The double face of the state ignored by the media

(To Fernando Termentini)
02/03/17

For months the Italian media obsessively overwhelmed us with the problems of political parties, the Mayor of Rome Raggi and anyone else who worked without success in politics.

Different spaces are dedicated only to some politician who is a good-hearted person who invites not to use the word gypsy and now also that of "clandestine" when we talk about the migrants, threatening administrative sanctions. A commitment from "operetta" that certainly makes visibility to those who discuss it but does not enhance the effort of those who propose themselves as guardians of the interests of citizens.
Editorial choices that practically involve all the newspapers, so much so that they lead us to think that precise directives related to the guarantee of public funding for publishing are operative.

In the silence of information, regulations pass to the total disadvantage of citizens without anyone giving news or comments on the contents. A great many of these measures involve those who serve the state in uniform. State Police, Armed Forces, Firefighters, who are denied promised salary increases or adjustments to the conditions of service while they are ready, to acclaim them in words by bringing them on the stage of the San Remo Festival in a show that in my humble opinion had some grotesque.

Now, always in absolute silence, work is also being carried out on the revision of military careers. Almost the same people are involved, albeit with different positions, who at the time decided to switch from compulsory conscription to voluntary service with a series of measures that did not take into account the increase in costs induced by a generalized transformation and the needs of operational and which soon brought the figure of precariat into the military field (Volunteers in spe and Volunteers in firm short).
A restructuring that should make the contents of the Defense White Paper operational, which do not allow for anything favorable for the future of those who choose to dedicate their lives to the defense of the homeland to guarantee global security by operating in war zones.

Today nothing has changed. In order to adopt a measure that is certainly not popular and offensive towards those who are engaged in off-site weapons, it has been disqualified by distinguishing the war zone from the area of ​​operations. All with the aim of eliminating a modest salary benefit for the military sent to conflict zones to guarantee peace.

The rule passed in silence because in fact someone decided that where our military are engaged in activities of peacekeeping can not be considered "areas of war". Spontaneous, then the question: whether Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, Nigeria, Sudan etc. are not war zones as it should or can it be defined who flees from those places and tries to enter arbitrarily in another country?

Decisions not to grant combatist benefits and at the same time not to call clandestine those fleeing from an area have passed under the silence of the media committed, instead, to semantically discuss the term clandestine without highlighting, however, that on the level of substantive law, eliminating the fighting benefits confirms that "most of those who arrive in our country are economic migrants and not entitled to international protection - in fact, therefore, CLANDESTINE".

The reason is obvious. The combat benefits in compliance with Law 1746/1962 were recognized to military personnel who served in UN intervention areas and consisted of doubling - for the purpose of determining salary - the period spent in the war area. Now. 54 years later, some enlightened ones - who grew up behind a desk - have invented that the benefits are unconstitutional and the Council of State has ruled that it is improper to continue to foresee them as they would refer only to the war period 1940 - 1945, forgetting, however, that in those years the UN did not yet exist having been founded on October 24, 1945 and therefore there could not even exist areas of intervention for soldiers who operated on behalf of the Organization.
We therefore play with the subtle difference between the war zone and the area of ​​intervention. But if we intervene with FA there will also be a reason certainly dictated by a situation of contingency not the best and such as to induce the Ministry of Defense to send stabilization troops under a UN mandate.

A TAR has also exaggerated the concept by noting that the areas where our military are sent are not war areas because the declarations of belligerency are lacking even if it is recognized that the military operating on the ground run the same risks as if they were participating in a real war action.
Furthermore, if the granting of war benefits is unconstitutional, the more so will Law 145 of 24 July 2016 which regulates the provisions on the participation of the Italian Armed Forces in international missions which, moreover, in article 9 provides for the "state of imprisonment ”Clear condition dictated by an armed confrontation.
All justified, regardless of the legal sophisms, the fact that, if the fighting benefits were maintained, the state should face absolutely unsustainable costs.
Let's take note. But let's ask ourselves why, with the usual feel-good approach, the term is outlawed clandestine referring to the majority of migrants who land on our shores but who, given the conclusions reached by the legislator, do not flee from war zones and therefore do not have the right to international relief.

We guarantee 35 Euro to migrant, 80 Euro to rain and 500 Euro for eighteen, but we do not have a few pennies in favor of those who commit themselves to participate in missions aimed at guaranteeing international security.

It is therefore not a scandal to call illegal migrants who do not come from conflict areas, it is scandalous instead, playing on words, to cancel modest benefits to those who have chosen to defend the homeland, an unacceptable offense for anyone who has dedicated his life to the state.

(photo: US DoD)