Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america,alt.conspiracy Subject: last re:JOHN HULL EXTRADITION (refs already in ARTICLES [or EMAIL]) References: <1991Apr27.213543.23343@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Sender: Followup-To: alt.activism.d Distribution: Keywords: >>>>>> ********************************************************* >>>>>> COSTA RICA SEEKS EXTRADITION OF AMERICAN CONTRA-SUPPORTER >>>>>> ********************************************************* >>>>>>Christic Institute Press Release, April 25, 1991 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In article kkirksey@eng.auburn.edu (Kenneth B. Kirksey) writes: [odd nubmer of >] In article <1991Apr27.213543.23343@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> harelb@cabot (Harel Barzilai) writes: [even number of >, e.g. 6 above] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>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: > >This statement makes absolutely no sense. Please explain. Someone who has "really gotten in to research" and has "read [most/all] the Costa Rican findings" (paraphrases of N articles ago) -- now doesn't know for sure whether a judge (or know the name of the judge after all of his scholarly investigation) dismissed a case or not? >You do seem to have a problem staying on the subject. We're discussing >the credibility of Christic's case here. No, this started with your saying the POST about the HULL EXTRADITION is FUNNY because of "CI" as you put it. I have presented more evidence about this, for which you request sources I would presume someone like you who has done his own "investigation" would have by now... > I have simply stated that my research into the subject >has left me less than satisfied with Christic's Case. Despite this scholarly work on Ken's part, he requests references for the most BASIC facts about the case, i.e., the findings of, >>** 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 -- or that >>** --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. And asks: >Names and references please. You can understand why I have problems taking >your word on these. So much for Ken's thorough investigation (from which his conclusions about the shortcomings of the investigations of the Costa Rican government and the Christic Institute). He even wants a reference for Hull's being wanted for murder! And this is the man making the critique of the Christic Institute, Honey/Avirgan (wonder if he knows who Honey is?) and Costa Rican investigations. The In These Times article ("SHORT BACKGROUND") I posted as well as the Tony Avirgan ("FULL BACKGROUND") article I posted are worth a look for references, starting with the laters footnotes numbers (1) and (2), including an exact reference to the Costa Rican Public Prosecutor's investigation, should the English copy available from the Christic Institute be considered "contaminated" by them. Since I don't have the time to play these games on the Net, those who missed these articles can email for the references in them and others if they so wish. Those of us with dillusions about government policies causing murder misery and mayhem around the world and here at home have pressing work to do, sometime even more important than Net debate. Clealry, others' time would also be better spent reading the references already posted and looking up some more rather than more debate. ################################################################## >And yet another subject changes to the October Suprise. One would think >that you didn't have much of a case the way you keep digressing from the >subject at hand. We're talking about the Christic Institute, remember. One would think Ken's intelligence is such that this must be a pretended/deliberate "misunderstandding" of the analogy, the same pattern of out-of-hand dismissal of unpleasant facts (until the Offical media pick up the story) But I could be wrong. >Again, I see this thread becoming tiresome. You've presented no references >to back up your claims. Unless you bother to read the articles I posted, 5 and 18 K bytes long respectively. With us "leftists" bein suspect by definition, we see again the usual pattern: accusation first -- "you've presented no references" -- then (if we're lucky) bothering to verify the truth of these accusation; and don't expect a retraction for the original accusation, either from Ken or in any of the dozens of other such cases on the net, e.g. Allen's stating that mainstream news' reporting the October Surprise (a mere decade+ later) is contrary to what "Chomsky's theory predicts," and when the outright falsity of this assertion is noted, he tells us "yes, well, the problem with Chomsky's theory is that explains everything -- some theory!" without a word retracting the fallacious assersions made early about Chomsky's theory. All sides and people(s) make mistakes, but a minimum of honesty is usually a prerequisite for meaningful discussion. >Indeed, it seems from your postings here that you >are the type of person who first makes up his mind on an issue, and then >looks for the facts to back you conclusion. An interesting statement for a person claiming to have conducted his own more careful investigation who turns out not to have the most basic facts about the case, as seen above). > [quotes William F. Buckley] --Harel All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident. --Schopenhauer. Right of labor to strike, have unions etc -- has reached level three, ditto right of women and blacks to vote; Gay/Lesbian rights, has recently passed from level one to two, and is now just beginning to be established in 3 one can add examples