From the very beginning we can't do away with the hypothesis according to which Traian Basescu is a victim of his own naivete in the scandal emerging after Omar Hayssam fled. If the head of state was fooled and if he is not the 'teacher', that is the man behind the negotiations with the terrorist, the one who decided the latter could leave the prison and then Romania, we have to admit, whether we like it nor not, that a similar scenario was produced in the 'hostage crisis' too. If Traian Basescu was innocent about the abduction of the Romanian journalists and the bizarre way they were recuperated, the bomb fixed then exploded once with the release of Omar Hayssam. The hand that fixed it is necessary the same, but different from the hand which Traian Basescu used to manipulate political prosecutor Ciprian Nastasiu, an under cover intelligence agent.
There is a famous and fashionable US TV series of political and detective fiction that presents hypothetical presidents of the US. When they get into hard times in the anti-terrorist war they make surprising decisions and trigger major actions for the secret services, sometimes consenting to talks with the terrorists. There are some episodes showing US administration heads negotiating themselves. It would be dramatic, did President Traian Basescu play with the remote control and fancy himself as a main hero in the Hayssam affair. It would be dramatic, did he take responsibility for the negotiations ending up in an exchange favoring the man sentenced by Romanian Justice as the greatest terrorist of all times, who fled the country, despite the 20-year prison sentence. With help from Romanian authorities, he vanished "like a gentleman, by air", as he himself said.
I just can't believe President Basescu is living in a virtual reality, mistaking movies for life. Although I can testify that many holders of power in Bucharest went through times when they were seduced by the secret services' halo, imagining the secret services never make mistakes and allowing them to trigger major political decisions. Some were seduced all the way by the blunt lies the services sometimes tell. Others, such as Emil Constantinescu, admitted being defeated by the services.
Well, I can't see any reason why we should do away with the hypothesis that, as far as the 'hostage crisis' is concerned, one secret service was an initiator or, if not, one secret service knew about it and let the drama progress in order to capitalize it later by getting more power, more funds and more people promoted. Given this, it would be no wonder, had the same secret service taken major interest in deleting the traces. How? By making Ciprian Nastasiu vanish away. Since Traian Basescu was fooled in the 'hostage crisis' once, why wouldn't he be fooled a second time and forced into consenting that Ciprian Nastasiu should negotiate with the terrorist, under the pretext that he might disclose relevant information about the President's political adversaries? The bait was tempting and a head of state turned into a pike could have easily bitten it.
The identity of the 'teacher' so often talked about in the dialogued between Omar Hayssam and Ciprian Nastasiu is still the key. But in order to unveil this identity there is need of access to the recordings made by the Romanian Secret Service, especially of those talks held in prison. But why wouldn't that secret service employing Ciprian Nastasiu as under cover agent proceed to its own inquiry? Did we learn that Ciprian Nastasiu was actually someone else's tool and he played a big farce on Traian Basescu, I couldn't roar with laughter. Such a thing would be tragic rather than comical.
P.S.: There are more and more people reproaching me for trying a demonstration in favor of Traian Basescu. This is not true. I am just trying to use reason instead of emotion on a shocking reality.