From jad@ckuxb.att.com  Ukn Jan 27 11:59:41 1993 Received: from
	att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2) id AA21485; Wed, 27 Jan 93
	11:59:38 -0500 Message-Id: <9301271659.AA21485@css.itd.umich.edu> From:
	jad@ckuxb.att.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:37 EST To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu
	Status: RO X-Status:

	Article 13680 of alt.individualism: Newsgroups:
	alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
	From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo) Subject: Part I, DANIEL SHEEHAN: CIA
	Agents Infest U.S. Mass Media Message-ID:
	<1992Nov11.124208.11887@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Keywords: Daniel Sheehan:
	CIA Agents Infest U.S. Mass Media Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
	Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia. Date: Wed, 11 Nov
	1992 12:42:08 GMT Lines: 135


	I made the following transcript from a tape recording of a broadcast by
	Pacifica Radio Network station WBAI-FM (99.5) 505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl. New
	York, NY 10018       (212) 279-0707

	*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

	GARY NULL: The Public's right to know is not always what the Public ends up
	getting. The Public frequently gets such one-sided, biased information -- and
	not just from the mass media. It's easy to have a long arm that protects the
	special interest groups: this kind of a "one world family" of insiders that
	is capable of affecting federal judges, U.S. attorneys, to slant or obstruct
	justice, to hide or cover up crucial information, and to interfere with our
	liberties.

	Daniel Sheehan, as much as any attorney in the United States, and the
	Christic Institute have taken it upon themselves to try to challenge some of
	these injustices and to give us the information that they have distilled from
	their work that gives us a different perspective. Unfortunately, rare is it
	that any of the mainstream media covers the work of the Christic Institute or
	of Daniel Sheehan. And if they did, it would be a very enlightened Public who
	would be benefiting from this. Welcome to our program, Daniel Sheehan.

	DANIEL SHEEHAN: Thank you, Gary.

	GARY NULL: Daniel, earlier on, one of our guests was talking about -- and I'd
	like for you to follow through on this theme -- that what we're told in the
	media (and what we're told officially from Government sources) and what is
	the truth are frequently at varying degrees against each other. Give us one
	specific .....

	DANIEL SHEEHAN: That's absolutely true. There has been a major campaign on
	the part of the Central Intelligence Agency, for example, to place Central
	Intelligence Agency agents, trained agents, IN various news media posts.
	We've found the documents on this. It was called "Operation Mocking Bird".
	And they placed Central Intelligence Agency operatives in places like TIME
	Magazine and LIFE Magazine, the New York Times, inside CBS and ABC News.

	Originally, the intent of "Operation Mocking Bird" was to make certain that
	these major media outlets reflected an adequately anti-communist perspective.
	And then, of course, as they became entrenched and in-place, any time the
	Central Intelligence Agency wanted a story killed or distorted they would
	just contact their agents inside. Now they have bragged openly in private
	memos back and forth inside the Agency about how proud they are of having
	really important "assets" inside virtually every major news media in the
	United States. And I've encountered this repeatedly.

	For example, the Chief National Security Correspondent for TIME Magazine,
	Bruce Van Voorst[sp], is a regular Central Intelligence Agency officer.  It
	turns out that Ben Bradlee from the Washington Post was a regular Central
	Intelligence Agency officer prior to coming to his post at the Washington
	Post.

	[JD: Once CIA, always CIA, unless they go public (e.g. Agee, Stockwell,
	McGehee, MacMichael, Marchetti, Riconosciuto, etc.)]

	Bob Woodward at the Washington Post was the Point-Briefer for U.S. Naval
	Intelligence of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff before he went over to the
	Washington Post.

	[JD: If anyone can summarize or make direct transcripts from published
	sources attesting to the CIA's subornation of such journalists as Walter
	Cronkite and Dan Rather regarding the cover-up of the assassination of
	President Kennedy, please post it as a follow-up to this article. I know,
	from my own observations of the Watergate scandal, that Dan Rather was the
	most vociferous attacker of Richard Nixon throughout that long series of
	press conferences punctuating the process of what we now know to be a
	CIA-sponsored soft-coup -- the second CIA coup d'etat in recent history.]

	We find these people constantly in the news media and, as I may have pointed
	out to you in one of your shows, when the New York Times was refusing to
	print any information about Oliver North and Richard Secord [President
	Reagan's assistants], Albert Hakim and Rob Owen, and all of these other men
	who, throughout 1985 and 1986, were engaged in this MASSIVE criminal
	conspiracy to violate the Boland Amendment prohibiting any weapons shipments
	to the Contras, and who were involved in smuggling TOW missiles to Iran ....
	as this information was being communicated to the New York Times by sources
	that we had, the New York Times absolutely refused to print any of this. And
	the reason for it was, according to Keith Schneider -- who was one of the
	reporters assigned to at least address this stuff and look into it .... he
	said that they were refusing to print any of it because their high-level
	sources inside the Central Intelligence Agency refused to confirm the
	stories.

	Now, that kind of relationship between self-conscious "assets" of the Covert
	Operations Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a political police
	force on an international level, if you will, and an economic police force to
	protect the ostensible economic interests of United States industries .... to
	place those people inside a news media -- which, under the First Amendment,
	ostensibly has the responsibility to critique and investigate potential
	injustices on the part of the State, inside the Government -- is an
	extraordinarily dangerous development here in the United States.

	GARY NULL: Thank you for that insight.  Could you also give us some
	understanding of one case in particular (if you could highlight it) that
	you're privy to, to show how we can export a form of terrorism, we can
	support movements to destabilize DEMOCRACIES in any country whose position we
	don't choose to support, where multi-national corporations' interests may
	feel threatened and, as a result, we'll use our various branches of
	Government to thwart the local populace, invade their sovereignty, disrupt
	their complete political system, and how they manipulate the stories in the
	Press so that it's NEVER the way that we're told it is.

	DANIEL SHEEHAN: Well, for example, I think one of the most obvious stories is
	about the democratic socialist Government of Chile under Salvador Allende,
	when he was popularly elected by a significant majority of the populace in
	Chile, under a hundred-year-old democracy down there. Now the confidential
	documents make it perfectly evident that the Nixon Administration and Richard
	Helms [Director] of the Central Intelligence Agency and Henry Kissinger, the
	National Security Advisor, began a MAJOR covert campaign to attempt to
	destroy that country.

	They mounted what they called the "Track One" and "Track Two" strategies. The
	"Track One" strategy was to engage in an overt political propaganda campaign
	against the Allende Government: criticizing him constantly, attacking his
	economic programs, attempting to give money through A.I.D. and certain other
	above-the-table programs to counter the democratic socialist, or mixed
	economy that was being advocated by Allende. Politically, it was a completely
	democratic process, but economically, they were looking for alternative
	mechanisms for stimulating the economy, having some industries supervised by
	democratic governmental forces, and others left completely in the private
	sector. This "Track One"

	This "Track One" program, however, was not allowed to be the only mechanism
	by means of which the Nixon Administration tried to destabilize the
	Governmment. They had an ultra-covert program called "Track Two," and under
	this program, coordinated by Kissinger and the Central Intelligence Agency
	under Richard Helms, they did such things as, for example, they had two
	operatives of the Director of Latin American Affairs for the Central
	Intelligence Agency, one being Theodore G. Shackley, from 1971 all the way up
	to 1973. They, in fact, ran the "Track Two" operation wherein they did such
	things as physically kidnap the Chief-of-Staff of President Salvador Allende,
	General Schneider and had him ASSASSINATED. They also met covertly with the
	military forces under Ernesto Pinochet, a virtual fascist inside the
	military, to plan and plot a military overthrow of the democratically elected
	government, which they pulled off in September of 1973. And they ultimately
	assassinated President Salvador Allende.

	They then pursued the Ambassador of the democratic Government of Chile in the
	United States. In fact, they tracked him down and assassinated him right on
	the main streets of Washington, D.C. They blew up his car and killed him.

	[JD: The murder victims were Ambassador Orlando Letelier and his American
	secretary, Ronnie Moffit.

	Now that kind of activity was being conducted by the Central Intelligence
	Agency all the way up to and through 1976 when George Bush was the Director
	of the Central Intelligence Agency. It was in 1976 that the Chilean
	Ambassador to the United States, from the former democratic Government, was
	assassinated. That democratic Government was overthrown by Ernesto Pinochet
	and a military dictatorship was established down in Chile.

	These are the kinds of activities that they [the CIA] have been engaged in
	for a long time. They have done this pursuant to a doctrine which was
	enunciated back in 1954 under a secret commission, that was set up inside the
	Central Intelligence Agency, known as "the Doolittle Commission". And they
	articulated -- in a classified document which has now been obtained by the
	Christic Institute -- stating very specifically that they were engaged in a
	secret war against forces of socialism and communism which had an alternative
	economic theory of development. And they said that it was necessary to combat
	these forces with any and all means necessary. And it said in the report that
	it was going to be necessary to abandon the normal standards of decency and
	fair play, that are believed in by the American Public, in order to defeat
	these forces of socialism and communism. And therefore, it's going to become
	inevitably necessary to CAUSE the People of the United States to come to
	grips with the need to abandon these traditional standards of decency; and
	that that was going to be part of the obligation of the Central Intelligence
	Agency: to, subtly and over time, persuade the American Public that it was
	naive and impossible to adhere to these standards and principles of honesty
	and decency in the international theater.

	DANIEL SHEEHAN: And that, of course, was what were the high halcyon days of
	this under George Bush, when he was the Director of the Central Intelligence
	Agency, and a little bit earlier when Richard Nixon was the President of the
	United States. And when you have that kind of attitude toward the rest of the
	world, it becomes inevitable, of course, that that kind of infection tends to
	feed back into the domestic policies of the United States, such that you have
	Richard Nixon engaging the "Plumbers" unit, and the others who began to use
	espionage and basically terrorist tactics against the domestic citizenry of
	the United States: infiltrating Black civil rights organizations, the
	feminist organizations, the anti-war groups. And, in fact, they began playing
	dirty tricks on them: writing false memos, accusing the leaders of certain
	movements of committing adultery, or of having affairs with other people
	inside [their organizations]; consciously attempting to disrupt and to
	destroy any type of democratic [any LEGAL] citizens' organization that took a
	position that was contrary to the position advocated SECRETLY by the Central
	Intelligence Agency.

	That's the kind of infection that is at the heart of the democratic
	principles of our nation that we still see manifesting in things like the
	Iran-Contra Scandal with Oliver North and Richard Secord and the others who,
	in fact, secretly defied all of our democratic institutions: the resolutions
	of the Congress, the clearly enunciated voice of the majority of the people
	of our country who did not want to support the Contras in Latin America who
	were the former military national guard officers of the dictator Anastasio
	Samoza in Nicaragua. And so, these men went underground and undertook
	criminal covert warfare which inevitably led them into seeking illicit
	sources of money, since they couldn't get it from the tax monies of the
	American People. And they ended up establishing alliances with the Colombian
	cocaine cartel, that is still in the news, even as of this morning, with
	Pablo Escobar fighting his way out of his own luxury prison to escape.

	We have this kind of history, tracking all the way from the end of the Second
	World War in 1945 and 1946, all the way up to today, the very day that we're
	speaking here, with manifestations of this type of criminal undercover
	alliance that they have. And it is hacking at the very heart of the
	institutions of democracy.

	GARY NULL: Thank you, Dan, for that explanation.  I'm wondering at what point
	we will also begin to connect the corporate structures that function as a
	government policy think-tank, frequently in the multi-national corporations
	in different countries, that decide that THEIR use of the natural resources,
	THEIR use of the cheap labor, THEIR use of the local population, THEIR
	general support of the dictators, all of this is in THEIR economic best
	interests. And then, if there is any dissent .... if there is any
	journalistic dissent, political dissent, social dissent, that they can then
	contact THEIR friends in OUR State Department who then use OUR Defense
	Department as a weapon of foreign policy to protect the interests of these
	multi-national corporations.

	Then they whip the media into a frenzy, always showing THEIR side. But it is
	never an honest projection, so that when we do intervene, we can violate the
	national sanctity of other countries, just like we did with Grenada and
	Nicaragua and El Salvador [worst of all, with Panama and Iraq] and these
	other countries.

	DANIEL SHEEHAN: Well, there are a number of very stark examples of this, of
	course. Historically, Gary, one of the most transparent is the action taken
	against Guatemala in 1954 wherein the United Fruit Company, a member of the
	board of directors of which was the Director of the Central Intelligence
	Agency, Allen Dulles, the brother of John Foster Dulles who, in fact, was the
	Secretary of State of the United States [under Eisenhower]. His brother,
	Allen was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a member of the
	board of Directors of United Fruit Company, which owned VAST land holdings in
	the country of Guatemala, which had been SEIZED from the peasants by a major
	military government that was basically installed and kept in power by covert
	means of the Central Intelligence Agency.

	When, in fact, the citizenry of Guatemala had organized themselves and had,
	in fact, installed a democratic government in Guatemala under Arbanes[sp],
	the Central Intelligence Agency coordinated a major covert alliance with
	elements of the military in Guatemala and undertook a military seizure of the
	government in 1954. That was coordinated by E. Howard Hunt [paymaster to the
	assassins of President Kennedy].

	Now, that overthrow was, for one of the major reasons, to reinstall the
	United Fruit Company because the new democratic government under Arbanes had
	begun to question the legitimacy of the United Fruit Company to hold hundreds
	of thousands of acres of irrigatable land under the control of growing
	bananas for export, instead of allowing the peasants -- who had originally
	owned all of that land which had been illegitimately seized by the military
	government -- to be reinstated with the possession of their land.

	So, it was very clear, in that particular instance, that there is a direct
	relationship between the economic interests of a privately- owned,
	profit-making company, the United Fruit Company, and American foreign policy,
	which was undertaken covertly and criminally by the Central Intelligence
	Agency, at the helm of which was a member of the board of directors of the
	United Fruit Company.

	Now, those things have happened again and again. We have examples in Panama.
	We have examples in, of course, El Salvador, and we have examples in
	Nicaragua. There's some very unheralded writing in books about this. There's
	a former general of the United States Marine Corps, a man named Smedley
	Butler, who led three of the expeditionary forces of the United States
	Military into Nicaragua back during the 1930s. And he eventually -- from
	direct experience on the ground -- came to his own personal conclusion that
	he could no longer participate in doing those kinds of things because, as he
	said, he realized that he was just a gun-thug for Brown Brothers- Harriman,
	the major American capital investment corporation.

	DANIEL SHEEHAN: General Smedley Butler couldn't do this anymore, so he
	retired from the United States Marine Corps and eventually led a major
	movement in the United States to try to stop this kind of thing. In fact,
	when Franklin Roosevelt was elected President, major economic interests in
	the United States attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead a
	military coup against the United States because there were large elements in
	the banking industry -- Jay P. Morgan and all the way up to and including the
	father of John F. Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy -- who, in fact, were EXTREMELY
	sympathetic to the state capitalist system that was being set up by Hitler
	and the Nazi Party in Germany. There were major investments being made.

	There were a number of books written, giving great detail about the kind of
	support that existed in very high-level industrial and banking circles in the
	United States, through the 1930s, for this peculiar concept of economics in
	government called "state capitalism," whereby you don't really have just
	simple private industry. And you don't have private enterprise and free
	enterprise. What you have, instead, is a system by means of which the organs
	of the state -- of the government -- gather tax money from the average people
	and they transfer it to the private companies that are owned by these few
	families. And they subsidize those companies, whether they be major weapons
	industries, ball-bearing factories, rolling-steel plants, etc.  Major heavy
	industry is subsized by the hard-earned taxed salaries of average working
	citizens. And they attempt to take away the risks of owning and running huge
	private businesses like that under the theory that those businesses are so
	big and so powerful that they need to be kept healthy and stable by the tools
	of the state and the organs of the state for the general health of the
	country.

	So, that's what they do. That's what they did in Germany throughout the
	1930s. That was the basic thesis behind what they called "national socialism"
	[naziism], which was -- from a purely political science point-of-view and in
	economic analysis -- a system of "state capitalism."

	GARY NULL: But that's also one of the tenets of this "new world order."

	DANIEL SHEEHAN: That's exactly right!

	GARY NULL: People should understand where it's coming from. The same
	architects of this old capitalist system are now the architects of this new
	capitalist system.

	Daniel Sheehan, I want to thank you very much for sharing insights with us,
	as always, lucid and in-depth. And I appreciate your participation. Could you
	please give us the phone number of the Christic Institute?

	*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

	This is one of countless stories unveiling the deeply corrupted and subverted
	state of our theoretically democratic Government. This story makes
	disgustingly obvious the fact that patriotism is not the waving of flags, the
	tying of yellow ribbons and the mindless support of the Government, just
	because it happens to be ours. You don't support cancer just because you
	happen to have it. Patriotism is telling the truth to the people of our
	country in order that they may unite to conquer the anti-democratic cancer
	that is gradually destroying ours and our children's freedom. So please post
	the installments of this ongoing series to other bulletin boards, and post
	hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.  That would be a truly
	patriotic deed. --- The Christic Institute has recently suffered devastating
	blows from a vicious vendetta launched by the same treasonous criminals,
	ensconced in our Federal Government, whom the Christic Institute has been
	suing for egregious violations of United States laws -- crimes such as
	narcotics importation and the terrorist LaPenca bombing, which killed
	American journalist Linda Frazier and wounded another American jounalist,
	Tony Avirgan. The Christic Institute has evidence showing that the LaPenca
	bombing was perpetrated by the corporate-CIA under one of its officers named
	John Hull. The Christic lawsuit was met by retaliatory Federal fines designed
	to bankrupt the Christic Institute and to hold it up as an example, for all
	to see, that this is the punishment that citizens can expect whenever they
	dare to interfere with the criminals who usurp the People's Government.

	The Christic Institute is still alive, however, but in desperate need of help
	from those few Americans of conscience who still exist in today's selfish
	society.  Please call the Christic Institute at 1(310) 287-1556 in Los
	Angeles, even if it's just to offer a word of support. ---- Over the years,
	we've been given purposeful treatments of visual thought-control via the
	cinema and television screens. A recent attempt to expunge the historical
	truth by washing from the American viewer's brain any notion that the CIA
	just might be the real terrorist force that is murdering and torturing
	without provocation is the propaganda flick, PATRIOT GAMES.

	Now here we have an innocent CIA agent who is forced by Irish terrorists to
	retaliate with utter viciousness, even though it goes against his instinctive
	sense of decency. And this mythical two-dimensional screen fabrication is
	supposed to cover up the three-dimensional reality of the typical real- life
	CIA agent's atrocities, which involve smuggling narcotics to the streets of
	United States cities, torturing and massacring oppressed peasants in Central
	America, perpetrating terrorist bombings in public places, assassinating the
	people's elected leaders and installing naziistic dictators in their places,
	poisoning the food and water supplies of populaces, planning, provoking and
	leading the holocaust in Angola, wherein two hundred thousand peasants were
	slaughtered ....

	So, if combatting terrorists is a "PATRIOT'S GAME," then the CIA, as the
	world's dominant terrorist organization, is a gang of TRAITORS. Every loyal
	CIA agent routinely desecrates his/her country's principles of "liberty and
	justice for all" -- not out of necessity, but because the CIA has
	historically been commandeered as a weapon by the ruling elite to seize
	possession and power over foreign natural and human resources.

	Don't allow the CIA's "assets" -- moguls in the film industry -- to betray
	and deceive the movie-going public who enrich them. Loyal CIA agents are not
	"patriots." They are TRAITORS. ---- Right now, Daniel Sheehan and the
	Christic Institute are trying to recover from a one-and-a-half million dollar
	fine imposed on them by the criminals in the Government who were being
	targeted by a Christic lawsuit charging CIA officer John Hull with the
	terrorist LaPenca bombing which killed American journalist Linda Frazier and
	wounded another American journalist, Tony Avirgan.

	Please help the Christic Institute to get back on its feet and continue
	fighting in defense of ours and our children's Constitution. Please call them
	in Los Angeles at 1(310) 287-1556, if only to voice your moral support.

	John DiNardo