<!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 5.50.4916.2300" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> Dennis wrote Noriega stole elections and brutalized his opposition, but he was not engaged in a Greater Panama crusade, nor was he responsible for mass murder and mass graves. If you allow Bush I to define how you relate to the brutal in this world, then you might very well end up signing on to some morally dubious enterprises or concerns. --well, yeah, but then again neither Bush 1 Clinton, or B2 signed onto war because of their concerns for human rights or their offense at mass graves, indeed, as you surely know, we played no small role in the creation of a number of those mass graves, Croatia comes to mind in the Clinton administration case especially. 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.  Ditto Djilas, (see <A href="http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020212.html)...I">http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020212.html)...I</A> 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...   Dennis In the past, when Chomsky has spoken of the massacre of thousands or millions, he oftentimes showed controlled anger or emotion -- watch "Manufacturing Consent" and witness his bristling when debating Vietnam with William F. Buckley, or the contra war with John Silber. A few thousand people get massacred in NYC, however, and Chomsky shifts his attention to the Sudan. No anger. No emotion. Victims of US violence, then, merit his emotional involvment. Victims of al-Qaeda's violence in the US seemingly do not.   --Well, odd that  you're responding to a point I didn't disagree with, that Chomsky sounded less than blubbering.  I did watch Manufacturing Consent, a heated debate is one thing, an interview is quite another I would think. I've seen him 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.   Dennis: I was pretty active during the Central American wars, and I remember all the ultras and lunatics back then who were more interested in striking rad poses or trying to get others to conform to their "line" (see CISPES). --your memory is different from mine.  CISPES ended up largely going the 'moderate' route of emphasizing lobbying strategies.   But the most effective part of that movement came from church based groups, especially in establishing and running, at great risk to themselves, the Sanctuary Movement and the underground railroad that helped refugees fleeing terror to get into Canada to reunite with relatives and loved ones. I saw this remarkable movement first-hand, and it has always stayed with me. And nothing, nothing the ultras did, no matter how many demos they organized, ever saved real lives like this. --here you just make it up, 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.  I was never in the sanctuary side of activism, but at Fordham University in 1986 I was involved in organizing a blockade of CIA recruiters.  I could rely on CISPES to send a speaker to our campus and I don't remember any of the PAX Christi folks who had plenty of links with CISPES getting all feather ruffled as a result.  Like I said before, I think the problem movements face are the lack of serious organizing by people not committed to sects, which then gets ceded to sects. Then the sects are blamed for ruining everything because low and behold sects are sects.       </DIV></BODY></HTML>