Do you know that documents are hearsay ? That is to say they are like words spoken out of the court room: he says that she said that he said. To offer a document in a court case, one has to have a hearsay exception, or else it is not admitted in evidence. In other words, the frequent refrain of today " is that documented ?" seems to be ignorant of this evidentiary reasoning.
"Documented vs undocumented" is a flimsy evidentiary test to base a critique of proof upon.
How have you authenticated the documents you rely upon for your proofs ?
C. Brown
>>> "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> 11/20/99 09:06PM >>>
Hi,
I challenge your belief in the Christic allegations about FEMA. They were repackaged from the Liberty Lobby Spotlight newspaper and from the LaRouche intelligence network.
Congratulations, you make my point again.
For details, see:
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/Rwooz-09.htm#P296_102053
(((((((((((((
The problem of conflating documentable facts with analysis and conclusions and then merging them with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories popular on the far right has plagued progressive foreign policy critiques for several years. The Christic Institute's "Secret Team" theory is perhaps the most widespread example of the phenomenon. While many of the charges raised by Christic regarding the La Penca bombing and the private pro-Contra network are documented, some of their assertions regarding the nature and operations of a long-standing conspiracy of high-level CIA, military, and foreign policy advisors inside the executive branch remain undocumented, and in a few instances, are factually inaccurate.