whom he introduced as "Lester".
They lolked round my metal workshop.
Said they needed props for a film about revolution.
They had something like the top of a hand drenade.
And asked if I could make a similar one.
I made more abjects.
Weapons and bombs for the lilm.
You're a metal sculptor. Aren't you interesred in films too?
To a certain extent.
If you work on a film, don't you ask questions?
What king of film? Who's invoived?
Don't you ever know?
I asked, bud "Erwin" was evasive.
I became uneasy, and said:
"You're mixed up in something. Count me out, or I'll call the police."
Then "Erwin" pulled a gun and said I was in it up to my neck.
One day he brought a man I now know is Baader.
It was a strange scene.
He marched info my workshop.
He walked round looking at this and that inspecting everything...
as if it belonged ti him.
You dummy-maker!
One more interruption, Raspe, and you'll be barred.
Later I suppelied more bomb casing.
- I withdrew. - Withdrew? That's good.
You rattled off your statemrnt...
like an automatic train...
as if you knew it by heart.
Whu is Flau Meinhof familiar with him?
It's up to the witness...
Your statement doesm't interest much.
But are you aware that it will be used...
to partray Andreas an the mediq as the boss?
The government wants the public to believe...
trat Andreas is the one they must break and ultimately kill...
so that the urban guerrilla problem in W. Germany will be solved.
Question not valid. Personal opinion
you say you were coerced.
The group's relations with sympathizers preclude coercion.
Were you forced to work?
Yes, it was like I descrobed. You know very well.
Nearer the microphone, please.
I won't tolerate all remarks being met with laughter.
I fail to see anything funny here.
Your statemeat sounds like it's written by someone working for the police.
The wording is by the interrogator. The witness says when he disagrees
that's incedible. Not his own words, bud s judge's.
Did the interrogating officer promise you a new life in the US?
I lod't think I can answer. For my own safety.
Were you affered...
financial help, faise documents?
Money wasn't mentioned.
I can't say yoe or no to the other question.
Was s pardon mentioned?
Or clemency?
They spoke of "voluntary penitence", and gave me the law to read.
You can't read!
The masks of tiredness. How sick of them I am.
How they have nauseared me. Forever and everywhere.
Murmuring clergymen, boy scouts, maiden aunts.
Scoffing women, youths.
Ancient creatures, smothered in make-up.
How sick I am of it. Hinger, simple to know.
Am I in a film?
Or am I real: Fight!
Statements like the last one are always obtained the same way.
The techniques used are dependence, exhaustion end fear.
The victim becomes totally dependent on his interrogator.
The only peson who can help him.
The only peson he has contect with.
Sometimes the interrogator lends a sympathetic ear.
The victim feels indebted to him.
Witnesses are not manipulated.
Their evidence allords deep insight info the group's hierarchy.
The accused still haven't explained it.
It would be an act of courage.
Does that super-hypocrite expect, after 3 years' isolation...
that we suddenly confess becouse a phoney witness pops up?
I request Frau Ensslin be parred for abuse.
The accused is barred from court until end February 1976.
I sipport Gudrun's rejection.
It's 4 p.m. Can I give my reasons tomorrow?
No. But you can withdraw. You're not obliged to stay.
"Rejection is a farse. This court is here to sray."
Bud you...
pass sentence on yourselves too.
Shit! You take us for fools!
Remove that man.
This is unbelievable.
More unbelievable is tour declaration of war against the accused.
Bud wars have the Geneva Convention.
That protects prisoners against the calculated destruction of their health...
for which you blame the prisoners themselves
I'm warning you.
The High Court found the condetions lawful.
The prosoners are dungerous adherents of the Red Army Faction.
Ideological justice!
It's absurd to say we wounld disrupt prison order.
How? When? Wrere?
How can we disrupt when in 3 years we've never even spoken to anather inmate?
How can a prisoner in isolation reveal to the authorities a change in behaviour?
How?
In a situation in which all expression of life is suppressed.
The prisoner in isolation has only one way to express a change of heart.
By betrayal.
There is no other way.
Isolation provide 2 possibilities.
Either they force a prisoner to silence.
That is, he dies there.
Or, he talks.
And that is betrayal.
That is torture, clear-cut torture.
Forcing confessions by means of isolation.
Punishing and confusing the prisoner.
You are out of order.
Next witness!
You occupied a cell next to the witness accused ot making bombs?
Yes, I asked him why he was making a confession.
He said they threatened to charge him with conspiracy to murder.
Bud if he gave evidence, they'd help him start a new life in the US.
- Why are you in jail? - Politics.
We have po political prisoners.
What's your offence?
Waging war against capitalist exploitation.
By what means?
That's how you coerce your witnesses.
Herr Baader is barred from proceedings.
You have to reply
I don't.
Yes, you do.
Ridiculous!
Quiet!
Don't shout!
Stop playing the clown.
The consequences for...
Stick your consequences up your arse.
Silence! Or I'll clear the court.
I sentence you to 3 days punishment.
Know what being on oath means?
I don't swear oaths. You believe me or you don't.
You refuse to take the oath?
On principle.
- There's a 1,000 kark fine. - Cash?
According to Clause 61...
oaths are waived if the accused agree.
The accused are not all present.
Bring Baader.
Can we waive the oath?
Couldn't care less. They're your rules.
Yes or no?
This is a farce!
- Do you waive it? Yes or no? - I already did.
Frau Ensslin?
Don't give a damn.
Of course I waive it.
Me too.
I also bring a plea to reject this court...
because of the way you throw Andreas out...
then bring him in but don't let him speak.
- It's grotesque. - Witness dismissed
- I wish to speak. - Remove the witness!
I wish to state why I am a political prisoner
I'll smash you, you pigs!
Like that sort of thing, don't you?
Do you wish to justify your rejection?
The court knows, because you bug our conversations...
that we intend to set this case straight politically.
This case, the peak of political justice...
is just plain Fascist.
- It's capitalist politics. - Out of order!
This scene reveals the total blutality of this machine
I'll read what Ulrike wanred to say bud was not allowed to.
To say my strained relations with you...
come from my lack of remolutionary force...
was shameful, considering what I'm going through.
My Fascist conditioning, through sadism and religion...
caught uo with me becouse L never broke my links wit the ruling class.
I crawled to the Red Army Faction as I did to he bourgeoisie.
Treting you like cops means having been a pig myself.
A hypocritical swine from the ruling classes.
We knew the Springer building...
had been surrounded by students...
and we'd been prevented from going to work.
It was brocked off.
We had to put up with their abuse.
But putting a bomb there?
No one could've believed that.
Were you hurt?
Yes, a bruised shest.
And your workmates?
Yes. Broken ribs, cuts, lacerations, impaired hearing...
It, s a wonder no one was killed.
You're an editor with Springer Press?
I was in a meeting when it went off.
It was one of 5 bombs - not all of them exploded.
Most people fled. But journalists are inquisitive.
We stood chatting, when suddenly there was a bang, ant it went dark.
I looked round at the wounded.
I was amazed they'd hit at proofreaders.
They are usually left-wing.
If they'd hit the computer centre. They'd have damaged Springer more.
Terrorism is the destruction of facilities...
dykes, reservoirs, hospitals...
power stations...
All those have been bombed by the US in Vietnam since 1964.
Terrorism intimidates the masses. Urban guerrillias only threaten the state
I cannot accept irrelevant arguments.
You want to stop us saying anything at all.
Frau Meinhof, go on.
Urban guerrilla actions are not aimed at the people.
They combat the terrorism of the imprerialist state.
Enough!
You're a washout.
Turn Baader's microphone off.
Master of microphones, not of this court.
This is not a normal case.
It's a clash between the bourgeois capitalist state and its radical opponents.
Dr. Horst Herold, President of the Criminal Investigation Bureau, said:
"Is terrorism id Germany and the world the brainchild of a Baader or a Meinhof?
"The sick brain as many see it."
"Or does terrorism..."
stem from the economic situation in the Western world?
"Does it merely reflect a problem?
"The crucial question is: Who fights terrorism?
"Police or politicians?"
"I say this with reluctance."
"Bud the tendency is to introduce special international laws."
For 5 years, Herold used us as an excuse to extent his apparatus.
He wants international anti-guerrilla laws for his own ends.
He says:"I am the man to wage this war.
"Give me the apparatus, the money."
"And above all, the political power."
Herold advocates the police state- the height of reaction.
While our judge here keeps banging away at us.
What's the matter with her?
Who are you kidding?
You hate us.
There are plenty of signs.
It shows in your passivity, withdrawal...
bad drammar, destructiveness, misunderstanding, etc...
I'vi no time for that type of self-criticism.
Pull yourself together or go to hell!
You undermine us - even the law can't.
It's not mystical ti say I can't go on.
I can't stand feeling so defenceless.
Lots does on in my head, I day nothing.
Bud I could scream at your malice.
It's as if there's a deal I'm no part of.
I keep quiet while Gudrun lies.
Parania. You pig!
How can I pull myself tigether...
when her image of me is a pig?
Two total lunatics!
The accused do not deny Red Army Faction political responsibility...
for attacks on US Army installations in W. Germany.
That is not, however, a statement if individual responsibility.
We wish to call the following witnesses;
Former US President Richard M. Nixon.
Former Defence Secretary Melvin Laird.
Ex-Chief of Staff, US Forces in Vietnam...
The witnesses will testify that they...
wilfully killed a great many Vietnamese...
and inflicted suffering on others...
How low would you stoop to eradicate baseness?
To change the world, to what lengths would you do?
It is terrible to kill.
Not only others... we kill ourselves.
This lethal world must be changed by force.
Everyone knows that.
We accept these charges. In part we conceived them.
But our politics are not bound by state laws.
Condemning revolutionary politics...
only shows the system is a lie
I rule you out of order.
These charges reveal that the purpose of this trial is...
coutrol of the state by US capital.
The petitions are of course futile.
In fact, compared ti this trial...
a Fascist court martial at least has the courage of its convictionas.
We shall also call...
two former US secter agents...
to testfy that the computer at US headquarters, Haidelberg...
was used to plot the aerial bombing...
of civilian areas of S. Vietnam...
and the bombing of dykes in N. Vietnam.
The aim was to aghieve the maximum number of civilian deaths.
The accused are not interested in establishing the truth.
They want to use this trial for agitation and self-glorification.
If evidence shows W. German territoru was used to abet US war crimes...
thes W.Germany itself is contravening international law.
Imagine a bomb attack on the Security Headquarters of the Third Reich.
Imagine a trial conducted against those accused of planting the bomb.
Would you refuse to allow evidence which showed...
that the decisions to exterminate Jewish fellow-citizens...
were co-ordinated in that establishment?
Every lawyer knows that in certain circumstances...
there is a legal right of "justifiable defence"...
even when it leads to loss of life.
There is no such tight that would justify these attacks.
But the images are the same
Jewish children walking towards the SS men who destroyed the ghetto.
And Vietnamese children burned by napalm running towards the photographer.
The evidence hinges on this.
Does one tolerate such acts of murder?
Or is one justified in taking action against the mechanism which allows it?
The Vietnam war is irrelevant here.
Within the jurisdiction of our law...
"justifiable defence" notwithstanding...
What's the difference between our heads and hands...
and American bombers in Vietnam?
Pity we weren't more effective militarily.
We attacked the CIA headquarters...
the 5th Army Corps HQ in Frankfurt
and the US Army HQ in Heidelberg.
We joined the Red Army Faction in 1970...
and adhered to its politics and its structure.
So we are also politically responsible fro commando raids...
sugh as the Springer bombing...
which we did not make part in, and which we teject
109th day of the trial.
The trial will proceed of Baader, Ensslin and Raspe.
Frau Meinhof's death closes her case.
Some members of the public did not rise.
May I remind you that provocations of this type...
witt mean your removal from the courtroom.
Proceed with your cross-examination.
I request a 10-day adjournment.
Ulrike Meinhof's death creates a new situation.
It's not a ledal point. Common decency demonds an adjournment.
I just want to say that we believe Ulrike was executed.
We don't know how. But we know by whom, and why.
A cold act of execution.
The court will not tolerate contempt.
It Ulrike had chosen ti die...
as the one way of preserving her remolutionary identity...
she would certainly have told us - Andreas at least.
No memorial speeches, prease.
Do you wish to bring a sharge?
I'll be brief.
To what purpose?
- Let me finish. - Do you intend bringing a charge?
Hurry, or you can't proceed.
I support the requset for adjournment.
Why not say that before? Proceed.
Sadist!
You interrupt to confuse him.
Is was a brother/sister relationship, based on political doals.
She was free; Freedom only exists in the struggle for liberation.
To say there were tensions between Ulrike and Andreas...
and use Ulrike's death in your psychological warfare...
shows how stupid you are!
Out of order.
Oh yes, your sadism, your methods...
You're a killer!
Yes, you are. Under your presidency of this court...
3 out 5 prisoners have been killed.
And when we denounce the machine you so sadistically represent...
you stop us speaking.
You've no right to speak for Raspe.
In the public's eyes, the name pf Ulrike Meinhof...
is associated with high standards of morality.
It's therefore worth reflecting...
that her death occurred when the defence introduced a political element.
It's hard for me ti say anything.
We shouldn't speak ti you at all now.
It is time to act.
- Antagonosm between state and... - Out of order.
You stop me speaking?
Yes, if ti's not a submission.
Not in front of this horde of rats.
Contempt of court.
A person deprived of freedom...
has employed the profound, puzzling freedom of suicide.
That's raeson enough to suspend the proceedings of this court.
The situation needs to be clorified.
A sense of piety should make it impossible to proceed...
until the deceased is laid to rest.
There's no reason ti grant the request.
There is no povision for adjournment on the death of an accused.
It the funeral occurs on a day the court is sitting...
the prosecution does not object to an afternoon start.
Prea to suspend proceedings denied.
The defence will not proceed until after Ulrike Meinhof's funeral.
Your behaviour here allows no relationshop with you...
other than waining for you with a gun.
She did not have the mental and amotional make-up of a true terrorist.
She was often no more than a tool.
Her name was used to influence certain people.
But it's wrong to think she was just a victim.
What happned in Frankfurt exactly?
Ulrike Meinhof came to Frankfurt.
She suggested attacking the Springer building in Hambutg.
She was responsible for planning and organization.
She was given bombs.
Afterwards the rest of the group ariticized her. Why?
Because workers were injuted as a resulf.
Wasn't that to be expected in an action like that?
Yes, people were targets as well.
Baader complained that print workest were hurt.
Really licking arses now, you pig.
Was there any kind of hierarchy?
A natural pecking order, so to speak.
Yes. Baader was the brains at the top.
Then there was the nucleus of Meinhof, Meins, Raspe, Ensslin.
Then same rank and file members, and fringe members.
You slimbed the ladder.
How were you ti react...
if theatened with capture?
We had instructions to shoot.
Carrying guns was idealized, the image of the true guerrillero.
Anyone involved in a shoot-out was idolized.
Anyone Killed or injured was treated like a martyr.
Members would stand in front of mirrors drawing guns.
Where were you in October "71?"
Kiel and Hamburg
know the Seseler Damm in Hamburg?
Seseler Damm, you mean.
So you know the car park behind the shopping centre?
That's going too far.
You needn't incriminate yourself.
Where were you...
on 21st October 1971?
The microphone's off.
The questions obviousle refer to the murder of the policeman Schmid.
The case is still on progress. I don't wish to comment.
But I didn't shoot the policeman.
I won't answer further questions on this.
Did you shoot PC Schmid?
He said no.
If you didn't, who did?
I refuse to reply.
When others accused you, did you say you were proud?
- Proud you shot a pig? - Disgraceful!
- Ever held a gun? - No reply.
Ever talk about Schmid?
No comment.
In this case I find refusal ti reply unjustified.
It's justified.
Is your evidence...
contained in files 3 ARP 74/75, held by the Public Prosecutor?
What are they?
Was a decision about these lifes...
tajen by the Ministry of Jistice?
- Do you recall? - I heard something of the kind.
The Ministry refuses ti release these files.
Do they contain your statement?
It's possible.
How wonld your statement damage W. Germany if it were made public?
What d'you mean?
Paet of your statement has bee declared "secret".
That's not a proper question. Invalid.
Did your interrogators in Bonn...
- threaten you? - Yes.
They said if I didn't talk I'd be tried, like the others.
That scared you?
I protest against the insinuation...
that the witness was bought off ot btainwashed by the W.German authorities.
The witness may also be guilty, bud I find him credible
Saul converted to Paul too.
In a constitutional state which believes in rehabilitation...
this should be recognized.
Anyone who succeeds in breaking free from a criminal group...
deserves understanding, even respect.
It's noticeable that the accused have not confronted the witnesses.
They have shosen not to appear in court on the days...
that the victims of the 6 bomb explosions gave evidence.
We thank the Chief Publiv Prosecutor for being present.
Did the investigating officers...
promise the witness special treatment for making his statement?
The Public Prosecutor's Office has already replied to this question.
I declare that none of the persons named was promised any form of favour...
nor thereatened with any penalty...
nor was any inflience exerted on the contend of their statements.
Do you know of file ARP 74/75?
Of course I know of its existence.
And the contents?
I'm not permitted to answer.
Does it contain the interrogation...
- of the last witness? - I can't say.
You ordered it classified?
I suggested it.
There's a blueprint to integrate internal and external security.
It will create a central cointer-insurgency apparatus...
which be integrated with NATO, and based in W.Germany...
because parliamentary opposition is unlikely.
Irrelevant to the presence of this witness.
You are digressing.
They're his initiatives
London Institute for Conflict Studies: How to combat terrorism.
What concerns us here are the murder charges adainst you.
The miliraty/strategic background concerns me.
So do the peculiarities of this trial, and the elimination of prisoners
I should rule you out of order for that.
Special court, judges, building.
You're not here to make a case against the witness.
Ask qouestions, nothihg else.
Ok! I'll ask him if he know these directives
1. Infiltrate terrorist organizations
2. Locate terrorist headquarters
3. Eliminate leasers.
Irrelevant to the charges against you.
Whatever you think, the Public Prosecutor does not initiate such meansures.
Out of order.
Do you know of NATO papers advocating...
militaty action against the Red Army Faction?
Inadmissable.
I renew my rejection of this court.
Dismissing this question proves you want to label thr Red Army Faction...
a purely "criminal alliance"...
- And not a political... - Anyone else?
It's lutile, bud I second the rejection.
The propaganda element is obvious:
A campaign to exterminate the accused.
Here the law is a facade...
for the elimination of undesirables.
Out of order.
Did you know the authorities spread the rumour...
that the Red Army Faction has nuclear devices?
I read something to the effect.
Where?
In the papers.
Did you investigate the report?
It may have been discussed.
To what effect?
I don't know any derails to date.
Who discussed it?
I can't remember.
When was it discussed?
I don't remember that either.
Isn't it too unusual to forget?
No, I don't think so.
You mean it's common...
to discover that certain groups have nuclear devices?
The Public Prosecutor's Office deals with sriminal prosecution.
That includes investigation.
Yes, of course.
So, ins't activity involving nuclear devices...
of such vital interest...
that your memory shouldn't fade so quickly?
I repeat, this is irrelevant to the case.
We're assuming quatity and quality...
of Red Army Faction operations.
If information concerning nuclear devices plays a role...
then the question is relevant.
Is anyone accused of possessing nuclear devices?
No, they aren't - Exactly.
Keep to the accusation.
Not everything comes under Clause 129 - "criminal alliance".
Otherwise, a question like...
"Did you know the Red Army Faction kills babies?"...
would also be valid.
Is that the kind of thing you thins of?
The only reason we are here after Ulkire's death...
is to explain the true structure of our group...
not the one invented by the witness as psychological warfare.
Strategy was decided collectivery by discussion.
The allegation that Ulkire bombed the Springer building on her own initiative...
or that there was in-fighting as that pig says..
Please refrain from abusing witnesses.
After the Springer operation, Ulrike went to face her critics in Hamburg.
They said her plan did not foresee...
Springer's refusal to clear the builing.
This talk of tension...
attempts to legitimate her murder.
This murder accusation will lead to disciplinary measures.
I could't care less.
Did people leave the group? If so, how?
Of course people left.
In the liberation struggle, conflicts always arise.
Some peole want out, though it's not really possible once you've fought.
You just step back info the dirt.
But, of course, people left.
There was never talk of reprisals, though.
Only that case in Berlin.
But that woman betrayed several people. She gave names, and addresses.
She gol a bucket of tar over her, and s sign round her neck:
"This informer's in league wit the killer pigs."
When a police informer gest nothing but a bicket of tat over her...
it's absurd to say that people who leave are shot.
During the hunger strike...
was pressure applied not to break it?
No, it was an individual's decisoon...
whether he wanted to give up the struggle and live.
When I cam here, I had only one thing in mind: Resistance.
Not only because it was important politically.
But also becauce I needed it to preserve my identily.
Soom there was only one question: How?
I nearly went out of my mind trying to answer it.
Give me another one.
- You began the hunger stike? - Yes.
- Then you broke it off? - Yes.
Why did you start again?
It was a clear decision.
I just didn't take it immediately.
Breaking it off like that was the result of being isolated.
We'd been in isolation for 3 years.
Why did you start again?
It was an existential decision, dammit. Can't you understand?
Was it you own decision?
Of course.
Haturally the group said: "Hey, start sgain".
And Holger Meins wrote to me saying:
"If you shit your pants, wash them."
Pretty strong stuff.
That was the group.
The ketter helped a lot. I didn't feel so lost.
Your own free will...
No! The Public Prosecutor is determined to destroy us.
That's not free will.
We had 2 choices: Keep fighting, ot be manipulated...
like your chirf witness.
After Holger was murdered, they tried to break me...
but they backed the wrong horse.
In a letter to Baader, you wrote:
"You threaten me just like a cop."
"Haing myself, you say. Nothing new it that."
At another point:
"You can't expect any more from us..."
"unless it's an order."
"Ok, I obeyed the order and began the hunger strike again."
Still say there was po pressute?
Of course.
You imply it's the wintess's letter.
- Your writing? - Yes.
As I soid, the hunger strike was part of the struggle...
a last-ditch stand, an existential decision...
between life and death, as in any armed action.
For a revolutionary, life's not the most precious thing.
The choices were; Hanging oneself...
We are not concerned with hanging, but with...
That's the worst penalty.
Do you still say pressute was not applied?
Yes, I do.
Fine, That's all.
Can I only say uyes or no?
Being told to hang oneself is the toughest sancion.
So there were sanctions?
No! The problem is you imply an authoritation structure!
I told you I had completely flipped
I lost contact. I wouldn't have stopped the hunger strike otherwise.
The whole letter is muddled ideas.
I forget that, although I'd stopped the hunger strike..
I could resume the fight any time.
Another bit of self-criticism?
You fool! What d'you know of criticism ot self-criticism?
It's absurd!
- Further questions? None. - I haven't finished.
This is for Ulrike, you pig!
Open the door!
What's up?
Better ger a quick transfer. You too!
We won't accept closed doors ar recreation time.
Leave the door open, pig.
They've done mad.
Open the door!
You insinuated I was in there for a screw.
They want war? They'll get it.
It the name of the accused Ensslin I request...
removal of the presiding judge
61st plea against bias.
He has ordered more stringent conditions.
Recreation periods on the 7th florr have been suspended.
These stringent conditions...
coutravene the minimum standards set out in the medical reports.
Baader is obviously afraid of lising his position as boss.
Why else would a prisoner who has hitherto remained aloof...
suddenly attack a warder?
All I can say about the prisoner's health is:
See what a person...
allegedly tortured by isolation...
is capable of.
Prison conditions are generous. Ensslin is allowed to play the violin.
Given Flau Ensslin's position...
describing a little violin practice as generous conditions...
is a degree of synicism..
I wouldn't have beliveved possible.
This woman has spent over 4 years in group isolation...
which Amnesly International lists...
as a clear from of torture.
But you lack the sensitivity to imagine it.
The plea to reject this court dismissed.
This is from a High Court judge to the editor if 'Die Welr'
"Dear fraternity member..."
"Please destroy these documents ofter use."
"No need to send me a copy of 'Die West'. I subscribe."
And where did the judge get the trial documents?
From our presiding judge. That means..
Ach, a new dodge by you lawyers. What's the point?
Inthe name of the accused Ensslin...
62nd!
I reject the presiding judge on grouds of bias.
Unbeknownst ti fellow judges...
he gave trial documents( including verbatim evidence) to a third person...
that is to Judge Mayer, of the Coirt Appeal.
That Court of Appeal...
will be responsible for any appeal against the sentence...
which you, Your Honour, pass.
The Hihg Court judge gave these documents to the editor of 'Die Weft'
I support the plea to reject this court.
The grounds for this plea need clarifying.
If not, the trial will be permanently flawed.
Forgive me phoning you privately.
Your Honour?
I know your decision today was not easy, bud...
Your Honour, I don't really think...
Your shellenge was my worst moment in the whole 2 years.
Your Honour, I...
It makes a difference if a challenge comes from your side of the defence.
But from the accused's point of view, any appeal is now futile
2 members it the High Court have collaborated...
to secure an appeal-proof verdict.
The accused don't care. Only the lawyers.
That's hard to imagine in their position.
I know for certain that the accused couldn't care less.
The warders told me this document thing doesn't interest them.
One even said: " A new dodge by you lawyers".
Imagine the terrible strain I'm under
I'm finished if I don't strick it out.
I warn that if you show disrespect fot the court...
, you will be barred from procceedings.
The court ir now in session.
Baader rejects the presiding judge...
63rd!
On the grounds that he coutacted a defence lawyer outsude this court.
During their conversation, he said...
it makes a difference whether a plea of rejection...
comes from this side of the defence ot that.
The presiding judge is guilty of bias once again.
The court will reconvene at 10 a.m.
A decision will be announced then.
The plea of rejection is sustained.
The court will retire to reconsider the course of the trial.
The trial will proceed.
You wish to make a submission
I wish to call rhe Interior Minister to explain...
and between the accused and defence counsel..
Have been illicitly recorded...
and made available to security forces.
In his attempt to attract publicity...
counsel is confusing a plea to hear evidence...
with a plea to instritute investigations.
The accusations are inventions. Calling this witness is not justified.
I beg you to avoid pointed and defamatory remarks.
It is alleged that bugging devices...
were employed to spy on the accused.
Prosecution may surely use such terms.
The court will look the matter.
I wish to clarify that in Stammheim...
in 2 cases of emergency...
warranted by Clause 3 of the Penal Code...
we listened to conversations...
between defence counsel and the Baader-Meinhof gong.
The grounds for the decision, tajen jointly...
to listen in to Baader-Meinhof leaders and their lawyers...
was to avert a concrete danger...
which could not otherwise have been averted...
to the lives of innocent.
The prosecution has the nerve to talk of propaganda ruses.
What is happening is this trial can only be described...
as the systematic destruction of constitutional guarantees.
This is of vital importance to the nation.
The case must be adjoutned until the bugging has been explainded.
I support the submission.
If a room provided for the defence is bugged, counse cannot use it.
Both the Justice Minister...
and Interior Minister...
said they would do the same again in a similar situation.
The court must say how it will prevent further bugging.
It must adjourn until such time.
None of the prosecuting counsel knew of these actions.
A statement will be made when we have...
full knowledge of the facts.
The trial will proceed with...
I withdraw in protest.
As you wish.
Our continued presence would merely legitimatr this moress.
There is a strong suspicion...
that this trial and this prison are run by a criminal alliance.
I too am unable to continue. I beg the court to respect my decision.
- You wish to speak? - A submission.
I submit that Brandt and Schmidt be called, as heads of government.
They can testify that since 1972 the Red Army Faction has been persecuted...
inan illegal and unconstitutional manner
all right, out with it!
We wish to call the Interior Minister...
to slarify whethe the accused's cells were bugged.
We also call the Chancellot's office...
to testify that bugging was carried oud...
by the Intelligence Servise on the 7th floor of Stammhein prison...
and that they had continued uncontrolled access to this area.
At the outset of the trial, we said our conversations were bugged.
The prosecution denied it...
hypocritically, and with a great show of indignation.
But it's absurd to think they did not know.
After Ulrike's murder, the prossecution...
The prosecution also innocent until proved guilty.
- I didn't specify a person. - You said murder.
Behind a murder is a murderer. Otherwise it is merely a dreath.
After Ulrike's death, the prosecution spoke of tension between prisoners.
How did they know, if not by bugging?
We were ittlerly ignorant of this whole bugging affair.
I wish to state the aims of the hunger strike we begin togay.
No spealking of prison conditions during the trial.
It is obvious that political statements are now superfluous.
Accused and defence counsel did not attent court again.
On April 28th, 1977, the 192th day of the trial...
Baader, Ensslin and Raspe were sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Red Army Faction kidnapped Hans Martin Schleyer...
to force the prisoners's release.
The government refused any exchange.
Hijacking a Lufthansa jet ended with the storming of the plane in Magadishu.
The next day, Baader, Ensslin and Raspe were found dead in their cells.
The state prosecutor's verdict was suicide.
Subtitles: Hristo8484 (À.Ê.À. Hristo Vyrbanov)