Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts

Sunday, 10 February 2019

El Salvador Another Vietnam?




I've discovered a documentary made about 1979-1981 covering the escalating civil war in El Salvador and the growing involvement of the United States military and intelligence services. It covers the Salvadoran economy and society, its poverty, the dominance of a few families, the limited reforms carried out by earlier shaky Junta's etc.

Its an excellent introduction into this period, but because of the nature of the subject it makes for some very grim viewing.

The footage the makers have managed to acquire is extremely shocking and disturbing. The films content includes description of death, torture, mutilation, but they also obtained quite extensive footage of these horrible acts. So I've decided to age restrict the video and put the links at the bottom so you'll have to read this warning first.

Here's just a brief description of some of the more distressing scenes, a number of military police stand over a corpse, one of them takes a rifle and then plants it in the hands of the deceased protestor. Footage of the military raid in June 1980 on the National University, including soldiers firing on two un armed students who are lying down on the floor reciting prayers. One of the students is hit several times and we see him begging for mercy. Several of the interviewees of the documentary including a missionary and members of the Democratic Revolutionary Front were abducted, tortured and murdered before filming finished and the makers included their discovered bodies.

There are also segments dedicated to rebels ambushing soldiers and street battles. Its honestly very haunting, but the makers of the film did an excellent job. Spokespeople for the government have their speeches downplaying violence juxtaposed with shocking brutality. It contains many testimonies from politicians, Christians, rebels, and students.



Video Link https://youtu.be/xh5nobEMuH0

Publication date 1981
This film examines the civil war in El Salvador in light of the Reagan administration's decision to "draw the line" against "Communist interference" in Central America. It offers an overview of U.S. military and economic policy in Central America since 1948, with extensive background to the current crisis. Includes scenes with both government and guerilla forces, and discusses U.S. aid to the Junta. Is this the beginning of a "new Vietnam"? A Blue Ribbon Winner, American Film Festival 1982. Directed by Glen Silber and Tete Vasconellos. 1981
Producers, directors, Glen Silber, Tete Vasconcellos ; editor, Deborah Shaffer ; narration, Claudia Vianello ; narrator, Mike Farrell

Wednesday, 10 January 2018

The Case of the Birmingham Six







In Birmingham in 1974 two pubs were bombed, the police suspected IRA involvement and so targeted the local Irish population. In the end their dragnet charged six men Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Joseph Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker with the bombings. The six men appeared in court bearing bruises and eventually they plead guilty. 

It turned out that the confessions were extracted from them by physical assault, indeed it came out that none of the six men had committed the bombings and were innocent. Eventually in 1991 after being imprisoned since 1975 the six were freed and the case declared a miscarriage of justice. 

There's a part of the above video that got overlooked but I think is really important. The wife of one of the six didn't know her husband had been arrested until the televised news broadcast despite her home being raided and searched by the police. The reason that didn't tip her off is because the police actions surrounding the bombings in 74 weren't a departure from typical police behaviour when suspecting Irish perpetrators. The UK police fully employed profiling in this period, any suspicious event that might possibly be IRA related was met with a program of harassment and investigation of the local Irish community. 

Profiling is often championed on grounds of pragmatism, it may be unfair or even illegal itself but we're assured that it works. Well it didn't work in Birmingham in 1974, six innocent men were beaten and imprisoned sixteen years, and it also didn't work in Guildford where four Irish men were wrongly arrested for another series of IRA pub bombings, and it didn't work when the police arrested an additional seven Irish men for the crime of manufacturing the explosives used. In the end all eleven men were found innocent after lengthy prison terms.

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Words Can Cut Deep: Speech and Violence




For the past few months the internet has been a buzz with fights and arguments over the concept of Free Speech. Its been quite varied and heated. Recently Libcom.org was the site of a textual slapfight with another blog, and while I don’t really think the position offered is useful or even consistent it did get me thinking.
The blogs stated there is a difference between speech and acts, the example given was that it is justified and correct correct to fight say the British Union Fascists (BUF) because they represented a paramilitary threat (debatable) rather than just an ideological one. This isn’t a unique distinction liberals who favour maximum speech rights for all do often give a concession to physical defence against unambiguous violence. But the problem is that speech in itself can and often is a form of violence as well.

This happens in a number of ways but one of the most common is the tactic of outing someone. Outing is most commonly associated with queer individuals and Milo Yiannopoulos himself a recent lightning rod for this argument outed a Trans student at a University in Milwaukee, and is believed to have planned on doing the same to undocumented students on the campus of the University of Berkley.

 

"I didn't know if I was going to get attacked or not. I was just like, 'Dear god, I hope nobody recognizes me.'"

"When you have a room full of people that are just laughing at you as if you're some freak of nature, like you have some kind of mental illness—which is how he described me—it's like, I don't even know how to describe it, but it was way too much,"

Now in this particular case the harassment remained verbal, but it could very easily have had a darker ending, in 2015 21 people were murdered for being transgender in the United States.[1]

In March of this year there have been seven recorded murders of Transgender individuals recorded in the United States.[2]

There’s also been an increase in hate crimes recorded with Transgender people being disproportionately targeted.

 
In its 2014 report, the FBI recognized 1,248 victims of hate crimes targeted due to their sexual orientation (18.6 percent of all hate crimes reported) and 109 victims of hate crimes targeted due to their gender identity (1.8 percent of all hate crimes reported). The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) reported that 2015 saw a 20% increase in the number of hate violence-related homicides of LGBTQ and HIV-affected people - noting that people of color and transgender people are disproportionally targeted. NCAVP reported that 62% of all LGBTQ homicide victims were people of color, and 54% of homicide victims were transgender women of color.”[3]



But this isn’t a situation unique to LGBTQ people, on the contrary it’s a fairly common tactic that can be used against any group and often is.

In El Salvador Roberto D'Aubuisson (pictured) the leader of the extreme right wing ARENA party used to give televised speeches exposing people he claimed to be communist terrorists. In addition to naming them would show photographs of them so they could be recognized. Once outed if they didn’t escape (either abroad or to the underground) they would disappear. Their bodies would usually be found some days later showing signs of torture and mutilation.

“Having established the principle, D'Aubuisson got down to specifics, marshaling charts, photos, videotapes, and computer graphics for an intricately detailed, name-by-name, face-by-face tirade against "El Salvador's terrorist conspiracy."

D'Aubuisson denounced union leaders, priests, academics, peasant organizers, students, professionals, government officials, and Christian Democrats. Among those he named was Archbishop Oscar Romero, whom he told, "You still have time to change your ways." He also attacked Mario Zamora, a leading Christian Democrat and member of the government who—like others identified in the broadcasts—was assassinated in a matter of weeks. “[4]

Now obviously the Salvadoran civil war is an extreme case but it does demonstrate how speech can be used as a systemic tool of terror. And the only thing that makes it extreme is the circumstances, denouncing political enemies both real and imagined in the hopes or knowledge that fellow supporters will take care of the problem for you is very common.

This was how Mcarthyism and the Second Red Scare worked. Once someone was denounced as a suspected Red they were fair game for state harassment and investigations, employers would fire them and they could be publicly harassed and victimised. The once denounced the only way for a victim to save themselves from further attacks was to publicly cooperate with HUAC and denounce others. 

And you don’t have to rely on state backing to pull of this off the Fascists have made use of this for decades.  First they have an annoying habit of describing everyone and everything in opposition to them or they just don’t like as Jewish. Now this tendency is often cited as justification to write them off as loons, but there is method to the madness. By denouncing someone as Jewish, or a Zionist or a Globalist they’re telling their base to ignore what their targets are saying.  And at the same time egging on local Fascists to attack them because they’re not just dissidents they’re actively part of the vast conspiracy against the nation or the white race etc.

For examples I’m spoiled for choice. Indeed so common is this practice that it actually found me. I uploaded a video by Johnathan Meades to youtube about architecture during the Nazi regime. Now I expected some backlash but I was caught by surprise how much vitriol a documentary on urban planning and statues would cause. Most of the negative comments were revolved around Meades being a Jew and a liar, or just a Jew with the implication being that as a Jew he’s lying. One commenter mentioned that Meades mother was Jewish, which she was though she had a deathbed conversion to Anglcanism and Meades himself is an outspoken atheist.

The reaction to this revelation caught me by surprise; it was like a smoking gun to these people. The fact that this man has a connection to Judaism was all the vindication they needed, the holocaust is a lie, because that smug liberal on the screen has a Jewish mother. Like I said is easy to dismiss these people, but unfortunately they are still quite capable of considerable organized violence.

The White Nationalist website Stormfront is suspected of being used as a platform for the occasional violent crime up to and including murder.[5]

In April 2013 Italian users of the site were arrested for publishing a list of names and encouraging violence against the people named.

“The blacklist included: Turin Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia; Riccardo Pacifici, the President of the Jewish Community in Rome; Adel Smith, the President of the Muslim Union of Italy; the Mayor of Padua, Flavio Zanonto; several members of the judiciary; and journalist Gad Lerner, a Jew, and veteran TV talkshow host Maurizio Constanzo. According to media reports, those on the list were targeted because of their support for immigrants. Also listed were then House Speaker Gianfranco Fini and then Minister for International Cooperation and Integration Andrea Riccardi, who have both spoken out about citizenship rights for immigrant children.”[6]

And it’s not just this one website there are others like Red Watch. Red Watch is a catalogue of supposed communists with identifying information. When I was 16 a friend of mine an inoffensive wooly liberal was listed on the site with his photo and then address. Yes someone put a teenager on a database used to target people.

Now nothing had happened to him thankfully at the time and he and his family moved out of the area, (though now that I think about it that could just mean someone attacked the house when other people were living there) though the potential consequences can be serious. In 2006 (the same year my friend told me he was on Red Watch) another person recorded on the site was stabbed.

“What McFadden did not realise at the time was that he was not being punched but stabbed. "I think it went on for a couple of minutes before I managed to get the door closed. I turned round and my daughter was screaming. It was only then, as I put my hand to my face and felt the blood, that I realised what had happened."[7]

Oh and my speculation on my friends danger wasn’t completely unfounded, far right types are active in my area, in 2013 a couple of them attacked the local Mosque with petrol bombs, and the Synagogue has reported severe vandalism on several occasions.[8]

 

Now there is more to this topic but it’s already getting quite long so I’ll wrap up. I can anticipate some of the counter argument, that these are all violent acts and should be opposed, but that’s the rub. Every example I’ve cited was started and required the use of speech. The only way to stop sites like stormfront and redwatch from exposing hundreds to potential assault and murder is to shut them down. The only way to stop a politician inciting attacks on the marginalized or a right wing zealot exposing queer and migrant students to harassment is to remove their platforms for example causing so much disruption that no venue will knowingly host such people. It isn’t sufficient to attack and neutralise the ones who carry out the attacks, more will take their place so long as the infrastructure remains intact. But we can’t take effective action against any of this without infringing on another’s freedoms of speech and expression.  
___________________________________________________________________________________

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

Concern Trolls and Refugees





Well the media old and new has been dominated by the news of Donald Trumps `Muslim Ban` executive order. In addition to the gross bigotry and toxic nature of the order, the resistance its provoked has ensured back to back coverage.


I think its worth reading the full text of the Executive Order(EO), the order is pretty divisive so its good to keep the source in mind when being barraged with claims and counterclaims. As far as bureaucratic decrees go this one is actually fairly easy to grasp and is pretty short. So far the ban applies (well it did before the courts challenged it) to Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran, unique and diverse nations whose only common thread is that Islam in one sect or another is the majority religion*. Hence the dubbing of the order "The Muslim Ban". Interestingly many supporters of the EO are also referring to it as a ban on Muslims, which hasn't really helped the new administration get this accepted






“To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.” 
But hey everybody has a hard time making sure everyone on the team stays on message.






One thing that's stood out to me is that the large number of supporters trying to justify the EO by resorting to what's now known as concern trolling. In the old days we just called it lying. Concern trolling is feigning concern for someone or something in order to advance an argument. Its pretending you care purely for self gain. Its one of the scummiest rhetorical tricks someone can do, because there's no actual attempt to help  or support the vulnerable, and their existence and issues is being exploited to make whoever the other side is look bad.


In this particular case, the group being used to troll the opposition is the LGBT folks. A lot of comments on the social media sites and youtube videos (yes even videos which have nothing to do with the subject)


For example this tweet about Iranian persecution of homosexuals,
Prompted responses like these






A couple more for completeness sake:




Omar Mateen the Pulse shooter was born in the USA to Afghan parents, if the United States had already used Trump's Executive Order policy nothing would of changed.












I could keep going but I think I'll stop there. I've called most of these people concern trolls, to be completely I believe at least a few people are being genuine to some extent, its up to you where you draw the line. As someone who frequents Gay and Bi etc news sites and boards there's no shortage of xenophobia amongst a vocal group of users and commenters. But for me the main reason for concern trolling relies on two things, the shear number of these types of protest is suspect, at best domestically this support for Gay rights and the wellbeing of Queer individuals was a fringe sentiment amongst the western right.


More tellingly though is that this groundswell of support is in defence of a project that won't actually help any homosexual or queer person, on the contrary this travel ban actively leaves many at risk of persecution and death.


Their correct in that the Iranian government executes people for homosexuality, indeed it has a way of treating many of its citizens in a brutal and miserable fashion. For example in 2014 Iran executed at least 81 people, two of which Abdullah Ghavami Chahzanjiru and Salman Ghanbari Chahzanjiri seem to have been executed for the crime of consensual sodomy. Its hard to tell because the Iranian government is rather sensitive on both subjects, so isn't very transparent.


And ISIS is well known for the practice of throwing men accused of sodomy off of the roofs of buildings and then ensuring the victim is dead either by beatings or stoning.




These two examples are pretty vile and I wouldn't feel comfortable rubbing shoulders with these people. The problem? There's a difference between a regime and a quasi state and the people who suffer under them. As I've said I have read the Executive Order in its entirety and say with confidence that it will do far more harm than good. See, gays, or indeed anyone under threat from these two and others is also banned from seeking sanctuary in the United States. All refugee applications are to be halted for at least 120 days.




Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.
There isn't a sexual orientation persecution exception. The only exception is for religious minority persecution. A gay person fleeing persecution by the Iranian government is considered an Iranian national, so not only will refugee status be denied to them but even if can scarp together the money for another type of visa they will also be denied entry to the United States.




Someone trying to escape ISIS would be a Syrian or Iraqi national (yes even the Kurds) so unless they would be subject to the same restrictions. This is not a helpful policy for LGBTQ people from these seven nations. The fates of people who attempt to seek asylum and refuge in another country can be very bleak, at best they'll wind up in a makeshift camp like the one in Calais, legally unclear and potentially vulnerable to punitive action. If your unlucky you can be returned to your nation, the one you tried to escape from after you gave incriminating information about yourself in order to have a chance at proving your persecution. 


The thing about refugees is that they're avenues for escape are extremely limited by their means (usually a lack of) and circumstance. Its not like a travel agency, where you can flick through brochures and then send of an application. Their choice, if they even have one is dictated by outside factors. Meaning since the USA is now definitely off the table as an option many will be completely out of luck, or have to try with another nation where their chances of acceptance are worse. Thousands attempt to seek asylum in Australia despite the standard practice being kept in a prison camp on Nauru or another pacific island for several years before being deported. Why do people keep trying? No other alternative, its take a gamble on Australia or nothing.










A similar situation occurred in the 1980's when the Regan administration attempted to stop migration from Guatemala and El Salvador. Thousands who were fleeing the death squads were sent back into the hands of the military junta's.
Characterizing the Salvadorans and Guatemalans as "economic migrants," the Reagan administration denied that the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments had violated human rights. As a result, approval rates for Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum cases were under three percent in 1984. In the same year, the approval rate for Iranians was 60 percent, 40 percent for Afghans fleeing the Soviet invasion, and 32 percent for Poles.
The Justice Department and INS actively discouraged Salvadorans and Guatemalans from applying for political asylum. Salvadorans and Guatemalans arrested near the Mexico-U.S. border were herded into crowded detention centers and pressured to agree to "voluntarily return" to their countries of origin. Thousands were deported without ever having the opportunity to receive legal advice or be informed of the possibility of applying for refugee status. Considering the widely reported human rights violations in El Salvador and Guatemala, the treatment of these migrants constituted a violation of U.S. obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention
The actions of the Reagan administration are also worth noting as the opposition to Reagans policy led to the birth of the sanctuary movement, something that's become more well known than in recent years since Trump's election.




 Sometimes deportation or refusal of entry can mean death



Escaping an assassination attempt, he fled again into a neighbouring
country where he lives in hiding, still not safe:
Australia, another nation with a really strict immigration/refugee/asylum procedure has provided plenty of evidence of the dangers of being deported when authorities deny your application. The above quote is from Deported to Danger a case study of 40 deported asylum seekers. The report was drafted by the Edward Rice Centre and is one of several reports on this subject .


You might think I'm belabouring the point, but I've been surprised many times how rare it is for people to grasp this simple fact. People who are desperate to leave often have a very bad end when prevented from doing so. It isn't helpful, its not designed to be helpful. If the Trump administration really cared about the persecution of homosexuals by the Islamic extremists, they could easily have written an exemption or moved to make it easier for Queer Muslims (yes they exist) or just any LGBTQ type person from those seven nations to get asylum in the United States.


They didn't have a problem doing for the religious


(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
Note that religious based persecution here doesn't mean the religion of the persecutor was the basis of the persecution, its about the religion of the alleged persecuted being the motivating factor for the persecution.


But instead we have nothing.


*They also have Islamist movements but that's also true of Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc. but their not on the list. Also all seven nations have no business links with Donald Trump and no political capital in the United States. But I'm sure those last two points are just coincidental.

Saturday, 9 July 2016

Cops, Dirty Harry, And Junious Poole: By Hal Draper


 The response to a sniper in Dallas targeting police officers has been rather mixed, I seen some tweets and FB status and forum comments outraged, alarmed, attempting neutrality, and few being quite giddy. In response to the latter a friend shared this 1972 address by Hal Draper from the Marxist Internet Archive.

 
And I'm sharing it here because I think the topic of urban terrorism in response to police repression and societal indifference is arguably just as relevant today as it was when first given. 


I am going to talk about Dirty Harry and Junious Poole, and about your responsibility for both.
Dirty Harry, as you may have found out by now, is a well-made right-wing movie, virtually a Birchite propaganda film, made with the cooperation of the great liberal mayor of San Francisco and his great liberal Police Department. Harry, a San Francisco police detective, is a mad-dog sadist killer in plain clothes, with a badge, who hates people, blacks, browns, and himself (more or less in that order) and who is shown to be a great hero who rescues civilization from a crazy killer, who is also in plain clothes but minus a badge. This crazy – I mean the second crazy – is a pathological sniper who is likely to get YOU if you don’t watch out. And so the audience is set up to root for Dirty Harry as he denounces the Supreme Court decisions as soft on crime, and indicts the civilian bleeding-hearts who release an insane murderer to kill more people just because their civil-libertarian do-gooders. This enlightening film even shows you that this mad dog (I mean the sniper) gets himself beat up deliberately in order to accuse Dirty Harry of doing it – so who can believe any stories about police brutality now? The victim probably paid someone to get beat up himself ...
That’s the way it goes, and it sets you up to nod your head as the scriptwriter, on the basis of fraudulent claims of how the rad-libs tie the hands of the cops from protecting you and me – the scriptwriter shows how you need touch cops, free-shooting cops, violence-loving cops; in fact, he shows how you need mad-dog types on the police force in order to protect you against the mad dogs who are not on the police force.

That’s Dirty Harry. Now who is Junious Poole?
Last Monday, in San Francisco, Junious Poole, a black man who was high on liquor and benzedrine, and low on money and hope, took up a rifle in the street and leveled it at two random policemen who happened to be walking along, emptied its bullets at them in a blur of hatred of something, wounding both of them. What he told newspaper reporters reads like an imitative movie script of what a poor devil like him is supposed to say: “It all came down on me,” he said. “No income. My wife collecting welfare, two babies ... I felt disgusted with the whole world and the situation. You can be a fool for so long, man, and then you just begin to see it in front of you,” he said.

Well, this poor casualty of society, who had been a fool for so long: what did he begin to see in front of him? Here’s what he also said: “I saw all the background that I have been told when I saw these two policemen walking down the street.” That’s Poole, verbatim.

What was “all the background” he had been told – what did he see when he saw these two policemen walking down the street? He saw the signs scrawled on walls: “Off the pig!” and similar enlightening political messages about making the revolution in the streets, and picking up the gun to Get the Man. That on the one side. On the other side, he saw all the Dirty Harries in uniform who had roughed up and beaten up blacks in the ghetto areas.

And what did the two policemen see? They saw that Dirty Harry was right: give it to ’em before they give it to you – knee in the groin, bullet in the head, get tough because your life is on the line.
So Dirty Harry produces Junious Poole; and Junious Poole produces more Dirty Harries; and you have a fine old war between the Cops and the Crazies, the Crazies and the Cops – till you can’t tell who’s the cop and who’s the crazy, and moreover it hardly matters.
Now my target in all this is neither Dirty Harry nor Junious Poole. I have no wish to spend any time turning cops into vegetarians or flower children or mourning over their lost souls. I was brought up in a Marxist movement where it was an axiom that a man in this society who put a policeman’s uniform on him and took his club in hand was, until evidence to the contrary, nothing but scum. But, by the same token, I learned a very long time ago not to confuse the ruling powers of society with the scum in their employ.

My target is also not the poor fool, aching with his miseries, who picked up the rifle and might just as well have shot himself in the head as those policemen. My target is the people who told him “all that background.” I refer to the self-styled radicals who, for some years now, have been burbling over with their rhetoric about “offing the pig,” and “picking up the gun,” and “revolution in the streets,” and “urban guerrillas,” and cheering every time somebody else bombs the window of a Bank of America branch, or terrorizes a PG&E power line, or incubates a revolution in a safety-deposit vault, or otherwise takes direct action in terrorism according to the most fashionable doctrines of 1890. Because it has been these bumpkin-blowhards of the Big Bang theory of revolution who have been very successful not in tearing apart the System, but in tearing apart what there was of a radical movement that was aborning.

In the whole history of movements of social dissent, in this or any other country, I doubt whether there was ever an emptier and more self-defeating theory of revolutionary action than this trend in our recent years which made “offing the pig” its main slogan, and orated about making the “revolution in the streets.” Of course, the two come down to the same thing, because if you sally out into the streets to make the revolution, it’s the pigs you’re going to meet. You are not going to run into the Board of Directors of General Motors in this your chosen battlefield, nor into the Cabinet, nor even the office boys of the Powers That Be: the enemy you meet “in the streets” is the hired scum, that’s all. And the cream of the jest is that, for every cop that is killed by some self-styled revolutionary bravo, not a hair is mussed on the head of the ruling class, who have a right to laugh themselves to death over these pseudo-revolutionary antics while, in public, they make a horrified outcry about the crimes of the subversives.

It should be understood that the police are the paravanes of the capitalist state power. That implies a comparison with (say) a minesweeper. It is in mined waters, and any direct contact with a mine will blow a hole in its side. Its whole strategy, therefore, is to avoid any direct contact, but to interpose its own buffers – one or more layers of buffers – which any explosive force has to get through before it can even confront the real core of power. The minesweeper’s paravanes are most useful the further they are removed from the real center that has to be defended. A paravane makes contact with an explosive mine, and it is blown up: the paravane is destroyed, but the ship itself is safe because it has been destroyed.

The police act as the paravanes of the system. They are there, way out in the open, as the first contact with potentially explosive social material. If a cop is killed, or merely attacked, the state power makes a big hue and cry, and can draw a long breath of relief. It can use the incident for arousing public opinion against dissenters; it can use it for escalating repression; it can use it for deepening reaction; and in exchange, all it pays is a pension to the cop’s widow, if that. But not a hair on its own head is hurt. The transaction is so beautifully cheap, for the state, that it could not be better if it had been planned by itself; and you never know whether it was or not. There is a big misunderstanding about the question of telling the difference between police provocateurs and plants, on the one hand, and sincere if stupid Weatherman types, on the other. The misunderstanding is this: that it makes much difference whether you can tell them apart. In the history of terrorism, some waves of reaction have been launched by governments which produced a terroristic incident to order, and some by governments that simply waited for some obliging chucklehead to do it for them. And in some cases, to this day it has not been possible to determine which was which.

I remember vividly an interview that TV newsman Mike Wallace (I think it was he) held with Eldridge Cleaver in Algeria, the first interview he gave after fleeing there, I think. It was broadcast after the first wave of police assaults on the Black Panthers, and, if I’m not mistaken, at the time Huey Newton’s life was hanging in the balance in the courts. In the midst of this lynch atmosphere, which was based on the proposition that the Panthers were nothing but terroristic assassins, Cleaver calmly told his interviewer that sure, it would be a good idea if President Nixon were assassinated.
Now, could Cleaver have done any better to help the lynch movement against the Panthers if he had been paid to do his stuff by the FBI? As it happens, I have no doubts about Cleaver’s sincerity in this case; this political ignoramus and half-baked Theoretician of the Absurd has been a disaster for the Panthers just as he was a disaster for the Peace and Freedom Party, which he knifed in the back after being named its presidential candidate. A police spy would probably be cleverer. But what difference does it make whether the FBI gets his help free or on salary, as this great revolutionary Thinker keeps on sending his advice, from Algeria, on how the radical movement here can get its head chopped off?
This whole movement of sick-radicalism, as represented by these terroristic elements or Weatherman types, counts on something to puff it up from the nullity it really is. They count on you. That is, they count on their mischievous antics meeting with a certain amount of unspoken sympathy from the liberal and radical public, because their intentions are so good, or because they are regarded as being real free-wheeling revolutionaries. That is pure bull-bleep. These elements have nothing in common with a serious revolutionary movement. These types are really middle-class liberals in a frenzy. In fact, some of them act this out by alternating between supporting Democratic Party left-fakers on the one hand and writing articles, on the other, about the chemistry of pipe bombs.

A long time ago, my friend Karl Marx had their number. In 1850 he wrote a review of a couple of books by French police spies on the conspiratorial secret societies of the day – the Weathermen of the day. In this piece, Marx took them down and shook them out as never before. Here are a couple of sentence from Marx’s review, for example:
“Their job indeed consists in forestalling the process of revolutionary development, pushing it artificially into crises, making a revolution on the spur of the moment without the conditions for a revolution. For them the only condition for the revolution is a sufficient organization of their conspiracy. They are the alchemists of the revolution, and wholly share the confusion of ideas and the limitation to fixed notions of the old alchemists. They go eagerly for invented devices to achieve the revolutionary miracle: incendiary bombs, explosive contraptions with magical powers, riots, whose effects are sure to be all the more miraculous and awesome the less they have any rational basis. Busy with such plot-mongering, they have no other aim than the next overthrow of the existing government, and look with deepest disdain on a more theoretical clarification of the workers as to their class interests.”
So much for Karl Marx. But of course Marx is out of date for these bomb-bumblers, whose theories were mildewed with age before Marx was born. These theories, now dressed up with new terms like “urban guerrillaism” or others, have always been the rediscoveries of people overcome by their own impotence, frustrated by their own lack of any really revolutionary perspective, giving out with their last shriek of liberal rage just before going back to “make it” inside the system or to back the latest capitalist politician who uses the latest phrases of the left. Above all, as Marx already said, they have the deepest disdain for the tasks of theoretical education and long-term class-struggle organization of the mass of working people in this country, who in turn have the deepest contempt for them, and rightly so.

Leave these types to their games of Cops and Crazies. That is not the way.

Sunday, 25 May 2014

W- No, not by Oliver Stone



Below is a rather interesting biopic of former President of the United States of America, George "Dubya" Bush. Despite sharing a title and main character/subject with the Oliver Stone movie, they don't share much else. No this Dubya film is a response to the Bush years from an art house Liberal, with a capital L.





As satire it seems rather poor, it retreads much of the same ground, Bush is an idiot, Iraq was unjustified and motivated by greed, rigging elections and dropping the ball with Hurricane Katrina etc. And its performance art weirdness will probably alienate most of the audience meaning there isn't really much point in making it*. Though I personally love it, I've watched this strange clown film several times, because it seems that the director and star actor (same guy) was so bitter and desperate to caricature and attack American Conservatism that he ends up caricaturing and attacking American Liberalism in the process. Bush and his party of No are basically every Republican stereotype, and yet in making a film where these stereotypes are bluntly real and accurate the Director confirms a lot of the stereotypes of American Liberalism.

The explanation for Bush the idiot getting away with all his crazy and irrational policies and stunts, is basically that the average American or "Red State" American is even dumber then the big W. The Blue Liberals like Moller have pretty much all the right answers and yet they are impotent and powerless to stop eight long years of war, corruption and incompetence. And its all because the average Joe doesn't want to listen to there fancy talk and is easily distracted.

This couldn't get more stereotypical if the Demo party of Yes HQ was in a literal Ivory tower. The whole face paint and chroma key film is just Liberal bitterness and elitism fumbling in its attempt to come to terms with its most devastating defeat in recent history.  An equally appropriate title for the film would be "Impotent Rage: 2000-08" it really is quite something. The film is like a cage fight between two people I can't stand, no matter who loses I'll be happy and if they both get a mauling that's just perfect.

Oh and I'm pretty sure the film maker was an Obama supporter since he basically calls Clinton a whore in most confusing and "Artistic" way possible.

I give this film 7 WMD's out of 10.

* Personally I actually quite like it, but rather then enjoying the "deeper meanings" I find the scenes and images amusing and strange.

Saturday, 9 March 2013

A Simple Question



 Is the War on Terror worth the cost?




American Autumn is a documentary about the Occupy Movement and the political situation that made the occupation of public space an absolute necessity. It can be bought here under a pay what you can/want model.

The film was financed by kickstarter and I was one of its backers. After completion Dennis made it freely available for awhile on his youtube channel. However it appears Dennis is trying to raise funds for his webshow and other projects so has switched over to this method. I'm an ardent believer in the freedom of information but its important to fund alternative research and journalism. So on the whole I find this to be an acceptable compromise. It is available and can be gotten cheaply, what really annoys me is that most documentaries after being first broadcast go back on the shelf in some media archive never to see the light of day again. Most of the time if it wasn't for a foresighted viewer recording the show and then sharing it the information they contain would only be disseminated across a fraction of the audience.

But is America's Autumn worth any amount of money? I think so, though of course being one of the guys who put money up for its completion I'd look like a fool if I said otherwise. Its a well made documentary with a lot of interesting visuals. You can see an example of the graphics it uses to illustrate its points appoint the rottenness of America's political system. It also has footage and interviews from many of the Occupy encampments across America getting a representative sample of the people involved and what mattered most to them.



As we all know by now the camps have all been broken up by the police, but the movement itself, specifically the groups that affiliated or grew out of it haven't gone away. They are still active offering support to the desperete and challenging the banks and the governments agencies that support them.

For example one area that alot of Occupy activists are strongly involved in is resistance to the foreclosure crisis that threatens thousands with the prospect of homelessness. So far they haven't successfully stopped these evil policies but they have kept dozens of families in their homes. Some would call them small victories, I'd say those who say that have never faced the prospect of losing their home because their ain't nothing small about that. But regardless the fact that the movement still exists and is having some impact, makes it worth studying in my opinion and documentaries like American Autumn help raise are understanding.

In Detroit, Michigan, the city many consider the epicenter of the nation's subprime loan and foreclosure crisis, banks continue to evict residents from their homes at an alarming pace. Wayne County has the second highest foreclosure rate in the state, according to RealtyTrac. But citizens are fighting back. Over the past year a growing grassroots movement has used community action to block evictions and keep families in their homes. Now, some of those helped by the movement are taking the reins of its leadership. FSRN's Jaisal Noor has more from Detroit.

Monday, 4 March 2013

Kim Jong Unbelievable the Red Dawn Remake

Well I finally got round to watching the Red Dawn remake, and many things come to mind. Since I believe a work should stand separate from its baggage like intended messages and the people attached to it I'll try to break up my criticism and praise into individual sections.


The Film

If your a reader of this blog you can probably guess what will be in the following sections so it only seems fair to start by dealing with the film as piece of cinema in as much of a vacuum as possible.

I fully believe these are battle hardened teens scarred by the horror of war

Unfortunately the film doesn't really shape up. It uses obvious CG which isn't to bad in itself but the execution is quite poor. The invasion involves a massive fleet of air planes depositing the CG paratroopers, this is very noisy and some of the planes are shot down and crash near are main characters. They flee but the following scenes have extras strolling down the streets while the CG paratroopers are just above roof height. The Korean soldiers when they do become real are incompetent fools whom just mill about despite being under fire. The first time they actually do anything they manage to get one of themselves killed by a panicky teen while the rest of them just stand and watch the killer of their comrade escape. We also meet are main villain Captain Cho (Will Yun Lee) who is quite possible the worst officer in non comedic film history.

He keeps that confused expression throughout

After our hero's escape by driving away past several Korean riflemen, Cho decides that despite being in charge and having captured the Mayor (presumably the most important object at the moment) to take off after our hero's in a car chase with only a driver. Oh yeah despite parachuting in minutes ago the Koreans have fully fuelled and prepared armoured vehicles. Anyway he quickly crashes and our hero's make their way to the woods to begin planning their Guerilla counter-offensive and practice there chant of "Wolverines"!

And Cho and the Koreans maintain that level of incompetence throughout. Part of the problem is that Cho in particular is written as a movie villain and not as real military officer. The first explicitly evil thing we see him do directly hinders his own plans. He's in charge of this district and wants the kids whom injured several soldiers to turn themselves in. To do this he tracks them down and gets two of the kids dad's to talk to the woods were they're hiding with a megaphone. He promises if they turn themselves in no one gets hurt, but the cop dad of (ex marine) uses the opportunity to tell his kids to fight back. So Cho like a bond villain shoots him meaning there's no chance the kids will turn themselves in. He then leaves making no attempt to search the woods for them.

The Korean soldiers from that point on become storm troopers only from Star Wars, they never hit anything, their armour is useless and they spend the film running or driving around aimlessly becoming perfect ambush material. But sometimes they also just stand their letting obviously suspicious individuals get right up to them before they do anything even after several attacks have occurred. Nothing kills the tension in a film like having the main enemy force be completely useless. Oh and Cho's superiors don't appear much better, we get a standard dressing down from your superiors scene after Cho completely fails to deal with that gang of meddling kids. Cho assures his boss it'll be other soon, which pleases him, but when Cho actually tries to tell him what he's planning the Boss yells "Enough talk"! and storms off.

 The acting was, well it was functional I guess. No one stuck out as doing a poor job but no one really shined either. In fact I honestly can't remember any of the Wolverines names other then Daryl (because he was the Black one), and I could only tell the girls apart by their hair colours. At about the middle point one of the male wolverines was shot and honestly I couldn't remember which one had been killed. I couldn't remember who else had been hanging around with them prior to his death. Cho isn't scary; he's just there not really doing much, I only remember his name because everyone else kept mentioning him as if he was some sort of threat despite spending most of his time in an office and showing no military skills whatsoever.

The story copies most of the events from the original only it manages to make them worse. For example the death of the traitor, now despite my problems with the original Red Dawn I can at least watch it and as a film it was very good, characters even the bad guys had if not depth then layers, they did a reasonable job of explaining how the kids were able to take on the new Red Army, and did a very good job juxtaposing the jubilant Wolverines with the repression of the occupation. I still find the premise absurd but I did believe the kids were struggling to cope with an extremely bad situation and the film did a very good job of portraying the bleak existence in an occupation and in capturing a sense of dread and frustration as the occupation developed.

And again this is something the remake botches, in the original it was made clear that the group hid in the wilderness for at least a month getting to know the territory and perfecting their survival skills and accuracy with a gun. The remake has a fast paced montage and makes it seem like only a day or two has passed since the Koreans invaded making there ability to take on the army so easily ludicrous. In Red Dawn Colonel Bella is shown to be a very good commander, he's cool under fire and he defeats the American forces despite equipment shortages and very quickly establishes the new regime. He's also not afraid to challenge his superiors when his instincts tell him their wrong. But since he's Nicaraguan his entire military experience has been fighting with insurgents not against them(1) so by his own admission he's out of his depth. And his superiors don't help him they just keep instructing him to squeeze and kill the population under his control. Cho on the other hand displays no expertise in any capacity and has no justification for failing to contain the rebellion.

In particular the subplot with the traitor, its probably my favourite part of the film since it deals with probably the most complex and ugly aspect of conflict, how do you deal with a friend and fellow fighter whom turns, and what exactly causes them to turn. His reasons for what he did were perfectly understandable, even more so when you remember his age and the execution was depicted very brutally and managed to avoid glorifying his death as a victory for Patriotism. In fact in addition to being traumatic it was unnecessary there was no reason to kill the prisoner and the traitor his tracking device meant the Soviets were following him. All the Wolverines had to do was leave (which they had to do anyway since Daryl had given away their position) and leave them both for the Soviets to find. Not only is there murder unnecessary but they can't even come up with a convincing argument to shoot either of them, they just do it.

In the remake the traitor kid is an arrogant prick from the start, sells out his "friends" immediately (about 20 minutes in) and dies with without much comment after one of the "loyal Wolverines" gives him the middle finger. Not exactly on the same level of emotional drama is it?

And what about the strategic situation scene, you know the one were the Wolverines meet up with some soldiers whom tell them all how screwed up the situation actually is and how the Soviets were able to do all this. That was an important scene in Red Dawn not only did it give some credence to premise by giving a detailed operation involving multiple forces and points of attack. It also added to the atmosphere of grim defiance, basically the war is in a stalemate but every front is deep within American territory.

In the remakes version its revealed that the North Koreans have essentially a magic weapon that's so advanced the US had no idea such a thing could exist that disabled America's defences. Okay to be fair the weapon is a type of E-bomb which is a device that sets off a large Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) that fries electrical devices. They do exist and a lot of money is being spent on making better version, the problem is that money is Dollars and Yuans because the technology is so sophisticated and expensive effectively only America and China can  produce them. And apparently they used tactical "non-nuke"Warheads (missiles to us common civvies) to take down remaining resistance. The scene also jettisons the bleak seriousness of the original in favour of a trite "guys like you are the difference" where there's hope there's a way sentimentality popularised by children's television.

Oh and that scene informs us the Russians have invaded too. I guess the Russian market must be less profitable or less thin skinned. Why is never explained, in fact no explanation is given for the North Koreans being there. The original didn't really give a reason for the Soviet invasion(2) beyond "it was inevitable, two powerful kids on the block" but it didn't really need to. The Cold War of the time answered that question for them, USA and USSR were locked in a struggle and had the power to destroy each other. Ergo the USSR would have reason to defeat the Americans and benefit greatly if it pulled it off.

Oh and they change the ending too. Red Dawn had most of the Wolverines die its implied that the disruption of groups like the Wolverines and the hope they inspired helped turn the tide of the war but they still ended up dead. In the remake the group lead a mass insurgency on a prison camp exploiting the Korean guards fatal flaw of just standing there waiting to get shot.

Plot

 You might be wondering why plot comes after the section about the film. Well I've seperated it because films that have an explicit message have two plots, the one the actors go through and the narrative the audience are supposed to go through. And you can't get more explicit then the propaganda of the Red Dawn films.

The plot for the benefit of the Red Dawn films is quite obvious "Fear the foreign powers". The original film was in essence a 114 minute advert for increased spending on America's war programs. The fact that the invaders are a bunch of Commies is actually a footnote its the fact foreign powers can trample American soil that's supposed to frighten the audience. The Soviet Union was merely the most realistic choice of antagonists. The tag line for the film makes this clear "In our time, no foreign army has ever occupied American soil. Until now."(3)

I never really liked the original Red Dawn and I freely admit at least part of my dislike is the films propaganda message. Not only do I simply disagree with "My country tis for thee" Jingoism in reality those sentiments have been used to justify the most evil of actions. The film doesn't just ape the pro war and aggression arguments in general either the original actively presents some of the Right wing arguments for interventions and atrocities as being true. How do the Soviet Union manage to launch a surprise invasion of the United States? By using there foothold in Latin America, specifically Cuba and Nicaragua.

At the time the film was made Ronald Reagan and his national security clique were funnelling millions of dollars and weapons to the most appalling regimes and armies in Latin America, torture, rape and genocide were the norms throughout most of the continent. How could the "greatest democracy on earth" possibly justify such appalling crimes? The Russians are coming. Why invade Grenada? The Cubans and Russians were going there. Why create the Contra's, a force cobbled together from the remnants of Somoza's National Guard? The Russians might go there. Why support the Salvadoran Generals in their Genocidal crackdown on the Indiginado peasants? If they win the Russians will go there. And on and on it went.  Hell it even indulges in some immigrant bashing by claiming a bunch of illegals from Mexico managed to infiltrate a number of military installations before the attacks. In addition to the standard racist distrust of people who "aren't native" the events of the time make it even more sinister. American laws forbade the funding and support of those committing crimes against humanity which meant the tide of Latin American refugees trying to escape the brutalities of their own governments were a problem. Accepting refugee's would be an admission by the US government that their allegations of persecution and torture were true, so instead many whom applied were denied accused of lying and supporting the local "Red faction" and sent back home with the government they fled knowing who they are. So many had to flee to America illegally. So by using the arguments of the US interventionist wing Red Dawn was in effect helping their arguments be accepted by the American people.

Still It was lucky for the film makers that the existence of the Soviet Union provided the perfect example of foreign aggression. In terms of Anti Red propaganda its not the worse film I've seen, that honour goes to Red Scorpion a rather dull film that was made to support UNITA (the guys who worked with South Africa) in Angola's Civil war. In it a KGB superman is sent to kill a "Black Revolutionary" however switches sides when he sees Soviet and Cuban forces killing the local population. I remember one scene in particular were the head Soviet Officer gasses a village from a helicopter.

You could easily take the plot of Red Dawn and set it at any other time period when America was under threat and only have to change the locations, extras and props. For example set it in Hawaii in the 40's make the baddies Japanese  and replace the Hind's with Zero's. Or set it in ye olde Colonial times, have the baddies be Brits (a mix of bluebloods and cockneys, naturally) and you've got the same film. In fact you wouldn't even have to change the title, Red Dawn could easily reference the Red Sun on the Imperial flag or the Red Coats of the regulars.

Unfortunately for the remake they have no such luck. Originally the enemy was going to be the only potential candidate for threat to America China, but the studio's got cold feet so they spent a lot of time in post production changing them to North Koreans (more on this below). This change means that its propaganda message is worthless the example chosen to illustrate the point is so poor it simply discredits the entire argument. North Korea couldn't possibly invade the United States and that's evident to anyone with a working brain. They might as well have made the enemy Zambia, at least then they'd do well with the racist Turner Diaries crowd.

Possibly the dumbest decision made by Hollywood in a few years


And here we go, the decision to give the Chinese a race lift to make them Koreans is just a fundamentally stupid idea. On every front it just weakens the film even more. The decision to change the country was simply because the studio wanted access to the lucrative Chinese market which immediately kills the films artistic integrity and shows the film is purely a moneymaking scheme of no substance. The change weakens the plot drastically and contradicts the "gritty ultra serious" tone the film desperately wants to have.

It also changes the plot in other less obvious ways, the original Red Dawn had the invasion occur because America simply wasn't vigilant enough. If the enemy was still China they might still be able to pull off the same thing but not with North Korea. The very beginning of the film shows the 21st century equivalent of the spinning newspaper montage, clips of 24 hour news commentary around the world. Lots of films do this as its actually a fairly effective and unobtrusive way of ex-positing the situation setting the tone, usually tension. And to be fair to the film it does a reasonable job of presenting North Korea as a threat in the made up scenario it constructs, unfortunately it makes the subsequent invasion of America look to be the product of America's lack of intelligence rather then a lack of vigilance.

The beginning news montage makes clear that America was well aware of North Korea's danger and actively trying to restore order on the Korean peninsula and the globe. So the fact that they didn't see a military build up in particular its Navy and Air Force both of which would be needed just so the Koreans could get over to America, and then let that Navy and Air force sneak past America's Pacific fleet and monitoring stations just kind of makes Uncle Sam seem really stupid. Its the kind of incompetence that no amount of dollars in the defence budget can solve.

Oh and what makes the decision to make the baddies Koreans completely redundant is the addition of the Russians. Near the beginning the characters say the Koreans must of had help, that would've made for an interesting subplot an international conspiracy of nations and if done well could update Red Dawns "Fear the foreigner" message. But no the film drops that thread only to introduce Russians half way through without explanation. They literally just turn up half way through and then disappear until the last ten or so minutes. They call them Spetsnaz but they don't really do much thats Special. The one thing they do manage to pull off (which is one more then the Koreans) is plant a tracker on Daryl (whose traitor subplot was given to some new character) meaning the Russians rather then the Koreans are the only bad guys whom threaten are band of misfits. Why not just make them Russians in the first place, they were already remaking Red Dawn so they couldn't have been afraid of parallels with the original.

In conclusion track down a DVD of the original if your curious.

1: Apparently the Contra's don't exist in Red Dawn world.
2: Okay the opening text at the beginning does explain the specifics of why the Soviets attack but the characters don't know that.
3: Which of course isn't quite true, British forces occupied "American soil" twice if you count territory held by Washington's forces as American soil. Then there was Mexico which launched offensives during its wars with America. Hell the Canadians also occupied territory on their way to burn down the non white White house.

Monday, 25 February 2013

Secret Wars of the CIA



It should come as no surprise that I have a very poor view of the CIA (and all intelligence services) and there is no shortage of criticism and investigations into the CIA shady present programs and very bloody past. From assassinations to drug smuggling to training the state torturers of over a dozen southern hemisphere dictatorships the Central Intelligence Agency has been hard at work disappearing Communists, Democrats, Trade Unionists, Indigenous tribes, Human rights advocates and anyone even remotely suspecting of being one of the above. However much of these investigations and critiques come from the usual suspects, the dove winged Ivory tower idealists like Noam Chomsky

And because of that its easy for the Right wing, the Nationalists and the security paranoid to dismiss much of the work offered based on their prejudice against the messengers. I suppose its only fair to point out this "well of course you'd say that/you guys just don't understand" mentality is a common flaw all round. I've certainly indulged in it in the past and its a very difficult habit to break.

Though that is in part why I found the works of John Stockwell and in particular this lecture so fascinating. In addition to coming from a Conservative background Stockwell served in the CIA for many years working in several countries starting in Vietnam as the war entered its final stage, to Angola with many briefings and appearances at intelligence hearings giving him first hand street level experience of the kinds of things the CIA was doing, the ability to test the agencies justifications for its activities and see the internal logic behind many of its controversial programs. This means the old prejudice counter argument doesn't really apply.

A quick warning the video is over two hours long, you can watch in bits here or download it here


A lecture by John Stockwell given in December, 1987 on the inner workings of the national security council and the CIA's convert actions in Angola, Central America and Vietnam.

John Stockwell is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the agency and go public. He ran a CIA intelligence-gathering post in Vietnam, was the task-force commander of the CIA's secret war in Angola in 1975 and 1976, and was awarded the Medal of Merit before he resigned. Stockwell's book In Search of Enemies, published by W.W. Norton 1978, is an international best-seller.



You can also read a transcript of the same lecture though this was given in October so the details and order are a little different. PDF Version

"I did 13 years in the CIA altogether. I sat on a subcommittee of the NSC, so I was like a chief of staff, with the GS-18s (like 3-star generals) Henry Kissinger, Bill Colby (the CIA director), the GS-18s and the CIA, making the important decisions and my job was to put it all together and make it happen and run it, an interesting place from which to watch a covert action being done...
I testified for days before the Congress, giving them chapter and verse, date and detail, proving specific lies. They were asking if we had to do with S. Africa, that was fighting in the country. In fact we were coordinating this operation so closely that our airplanes, full of arms from the states, would meet their airplanes in Kinshasa and they would take our arms into Angola to distribute to our forces for us....
Did no one wonder how Zaire (Congo) could afford to kit out the FNLA?

What I found with all of this study is that the subject, the problem, if you will, for the world, for the U.S. is much, much, much graver, astronomically graver, than just Angola and Vietnam. I found that the Senate Church committee has reported, in their study of covert actions, that the CIA ran several thousand covert actions since 1961, and that the heyday of covert action was before 1961; that we have run several hundred covert actions a year, and the CIA has been in business for a total of 37 years.

What we're going to talk about tonight is the United States national security syndrome. We're going to talk about how and why the U.S. manipulates the press. We're going to talk about how and why the U.S. is pouring money into El Salvador, and preparing to invade Nicaragua; how all of this concerns us so directly. I'm going to try to explain to you the other side of terrorism; that is, the other side of what Secretary of State Shultz talks about. In doing this, we'll talk about the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and the Central American war.

Everything I'm going to talk to you about is represented, one way or another, already in the public records. You can dig it all out for yourselves, without coming to hear me if you so chose. Books, based on information gotten out of the CIA under the freedom of information act, testimony before the Congress, hearings before the Senate Church committee, research by scholars, witness of people throughout the world who have been to these target areas that we'll be talking about. I want to emphasize that my own background is profoundly conservative. We come from South Texas, East Texas....

I was conditioned by my training, my marine corps training, and my background, to believe in everything they were saying about the cold war, and I took the job with great enthusiasm (in the CIA) to join the best and the brightest of the CIA, of our foreign service, to go out into the world, to join the struggle, to project American values and save the world for our brand of democracy. And I believed this. I went out and worked hard....


What I really got out of these 6 years in Africa was a sense ... that nothing we were doing in fact defended U.S. national security interests very much. We didn't have many national security interests in Bujumbura, Burundi, in the heart of Africa. I concluded that I just couldn't see the point.
We were doing things it seemed because we were there, because it was our function, we were bribing people, corrupting people, and not protecting the U.S. in any visible way. I had a chance to go drinking with this Larry Devlin, a famous CIA case officer who had overthrown Patrice Lumumba, and had him killed in 1960, back in the Congo. He was moving into the Africa division Chief. I talked to him in Addis Ababa at length one night, and he was giving me an explanation - I was telling him frankly, 'sir, you know, this stuff doesn't make any sense, we're not saving anybody from anything, and we are corrupting people, and everybody knows we're doing it, and that makes the U.S. look bad'.
Larry Devlins handiwork

And he said I was getting too big for my britches. He said, `you're trying to think like the people in the NSC back in Washington who have the big picture, who know what's going on in the world, who have all the secret information, and the experience to digest it. If they decide we should have someone in Bujumbura, Burundi, and that person should be you, then you should do your job, and wait until you have more experience, and you work your way up to that point, then you will understand national security, and you can make the big decisions. Now, get to work, and stop, you know, this philosophizing.'
Yes John stop your "Philosophizing" and get back to work

And I said, `Aye-aye sir, sorry sir, a bit out of line sir'. It's a very powerful argument, our presidents use it on us. President Reagan has used it on the American people, saying, `if you knew what I know about the situation in Central America, you would understand why it's necessary for us to intervene.'
I went back to Washington, however, and I found that others shared my concern. A formal study was done in the State Department and published internally, highly classified, called the Macomber [sp?] report, concluding that the CIA had no business being in Africa for anything it was known to be doing, that our presence there was not justified, there were no national security interests that the CIA could address any better than the ambassador himself. We didn't need to have bribery and corruption as a tool for doing business in Africa at that time.
"if you knew what I know about the situation in Central America, you would understand why it's necessary for us to intervene." - Ronald Reagan

I went from ... a tour in Washington to Vietnam. And there, my career, and my life, began to get a little bit more serious. They assigned me a country. It was during the cease-fire, '73 to '75. There was no cease-fire. Young men were being slaughtered. I saw a slaughter. 300 young men that the South Vietnamese army ambushed. Their bodies brought in and laid out in a lot next to my compound. I was up-country in Tayninh. They were laid out next door, until the families could come and claim them and take them away for burial.


I thought about this. I had to work with the sadistic police chief. When I reported that he liked to carve people with knives in the CIA safe-house - when I reported this to my bosses, they said, `(1). The post was too important to close down. (2). They weren't going to get the man transferred or fired because that would make problems, political problems, and he was very good at working with us in the operations he worked on. (3). Therefore if I didn't have the stomach for the job, that they could transfer me.'
Here's some of the South Vietnamese Police's handiwork


But they hastened to point out, if I did demonstrate a lack of `moral fiber' to handle working with the sadistic police chief, that I wouldn't get another good job in the CIA, it would be a mark against
my career.

So I kept the job, I closed the safe-house down, I told my staff that I didn't approve of that kind of activity, and I proceeded to work with him for the next 2 years, pretending that I had reformed him, and he didn't do this sort of thing anymore. The parallel is obvious with El Salvador today, where the CIA, the state department, works with the death squads.

They don't meet the death squads on the streets where they're actually chopping up people or laying them down on the street and running trucks over their heads. The CIA people in San Salvador meet the police chiefs, and the people who run the death squads, and they do liaise with them, they meet them beside the swimming pool of the villas. And it's a sophisticated, civilized kind of relationship. And they talk about their children, who are going to school at UCLA or Harvard and other schools, and they don't talk about the horrors of what's being done. They pretend like it isn't true.
What I ran into in addition to that was a corruption in the CIA and the intelligence business that made me question very seriously what it was all about, including what I was doing ... risking my life ... what I found was that the CIA, us, the case officers, were not permitted to report about the corruption in the South Vietnamese army....

Now, the corruption was so bad, that the S. Vietnamese army was a skeleton army. Colonels would let the troops go home if they would come in once a month and sign the pay vouchers so the colonel could pocket the money. Then he could sell half of the uniforms and boots and M-16's to the communist forces - that was their major supply, just as it is in El Salvador today. He could use half of the trucks to haul produce, half of the helicopters to haul heroin.
The CIA was also airlifting mercenaries and heroin throughout S.E. Asia

And the Army couldn't fight. And we lived with it, and we saw it, and there was no doubt - everybody talked about it openly. We could provide all kinds of proof, and they wouldn't let us report it. Now this was a serious problem because the south was attacked in the winter of 1975, and it collapsed like a big vase hit by a sledgehammer. And the U.S. was humiliated, and that was the dramatic end of our long involvement in Vietnam....

I had been designated as the task-force commander that would run this secret war [in Angola in 1975 and 1976].... and what I figured out was that in this job, I would sit on a sub-committee of the National Security Council, this office that Larry Devlin has told me about where they had access to all the information about Angola, about the whole world, and I would finally understand national security. And I couldn't resist the opportunity to know. I knew the CIA was not a worthwhile organization, I had learned that the hard way. But the question was where did the U.S. government fit into this thing, and I had a chance to see for myself in the next big secret war....

Looks like a draw to me

I wanted to know if wise men were making difficult decisions based on truly important, threatening information, threatening to our national security interests. If that had been the case, I still planned to get out of the CIA, but I would know that the system, the invisible government, our national security complex, was in fact justified and worth while. And so I took the job.... Suffice it to say I wouldn't be standing in front of you tonight if I had found these wise men making these tough decisions. What I found, quite frankly, was fat old men sleeping through sub-committee meetings of the NSC in which we were making decisions that were killing people in Africa. I mean literally. Senior ambassador Ed Mulcahy... would go to sleep in nearly every one of these meetings....

You can change the names in my book [about Angola] [13] and you've got Nicaragua.... the basic structure, all the way through including the mining of harbors, we addressed all of these issues. The point is that the U.S. led the way at every step of the escalation of the fighting. We said it was the Soviets and the Cubans that were doing it. It was the U.S. that was escalating the fighting. There would have been no war if we hadn't gone in first. We put arms in, they put arms in. We put advisors in, they answered with advisors. We put in Zairian para-commando battalions, they put in Cuban army troops. We brought in the S. African army, they brought in the Cuban army. And they pushed us away. They blew us away because we were lying, we were covering ourselves with lies, and they were telling the truth. And it was not a war that we could fight. We didn't have interests there that should have been defended that way.
 
There was never a study run that evaluated the MPLA, FNLA and UNITA, the three movements in the country, to decide which one was the better one. The assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Nathaniel Davis, no bleeding-heart liberal (he was known by some people in the business as the butcher of Santiago), he said we should stay out of the conflict and work with whoever eventually won, and that was obviously the MPLA. Our consul in Luanda, Tom Killoran, vigorously argued that the MPLA was the best qualified to run the country and the friendliest to the U.S.

We brushed these people aside, forced Matt Davis to resign, and proceeded with our war. The MPLA said they wanted to be our friends, they didn't want to be pushed into the arms of the Soviet Union; they begged us not to fight them, they wanted to work with us. We said they wanted a cheap victory, they wanted a walk-over, they wanted to be un-opposed, that we wouldn't give them a cheap victory, we would make them earn it, so to speak. And we did. 10,000 Africans died and they won the victory that they were winning anyway.
Looks like tax dollars well spent

Now, the most significant thing that I got out of all of this, in addition to the fact that our rationales were basically false, was that we lied. To just about everybody involved. One third of my staff in this task force that I put together in Washington, commanding this global operation, pulling strings all over the world to focus pressure onto Angola, and military activities into Angola, one third of my staff was propagandists, who were working, in every way they could to create this picture of Cubans raping Angolans, Cubans and Soviets introducing arms into the conflict, Cubans and Russians trying to take over the world.

Our ambassador to the United Nations, Patrick Moynihan, he read continuous statements of our position to the Security Council, the general assembly, and the press conferences, saying the Russians and Cubans were responsible for the conflict, and that we were staying out, and that we deplored the militarization of the conflict.

And every statement he made was false. And every statement he made was originated in the sub-committee of the NSC that I sat on as we managed this thing. The state department press person read these position papers daily to the press. We would write papers for him. Four paragraphs. We would call him on the phone and say, `call us 10 minutes before you go on, the situation could change overnight, we'll tell you which paragraph to read. And all four paragraphs would be false. Nothing to do with the truth. Designed to play on events, to create this impression of Soviet and Cuban aggression in Angola. When they were in fact responding to our initiatives.

And the CIA director was required by law to brief the Congress. This CIA director Bill Colby - the same one that dumped our people in Vietnam - he gave 36 briefings of the Congress, the oversight committees, about what we were doing in Angola. And he lied. At 36 formal briefings. And such lies are perjury, and it's a felony to lie to the Congress.

He lied about our relationship with South Africa. We were working closely with the South African army, giving them our arms, coordinating battles with them, giving them fuel for their tanks and armored cars. He said we were staying well away from them. They were concerned about these white mercenaries that were appearing in Angola, a very sensitive issue, hiring whites to go into a black African country, to help you impose your will on that black African country by killing the blacks, a very sensitive issue. The Congress was concerned we might be involved in that, and he assured them we had nothing to do with it.



Executive Outcomes a Merc group operating in Angola and Sierra Leone

We had in fact formed four little mercenary armies and delivered them into Angola to do this dirty business for the CIA. And he lied to them about that. They asked if we were putting arms into the conflict, and he said no, and we were. They asked if we had advisors inside the country, and he said `no, we had people going in to look at the situation and coming back out'. We had 24 people sleeping inside the country, training in the use of weapons, installing communications systems, planning battles, and he said, we didn't have anybody inside the country.

In summary about Angola, without U.S. intervention, 10,000 people would be alive that were killed in the thing. The outcome might have been peaceful, or at least much less bloody. The MPLA was winning when we went in, and they went ahead and won, which was, according to our consul, the best thing for the country.

At the end of this thing the Cubans were entrenched in Angola, seen in the eyes of much of the world as being the heroes that saved these people from the CIA and S. African forces. We had allied the U.S. literally and in the eyes of the world with the S. African army, and that's illegal, and it's impolitic. We had hired white mercenaries and eventually been identified with them. And that's illegal, and it's impolitic. And our lies had been visible lies. We were caught out on those lies. And the world saw the U.S. as liars.

After it was over, you have to ask yourself, was it justified? What did the MPLA do after they had won? Were they lying when they said they wanted to be our friends? 3 weeks after we were shut down... the MPLA had Gulf oil back in Angola, pumping the Angolan oil from the oilfields, with U.S. gulf technicians protected by Cuban soldiers, protecting them from CIA mercenaries who were still mucking around in Northern Angola.

You can't trust a communist, can you? They proceeded to buy five 737 jets from Boeing Aircraft in Seattle. And they brought in 52 U.S. technicians to install the radar systems to land and take-off those planes. They didn't buy [the Soviet Union's] Aeroflot.... David Rockefeller himself tours S. Africa and comes back and holds press conferences, in which he says that we have no problem doing business with the so-called radical states of Southern Africa.

I left the CIA, I decided that the American people needed to know what we'd done in Angola, what we'd done in Vietnam. I wrote my book. I was fortunate - I got it out. It was a best-seller. A lot of people read it. I was able to take my story to the American people. Got on 60 minutes, and lots and lots of other shows.

I testified to the Congress and then I began my education in earnest, after having been taught to fight communists all my life. I went to see what communists were all about. I went to Cuba to see if they do in fact eat babies for breakfast. And I found they don't. I went to Budapest, a country that even national geographic admits is working nicely. I went to Jamaica to talk to Michael Manley about his theories of social democracy.

I went to Grenada and established a dialogue with Maurice Bishop and Bernard Cord and Phyllis Cord, to see - these were all educated people, and experienced people - and they had a theory, they had something they wanted to do, they had rationales and explanations - and I went repeatedly to hear them. And then of course I saw the U.S., the CIA mounting a covert action against them, I saw us orchestrating our plan to invade the country. 19 days before he was killed, I was in Grenada talking to Maurice Bishop about these things, these indicators, the statements in the press by Ronald Reagan, and he and I were both acknowledging that it was almost certain that the U.S. would invade Grenada in the near future.

Clearly an impending threat to the United States

I read as many books as I could find on the subject - book after book after book. I've got several hundred books on the shelf over my desk on the subject of U.S. national security interests. And by the way, I urge you to read. In television you get capsules of news that someone else puts together what they want you to hear about the news. In newspapers you get what the editors select to put in the newspaper. If you want to know about the world and understand, to educate yourself, you have to get out and dig, dig up books and articles for yourself. Read, and find out for yourselves. As you'll see, the issues are very, very important.


I also was able to meet the players, the people who write, the people who have done studies, people who are leading different situations. I went to Nicaragua a total of 7 times. This was a major covert action. It lasted longer and evolved to be bigger than what we did in Angola. It gave me a chance, after running something from Washington, to go to a country that was under attack, to talk to the leadership, to talk to the people, to look and see what happens when you give white phosporous or grenades or bombs or bullets to people, and they go inside a country, to go and talk to the people, who have been shot, or hit, or blown up....

We're talking about 10 to 20 thousand covert actions [the CIA has performed since 1961]. What I found was that lots and lots of people have been killed in these things.... Some of them are very, very bloody.

The Indonesian covert action of 1965, reported by Ralph McGehee, who was in that area division, and had documents on his desk, in his custody about that operation. He said that one of the documents concluded that this was a model operation that should be copied elsewhere in the world. Not only did it eliminate the effective communist party (Indonesian communist party), it also eliminated the entire segment of the population that tended to support the communist party - the ethnic Chinese, Indonesian Chinese. And the CIA's report put the number of dead at 800,000 killed. And that was one covert action. We're talking about 1 to 3 million people killed in these things.

Two of these things have led us directly into bloody wars. There was a covert action against China, destabilizing China, for many, many years, with a propaganda campaign to work up a mood, a feeling in this country, of the evils of communist China, and attacking them, as we're doing in Nicaragua today, with an army that was being launched against them to parachute in and boat in and destabilize the country. And this led us directly into the Korean war.

Tibetan Guerillas funded by the CIA


U.S. intelligence officers worked over Vietnam for a total of 25 years, with greater and greater involvement, massive propaganda, deceiving the American people about what was happening. Panicking people in Vietnam to create migrations to the south so they could photograph it and show how people were fleeing communism. And on and on, until they got us into the Vietnam war, and 2,000,000 people were killed.
The theory

The reality


There is a mood, a sentiment in Washington, by our leadership today, for the past 4 years, that a good communist is a dead communist. If you're killing 1 to 3 million communists, that's great. President Reagan has gone public and said he would reduce the Soviet Union to a pile of ashes. The problem, though, is that these people killed by our national security activities are not communists. They're not Russians, they're not KGB. In the field we used to play chess with the KGB officers, and have drinks with them. It was like professional football players - we would knock heads on Sunday, maybe in an operation, and then Tuesday you're at a banquet together drinking toasts and talking.
The people that are dying in these things are people of the third world. That's the common denominator that you come up with. People of the third world. People that have the misfortune of being born in the Metumba mountains of the Congo, in the jungles of Southeast Asia, and now in the hills of northern Nicaragua. Far more Catholics than communists, far more Buddhists than communists. Most of them couldn't give you an intelligent definition of communism, or of capitalism.


Central America has been a traditional target of U.S. dominion. If you want to get an easy-read of the history of our involvement in Central America, read Walter LaFeber's book, Inevitable Revolutions. [8] We have dominated the area since 1820. We've had a policy of dominion, of excluding other countries, other industrial powers from Europe, from competing with us in the area.
Just to give you an example of how complete this is, and how military this has been, between 1900 and W.W. II, we had 5,000 marines in Nicaragua for a total of 28 years. We invaded the Dominican Republic 4 times. Haiti, we occupied it for 12 years. We put our troops into Cuba 4 times, Panama 6 times, Guatemala once, plus a CIA covert action to overthrow the democratic government there once. Honduras, 7 times. And by the way, we put 12,000 troops into the Soviet Union during that same period of time.

In the 1930's there was public and international pressure about our marines in Nicaragua....
The next three leaders of Guatemala [after the CIA installed the puppet, Colonel Armaz in a coup] died violent deaths, and Amnesty International tells us that the governments we've supported in power there since then, have killed 80,000 people. You can read about that one in the book Bitter Fruit, by Schlesinger and Kinzer. [5] Kinzer's a New York Times Journalist... or Jonathan Kwitny, the Wall Street Journal reporter, his book Endless Enemies [7] - all discuss this....

However, the money, the millions and millions of dollars we put into this program [helping Central America] inevitably went to the rich, and not to the people of the countries involved. And while we were doing this, while we were trying, at least saying we were trying, to correct the problems of Central and Latin America, the CIA was doing its thing, too. The CIA was in fact forming the police units that are today the death squads in El Salvador. With the leaders on the CIA's payroll, trained by the CIA and the United States.
 
We had the `public safety program' going throughout Central and Latin America for 26 years, in which we taught them to break up subversion by interrogating people. Interrogation, including torture, the way the CIA taught it. Dan Metrione, the famous exponent of these things, did 7 years in Brazil and 3 in Uruguay, teaching interrogation, teaching torture. He was supposed to be the master of the business, how to apply the right amount of pain, at just the right times, in order to get the response you want from the individual.

They developed a wire. They gave them crank generators, with `U.S. AID' written on the side, so the people even knew where these things came from. They developed a wire that was strong enough to carry the current and fine enough to fit between the teeth, so you could put one wire between the teeth and the other one in or around the genitals and you could crank and submit the individual to the greatest amount of pain, supposedly, that the human body can register.

Now how do you teach torture? Dan Metrione: `I can teach you about torture, but sooner or later you'll have to get involved. You'll have to lay on your hands and try it yourselves.'
.... All they [the guinea pigs, beggars from off the streets] could do was lie there and scream. And when they would collapse, they would bring in doctors and shoot them up with vitamin B and rest them up for the next class. And when they would die, they would mutilate the bodies and throw them out on the streets, to terrify the population so they would be afraid of the police and the government.
And this is what the CIA was teaching them to do. And one of the women who was in this program for 2 years - tortured in Brazil for 2 years - she testified internationally when she eventually got out. She said, `The most horrible thing about it was in fact, that the people doing the torture were not raving psychopaths.' She couldn't break mental contact with them the way you could if they were psychopath. They were very ordinary people....
Some victims of Brazil's torture program

There's a lesson in all of this. And the lesson is that it isn't only Gestapo maniacs, or KGB maniacs, that do inhuman things to other people, it's people that do inhuman things to other people. And we are responsible for doing these things, on a massive basis, to people of the world today. And we do it in a way that gives us this plausible denial to our own consciences; we create a CIA, a secret police, we give them a vast budget, and we let them go and run these programs in our name, and we pretend like we don't know it's going on, although the information is there for us to know; and we pretend like it's ok because we're fighting some vague communist threat. And we're just as responsible for these 1 to 3 million people we've slaughtered and for all the people we've tortured and made miserable, as the Gestapo was the people that they've slaughtered and killed. Genocide is genocide!

Now we're pouring money into El Salvador. A billion dollars or so. And it's a documented fact that the... 14 families there that own 60% of the country are taking out between 2 to 5 billion dollars - it's called de-capitalization - and putting it in banks in Miami and Switzerland. Mort Halper, in testifying to a committee of the Congress, he suggested we could simplify the whole thing politically just by investing our money directly in the Miami banks in their names and just stay out of El Salvador altogether. And the people would be better off.
Source

Nicaragua. What's happening in Nicaragua today is covert action. It's a classic de-stabilization program. In November 16, 1981, President Reagan allocated 19 million dollars to form an army, a force of contras, they're called, ex-Somoza national guards, the monsters who were doing the torture and terror in Nicaragua that made the Nicaraguan people rise up and throw out the dictator, and throw out the guard. We went back to create an army of these people. We are killing, and killing, and terrorizing people. Not only in Nicaragua but the Congress has leaked to the press - reported in the New York Times, that there are 50 covert actions going around the world today, CIA covert actions going on around the world today.

You have to be asking yourself, why are we destabilizing 50 corners of the troubled world? Why are we about to go to war in Nicaragua, the Central American war? It is the function, I suggest, of the CIA, with its 50 de-stabilization programs going around the world today, to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize the American people to hate, so we will let the establishment spend any amount of money on arms....

The Victor Marquetti ruling of the Supreme Court gave the government the right to prepublication censorship of books. They challenged 360 items in his 360 page book. He fought it in court, and eventually they deleted some 60 odd items in his book.

The Frank Snep ruling of the Supreme Court gave the government the right to sue a government employee for damages. If s/he writes an unauthorized account of the government - which means the people who are involved in corruption in the government, who see it, who witness it, like Frank Snep did, like I did - if they try to go public they can now be punished in civil court. The government took $90,000 away from Frank Snep, his profits from his book, and they've seized the profits from my own book....

[Reagan passed] the Intelligence Identities Protection act, which makes it a felony to write articles revealing the identities of secret agents or to write about their activities in a way that would reveal their identities. Now, what does this mean? In a debate in Congress - this is very controversial - the supporters of this bill made it clear.... If agents Smith and Jones came on this campus, in an MK-ultra-type experiment, and blew your fiance's head away with LSD, it would now be a felony to publish an article in your local paper saying, `watch out for these 2 turkeys, they're federal agents and they blew my loved one's head away with LSD'. It would not be a felony what they had done because that's national security and none of them were ever punished for those activities.


Efforts to muzzle government employees. President Reagan has been banging away at this one ever since. Proposing that every government employee, for the rest of his or her life, would have to submit anything they wrote to 6 committees of the government for censorship, for the rest of their lives. To keep the scandals from leaking out... to keep the American people from knowing what the government is really doing.

Then it starts getting heavy. The `Pre-emptive Strikes' bill. President Reagan, working through the Secretary of State Shultz... almost 2 years ago, submitted the bill that would provide them with the authority to strike at terrorists before terrorists can do their terrorism. But this bill... provides that they would be able to do this in this country as well as overseas. It provides that the secretary of state would put together a list of people that he considers to be terrorist, or terrorist supporters, or terrorist sympathizers. And if your name, or your organization, is put on this list, they could kick down your door and haul you away, or kill you, without any due process of the law and search warrants and trial by jury, and all of that, with impunity.

Now, there was a tremendous outcry on the part of jurists. The New York Times columns and other newspapers saying, `this is no different from Hitler's "night in fog" program', where the government had the authority to haul people off at night. And they did so by the thousands. And President Reagan and Secretary Shultz have persisted.... Shultz has said, `Yes, we will have to take action on the basis of information that would never stand up in a court. And yes, innocent people will have to be killed in the process. But, we must have this law because of the threat of international terrorism'.

Think a minute. What is `the threat of international terrorism'? These things catch a lot of attention. But how many Americans died in terrorist actions last year? According to Secretary Shultz, 79. Now, obviously that's terrible but we killed 55,000 people on our highways with drunken driving; we kill 2,500 people in far nastier, bloodier, mutilating, gang-raping ways in Nicaragua last year alone ourselves. Obviously 79 peoples' death is not enough reason to take away the protection of American citizens, of due process of the law.

But they're pressing for this. The special actions teams that will do the pre-emptive striking have already been created, and trained in the defense department.

They're building detention centers. There were 8 kept as mothballs under the McLaren act after World War II, to detain aliens and dissidents in the next war, as was done in the next war, as was done with the Japanese people during World War II. They're building 10 more, and army camps, and the... executive memos about these things say it's for aliens and dissidents in the next national emergency....
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by Loius Guiffrida, a friend of Ed Meese's.... He's going about the country lobbying and demanding that he be given authority, in the times of national emergency, to declare martial law, and establish a curfew, and gun down people who violate the curfew... in the United States.

And then there's Ed Meese, as I said. The highest law enforcement officer in the land, President Reagan's closest friend, going around telling us that the constitution never did guarantee freedom of speech and press, and due process of the law, and assembly.

What they are planning for this society, and this is why they're determined to take us into a war if we'll permit it... is the Reagan revolution.... So he's getting himself some laws so when he puts in the troops in Nicaragua, he can take charge of the American people, and put people in jail, and kick in their doors, and kill them if they don't like what he's doing....

The question is, `Are we going to permit our leaders to take away our freedoms because they have a charming smile and they were nice movie stars one day, or are we going to stand up and fight, and insist on our freedoms?' It's up to us - you and I can watch this history play in the next year and 2 and 3 years.

I just got my latest book back from the CIA censors. If I had not submitted it to them, I would have gone to jail, without trial - blow off juries and all that sort of thing - for having violated our censorship laws....

In that job [Angola] I sat on a sub-committee of the NSC, so I was like a chief of staff, with the GS-18s (like 3-star generals) Henry Kissinger, Bill Colby (the CIA director), the GS-18s and the CIA, making important decisions and my job was to put it all together and make it happen and run it, an interesting place from which to watch a covert action being done....
When the world's gotten blocked up before, like a monopoly game where everything's owned and nobody can make any progress, the way they erased the board and started over has been to have big world wars, and erase countries and bomb cities and bomb banks and then start from scratch again. This is not an option to us now because of all these 52,000 nuclear weapons....
The United States CIA is running 50 covert actions, destabilizing further almost one third of the countries in the world today....

By the way, everything I'm sharing with you tonight is in the public record. The 50 covert actions - these are secret, but that has been leaked to us by members of the oversight committee of the Congress. I urge you not to take my word for anything. I'm going to stand here and tell you and give you examples of how our leaders lie. Obviously I could be lying. The only way you can figure it out for yourself is to educate yourselves. The French have a saying, `them that don't do politics will be done'. If you don't fill your mind eagerly with the truth, dig it out from the records, go and see for yourself, then your mind remains blank and your adrenaline pumps, and you can be mobilized and excited to do things that are not in your interest to do....

Nicaragua is not the biggest covert action, it is the most famous one. Afghanistan is, we spent several hundred million dollars in Afghanistan. We've spent somewhat less than that, but close, in Nicaragua....


[When the U.S. doesn't like a government], they send the CIA in, with its resources and activists, hiring people, hiring agents, to tear apart the social and economic fabric of the country, as a technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping that they can make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or the government will collapse altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.

Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric of course is fairly textbook-ish. What we're talking about is going in and deliberately creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to market, where children can't go to school, where women are terrified inside their homes as well as outside their homes, where government administration and programs grind to a complete halt, where the hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people, where international capital is scared away and the country goes bankrupt. If you ask the state department today what is their official explanation of the purpose of the Contras, they say it's to attack economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the country. Of course, they're attacking a lot more.

To destabilize Nicaragua beginning in 1981, we began funding this force of Somoza's ex-national guardsmen, calling them the contras (the counter-revolutionaries). We created this force, it did not exist until we allocated money. We've armed them, put uniforms on their backs, boots on their feet, given them camps in Honduras to live in, medical supplies, doctors, training, leadership, direction, as we've sent them in to de-stabilize Nicaragua. Under our direction they have systematically been blowing up graineries, saw mills, bridges, government offices, schools, health centers. They ambush trucks so the produce can't get to market. They raid farms and villages. The farmer has to carry a gun while he tries to plow, if he can plow at all.

If you want one example of hard proof of the CIA's involvement in this, and their approach to it, dig up `The Sabotage Manual', that they were circulating throughout Nicaragua, a comic-book type of a paper, with visual explanations of what you can do to bring a society to a halt, how you can gum up typewriters, what you can pour in a gas tank to burn up engines, what you can stuff in a sewage to stop up the sewage so it won't work, things you can do to make a society simply cease to function.
Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.
Source

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these
things to the children.

This is nobody's propaganda. There have been over 100,000 American witnesses for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women and children. These are the activities done by these contras. The contras are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'. He says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. And the whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions.

Read Contra Terror by Reed Brodie [1], former assistant Attorney General of New York State. Read The Contras by Dieter Eich. [4] Read With the Contras by Christopher Dickey. [2] This is a main-line journalist, down there on a grant with the Council on Foreign Relations, a slightly to the right of the middle of the road organization. He writes a book that sets a pox on both your houses, and then he accounts about going in on patrol with the contras, and describes their activities. Read Witness for Peace: What We have Seen and Heard. Read the Lawyer's Commission on Human Rights. Read The Violations of War on Both Sides by the Americas Watch. [15] And there are many, many more documentations of details, of names, of the incidents that have happened.

Part of a de-stabilization is propaganda, to dis-credit the targeted government. This one actually began under Jimmy Carter. He authorized the CIA to go in and try to make the Sandinistas look to be evil. So in 1979 [when] they came in to power, immediately we were trying to cast them as totalitarian, evil, threatening Marxists. While they abolished the death sentence, while they released 8,000 national guardsmen that they had in their custody that they could have kept in prison, they said `no. Unless we have evidence of individual crimes, we're not going to hold someone in prison just because they were associated with the former administration.' While they set out to launch a literacy campaign to teach the people to read and write, which is something that the dictator Somoza, and us supporting him, had never bothered to get around to doing. While they set out to build 2,500 clinics to give the country something resembling a public health policy, and access to medicines, we began to label them as totalitarian dictators, and to attack them in the press, and to work with this newspaper `La Prensa', which - it's finally come out and been admitted, in Washington - the U.S. government is funding: a propaganda arm.

[Reagan and the State dept. have] been claiming they're building a war machine that threatens the stability of Central America. Now the truth is, this small, poor country has been attacked by the world's richest country under conditions of war, for the last 5 years. Us and our army - the death they have sustained, the action they have suffered - it makes it a larger war proportionally than the Vietnam war was to the U.S. In addition to the contra activities, we've had U.S. Navy ships supervising the mining of harbors, we've sent planes in and bombed the capital, we've had U.S. military planes flying wing-tip to wing-tip over the country, photographing it, aerial reconnaissance. They don't have any missiles or jets they can send up to chase us off. We are at war with them. They have not retaliated yet with any kind of war action against us, but we do not give them credit with having the right to defend themselves. So we claim that the force they built up, which is obviously purely defensive, is an aggressive force that threatens the stability of all of Central America.

We claim the justification for this is the arms that are flowing from Nicaragua to El Salvador, and yet in 5 years of this activity, there is no evidence of any arms flowing from Nicaragua into El Salvador.
We launched a campaign to discredit their elections. International observer teams said these were the fairest elections they have witnessed in Central America in many years. We said they were fraudulent, they were rigged, because it was a totalitarian system. Instead we said, the elections that were held in El Salvador were models of democracy to be copied elsewhere in the world. And then the truth came out about that one. And we learned that the CIA had spent 2.2 million dollars to make sure that their choice of candidates - Duarte - would win. They did everything, we're told, by one of their spokesmen, indirectly, but stuff the ballot boxes....

I'll make a footnote that when I speak out, he [Senator Jesse Helmes] calls me a traitor, but when something happens he doesn't like, he doesn't hesitate to go public and reveal the secrets and embarrass the U.S.

We claim the Sandinistas are smuggling drugs as a technique to finance their revolution. This doesn't make sense. We're at war with them, we're dying to catch them getting arms from the Soviet Union, flying things back and forth to Cuba. We have airplanes and picket ships watching everything that flies out of that country, and into it. How are they going to have a steady flow of drug-smuggling planes into the U.S.? Not likely! However, there are Nicaraguans, on these bases in Honduras, that have planes flying into CIA training camps in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, several times a week.

Now, obviously i'm not going to stand in front of you and say that the CIA might be involved in drug trafficking, am I? READ THE BOOK. Read The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. For 20 years the CIA was helping the Kuomantang to finance itself and then to get rich smuggling heroin. When we took over from the French in 1954 their intelligence service had been financing itself by smuggling the heroin out of Laos. We replaced them - we put Air America, the CIA subsidiary - it would fly in with crates marked humanitarian aid, which were arms, and it would fly back out with heroin. And the first target, market, of this heroin was the U.S. GI's in Vietnam. If anybody in Nicaragua is smuggling drugs, it's the contras. Now i've been saying that since the state department started waving this red herring around a couple of years ago, and the other day you notice President Reagan said that the Nicaraguans, the Sandinistas, were smuggling drugs, and the DEA said, `it ain't true, the contras are smuggling drugs'.
Source

We claim the Sandinistas are responsible for the terrorism that's happening anywhere in the world. `The country club of terrorism' we call it. There's an incident in Rome, and Ed Meese goes on television and says, `that country club in Nicaragua is training terrorists'. We blame the Sandinistas for the misery that exists in Nicaragua today, and there is misery, because the world's richest nation has set out to create conditions of misery, and obviously we're bound to have some effect. The misery is not the fault of the Sandinistas, it's the result of our destabilization program. And despite that, and despite some grumbling in the country, the Sandinistas in their elections got a much higher percentage of the vote than President Reagan did, who's supposed to be so popular in this country. And all observers are saying that people are still hanging together, with the Sandinistas.
In 1984 Ortega got 66% Reagan 58%

Now it gets tricky. We're saying that the justification for more aid, possibly for an invasion of the country - and mind you, president Reagan has begun to talk about this, and the Secretary of Defense Weinberger began to say that it's inevitable - we claim that the justification is that the Soviet Union now has invested 500 million dollars in arms in military to make it its big client state, the Soviet bastion in this hemisphere. And that's true. They do have a lot of arms in there now. But the question is, how did they get invited in? You have to ask yourself, what's the purpose of this destabilization program? For this I direct you back to the Newsweek article in Sept. 1981, where they announce the fact that the CIA was beginning to put together this force of Somoza's ex-guard. Newsweek described it as `the only truly evil, totally unacceptable factor in the Nicaraguan equation'. They noted that neither the white house nor the CIA pretended it ever could have a chance of winning. So then they asked, rhetorically, `what's the point?' and they concluded that the point is that by attacking the country, you can force the Sandinistas into a more radical position, from which you have more ammunition to attack them.

And that's what we've accomplished now. They've had to get Soviet aid to defend themselves from the attack from the world's richest country, and now we can stand up to the American people and say, `see? they have all the Soviet aid'. Make no doubt of it, it's the game plan of the Reagan Administration to have a war in Nicaragua, they have been working on this since 1981, they have been stopped by the will of the American people so far, but they're working harder than ever to engineer their war there.

Now, CIA destabilizations are nothing new, they didn't begin with Nicaragua. We've done it before, once or twice. Like the Church committee, investigating CIA covert action in 1975, found that we had run several hundred a year, and we'd been in the business of running covert actions, the CIA has, for 4 decades. You're talking about 10 to 20 thousand covert actions.

CIA apologists leap up and say, `well, most of these things are not so bloody'. And that's true. You're giving a politician some money so he'll throw his party in this direction or that one, or make false speeches on your behalf, or something like that. It may be non-violent, but it's still illegal intervention in other countries' affairs, raising the question of whether or not we are going to have a world in which law, rules of behaviour, are respected, or is it going to be a world of bullies, where the strongest can violate and brutalize the weakest, and ignore the laws?

But many of these things are very bloody indeed, and we know a lot about a lot of them. Investigations by the Congress, testimony by CIA directors, testimony by CIA case officers, books written by CIA case officers, documents gotten out of the government under the freedom of information act, books that are written by by pulitzer-prize-winning journalists who've documented their cases. And you can go and read from these things, classic CIA operations that we know about, some of them very bloody indeed. Guatemala 1954, Brazil, Guyana, Chile, the Congo, Iran, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Equador, Uruguay - the CIA organized the overthrow of constitutional democracies. Read the book Covert Action: 35 years of Deception by the journalist Godswood. [6]

Remember the Henry Kissinger quote before the Congress when he was being grilled to explain what they had done to overthrow the democratic government in Chile, in which the President, Salvador Allende had been killed. And he said, `The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves'.



"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves"-Kissinger

We had covert actions against China, very much like what we're doing against Nicaragua today, that led us directly into the Korean war, where we fought China in Korea. We had a long covert action in Vietnam, very much like the one that we're running in Nicaragua today, that tracked us directly into the Vietnam war. Read the book, The Hidden History of the Korean War by I. F. Stone. [14] Read Deadly Deceits by Ralph McGehee [9] for the Vietnam story. In Thailand, the Congo, Laos, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Honduras, the CIA put together large standing armies. In Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, the Congo, Iran, Nicaragua, and Sri Lanka, the CIA armed and encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up and fight. The first thing we began doing in Nicaragua, 1981 was to fund an element of the Mesquite indians, to give them money and training and arms, so they could rise up and fight against the government in Managua. In El Salvador, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Uganda and the Congo, the CIA helped form and train the death squads.

Hmong minority army in Laos

In El Salvador specifically, under the `Alliance for Progress' in the early 1960's, the CIA helped put together the treasury police. These are the people that haul people out at night today, and run trucks over their heads. These are the people that the Catholic church tells us, have killed something over 50,000 civilians in the last 5 years. And we have testimony before our Congress that as late as 1982, leaders of the treasury police were still on the CIA payroll.

Then you have the `Public Safety Program.' I have to take just a minute on this one because it's a very important principle involved that we must understand, if we're to understand ourselves and the world that we live in. In this one, the CIA was working with policeforces throughout Latin America for about 26 years, teaching them how to wrap up subversive networks by capturing someone and interrogating them, torturing them, and then getting names and arresting the others and going from there. Now, this was such a brutal and such a bloody operation, that Amnesty International began to complain and publish reports. Then there were United Nations hearings. Then eventually our Congress was forced to yield to international pressure and investigate it, and they found the horror that was being done, and by law they forced it to stop. You can read these reports -- the Amnesty International findings, and our own Congressional hearings.

These things kill people. 800,000 in Indonesia alone according to CIA's estimate, 12,000 in Nicaragua, 10,000 in the Angolan operation that I was sitting on in Washington, managing the task force. They add up. We'll never know how many people have been killed in them. Obviously a lot. Obviously at least a million. 800,000 in Indonesia alone. Undoubtedly the minimum figure has to be 3 million. Then you add in a million people killed in Korea, 2 million people killed in the Vietnam war, and you're obviously getting into gross millions of people...

We do not parachute teams into the Soviet Union to haul families out at night and castrate the father with the children watching, because they have the Bomb, and a big army, and they would parachute teams right back into our country and do the same thing to us - they're not scared of us. For slightly different reasons, but also obvious reasons, we don't do these things in England, or France, or Germany, or Sweden, or Italy, or Japan. What comes out at you immediately is that these 1 to 3 million direct victims, the dead, and in these other wars, they're people of the third world. They're people of the Metumba mountains of the Congo, and the jungles of Southeast Asia, and now the hills of northern Nicaragua - 12,000 peasants. We have not killed KGB or Russian army advisors in Nicaragua. We are not killing Cuban advisors. We're not killing very many Sandinistas. The 12,000 that we have killed in Nicaragua are peasants, who have the misfortune of living in a CIA's chosen battlefield. Mostly women and children. Communists? Far, far, far more Catholics than anything else.

Now case officers that do these things in places in Nicaragua, they do not come back to the U.S. and click their heels and suddenly become responsible citizens. They see themselves - they have been functioning above the laws, of God, and the laws of man - they've come back to this country, and they've continued their operations as far as they can get by with them. And we have abundant documentation of that as well. The MH-Chaos program, exposed in the late 60's and shut down, re-activated by President Reagan to a degree - we don't have the details yet - in which they were spending a billion dollars to manipulate U.S. student, and labor organizations. The MK-ultra program. For 20 years, working through over 200 medical schools and mental hospitals, including Harvard medical school, Georgetown, some of the biggest places we've got, to experiment on American citizens with disease, and drugs.

They dragged a barge through San Francisco bay, leaking a virus, to measure this technique for crippling a city. They launched a whooping cough epidemic in a Long Island suburb, to see what it would do to the community if all the kids had whooping cough. Tough shit about the 2 or 3 with weak constitutions that might die in the process. They put light bulbs in the subways in Manhattan, that would create vertigo - make people have double vision, so you couldn't see straight - and hid cameras in the walls - to see what would happen at rush hour when the trains are zipping past - if everybody has vertigo and they can't see straight and they're bumping into each other.
Colonel White - oh yes, and I can't not mention the disease experimentations - the use of deadly diseases. We launched - when we were destabilizing Cuba for 7 years - we launched the swine fever epidemic, in the hog population, trying to kill out all of the pigs - a virus. We experimented in Haiti on the people with viruses.

I'm not saying, I do not have the slightest shred of evidence, that there is any truth or indication to the rumor that the CIA and its experimentations were responsible for AIDS. But we do have it documented that the CIA has been experimenting on people, with viruses. And now we have some deadly, killer viruses running around in society. And it has to make you wonder, and it has to make you worry.

Colonel White wrote from retirement - he was the man who was in charge of this macabre program - he wrote, `I toiled whole-heartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill, cheat, steal, rape and pillage with the blessings of the all highest?' Now that program, the MK-ultra program, was eventually exposed by the press in 1972, investigated by the Congress, and shut down by the Congress. You can dig up the Congressional record and read it for yourself.
"I toiled whole-heartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill, cheat, steal, rape and pillage with the blessings of the all highest?"- Col. White

There's one book called `In Search of the Manchurian Candidate'. It's written by John Marks, based on 14,000 documents gotten out of the government under the Freedom of Information Act. Read for yourselves. The thing was shut down but not one CIA case officer who was involved was in any way punished. Not one case officer involved in these experimentations on the American public, lost a single paycheck for what they had done.

The Church committee found that the CIA had co-opted several hundred journalists, including some of the biggest names in the business. The latest flap or scandal we had about that was a year and a half ago. Lesley Gelb, the heavyweight with the New York Times, was exposed for having been working covertly with the CIA in 1978 to recruit journalists in Europe, who would introduce stories, print stories that would create sympathy for the neutron bomb.

The Church committee found that they had published over 1,000 books, paying someone to write a book, the CIA puts its propaganda lines in it, the professor or the scholar gets credit for the book and gets the royalties. The latest flap we had about that was last year. A professor at Harvard was exposed for accepting 105,000 dollars from the CIA to write a book about the Middle East. Several thousand professors and graduate students co-opted by the CIA to run its operations on campuses and build files on students.

And then we have evidence - now, which has been hard to collect in the past but we knew it was happening - of CIA agents participating, trying to manipulate, our elections. FDN, Contra commanders, traveling this country on CIA plane tickets, going on television and pin-pointing a Congressional and saying, `That man is soft on Communism. That man is a Sandinista lover.' A CIA agent going on television, trying to manipulate our elections. All of this, to keep America safe for freedom and democracy.

In Nicaragua the objective is to stop the Cuban and Soviet take-over, we say. Another big operation in which we said the same thing was Angola, 1975, my little war. We were saying exactly the same thing - Cubans and Soviets.

Now I will not going into great detail about this one tonight because I wrote a book about it, I detailed it. And you can get a copy of that book and read it for yourselves. I have to urge you, however - please do not rush out and buy a copy of that book because the CIA sued me. All of my profits go to the CIA, so if you buy a copy of the book you'll be donating 65 cents to the CIA. So check it out from your library! If you have to buy a copy, well buy one copy and share it with all your friends. If your bookstore is doing real well and you want to just sort of put a copy down in your belt...

I don't know what the solution is when a society gets into censorship, government censorship, but that's what we're in now. Do the rules change? I just got my book back, my latest book back from the CIA censors. If I had not submitted it to them, I would have gone to jail, without trial - blow off juries and all that sort of thing - for having violated our censorship laws....

So now we have the CIA running the operation in Nicaragua, lying to us, running 50 covert actions, and gearing us up for our next war, the Central American war. Let there be no doubt about it, President Reagan has a fixation on Nicaragua. He came into office saying that we shouldn't be afraid of war, saying we have to face and erase the scars of the Vietnam war. He said in 1983, `We will do whatever is necessary to defeat the Sandinistas. Admiral LaRoque, at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, says this is the most elaborately prepared invasion that the U.S. has ever done. At least that he's witnessed in his 40 years of association with our military.

We have rehearsed the invasion of Nicaragua in operations Big Pine I, Big Pine II, Ocean Venture, Grenada, Big Pine III. We have troops right now in Honduras preparing. We've built 12 bases, including 8 airstrips. Obviously we don't need 8 airstrips in Honduras for any purpose, except to support the invasion of Nicaragua. We've built radar stations around, to survey and watch. Some of these ventures have been huge ones. Hundreds of airplanes, 30,000 troops, rehearsing the invasion of Nicaragua.

And of course, Americans are being given this negative view of these evil Communist dictators in Managua, just two days drive from Harlington, Texas. (They drive faster than I do by the way). I saw an ad on TV just two days ago in which they said that it was just two hours from Managua to Texas. All of this getting us ready for the invasion of Nicaragua, for our next war.

Most of the people - 75% of the people - are polled as being against this action. However, President Eisenhower said, `The people of the world genuinely want peace. Someday the leadership of the world are going to have to give in and give it to them'. But to date, the leaders never have, they've always been able to outwit the people, us, and get us into the wars when they've chosen to do so.
People ask, how is this possible? I get this all the time.... Americans are decent people. They are nice people. And they're insulated in the worlds that they live in, and they don't understand and we don't read our history. History is the history of war. Of leaders of countries finding reasons and rationales to send the young men off to fight.

In our country we talk about peace. But look at our own record. We have over 200 incidents in which we put our troops into other countries to force them to our will. Now we're being prepared to hate the Sandinistas. The leaders are doing exactly what they have done time and again throughout history. In the past we were taught to hate and fight the Seminole Indians, after the leaders decided to annex Florida. To hate and fight the Cherokee Indians after they found gold in Georgia. To hate and fight Mexico twice. We annexed Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, part of Colorado, and California.
In each of these wars the leaders have worked to organize, to orchestrate public opinion. And then when they got people worked up, they had a trigger that would flash, that would make people angry enough that we could go in and do....

We have a feeling that the Vietnam war was the first one in which the people resisted. But once again, we haven't read our history. Kate Richards-O'Hare. In 1915, she said about WW I, `The Women of the U.S. are nothing but brutesalles, producing sons to be put in the army, to be made into fertilizer'. She was jailed for 5 years for anti-war talk.
"The Women of the U.S. are nothing but brutesalles, producing sons to be put in the army, to be made into fertilizer"-Kate O'Hare

The lessons of the Vietnam war for the American people is that it was a tragic mistake.... 58,000 of our own young people were killed, 2 million Vietnamese were killed. We withdrew, and our position wound up actually stronger in the Pacific basin.
You look around this society today to see if there's any evidence of our preparations for war, and it hits you in the face....

'Join the Army. Be all that you can be'. Now if there was truth in advertising, obviously those commercials would show a few seconds of young men with their legs blown off at the knees, young men with their intestines wrapped around their necks because that's what war is really all about.
If there was honesty on the part of the army and the government, they would tell about the Vietnam veterans. More of whom died violent deaths from suicide after they came back from Vietnam then died in the fighting itself.
David Brown, Vietnam vet and former drug addict/alcoholic

Then you have President Reagan.... He talks about the glory of war, but you have to ask yourself, where was he when wars were being fought that he was young enough to fight in them? World War II, and the Korean war. Where he was was in Hollywood, making films, where the blood was catsup, and you could wash it off and go out to dinner afterwards....

Where was Gordon Liddy when he was young enough to go and fight in a war? He was hiding out in the U.S. running sloppy, illegal, un-professional breaking and entering operations. Now you'll forgive my egotism, at that time I was running professional breaking and entering operations....
What about Rambo himself? Sylvester Stallone. Where was Sylvester Stallone during the Vietnam war? He got a draft deferment for a physical disability, and taught physical education in a girls' school in Switzerland during the war.

Getting back to President Reagan. He really did say that `you can always call cruise missiles back'.... Now, you can call back a B-52, and you can call back a submarine, but a cruise missile is different.... When it lands, it goes boom!. And I would prefer that the man with the finger on the button could understand the difference. This is the man that calls the MX a peace-maker. This is the man who's gone on television and told us that nuclear war could be winnable. This is the man who's gone on television and proposed that we might want to drop demonstration [atom] bombs in Europe to show people that we're serious people. This is the man who likens the Contras to the moral equivalents of our own founding fathers. This is the man who says South Africa is making progress on racial equality. This is the man who says that the Sandinistas are hunting down and hounding and persecuting Jews in Nicaragua. And the Jewish leaders go on TV the next day in this country and say there are 5 Jewish families in Nicaragua, and they're not having any problems at all. This is the man who says that they're financing their revolution by smuggling drugs into the U.S. And the DEA says, `It ain't true, it's president Reagan's Contras that are doing it'....

[When Reagan was governor of California, Reagan] said `If there has to be a bloodbath then let's get it over with'. Now you have to think about this a minute. A leader of the U.S. seriously proposing a bloodbath of our own youth. There was an outcry of the press, so 3 days later he said it again to make sure no one had misunderstood him.

Read. You have to read to inform yourselves. Read The Book of Quotes [12]. Read On Reagan: The Man and the Presidency [3] by Ronnie Dugger. It gets heavy. Dugger concludes in his last chapter that President Reagan has a fixation on Armageddon. The Village Voice 18 months ago published an article citing the 11 times that President Reagan publicly has talked about the fact that we are all living out Armageddon today....

[Reagan] has Jerry Falwell into the White House. This is the man that preaches that we should get on our knees and beg for God to send the rapture down. Hell's fires on earth so the chosen can go up on high and all the other people can burn in hell's fires on earth. President Reagan sees himself as playing the role of the greatest leader of all times forever. Leading us into Armageddon. As he goes out at the end of his long life, we'll all go out with him....

Why does the CIA run 10,000 brutal covert actions? Why are we destabilizing a third of the countries in the world today when there's so much instability and misery already?
What you have to understand is the politics of paranoia. The easiest... buttons to punch are the buttons of macho, aggression, paranoia, hate, anger, and fear. The Communists are in Managua and that's just 2 hours from San Diego, CA. This gets people excited, they don't think. It's the pep-rally, the football pep-rally factor. When you get people worked up to hate, they'll let you spend huge amounts of money on arms.

Read The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills. [11] Read The Permanent War Complex by Seymour Melman. [10] CIA covert actions have the function of keeping the world hostile and unstable....
We can't take care of the poor, we can't take care of the old, but we can spend millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize Nicaragua....
Why arms instead of schools? .... They can make gigantic profits off the nuclear arms race because of the hysteria, and the paranoia, and the secrecy. And that's why they're committed to building more and more and more weapons, is because they're committed to making a profit. And that's what the propaganda, and that's what the hysteria is all about. Now people say, `What can I do?'....
The youth did rise up and stop the Vietnam war....

We have to join hands with the people in England, and France, and Germany, and Israel, and the Soviet Union, and China, and India - the countries that have the bomb, and the others that are trying to get it. And give our leaders no choice. They have to find some other way to do business other than to motivate us through hate and paranoia and anger and killing, or we'll find other leaders to run the country.

Now, Helen Caldicott, at the end of her lectures, I've heard her say, very effectively, `Tell people to get out and get to work on the problem.... You'll feel better'....

'What can I do?'.... If you can travel, go to Nicaragua and see for yourself. Go to the Nevada test site and see for yourself. Go to Pantex on Hiroshima day this summer, and see the vigil there. The place where we make 10 nose-cones a day, 70 a week, year in and year out. He [Admiral LaRock] said, `I'd tell them, if they feel comfortable lying down in front of trucks with bombs on them, to lie down in front of trucks with bombs on them.' But he said, `I'd tell them that they can't wait. They've got to start tomorrow, today, and do it, what they can, every day of their lives'.

Notes
[1] Reed Brody. Contra Terror. ??, .
[2] Christopher Dickey. With the Contras. ??, .
[3] Dugger, Ronnie. On Reagan: The Man and the Presidency. McGraw-Hill, 1983.
[4] Eich, Dieter. The Contras: Interviews with Anti-Sandinistas. Synthesis, 1985.
[5] Kinzer, Stephan and Stephen Schlesinger. Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. Doubleday, 1983.
[6] Godswood, Roy (editor). Covert Actions: 35 Years of Deception. Transaction, 1980.
[7] Kwitny, Jonathon. Endless Enemies: America's Worldwide War Against It's Own Best Interests. Congdon and Weed, 1984.
[8] LaFeber, Walter. Inevitable Revolutions; The United States in Central America. Norton, 1984.
[9] McGehee, Ralph. Deadly Deceits: My Twenty-Five Years in the CIA. Sheridan Square, 1983.
[10] Melman, Seymour. The Permanent War Complex. Simon and Shuster, 1974.
[11] Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. Oxford, 1956.
[12] ?? The Book of Quotes. McGraw-Hill, 1979.
[13] Stockwell, John. In Search of Enemies. Norton, 1978.
[14] Stone, I.F. Hidden History of the Korean War. Monthly Review, 1969.
[15] The Americas Watch. The Violations of War on Both Sides.

Popular Posts