Bulletin N°264


2 October 2006
Grenoble, France

Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,

When I was a young man trying to grow up in Texas I remember going rabbit "hunting" one night with a group of guys from my school. It wasn't really my thing, but I went anyway because there was nothing else happening. It was late, like after 10:00 o'clock on a Saturday night, and we all jumped in the back of someone's pickup truck. I owned no gun, but there were plenty of shotguns among us, with rounds of ammunition to spare. There were six or eight of us, as I recall, when we took off for the farm roads not too far away. It wasn't really a hunt, as all we did was drive up and down those lonely dirt roads with the headlights on. When rabbits appeared on the road in front of us they froze with the impact of the truck's headlights. We took aim and fired....

I say "we" because I was with them, but in fact no one would allowe me to use his gun. Not everyone had a shotgun, and they were taking turns killing rabbits, but when I ask for my turn I was put off with an excited: "just a minute" or "it's not your turn yet".... Somehow, when the guns were passed around I was left out. We stopped occasionally to look at the kill. At times it seemed like the whole road in front of us was covered with blood and rabbit fur. Occasionally we would hear the shrill screaming of wounded rabbits in the fields beyond our lights. Some of the dead rabbits which were not too messed up were thrown in the back of the truck to take home.

Eventually, I stopped asking for my turn to shoot rabbits. I wished I hadn't come along. The change in feelings that night is still memorable. I wanted to be part of the gang, to fit in. I asked like the rest of the guys, who didn't have a gun, for my turn to shoot rabbits, but I asked without conviction and I suppose the others felt this. When they saw that they didn't need to hand me their gun because they were enjoying killing rabbits more than I ever could, they ignored me.

I don't mean that they abstracted the relationship to that degree of understanding, but it was obvious that they felt a need the intensity for which I did not share. They were not prepared to compromise their desires to have fun massacring wild rabbits on a dirt road in the middle of a Texas night for some light-weight claim for justice and equality. They simply did not allow me to take my turn. I stepped back and got out of their way. Something strange was happening, a sort of synergy, I suppose: the escalation of all this activity was beginning to frighten me and I remained silent, observing from the shadows at the back of the truck until everyone became bored and we all went home.

This memory of my childhood in Texas comes to mind, I'm not sure exactly why. But as I witness today the aggressive killing machines coming out of the U.S. it does bring back memories. The perceived danger for my own well-being as the "rabbit hunt" progressed was of course one element, but the feeling of futility in trying to find something more interesting to do was also present. I simply had to endure what seemed to be a psychotic episode with no constructive end. All I had learned that night was that I no longer wanted to fit in with that group of guys.

We at CEIMSA have spent a lot of time lately reading and talking about the relationship of strategy to tactics. It seems to us that the current flurry of discussions within the American progressive community over whether or not to associate with "conspiracy theories" around The War of Terror is relevant to this subject. Whether the European imperialists, to take an example from our own early history, actually conspired to eliminate the entire Native Indian population of the Americas or whether they simply started doing it because it was the most expedient thing to do is irrelevant today. They nearly got away with it, and that is a fact. Why they did it is the important question, the answer to which is at the level of strategy and not simply tactics.

Most progressive people today in America would agree that the U.S. government is capable of murdering Americans to achieve a "higher objective". This, after all, is what war is all about: putting your own people in harm's way, where they must kill or be killed, for a "higher goal". Many Americans have been sent to their certain death, but as our recent executives have told us repeatedly, "It was worth it."

And no educated person today doubts that U.S. government officials would lie to them for a "higher purpose," such as national security. Given this predisposition to distrust their government on the part of tens-of-millions of Americans today, why should we not insist that the Bush administration actually ordered the murder of thousands of American civilians in the Twin Towers in order to save the economy by creating a War on Terrorism to replace the now defunct Cold War economy.

Perhaps imaginary national enemies will eventually give rise to real enemies for more nationalist wars, but one can be sure that any signs of resistance will be used for the creation of the indispensable enemy and will be welcomed by the powers that be as a necessary reenactment of the tried and true formula : Tactics against Strategy --all very profitable for some, very costly to many more, but for shareholders in major corporations it is a conflict the outcome of which is always predictable. What is essential for the "winners" in the war economy is that new strategies never get introduced into this grim little "game" --new strategies might actually change the rules that govern this cycle of violence and ultimately deprive the most powerful players of their huge investment profits.

After that rabbit hunt with the guys back in Texas, I began to feel the need for more intimate friendships. Just trying to fit in was no longer satisfying. I began to develop strategies to find intimate relationships which were more rewarding. Each time that I entered into a new relationship it required strategy and tactics to realize my desires, and I received a farely well-rounded education from my experiences with people of different ethnic and social backgrounds. This diversity has enriched my life.

In a way, I left people like George Bush and Dick Cheney back on the dirt road with their pleasures derived from the periodic massacres they organized. It was a dismal mentality on that road that night which I will never forget, where the power of life and death was the ultimate thrill. It's a sexual drive, I'm sure, carrying a loaded gun with all the determination and energy derived from a survival of the species instinct, but its only a virtual reality, a fascist fantasy, and a sad, sad waste of life.

Below you will find 7 items which depict the controversies over the killings of Americans, which lie at the origins of The War on Terror. In my opinion, "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!" still wins the debate.

Item A. is an interview by news reporter George Kenney with former CIA agent-turned-critic, Bill Christison, debunking the conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, D. C. with facts which seem to prove it is not true.

Item B. contains links sent to us by Camille Perrin-Blanc, which offer documentary evidence in both French and English on the origins of Bush's War on Terror.

Item C., from Greg Palast. is a short taken from the new documentary film, American Blackout, which describes the stolen elections of 2004.

Item D., sent to us by Richard Du Boff, is a review of former deputy assistant attorney general, John Yoo's new book, War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror.

Item E. , from the National Security Archive (NSA), contains new documentation on the LETELIER-MOFFITT ASSASSINATION 30 YEARS LATER.

Item F. is the announcement of the latest security measures voted by the U.S. Congress, a 700-mile-long fence separating Mexico from the United States of America.

Finally, item G., is the now famous debate, organized by Democracy Now!, between the conservative journal, Popular Mechanics, and the progressive film makers of Loose Change, on "Debunking 9/11 Myths".

And, as usual, we share with you the enlightening newsletter from author William Blum, Anti-Empire Report :


Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
Université Stendhal
Grenoble, France

P.S. I have attached an announcement of the film CEIMSA will be showing on the Grenoble campus on Thursday night, 12 October, at 6:30.
        If you are in the area, we hope you will attend.


from George Kenney :
Date: Fri, 29 September 2006
Subject: Podcast with Bill Christison

Dear Francis,
   A lot of people have mixed feelings about 9/11, and I know it's difficult for many to think that alternative explanations of what happened (conspiracy theories, so-called) might have merit. So it's important to hear from somebody with a fair amount of gravitas as to why they changed their mind, fairly recently, from an outright dismissal of alternative explanations to extreme skepticism regarding the official story. Whether you've gone through such a shift in thinking yourself or not, you'll probably find it interesting to consider the experience of somebody who has.
   Bill Christison was with the CIA for 28 years. When he retired he was in charge of a shop with over 250 officers -- in my book that put him in the upper reaches of management. Someone, obviously, with a lot of ability. He's been retired now for quite a while, and he's getting up there in years, but his mind is clearly firing on all cylinders and he's put a lot of thought into what he says about 9/11. His is not a frivolous or wild-eyed assessment of things. In my conversation with him we mostly talk about the process of changing one's mind about 9/11, less about the facts in question.
   I hope you have time to listen and that you find it thought-provoking.

Radio Broadcast interview with George Kenney :

Written texts on 9/11 by William Christison :



from Camille Perrin-Blanc :
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006
Subject: 9/11.. Une autre version

Puisqu'on est abreuvé de commémorations, alors ça vaut le coup de prendre le temps d'écouter ce petit film, et de se faire une idée sur les questions qu'il pose :

English version :     http://www.loosechange911.com/

French version :   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-577174447327390558

Voir aussi ce témoignage (bilingue, Fr/Eng) édifiant :


from Greg Palast :
Date : 28 September 2006
Subject : American Blackout -- A Must-See Documentary


[Featuring Cynthia McKinney, Greg Palast, Bernie Sanders, Bob Fitrakis and many others... ]
by Zach Roberts

'm going to start this with a sales pitch: you need to buy this film. No, really. Not because Greg Palast receives second billing but because you must see this film.

American Blackout is the kind of documentary that only comes along every few years. It's the sort of film that changes things -- changes how you think. If there was any justice in this world this film would receive the same buzz and box office that anything that Michael Moore releases gets. Greg Palast told me the film "blew him away" -- this from a man who is almost always underwhelmed by documentaries, especially ones about his field of expertise.
Watch the Trailer

When delving into the voter issue, the media distracts you with all the things it loves to talk about. But you need to forget the hanging chads and forget the malfunctioning machines. They're just a sideshow to the real story. The real story is a lot less sexy, dealing with road blocks, purged voters, 'misplaced' voting machines, uncounted ballots and long lines. This is the Civil Rights Movement all over again but this time there are no great monsters like Bull Connor. The lynchings today are electronic and political... and the freedom riders nowhere to be found.

American Blackout, directed by Guerrilla News Network's Ian Inaba uses a stunning mix of never before seen archive and firsthand interviews. Inaba knows how to make otherwise dull C-Span clips look like something completely new and interesting. He does this by split-screen and zooming so you know who you're supposed to be looking at -- Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, ChoicePoint representatives. You see them lying to a Civil Rights panel, you see them sweat when questioned by Congresswoman McKinney. More... All I can say is that I am stunned that I've never seen this technique used before -- it keeps you interested, on your toes and wanting for more. Yes, you will be wanting to see more of this documentary, these 90 minutes fly past quickly. So do take notes -- there will be a test afterwards -- the 2006 election.

Among the great footage in this documentary is a pan shot of lines of people waiting to vote -- I saw this once before, when I was 13 and apartheid came to an end. South Africa held its first free election and Black voters could be seen in lines that went on for miles. But this is America, we are not a developing democracy and should long have emerged from the dark ages of electoral segregation.

The story of Cynthia McKinney that sews the running thread through the film, is uglier than even I knew. Many only familiar with the Congresswoman's press coverage will be aghast at just how distorted a picture the media has fed us.
It literally defies belief.

Here we see her cross-examining Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with such surgical precision and grasp of her brief that Rumsfeld is left stammering and ashen-faced. It makes us wonder what kind of country we might have right now if more had put this administration under such factual scrutiny. American Blackout lays out exactly why she has been so relentlessly hounded. Every one of her speeches brings to mind the hoarse pleas of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a force to be reckoned with. (In the DVD extras you can watch "Capitol Policeman Speaks Out" and see why she "lost it" back in March 2006.)

Inaba's film is intense yet easy to grasp for even the most non-political among us.

And for those who can't sit in one place for too long, the DVD comes with a shortened version which still gets the point across in under 20 minutes.

Since I started with a sales pitch it only seems right to end with one: Remember when in the days after 9/11 our president told us to go out and shop? Do the patriotic thing and buy this DVD. In fact I would buy several: you are going to want to pass this one around your friends and chances are you're not going to get it back.

Buy it directly at the American Blackout website. We get nothing from these sales except the knowledge that we are supporting one kick-ass filmmaker with a gotta-see-it call to arms against the racial poisoning of our democracy.

Or donate a tax-deductible $50 or more to our educational foundation and Palast will send you a signed copy of American Blackout. All proceeds support the investigative work of the Palast team.

"A muckraking indictment" (LA TIMES) and "engrossing, fast-paced, stylish... a powerful examination of voting rights in America." (HOLLYWOOD REPORTER)

Greg Palast is a reporter for BBC Television and the author of the just-released New York Times Bestseller, Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.
Read his articles and watch his reports at: GregPalast.com

from : Richard B. Du Boff
Subject: He Wrote the Book on Torture
The American Conservative
October 9, 2006 Issue 
copyright © 2006

He Wrote the Book on Torture
[War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror, John Yoo, Atlantic Monthly Press, 224 pages ]
by James Bovard

George W. Bush has made absolutism respectable among American conservatives. And no one has done more pimping for president-as-Supreme-Leader than John Yoo, the former Justice Department official who helped create the "commander-in-chief override" doctrine, unleashing presidents from the confines of the law. At a time when Bush is pushing Congress to approve the use in military tribunals of confessions that resulted from torture, it is vital to understand the thinking of the Bush administration's most visible advocate of "coercive interrogation."

Yoo's new book, War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror, reads like a slippery lawyer's brief submitted to a dim judge who gets all his information from Fox News. Though Yoo's misrepresentations and omissions should provoke outrage, his book will likely receive accolades from many conservative reviewers. This new volume compliments Yoo's first book, The Powers of War and Peace, which revealed that the Founding Fathers intended to permit presidents to start wars on their own whims, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Perhaps Yoo's authoritarian tendencies resulted from his time at Harvard, where empowering an elite is always in fashion. Yoo paints every proposal for limiting the president's power as a dangerous novelty. He is always trying to shift the burden of proof onto anyone who thinks the president should not be a czar.

He scoffs at critics of the phrase "war on terror" while admitting "the United States is not at war with every terrorist group in the world, or all who employ terrorist tactics, or a social problem, but with Al Qaeda." Yet top administration officials were laying plans to invade Iraq within days after the Twin Towers collapsed. Two weeks after 9/11, Yoo, in a memo to the White House, claimed that the attacks gave the U.S. government carte blanche for war anywhere in the world. Yoo suggested that "an American attack in South America or Southeast Asia might be a surprise to the terrorists," since they were expecting the U.S. to target Afghanistan. Yoo assured the White House that "the President's broad constitutional power ... would allow the President to [take] whatever actions he deems appropriate to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters." Yoo's assurances may have inspired Bush's declaration a few weeks later that "So long as anybody's terrorizing established governments, there needs to be a war."

Yoo wrote a Torturers' Emancipation Proclamation memo while serving as deputy assistant attorney general. He informed the White House in August 2002 that it could scorn federal law because "the President enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his Commander-in-Chief authority and in conducting operations against hostile forces ... . we will not read a criminal statute as infringing on the President's ultimate authority in these areas." Thus, the "commander-in-chief" title automatically swallows up the rest of the Constitution.

Yoo's memo began by largely redefining torture out of existence. It then explained that even if someone died during torture, the torturer might not be guilty if he felt the torture was necessary to prevent some worse evil. Yoo pre-emptively exonerated any U.S. torturer: "If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate [the Anti-Torture Act], he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network." Yoo never explained why preventing a catastrophic attack is the only reason why a suspect might be maimed during interrogation.

War by Other Means endlessly refers to Abu Ghraib as if that were the alpha and omega of the torture scandal. In reality, the photos in late April 2004 were not even the tip of the iceberg. U.S. government agents have inflicted abuses ranging from the endless high-volume repetition of a "Meow Mix" cat food commercial at Guantanamo to tearing out toenails in Afghanistan, from compulsory enemas for recalcitrant prisoners to beating people to death in Iraq and kicking them to death outside Kabul, from illegally sending detainees to foreign governments to be tortured by proxy to creating a system of "ghost prisoners" worthy of a banana republic.
Yet Yoo implies that the torture scandal may be largely a liberal media concoction. After citing The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, Yoo says, "Articles have appeared claiming abuses at Guantanamo such as long-term isolation, stress positions, and exposure to extreme heat or cold or noise. At this writing we cannot know if such reports are false, or isolated examples. They are currently unverified and the subject of continuing investigations."

Unverified-except for a deluge of e-mails from FBI agents who visited Gitmo and were horrified by what they saw. An FBI agent reported on Dec. 5, 2003 that the "torture techniques" used at Gitmo have "produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature." One FBI agent complained about a female U.S. military interrogator who yanked back a shackled prisoner's thumbs and grabbed his genitals. Another FBI agent e-mailed bureau headquarters on Aug. 2, 2004 after seeing detainees "chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more." FBI agents also observed that detainees were being abused with extreme temperatures and loud rap music.

An agent detailed to Iraq complained to FBI headquarters in June 2004 after seeing U.S. forces involved in "numerous serious physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees ... strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings." (The FBI memos were disclosed as a result of an ACLU lawsuit.)
Yoo plays to True Believers throughout the book, invoking Vice President Dick Cheney as an authority on the value of torture-as well as "the popular Fox television program 24." But he ignores FBI and military experts who disdain torture because it generates false confessions. A prime example Yoo offers of the merits of "coercive interrogation" involved allegations that sparked Attorney General John Ashcroft to issue a warning in May 2004 that "Al Qaeda planned to attack the United States that summer. ... The attacks never happened; perhaps the intensive scrutiny caused El Shukrijumah [a Saudi al-Qaeda operative] and his cell to scuttle their plans."
Actually, this warning was one of the biggest farces of Bush's 2004 fear-mongering election campaign. Ashcroft's May 26 warning was quickly repudiated by Homeland Security Department officials who informed the media that "there was no new information about attacks in the U.S., and ... no change in the government's color-coded 'threat level.'" NBC News reported that Ashcroft's primary al-Qaeda source was "a largely discredited group, Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, known for putting propaganda on the Internet" that had falsely "claimed responsibility for the power blackout in the Northeast last year, a power outage in London, and the Madrid bombings." The group's warning consisted of one email sent two months earlier to a London newspaper. Newsweek reported that the White House "played a role in the decision to go public with the warning Š . Instead of the images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the White House would prefer that voters see the faces of terrorists who aim to kill them."
Yoo's claims about the benefits of torture were effectively obliterated on Sept. 6 by Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, the Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence. Kimmons announced at a Pentagon news conference, "no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that." Kimmons has vastly more credibility on interrogation methods than desk warriors like Yoo.

The more power Yoo believes the president deserves, the more obfuscations he makes about how existing power has been used. Though this book went to press in July 2006, Yoo relies on dubious data from September 2004 to exonerate the federal torturers. Yoo cites a report done by a committee headed by Vice Admiral Albert Church, who literally became a laughingstock when he testified in March 2005 before the Senate Armed Services committee. Church, charged with investigating detainee abuse in Iraq, never bothered interviewing Paul Bremer, the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Church explained: "Ambassador Bremer, as I understood it, worked for the Department of State." This assertion stunned the senators, as Bremer was a Pentagon employee and directly in the military chain of command.

Regardless, Yoo relies on this guy as a top defense witness: "Church's investigation found (as of September 2004) 71 cases of detainee abuse and 6 deaths, and with only 20 of those cases involving interrogation, and 130 cases still under investigation." Yoo asserts, "this is an extremely low error rate," considering that the U.S. had detained 50,000 people at that point.

The week after Church testified, the Pentagon admitted that 26 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan had been killed in what appeared to be criminal homicides-more than four times as many homicides as Church noticed. Yoo disdained updating the morgue count. And it has become obvious since last Fall that the feds greatly undercounted their interrogation victims. Captain Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne repeatedly unsuccessfully sought to get guidance from superiors on the standards for lawful and humane treatment of detainees in Iraq. Fishback publicly complained late last year: "I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment." Tony Lagouranis, a former army interrogator at Abu Ghraib and member of a special intelligence team in Iraq, told PBS's "Frontline": "It's all over Iraq. The infantry units are torturing people in their homes. They would smash people's feet with the back of an axhead. They would break bones, ribs."

None of this appears in Yoo's book.
In War by Other Means, Yoo eschews following his logic to its conclusions. He was more forthcoming in a debate last December when asked: "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?" Yoo replied, "No treaty." His opponent, Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassell, followed up: "Also no law-that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo." Yoo replied, "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that." (One blogger summarized Yoo's philosophy of government: "All Your Balls Belong to Us!") Yoo has yet to specify appropriate presidential pretexts for juvenile testicular demolition.

While curtsying to the prevailing rhetoric on democracy, Yoo shows contempt for "government by consent." He claims the 2004 election vindicated Bush's torture policy: "Our nation had a presidential and congressional election after Abu Ghraib and the leaking of the [2002] memos. If the people had disagreed with administration policies, they could have made a change."

How could the people judge the policy when the Bush administration was suppressing almost all information about it? There were no independent probes into the torture scandal during 2004. All the investigators were under the thumb of the Pentagon. The investigations were designed to look only downward-with no authority to pursue wrongdoing to the highest branches of the Pentagon and the White House. The Bush team succeeded in delaying the vast majority of damning revelations until after he was re-elected. Presumably, the public can "approve" atrocities even when the government deceives them about the actual events.

Yoo reasons like a devious personal-injury lawyer-yet it is the rights of the American people that are being run over. He is being feted by conservative foundations and think tanks, and often treated deferentially by liberals, for a theory of presidential power that would make Hobbes proud.

Yoo believes Americans should presume that the government always has a good reason for violating the law, even when it deceives the citizens about the reasoning. Yoo's doctrines are absolutely unfit for any system with a pretense of self-government. 

James Bovard is the author, most recently, of Attention Deficit Democracy and The Bush Betrayal.

from National Security Archive :
Date: 20 Sep 2006
Subject : Letelier-Moffitt Assassination 30 Years Later, a National Security Archive Update.

National Security Archive is calling for the release of withheld documents relating to Pinochet's role in infamous act of terrorism in Washington, D.C. on September 21, 1976. NSA has released a new document on the CIA approach to Manuel Contreras on Operation Condor.
For more information contact:
Peter Kornbluh


Washington, DC, September 20, 2006 - On the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination of former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his American colleague Ronni Karpen Moffitt, the National Security Archive today called on the U.S. government to release all documents relating to the role of General Augusto Pinochet in the car bombing that brought terrorism to the capital city of the United States on September 21, 1976.

Hundreds of documents implicating Pinochet in authorizing and covering up the crime were due to be declassified under the Clinton administration but were withheld in the spring of 2000 as evidence for a Justice Department investigation into the retired dictator's role. After more than six years, according to Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Archive's Chile Documentation Project, it is time to release them. "If there is not going to be a legal indictment," Kornbluh said, "the documents can and will provide an indictment of history."

The Archive today released a declassified memo to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reporting on a CIA approach in early October 1976 to the head of the Chilean secret police, Manuel Contreras, regarding U.S. concerns about Operation Condor assassination plots. The secret memo, written by Kissinger's deputy for Latin America, Harry Schlaudeman, noted that Contreras had denied that "Operation Condor has any other purpose than the exchange of intelligence." While the car bombing in downtown Washington, D.C. that killed Letelier and Moffitt took place on September 21, 1976, the memo contains no reference to any discussion with Contreras about the assassinations--even though DINA was widely considered to be the most likely perpetrator of the crime. In 1978, Contreras was indicted by a U.S. Grand Jury for directing the terrorist attack.

The document was obtained by Kornbluh under the Freedom of Information Act.

The memorandum to Kissinger adds to a series of documents that have been obtained by the National Security Archive that shed light on what the U.S. government knew about Operation Condor--a collaboration of Southern Cone secret police services to track down, abduct, torture, and assassinate opponents in the mid and late 1970s--and what actions it took or failed to take prior to the Letelier-Moffitt assassination.

The Archive also released a second memo from Schlaudeman to Kissinger reporting on a cable from U.S. Ambassador to Uruguay Ernest Siracusa voicing his concerns on presenting the Condor demarche. Siracusa, the memo suggests, feared that he would become a target of Operation Condor if he followed his diplomatic instructions, and recommended that Schlaudeman approach Uruguay's ambassador to Washington instead. In his memo to Kissinger dated August 30, 1976, Schlaudeman spelled out the U.S. position on Condor assassination plots: "What we are trying to head off is a series of international murders that could do serious damage to the international status and reputation of the countries involved."

Kornbluh noted that neither the CIA memorandum of conversation with Contreras nor the Sircusa cable has been declassified and urged the Bush administration to release all records relating to Operation Condor and the Letelier-Moffitt case. "Amidst today's ongoing effort against international terrorism," he noted, "it is important to know the full history of the failure of U.S. efforts to detect and deter a terrorist plot in the heart of Washington, D.C."

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.

from Truthout :
Date : 30 September 2006

Among its final tasks before leaving to campaign, the Senate on Friday night passed and sent to President Bush a bill authorizing 700 new miles of fencing on the southern border. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the border security achievements trumpeted by Republicans don't measure up to the more comprehensive reforms her party backed.

Congress OKs 700-Mile Border Fence


from Democracy Now!
11 September 2006
Subject: Debate on 9/11 between conservative journal Popular Mechanics and progressive film makers, Loose Change.

Video Podcast from Democracy Now!

EXCLUSIVE...9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"


Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
Université de Grenoble-3
Grenoble, France