Take Back the Media

“Of course the people do not want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism” Herman Goering-Nazi Leader-Nuremberg Trial

Name:
Location: United States

Sunday, December 17, 2006

1989 Report of Call Boys In the Whitehouse under BUSH sr.

Rare 1989 News Reports: Call boys
in Bush Sr's Whitehouse


You
tube


Saturday, December 16, 2006


 

NBC news report about Sex scandal involving Bush Sr. whitehouse, and
underage male prostitutes. Was not covered on TV much after this.







CBS news report about male prostitutes in Bush Sr's whitehouse.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

More Proof That We Live in a Police State

By Brian Farmer
Published: 2006-12-14 16:20 Email this page | printer friendly version

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:

After almost two years in jail, without access to a lawyer, family, or friends, Jose Padilla will finally be getting his day in court. But the psychological abuse Padilla suffered while in custody has rendered him incapable of assisting in his own defense, according to the psychiatrist who examined him.

Follow this link to the source article: "Why Did They Torture Jose Padilla?"

COMMENTARY:

Whether he is a terrorist or not, Jose Padilla is still an American citizen. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial...." The Eighth Amendment further states that no cruel and unusual punishments are to be inflicted. Clearly, Jose Padilla's constitutionally-protected rights have been violated.

Under the so-called "Patriot Act," the President can arbitrarily declare a person an "enemy combatant" and deprive that person of his rights.

The definition of a police state is "a political unit characterized by repressive government control of political economic, and social life, usually by an arbitrary exercise of power in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

BrianFarmer.jpg
Brian Farmer

WHY HAVE PILOTS AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS FROM 911 BEEN SILENCED




Boston Air Traffic
Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job



Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures
should have been enacted as normal

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, December 14, 2006


A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his
assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the
Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking
to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin
Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced
to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.


A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late
yesterday by the Pilots
For 9/11 Truth
organization.





After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous
FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston
Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center
when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his
conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and
what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure,
he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they
could represent nothing other than an inside job.


"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within
quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that
it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses,
whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four
or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because
when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information
on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where
the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal
protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.









Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always
ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal
of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had
also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace
and other emergency procedures.


"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA
was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their
own protocols," he stated.


Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being
intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had
occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no
way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.


He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft
protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating
procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how
far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without
the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.





"What you do is you don't wait for the judge, jury and executioner
to prove it's an emergency, if things start to go wrong you have the
authority to simply say I am going to treat this craft as if it is an
emergency, because if everybody's wrong then fifteen minutes later no
big thing."



Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by
NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the
real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a
hijacking is even confirmed.


He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was
confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center
coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and
knew of the hijacking.


"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's
Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."



"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone,
neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone
until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere
along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact
was at this particular time," said Hordon.


"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people
off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did
immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we
do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."



Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight
11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively
watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity
as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to
supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.


"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures
which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC
(NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.


This highlights the absurdity of Dulles controllers mistaking Flight
77 for a fighter jet as it approached Washington as was reported, and
the plane's over 40 minute uninterrupted journey to the Pentagon after
a hijack was confirmed.


Hordon debunked the recent Vanity
Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response
as a consequence of
confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates
to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible
to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.



"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to
us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually
tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after
it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he
said.


"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the
bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked
all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon,
pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried
insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down
because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and
the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point
of hijacking to the impact on their targets.


This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete
access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of
a conversation
between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was
ordered to be shredded
, because if studies of that evidence were
undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the
attack.


"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications
and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint
and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this
really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell
not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to
hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.



Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens
of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true
story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.

Booming Saudi Arms Buying Leads Middle East Arms Market

OHHHHH, OH SO THIS IS WHY DICK CHENEY WAS MEETING THE SAUDIS ABOUT THEM BUYING UP ARMS FROM THE US COMPANIES SO HE AND OTHERS CAN REPOSITION THEIR INVESTMENTS.......LETS WAIT AND SEE HOW THESE COMPANIES TICKER GOES UP IN THE NEXT 2-3 YEARS.

Space War
Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Awash in a sea of petrodollars, Saudi Arabia is expected to spend tens of billions of dollars in the coming years revamping its military forces, according Forecast International's most recent Middle East defense market analysis.
"The Saudis are essentially engaged in a whole-scale overhaul of the structure of the regular armed forces, and a major upgrade of the paramilitary National Guard, which is the prime internal security force," said Tom Baranauskas, Forecast International's Middle East analyst. From best initial estimates, the Saudis will be spending about $40 billion on these procurements, but the total could go as high as $60 billion.

Signed or pending big ticket programs include Typhoon fighters for the Air Force, helicopters for all of the services, armored vehicles for the National Guard, new frigates for the Navy, and a multibillion-dollar security barrier for the entire length of the border. Notably, the Saudis are spreading the wealth around, with British, French and U.S. suppliers looking to benefit the most from the arms-buying spree. The intent is to prevent the country from becoming dependent on any one supplying nation.

The internal security sector will claim a healthy portion of the Saudi procurements, with orders to modernize the National Guard expected to reach some $5.8 billion. This reinforces a regional trend that began several years ago.

The shift in focus toward security spending reflects growing concerns over the region's burgeoning instability, ranging from the civil war in Iraq to the rise of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, the persistent violence between Israel and the Palestinians, and the growing military power of Iran.

The threat from Iran could spark yet another war in the region, given Iran's development of long-range missiles capable of reaching Israel, and Israel's threat to stage a pre-emptive strike should Iran persist in developing nuclear warheads. It is telling that Persian Gulf nations had contemplated defense spending cutbacks following Saddam Hussein's ouster in 2003, but have since reconsidered.

Given the various security threats, the region is expected to continue to constitute a high-value defense market. Forecast International has raised its forecast figures for this market significantly from last year's. Its projections show regional military spending topping out at $86.5 billion in 2008 and then easing slightly to about $82.9 billion by 2011. Not surprisingly, Saudi defense spending constitutes a sizable portion of the increase in forecast spending. However, Baranauskas said that "much of the arms buying in the region occurs 'off-the-books,' and there is no way to determine how much of the defense spending falls into this category. The region's governments are notorious for their lack of transparency, and in many cases official numbers should be regarded with skepticism."

Senator Who Suffered Stroke Supports Anthrax Investigation

Kevin Dobbs
Argus Leader
Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Note: The following report was published before it was announced today that Senator Johnson had suffered a stroke.

A cadre of U.S. lawmakers fired off a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pleading for new information on the five-years-and-running investigation into the 2001 anthrax scare that shocked South Dakota when then-Sen. Tom Daschle's office was caught up in the attacks.

The bipartisan letter, signed by 33 members of Congress this week, extends an effort by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., to persuade the FBI to release an update on the case.

"In one of the most important terrorism investigations ever undertaken by the FBI, it is unbelievable to me that members of Congress, some who were targets of the anthrax attacks, haven't been briefed for years," Grassley said.

The FBI, citing concern about information in the unsolved case being leaked to the public, has refused lawmakers' requests.

Grassley and the other lawmakers said in the letter that leaked information is a valid concern, but they maintained it does not justify keeping lawmakers in the dark. They said they need the information to perform their required oversight of the FBI's performance.

Congress "cannot be cut-off from detailed information about the conduct of one of the largest investigations in FBI history," the lawmakers wrote to Gonzales. "That information is vital in order to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch."

South Dakota's congressional delegation did not sign the letter, but Sens. Tim Johnson and John Thune said they support their colleagues' request.

"After five years, the FBI should be able to pass on some information to Congress on the progress they have made in finding the terrorists responsible for this attack," Johnson said Tuesday. "This kind of bi-partisan demand for checks and balances should not be ignored, and will hopefully move the investigation into this case forward."

The attacks - linked to the deaths of five people in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on Washington and New York - brought terrorism to the door of South Dakotans when, in October 2001, anthrax arrived in a sealed envelope at Daschle's office in the Hart Building in Washington. It came with a message that said "you die now."

Daschle said earlier this year the FBI had denied several of his requests to be briefed on the status of the investigations.

In his recent book, "Like No Other Time," Daschle said he felt helpless in the immediate weeks after the anthrax attacks, but he also wrote that he had "made peace of mind with this kind of threat."

FBI agents continue to work the case, and lawmakers say it is time they are brought into the fold to assess whether federal investigators are doing their jobs effectively.

"While I understand the need for caution given the ongoing criminal investigation, Congress has the right to conduct oversight and the FBI should be more forthcoming with this case," Thune said Tuesday.

Wire services contributed to this report.

Anthrax Attacks Part of Govt Bio Warfare Program


US
Government Biological Weapons Legislator Says 2001 Anthrax Attacks
Part Of Government Bio-warfare Program

Expert says FBI covered up the plot
to attack Congress which may have been perpetrated by the same people
who carried out the 9/11 attacks


Steve Watson

Infowars.net

Wednesday, December 13, 2006



The real culprits behind the 2001 anthrax attack
on Congress were most likely US government scientists at the army's
Ft. Detrick, MD., bioterrorism lab according to a former government
biological weapons legislator and University of Illinois Professor.


Dr Franics A. Boyle says the FBI covered up these
facts and has also quite clearly stated that he doubts the official
government story that 19 arabs with boxcutters perpetrated the
attacks of 9/11.


Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner
and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting
the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American
implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992),
and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor
Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois,
Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as
a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.


"I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind
these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the United States Congress
in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were US government-related
scientists involved in a criminal US government bio-warfare program,"
Boyle says in his new book Biowarfare
and Terrorism
.






Only a "handful" of scientists had the
means to carry out the attack, yet the FBI ordered the destruction
of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, IA., from which the
Ft. Detrick lab got its pathogens. Boyle states that only top
level scientists with access to "moonsuits" that enabled
them to safely process and manufacture super-weapons-grade anthrax
could have carried out the attacks.


"The trail of genetic evidence would have led
directly back to a secret but officially-sponsored US government
biowarfare program that was illegal and criminal" , Boyle
said. However, impartial scientists were not allowed to perform
genetic reconstruction of the anthrax found in letters mailed
to Senators Daschle (D-S.D.) and Patrick Leahy, (D -Vt.) in late
2001.


We have previously
exposed
how leading members of the Bush administration
and White House staff were on the anthrax-treating antibiotic
Cipro up to six weeks before the attacks occurred. It is also
documented that the anthrax strain used was military grade. This
was widely reported in 2002 in publications such as the New
Scientist
. However, this fact has recently been totally
changed
with the FBI now suggesting that common anthrax,
not military grade anthrax was used.



The whole thing "appears to be a cover-up orchestrated
by the FBI." according to Dr Boyle.


Boyle goes on to inquire, "Could the real culprits
behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the immediately
following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove
to be the same people? Could it truly be coincidental that two
of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks
- Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage
of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the
federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to US
citizens and institutions?"


Clearly Dr Boyle has a hard time believing what the government
says happened on 9/11.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Get 5 months free at Prison
Planet.tv
when you sign up for our Christmas Special!
TV shows,

conference footage, field reports,
protest clips, in studio camera and audio interviews, books,

every Alex Jones film, dozens of other documentaries! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The anthrax attacks cleverly (or coincidentally
if you choose to believe) coincided with the terrorist atrocities
and sent Congress into shut down for days. Immediately after re-convening
the liberty smashing PATRIOT Act was passed without even being
read by members.


In addition, the Bush administration moved to begin
planning a major
$10 billion expansion
of the bioweapons labs at Fort
Detrick. Residents in the area have fiercely campaigned against
the expansion.


In a forward to Boyle's book, Dr. Jonathan King,
Professor of Molecular Biology at M.I.T. and a founder of the
Council for Responsible Genetics, says the government's "growing
bioterror programs represent a significant emerging danger to
our own population."



Those who cannot fathom how or why the government
could kill almost 3000 citizens, including police and firefighters,
on 9/11 need look no further than the anthrax attacks, which provide
solid proof that criminal elements within the structure of authority
are in operation and don't give a damn about who they kill to
achieve their goals of social control.



There are countless examples of the US government
having illegally tested and used bio-weapons on its own citizens.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, The Program F fluoride study, Project
SHAD which we are now learning used live toxins and chemical poisons
on American servicemen on American soil, spraying clouds of bacteria
over San Francisco, releasing toxic gases into the New York subway,
holding open-air biological and chemical weapons tests in at least
four states in the 1960s, the list goes on.


The Pentagon's biowarfare program has long been
in operation and US citizens have never been spared from experimentation.
To get more of a taste for just how hideous the secret biowarfare
program is, click
here
and go to Rense.com, which has a lengthy (but
by no means a comprehensive) list of previous known bio-experiments
conducted on the population by the criminal elite.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Russia to deliver nuclear fuel to Iran

AFP
Tuesday, December 12, 2006


Moscow plans on delivering fuel in March for Iran's first atomic power plant amid heightened international debate over Tehran's nuclear program, Russian state monopoly Atomstroiexport told Russian news agencies Tuesday.

"We plan to launch preliminary work in January to deliver fuel in March," Sergei Shmatko, head of Atomstroiexport, was quoted by the Ria Novosti agency as saying.

Shmatko said the nuclear fuel would be delivered on schedule to the southern plant of Bushehr, six months before its expected opening in September 2007.

Moscow clinched a deal with Tehran in 1995 to build Bushehr, but the project has faced delays -- partly due to suspicions by Washington that Tehran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Under a separate agreement signed last year, Russia would provide nuclear fuel to Iran and ferry back spent fuel to prevent it from being diverted into a weapons program.

Tehran also consented to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor Bushehr and the fuel deliveries.

Russia is part of a group of six world powers mulling United Nations sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

Iran Agrees To Replace Dollar With Euro

IRNA
Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) is agreable to replacing the US dollar with the euro in Iranian foreign transactions, said a member of the Majlis Planning and Budget Commission, Morteza Tamaddon, on Saturday.

Speaking to IRNA, the MP said the move is part of Iran's general policy towards the West as dependence on the US currency would have negative consequences for Iran in the long-term.

Reducing Iran's dependence on the US dollar would eventually make the country less vulnerable to the dollar, argued the MP.

Referring to the move as a "positive approach," Tamaddon said Iran's decision to replace the US dollar with the euro was not politically motivated.

"It has nothing to do with political issues. Even European countries have concluded that they should replace the US dollar with a stronger currency," said the MP.

He said that although some problems could arise as a result of the shift to the euro, Tehran would enjoy monetary flexibility in its international transactions.

In case the West pulls through with its planned economic sanctions on Iran, Tamaddon said the country would still have access to its monetary accounts based on the euro.

Iran's minister of finance announced last week that the government had decided to replace the US dollar with the euro in its international transactions.

He said that the move was in response to the Bush administration's hostile policies towards Iran.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Rumsfeld: ‘It Is Not A War on Terror’

AFP
Tuesday, December 12, 2006

In a new interview posted on Townhall.com, conservative columnist Cal Thomas asks outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?” Rumsfeld offers a remarkable response:

I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. I don’t mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.

Rumsfeld not only used the phrase ‘war on the terror’; he repeatedly criticized anyone who questioned the validity of it.

– “[T]here has been comment in the press of late about whether or not we’re even engaged in a war on terror, or whether our purpose might be better explained in a different manner. Let there be no mistake, we are a nation at war, against terrorist enemies who are seeking our surrender or our retreat. It is a war.” [8/2/05]

– “I would like to say that Iraq is really one of the battle grounds in the global war on terror.” [4/24/06]

– “Iraq is the central front of the global war on terror.” [12/16/05]

– Q: My argument is that we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. Back me up a little bit on that, Mr. Secretary.

RUMSFELD: Well, you’re absolutely right. [8/3/04]

– “[Iraq is] part of the global war on terror; let there be no doubt.” [9/10/03]

– Q: Do you feel that the Administration by turning its attention onto Iraq would be leaving the job undone a bit too soon?
RUMSFELD: Oh, no. Indeed that’s part of the global war on terrorism, Iraq. [12/4/02]

Rumsfeld’s outgoing memo on Iraq - which calls for a “major adjustment” in strategy - makes no mention of the one thing he would have “done differently” on Iraq.

Salon’s War Room has more.

KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

AP

Dec. 12: David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and former state representative in Louisiana, attends a conference on the Holocaust in Tehran.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference questioning the Holocaust came to an end Tuesday, but not before hearing former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke say that gas chambers were not used to kill Jews.

"The Zionists have used the Holocaust as a weapon to deny the rights of the Palestinians and cover up the crimes of Israel," Duke told a gathering of nearly 70 "researchers" in Tehran at Ahmadinejad's invitation.

"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said Duke, a former state representative in Louisiana who twice ran for president.

"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.

Also at the end of the conference, Mohammad Ali Ramini, an Ahmadinejad adviser who has called the Holocaust a "myth," announced that he will chair a committee to find "the truth on the genocide of Jews."

Other members of the committee will be Robert Fuerisson, a French professor who denies the existence of gas chambers, along with Holocaust deniers from Syria, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the United States and Bahrain.

(Story continues below)

Advertise Here
Advertisements
Related

*
Stories
o Vatican: Memory of Holocaust 'Must Remain' as Warning
o Germany Condemns Iranian Plan to Host Holocaust Conference
o Iran Offers to Help U.S. Withdraw From Iraq

Tuesday's speeches included Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, a former interior minister and one of the founders of Lebanese militia Hezbollah, who labeled the Holocaust as a "tale."

"All the studies and research carried out so far have proven that there is no reason to believe that the Holocaust ever occurred and that it is only a tale," he stated.

Austrian historian Wolfgang Froehlich, who served a two-year jail sentence in his home country for denying the Holocaust, did not read out his speech — which was handed out to participants — for fear of being jailed again. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in a dozen European countries, including Austria, where British historian David Irving was jailed in February for three years for denying the Holocaust.

Nabil Soleiman, an adviser to the ministry of religious affairs in Syria, said, "If the Holocaust ever occurred, it was a conspiracy against the Arab-Islamic world as today the Middle East is still paying the consequences."

Ahmadinejad opened Tuesday's session by thanking God that the Zionist regime was declining, telling conference participants, “its lifetime will be over and their interests as well as reputation will be endangered,” the Islamic Republican News Agency reported.

International condemnation continued to pour in against the government-sponsored conference in Tehran, which has drawn Holocaust deniers from around the world.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was "shocking beyond belief" and called the conference "a symbol of sectarianism and hatred."

He said he saw little hope of engaging Iran in constructive action in the Middle East, saying, "I look around the region at the moment, and everything Iran is doing is negative."

The United States, which also condemned the gathering, has been considering whether to open a dialogue with Iran to get its help in calming neighboring Iraq. President George W. Bush has so far refused to approach Iran, accusing it of backing terrorism.

The White House condemned the gathering of Holocaust deniers in Tehran as "an affront to the entire civilized world as well as to the traditional Iranian values of tolerance and respect."

A statement from press secretary Tony Snow noted the meeting coincided with International Human Rights Week, which renews the pledges of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted in the wake of World War II atrocities.

"The Iranian regime perversely seeks to call the historical fact of those atrocities into question and provide a platform for hatred," Snow said.

Earlier this year, Ahmadinejad described the Holocaust as a "myth" that has been used to impose the state of Israel on the Arab world and called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"Ahmadinejad's Holocaust comment opened a new window in international relations on this issue. Twenty years ago, it was not possible to talk about [the] Holocaust and any scientific study was subject to punishment. This taboo has been broken, thanks to Mr. Ahmadinejad's initiative," Georges Theil of France told conference delegates on Tuesday.

Theil was convicted earlier this year in France for "contesting the truth of crimes against humanity" after he said the Nazis never used poison gas against Jews.

Michele Renouf, an Australian socialite supporter of "Holocaust skeptics," called Ahmadinejad "a hero" for opening a debate about the Holocaust. Renouf, a blonde former beauty queen, addressed the audience wearing a green robe and Islamic headscarf, abiding by Iranian law requiring women to cover their hair.

Frederick Toben, an Australian who in 1999 served jail time in Germany for his Holocaust views, told the conference in no uncertain terms that the number of Jews killed in Nazi death camps — an estimated 6 million — is a myth.

''The number of victims at the Auschwitz concentration camp could be about 2,007,'' Toben said. ''The railroad to the camp did not have enough capacity to transfer large numbers of Jews."

Among the 67 participants from 30 countries, who included some of Europe's most prominent Holocaust deniers, were two rabbis and four other members of the fringe group Jews United Against Zionism.

They were dressed in the traditional long black coats and black hats of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The group says the creation of the state of Israel violates Jewish law and argues that the Holocaust should not be used to justify its founding.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Against Torture

ON NOVEMBER 28, A GROUP OF LATIN AMERICAN INTELLECTUALS PRESENTED THE MANIFESTO “AGAINST TORTURE” AT THE FERIA INTERNACIONAL DEL LIBRO IN GUADALAJARA MEXICO TOGETHER WITH A BOOK ON THE USE OF TORTURE IN LATIN AMERICA, AND ALSO IN THE SO CALLED WAR ON TERRORISM: CONTRA LA TORTURA (E. Subirats (editor) -Editorial Fineo, México).

THIS MANIFESTO HAS RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE ATTENTION IN THE SPANISH SPEAKING MEDIA, BUT NONE OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS.

12/11/06 "Information Clearing House" --- - The Congress and administration of the United States of America have just enacted a law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which justifies and promotes the practice of torture through the authorization of coercive interrogations and the infliction of mental and physical pain as an allegedly legal process. This measure has been taken in the name of a Global War on Terror whose purposefully undefined legal status permits, as part of its strategies and tactics, the inclusion not only of true criminals, but also of groups or persons that challenge military occupations or tyrannical governments—which, according to international law, should guarantee them combatant status—along with organizations and movements of civil defense or resistance and ordinary citizens. This legalization of torture is the culmination of a series of global scandals that have made evident its use by the agents and militaries of that same Global War on those whom they dispose of at their discretion, principally in secret prisons and military detention camps.

Torture is an instrument of violence whose purpose is to destroy the moral and physical integrity of human beings, and to nullify their will. The scientific methods of coercive interrogation, as much as the electrical, chemical, physical and psychical techniques of aggression, define one and the same system of violation, degradation and subjection of a person. Only despotic, corrupt and militaristic governments have made use of these dehumanizing practices. Only totalitarian systems have deemed them legitimate. Democratic communities, the moral and religious conscience of the people, and the most elemental humanism have not stopped opposing their atrocity and cruelty.

The implementation of torture deliberately encompasses a wide range of social groups, including the families, the social circles, or the religious communities that are able to provide direct or indirect information about any form of political resistance, be it violent or not. Thus, torture is not only a cruel practice, but rather it institutes an entire system of terror and social coercion. The ultimate objective is to humiliate and dehumanize the communities to which it is applied, to destroy their bonds of solidarity, to empty their confidence in themselves and to liquidate their collective will. It is the sinister expression of an unlimited power over the most intimate spaces of the body and over entire nations, in a world in which every day there is more injustice and inequality; and more desperation.

The militarily organized practice of torture, the sexual abuse, and all other abuses of men and women, clandestine incarcerations and forced disappearances, are not new in the history of the Third World, and of Latin America in particular. It has been instead an historical constant of colonial, neocolonial and neoliberal domination. The system of torture was promoted in a similarly criminal manner under the Cold War banner of yesterday, just as today it is promoted under the slogan of the War on Terror. However, the justification of torture by the North American authorities has consequences even more grave still. Many governments have been served by torture, but they could not legitimize it, nor did they attempt to defend and disseminate liberty with methods of this kind. The current propaganda that promotes torture in the name of the so-called War on Terror offers these governments a sinister alibi for their use of torture past, present and future. Whether legalized or not, torture is an aberrant practice condemned by fundamental principles of humanity.

The crimes against humanity committed during World War II made necessary a profound reformulation of the doctrine of human rights. In the recent past, we have been witness to the reduction, the instrumentalization and the neutralization of these same rights, to the extreme that they are made unrecognizable. The right to conserve the cultural patrimonies of the Third World, the earth, uncontaminated air and water, and the people’s right to autonomy, have all been the object of degenerative renegotiations and redefinitions. A person’s right to physical and moral integrity, to the legal defense of his or her innocence in the face of corporate and state powers, and the right to resist constant territorial violations, violations of the ecosystem and of the individual human life, have been encroached upon time and time again. The propaganda of war and the legitimization of torture crown this regressive process of a threatened humanity.

We appeal to the sacred respect for human dignity, for its physical and spiritual integrity, and for its moral sovereignty. We demand the rejection of torture as an inhuman practice that is contrary to every civilized form of coexistence and is opposed to the true restoration of a damaged peaceable community of the people: in the name of Human Rights.

Monterrey, México, 26 October 2006.

Pilar Calveiro (Political scientist, México, D.F.)

Carlos Castresana (Attorney, Madrid)

Rita Laura Segato (Anthropologist, Brasilia)

Margarita Serje (Anthropologist, Bogota)

Eduardo Subirats (Writer, Princeton)

This manifesto is being supported by the following intellectuals:

Gabriel García Márquez (Nobel Prize in Literature 1982, Aracataca)

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (Nobel Peace Prize 1980, Buenos Aires)

José Saramago (Nobel Prize in Literature 1998, Lisboa)

Juan Goytisolo (Writer, Marrakech)

Javier Acevedo (Lawyer, Honduras)

Mariclaire Acosta Urquidi, (Promoter of Human Rights, Mexico)

Xavier Albó (Researcher, Bolivia)

Rafael Barrios M. (Member of the Colectivo de Abogados “Jose Alvear, Colombia)

Marisa Belausteguigoitia (Professor, Ciudad de México)

Alberto Binder, (Lawyer, Argentina)

Sonis Britto (Member of the Asamblea Permanente de los DD.HH. de La Paz, Bolivia)

Amilton Bueno de Carvalho (Lawyer, Brasil)

Gustavo Cabrera (Serpaj- America Latina)

Sandra Carvalho (Justicia Global, Brasil)

Carlos Correa (Espacio Público, Venezuela)

Benjamin Cuellar (Director of the Instituto de Derechos Humanos de la

Universidad Centroamericana “José Simeón Cañas”, El Salvador).

Enrique del Val (Professor, Mexico)

Ariel Dorfman (Writer, Durham)

Tomás Eloy Martínez (Writer, Rutgers)

Diamela Eltit (Writer, Santiago de Chile)

Lúcio Flávio Pinto (Journalist, Belem do Pará)

Eduardo Galeano (Writer, Montevideo)

Roberto Garreton (Lawyer, Chile)

Rafael Gumucio (Writer, Santiago de Chile)

Noé Jitrik (Writer, Buenos Aires)

Horst Kurnitzky (Writer, México, D. F.)

Julio Maier (Jurist, Argentina)

Hna. Elsie Monge (Executive Director of the Comision Ecumenica de Derechos Humanos, Ecuador)

Carlos Monsivais. (Writer, México)

Alejandro Moreano (Writer, Quito)

Álvaro Mutis (Writer, Bogotá)

Daniel R. Pastor (Writer, Argentina)

Jorge Eduardo Pan (IELSUR, Uruguay)

Mireya del Pino (Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez A.C., México)

Fernando Robles (Painter, Guadalajara, México)

Nery Rodenas (Lawyer, Guatemala)

Pablo Rojas (Coordinadora Nacional DD.HH, Perú)

Pilar Royg (Codehupy, Paraguay)

Emir Sader (Sociologist, Rio de Janeiro)

Judith Salgado (Professor at the Programa Andino de Derechos

Humanos, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Ecuador)

Francisco Soberón (Director of Aprodeh-Perú)

Juan Oberto Sotomayor (Lawyer, Colombia)

Adriana Valdés (Writer, Santiago de Chile)

Luisa Valenzuela (Writer, Buenos Aires)

Susana Villaran (Exboard member of CIDH, Perú)

Luis Villoro (Philosopher, México)

José Woldenberg (Political scientist, México).

Translated by Danielle Carlo

The Americans don't see how unwelcome they are, or that Iraq is now beyond repair

The main purpose of Bush invading Iraq was to retain power at home

By Patrick Cockburn:

12/10/06 "The Independent" -- -- During the Opium Wars between Britain and China in the 19th century, eunuchs at the court of the Chinese emperor had the problem of informing him of the repeated and humiliating defeat of his armies. They dealt with their delicate task by simply telling the emperor that his forces had already won or were about to win victories on all fronts.

For three and a half years White House officials have dealt with bad news from Iraq in similar fashion. Journalists were repeatedly accused by the US administration of not reporting political and military progress on the ground. Information about the failure of the US venture was ignored or suppressed.

Manipulation of facts was often very crude. As an example of the systematic distortion, the Iraq Study Group revealed last week that on one day last July US officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. In reality, it added, "a careful review of the reports ... brought to light 1,100 acts of violence".

The 10-fold reduction in the number of acts of violence officially noted was achieved by not reporting the murder of an Iraqi, or roadside bomb, rocket or mortar attacks aimed at US troops that failed to inflict casualties. I remember visiting a unit of US combat engineers camped outside Fallujah in January 2004 who told me that they had stopped reporting insurgent attacks on themselves unless they suffered losses as commanders wanted to hear only that the number of attacks was going down. As I was drove away, a sergeant begged us not to attribute what he had said: "If you do I am in real trouble."

Few Chinese emperors can have been as impervious to bad news from the front as President George W Bush. His officials were as assiduous as those eunuchs in Beijing 170 years ago in shielding him from bad news. But even when officials familiar with the real situation in Iraq did break through the bureaucratic cordon sanitaire around the Oval Office they got short shrift from Mr Bush. In December 2004 the CIA station chief in Baghdad said that the insurgency was expanding and was "largely unchallenged" in Sunni provinces. Mr Bush's response was: "What is he, some kind of a defeatist?" A week later the station chief was reassigned.

A few days afterwards, Colonel Derek Harvey, the Defence Intelligence Agency's senior intelligence officer in Iraq, made much the same point to Mr Bush. He said of the insurgency: "It's robust, it's well led, it's diverse." According to the US political commentator Sidney Blumenthal, the President at this point turned to his aides and asked: "Is this guy a Democrat?"

The query is perhaps key to Mr Bush's priorities. The overriding political purpose of the US administration in invading Iraq was to retain power at home. It would do so by portraying Mr Bush as "the security president", manipulating and exaggerating the terrorist threat at home and purporting to combat it abroad. It would win cheap military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would hold "khaki" elections in which Democrats could be portrayed as unpatriotic poltroons.

The strategy worked - until November's mid-term elections. Mr Bush was victorious by presenting a false picture of Iraq. It is this that has been exposed as a fraud by the Iraq Study Group.

Long-maintained myths tumble. For instance, the standard stump speech by Mr Bush or Tony Blair since the start of the insurgency has been to emphasise the leading role of al-Qa'ida in Iraq and international terrorism. But the group's report declares "al-Qa'ida is responsible for a small portion of violence", adding that it is now largely Iraqi-run. Foreign fighters, their presence so often trumpeted by the White House and Downing Street, are estimated to number only 1,300 men in Iraq. As for building up the Iraqi army, the training of which is meant to be the centrepiece of US and British policy, the report says that half the 10 planned divisions are made up of soldiers who will serve only in areas dominated by their own community. And as for the army as a whole, it is uncertain "they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda".

Given this realism it is sad that its authors, chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, share one great misconception with Mr Bush and Mr Blair. This is about the acceptability of any foreign troops in Iraq. Supposedly US combat troops will be withdrawn and redeployed as a stiffening or reinforcement to Iraqi military units. They will form quick-reaction forces able to intervene in moments of crisis.

"This simply won't work," one former Iraqi Interior Ministry official told me. "Iraqis who work with Americans are regarded as tainted by their families. Often our soldiers have to deny their contact with Americans to their own wives. Sometimes they balance their American connections by making contact with the insurgents at the same time."

Mr Bush and Mr Blair have always refused to take on board the simple unpopularity of the occupation among Iraqis, though US and British military commanders have explained that it is the main fuel for the insurgency. The Baker-Hamilton report notes dryly that opinion polls show that 61 per cent of Iraqis favour armed attacks on US forces. Given the Kurds overwhelmingly support the US presence, this means three-quarters of all Arabs want military action against US soldiers.

The other great flaw in the report is to imply that Iraqis can be brought back together again. The reality is that the country has already broken apart. In Baghdad, Sunnis no longer dare to visit the main mortuary to look for murdered relatives because it is under Shia control and they might be killed themselves. The future of Iraq may well be a confederation rather than a federation, with Shia, Sunni and Kurd each enjoying autonomy close to independence.

There are certain points on which the White House and the authors of the report are dangerously at one. This is that the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki can be bullied into trying to crush the militias (this usually means just one anti-American militia, the Mehdi Army), or will bolt from the Shia alliance. In the eyes of many Iraqis this would simply confirm its status as a US pawn. As for talking with Iran and Syria or acting on the Israel-Palestinian crisis it is surely impossible for Mr Bush to retreat so openly from his policies of the past three years, however disastrous their outcome.

'The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq' by Patrick Cockburn is published by Verso

FUX NEWS: BOMB IRAN 1 DAY BEFORE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE

THIS PROVES AGAIN THE FUX NEWS CREW AND THE NEO-CONS ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS AND DUE THE BIDING OF ISRAEL AT ALL COST....LETS BOMB IRAN 1 DAY BEFORE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE AND PASS THE BUCK TO TH NEXT PRESIDENT....THESE PEOPLE RE CLEARLY SICK AND CAN'T BE TRUSTED NO MATTER WHAT.

Crooks
and Liars



Monday, December 11, 2006


 

Barnes:…and the day before he leavers office—carry out
the military option in Iran. Wipe out their nuclear facilities….

That's just wonderful. Bomb Iran and leave it for the next president
to clean up. That's the type of spot on analysis that makes Fred Barnes
a true American hero. Memo to John Carroll. I wasn't being serious by
calling Fred Barnes a hero.

Olmert appears to admit Israel possesses nuclear weapons



DPA
Monday, December 11, 2006


Jerusalem- In an unprecedented move at odds with 40 years
of deliberate ambiguity, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared
to admit Monday that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, when he
included the country in a list of nuclear states.
In an interview with Germany's Sat 1 television, an excerpt of
which was broadcast in Israel, the prime minister was asked whether
Israel's nuclear arsenal - which until now it has never publicly
admitted to having - undermined the West's objections to a nuclear
Iran.

"Israel is a democracy and does not threaten anyone ... Iran
explicitly, openly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the
map," an agitated Olmert replied.

"Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring
to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?" he
asked, in remarks immediately seized on by some Israeli commentators
as being an admission that the Jewish state does have nuclear
arsenal.

Although long-suspected of possessing nuclear weapons, Israel has
never openly confirmed these suspicions, saying only that it would
not be the first power to introduce atomic weapons to the Middle
East.

Shortly after the Olmert interview was broadcast in Israel, state
television quoted officials in the prime minister's office as saying
that Olmert, when mentioning America, France, Israel and Russia, was
referring to democratic countries, and not to nuclear ones.

Students interrupt Iran president

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING...IRAN MUST BE BECOMING A DEMOCRACY, B/C IN THE US IF YOU SAY DEATH TO THE PRESIDENT, EXPECIALLY WHILE HE IS THERE, WOULD BE PUT IN JAIL, DECLARED A ENEMEY COMBATANT OR WORSE............GOOD JOB FOR THE STUDENTS FOR STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!





December 11, 2006
Story Highlights
• NEW: Group of students interrupt speech by Iran president, agency says
• They chant "death to dictator" before attacking TV crew, report says
• Spokesman for Ahmadinejad's office downplays incident


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian students have staged a rare demonstration against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, setting off firecrackers and burning pictures of him as he delivered a speech at Tehran university, reports said.

Iran's semi-official FARS news agency and a student news Web site reported that a group of students Monday briefly interrupted Ahmadinejad's speech at Amir Kabir University by booing and chanting "Death to the dictator."

A student who attended the speech but did not want to be named confirmed those reports to CNN.

But Iran's official state-run news agency, IRNA, said the students "expressed their views in a cordial atmosphere," and chanted "Down with dictators," which was met with agreement by Ahmadinejad, who denounced the "dictatorships" in the United States and Britain.

A spokesman for Ahmadinejad's office downplayed the incident, saying that the students burned some papers but it was not clear if they were pictures of the president, as others reported.

The spokesman confirmed some firecrackers were set off during the speech, and that students shouted "Death to the dictator" or "dictatorship" but said they could have been referring to London or Washington.

And while there was some pushing and verbal arguments among students in the crowd, the spokesman, said he was present at the speech and saw no scuffles or fisticuffs.

He said some students approached Ahmadinejad after the speech and the president listened to their criticisms and requests, and assured them they would not be harassed or arrested for the incident.

However, an Amir Kabir University student, who witnessed the incident and did not want to be identified, told CNN that the protesting students interrupted Ahmadinejad's speech with slogans, including "Death to the dictator," "Get lost Basijis" -- a reference to right-wing students who support the government -- "Get lost liars" -- referring to the state-run press -- and "Political prisoners must be freed."

The student also said he witnessed the protesters burning pictures of Ahmadinejad, tossing firecrackers, and fighting with the pro-Tehran students.

The student told CNN the protesters were lined up in the back of the auditorium where the speech was held, holding posters of students that they believe are in Iranian prisons, and the pro-Tehran students were grabbing the posters out of their hands.

The pro-Tehran students held posters of Ayatollah Khomenei, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and tried to drown out the protesters with "Death to America" chants and loud clapping -- especially when the TV cameras panned toward the audience -- the student told CNN.
Cameras broken

Many right-wing students from other universities more supportive of the Tehran regime were brought to the speech beforehand, the student said. Several security guards tried to prevent the Amir Kabir students from entering the auditorium, allowing only female students, the student said. But the guards were eventually overcome by a swarm of students, the student said.

According to the student news Web site, ADWAR, the protesters were members of Amir Kabir University's Islamic Students Association, a reformist group that has lost its influence since Ahmadinejad took power last year.

The president's speech was interrupted several times by students, ADWAR reported.

Ahmadinejad responded by accusing the protesting students of having no shame and being on the payroll of the United States, according to ADWAR. But he added that he loved each one of them and said, "You insult me but I will respond to you calmly."

The protesters also broke the cameras of Iranian state TV, according to FARS news agency.

"A small number of who claim there is suppression here are themselves creating a suppressive atmosphere and will not allow the majority to listen," FARS quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

ADWAR said that after Ahmadinejad's Student Day speech, the pro-Ahmadinejad students were waiting for buses to take them back to their universities of Emam Sadeq and Emam Hossein.

Iranian state TV reported on the president's speech, but made no mention of the protest.

On its English-language Web site, IRNA said Ahmadinejad held "sincere talks" with the students and "during the three-hour meeting, representatives of various student groups expressed their views in a cordial atmosphere."

IRNA also reported on the protesting students, but gave the impression the students were not referring to Ahmadinejad as a dictator:

"In response to the students slogans of 'Down with Dictators', the president said, 'We have been standing up to dictatorship so that no one will dare to establish dictatorship in a millennium even in the name of freedom.'

"'Given the scars inflicted on the Iranian nation by agents of the U.S. and British dictatorship, no one will ever dare to initiate the rise of a dictator,' the president said.

Monday, December 11, 2006

A Closing Call for Impeachment

By John Nichols
The Nation


Saturday 09 December 2006

"President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people," Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney explained in remarks prepared to accompany her submission on Friday of articles of impeachment against Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

McKinney, in her last legislative act before leaving the House at the end of her current term, represented not merely a final thrust by the Georgia Democrat against the Bush administration that she has so consistently opposed but a challenge to the new House Democratic leadership to pay more than lip service to its Constitutionally-mandated duty to check and balance the executive branch.

"With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us," continued McKinney, according to a copy of her remarks distributed by the Atlanta Progressive News network. "To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake. Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship. I am not willing to put any political party before my principles. This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded."

There will be many who dismiss McKinney's filing of articles of impeachment against the president and members of his administration as an act of little consequence. The congresswoman has been a controversial figure during six terms in the House, often placing herself well to the left of her own caucus, particularly on issues of presidential accountability. And her impending departure from the chamber means that her resolution will only be a factor in the next Congress if another member takes it up. With incoming-Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling fellow Democrats that they must keep impeachment "off the table," that may not happen in the short term.

But McKinney's move ought not be casually discounted. As a legislative veteran whose service at the state and federal levels goes back almost 20 years, she well understands that the coming investigations of administration wrongdoing could well put impeachment back on the table.

McKinney knows that she speaks for a great many House Democrats who, while they may currently be honoring their leadership's calls for caution on the issue, fully recognize that the president and vice president need to be held to account for their disregard of the rule of law and their Constitutionally-defined responsibilities. Remember that McKinney, who lost a primary runoff earlier this year, was just one of 38 members of the House who cosponsored a resolution submitted last year by Congressman John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who will take charge of the Judiciary Committee in January, to create "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

McKinney speaks, as well, for the 51 percent of Americans who, according to a Newsweek Poll conducted on the eve of the November 7 election, expressed support for impeachment of the president. In that poll, 47 percent of Democrats said that impeachment should be a "top priority" of their party if it took control of the House, as did an intriguing 5 percent of Republicans.

A measure of the pro-impeachment sentiment will be on display this weekend, as activists rally in dozens of communities across the country to express support for sanctioning the president with the Constitutional remedy provided by the founders.

McKinney's impeachment resolution, the last legislation she will introduce as a House member, echoes the concerns that have underpinned the movement to impeach the president and members of his administration: allegations that the White House manipulated intelligence to convince members of Congress and the American people to support going to war in Iraq, the president's approval of an illegal warrantless wiretapping program, seizure of powers and failures to cooperate with Congressional investigations.

Perhaps more importantly, McKinney made clear in the statement she prepared for the Congressional Record that she was concerned not only with presidential wrongdoing but with congressional inaction.

A failure to uphold the delicate system of checks and balances that was put in place by the founders does not occur in isolation. Just as the executive branch pushes the envelope in exceeding its authority, so the Congress must at least to some extent allow the envelope to be pushed.

As a departing member of Congress, McKinney is perhaps freer than most to criticize the House as a whole, and she is doing so with appropriate sternness.

"We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high," read the congresswoman's prepared remarks, which will appear in the Congressional Record next week. "No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable, what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?"

McKinney's answer is an appeal to the people who Thomas Jefferson correctly identified as "the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government."

"To my fellow Americans," declared McKinney, "as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone."

--------

John Nichols's new book, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism, has been hailed by author Gore Vidal as "essential reading for patriots." David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, says: "With The Genius of Impeachment, John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so."

Gary Webb's Death: American Tragedy

By Robert Parry
Consortium News


Saturday 09 December 2006

When Americans ask me what happened to the vaunted U.S. press corps over the past three decades - in the decline from its heyday of the Watergate scandal and the Pentagon Papers to its failure to challenge the Iraq WMD lies or to hold George W. Bush accountable - I often recall for them the story of Gary Webb.

Two years ago, on the night of Dec. 9, 2004, investigative reporter Webb - his career shattered and his life in ruins - typed out four suicide notes for his family, laid out a certificate for his cremation, put a note on the door suggesting a call to 911, and removed his father's handgun from a box.

The 49-year-old Webb, a divorced father of three who was living alone in a rental house in Sacramento County, California, then raised the gun and shot himself in the head. The first shot was not lethal, so he fired once more.

His body was found the next day after movers who were scheduled to clear out Webb's rental house, arrived and followed the instructions from the note on the door.

Though a personal tragedy, the story of Gary Webb's suicide has a larger meaning for the American people who find themselves increasingly sheltered from the truth by government specialists at cover-ups and by a U.S. news media that has lost its way.

Webb's death had its roots in his fateful decision eight years earlier to write a three-part series for the San Jose Mercury News that challenged a potent conventional wisdom shared by the elite U.S. news organizations - that one of the most shocking scandals of the 1980s just couldn't have been true.

Webb's "Dark Alliance" series, published in August 1996, revived the story of how the Reagan administration in the 1980s had tolerated and protected cocaine smuggling by its client army of Nicaraguan rebels known as the contras.

Though substantial evidence of these crimes had surfaced in the mid-1980s (initially in an article that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985 and later at hearings conducted by Sen. John Kerry), the major news outlets had bent to pressure from the Reagan administration and refused to take the disclosures seriously.

Reflecting the dominant attitude toward Kerry and his work on the contra-cocaine scandal, Newsweek even dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

Thus, the ugly reality of the contra-cocaine scandal was left in that netherworld of uncertainty, largely proven with documents and testimony but never accepted by Official Washington, including its premier news organizations, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

But Webb's series thrust the scandal back into prominence by connecting the contra-cocaine trafficking to the crack epidemic that had ravaged Los Angeles and other American cities in the 1980s. For that reason, African-American communities were up in arms as were their elected representatives.

So, the "Dark Alliance" series offered a unique opportunity for the major news outlets to finally give the contra-cocaine scandal the attention it deserved.

Media Resistance

But that would have required some painful self-criticism among Washington journalists whose careers had advanced in part because they had avoided retaliation from aggressive Reagan supporters who had made an art of punishing out-of-step reporters for pursuing controversies like the contra-cocaine scandal.

Also, by the mid-1990s, a powerful right-wing news media had taken shape and was in no mood to accept the notion that President Ronald Reagan's beloved contras were little more than common criminals. That recognition would have cast a shadow over the Reagan Legacy, which the Right was busy elevating into mythic status.

There was the turf issue, too. Since Webb's stories coincided with the emergence of the Internet as an alternate source for news and the San Jose Mercury News was at the center of Silicon Valley, the big newspapers saw a threat to their historic dominance as the nation's gatekeepers for what information should be taken seriously.

Plus, the major media's focus in the mid-1990s was on scandals swirling around Bill Clinton, such as some firings at the White House Travel Office and convoluted questions about his old Whitewater real-estate deal.

In other words, there was little appetite to revisit scandals from the Reagan years and there was strong motive to disparage what Webb had written.

It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack. The Washington Times turned to some ex-CIA officials, who had participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself over the next decade - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the right-wing press. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack."

A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on against Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to weaken on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Nevertheless, Webb was becoming the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants.

"Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb's suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North's emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership.

"Few of the so-called leaders of the movement … really care about the boys in the field," Owen wrote. "THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM." [Capitalization in the original.]

Kurtz and other big-name journalists may have been ignorant of key facts about the contra war, but that didn't stop them from pillorying Gary Webb. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series "fell short of my standards." He criticized the stories because they "strongly implied CIA knowledge" of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. "We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship," Ceppos wrote.

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos's retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury News' continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national "Ethics in Journalism Award" by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

The CIA Probe

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan administration had conducted the contra war.

The CIA's defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Inspector General Hitz's findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz's Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb's allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA's knowledge.

Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras, the so-called "Frogman Case."

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA's weakening defenses.

Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department.

The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan and were implicated in heroin trafficking.

The next breach in the defensive wall was a report by the Justice Department's inspector general Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb's series, Bromwich's report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA's Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by Bromwich, the Reagan administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the crimes.

Bromwich's report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb's series.

The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb's series.

Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses's operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds.

Pena, who was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into contra-cocaine shipments moving through the international airport in El Salvador.

Inspector General Bromwich said secrecy trumped all. "We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport," he wrote.

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries.

Cocaine Crimes & Monica

By fall 1998, Official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning contra-cocaine disclosures in the CIA's Volume Two.

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations throughout the 1980s.

According to Volume Two, the CIA knew the criminal nature of its contra clients from the start of the war against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government.

The earliest contra force, called ADREN or the 15th of September Legion, had chosen "to stoop to criminal activities in order to feed and clothe their cadre," according to a June 1981 draft CIA field report.

ADREN also employed terrorist methods, including the bombing of Nicaraguan civilian planes and hijackings, to disrupt the Sandinista government, the CIA knew. Cocaine smuggling was also in the picture.

According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez and other early contras who would later direct the major contra army, the CIA-organized FDN. Throughout the war, Bermudez remained the top contra military commander.

The CIA later corroborated the allegations about ADREN's cocaine trafficking, but insisted that Bermudez had opposed the drug shipments to the United States which went ahead nonetheless.

The truth about Bermudez's supposed objections to drug trafficking, however, was less clear. According to Volume One, Bermudez enlisted Norwin Meneses, a large-scale Nicaraguan cocaine smuggler, to raise money and buy supplies for the contras.

Volume One had quoted a Meneses associate, another Nicaraguan trafficker named Danilo Blandon, who told Hitz's investigators that he and Meneses flew to Honduras to meet with Bermudez in 1982.

At the time, Meneses's criminal activities were well known in the Nicaraguan exile community. But the FDN commander told the cocaine smugglers that "the ends justify the means" in raising money for the contras.

After the Bermudez meeting, contra soldiers helped Meneses and Blandon get past Honduran police who briefly arrested them on drug-trafficking suspicions. After their release, Blandon and Meneses traveled on to Bolivia to complete a cocaine transaction.

There were other indications of Bermudez's drug-smuggling tolerance. In February 1988, another Nicaraguan exile linked to the drug trade accused Bermudez of narcotics trafficking, according to Hitz's report.

After the contra war ended, Bermudez returned to Managua, where he was shot to death on Feb. 16, 1991. The murder has never been solved.

CIA Drug Asset

Along the Southern Front, in Costa Rica, the drug evidence centered on the forces of Eden Pastora, another leading contra commander. But Hitz discovered that the U.S. government may have contributed to the problem.

Hitz revealed that the CIA put an admitted drug operative - known by his CIA pseudonym "Ivan Gomez" - in a supervisory position over Pastora. Hitz reported that the CIA discovered Gomez's drug history in 1987 when Gomez failed a security review on drug-trafficking questions.

In internal CIA interviews, Gomez admitted that in March or April 1982, he helped family members who were engaged in drug trafficking and money laundering. In one case, Gomez said he assisted his brother and brother-in-law in transporting cash from New York City to Miami. He admitted that he "knew this act was illegal."

Later, Gomez expanded on his admission, describing how his family members had fallen $2 million into debt and had gone to Miami to run a money-laundering center for drug traffickers. Gomez said "his brother had many visitors whom [Gomez] assumed to be in the drug trafficking business."

Gomez's brother was arrested on drug charges in June 1982. Three months later, in September 1982, Gomez started his CIA assignment in Costa Rica. Years later, convicted drug trafficker Carlos Cabezas charged that in the early 1980s, Ivan Gomez was the CIA agent in Costa Rica who was overseeing drug-money donations to the contras.

Gomez "was to make sure the money was given to the right people [the contras] and nobody was taking ... profit they weren't supposed to," Cabezas stated publicly.

But the CIA sought to discredit Cabezas at the time because he had trouble identifying Gomez's picture and put Gomez at one meeting in early 1982 before Gomez started his CIA assignment.

While the CIA was able to fend off Cabezas's allegations by pointing to these discrepancies, Hitz's report revealed that the CIA was nevertheless aware of Gomez's direct role in drug-money laundering, a fact the agency hid from Sen. Kerry's investigation in 1987.

The Bolivian Connection

There also was more about Gomez. In November 1985, the FBI learned from an informant that Gomez's two brothers had been large-scale cocaine importers, with one brother arranging shipments from Bolivia's infamous drug kingpin Roberto Suarez.

Suarez already was known as a financier of right-wing causes. In 1980, with the support of Argentine's hard-line anti-communist military regime, Suarez bankrolled a coup in Bolivia that ousted the elected left-of-center government.

The violent putsch became known as the Cocaine Coup because it made Bolivia the region's first narco-state. Bolivia's government-protected cocaine shipments helped transform the Medellin cartel from a struggling local operation into a giant corporate-style business for delivering cocaine to the U.S. market.

Some of those profits allegedly found their way into contra coffers. Flush with cash in the early 1980s, Suarez invested more than $30 million in various right-wing paramilitary operations, including the contra forces in Central America, according to U.S. Senate testimony by an Argentine intelligence officer, Leonardo Sanchez-Reisse.

In 1987, Sanchez-Reisse said the Suarez drug money was laundered through front companies in Miami before going to Central America. There, other Argentine intelligence officers - veterans of the Bolivian coup - trained the contras.

CIA Inspector General Hitz added another piece to the mystery of the Bolivian-contra connection. One contra fund-raiser, Jose Orlando Bolanos, boasted that the Argentine government was supporting his anti-Sandinista activities, according to a May 1982 cable to CIA headquarters.

Bolanos made the statement during a meeting with undercover Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Florida. He even offered to introduce them to his Bolivian cocaine supplier.

Despite all this suspicious drug activity around Ivan Gomez and the contras, the CIA insisted that it did not unmask Gomez until 1987, when he failed a security check and confessed his role in his family's drug business.

The CIA official who interviewed Gomez concluded that "Gomez directly participated in illegal drug transactions, concealed participation in illegal drug transactions, and concealed information about involvement in illegal drug activity," Hitz wrote.

But senior CIA officials still protected Gomez. They refused to refer the Gomez case to the Justice Department, citing the 1982 DOJ-CIA agreement that spared the CIA from a legal obligation to report narcotics crimes by non-employees.

Instead, the CIA eased Gomez, an independent contractor, out of the agency in February 1988, without alerting law enforcement or the congressional oversight committees.

When questioned about the case nearly a decade later, one senior CIA official who had supported the gentle treatment of Gomez had second thoughts. "It is a striking commentary on me and everyone that this guy's involvement in narcotics didn't weigh more heavily on me or the system," the official acknowledged.

The White House Trail

A Medellin drug connection arose in another section of Hitz's report, when he revealed evidence suggesting that some contra trafficking may have been sanctioned by Reagan's National Security Council.

The protagonist for this part of the contra-cocaine mystery was Moises Nunez, a Cuban-American who worked for North's NSC operation and for two drug-connected seafood importers, Ocean Hunter in Miami and Frigorificos de Puntarenas in Costa Rica.

Frigorificos de Puntarenas was created in the early 1980s as a cover for drug-money laundering, according to sworn testimony by two of the firm's principals - Carlos Soto and Medellin cartel accountant Ramon Milian Rodriguez. Drug allegations were swirling around Moises Nunez by the mid-1980s. At the AP, his operation was one of the targets of our investigation.

Finally reacting to these suspicions, the CIA questioned Nunez on March 25, 1987, about his alleged cocaine trafficking. He responded by pointing the finger at his NSC superiors.

"Nunez revealed that since 1985, he had engaged in a clandestine relationship with the National Security Council," Hitz reported.

"Nunez refused to elaborate on the nature of these actions, but indicated it was difficult to answer questions relating to his involvement in narcotics trafficking because of the specific tasks he had performed at the direction of the NSC. Nunez refused to identify the NSC officials with whom he had been involved."

After this first round of questioning, CIA headquarters authorized an additional session, but then senior CIA officials reversed the decision. There would be no further efforts at "debriefing Nunez."

Hitz noted that "the cable [from headquarters] offered no explanation for the decision" to stop the Nunez interrogation.

But the CIA's Central American task force chief Alan Fiers said the Nunez-NSC drug lead was not pursued "because of the NSC connection and the possibility that this could be somehow connected to the Private Benefactor program [the contra money handled by North]. A decision was made not to pursue this matter."

Joseph Fernandez, who had been the CIA's station chief in Costa Rica, later confirmed to congressional Iran-Contra investigators that Nunez "was involved in a very sensitive operation" for North's "Enterprise." The exact nature of that NSC-authorized activity has never been divulged.

At the time of the Nunez-NSC drug admissions and his truncated interrogation, the CIA's acting director was Robert M. Gates, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Dec. 6, 2006, to be President George W. Bush's new Secretary of Defense.

Miami Vice

The CIA also worked directly with other drug-connected Cuban-Americans on the contra project, Hitz found.

One of Nunez's Cuban-American associates, Felipe Vidal, had a criminal record as a narcotics trafficker in the 1970s. But the CIA still hired him to serve as a logistics coordinator for the contras, Hitz reported.

The CIA also learned that Vidal's drug connections were not only in the past.

A December 1984 cable to CIA headquarters revealed Vidal's ties to Rene Corvo, another Cuban-American suspected of drug trafficking. Corvo was working with anti-communist Cuban, Frank Castro, who was viewed as a Medellin cartel representative within the contra movement.

There were other narcotics links to Vidal. In January 1986, the DEA in Miami seized 414 pounds of cocaine concealed in a shipment of yucca that was going from a contra operative in Costa Rica to Ocean Hunter, the company where Vidal worked.

Despite the evidence, Vidal remained a CIA employee as he collaborated with Frank Castro's assistant, Rene Corvo, in raising money for the contras, according to a CIA memo in June 1986.

By fall 1986, Sen. Kerry had heard enough rumors about Vidal to demand information about him as part of a congressional inquiry into contra drugs. But the CIA withheld the derogatory information. On Oct. 15, 1986, Kerry received a briefing from Alan Fiers, who didn't mention Vidal's drug arrests and conviction in the 1970s.

But Vidal was not yet in the clear. In 1987, the U.S. attorney in Miami began investigating Vidal, Ocean Hunter and other contra-connected entities.

This prosecutorial attention worried the CIA. The CIA's Latin American division felt it was time for a security review of Vidal. But on Aug. 5, 1987, the CIA's security office blocked the review for fear that the Vidal drug information "could be exposed during any future litigation."

As expected, the U.S. Attorney did request documents about "contra-related activities" by Vidal, Ocean Hunter and 16 other entities. The CIA advised the prosecutor that "no information had been found regarding Ocean Hunter," a statement that was clearly false.

The CIA continued Vidal's employment as an adviser to the contra movement until 1990, virtually the end of the contra war.

Honduras Trafficking

Hitz revealed that drugs also tainted the highest levels of the Honduran-based FDN, the largest contra army.

Hitz found that Juan Rivas, a contra commander who rose to be chief of staff, admitted that he had been a cocaine trafficker in Colombia before the war. The CIA asked Rivas, known as El Quiche, about his background after the DEA began suspecting that Rivas might be an escaped convict from a Colombian prison.

In interviews with CIA officers, Rivas acknowledged that he had been arrested and convicted of packaging and transporting cocaine for the drug trade in Barranquilla, Colombia. After several months in prison, Rivas said, he escaped and moved to Central America where he joined the contras.

Defending Rivas, CIA officials insisted that there was no evidence that Rivas engaged in trafficking while with the contras. But one CIA cable noted that he lived an expensive lifestyle, even keeping a $100,000 thoroughbred horse at the contra camp.

Contra military commander Bermudez later attributed Rivas's wealth to his ex-girlfriend's rich family. But a CIA cable in March 1989 added that "some in the FDN may have suspected at the time that the father-in-law was engaged in drug trafficking."

Still, the CIA moved quickly to protect Rivas from exposure and possible extradition to Colombia. In February 1989, CIA headquarters asked that DEA take no action "in view of the serious political damage to the U.S. Government that could occur should the information about Rivas become public."

Rivas was eased out of the contra leadership with an explanation of poor health. With U.S. government help, he was allowed to resettle in Miami. Colombia was not informed about his fugitive status.

Drug Flights

Another senior FDN official implicated in the drug trade was its chief spokesman in Honduras, Arnoldo Jose "Frank" Arana.

The drug allegations against Arana dated back to 1983 when a federal narcotics task force put him under criminal investigation because of plans "to smuggle 100 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from South America."

On Jan. 23, 1986, the FBI reported that Arana and his brothers were involved in a drug-smuggling enterprise, although Arana was not charged.

Arana sought to clear up another set of drug suspicions in 1989 by visiting the DEA in Honduras with a business associate, Jose Perez. Arana's association with Perez, however, only raised new alarms.

If "Arana is mixed up with the Perez brothers, he is probably dirty," the DEA responded.

Through their ownership of an air services company called SETCO, the Perez brothers were associated with Juan Matta Ballesteros, a major cocaine kingpin connected to the murder of a DEA agent, according to reports by the DEA and U.S. Customs.

Hitz reported that someone at the CIA scribbled a note on the DEA cable about Arana stating: "Arnold Arana ... still active and working, we [CIA] may have a problem."

Despite its drug ties to Matta Ballesteros, SETCO emerged as the principal company for ferrying supplies to the contras in Honduras.

During congressional Iran-Contra hearings, FDN political leader Adolfo Calero testified that SETCO was paid from bank accounts controlled by Oliver North. SETCO also received $185,924 from the State Department for ferrying supplies to the contras in 1986.

Hitz found other air transport companies used by the contras implicated in the cocaine trade. Even FDN leaders suspected that they were shipping supplies to Central America aboard planes that might be returning with drugs.

Mario Calero, Adolfo Calero's brother and the chief of contra logistics, grew so uneasy about one air-freight company that he notified U.S. law enforcement that the FDN only chartered the planes for the flights south, not the return flights north.

Hitz found that some drug pilots simply rotated from one sector of the contra operation to another. Donaldo Frixone, who had a drug record in the Dominican Republic, was hired by the CIA to fly contra missions from 1983-85.

In September 1986, however, Frixone was implicated in smuggling 19,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States. In late 1986 or early 1987, he went to work for Vortex, another U.S.-paid contra supply company linked to the drug trade.

Fig Leaf

By the time that Hitz's Volume Two was published in fall 1998, the CIA's defense against Webb's series had shrunk to a fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking.

But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA's own analytical division.

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn't want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. … [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program."

One CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contras hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA's analysts.

Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that "only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking." That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations - serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Nevertheless, although Hitz's report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers. [For more details, see Robert Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth']

On Oct. 10, 1998, two days after Hitz's report was posted at the CIA's Internet site, the New York Times published a brief article that continued to deride Webb but acknowledged the contra-drug problem may have been worse than earlier understood.

Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA's Volume Two.

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-cocaine story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, some of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb's career never recovered.

Unable to find decent-paying work in a profession where his past awards included a Pulitzer Prize, Webb grew despondent. His marriage broke up. By December 2004, he found himself forced to move out of his rented house near Sacramento.

Instead, Webb decided to end his life.

One Last Chance

Webb's suicide offered the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times one more opportunity to set matters right, to revisit the CIA's admissions in 1998 and to exact some accountability on the Reagan-era officials implicated in protecting the contra crimes.

But all that followed Gary Webb's death was more trashing of Gary Webb. The Los Angeles Times ran a graceless obituary that made no mention of the admissions in the CIA's Volume Two and treated Webb like a low-life criminal, rather than a journalist who took on a tough story and paid a high price.

The Times obituary was republished in other newspapers, including the Washington Post. No one reading this obit would understand the profound debt that American history owed to Gary Webb, who deserved the lion's share of the credit for forcing the CIA to make its extraordinary admissions.

Yet, the big media's consistent mishandling of the contra-cocaine scandal in the 1980s and 1990s carried another warning that the nation missed: that the U.S. press corps was no longer capable of reporting complex crimes of state.

That unaddressed danger returned with disastrous results in late 2002 and early 2003 when George W. Bush sold false stories about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction while the major newspapers acted as cheerleaders and accomplices.

At the time of Webb's death on Dec. 9, 2004, the full scope of the Iraq disaster was still not evident, nor was the major press corps ready to acknowledge that its cowardice in the 1980s and its fecklessness in the 1990s were the direct antecedents to its complicity in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Gary Webb had been a kind of canary in the mine shaft. His career destruction in the 1990s and his desperate act of suicide in 2004 were warnings about grave dangers that, if left ignored, would wreak even worse havoc on the United States and the world.

But - on this second anniversary of Webb's death - it should be remembered that his great gift to American history was that he, along with angry African-American citizens, forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any White House: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

It is way past time for that reality - and that gift - to be acknowledged.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & "Project Truth."