<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Steve:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"What you seem to assume is that signing a petition calling for the freeing of Milo from the Hague prison is the equivalent of supporting whatever crimes he committed as a leader, in which case, by your logic, Kostunica becomes a supporter of  Milo.   I would also note that by your logic Chomsky is a supporter of Milo since he has uttered critical assessments of the conditions for the trial of Milo at the Hague..."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No no -- one can be critical of the Hague and not be a supporter of Milo. But the petition I referred to went beyond this, and called Milo and his murderous army "patriots." And, again, it was forwarded by Jared Israel, who is an outspoken supporter of Milo. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"I've seen [Chomsky] speak live on enough occasions in the heat of the Contra war, I don't remember him getting very emotional during those talks either.  Then again, as I said in my response to you, and if he had gotten all emotional, cried, spit nickels, etc. would he have received any different coverage of his critique of Bush's manipulation of 911 and/or the bombing campaign? I think what you really mean to say is that Chomsky should have supported the bombings of civilians in Afghanistan, accompanied by greater emotion."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I had a beer with Chomsky at a small FAIR gathering in LA during the contra war, and he was angry about the war, as we all were. He wasn't huffing and puffing, but he was morally outraged. I admired that, especially in an academic of his standing. And I saw him speak during that time when he did show some emotion, usually through sarcasm, but there was barely concealed anger as well. So I know he has it, and didn't on 9/11.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for him supporting the bombing, well, he said that he'd support some kind of police action, but what specifically he didn't say (he later pointed to Germany's rounding up of al-Qaeda suspects as his model). This was tossed around by several sectors of the left -- an international and/or UN police action to fight al-Qaeda. How it would differ from what did happen, which was successful, no one here ever said. And I did ask more than once. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"CISPES activists and sanctuary activists worked together on quite a few projects and were mutually supportive in a good number of ways. doesn't mean there were differences, but your sentiment that they were diametrically opposed organizations is plain mistaken."  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm sure there were links -- CISPES was everywhere in those days. But I never saw them or any other Leninist/Marxist group working with the church folk I was dealing with in New England. There the Unitarians and radical Catholics held sway. And unlike the CISPES members I later met in NYC and DC, they were humane and truly committed to saving lives. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>DP</DIV></BODY></HTML>