From harelb Sun Apr 28 18:35:22 1991 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 17:39:17 -0400 From: harelb (Harel Barzilai) To: cdp!christic@labrea.stanford.edu Cc: harelb Subject: and my reply Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.latin-america,alt.conspiracy Subject: Re: MORE ON JOHN HULL EXTRADITION Summary: Expires: References: <1991Apr27.065047.3782@midway.uchicago.edu> In article kkirksey@eng.auburn.edu (Kenneth B. Kirksey) writes: >In article <1991Apr27.065047.3782@midway.uchicago.edu> harelb@arthur.uchicago.edu (Harel Barzilai) writes: >>In article kkirksey@eng.auburn.edu (Kenneth B. Kirksey) writes: >>>In article <1991Apr26.004057.16210@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> harelb@cabot (Harel Barzilai) writes: >>>> >>>> ********************************************************* >>>> COSTA RICA SEEKS EXTRADITION OF AMERICAN CONTRA-SUPPORTER >>>> ********************************************************* >>>> >>>>Christic Institute Press Release, April 25, 1991 ################################################################## First Ken ridicules the charges... >>>Christic Institute? Didn't a case related to this one get tossed out >>>due to lack of evidence? >>> >>>Anyway, keep up the CI posts. They're funny. (1) based on Christic's names appearing, as I pointed out: >>Findings of the Costa Rican Attorney General's office, the Costa Rican >>Cabinet, etc -- but hey, it's in a Christic post, so we can attack the >>Costa Rican repots by attacking Christic. (you can read the Costa >>Rican report yourself if you want to order it -- see the article) and (2) asking whether the case was dismissed by a judge. A strange lack of knowledge for a true expert: >I have read the Costa Rican reports and found them not terribly convincing, >especially given the names of some of those involved. >I have build up quite a clipping file on the christic institute over the pas >couple of years. [...] >confirmation. I'm big on research and facts that way. ################################################################## At which point *all* the arguments given against Christic are: >Some were second and third hand [information] I never expected 2nd/3rd hand information in a case involving the CIA, drug-running, a terrorist bombing, the contras, gun-running, etc, on an international scale. Our memory of the Costa Rican case well faded in the distant past, it is safe to put the finishing touches with blanket statements, with terms like "leftist" thrown in to induce the remaining stubborn to concede... >The Christic Institute, like so many other left leaning organizations, has >a seems to have a tendency to present as "fact" things that are nothing more >that speculation, or sometimes downright fabrications. We can still forget about Costa Rica: >After reading that story on the La Penca bombing, I was originally on the side >of Christic. Having neither made any sort of effort to present any genuine case against the evident -- in fact so shoddy a job as to have been laughed right off the net if it were not against a "left-leaning" group, the standards of rigor of attacks against which have always been different -- and then with blanket statements dismisses as "unbelievable" charges confirmed by ** The Costa Rican Atty General's office ** The CIa-team working with Hull has not only been repeatedly exposed for their illegal acts, but many have first been named by the Costa Rican Legislative Commission on drug trafficing -- ** --As a result of the Commission's findings, the Costa Rican Cabinet declared Owen, former CIA station Chief Joe Fernandez, former Ambassador Lewis Tambs, North'S, and former National security Advisor John Poindexter *persona non grata* in Costa Rica. ** John Hull is wanted for murder in Costa Rica. ** He has jumped bail and is a fugitive from justice. ** The principal and admitted CIA-operative in question having been placed by InterPol on the Most Wanted list. >[based on the] >facts that I has found, I could not beleive what they were saying, or support >such a group. Everything I have read about Christic since then hand only >convinced me more that I made the right decision. ################################################################## Of course, I'm playing the game I warned again wrt Allen S. and the October Surprise. It is easy to make light of or mismiss out of hand such cases, no mater how strong the evidence, especially when they reveal uncomfortable things -- that the U.S. government, and "covert" operations in particular commit violent, illegal, and terrorist acts, including drug-running, murder, etc, and that "covert" operations are inherently illegal, dangerous, immoral, and anti-democratic. We can go blue in the face referencing and posting evidence here, as in the Case of the October Surpise. Never mind that 5% of the evidence already presented would have sufficed to "convict" the Soviet Union in an idential case (possibly 20% in the case of a more "neutral" country in U.S. political culture.) for no amount of evidence will suffice. Unless of course, the band of liars and fellon running the whole show -- the present and past administration and their official, publically and formally declare that it was true, or that they would be "investigating" -- with someone of the moral fiber of Ed Meese to announce it on Tee-Vee (following an event making such an announcement unavoidable, as the Arab newspaper's report forced the "discovery" of the Iran/Contra Scandal, some 6 months following Christic's suit) -- then American will find the charges credible, and will be outraged, with that outrage controlled in degree and in whom it is focused against by the band of terrorists and crooks in Washingtons, with a little help from their friends (Our Free Press). At which point, it can be said with a high degree of confidnet, the Allens and Kens will tell us (quite truthfully) that they never said outright "The October Surprise did NOT happen" or that the Charges against Hull, and the chrages in the Christic/Avirgan suit in general are "all false" They merely said they were "completely and utterly ridiculous" -- most understandable, given the leftist extremists who made these charges earlier -- with the same amount or evidence and investigative care (more, likely) than that presented by the next Meese Announcement and Congressional investigative Committee, now to be watched and admired by all on TV, and hence with the "spin control" and "politeness" necessary to assure the powers of the Executive, CIA, etc,to commit such criminal acts in the future are secured, with outrage directed safely away from the individuals and more crucially the institutions responsible for these "excesses" -- the common term used for murder, torture, terrorism, drug-running, etc, when committed by our government -- over the past 50 years.