Hakki:
> I would suggest that the well-documented case for
> CIA collusion
> with FPLP-GC in the Lockerbie bombing that I've outlined in
> the post below
> demonstrate that S11 could very well have occurred with the
> CIA's prior
> knowledge. If you can get away with letting 270 people die,
> you may well set
> your sights higher. Admittedly, the case for CIA collusion in
> S11 is nowhere
> near as strong as Lockerbie, but the "intelligence failure"
> story is less
> and less credible.
There is no "well-documented" case for CIA collusion in the Lockerbie boming. It is all conspiracist speculation. When I tried to show that the allegations about Buck Revell and Lockerbie were false, you lashed back with a false claim that I was a fan of his. Any attempt to ask that you show some ability to filter information, and be less gullible, is met with angry responses by you that only further reveal that you seem willing to believe any claim about U.S. government wrongdoing, no matter how far-fetched.
Is it your position that any claim about U.S. government wrongdoing is valid?
Or is it that any claim, whether valid or not, is worth spreading around because it undermines confidence in the government?
Or do you actually run across information that even you see as ridiculous?
Do you actually believe the claims of Riconosciuto and Casolaro? You seemed to suggest that. Riconosciuto is a well-documented huckster. Casolaro could never find his octopus.
I would argue that what you are doing is destructive to serious organizing against covert operations. I even wrote an article for the Columbia Journalism Review about left-wing and right-wing conspiracy theorists derailing serious journalism inspecting government intelligence abuse. http://www.publiceye.org/media/spooky.html
It is not OK to repond that I like U.S. covert operations or am a fan of Buck Revell. That is obviously false, given my track record of working on lawsuits against government intelligence agencies and my many articles and speeches on the subject.
A few days ago you posted a message about a Chicago rally featuring:
============== WILLIAM GOODMAN, LEGAL DIRECTOR of the CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
NANCY CHANG, SENIOR LITIGATION ATTORNEY for the CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
JAMES FENNERTY, Chicago attorney who practices civil and constitutional rights at the federal bar.
Co-Sponsored by The Hothouse, The Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights and the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. ==============
A few months ago I was the featured speaker in the same Chicago Hothouse series with the same sponsors. I work with Goodman, Chang, and Fennerty. They respect my work and I respect theirs. My topic was "Resisting Hate Groups and the Ultra Right, Defeding our First Amendment Freedoms," I talked about the problem of conspiracism infecting the left.
So stop with the allegations that I am "soft" on covert action, and deal with the criticisms of your analysis: that your analytical model sends people chasing after spies and covert conspiracies--real or imaginary--and diverts attention from the larger systemic issues. If I was an exorcist, I would have driven out the devil of conspiracism long ago.
-Chip Berlet