__________________________________________________________________________
The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 4 January 2002
Vol. 6, Number 2 (#637)
__________________________________________________________________________
Web Sites of Interest:
01) The Hate Directory: Hate Groups on the Internet
Readers Write:
02) Daniel Jordan, [Critique of Henning's Review of 'Lord of the
Rings'," 1 Jan 02
More On Civil Liberties In the Current Hysteria
03) Robert Corn-Revere (Legal Times), "Do We Fear Freedom? Our rights
are not abstract," 26 Dec 01
04) Times of India, "US 'hero' may have triggered Mazar revolt," 2 Dec
01
05) William Safire (New York Times), "Executive Privilege Again," 3 Jan
02
06) Christian Science Monitor, "CIA expands its watchful eye to the US:
It will gather intelligence at home to curb terrorism. Critics see
era of Big Trenchcoat," 17 Dec 01
07) Heidi Przybyla (Bloomberg), "Bush to Ignore Rule on Written Notices
of Intelligence Actions," 28 Dec 01
08) Norman Solomon (Creators Syndicate), "The Discreet Charm of the
Straight Spin," 3 Jan 02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB SITES OF INTEREST:
01) The Hate Directory: Hate Groups on the Internet
<http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm>
The November 15, 2001 release of the Hate Directory is now available in
Portable Document Format. You will require the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
As in previous editions, all links are clickable, allowing you to access
the sites directly from the index.
Printed copies of the 71 page Directory are available from the address
above. Please enclose $10.00 to cover processing. Checks should be made
payable to Raymond A. Franklin.
The July 1, 1999 release remains available in HTML format.
Forward corrections and additions to:
Raymond A. Franklin
P.O.Box 121
Woodstock, MD 21163-0121
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
READERS WRITE:
[02) [Critique of Henning's Review of 'Lord of the Rings']
Daniel Jordan
1 Jan 02
About "Chris Henning (Sydney Morning Herald),* "Children's heroes have a
certain ring of racism: Harry and the hobbits might be fun, but they should
be recognised as appealing to the racist within us," 13 Dec 01" I must
point out some glaring omissions.
This critic seems only to have seen the movie (which I have not) or did not
really attend to the text of the books. Yes, the different peoples of
Middle Earth tend to be somewhat of a type, but it is much closer to the
level of types within cultures than anything so strict (if nonsensical) as
a race. Henning also seems blind to the overtly intentional mythical
structure of the story, which may perhaps delimit the range of available
personalities and types, but to criticize Tolkein for this would require
criticizing the entire mythos form, all the way back to Homer and beyond.
Tolkein was purposely working within a certain structure whether one
approves of such a structure or not is a different matter than assessing
whether a writer is successful within a chosen style.
Not all elves are alike, nor Hobbits nor dwarves, or even orcs for that
matter. The central point of the story is that a number of various groups
from quite differnet and even conflicting histories unite against an evil,
which is intentionally modeled on the Third Reich. Elves and dwarves have a
long history of scrapping amongst themselves, and both have scarpped with
humans. Of course living in high woods or soft farmland or in deep mountain
caverns for eons leads to differences in lifestyle, but so does living in
deserts or in rain forests. So what?
Taking just one example, elves have various sub-cultures, Wood Elves,
Mountain Elves, even groupings within those. They do not all agree on much
of anything, and do not even necessarily get along among themselves. Humans
also have various divergent social clusterings, different city states, even
those allegedly all from the same mold. Orcs have a variety of sub-cultures
with different traditions and approaches to life. If the hour long show
about the making of the movie is correct, the filmmakers attempted to show
at least some of the differences among Orcs by costuming various Orc clans
in different garbs.
Tolkein's world is simply much more complex and multi-layered than this
critic acknowledges.
As for Harry Potter, well, I do not know. But the goal of getting out of
ones' own personal Muggledom and living as fully and perhaps even as
magically as possible seems quite laudable.
-- Sincerely
Dr Daniel Jordan
*
The Internet Anti-Fascist: Fri, 28 December 2001 -- 5:107 (635)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE CURRENT CRISIS
03) Do We Fear Freedom? Our rights are not abstract
Robert Corn-Revere (Legal Times)
26 Dec 01
The war against terrorism is a war to preserve freedom, we are told. The
president explained that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms -- our
freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and
assemble and disagree with each other."
But even as he spoke, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was rounding up
an undisclosed number of people for indeterminate periods of detention, and
the attorney general has refused to release any substantive information on
the practices. In defending these and other actions before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on Dec. 6, Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed that
those who ask whether we are sacrificing too much freedom "only aid
terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
If irony is not dead, it surely is on life support.
In a two-week period in October, the Justice Department announced a policy
authorizing the interception of attorney-client conversations with
detainees, a program of profiling and interviewing thousands of Arab men,
and the creation of secret military tribunals to try immigrants and other
foreigners suspected of terrorism.
More significant than these executive actions was Congress' passage of the
anti-terrorism bill -- the USA Patriot Act -- signed by President George W.
Bush on Oct. 26. While some parts of the act provided needed adjustments to
the law, its far-reaching provisions affect the rights of all citizens, and
not just terrorism suspects. For example, the act minimizes judicial
supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance, expands the
government's ability to conduct secret searches, and gives the attorney
general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups
as "terrorist organizations." The law also gives the FBI broad access to
sensitive medical, financial, mental health, and educational records about
individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court
order.
It could have been worse, and may yet be so. An initial draft of the anti-
terrorism bill would have suspended the right of habeas corpus for all
terrorist suspects. Looking forward, Ashcroft reportedly is considering a
plan to enable the FBI to spy on domestic religious and political
organizations if they are suspected of having ties to terrorists. Various
proponents have called for the creation of a national ID card, and there
has even been talk of permitting torture.
Dangerous Precedent
For some, such as Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and columnist William
Safire, the response to Sept. 11 recalls episodes in U.S. history --
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the trampling of free speech during
World War I, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II,
anti-communist witch-hunts of the McCarthy period, J. Edgar Hoover's
obsession with dissident groups -- in which the rule of constitutional law
broke down.
Others see past examples of extreme actions as supporting precedent that
allows aggressive action by the government even if it entails a loss of
civil liberties. One such person is respected jurist Richard Posner. The
7th Circuit judge wrote in the December issue of The Atlantic Monthly that
civil liberties "should be curtailed, to the extent that the benefits in
greater security outweigh the costs in reduced liberty." All that can
reasonably be asked of Congress and the courts, he argued, "is that they
weigh the costs as carefully as the benefits."
Yet it is not at all clear that the benefits have been carefully assessed.
Eight former high-ranking FBI officials, including former Director William
Webster, told The Washington Post in November that the newly adopted
tactics, such as rounding up large numbers of detainees, are both
ineffective and counterproductive. Noting that the bureau prevented 131
terrorist attacks between 1981 and 2000, Webster said, "We did it without
all the suggestions that we are going to jump all over the people's private
lives, if that is what the current attorney general wants to do. I don't
think we need to go that direction."
Some (and not just the cynics) have suggested that part of the demand for
new anti-terrorism authority comes more from the belief that the time is
ripe to win concessions than from a conviction that such measures will stop
terrorism. A senior U.S. official quoted in the Post noted that "a lot of
this is not being driven by problems that prosecutors or investigators are
having. It is just a good time to get everything. It is totally politically
and public-perception-driven."
And all of the polling data appear to support this political calculus. A
recent ABC News/Washington Post survey found that 86 percent of the
respondents support the post-Sept. 11 mass detentions, 79 percent support
interviewing thousands of Arab men, 73 percent approve of wiretapping
attorney-client conversations of terror suspects, and 59 percent favor the
use of military tribunals.
One explanation for such results is that constitutional rights are for most
people an abstract concept, while collapsing buildings and death are not.
If people believe they can prevent a real horror by trading away a mere
abstraction, the choice seems simple. It is easier still to the extent that
people believe they would not have to sacrifice their own rights, but only
those of "swarthy males," as columnist Ann Coulter so memorably (and
repugnantly) put it.
When the president declared that "freedom is at war with fear" in his Sept.
20 address to a joint session of Congress, he may have had it backward.
That is, on the home front, it appears that fear may be winning.
* * * * *
Robert Corn-Revere is a partner at D.C.'s Hogan & Hartson.
- - - - -
04) US 'hero' may have triggered Mazar revolt
Times of India
2 Dec 01
LONDON -- The United Nations has joined human rights groups in demanding an
urgent inquiry into the carnage at the Qala-i-Jhangi fort near the northern
Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, even as new information is emerging about
how it started and the two Pakistani Taliban reported to be the last men
alive in the fort, until the violence finally subsided on Wednesday.
Even as the CIA saluted its slain colleague, the first American fatality in
Afghanistan, "American hero" Johnny 'Mike' Spann, who died in the prison
revolt, British journalists in Mazar-i-Sharif have begun reporting that
Spann was less an innocent victim than the one who allegedly provoked the
riot.
On Wednesday night, the BBC's authoritative domestic television programme
Newsnight interviewed Oliver August, correspondent for The Times, London,
in Mazar-i-Sharif, who said that Spann and his CIA colleague, Dave, were
thought to have set off the violence by aggressively interrogating foreign
Taliban prisoners and asking, "Why did you come to Afghanistan?"
August said their questions were answered by one prisoner jumping forward
and announcing, "We're here to kill you."
The Guardian's Mazar-i-Sharif correspondent said the CIA "operatives had
apparently failed on entering the fort to observe the first rule of
espionage: keep a low profile."
[N.B.] The Times's August said Spann subsequently pulled his gun and his
CIA colleague shot three prisoners dead in cold blood before losing
control over the situation.
Spann was then "kicked, beaten and bitten to death," the journalists said,
in an account of the ferocity of the violence that lasted four days,
leaving more than 500 people dead and the fort littered with "bodies,
shrapnel and shell casings."
With allegations of "war crimes" against the US and UK coming in thick and
fast for ignoring the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of
war, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Commisioner, Mary
Robinson, has echoed Kate Allen, director of the London-based Amnesty
International in calling for an urgent inquiry.
Amnesty has said it is willing to send an observer to Afghanistan to
monitor an inquiry.
Amnesty International has highlighted public concern by demanding an
investigation "into the proportionality of the response by the Northern
Alliance, US and UK forces."
In a statement released here, it said the enquiry "should make urgent
recommendations to ensure that other instances of surrender and holding of
prisoners do not lead to similar disorders and loss of life."
- - - - -
05) Executive Privilege Again
William Safire (New York Times)
3 Jan 02
WASHINGTON D.C. -- Stephen (the Rifleman) Flemmi is a gangster who spent a
generation as a valued informant for the F.B.I. in Boston. He is now
awaiting trial for 10 murders he is charged with committing while on the
F.B.I. payroll.
Also charged is his F.B.I. handler, John Connolly Jr., accused of tipping
off Flemmi and his mobster boss before police were dispatched to pick them
up. The boss, accused of 19 murders, is still a fugitive. Six years ago the
Rifleman claimed that the F.B.I. had promised him immunity from prosecution
for his killings - allegedly including a couple of his girlfriends - but
Federal Judge Mark Wolf, in a landmark decision, ruled that nobody in law
enforcement had the power to sanction murder.
The New England F.B.I.'s long-running abuse of power is "the greatest
failing in federal law enforcement history," according to James Wilson,
chief counsel to the House Government Reform Committee. Evidence of this
sustained miscarriage of justice was the 30-year imprisonment of Joe
Salvati, whom F.B.I. officials are said to have known to be innocent of the
crime for which he was convicted - but they remained silent to protect
Mafia sources.
John Ashcroft's Department of Justice does not want Congress to air out
this long, shameful story. At the time J. Edgar Hoover belatedly began his
war on the Mafia, civil liberty was set aside to meet the perceived
emergency - abuses that lasted through three decades. The current F.B.I.
chief, Robert Mueller, was U.S. attorney in Boston during the mid-80's and
presumably did not have an inkling about the unlawful law enforcement going
on around him.
Accordingly, the Bush Justice Department induced the president to sign an
order asserting executive privilege over its "deliberative documents" that
would inform the public of answers to questions like: Why did Justice
decline to indict an F.B.I. supervisor who admitted taking money from
Flemmi's gang? Why did Justice help defend a hit man in California who
killed a man while in the witness protection program?
Much of this systemic perversion of justice took place decades ago, but the
Ashcroft-Mueller crowd is determined to keep the embarrassing institutional
history hushed up. That's why department lawyers recently adopted a policy
of refusing all documents relating to its declinations to prosecute.
One reason for Bush's executive privilege claim, unprecedented in its
sweep, is: Such decisions are never to be examined by Congress lest
politics influence prosecutors' judgments. But this power grab would
eviscerate Congressional oversight.
The other reason, spoken sotto voce, is that some of the documents Chairman
Dan Burton's committee is requesting deal with other cases - such as Janet
Reno's decision to abort investigations into Bill Clinton's overseas fund-
raising over the protest of special counsel. Burton, some of these Bush
G.O.P. appointees say, is just an old Republican Clinton-hater out to beat
a dead horse.
That's a red herring. At issue here is Congress's responsibility and
authority to examine the misdeeds of the executive branch in a thorough
manner - with an eye toward legislation to make criminal those policies
evidently adopted by a regional division of our F.B.I. to subvert the law
in the name of the law. (Burton, with Ashcroft's thumb in his eye, is
considering legislation renaming the J. Edgar Hoover Building.)
Is the White House counsel explaining to the president the scope of the
powers being asserted in his ill-advised orders? "Executive privilege" was
restricted by the Supreme Court in the Nixon case and further circumscribed
by the courts in Clinton's frantic attempts to place himself above the law.
Why is Bush, so early in his term and with little to hide, going down this
road to upset our system of checks and balances?
Maybe it's hubris; popularity breeds contempt. When you're sailing up there
around 90 percent, your advisers tell you that wartime is the perfect time
to put those Congressional pipsqueaks of both parties in their place.
Maybe it's ultra-cleverness; by wrapping the latest self-levitation in the
mantle of protecting a former administration's reputation, you dream of
winning liberals' support.
It's another mistake that will come home to haunt the Bush presidency. Call
me Cassandra, but history will not look kindly on those who let ends
justify means - and let helpful hoodlums get away with murder.
- - - - -
06) CIA expands its watchful eye to the US: It will gather intelligence at
home to curb terrorism. Critics see era of Big Trenchcoat
Christian Science Monitor
17 Dec 01
WASHINGTON D.C. -- The Central Intelligence Agency is poised to get
involved in domestic surveillance and investigations in ways that are
unprecedented in its history.
The CIA's intelligence gathering has long been kept as separate as possible
from domestic law enforcement, which is bound by strict evidence-gathering
rules and legal safeguards protecting the rights of those investigated.
But as the nation girds itself against global terrorism carried out on
American soil, the barriers between covert, stealthy intelligence and by-
the-book domestic law enforcement investigations are beginning to melt.
Suddenly, for instance, the CIA will now have access to testimony collected
by federal grand juries.
And the CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies are, for the first time, being
allowed to share vast amounts of information ranging from phone records and
credit cards statements to profiles of suspected terrorists.
These shrinking restraints come as new antiterrorism legislation adopted
this fall grants the FBI far broader wiretapping and other investigative
powers.
And while many see the new cooperation as essential in combating the
enormous threat, for others it raises civil-liberties concerns - and
resurrects dark memories of CIA monitoring of domestic groups, including
1970s antiwar protesters.
Those domestic intrusions drove Congress and the president to tighten
restrictions dating back to the 1947 creation of the CIA that bar the
agency from any "domestic police function."
"Traditionally, there's been a sharp demarcation between FBI and CIA turf
... but now there's more ambiguity," says Loch Johnson, author of
"America's Secret Power: The CIA in a Democratic Society."
One of the most-significant changes is the CIA and other government
agencies' new access to one of the most powerful domestic investigative
tools - federal grand-jury proceedings - under the USA Patriot Act, which
passed in the wake of Sept. 11. Now, if any grand-jury investigation
involves matters of "foreign intelligence or counterintelligence" its
fruits may be shared with relevant federal agencies, the statute reads.
"That's a big change in criminal law," notes Robert Davis, founder of the
University of Mississippi's Journal of National Security Law.
Critics worry that "foreign intelligence" information is a very broad
category that extends far beyond just fighting terrorism. They also worry
the information flow won't just be one way. Instead, the CIA may eventually
suggest certain avenues for investigation.
Defenders of the change argue prosecutors will be zealous about defending
their grand-jury proceedings from outside interference.
What really worries critics is the CIA's past history of domestic
operations. In the 1960s and '70s, for instance, Operation CHAOS included
CIA involvement in spying on US citizens including antiwar protesters,
black militant groups and even congressmen.
President Nixon's White House encouraged these activities, convinced that
foreign powers stood behind anti-war radicals.
Yet advocates of the changes say the present threats on American soil
differ significantly from the domestic snooping conducted by the Nixon
administration.
In fact, supporters point out that drastic government measures - such as
Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War - have
typically been temporary. Indeed, the most-controversial elements of the
USA Patriot Act do eventually expire.
IN the meantime, the stepped-up cooperation is crucial, says ex-Director
Gates, who argues the relevant historical parallel is not Operation CHAOS
but Pearl Harbor.
In 1941 - as in 2001 - "disparate government agencies had bits of
information" that pointed to an attack.
"But there was no single agency to pull everything together in a coherent
analysis of the threat," Gates says.
The new information sharing is the only way to prepare against new attacks.
The USA Patriot act allows the CIA, FBI, the Border Patrol, and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to share information broadly. And
it's likely to lead to FBI and CIA agents working closely together here in
the US.
This greater cooperation comes at a time of significantly increased federal
investigation powers. For instance, under the PATRIOT act, law enforcement
can now more easily conduct secret searches of homes and businesses, while
a change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it easier for
law enforcement to obtain wiretaps.
Such activity may help prevent future terrorist acts. But there is also
concern that it will lead to a blending of the intelligence and
law-enforcement cultures.
Yet there are hints it won't be so easy for the two agencies to work
together, given the history of antagonism between the two and the CIA's
reluctance to repeat its past mistakes.
Somehow, experts say, the agencies must strike a tricky balance. "The
concept of keeping them separate makes good sense in general," says
University of Virginia law professor John Norton Moore. But after Sept. 11,
"it's inconceivable not to have the two talking to each other."
- - - - -
07) Bush to Ignore Rule on Written Notices of Intelligence Actions
Heidi Przybyla (Bloomberg)
28 Dec 01
CRAWFORD, Texas -- President George W. Bush said he'll use presidential
authority to sidestep a rule requiring his administration to provide
Congress with written notice of U.S. intelligence activities.
Bush made the announcement in signing the intelligence authorization act
for fiscal year 2002, which includes an amendment stating that reports to
Congress should ``always be in written form.''
Requiring written notice of planned U.S. intelligence activities may
``impair foreign relations'' and national security, Bush said in a
statement. The law also increases the overall intelligence budget 7
percent.
The move follows a spat between the president and members of Congress over
how much classified information he should provide Capitol Hill about U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan. In October, Bush tried to limit access
to such information to leaders of both parties and the chairmen of the
congressional committees with jurisdiction over the military.
Bush sent Congress a memo laying out the restrictions after leaks from an
intelligence briefing produced stories that said administration officials
told members of Congress there was a ``100 percent chance'' of retaliatory
terrorist strikes should the U.S. attack Afghanistan over the Sept. 11
terrorist assaults in New York and Washington.
After Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and legislators of both parties
argued that information-sharing is part of the process, Bush backed away
from the restrictions on who would get intelligence briefings from the
Defense and State departments.
- - - - -
08) The Discreet Charm of the Straight Spin
Norman Solomon (Creators Syndicate)
3 Jan 02
If my memory is correct, it was a Jerry Lewis movie. More than 40 years
later, I still remember the scenes of a grown man so gullible that he
believed his television. What a laugh riot! The guy dashed out to shop
every time a commercial told him exactly what to buy. Then he'd sit in
front of the TV set, dyeing his hair and smoking cigars, awaiting further
instructions.
It was quite funny -- to a 10-year-old, anyway. Even back then, it seemed
incontrovertibly absurd to think that someone would be so credulous about
televised messages.
Today, print journalists may roll their eyes at the mention of
television. Those of us who write for newspapers are (ahem) rather more
sophisticated and nuanced. But even someone who sticks to reading the news
has probably gotten the authoritative word that Sept. 11 changed
"everything."
And so, it was unremarkable when, on the last Sunday of 2001, the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch flatly stated in an editorial: "The unspeakable, the
unthinkable, the inconceivable horror of that day changed everything."
Meanwhile, a couple of thousand miles away, Northern California's largest
newspaper was even more over the top as the San Francisco Chronicle's front
page proclaimed: "Attack on the U.S. changed everyone and everything
everywhere."
When highly regarded news outlets are serving up wild hyperbole in the
guise of sober analysis, you gotta figure that some screws in the nation's
media machinery are seriously loose.
On the trail of jingo-narcissism, it's difficult to stay within shouting
distance of television. In early fall, Pentagon reporters
sought -- and got -- more frequent news conferences. "Let's hear it for the
essential daily briefing, however hollow and empty it might be," Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in the middle of October. "We'll do it."
Since then, Rumsfeld has regularly helped with the propaganda chores.
Airing live on such cable networks as MSNBC, CNN and Fox, his performances
have won profuse media accolades. A news report by CNN called him "a
virtual rock star." A Wall Street Journal essay -- by TV critic Claudia
Rosett, a member of the newspaper's editorial board -- described Rumsfeld
as "a gent who in our country's hour of need has turned out to be one (of)
the classiest acts on camera."
Published on the last day of the year, Rosett's article was a fitting
climax to a media season of slathering over the well-heeled boots of the
man in charge of the Pentagon. During recent weeks, she noted approvingly,
"in print and on the air, we've been hearing about Don Rumsfeld, sex
symbol, the new hunk of home-front airtime."
Deep into the mass-media groove, the Wall Street Journal piece
declared: "The basic source of Mr. Rumsfeld's charm is that he talks
straight. He doesn't expend his energy on spin..." Now there's an example
of some prodigious spinning. Actually, Rumsfeld -- who excels at sticking
to the lines of the day -- is a fine practitioner of spin in the
minimalist style, with deception accomplished mostly by what's left
unsaid.
For some, Rumsfeld's dissembling style is a source of continual delight.
"These briefings, beamed out live, have become, to my mind, the best new
show on television," Rosett wrote. "It's a rare one that doesn't contain,
at some point, some variation on his wry trademark reply when asked to
discuss matters he'd rather not go into: 'I could, but I won't.'"
One of the subjects that Rumsfeld would rather not go into is
civilian deaths in Afghanistan.
A few weeks ago, University of New Hampshire professor Marc Herold released
a report calculating that 3,767 Afghan civilians had been killed by the
bombing between Oct. 7 and Dec. 10. The report was ignored by major U.S.
media.
In Britain, the report received a bit more attention. "The price in blood
that has already been paid for America's war against terror is only now
starting to become clear," an editor at the London-based Guardian wrote on
Dec. 20. Seumas Milne explained that Herold's research was "based on
corroborated reports from aid agencies, the UN, eyewitnesses, TV
stations, newspapers and news agencies around the world."
Milne added: "Of course, Herold's total is only an estimate. But what is
impressive about his work is not only the meticulous cross-checking, but
the conservative assumptions he applies to each reported incident. The
figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries; nor those
killed in the past 10 days (Dec. 10-20); nor those who have died from cold
and hunger because of the interruption of aid supplies or because they were
forced to become refugees by the bombardment."
As wars go, we are supposed to understand, this has been a noble one. Great
men like Donald Rumsfeld have told us so. However, from a more informed and
less credulous vantage point, buying such claims might seem absurd. But not
funny like a Jerry Lewis movie.
* * * * *
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/>
