From: Paul Kneisel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [pttp] The Internet Anti-Fascist: Fri, 2 November 2001 -- 5:88
(#615)
_________________________________________________________________________
The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 2 November 2001
Vol. 5, Number 88 (#615)
[mailed Saturday, 10 November 2001]
__________________________________________________________________________
Action Alerts:
01) Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, "CNN Says Focus on Civilian
Casualties Would Be 'Perverse'," 1 Nov 01
02) Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, "Op-Ed Echo Chamber: Little space
for dissent to the military line," 2 Nov 01
Announcements and Analysis On Civil Liberties Issues
03) Mitch Cohen (Brooklyn Greens / Green Party USA), "Understanding the
Oden incident in Context," 6 Nov 01
04) Mitchel Cohen (Brooklyn Greens / Green Party USA), "Screwing the
Greens? [Notes On the Civil Liberty Issue Of the Oden Case]," 7 Nov
01
05) Declan McCullagh (Wired News) "Terror Act Has Lasting Effects," 26
Oct 01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION ALERTS:
01) CNN Says Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be "Perverse"
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
1 Nov 01
According to the Washington Post (10/31/01), CNN Chair Walter Isaacson "has
ordered his staff to balance images of civilian devastation in Afghan
cities with reminders that the Taliban harbors murderous terrorists, saying
it 'seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in
Afghanistan.'"
Post media reporter Howard Kurtz quotes a memo from Isaacson to CNN's
international correspondents: "As we get good reports from
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we must redouble our efforts to make sure
we do not seem to be simply reporting from their vantage or perspective. We
must talk about how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the
Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000
innocent people."
The memo went on to admonish reporters covering civilian deaths not to
"forget it is that country's leaders who are responsible for the situation
Afghanistan is now in," suggesting that journalists should lay
responsibility for civilian casualties at the Taliban's door, not the U.S.
military's.
Kurtz also quotes a follow-up memo from Rick Davis, CNN's head of standards
and practices, that suggested sample language for news anchors:
" 'We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this from
Taliban-controlled areas, that these U.S. military actions are in response
to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the
U.S.' or, 'We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this, that the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan continues to harbor terrorists who have
praised the September 11 attacks that killed close to 5,000 innocent people
in the U.S.,' or 'The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to
minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime
continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11
attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the U.S.' "
Davis stated that "even though it may start sounding rote, it is important
that we make this point each time."
The New York Times reported (11/1/01) that these policies are already being
implemented at CNN, with other networks following a similar, though perhaps
not as formalized, strategy. "In the United States," the Times noted,
"television images of Afghan bombing victims are fleeting, cushioned
between anchors or American officials explaining that such sights are only
one side of the story." In other countries, however, "images of wounded
Afghan children curled in hospital beds or women rocking in despair over a
baby's corpse" are "more frequent and lingering."
When CNN correspondent Nic Robertson reported yesterday from the site of a
bombed medical facility in Kandahar, the Times reported, U.S. anchors
"added disclaimers aimed at reassuring American viewers that the network
was not siding with the enemy." CNN International, however, did not add any
such disclaimers.
During its U.S broadcasts, CNN "quickly switched to the rubble of the World
Trade Center" after showing images of the damage in Kandahar, and the
anchor "reminded viewers of the deaths of as many as 5,000 people whose
'biggest crime was going to work and getting there on time.'"
If anything in this story is "perverse," it's that one of the world's most
powerful news outlets has instructed its journalists not to report Afghan
civilian casualties without attempting to justify those deaths. "I want to
make sure we're not used as a propaganda platform," Isaacson told the
Washington Post. But his memo essentially mandates that pro-U.S. propaganda
be included in the news.
ACTION: Please tell CNN to factually report the consequences of the U.S.
war in Afghanistan without editorializing. Including a justification for
the bombing with every mention of civilian casualties risks turning CNN
from a news outlet into a propaganda service.
CONTACT:
CNN, Walter Isaacson, Chairman and CEO
Phone: (404) 827-1500
Fax: (404) 827-1784
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
you maintain a polite tone. Please cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your
correspondence.
- - - - -
02) Op-Ed Echo Chamber: Little space for dissent to the military line
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting
2 Nov 01
During the weeks following September's terrorist attacks, two leading
dailies used their op-ed pages as an echo chamber for the government's
official policy of military response, mostly ignoring dissenters and policy
critics.
A FAIR survey of the New York Times and the Washington Post op-ed pages for
the three weeks following the attacks (9/12/01 - 10/2/01) found that
columns calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were
given a great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and
international law approaches as an alternative to military action were
nearly non-existent.
We counted a total of 44 columns in the Times and Post that clearly
stressed a military response, against only two columns stressing non-
military solutions. (Though virtually every op-ed in both papers dealt in
some way with September 11, most did not deal specifically with how to
respond to the attacks, with many focusing on economics, rebuilding, New
York's Rudolph Giuliani, etc. During the period surveyed, the Post ran a
total of 105 op-ed columns, the Times ran 79.)
Overall, the Post was more militaristic, running at least 32 columns
favoring military action, compared to 12 in the Times. But the Post also
provided the only two columns we could find in the first three weeks after
September 11 that argued for non-military responses; the Times had no such
columns. Both dissenting columns were written by guest writers.
The Times' and Post's in-house columnists provided the bulk of the pro-war
commentary. Two-thirds of the Times columns urging military action were
written in-house, as were more than half of the Post's pro-war columns.
This may say something about which journalists are singled out for
promotion to the prestigious position of columnist.
In addition, both op-ed pages showed a striking gender imbalance. Of the
107 op-ed writers at the Post, only seven were women. Proportionally, the
Times did slightly better, with eight female writers out of 79.
When critics argue that U.S. news media have a duty to provide a broad
debate on war, a common response is to ask why-- after all, isn't there a
political and popular consensus in favor of war?
Perhaps, but there's reason to believe that the extent and nature of that
consensus has been overstated and distorted.
In polls that offered a choice between a military response or nothing, it's
true that overwhelming majorities chose war. But given the choice between a
either military assault or pressing for the extradition and trial of those
responsible (Christian Science Monitor, 9/27/01), a substantial minority
either chose extradition (30 percent) or were undecided (16 percent). These
people had next to no representation in the op-ed debate; in fact, it's
likely that many people asked to choose whether or not to go to war had
never seen an alternative to war articulated in a mainstream outlet.
There is also a little-acknowledged gender gap in poll responses about
military action, a fact that lends new significance to the gender imbalance
in Washington Post and New York Times op-eds. In the final two paragraphs
of a 1,395-word story titled "Public Unyielding in War Against Terror "
(9/29/01), the Washington Post pointed out that women "were significantly
less likely to support a long and costly war." According to the Post, while
44 percent of women would support a broad military effort, "48 percent said
they want a limited strike or no military action at all."
Similarly, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (Gallup.com, 10/5/01) showed that 64
percent of men think the U.S. "should mount a long-term war," while 24
percent favored limiting retaliation to punishing the specific groups
responsible for the attacks. In contrast, "women are evenly divided-- with
42 percent favoring each option." Noting that "women's support for war is
much more conditional than that of men," Gallup reports that though 88
percent of women favored taking retaliatory military action, that number
dropped to 55 percent if 1,000 American troops would be killed (76 percent
of men would support a war under these circumstances).
Of course, gender equity on the op-ed pages would not guarantee
proportional representation for dissenters-- some of the most virulently
pro-war and anti-Muslim columns have been written by female commentators
(e.g., Mona Charen, who called for mass expulsions based on ethnicity--
Washington Times, 10/18/01). But given the gender differences suggested by
polling, more women on the op-ed pages might well give the lie to the
conventional wisdom that all Americans have no-holds-barred enthusiasm for
an open-ended war.
Even, however, if one accepts the idea that the public overwhelmingly
favors war, the task of journalism is to remain independent and to ask
tough questions of policy makers. After all, American history includes many
official policies that were popular in their time, but which today are
viewed as disasters. Wouldn't the country have been better off if
journalists had provided a stronger, more abiding challenge to the
consensus that supported Vietnam, or the internment of Japanese-Americans?
More than any other newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post-
-with their unmatched influence in the nation's capitol and in U.S.
newsrooms-- have a duty to provide readers with a wide range of views on
how to deal with terrorism, its causes and solutions. If the purpose of the
op-ed page is to provide a vigorous debate including critical opinions,
both papers failed their readers at a crucial time.
ACTION: Please urge the Washington Post and the New York Times to broaden
the range of debate on their op-ed pages about the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Terry A. Tang, Op-Ed Page Editor
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS
Washington Post
Michael Getler, Ombudsman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(202) 334-7582
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ANALYSIS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUES
03) Understanding the Oden incident in Context
Mitch Cohen (Brooklyn Greens / Green Party USA)
6 Nov 01
Nancy Oden's harassment and banning from the Bangor Airport is EXTREMELY
important -- NOT because it is the worst incident, unfortunately, but
because it reveals:
1) A "terrorist-watch" list of individuals compiled and circulated by the
FBI. The FBI has admitted to this AS A RESULT OF OUR PUBLICIZING OF THIS
INCIDENT. It had earlier announced it was compiling such a list on
organizations, but this is the first indication of a list pertaining to
individuals.
2) It apparently targets political activists, in addition to whatever other
criteria it uses.
Reading the Chicago papers has been instructive. For instance, on Sunday
the Chicago Tribune (a bourgeois paper if ever there was one) ran a series
of interesting and scary stories about what has happened to immigrants who
had been arrested by the INS or FBI. The FBI now admits to 1,147 arrests --
NONE of them -- let me repeat that, NONE of them!! -- are charged with any
crimes related to Sept. 11. Almost all of them have to do with visas
running out, or of simply being arrested for no good reason ("looking
Arab", etc.).
It is utmost foolishness to argue: "This incident is not as terrible as
some other incidents, so drop it." That's nonsense. Some people, similarly,
had argued "Why concentrate on Mumia -- there are hundreds of others on
death row. He's a celebrity." Please understand that that is the FBI
talking through the lips, sometimes of activists and at other times
official agents of the government. We concentrate on Mumia to right that
grave injustice. Mumia is targeted precisely because of his/our politics.
AND we utilize those forces gathered to illuminate ALL injustices, the
death penalty, others on death row. The two are not opposites, they are co-
determining forces.
But there are some who don't see it that way. Every time we've issued a
press release in the past few weeks, members of the leadership of ASGP (aka
GPUS) and their supporters have gone on-line within 24 hours to undermine
it. When I announced several weeks ago that over 1,000 people have been
detained, one or two ASGP supporters demanded I "prove" my claims, and,
when I ignored them, they went on to denounce me for providing "false"
information. There was nothing false about it, any more than Nancy Oden's
story is false; understanding who was behind these "demands" upon my time,
I just chose not to answer them at their demanded schedule.
When we issued the first GPUSA press release against the bombing, ASGP
immediately "radicalized" their pathetic initial release. Good! That's a
positive reaction.
The disgusting way leaders of ASGP/GPUS have been trashing Nancy Oden -- as
though one should believe the official story put out by an airport official
or FBI agent over a longtime activist -- is treachery. Nancy Oden comes
under attack because, to them, she has not jumped through every explanatory
hoop they're nailing into place, to suit their armchairs. (Some have said:
She's lied before, so why should I believe her now? That's the sum total of
their argument!) Why is no one questioning the FBI, or the Airport
officials as to whether they'd lied in the past? Pullllllleazzze. The other
reason for believing her story is because EVERYONE agrees with the key
points: Again, her bags were indeed searched (contrary to what one GPUS
honcho has written), and she was declared "clean". What's not to believe?
We need to now use Nancy Oden's situation to highlight what is happening to
those 1,174 others who have been arrested. (I'm sure some will argue "PROVE
there are 1,174. Maybe it's 1,206." Understand, please, why they do that,
whose interests it is serving.) We demand to know who the prisoners are,
where they are, and that they be allowed to have contact with lawyers
immediately. In fact, this will be the issue of our next GPUSA press
release.
Defend our people from these ugly, lying attacks. Use that defense to shed
light on STOPPING THE BOMBING, and FREEING ALL UNCHARGED PRISONERS
IMMEDIATELY.
Now, a personal note about the ActionGreens list: Please don't write to the
list ABOUT the list, or about banning people from it. Write to me (as the
list-owner), or to the list members you're frustrated with and make your
recommendations that way, if you have the time. (If you actually HAVE the
time, you're not doing enough real work, by the way.) This goes for
everyone. Please do not use the list as a platform for discussing who or
what type of things should be posted to this list, or what decorum on it
should be. This list has been so successful, and there have been very few
rancorous arguments on it. I hope we all intend to keep it that way. Just
post what you think is important, and stay away from on-line criticisms of
the individuals on the lists or their style of addressing issues. (This is
not an open list; on it, we are alol activists, some Greens, some not, from
all over the world.)
- - - - -
04) Screwing the Greens? [Notes On the Civil Liberty Issue Of the Oden
Case]
Mitchel Cohen (Brooklyn Greens / Green Party USA)
7 Nov 01
For the last few days, a letter written by Walt Sheasby of California has
been making the rounds in which the author discounts and seeks to discredit
the ordeal faced by Green Party USA co-coordinator Nancy Oden at the Bangor
Maine International airport. A press release issued by GPUSA reported the
story: "'An official told me that my name had been flagged in the
computer,' a shaken Oden said."
Without bothering to check with Oden, Sheasby termed Oden's statement a
"fib", and therein severely hindered gathering the support that Oden (and
many others) need. He wrote: "Nancy Oden was apparently not barred because
of a computer check, but because she did not comply with standard screening
for weapons."
How did Sheasby arrive at this conclusion? Did he call Nancy Oden? Did he
even call the FBI and ask about the existence of such a list of individual
activists?
Sadly, the answer is no. He relied solely on a public relations official's
denial to a Bangor newspaper, which read: "She [Oden] was uncooperative
during the screening process. ... Obviously if they can't submit to
screening, [Federal Aviation Administration] regulations require that they
not be allowed to board the plane."
>From this, Sheasby concluded: "it appears that her [Oden's] name was not
flagged by a computer search of potential terrorists or their supporters."
Is Sheasby really that gullible?
In fact, Oden was targeted as soon as she gave her name to pick up her
ticket. She was told this was NOT a random procedure. A uniformed soldier
with automatic rifle started lecturing her about terrorism. Oden -- a woman
alone at the airport surrounded by armed military men -- was indeed
searched, as were her bags. She was deemed "clean." Nevertheless, as has
occurred in numerous venues across the country, she was banned from her
flight, and from ALL flights from that airport.
Sheasby knew all of this but omitted it from his report, choosing instead
to rest his case on the spin of a corporate flak -- a statement Sheasby
knew to be wrong.
Why did Sheasby do this, and cast doubt about Oden's story at a time when
she most needed support? And why did a few people who should know better
accept and repeat Sheasby's smear, without investigating for themselves?
One person who refused to accept Sheasby's report is Fred Myers, an antiwar
activist and Green in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Myers, who is often critical
of Oden and the Green Party USA, nevertheless had the integrity to
challenge Sheasby's account. He wrote:
"Wait a minute.... This doesn't add up. Why was she not allowed to board
the flight? If she allowed the completion of the search of her person and
baggage, then what grounds were there to deny her right to fly?
"Furthermore, the Bangor Daily article did indeed say that agents would not
confirm or deny that her name is on a list. ... [T]here's no denying the
last point in the Bangor article: If she did something wrong, then she
should be charged. If not, then denying her right to fly is absolutely
unjustified. And posting a headline implying she 'fibbed' is quite sleazy
to say the least."
Another person who did her homework is Amy Goodman, host of the "Democracy
Now" radio show. Unlike Sheasby, Goodman made the appropriate calls and
featured a phone interview with Nancy Oden on her show. Oden explained how
the whole incident started at Bangor airport. She said she gave her name
and the ticket agent immediately recognized it and did not even ask for
additional identification.
Many rank-and-file greens have expressed their outrage at the treatment of
Oden, first at the hands of the authorities and secondly by Sheasby and his
faction. Sure, there are many worse things happening in the world. But they
all start somewhere. This is one such instance.
So Sheasby has now issued another statement. Without in any way apologizing
for the harm he caused, he reverses field and now writes that he ACCEPTS
the fact that Oden was indeed barred, as she reported, from getting on an
airplane to Chicago to attend the GPUSA national board meeting because of
her political work -- this, after 4 days of bombarding listserves asserting
the contrary. But, peering once again into his crystal ball, Sheasby now
claims that the military barred Oden because of her involvement with anti-
genetic engineering work, not her antiwar activity.
Oden's name "is certainly familiar to the authorities in Maine," he argues,
"and the association with the corn field incident [in which Oden defended
activists who had torn out genetically engineered corn at an experimental
field at the University of Maine] may be the precipitating cause of her
victimization. It now does not appear that her connection with Greens/Green
Party USA had anything to do with her harassment at the airport, but it
does seem that her other activities had brought some unwanted attention."
Uh, excuse me, but who can know this for sure, and WHO CARES? The point is
that Oden (and many people, including other Greens) are being targeted
because of their politics.
"Oden had announced the day she planned to fly out, and of course everybody
concerned knew which airport and her destination in advance," writes GPUSA
gadfly Paul Prior, whose website <www.globalcircle.net> has been
instrumental in questioning the bombardment of Afghanistan, the connections
between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens, and the quest to control oil in
Asia."
The Green Party USA, which has for years condemned US's gluttonous reliance
on oil and which has organized around its program for shifting energy
consumption to one based on sustainable and renewable energy (solar, wind,
etc.), has been very active in opposing the bombardment of Afghanistan. You
can view GPUSA's oil-related antiwar statements by linking to
<www.greenparty.org>.
"In fact," Paul Prior continues, Oden's "opposition to military presence in
the Mideast is public at <www.greenparty.org/911.html>. She has enemies and
the party has enemies. Nobody doubts the party has informants in its ranks
and that they have an inside line to airport security and anybody else they
need in intelligence. Anyone who would use that incident to try to
discredit her and the party is only helping the fascist takeover," Prior
rightly scolds.
Just this week, the FBI has finally admitted to having arrested 1,147
people under the new anti-terrorism laws for "crimes" having nothing
whatsoever to do with terrorist attacks. Not a single one of them is
charged with any connection to the Sept. 11 horror.
Among the organizations the FBI admits to targeting is the
anti-globalization Reclaim the Streets, which is actually listed as a
terrorist group on the FBI's lists.
Many activists are learning for the first time that the FBI is actually
compiling and distributing lists of American citizens -- some are called
"terrorist profiles," others are more explicit lists -- and people have
reported many instances at airports (and elsewhere) in which their civil
liberties have been violated. It is often by someone "in charge" abusing
their authority; at other times it occurs because they "fit" a profile; and
still other times it happens because their name appears on one of the FBI's
lists.
The Oden case exposes some of this; it serves as a wakeup call to all
Greens and others to put their sectarian differences aside and work to
restore the Bill of Rights. With more than a thousand people in jail, no
one knows who or where they are. The FBI is not releasing their names, nor
are they charged with any terrorist-related crimes. Most are charged with
overstaying their visas by a few weeks. And others are just picked up for
"breathing while looking Arab." The situation is outrageous, and we need to
expose what's really going on. Nancy Oden's situation is but the harbinger
of far more repressive times to come, unless we act quickly and stand
united.
- - - - -
05) Terror Act Has Lasting Effects
Declan McCullagh Wired News
26 Oct 01
WASHINGTON D.C. -- Legislators who sent a sweeping anti-terrorism bill to
President Bush this week proudly say that the most controversial
surveillance sections will expire in 2005.
Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said that a four-year
expiration date "will be crucial in making sure that these new law
enforcement powers are not abused." In the House, Bob Barr (R-Georgia)
stressed that "we take very seriously the sunset provisions in this bill."
But the Dec. 2005 expiration date embedded in the USA Act -- which the
Senate approved 98 to 1 on Thursday -- applies only to a tiny part of the
mammoth bill.
After the president signs the measure on Friday, police will have the
permanent ability to conduct Internet surveillance without a court order in
some circumstances, secretly search homes and offices without notifying the
owner, and share confidential grand jury information with the CIA.
Also exempt from the expiration date are investigations underway by Dec.
2005, and any future investigations of crimes that took place before that
date.
On Thursday, Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to publish new guidelines
as soon as the president signs the bill, which is expected to happen
Friday. "I will issue directives requiring law enforcement to make use of
new powers in intelligence gathering, criminal procedure and immigration
violations," Ashcroft said.
President Bush said this week that he looks forward to signing the USA Act,
which his administration requested in response to the Sep. 11 hijackings,
"so that we can combat terrorism and prevent future attacks."
During the Senate debate Thursday, the lone critic of the bill was Russ
Feingold (D-Wisconsin), who introduced an unsuccessful series of pro-
privacy amendments earlier this month.
"We in this body have a duty to analyze, to test, to weigh new laws that
the zealous and often sincere advocates of security would suggest to us,"
Feingold said. "This is what I have tried to do with this anti-terrorism
bill. And that is why I will vote against this bill."
Feingold said the USA Act "does not strike the right balance between
empowering law enforcement and protecting constitutional freedoms."
But not one of his colleagues joined him in dissent. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-
New York) seemed to speak for the rest of the Senate when saying "the
homefront is a war front" and arguing that police needed new surveillance
powers.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) did not vote.
Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 66 vote
on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following:
* Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the contents, and
leave without ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court,
and the notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed"
indefinitely. (Section 213)
* Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of
the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system and record addresses of Web pages
visited and e-mail correspondents -- without going to a judge. Previously,
there were stiffer legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet
surveillance techniques. (Section 216)
* Any American "with intent to defraud" who scans in an image of a foreign
currency note or e-mails or transmits such an image will go to jail for up
to 20 years. (Section 375)
* An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen and who cannot be deported
can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with
the attorney general's approval. (Section 412)
* Biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners, will
become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" with the
identities of visa holders who hope to enter the U.S. (Section 414)
* Any Internet provider or telephone company must turn over customer
information, including phone numbers called -- no court order required --
if the FBI claims the "records sought are relevant to an authorized
investigation to protect against international terrorism." The company
contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an
investigation. (Section 505)
* Credit reporting firms like Equifax must disclose to the FBI any
information that agents request in connection with a terrorist
investigation -- without police needing to seek a court order first.
Current law permits this only in espionage cases. (Section 505)
* The current definition of terrorism is radically expanded to include
biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes --
such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any
Internet-connected computer -- are covered. (Section 808)
* A new crime of "cyberterrorism" is added, which covers hacking attempts
causing damage "aggregating at least $5,000 in value" in one year, any
damage to medical equipment or "physical injury to any person." Prison
terms range between five and 20 years. (Section 814)
* New computer forensics labs will be created to inspect "seized or
intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity (including
cyberterrorism)" and to train federal agents. (Section 816)
* * * * *
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
_________________________________________________________________________
FASCISM:
We have no ethical right to forgive, no historical right to forget.
(No permission required for noncommercial reproduction)
- - - - -
back issues archived via:
<ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/publish/tinaf/>
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________
