By Phil Mattera, Dirt Diggers Digest
ISS - Institute for Southern Studies
www.southernstudies.org
Would a consulting company owned by Exxon be considered an impartial source of analysis on global warming, or would such a firm owned by Xe (formerly Blackwater) be regarded as a good judge of federal policy on the use of mercenaries? Probably not; in fact, they would, in all likelihood, be seen as front groups for the interests of their corporate parents.
Then how is it that one of the most influential consulting firms on health care policy is the Lewin Group, which is owned by a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the largest of the for-profit medical insurance corporations and thus a very interested party when it comes to the current deliberations in Congress on major health care reform?
Lewin claims to be "objective" and "impartial," but some of its analysis is repeatedly being used in very partisan ways by Republican members of Congress (such as John Boehner and Orin Hatch) and conservative commentators (the Heritage Foundation and Rich Lowry of National Review) to attack the idea of a public option in legislation that would seek to provide coverage to the uninsured. They typically do not mention Lewin's relationship to UnitedHealth, which will benefit greatly if the public option is eliminated.
Those seeking to shield for-profit insurers from a competing federal plan are trumpeting Lewin research purporting to show that the existence of at least some versions of a public option would result in a mass exodus from employer-provided plans with higher premiums. Lewin claims that some 119 million of the 171 million people covered by employer plans could migrate to Uncle Sam's offering. Given the assumption that taxpayers will be subsidizing participants in the public plan, such a shift is seen as creating a fiscal disaster for the federal government and the collapse of private plans. The rabidly pro-corporate group Conservatives for Patients' Rights uses the Lewin research in a TV ad that depicts a public plan as a bulldozer that could "crush all your other choices, driving them out of existence."
Lewin insists that it has "editorial independence," but it is difficult to believe that its judgments are not influenced by the identity of its corporate parents. Its immediate parent, by the way, is Ingenix, a major player in healthcare information technology, especially billing systems. Ingenix, of course, also has a vested interest in protecting the for-profit medical bureaucracy. Ingenix and its parent UnitedHealth have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to settle class-action lawsuits stemming from investigations spearheaded by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo charging that Ingenix promoted a database product that allowed insurers to underpay their members when reimbursing for out-of-network expenses.
Lewin was in existence for three decades when Ingenix and UnitedHealth acquired it in 2007. It's interesting that before that deal Lewin was often in the news in connection with reports it produced for states such as California, Hawaii and Vermont showing the potential benefits of state single-payer systems. The firm released one such report (for Colorado) after being acquired by Ingenix, but these days Lewin seems to focus more on the hazards of expanded government involvement in healthcare. Lewin Senior Vice President John Sheils (photo) told the Associated Press that "the private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether" if a public option were enacted.
Sheils insists he is impartial, but he has been aggressive in spreading the word about the potential drawbacks of the public option. He confronted President Obama directly on the issue last week as one of the questioners in an ABC News special whose host, Charles Gibson, seemed determined to bash government involvement in health insurance.
The Lewin Group acquisition added an insignificant amount to UnitedHealth's annual revenues but it turned out to be a valuable investment for the $80 billion insurance giant. While playing the role of a neutral analyst, the consulting firm is in reality defending the interests of its corporate parents and the rest of the for-profit health insurance business. The most effective business front group is one that believes it is independent.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/07/voices-an-independent-corporate-front-group.html
Monday, July 20, 2009
CIA Officials Committed 'Fraud on the Court,' Judge Rules
Ruling Says Five Agency Lawyers and Officials Withheld Key Information During Suit
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post
July 20, 2009
A federal judge has ruled that government officials committed fraud while defending a lawsuit brought by a former DEA agent who accused a CIA operative of illegally bugging his home.
In rulings unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote that he was also considering sanctions against five current and former agency lawyers and officials, including former director George Tenet, for withholding key information about the operative's covert status.
The rulings, issued in recent months, highlighted what the judge called fraudulent work by CIA lawyers in defending a suit that Lamberth said had a lengthy and "twisted history." Brought in 1994 by DEA Agent Richard A. Horn, the suit alleged that the CIA illegally bugged his residence in Rangoon, Myanmar, while he was serving in the country.
Horn said that portions of a telephone conversation with a subordinate were used by the head of the U.S. mission, Franklin Huddle, to oust him from his post.
Horn, 63, returned to the United States and retired from the DEA in 2000, according to his attorney. His suit was sealed at the government's request.
The CIA operative and Huddle, represented by the Justice Department, fought the suit and asked Lamberth to throw it out, invoking the state's secrets privilege. The government argued that the case involved information, including the CIA operative's identity, that was too sensitive to be revealed in court.
Lamberth agreed and dismissed the suit in 2004. Three years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned Lamberth, ruling that Horn could try to prove his case against Huddle by using unclassified information. The court upheld Lamberth's decision to remove the CIA operative from the suit.
Early last year the Justice Department informed Lamberth that the CIA operative's cover had actually been lifted in 2002 but nobody told the judge or the appeals court about the change. A CIA lawyer learned about it in 2005 but did not alert the Justice Department, Lamberth or the appeals court, Lamberth wrote.
Lamberth identified that lawyer as Jeffrey W. Yeates. In his rulings, Lamberth chastised the former CIA operative, identified as Arthur Brown, for not informing the courts about his change in status and reinstated Brown as a defendant. Brown claimed in court papers that he told top CIA lawyers about his cover being lifted as early as 2002.
Lamberth called the decision to withhold the information a "fraud on the court."
"The CIA was well-aware that the assertion of the state secrets privilege as to Brown was a key strategy in getting the case dismissed," Lamberth added.
In an order issued yesterday, Lamberth ordered Yeates, Brown, Tenet and three current or former CIA lawyers -- John Rizzo, Robert J. Eatinger and A. John Radsan -- to file court documents explaining why he should not sanction them for the government's conduct. Attorneys for the officials and lawyers declined to comment or could not be reached. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "takes seriously its obligations to U.S. courts."
Horn's attorney, Brian C. Leighton, said that Lamberth's rulings showed the CIA was trying to "cover up wrong-doing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002251.html
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post
July 20, 2009
A federal judge has ruled that government officials committed fraud while defending a lawsuit brought by a former DEA agent who accused a CIA operative of illegally bugging his home.
In rulings unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote that he was also considering sanctions against five current and former agency lawyers and officials, including former director George Tenet, for withholding key information about the operative's covert status.
The rulings, issued in recent months, highlighted what the judge called fraudulent work by CIA lawyers in defending a suit that Lamberth said had a lengthy and "twisted history." Brought in 1994 by DEA Agent Richard A. Horn, the suit alleged that the CIA illegally bugged his residence in Rangoon, Myanmar, while he was serving in the country.
Horn said that portions of a telephone conversation with a subordinate were used by the head of the U.S. mission, Franklin Huddle, to oust him from his post.
Horn, 63, returned to the United States and retired from the DEA in 2000, according to his attorney. His suit was sealed at the government's request.
The CIA operative and Huddle, represented by the Justice Department, fought the suit and asked Lamberth to throw it out, invoking the state's secrets privilege. The government argued that the case involved information, including the CIA operative's identity, that was too sensitive to be revealed in court.
Lamberth agreed and dismissed the suit in 2004. Three years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned Lamberth, ruling that Horn could try to prove his case against Huddle by using unclassified information. The court upheld Lamberth's decision to remove the CIA operative from the suit.
Early last year the Justice Department informed Lamberth that the CIA operative's cover had actually been lifted in 2002 but nobody told the judge or the appeals court about the change. A CIA lawyer learned about it in 2005 but did not alert the Justice Department, Lamberth or the appeals court, Lamberth wrote.
Lamberth identified that lawyer as Jeffrey W. Yeates. In his rulings, Lamberth chastised the former CIA operative, identified as Arthur Brown, for not informing the courts about his change in status and reinstated Brown as a defendant. Brown claimed in court papers that he told top CIA lawyers about his cover being lifted as early as 2002.
Lamberth called the decision to withhold the information a "fraud on the court."
"The CIA was well-aware that the assertion of the state secrets privilege as to Brown was a key strategy in getting the case dismissed," Lamberth added.
In an order issued yesterday, Lamberth ordered Yeates, Brown, Tenet and three current or former CIA lawyers -- John Rizzo, Robert J. Eatinger and A. John Radsan -- to file court documents explaining why he should not sanction them for the government's conduct. Attorneys for the officials and lawyers declined to comment or could not be reached. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "takes seriously its obligations to U.S. courts."
Horn's attorney, Brian C. Leighton, said that Lamberth's rulings showed the CIA was trying to "cover up wrong-doing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002251.html
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Parrish's Cult, Nazi Obsession Filled Home
By HOWARD FRANKPocono Record Writer
July 13, 2009
The apartment of the man accused of killing his infant son and girlfriend last week was filled with Nazi memorabilia, an arsenal of weapons and evidence of a strange religious cult.
Michael Parrish shared the home with his girlfriend, Victoria Adams, and their son, Sidney. It was plastered with photos of Hitler, Nazi symbols, books and videos. But it contained something else as well.
Hanging in several rooms in the apartment was a peculiar symbol. An inverted peace sign, made with twigs from branches. There was even one in the baby's room.
A symbol, called Life Rune, was a character from the Runic alphabet that signified life, creation, birth, rebirth and renewal. It was also used by the Nazis on the graves of SS soldiers signifying the soldier's date of birth, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry in the U.S. and abroad.
It is also known as Odin's tree, or Odin. That's how Parrish used to refer to it, according to Luis Gonzales, the boyfriend of Adams' mom, Kim Adams.
Racists use the sign to denote "Giver of Life," in relation to women in the white supremacist movement, the ADL said.
But more significantly, it's the sign of the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi organization led by William Pierce and based near Hillsboro, W.Va. It is the largest and most active neo-Nazi organization in the United States, according to the ADL. The motto on the group's Web site is "Toward a New Consciousness; a New Order; a New People." The home had another bizarre feature — a shrine Gonzales referred to as the prayer room.
"Usually, when I went there with Kim, he'd go into the prayer room. He was real antisocial," Gonzales said.
The room was dedicated to the Nazi movement. Pictures of Adolph Hitler, Nazi signs, SS uniforms. "He collects artifacts like that. He had maybe 100 DVDs of Hitler. The police took that," he said.
The room also had the "sticks" on the wall, the Odin symbol made from branches.
The center of the room contained an altar. On the altar was a picture of Sidney next to a plate with some burned material, according to Gonzales. There were also candles around the room.
"He'd put a mat down on the floor and pray to the stick," Gonzales said.
There was also a coffee table with books in the room. "He wrote passages in them about his belief in the stick," Gonzales said.
During one visit, Gonzales and Parrish talked for a couple of hours. That's when Parrish showed him another of his collections.
"He showed me the two) AK's he got for his birthday. The 20-gauge shotgun Victoria gave him two years ago, when they first met, a .357, a 9 millimeter, a .38 and a stockpile of ammo about three feet high," he said.
Since Barack Obama became president, Gonzales said Parrish started stockpiling ammo, guns and food. "In case of war," Gonzales said.
"He was a real fanatic — a real racist," he said.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090713/NEWS/907130319/-1/NEWS
Democracy Hangs by a Thread in Honduras
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/democracy-hangs-by-a-thread-in-honduras-1752315.html
The right-wing coup d'état is faltering, but its supporters have powerful friends in Washington.
The right-wing coup d'état is faltering, but its supporters have powerful friends in Washington.
... Financial backing for the coup is identified by some as coming from the pharmaceutical industry, which fears Mr Zelaya's plans to produce generic drugs and distribute them cheaply to the impoverished majority in Honduras, who lack all but the most primitive health facilities. Others point to big companies in the telecommunications industry opposed to Hondutel, Honduras's state-owned provider. Parallels are being made with ITT, the US telecommunications company that offered the Nixon government funds for the successful overthrow of President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973.
A key figure is Robert Carmona-Borjas, a Venezuelan active against Mr Chavez in 2002, who later fled to the US. He runs the Washington-based Arcadia, which calls itself "an innovative 'next generation' anti-corruption organisation". Its website carries three video clips alleging, without evidence, that Mr Zelaya, his associates and Hondutel are deeply corrupt. Behind Arcadia are the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), the well-funded overseas arm of the Republican Party. Currently active among the Uighurs of western China, the NED has this year funnelled $1.2m (£740,000) for "political activity" in Honduras.
The focus of attention in the campaign against Mr Zelaya is now on the office of Senator John McCain, the defeated US presidential candidate, who is chairman of the IRI, takes an interest in telecoms affairs in the US Congress and has benefited handsomely from campaign contributions from US telecoms companies – which are said to have funded the abortive 2002 coup against Mr Chavez.
Mr McCain's former legislative counsel, John Timmons, arranged the visit of Micheletti supporters to Washington on 7 July where they met journalists at the National Press Club "to clarify any misunderstandings about Honduras's constitutional process and ... the preservation of the country's democratic institutions".
Meanwhile, within the US administration, difficulties in co-ordination have emerged between the State Department and the White House, with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issuing a low-key condemnation of the coup which was quickly superseded by stronger words from Mr Obama. The President called for Mr Zelaya's reinstatement, which Mrs Clinton had failed to demand.
The conservative-minded Mrs Clinton retains John Negroponte, an ambassador to Honduras under Ronald Reagan, as an adviser. He also represented George W Bush at the UN and in Baghdad. Democratic Senator Chris Dodd attacked Mr Negroponte in 2001 for drawing a veil over atrocities committed in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, by military forces trained by the US. Mr Dodd claimed that the forces had been "linked to death squad activities such as killings, disappearances and other human rights abuses".
During his time in Tegucigalpa, Mr Negroponte directed funds to the US-supported Contra terrorists seeking to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. He assured them of arms and supplies from the Palmerola airstrip, the main US base in Central America. As President Rafael Correa of Ecuador is in the final stages of closing the US base in his country, Mr Negroponte is conscious of what the US could lose if a Zelaya government banned its presence at Palmerola. For their part, Hondurans have noted that when Mr Zelaya tried to return on 6 July, and his plane was refused permission to land at Tegucigalpa airport, no room was found at Palmerola.
Since last July, the US ambassador in Tegucigalpa has been the Cuban-born Hugo Llorens. He was the principal National Security adviser to Mr Bush on Venezuela at the time of the failed 2002 coup, when he was working with two other well-known State Department hardliners, Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams.
Mr Reich, a former US ambassador to Venezuela, advised Mr McCain in his presidential bid and previously worked for AT&T, the US telecoms giant. As he goes into battle against Mr Zelaya, the website of his business consultancy, Otto Reich Associates, quotes Mr Reagan: "You understand the importance of fostering democracy and economic development among our closest neighbours."
Mr Abrams was also deep in the business of supplying the Contra terrorists. He tried to sabotage the Central American peace plans proposed by Oscar Arias, then the Costa Rican President, who later received a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. In 1991 Mr Abrams, a neoconservative passionately supportive of Ehud Olmert and other leading Israeli hawks, was convicted of hiding information from the US Congress investigation of the Iran-Contra affair. The New York Times reported in 2006 that he had strong ties to then vice-president Dick Cheney.
Bush's Key Men Face Grilling on Torture and Death Squads
Former vice-president Dick Cheney could be forced to testify to Congress over allegations that a secret hit squad was set up on his orders, as Democrats press for inquiries into the conduct of the 'war on terror.'
Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/19/george-bush-dick-cheney-torture
Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/19/george-bush-dick-cheney-torture
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Gonzales Dodges Question On Cheney and CIA
Posted by Sean Alfano
CBS
July 14, 2009
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales deflected questions Tuesday regarding whether he knew anything about former Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged orders to the CIA to keep its counterterrorism program secret from Congress.
"It's very difficult to talk about classified activities in an unclassified setting," Gonzales told CBS' The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith.
"We tried to work as hard as we could with Congress in making sure they understood what was going on," in the executive branch Gonzales said. ...
Gonzales' hesitancy to talk may stem from a 2008 Justice Department report that charged he mishandled highly classified and sensitive documents relating to the Bush administration's counterterrorism plans. He resigned amid controversy in 2007 after holding the attorney general post for more than two years. Prior to being attorney general, Gonzales served as President Bush's White House Counsel.
Questions about the CIA program followed a discussion about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings on The Early Show.
Gonzales, himself a former Texas State Supreme Court judge, said a good justice is "sensitive" to his or her biases.
"That should be the reality in every case, not an aspiration," Gonzales said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5157593.shtml
CBS
July 14, 2009
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales deflected questions Tuesday regarding whether he knew anything about former Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged orders to the CIA to keep its counterterrorism program secret from Congress.
"It's very difficult to talk about classified activities in an unclassified setting," Gonzales told CBS' The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith.
"We tried to work as hard as we could with Congress in making sure they understood what was going on," in the executive branch Gonzales said. ...
Gonzales' hesitancy to talk may stem from a 2008 Justice Department report that charged he mishandled highly classified and sensitive documents relating to the Bush administration's counterterrorism plans. He resigned amid controversy in 2007 after holding the attorney general post for more than two years. Prior to being attorney general, Gonzales served as President Bush's White House Counsel.
Questions about the CIA program followed a discussion about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings on The Early Show.
Gonzales, himself a former Texas State Supreme Court judge, said a good justice is "sensitive" to his or her biases.
"That should be the reality in every case, not an aspiration," Gonzales said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5157593.shtml
Liberia’s Taylor says US Arranged Escape
Fled Mass. facility before extradition
By Bryan Bender
Boston Globe
July 17, 2009
The mystery has lingered for more than two decades, spawning conspiracy theories about the US government’s connection to one of Africa’s most brutal leaders: How did Charles G. Taylor escape from a Massachusetts county jail in 1985, setting him on the road to a bloody reign as Liberia’s president?
Taylor, on trial in The Hague for war crimes, broke his silence on the question this week, saying he was sprung from jail as part of a US intelligence operation.
On the night of Sept. 15, 1985, he recounted Wednesday, a guard unlocked his cell at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility - where he was awaiting extradition to Liberia on embezzlement charges - and escorted him to a less-secure unit of the jail. Taylor then tied sheets together, climbed out an open window, and clambered over a fence before meeting two men he assumed were US agents, who whisked him to New York by car.
"I am calling it my release be cause I didn’t break out," Taylor, 61, told his special war crimes court. "I did not pay any money. I did not know the guys who picked me up. I was not hiding" afterward.
The jail guard, he added, "had to be working with someone else."
Taylor’s story has not been verified, and it may only add to questions surrounding his disappearance. Some have theorized that the United States, through either the Central Intelligence Agency or the Defense Intelligence Agency, wanted to use Taylor to gather information in Africa, especially in Libya. Asked yesterday whether the CIA played any role in the jail break, agency spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "That’s absurd."
The agency later declined to say whether it had any relationship with Taylor, either before or after the escape. "We do not, as a rule, comment on these types of allegations," the statement said. A Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman did not have any immediate comment yesterday.
Prosecutors in his trial at The Hague had anticipated that Taylor would assert there was a US role in his escape in a bid to change the subject from his alleged crimes by implicating the United States in his path to power. Taylor, 61, has pleaded not guilty to 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
He is accused of supporting rebels during neighboring Sierra Leone’s 1991-2002 civil war in which an estimated 500,000 people were killed, mutilated, or fell victim to other atrocities. He has insisted that the charges are lies and that he was trying to bring peace to the region.
But in an unusual defense, Taylor told judges yesterday that he saw nothing wrong with displaying the skulls of slain enemy soldiers at roadblocks.
Taylor arrived in the Boston area as a college student in 1972, where he studied economics at Chamberlayne Junior College and later at Bentley College (now University).
He returned to Liberia in the early 1980s, where he briefly worked in the government of President Samuel K. Doe before being accused of embezzling $900,000. He fled to Massachusetts in 1983. He was arrested in Somerville in 1984 and jailed in Plymouth pending extradition to Liberia.
His escape occurred days before a Taylor ally, Thomas Quiwonkpa, launched an unsuccessful military coup against Doe, a former US ally whose ethnic repression and corruption led Washington to cut off aid. Taylor told the war crimes court he was “100 percent positive’’ that the CIA was arming Quiwonkpa.
After the jail break, Taylor testified, he traveled freely in the United States and Mexico before returning to Africa from Mexico City. “My name was on my passport,’’ he said. “No one asked me any questions.’’
After returning to Africa, Taylor testified, he recruited 168 men and women for the National Patriotic Front for Liberia and trained them at a former US military base in Libya. His rebel force attacked Liberia in 1989, ultimately leading to the overthrow of Doe.
Four inmates who escaped with Taylor were recaptured within days.
To this day, the Plymouth County jail can’t say what really happened.
“We’re not in a position to say it’s not true,’’ John Birtwell, spokesman for the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, said yesterday. He said an investigation determined at the time there was no evidence that Taylor’s move was part of an escape plot.
“Through the haze of time it’s hard to know if it was deep black ops or [Taylor] saw an opportunity so he took it,’’ Birtwell said.
FBI’s Boston field office, for its part, said yesterday that the only possible evidence it has of the incident is a computerized record of a fugitive case opened on Taylor in October 1985. But Special Agent Gail Marcinkiewicz, an FBI spokeswoman, said the record indicated that no action was taken on it by the field office.
Asked whether there is a file on the case, she said, “I don’t know if the file exists.’’
A former senior war crimes investigator who dug into Taylor’s case said there may be some truth to the story.
“One person said the CIA had ultimately brought him down through Mexico City,’’ said Alan White, the former chief investigator for the special court who said he “had heard [the claims of a US role in the jail break] from some major informants I had.’’
White added: “How true it is I don’t know. I know the US government never wanted to talk about this whenever we brought it up.’’
White thinks it is plausible that the US government was most interested in Taylor at the time to gather intelligence on Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy, then accused of sponsoring terrorism against the United States.
Nevertheless, White and others said any cooperation back then has little bearing on the alleged crimes Taylor committed as president of Liberia more than a decade after he left the Boston area.
“This is not the first time we supported someone like this and found out later this was somebody that we should not have supported,’’ White said.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/07/17/liberias_taylor_says_us_arranged_escape?mode=PF
By Bryan Bender
Boston Globe
July 17, 2009
The mystery has lingered for more than two decades, spawning conspiracy theories about the US government’s connection to one of Africa’s most brutal leaders: How did Charles G. Taylor escape from a Massachusetts county jail in 1985, setting him on the road to a bloody reign as Liberia’s president?
Taylor, on trial in The Hague for war crimes, broke his silence on the question this week, saying he was sprung from jail as part of a US intelligence operation.
On the night of Sept. 15, 1985, he recounted Wednesday, a guard unlocked his cell at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility - where he was awaiting extradition to Liberia on embezzlement charges - and escorted him to a less-secure unit of the jail. Taylor then tied sheets together, climbed out an open window, and clambered over a fence before meeting two men he assumed were US agents, who whisked him to New York by car.
"I am calling it my release be cause I didn’t break out," Taylor, 61, told his special war crimes court. "I did not pay any money. I did not know the guys who picked me up. I was not hiding" afterward.
The jail guard, he added, "had to be working with someone else."
Taylor’s story has not been verified, and it may only add to questions surrounding his disappearance. Some have theorized that the United States, through either the Central Intelligence Agency or the Defense Intelligence Agency, wanted to use Taylor to gather information in Africa, especially in Libya. Asked yesterday whether the CIA played any role in the jail break, agency spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "That’s absurd."
The agency later declined to say whether it had any relationship with Taylor, either before or after the escape. "We do not, as a rule, comment on these types of allegations," the statement said. A Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman did not have any immediate comment yesterday.
Prosecutors in his trial at The Hague had anticipated that Taylor would assert there was a US role in his escape in a bid to change the subject from his alleged crimes by implicating the United States in his path to power. Taylor, 61, has pleaded not guilty to 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
He is accused of supporting rebels during neighboring Sierra Leone’s 1991-2002 civil war in which an estimated 500,000 people were killed, mutilated, or fell victim to other atrocities. He has insisted that the charges are lies and that he was trying to bring peace to the region.
But in an unusual defense, Taylor told judges yesterday that he saw nothing wrong with displaying the skulls of slain enemy soldiers at roadblocks.
Taylor arrived in the Boston area as a college student in 1972, where he studied economics at Chamberlayne Junior College and later at Bentley College (now University).
He returned to Liberia in the early 1980s, where he briefly worked in the government of President Samuel K. Doe before being accused of embezzling $900,000. He fled to Massachusetts in 1983. He was arrested in Somerville in 1984 and jailed in Plymouth pending extradition to Liberia.
His escape occurred days before a Taylor ally, Thomas Quiwonkpa, launched an unsuccessful military coup against Doe, a former US ally whose ethnic repression and corruption led Washington to cut off aid. Taylor told the war crimes court he was “100 percent positive’’ that the CIA was arming Quiwonkpa.
After the jail break, Taylor testified, he traveled freely in the United States and Mexico before returning to Africa from Mexico City. “My name was on my passport,’’ he said. “No one asked me any questions.’’
After returning to Africa, Taylor testified, he recruited 168 men and women for the National Patriotic Front for Liberia and trained them at a former US military base in Libya. His rebel force attacked Liberia in 1989, ultimately leading to the overthrow of Doe.
Four inmates who escaped with Taylor were recaptured within days.
To this day, the Plymouth County jail can’t say what really happened.
“We’re not in a position to say it’s not true,’’ John Birtwell, spokesman for the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, said yesterday. He said an investigation determined at the time there was no evidence that Taylor’s move was part of an escape plot.
“Through the haze of time it’s hard to know if it was deep black ops or [Taylor] saw an opportunity so he took it,’’ Birtwell said.
FBI’s Boston field office, for its part, said yesterday that the only possible evidence it has of the incident is a computerized record of a fugitive case opened on Taylor in October 1985. But Special Agent Gail Marcinkiewicz, an FBI spokeswoman, said the record indicated that no action was taken on it by the field office.
Asked whether there is a file on the case, she said, “I don’t know if the file exists.’’
A former senior war crimes investigator who dug into Taylor’s case said there may be some truth to the story.
“One person said the CIA had ultimately brought him down through Mexico City,’’ said Alan White, the former chief investigator for the special court who said he “had heard [the claims of a US role in the jail break] from some major informants I had.’’
White added: “How true it is I don’t know. I know the US government never wanted to talk about this whenever we brought it up.’’
White thinks it is plausible that the US government was most interested in Taylor at the time to gather intelligence on Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy, then accused of sponsoring terrorism against the United States.
Nevertheless, White and others said any cooperation back then has little bearing on the alleged crimes Taylor committed as president of Liberia more than a decade after he left the Boston area.
“This is not the first time we supported someone like this and found out later this was somebody that we should not have supported,’’ White said.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/07/17/liberias_taylor_says_us_arranged_escape?mode=PF
Friday, July 17, 2009
Fascism and Italian Football
" ... Historically, football was very important for fascism and likewise the development of football in Italy owes a great deal to fascist involvement. Mussolini recognised the potential held by the emergence of football as an increasingly popular pastime, and one that could be institutionalised and exploited to develop a sense of Italian identity – a trait that can still be observed through the ultras that are still present in modern day domestic and international Italian football matches. ... "
By James Pearson
http://www.footballitaliano.co.uk/article.aspx?id=445
In December 2005, following Paolo Di Canio’s infamous fascist salute to the Lazio ultras during a Serie A league match against Livorno, the enigmatic Italian merely stated to the media: “I will always salute as I did yesterday, because it gives me a sense of belonging to my people” .
Such an event would arguably not be witnessed outside of the culture of Italian football, yet Di Canio’s expression - both on the pitch during the match and off it afterwards – perfectly demonstrates just how deeply embedded fascism is in modern day Italian football, and has been ever since the post-war years when Benito Mussolini came to power in the 1920s and created the all-conquering Azzurri team of the 1930s. However, fascism was not only highly influential in the birth of the Italian game, but its legacy and influence live on in modern day Italian football, even at a national level.
Historically, football was very important for fascism and likewise the development of football in Italy owes a great deal to fascist involvement. Mussolini recognised the potential held by the emergence of football as an increasingly popular pastime, and one that could be institutionalised and exploited to develop a sense of Italian identity – a trait that can still be observed through the ultras that are still present in modern day domestic and international Italian football matches. Mussolini was always familiar with the use of popular culture in his desire to hold power and transform Italian society, and football became a key part of this strategy. Many agree that the prominent moment for fascism in football came in 1926, when the government created the Carta di Via Reggio, which restructured the game and its administration, crucially with appointments to football's governing bodies falling into the remit of Mussolini. As a result fascists took control of the world of football within Italy in the mid-1920s and proceeded to revolutionise the game, building stadiums all over the peninsula, organising rallies around games and adding fascist symbols. In fact, Serie A owes it’s very creation to fascism as it was in 1930 that the singular national league that is the Italian top division was founded by the fascist government of Mussolini in order to create one unifying Italian identity.
It was this pragmatic drive for a national identity that resulted in the creation of a national team, which was to dominate the international game for four years, winning two World Cups and an Olympic gold medal along the way. Football became a tool that was exploited not only domestically in an attempt to develop a sense of Italian identity, but also internationally as a diplomatic tool to improve Italy's standing in the global arena. As a result, the creation and historical backbone of modern day Italian football is formed from the ideology of fascist unity, and the Azzurri’s golden era of achievement in the 1930s is indebted to fascist pragmatism. It was during this time that Italy not only hosted and won the 1934 World Cup tournament but also retained the trophy four years later in France, whilst they added to their two World Cup victories by winning the soccer tournament at the 1936 Berlin Olympics with a team of university students. Italian fascism also fully exploited the opportunities football provided to shape public opinion, penetrate daily life, and reinforce conformity. By politicizing the game, fascism also sought to enhance the regime's international prestige and instill nationalist values.
But while there is no doubt that fascism was strongly influential and a driving force behind football and its development, sport as a whole also most certainly played a philosophical role in fascism. More specifically, football provided the opportunity for Italy, especially on a national level, to heighten its profile throughout Europe and the propaganda opportunity that victory provided was indispensable to a country that was building a strong and united national image. Examples of this can be observed from the early years of the Azzurri, as initially in 1926, when the domestic game was restructured, a ban on foreign players was introduced. Yet, after the Olympic games in 1928 and the World Cup in 1930, where teams such as Argentina and Uruguay were seen to perform very well with players born from Italian emigrants, a very pragmatic approach was once again adopted in the pursuit of victory. Players such as these who were born from Italian emigrants were allowed to play as they were reclassified under the category of oriundo or rimpatriato, allowing them to be eligible to play for the Azzurri whilst simultaneously meaning that there was no need to admit defeat and get rid of old legislation on bans on foreign players. This has remained to the current day and can be seen through players such as Mauro Camoranesi who regularly appear in the Azzurri line up despite not directly holding Italian citizenship.
The Azzurri was not only used as a means of propaganda and a vessel for Italy to unite through, it was also symbolic as it represented Italy as a country and the regime which was shaping it. Naturally the regime's close identification with the Italian football game as a whole meant that Italian clubs and the national team especially were perceived to be fascists. This was most evident when the national team played abroad, as during the 1930s disruptions and protests greeted the Azzurri whenever they travelled. In France for example during the 1938 World Cup, there have been suggestions that there were large-scale anti-fascist protests in cities such as Marseille, with protesters being held back by horse-back police as not only Italians but those outside of Italy saw the Azzurri as very much representative of the regime. To this day stereotypes follow the Azzurri whenever they travel, both in the media and in the terraces of the stadiums in which they play. Indeed in October of 2008, Italy’s game against Bulgaria was marred by pre-match clashes, flag-burning, fascist chanting and displays of neo-Nazi banners. Whilst inside the ground, Italian fans sang the fascist anthem ‘Faccetta Nera’ (Little Black Face) and chanted ‘Duce’ choruses in honour of the dictator Benito Mussolini. Furthermore, missiles were hurled and three Italians were arrested after a Bulgarian flag was set alight during the home team’s national anthem. As a result of all of this, Giancarlo Abete, the president of the Italian FA, decided against selling tickets for the national team’s away games for the foreseeable future.
This is not to say however that all modern associations with Italian football and fascism are negative. While it is certainly true that there has been much coverage of crowd disturbances and violent clashes with police within domestic football in Italy, other instances of fascist displays are not meant as provocative or insulting outbursts, but merely the historical culture of Italian football coming through. Going back to the example of Paolo Di Canio’s infamous salute in Part I of this feature, it must be noted that this was not the first time he had made it, as prior to the Livorno game he had made the same gesture in the Rome derby. However, he only received a 10,000 € fine on this occasion while not even the Italian Prime Minister condemned his behaviour, remarking only that Di Canio was merely an exhibitionist. Fascist influences have shown continuity through to the modern day, yet whilst it is true though that Di Canio is a self-declared fascist, it must be noted that he is not a racist, which is where the problem of fascism in football has brought us today. Such scenes as described earlier at Azzurri football games are not limited to international matches though, as racism has long been a problem that still remains at large within Italian football as a whole. In 1999, when Lazio played Roma - a team widely supported by Rome’s Jewish population - Lazio’s ultras unfurled a 50-metre anti-Semitic banner across their half of the stadium, while more recently in 2005, Ivory Coast defender Marc Zoro was reduced to tears and threatened to leave the pitch after Inter fans racially taunted him.
It is clear then that fascism has left a lasting legacy on Italian football both domestically and nationally, firstly in a positive fashion through a national identity that has shaped not only Italian football but also Italy itself as a country, yet it has also affected the country negatively through modern day racism. However, It could well be argued that the successes experienced by the Azzurri – both in the golden period of the 1930s and as the current world champions - would not have been achieved without the mentality which is historically entwined throughout all Italian football courtesy of its fascist roots.
By James Pearson
http://www.footballitaliano.co.uk/article.aspx?id=445
In December 2005, following Paolo Di Canio’s infamous fascist salute to the Lazio ultras during a Serie A league match against Livorno, the enigmatic Italian merely stated to the media: “I will always salute as I did yesterday, because it gives me a sense of belonging to my people” .
Such an event would arguably not be witnessed outside of the culture of Italian football, yet Di Canio’s expression - both on the pitch during the match and off it afterwards – perfectly demonstrates just how deeply embedded fascism is in modern day Italian football, and has been ever since the post-war years when Benito Mussolini came to power in the 1920s and created the all-conquering Azzurri team of the 1930s. However, fascism was not only highly influential in the birth of the Italian game, but its legacy and influence live on in modern day Italian football, even at a national level.
Historically, football was very important for fascism and likewise the development of football in Italy owes a great deal to fascist involvement. Mussolini recognised the potential held by the emergence of football as an increasingly popular pastime, and one that could be institutionalised and exploited to develop a sense of Italian identity – a trait that can still be observed through the ultras that are still present in modern day domestic and international Italian football matches. Mussolini was always familiar with the use of popular culture in his desire to hold power and transform Italian society, and football became a key part of this strategy. Many agree that the prominent moment for fascism in football came in 1926, when the government created the Carta di Via Reggio, which restructured the game and its administration, crucially with appointments to football's governing bodies falling into the remit of Mussolini. As a result fascists took control of the world of football within Italy in the mid-1920s and proceeded to revolutionise the game, building stadiums all over the peninsula, organising rallies around games and adding fascist symbols. In fact, Serie A owes it’s very creation to fascism as it was in 1930 that the singular national league that is the Italian top division was founded by the fascist government of Mussolini in order to create one unifying Italian identity.
It was this pragmatic drive for a national identity that resulted in the creation of a national team, which was to dominate the international game for four years, winning two World Cups and an Olympic gold medal along the way. Football became a tool that was exploited not only domestically in an attempt to develop a sense of Italian identity, but also internationally as a diplomatic tool to improve Italy's standing in the global arena. As a result, the creation and historical backbone of modern day Italian football is formed from the ideology of fascist unity, and the Azzurri’s golden era of achievement in the 1930s is indebted to fascist pragmatism. It was during this time that Italy not only hosted and won the 1934 World Cup tournament but also retained the trophy four years later in France, whilst they added to their two World Cup victories by winning the soccer tournament at the 1936 Berlin Olympics with a team of university students. Italian fascism also fully exploited the opportunities football provided to shape public opinion, penetrate daily life, and reinforce conformity. By politicizing the game, fascism also sought to enhance the regime's international prestige and instill nationalist values.
But while there is no doubt that fascism was strongly influential and a driving force behind football and its development, sport as a whole also most certainly played a philosophical role in fascism. More specifically, football provided the opportunity for Italy, especially on a national level, to heighten its profile throughout Europe and the propaganda opportunity that victory provided was indispensable to a country that was building a strong and united national image. Examples of this can be observed from the early years of the Azzurri, as initially in 1926, when the domestic game was restructured, a ban on foreign players was introduced. Yet, after the Olympic games in 1928 and the World Cup in 1930, where teams such as Argentina and Uruguay were seen to perform very well with players born from Italian emigrants, a very pragmatic approach was once again adopted in the pursuit of victory. Players such as these who were born from Italian emigrants were allowed to play as they were reclassified under the category of oriundo or rimpatriato, allowing them to be eligible to play for the Azzurri whilst simultaneously meaning that there was no need to admit defeat and get rid of old legislation on bans on foreign players. This has remained to the current day and can be seen through players such as Mauro Camoranesi who regularly appear in the Azzurri line up despite not directly holding Italian citizenship.
The Azzurri was not only used as a means of propaganda and a vessel for Italy to unite through, it was also symbolic as it represented Italy as a country and the regime which was shaping it. Naturally the regime's close identification with the Italian football game as a whole meant that Italian clubs and the national team especially were perceived to be fascists. This was most evident when the national team played abroad, as during the 1930s disruptions and protests greeted the Azzurri whenever they travelled. In France for example during the 1938 World Cup, there have been suggestions that there were large-scale anti-fascist protests in cities such as Marseille, with protesters being held back by horse-back police as not only Italians but those outside of Italy saw the Azzurri as very much representative of the regime. To this day stereotypes follow the Azzurri whenever they travel, both in the media and in the terraces of the stadiums in which they play. Indeed in October of 2008, Italy’s game against Bulgaria was marred by pre-match clashes, flag-burning, fascist chanting and displays of neo-Nazi banners. Whilst inside the ground, Italian fans sang the fascist anthem ‘Faccetta Nera’ (Little Black Face) and chanted ‘Duce’ choruses in honour of the dictator Benito Mussolini. Furthermore, missiles were hurled and three Italians were arrested after a Bulgarian flag was set alight during the home team’s national anthem. As a result of all of this, Giancarlo Abete, the president of the Italian FA, decided against selling tickets for the national team’s away games for the foreseeable future.
This is not to say however that all modern associations with Italian football and fascism are negative. While it is certainly true that there has been much coverage of crowd disturbances and violent clashes with police within domestic football in Italy, other instances of fascist displays are not meant as provocative or insulting outbursts, but merely the historical culture of Italian football coming through. Going back to the example of Paolo Di Canio’s infamous salute in Part I of this feature, it must be noted that this was not the first time he had made it, as prior to the Livorno game he had made the same gesture in the Rome derby. However, he only received a 10,000 € fine on this occasion while not even the Italian Prime Minister condemned his behaviour, remarking only that Di Canio was merely an exhibitionist. Fascist influences have shown continuity through to the modern day, yet whilst it is true though that Di Canio is a self-declared fascist, it must be noted that he is not a racist, which is where the problem of fascism in football has brought us today. Such scenes as described earlier at Azzurri football games are not limited to international matches though, as racism has long been a problem that still remains at large within Italian football as a whole. In 1999, when Lazio played Roma - a team widely supported by Rome’s Jewish population - Lazio’s ultras unfurled a 50-metre anti-Semitic banner across their half of the stadium, while more recently in 2005, Ivory Coast defender Marc Zoro was reduced to tears and threatened to leave the pitch after Inter fans racially taunted him.
It is clear then that fascism has left a lasting legacy on Italian football both domestically and nationally, firstly in a positive fashion through a national identity that has shaped not only Italian football but also Italy itself as a country, yet it has also affected the country negatively through modern day racism. However, It could well be argued that the successes experienced by the Azzurri – both in the golden period of the 1930s and as the current world champions - would not have been achieved without the mentality which is historically entwined throughout all Italian football courtesy of its fascist roots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
