Text File

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.news-media From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) Subject: Alleged instances of censorship Message-ID: <1993Jan4.031636.1810@cs.ucla.edu> Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 03:16:36 GMT Lines: 1653

Forwarded articles from "misc.activism.progressive":

- ------------------------------------------------ Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: BUSH'S $250 BILLION COVERUP Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 09:15:10 GMT

THE 250 BILLION DOLLAR POLITICAL COVER UP

The cornerstone of George Bush's 1988 presidential campaign was "Read my lips; no new taxes." The truth about the scope of the savings and loan scandal would have revealed the hypocrisy of that statement and threatened Bush's candidacy.

Now, as a result of a major investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting and PBS Frontline, we have learned that the taxpayers could have been saved at least $250 billion if there hadn't been a political coverup.

In the late summer of 1988, Federal Home Loan (FHL) Bank Board member Roger Martin had a lunch meeting in the private office of William Seidman, then head of the FDIC. Elise Paylan, Roger Martin's executive assistant, also was at the meeting, and reported the following:

"During the meeting with Bill Seidman, they were discussing the size of the hole, and Roger had -- this was at, sort of the height of his frus- tration. He was saying he didn't understand why Chairman Wall (Danny Wall, chairman of the FHL Bank Board) was not forthcoming about the true size of the problem. And Roger felt sure that Chairman Wall knew about this and was just ignoring it. And Chairman Seidman said, 'Well, I know why he's not doing that' and Roger said 'Why?' And Seidman said 'Well it's because George Gould told him to lie about the numbers.' Now to be honest, I don't know if lie is the exact word he used, but lie, misstate, something along that line -- and Roger was quite stunned by that.... and when Roger said, 'Oh, is that true?, What makes you say that?,' Chairman Seidman said 'because he told me to do the same thing'."

When Martin was asked if Ms. Paylan's account of Seidman's comments was accurate he replied "That's exactly what he said. " Seidman later said he didn't remember any conversation like that.

(George Gould was the Deputy Under-Secretary for Finance, working under Treasury Secretary Jim Baker, and the Administration's political point man on the S&L crisis.)

Jim Barth, Danny Wall's chief economist at the Bank Board, was asked how much money could have been saved if the S&L problem had been addressed honestly and frankly before the 1988 election, with all the S&Ls shut down and the issue tidied up. Barth said $250 billion.

Instead, the total cost of the S&L scandal is now expected to skyrocket to more than $700 billion. As William Seidman said "Well, this is the mother of all government mistakes. It is absolutely the largest single mistake that you can identify the government has ever made in terms of financial costs. It is colossal."

Meanwhile George Bush was elected the 41st President of the United States on Nov.8th,1988.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: RACHAEL KINBERG)

SOURCE:CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING (CIR) 530 Howard Street,2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105

SOURCE: FRONTLINE PBS-TV

DATE: 10/22/91

TITLE: "The Great American Bailout"

AUTHORS:(A co-production of the Center for Investigative Reporting and FRONTLINE.) Glenn Silber, producer/ director; George Clyde, coordinating producer; Robert Krulwich, correspondent; Wendy Wank, editor; associate producers were Diana Hembree, Juan A. Avila Hernandez, and William Kistner; Dan Noyes, project director; Sharon Tiller, executive producer for CIR; David Fanning, executive producer for FRONTLINE.

COMMENTS: Sharon Tiller, executive producer for CIR, provided the following comments. First, the press failed to cover the issue during the critical 1988 election year; not a single question about the S&L crisis was asked during the three national political debates in 1988. "The major media also failed to follow up on why the costs of the bailout kept escalating and whether politics had played a part in the 1988 executive actions on the bailout.''

"The horrendous increase in the cost of the S&L bailout will cost every citizen in the U.S. thousands of dollars and will substantially weaken the U.S. economy for decades to come. Because incumbent politicians in the executive branch and on both sides of the Congressional aisle have found no political advantage in addressing the bailout issue, rectify- ing the bailout is dependent upon public understanding and pressure. The general public needs to be aware of how the political system has failed to resolve the bailout, partially because both political parties were so compromised by the savings and loan issue. The voting public needs to understand this complex issue so they can vote and ask questions on it intelligently in the 1992 elections, and avoid another cover-up.

"Originally, CIR approached the Wall Street Journal to do a companion story on the bailout documentary, which they initially agreed to do. They eventually declined to run the report because they couldn't devote the time and resources necessary to advance the story." Nonetheless, "The Great American Bailout" aired to great reviews but little press coverage. Attempts to do follow-up spinoff print stories in Rolling Stone, Parade, and the Wall Street Journal all failed from lack of interest or the publication's failure to advance the story. CIR was "able to publish one related story in the Sacramento Bee and the American Banker and several papers picked up the allegations of a political cover-up in 1988. No other media outlet has made a major effort to advance the story about what happened in 1988, to our knowledge. "

- ------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: THE GULF WAR Message-ID: <1992Oct26.091511.15607@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 09:15:11 GMT

OPERATION CENSORED WAR

A secretive administration, aided and abetted by a press more interested in cheer leading than in journalism, persuaded the American people to support the Gulf War by media manipulation, censorship, and intimidation. Following are just some of the items the American public had a right to know about the censored Gulf War:

* $ 1.9 billion in U.S.-guaranteed loans to Iraq is lost and must be repaid by American taxpayers.

* U.S. tanks, artillery, and other weapons destroyed more than 30 American tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers.

* "Friendly fire" claimed the lives of 35 servicemen and injured another 72. The original figures were 11 deaths and 15 injuries.

* Pentagon planners have outlined a key U.S. military role in the restoration of Kuwait that may impose martial law for up to one year and makes no mention of democracy.

* Since September 1975, the U.S. ignored all signs of Iraqi nuclear development, including warnings from our own inspectors.

* U.S. tanks, equipped with plows, buried thousands of Iraqi soldiers alive in 70 miles of Iraqi trenches.

* U.S. Marines used Napalm bombs on Iraqi ground troops.

* Of the 88,500 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq and occupied Kuwait,70% missed their targets.

* The Fuel-Air Bomb -- which kills by sucking every particle of oxygen from the air with firebombs -- was "experimented" with in the Persian Gulf. This weapon has been compared to nuclear weapons because of its massive destructive power and inhumanity.

* U.S. television networks refused to run available footage of the mass destruction from the "Turkey Shoot" on the road to Basra. They also refused to broadcast uncensored footage taken deep inside Iraq at the height of the U.S.-led allied air war, documenting substantial civilian casualties.

* Reporters in the Gulf were routinely and openly censored and harassed by public affairs officers, including threats of pulling visas, being turned over to Saudi soldiers, and being held at gun point by U.S. soldiers. News copy and film were also routinely "lost" or misplaced until it was outdated.

* Many battlefield casualties were disguised as "training accidents." A Dover Air Force Base mortuary secretary estimated "about 200" battlefield casualties. This account came from a freelance reporter who posed as a mortician to gain access to the Dover AFB mortuary, the only one handling Desert Storm casualties.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: PAULA GIEBITZ)

SOURCE:EDITOR & PUBLISHER 11 West 19 Street, New York, NY 10011- 4234

DATE: 7/1 3/91

TlTLE:"Military Obstacles Detailed"

SOURCE:THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN 520 Hampshire St., San Francisco, CA 94110-1417

DATE: 3/6191

TITLE: "Inside the Desert Storm Mortuary"

AUTHOR:Jonathan Franklin

SOURCE:THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW 1739 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009

DATE:March 1991

TITLE: "Collateral Damage, What We've Lost Already"

AUTHOR:Sam Smith

COMMENTS: Debra Gersh, Washington editor of Editor & Publisher, who reported extensively on the media coverage of the Gulf War for the national newspaper trade magazine, said "The public has to understand that it only saw what it was allowed to see. The whole picture is important to understanding an event. That became clearer, I think, after the cease fire, when restrictions were lifted and news and photos about the reality of war came through."

Jonathan Franklin, who posed as a mortician to get his story, said his article attempted to expose the systematic censorship throughout Desert Storm and Desert Shield. "As a dedicated reporter," Franklin admitted, "undercover techniques are not a tactic I employ lightly. But war censorship demanded to be illuminated by truth: the ghastly moment of death captured in the face of the dead and dying. My story left only a small dent in the armor hiding the truth, but it was a dent in the foundation of lies, exaggerations and myths which keep this billion dollar a day dinosaur stuffed with money."

Author Sam Smith said that the public needs to know that in exercises like the Gulf War there is no free lunch. "They also needed the courage to express their own doubts," he added. "But without the knowledge to express their doubts, they were helpless and went along with the crowd. " Commenting on the media's role as cheerleaders, Smith noted "I think it was a Civil War general who told his troops, 'Don't cheer boys. The poor devils are dying.' If the media can't ask the right questions at a time like this, the least it can do is not to cheer, which -- for the most part -- is what it did during those tragic months."

- -------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: THE BUSH FAMILY AND ITS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Message-ID: <1992Oct28.091509.20809@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 09:15:09 GMT

THE BUSH FAMILY AND ITS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Richard Nixon had his brother Donald; Jimmy Carter had his brother Billy; Ronald Reagan had his brother Neil. But, in recent presi- dential history, no president has had the blatant familial conflicts of interest that George Bush has.

Prescott Bush, Brother

Munenobu Shoji, president of a Japanese real estate firm, reported that his firm and another, both run by a former Japanese crime boss, paid Prescott $200,000 for investment advice. Shoji said he was introduced to Prescott by the president of a firm with connections to an organized- crime syndicate. "I thought of making investments in the United States with the help of Mr. Bush, who is a financial consultant and knows many influential people such as the presidents of South Korea and the Philippines,'' Shoji said.

Neil Bush, Son

Neil was a director of Silverado Savings and Loan, in Colorado, which was shut down by regulators in December 1988 and is expected to cost taxpayers about $1 billion. Regulators were told to delay closing Silverado until after election day in 1988. In mid-July, 1991, Neil was hired as director of new business development for TransMedia Com- munications, a cable sports network. When asked, Bill Daniels, the cable TV tycoon who hired Neil, said he will "absolutely" continue to communicate with the president (George Bush) in his battle to stave off reregulation of the cable industry.

Jeb Bush, Son

Jeb Bush, a Miami real estate developer, knew Leonel Martinez, a Miami builder, as a generous contributor to Bush family causes. Others knew that Martinez imported more than 3 l/2 tons of cocaine and more than 75 tons of marijuana into the United States and was under investigation for more than four murders. Martinez, also a dedicated Reaganite and active supporter of the contras, is now serving 23 years in prison for drug trafficking.

George W. Bush, Son

When Harken Energy Corp. of Grand Prairie, Texas, signed an oil-production sharing agreement with Bahrain, a tiny island off the coast of Saudi Arabia, industry experts marveled over how a virtually anonymous company, with no previous international drilling experience, could land such a potentially valuable concession. Perhaps the experts were not aware that George W. Bush, eldest son of the President, was on Harken's board of directors and a $50,000-a-year "consultant" to the company's chief executive officer. George sold more than 200,000 shares of Harken stock just weeks before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, on August 2, 1990 but did not report the "insider" stock sale until March of 1991, nearly eight months after the federal deadline for disclosing such transactions.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: DUSTIN HARP)

SOURCE:SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER 110 Fifth Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94103

DATE: 712819 1

Title: "Crime-linked firms hired Prescott Bush"

SOURCE:SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT 427 Mendocino Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95401

DATES: 7/19/91 and 816191

Title:"Neil Bush's new boss" and Son's S&L not closed"

SOURCE:SPIN 6 West 18th St., 11th Floor, New York NY 10011

DATE: 12/3/91

Title:"See No Evil"

AUTHOR:Jefferson Morley

SOURCE:THE TEXAS OBSERVER 307 West 7th St., Austin, TX 78701

DATES: 7/12/91 and 816/91

TITLES:"Oil in the family" and "Global Entanglements"

AUTHOR: David Armstrong

COMMENTS: Author Jefferson Morley said that "the revelation that the President and his son and the nation's top drug policy official have received money from a convicted cocaine trafficker -- and have not returned said campaign contributions -- is worthy of mass media and reportorial follow-up. My article in SPIN received neither.''

Journalist David Armstrong notes that "given George W. Bush's in- volvement in Harken Energy, exposure of the company's more unsavory connections would be unlikely to improve the president's standing in the polls.''

The various sources used by Project Censored to compile this nomination about President George Bush, his family, and their questionable conflicts of interest combine to make a point about the media cover- age. Indeed, if a person happened to read a variety of sources on this issue, one would have a fairly good insight into how members of the Bush family use the presidency to further their personal goals despite the appearance of serious conflicts of interest. This is asking a lot of even the most concerned "good citizen.'' It is the media's responsibility to collect all the information about the various intrigues of the Bush family and present it to the American public in the context of the political/economic scene. This, of course, the media has not done.

- ------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: NO EVIDENCE OF IRAQI THREAT TO SAUDI ARABIA Message-ID: <1992Oct30.091507.25764@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 09:15:07 GMT

NO EVIDENCE OF IRAQI THREAT TO SAUDI ARABIA

On September 11,1990, President George Bush rallied a surprised nation to support a war in the Persian Gulf with reports of a massive Iraqi army which had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. At the time, the Department of Defense (DOD) estimated there were as many as 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks in Kuwait.

On January 6,1991, Jean Heller, a journalist with the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, reported that satellite photos of Kuwait did not support Bush' s claim of an imminent Iraqi invasion. In fact, the photos showed no sign of a massive Iraqi troop buildup in Kuwait.

Journalist Heller told In These Times, which reprinted her article, "The troops that were said to be massing on the Saudi border and that constituted the possible threat to Saudi Arabia that justified the U.S. sending of troops do not show up in these photographs. And when the Department of Defense was asked to provide evidence that would contra- dict our satellite evidence, it refused to do it.' '

The pictures, taken by a Soviet satellite on September 11 and 13, were acquired by the St. Petersburg Times in December. The Times contacted two satellite image specialists to analyze the photos: Peter Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist who now is a professor of engineering at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.; and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who asked to remain anonymous.

The specialists saw extensive U.S. occupation at the Dhahran Airport in Saudi Arabia, but few Iraqi troops or weapons in Kuwait. They said the roads showed no evidence of a massive tank invasion, there were no tent cities or troop concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appeared deserted.

Both analysts agreed there were several possible explanations for their inability to spot Iraqi forces: the troops could have been well camou- flaged, or they could have been widely dispersed, or the Soviets deliberately or accidentally produced a photo taken before the Iraqi invasion. But the latter explanation was not considered likely and, given the reported massive deployment, the specialists found it "really hard to believe" they could miss them even if they were well camouflaged and/or widely dispersed.

When asked by the Times for evidence to support the official U.S. estimate of the Iraqi buildup, the Defense Department said "We have given conservative estimates of Iraqi numbers based on various intelli- gence resources, and those are the numbers we stand by." While the St. Petersburg Times submitted Heller's story to both the Associated Press and the Scripps- Howard news service, neither wire service carried the story.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: MARIA BROSNAN)

SOURCE:ST. PETERSBURG TIMES (1/6/91) 11321 U.S. 19, Port Richey, FL 34668

Reprinted in: IN THESE TIMES 2040 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60647

DATE: 2127191

TITLE: 'Public doesn't get picture with Gulf satellite photos"

AUTHOR:Jean Heller

COMMENTS: St. Petersburg Times journalist Jean Heller said that while the story appeared on page one of the St. Petersburg Times, and was made available to The Associated Press, the Scripps-Howard wire service and CNN, none chose to use it. " ... it failed to get any national attention at all until after the Persian Gulf War ended, and it was picked up and reprinted in an alternative newspaper in Chicago (In These Times), she said. "The main-line media still have not picked up on the story, despite the fact that the Pentagon now admits that the number of Iraqis in and around Kuwait was overestimated by American military intelligence."

Heller added that while the story should have received wider coverage before the war began, and lives were lost, the public deserves to know the truth about the Iraqi threat even now. "Some data, newly released, indicates that the administration, knowingly or through misreading of intelligence data, way over-estimated the number of Iraqis and their state of readiness in and around, Kuwait. If that's true, the public still deserves to know."

Heller says she discussed the issue on about two dozen live radio talk shows from coast to coast during the war and has been interviewed by the publisher of Harper's magazine. (John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's, is author of the "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War." )

She adds that MacArthur cited the story as one of the only efforts by any national media to break through the government's wall of disinformation and packaged information and get at the truth.

Heller concludes that "The (St. Petersburg) Times itself could not have done any more to get the story out there. The paper paid a great deal of money to get the photos, spent a great deal of time and effort to reproduce them, and played the story at the top of page one. But nobody wanted to listen."

- ------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE Message-ID: <1992Nov1.091524.9487@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 09:15:24 GMT

WHO WILL UNWRAP THE OCTOBER SURPRISE?

On April 15,1991, Gary Sick, a former Carter administration staffer and now professor at Columbia University, gave added credibility to the "October Surprise" theory with a 2,000-word op-ed piece in The New York Times. The "October Surprise" thesis suggests that 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign officials cut a deal with Iranian revolutionaries to delay the release of the 52 hostages until after Reagan's inauguration.

For two and a half weeks, President Bush didn't respond to the charges and the White House press corps didn't ask him about them. The first official administration response came in the form of a Marlin Fitzwater one-liner: he called Sick "the Kitty Kelley of foreign policy. "

The day Sick's piece appeared in the Times, listing dates and partici- pants in suspected meetings between campaign staffers and Iranian clerics, none of the network evening newscasts even mentioned the story. The New York Times ran a page 10 story the day of Sick's op-ed piece but didn't return to the issue until two weeks later, with another page 10 piece. The first report in The Washington Post, a five-paragraph Reuters story, ran eleven days after Sick's op-ed piece. And over the next three months, Time and Newsweek dealt with the October Surprise one time each: Newsweek in a page 28 story in the April 29 issue, Time on pages 24 and 25 of the July 1 issue.

Between mid-April, when Sick's piece appeared and early August, when Speaker of the House Thomas Foley announced his decision to move ahead with a full-scale inquiry, there were a number of newsworthy developments that were reported by the wire services and picked up by alternative papers but missed altogether by the major media. When the story does appear, the key questions not only go unanswered, they go unasked. And this is a story that could make the Watergate scandal look like a third-rate burglary.

Finally, back to Fitzwater's Kitty Kelley analogy. When Kelley's book was released on April 8, all three network evening newscasts ran a re- porter story. The local news shows and tabloids went wild. Both Time and Newsweek ran Kitty Kelley cover stories. And The New York Times scooped everyone with a Sunday front-page article outlining Kelley's assertions about Nancy Reagan's fabricated childhood and her private lunches with Frank Sinatra. And there were follow-up stories and analysis-of-the-Kitty- Kelley-hype stories.

Within days every marginally conscious American knew about Kitty Kelley and her charges about Nancy Reagan; but even now, few know about Gary Sick and the essence of his allegations about the Republican campaign in 1980.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: STEVE DUNLOP)

SOURCE:Columbia Journalism Review 700 Journalism Bldg , Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

DATE:September/October 1991

TITLE: "Who Will Unwrap the October Surprise?

AUTHOR:Julie Cohen

COMMENTS: The "October Surprise" story originally was one of the top 25 censored stories of 1987. Based on articles in L.A. Weekly and The Nation, the story revealed reports that Reagan's campaign staff had conspired with Iranians to delay the release of the 52 hostages until after the election. As noted in the synopsis of Julie Cohen's story in the Columbia Journalism Review, the mainstream media didn't pay much attention to the story until Gary Sick's op-ed article appeared in The New York Times. Even then, the subsequent coverage was minimal.

Cohen noted there had been interesting developments since her article appeared last September. Last fall, "both houses of Congress started, then cut-off investigations into the October Surprise. Some of the go- ings-on were pretty dramatic (like when Senate Republicans walked out in the middle of a public hearing) but you wouldn't have known about it from the major media. "

Craig McLaughlin, an investigative journalist with the San Francisco Bay Guardian, cited the journalists who had kept the "October Surprise" issue alive through the years (Bay Guardian,8/28/91).

Noting the brief flurry of interest by the establishment media after Sick's op-ed article appeared, McLaughlin said that "But by and large, the scandal has been kept alive through the efforts of a handful of journalists working for the alternative press" including: Joel Bleifuss, In These Times; David Corn, Washington reporter, The Nation; Christopher Hitchens, Minority Report columnist, The Nation; Doug Ireland, Press Clips columnist, Village Voice; Curtis Lang, Dan Bischoff, and other reporters, Village Voice; Frank Snepp, former CIA agent turned national security reporter; Robert Morris, Creative Loafing, of Atlanta; and Martin Killian, of Der Spiegel, and Robert Parry, then of Newsweek, both of whom worked with Gary Sick.

McLaughlin also noted two additional sources for those interested in obtaining more detailed information about the October Surprise:

The Fund for Constitutional Government, 121 Constitution Avenue, NE, Washington, DC,20002 (202/546-3732)

The Data Center,464 19th Street, Oakland, CA,94612, (510/835-4692)

The Fund for Constitutional Government will send you a packet of information about "October Surprise" for $10, The Data Center has extensive files on the subject available to members ($35 annual membership fee).

- -------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: INSLAW SOFTWARE THEFT Message-ID: <1992Nov2.091510.21970@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 09:15:10 GMT

INSLAW SOFTWARE THEFT: JUSTICE DEPT. CONSPIRACY?

In an ongoing legal battle the Inslaw Corp. charges that the U.S. Department of Justice robbed it of its computer software program, conspired to send the company into bankruptcy, and then initiated a cover-up.

The Inslaw software in question, called Promis, was a potential gold mine. A case-management and criminal-tracking program, the software can also be used to track complex covert operations. For this rea- son, Promis had sales appeal to both law-enforcement agencies and the international intelligence community. In March 1982 Inslaw won a $10 million, three-year contract with the Justice Department, but Justice reneged, withholding nearly $2 million. Consequently, Inslaw sought refuge in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proceeded to sue Justice.

In September 1987, federal bankruptcy judge George Bason found that the Justice Department used "trickery, fraud and deceit" to take Inslaw's property, and in February 1988, Bason awarded Inslaw $8 million. Not quite one month later, Judge Bason was denied reappoint- ment to the bench. In the past four years, only four of 136 federal bankruptcy judges have been denied reappointment. Incredibly, Bason was replaced by S. Martin Teel, one of the Justice Department attorneys who unsuccessfully argued the Inslaw case before him. Justice immediately appealed Bason's ruling, but in November 1989 a federal district court upheld Bason's ruling. Nevertheless, last spring the U.S. Court of Appeals set aside that ruling on the grounds that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction.

Earlier this year the case took a new twist. Based on a number of sources from inside and outside of the Justice Department, Inslaw's owners went public with allegations that the Reagan Justice Department, turned the stolen software over to businessman and arms dealer Earl Brian, a friend of both Edwin Meese and Reagan, who served in Reagan's cabinet when he was governor of California. Inslaw alleges that its software was given to Brian as a payback for Brian's help in arranging the now infamous "October Surprise" deal. Brian is the owner of Infotechnology, Inc., which controls the bankrupt Financial News Network and United Press International--not to mention Hadron, Inc., which coincidentally, failed in its attempt at a hostile take over of Inslaw. Meanwhile, three different sources have stated in sworn affidavits that Earl Brian brokered the Promis software on a world-wide basis. And according to Inslaw owner Bill Hamilton, his software has been illegally sold to at least 15 different countries.

According to Inslaw's attorney, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson, "Evidence to support the more serious accusations came from 30 people, including Justice Department sources. " Additionally, the files of the Justice Department's chief litigating attorney on the case have disappeared.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: MARK LOWENTHAL)

SOURCE:IN THESE TIMES 2040 N. Milwaukee, Chicago, IL 60647

DATE:May 29-June 11, 1991

Title:"Software Pirates"

AUTHOR: Joel Bleifuss

SOURCE: RANDOM LENGTHS P.o. Box 731, San Pedro, CA 90733

DATE:October 3-16, 1991

Title: "Software To Die For"

AUTHOR:James Pidgeway

COMMENTS: Investigative journalist Joel Bleifuss said that although the Inslaw case has received national coverage after his In These Times article, the "coverage has been woefully inadequate. The media has largely ignored the Inslaw allegations involving the October Surprise, Robert Gates, the disappearance of Justice Department files, the stone- walling by former Attorney General Thornburgh, the connivance of Earl Brian, and the apparent rigging of the judicial process."

Bleifuss feels the public would benefit from a fuller investigation of the Inslaw case because "it raises important questions about the integ- rity of the judicial process and -- if the allegations concerning Inslaw's connection to the October Surprise hold true -- the sanctity of our electoral system."

Bleifuss also has some chilling thoughts about the consequences of the limited coverage given the issue. "First, the mass media's refusal to put its vast resources to use investigating the Inslaw case, sends the message that such allegations have no merit. This serves to delegitimize the work of reporters in the alternative press. Second, the mass media's failure to take seriously what in this case is a well-documented example of official malfeasance, sends a message to mainstream journalists that they will not advance their careers by investigating government misdeeds. Consequently such investigations do not take place and elected officials are, by implication, free to commit such crimes with impunity."

(On January 13,1992, in a little publicized ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to reinstate a $7.8 million judgment won earlier by Inslaw in its long-running dispute with the Justice Department.)

- -------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: CBS, NBC SPIKED FOOTAGE OF IRAQ BOMBING CARNAGE Message-ID: <1992Nov3.091511.8387@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 09:15:11 GMT

CBS, NBC SPIKED FOOTAGE OF IRAQ BOMBING CARNAGE

CBS and NBC refused to broadcast rare, uncensored footage taken deep inside Iraq at the height of the U.S.-led air war. The footage, initially commissioned by NBC with two producers whose earlier work had earned the network seven Emmys, substantially contradicted U.S. administration claims that civilian damage from the American-led bombing campaign was light.

The exclusive videotape, shot by producers Jon Alpert and Maryanne Deleo, during a trip to Iraq in early February, portrayed heavy civilian carnage as a result of allied bombing.

"I thought it was substantial," said NBC Nightly News Executive Producer Steven Friedman, who initially approved the material for the broadcast. "It was stuff on the ground that nobody else had. It was very interesting material that we wanted to use for the show, but the boss (NBC President Michael Gartner) said no." After a meeting with Friedman, anchor Tom Brokaw, and Tom Capra, executive producer of the Today Show, producer Jon Alpert said "Everybody felt the film was very good. Friedman is a very competitive newsman and wanted to get the story on. They asked for three minutes, to be shown on the Nightly News and the Today Show, and we reached a financial agreement.''

But despite the enthusiasm shown by Friedman and Brokaw, who reportedly fought hard for its airing, Gartner killed the footage.

The producers then took the video to CBS, where they got the go-ahead from CBS Evening News Executive Producer Tom Bettag. "He told me, 'You'll appear on the show with Dan (Rather) tomorrow night," ' Alpert said. But while he was editing the piece for CBS, Alpert got a call from the network: Bettag had been fired in the middle of the night, and his piece had been killed.

Both networks have stated publicly that spiking the story had noth- ing to do with the controversial nature of the material.

Nevertheless, a series of interviews with network producers who requested anonymity, charged that the overwhelming support for the ad- ministration's war effort placed intense pressure on news executives to toe the line. "The pressure behind the scenes at the height of the hostilities to put out a pro-war, pro-administration message was immense," said a producer with more than 15 years' experience at the three networks.

The media-watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) concluded: "There is a strong indication that intimidation and cen- sorship has taken place in at least six of the cases that have been reported to us of stories and broadcasts that were unfavorable to the administration's war policy. " Several journalists and broadcasters have claimed to have had their work pulled or even to have lost their jobs for stories or comments that have been deemed out of sync with public opinion polls, according to FAIR.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: JACKIE STONEBRAKER)

SOURCE:THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN 520 Hampshire St., San Francisco, CA 94110-1417

DATE: 3/20/91

TITLE:"Sights unseen"

AUTHORS: Dennis Bernstein and Sasha Futran

COMMENTS: This story provides a "smoking gun" example of media self-censorship which some critics of Project Censored often demand. Here is a case where two professional television documentary producers were able to capture dramatic coverage of what happened in Iraq as a result of the heavy U.S.- led bombing campaign. This was coverage which had not been censored or edited by the military. Yet, while journalists at both CBS and NBC news departments were interested in the footage, both networks decided not to run it.

Dennis Bernstein, one of the authors of the article revealing the networks' censorship, said that it did not receive the media coverage it deserved and that the public would have benefitted from wider exposure of this story had it been put into the context of the timing of the war.

Bernstein added that he originally distributed the article through the Pacific News Service, where he is an associate editor, but that none of the news service's major media clients gave it a second glance. "The S.F. Chronicle said it was old news at the time that it broke," Bernstein noted.

Bernstein said that the networks, and their corporate military sponsors (and in the case of GE and NBC, their owners), were the primary beneficiaries from the lack of media coverage given this issue. Summing up the media control and manipulation during the Gulf War, a senior network producer with long experience at NBC and CBS said "This is the most pervasive propaganda control I've ever witnessed. I've never seen anything like it."

Ironically, while CBS and NBC deprived the nation of information it should have received during the war, the producers did sell a copy of their video to Japanese television. And a videotape is now available in the U.S. to those who want to see what was censored by the networks. A 28- minute version of the material, titled "Nowhere to Hide,'' is being circulated by media watchdog and community groups.

For information on how to obtain a copy of film the networks censored -- "Nowhere to Hide: Ramsey Clark in Iraq" -- write: Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East, 36 East 12th Street, New York, NY 10003.

- ------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: OPERATION ILL WIND Message-ID: <1992Nov4.091509.23939@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 09:15:09 GMT

OPERATION ILL WIND -- DOD'S UNTOLD STORY

In late 1990,Common Cause Magazine published an explosive article examining the scandal-plagued history of the Northrop Corporation, one of the nation's major defense contractors. It documented how Northrop's former CEO, Thomas V. Jones, kept the company thriving despite scandals involving overseas payoffs, illegal Watergate contributions, and falsi- fied tests on U.S. jet parts used in the Persian Gulf war.

At the time of the article, up to seven grand juries were reportedly investigating allegations that Northrop engaged in bribery, deliberate overcharging and falsifying test results. Northrop's record led critics to depict it as one of the nation's most lawless military contractors.

But Northrop was not alone nor necessarily atypical in its operation as the nation discovered in 1988 when the Justice Department started a massive investigation into possible fraud and bribery in securing defense contracts. The role of ex-Department of Defense workers who were paid by weapons contractors for the exclusive use of their knowledge was a major national story. It was called "Operation Ill Wind'' and it was expected to blow the lid off one of the nation's biggest scandals.

But it didn't and we'll probably never know why. After a lengthy investigation, investigative journalist Philip Dunn concluded that "Operation Ill Wind, the 1988 Justice Department investigation of possible fraud and bribery in securing defense contracts, will be hidden forever."

With just one exception, the search warrants and affidavits that contain transcripts of wiretapped conversations of employees at McDonnell Douglas, one of the key players in the investigation, were sealed by court order. Despite the best efforts of the St. Louis PostDispatch to obtain the affidavits, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the transcripts will remain sealed.

The Post's attorney, Jim Shoemake, said "Search warrants always historically have been a public record. They should be open as a public check on what the government is doing."

Edward H. Kohn, assistant city editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at the time, explained why the paper made such a strong effort to secure the hidden documents: "I ... believe that 'Operation Ill Wind' is of extraordinary scope and importance ... and ultimately may equal or exceed the 'Teapot Dome' scandal or the publication of the 'Pentagon Papers' in its significance in this Nation's history."

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: DUSTIN HARP)

SOURCE: COMMON CAUSE MAGAZINE 2030 M Street, Washington, DC 20036

DATE:Nov/Dec 1990

TITLE: "The Devil and Mr. Jones"

AUTHOR:John Hanrahan

SOURCE:THE ST. LOUIS JOURNALISM REVIEW 8380 Olive Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63l32

DATE:March 1991

TITLE: "The documents were sealed and the public shut out"

AUTHOR: Philip Dunn

COMMENTS: Author John Hanrahan, who investigated the Northrop scandal, charged that Northrop's two decades of corruption -- and the general topic of ongoing scandal over defense fraud -- continued to get short shrift in major news media during the last year. "I know of no expose of Northrop or corrupt defense firms generally in the major news media - -- certainly not network TV or the news weeklies -- in 1991," Hanrahan said. "With press focus on the Gulf War last year -- and how weapons made by defense firms were instrumental in the U.S. victory -- the media seemed unwilling to dampen the nation's perceived 'feel-good' mood brought on by the war. ' '

He said that the public would benefit from wider exposure of the DOD fraud issue because it would be in a better position to demand answers of the president and Congress as to why defense contracting fraud is so widespread; why major offenders get off with such light punishments (and continue to receive major contracts); and how the system can be improved to prevent the collusion that often exists between the government watchdogs and the contractors. Hanrahan noted that "The president and many members of Congress also benefit from the lack of exposure of defense contracting problems because the current system of 'pork-barrel' politics and campaign contributions from defense contractor PACs are important to reelection efforts. "

Investigative journalist Philip Dunn, who explored the Justice Department investigation of fraud at McDonnell Douglas, ruefully re- ported that while the issue didn't receive sufficient media attention, "In this particular case, the issue is largely over; the St. Louis PostDispatch took on the federal government and the government won. It's over. "

"The issue of sealed documents in general hasn't received enough attention," he added. "We're dealing with state and federal government documents, which are by definition (theoretically, at least) part of the public domain. If government's purpose is to serve its citizens, to be 'of the people, by the people and for the people,' why shouldn't every action that the government undertakes be open to public debate?"

- ------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: FOIA IS AN OXYMORON Message-ID: <1992Nov5.091510.12702@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:15:10 GMT

FOIA IS AN OXYMORON

In theory at least, the 25 year old Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) bucks the bureaucratic impulse for secrecy. In reality, however, the executive branch and federal courts are stretching the law's exemptions to give that impulse freer rein. As a result, this precious piece of legislation is fading into obsolescence.

Paul McMasters, a USA Today editor who heads a committee on freedom of information for the Society of Professional Journalists, sees this bleak future if the law isn't fixed: "more adverse court decisions, more erosion of access rights, more ignoring of FOIA."

The erosion of FOIA over the past ten years coincides with a new and particularly hostile attitude towards the public's right to know which was ushered in with the Reagan-Bush administration. The new administra- tion expansively redefined "national security" to cover virtually all aspects of international activity. A 1982 executive order told govern- ment officials to classify documents whenever in doubt, and even reclassified material already released under FOIA. The new strategy became: Fight every possible case, even if the only defense against disclosure was a technicality.

Justice Department official Mary Lawton, addressing an FOIA conference sponsored by the American Bar Association summed up the Reagan- Bush approach: "Some of us who have been plagued by this act for 25 years aren't real enthusiastic about this anniversary.''

FOIA is supposed to work this way: You make your request and the government has 10 days to fill the request or explain why it won't do so. But in most agencies roadblocks are endemic. So are delays, despite the 10-day deadline. The FDA often takes two years to fill requests, the State Department often takes a year. Last year the FBI calculated that its average response time was more than 300 days. A Navy FOIA officer suggested to one reporter that he'd be better off finding someone to leak the document he wanted. "If you have to make a request," one media lawyer says, "that means you've failed. "

A major source of the problem lies with the Office of Management and Budget for insuring that FOIA offices remain under-funded and under- staffed. The Navy's central FOIA office has a staff of two and no fax machine. Emil Moschella, then FOIA director for the FBI, testified last year that his 1991 request for new staff was cut in half by Justice and then "zeroed out" by OMB.

To make matters worse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles most FOIA cases, and the Supreme Court have moved aggressively to expand the government's power to withhold. One would think that the press would find such a vital access issue to be of importance, yet finding significant coverage is as difficult as obtaining it through a FOIA request.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: ANNE BRITTON)

SOURCE:COMMON CAUSE 2030 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036

DATE:July/August 1991

TlTLE: "The Fight To Know"

AUTHORS:Peter Montgomery and Peter Overby

COMMENTS: The authors note that freedom of information is a subject that journalists talk a lot about -- among themselves. "The discussions typically focus on individual cases and immediate problems. We found very little written about the issue in general-circulation publications; for example, they barely glanced at the NASA cover-up attempt described in our lead. But while reporters were griping to each other, the Reagan and Bush administrations not only expanded but institutionalized loop- holes in the Freedom of Information Act. Common Cause Magazine, a fre- quent FOIA user, decided it was time to try bringing the subject into public debate."

The benefit of more public discussion of the threat to FOIA boils down to two basic truths according to the authors. "First, democracy depends on citizens' access to government information. Second, given the choice, governments will always operate in secrecy. If the public, and the press as its representative, don't continually demand access, information will be available only to the government and its friends. As events from Watergate to Iran-Contra show, the nation suffers when that happens. If citizens have a better understanding of FOIA's importance, they may more actively defend it. Exposure of FOIA abuses may encourage efforts to strengthen the law or to hold accountable those who flout it."

On the other hand, the authors add, "A lack of coverage makes life easier for any government officials who prefer less oversight to more. It allows enemies of free access to information to continue to undermine the public's right to know. It also serves many in the media who don't want to make waves. Using FOIA is never quick, often provokes a battle and usually produces stories that upset lots of people -- e.g., the realization that the Challenger explosion was an avoidable catastrophe. The 1980s saw a strong and continuing shift away from that style of investigative journalism."

Although the article was circulated to newspapers around the country, just one reprinted it while several others wrote editorials based on it. While there has been some action in the Senate, Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced FOIA reform bills, and in the courts, the authors report that there has been no reversal of the trend they reported.

- -------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN Message-ID: <1992Nov6.091509.28599@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:15:09 GMT

CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN

It would seem that in these times of heightened environmental consciousness, companies with questionable environmental track records would be concerned with EPA regulations. But it appears the corporate sector is paying less attention to non-threatening government regulators and instead adopting an array of tactics and at- tack strategies aimed at environmental and citizen groups.

Some of the more recent anti-environmental innovations include multi-million dollar SLAPP suits, the harassment and surveillance (including electronic) of activists, the infiltration of environmental groups by "agent provocateurs," and the creation of dummy ecology groups to ferret out whistleblowers. Another disturbing trend is the proliferation of groups such as "The Oregon Committee for Recycling," an industry front group whose purpose was to lobby against a recycling initiative on the state ballot. Or "Californians for Food Safety," which was created by the Western Agricultural Chemical Association, producers of pesticides, who successfully opposed the state's Big Green proposition in 1990.

Perhaps the greatest coup was pulled off by Arkansas' Vertac Inc., a superfund polluter, whose "Jacksonville People With Pride Cleanup Coalition" successfully applied for EPA money--until they were exposed by suspicious environmentalists.

This new corporate mind-set may be best exemplified, however, by a copy of a "Crisis Management Plan" commissioned by the Clorox Corp., which was recently leaked to Greenpeace. The plan was prepared by Ketchum Communications, one of the nation's largest advertising and public relations firms. While Greenpeace has an international program aimed at abolishing the use of chlorine in the pulp and paper industry, they have not called for a ban on domestic use of bleach. However, the Ketchum plan was apparently prompted by fears that Greenpeace would eventually target household use of bleach and call for its elimination.

Part of the Ketchum strategy to counteract the chlorine industry's poor reputation was to outline "worst case scenarios." Among its many strategies, Ketchum suggests ways to discredit the findings of studies linking chlorine use to cancer, should the findings ever become public. The firm also recommends that Clorox "cast doubts on the methodology and findings," of potentially damaging scientific reports which haven't even been written yet.

Ketchum also recommends labeling Greenpeace as violent self-serving "eco-terrorists;" attempting to sue newspaper columnists who advocate the use of non-toxic bleaches and cleaners for the home; "immu- nizing" government officials; dispatching "independent" scientists on media tours; and recruiting "scientific ambassadors" to tout the Clorox cause and call for further study.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: ROBYN O'CONNOR AND DANNY BREMSON)

SOURCE:E MAGAZINE,Nov./Dec.1991 P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881

TlTLE:"Stop the Greens"

AUTHOR:Eve Pell

SOURCE: GREENPEACE NEWS, 1436 U St., NW, Washington, DC,20009

DATE: 5/10/31

TITLE: "Clorox Company's Public Relations 'Crisis Management Plan'

COMMENTS: Investigative journalist Eve Pell noted that while business efforts to comply with environmental regulations and to market "green" products have received a lot of coverage, "no one in the major mass media, to our knowledge, has reported that, nationwide, American corporations are retaliating against the environmental movement with a wide assortment of dirty tricks. Not only was there inadequate cover- age in the mainstream press, there was no coverage of this topic at all."

Wider coverage of this issue would let consumers and voters know that some of the businesses that purport to protect ancient forests and furry animals are engaged in efforts to mislead the public and undermine the work of environmental activists, Pell added. "They would understand why corporate environmental image-building campaigns -- like Chevron's 'People Do' series about the oil company's alleged construction of dens for kit foxes -- are all too often deceptive and fraudulent. As informed citizens, they would more accurately evaluate issues that come before them, which could include whether to buy or to boycott certain products, to vote for or against legislative proposals and candidates, or to support environmental organizations."

"Perhaps most important," Pell noted, "the public would be less easily taken in by industry efforts to mislead. They might view with more skepticism such groups as the deceptively named Oregon Committee for Recycling, an industry front group that actually opposed a recycling initiative in that state."

Pell suggests that the corporations and industries that buy the good opinion of the American public with image-building advertising are the ones that benefit most from the limited coverage given this issue. "If lawmakers, regulators and consumers do not know that certain companies are out to undermine the work of environmental groups, those companies may appear to be good corporate citizens and therefore less likely to be questioned or criticized. "

Pell concludes that the national news media have not dealt adequately with the extent and depth of the corporate anti-environmental cam- paign.

- ------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: FINCEN: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO PRIVACY & PROPERTY Message-ID: <1992Nov7.091523.16905@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:15:23 GMT

FINCEN: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO PRIVACY & PROPERTY

A new Treasury Department agency has been set up by the Bush Adminis- tration to strengthen law enforcement through cross-referencing and analysis of financial, commercial, law enforcement and intelligence databases. The new agency is named Financial Crime Enforcement Network or FinCEN .

FinCEN did its part for the recent Persian Gulf war effort, according to Money Laundering Alert (MLA), a financial law enforcement newsletter published out of Miami, Florida.

FinCEN did this by assisting another Treasury agency, the Office of Foreign Asset Control, in their White House-assigned task of "be- ginning the process of identifying Iraqi assets in the U.S." FinCEN provided information that "led OFAC to freeze 11 bank accounts and assets in California, Georgia, and New York, as well as corporate assets and a $3.5 million real estate parcel. "

MLA continued, "The properties belonged to people suspected (emphasis added) of being fronts for Saddam Hussein... ". Some critics consider such seizure of property to be a denial of due process, a Sixth Amendment right.

FinCEN obtained the information through what MLA refers to as FinCEN's "three major databases. " The first is of "financial information and intelligence such as that contained in the federal cash reporting Forms 4789 and 8300. " The second contains "commercial data, such as corporate and property ownership records from state sources." The third holds "law enforcement case files and intelligence from the various federal agencies." The political newsletter Washington Report, contends that FinCEN can "invade over 100 U.S. and private financial databases, IRS and DEA records, Customs Reports, land and real estate data. (and) census records. "

FinCEN was established in 1990 with $13.4 million in funding. The agency has apparently blossomed since the naming of Brian M. Bruh, a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Criminal Investigation at the IRS and chief investigator for the Tower Commission, as director in March 1990. At that time, MLA reported that FinCEN employed 65 people, half "detailed" by the IRS and the Customs Service. It was anticipated that "a total staff complement of 200" would include "repre- sentatives" from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, an Firearms, the Secret Service, the Postal Inspectors, the DEA, unspecified "help" from the Defense Intelligence Agency and a "liaison" with the CIA. The potential impact on the Fourth Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens by a new federal agency created specifically to compile comprehensive asset holdings data on anyone suspected of wrongdoing should be explored by the national press.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: SCOTT SOMOHANO)

SOURCE: MONEY LAUNDERING ALERT P.O. Box 011390, Miami, FL 33101-1390

DATE-April 1991

Title:FinCEN's Financial Missiles Strike Iraq, Saddam"

AUTHOR:Charles A. Intriago, Esq.

SOURCE:Washington REPORT PO Box 10309, St. Petersburg, FL 33733

DATE:September 1991

TITLE: "Editorial"

AUTHOR:William A. Leavell

SOURCE:U.S. GENERAL Accounting Office Washington DC 20548

DATE: 3/18/91

Title: GAO/GGD-91-53 FinCEN

COMMENTS: Project Censored first read about the obscure Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in an editorial in a small publi- cation titled Washington Report. Washington Report is a four-page monthly newsletter published by Editors Release Service in St. Peters- burg, Florida. The editor, William A. Leavell, warned his readers "Have you ever heard of 'FinCEN?' No? You are not supposed to know about 'FinCEN.' Why? Because what it does is reported to violate the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment guarantee of your right to privacy. " Leavell told Project Censored that he was tipped to FinCEN by a good source in the intelligence community he has known for many years.

Project Censored researchers discovered that FinCEN, a Treasury Department agency, was established, with little fanfare or media interest, in 1990 and already had played a role in the Gulf War effort. The problem is that FinCEN potentially threatens the Fourth Amendment rights of lawabiding citizens since it is authorized to compile extensive financial data on anyone who is suspected of wrongdoing.

Leavell, a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and a virulent opponent of censorship, believes "the FinCEN" operation is a violation of existing law and the Constitution "and a serious invasion of privacy. He added that information about FinCEN was made available to the major electronic and print media but that they "elected to ignore it." Leavell warned that "Censorship serves those in power and those who benefit from the existing political and financial 'establishment'."

- ------------------------------------------------ Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: WHO'S OVERSEEING CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT Message-ID: <1992Nov9.091524.10052@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:15:24 GMT

WHO'S OVERSEEING CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT?

Oversight is one of Congress's chief responsibilities, along with writing laws, raising revenue and spending public money. So why is it that on the whole, Congress is failing that responsibility, allowing waste, fraud and abuse to go unchecked throughout the federal bureaucracy? A National Academy of Public Administration report once charged it's because "Congressional oversight in general is more geared to garnering media attention" than making government work better. According to current and former Congressional investigators, the oversight process today is in a shambles; many investigations are superficial and scattershot at best. Too many lawmakers are am- bivalent about oversight and subject to pressure from the targets of their investigations. Sources within federal agencies have withered; many whistleblowers, no longer nurtured by Congress, remain silent.

No better (or worse) example can be found than the Government Op- erations Committee -- designed to be the House of Representatives' most tenacious government watchdog. The committee has floundered since Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) replaced the tough Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas), who had chaired the committee for 13 years. "We have 360-degree authority to pursue waste, fraud and abuse," says committee member Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), "we should strike fear in the hearts of bureaucrats and contractors. But nobody's afraid. "

Sources on and off Conyers' committee say the chairman, who has solicited and received contributions from a number of parties with a stake in his committee's investigations, isn't aggressive or focused enough. The 14-term lawmaker, in one insider's words, tends to "accommodate the people being investigated rather than the investigators." In fact, Conyers' accommodating nature cost 15-year congressional investigator Tom Trimboli his job -- for doing his job too well. This is the same man who played a key role in un-covering the Wedtech scandal. The same man Conyers called "as good as they get' -- six months before dismissing him.

The dismissal was the result of a committee investigation, led by Trimboli, of the Unisys corporation,, major defense contractor. Trimboli was looking into charges that Unisys was defrauding the government in a $ I .7 billion computer contract they had won with the Air Force. It took only one unhappy phone call to Rep. Conyers from Unisys Chair Michael Blumenthal before Trimboli was fired, paralyzing the Unisys investigation. To this date, no hearings have been held and no final committee report has been issued

The sad state of congressional oversight is best summarized by 30- year veteran investigator Don Gray, who recently left the Hill. According to Gray, seldom heard are the sweetest words a lawmaker can say to an investigator: "Take it where it goes. I'll back you up all the way."

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: RACHAEL KlNBERG)

SOURCE:COMMON CAUSE 2030 M St. NW, Washington, DC 20036

DATE:July/August 1991

Title:"See No Evil"

AUTHOR:Jeffrey Denny

COMMENTS: Jeffrey Denny, senior editor at Common Cause, charges that "The problem addressed in 'See No Evil' -- waste, fraud and abuse runs largely unchecked through the federal government because Congress's oversight function has been undermined by lawmakers' close rel- ationship with special interests and federal agencies -- by its very nature receives insufficient exposure in the mass media. "The mass media by and large views Congress's oversight committees as friendly sources, ignoring the confluence of pressures -- i.e. lawmakers' need to raise campaign money from special interests and win favors for constituents from bureaucrats -- that undermine tough, effective enforcement. "Too often the mainstream media has been used by publicity-seeking members of Congress whose 'investigations' are little more than quick-hit press events. When oversight efforts are reported, key questions remain unasked: Was the committee lobbied by the target to ease up and what was the impact of the lobbying effort? Did the target provide campaign-contributions to members of the committee? Did the committee use all its powers to compel testimony and documents from the executive branch? Were findings used to achieve action, such as Justice Department prosecution?

"In three recent cases, the mass media missed a key angle in its coverage of the HUD, S&L and Iran-contra scandals: Where was Congress, with all its oversight powers, while these scandals brewed?"

Denny says that more information about the failure of Congressional oversight could "provoke Congress to make institutional -- and attitudinal -- changes that will improve its ability to cover waste, fraud and abuse -- perhaps improving public trust in government and saving taxpayers money.'' As it is, Denny adds "Ultimately, special interests that are ripping off government stand to benefit from the lack of coverage of Congress's lax oversight. So long as Congress feels it can spoon-feed the press investigatory pabulum and fool the public into believing it really is doing something about waste, fraud and abuse, there will be no incentive for lawmakers to change." He con- cludes that the mass media no longer can think of Congress as a friendly source, but "rather must hold it accountable as an elected branch of government with a serious job to do. "

- ------------------------------------------------ Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM Message-ID: <1992Nov10.091524.8897@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:15:24 GMT

THE SPECTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

No one segment of society should have a monopoly on clean air, clean water, or a clean workplace; nor should any one segment be targeted for society' s wastes. Nevertheless, some individuals, neighborhoods, and communities are forced to bear the brunt of the nation's pollution problem. People of color are disproportionately affected by industrial toxins, dirty air and drinking water, and the location of municipal landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

This form of "environmental racism" is due primarily to exclusionary zoning laws, discriminatory land-use practices, industrial facility siting that targets racial and ethnic minority communities, and the unequal enforcement of environmental regulations.

According to The Workbook (Fall 1991):

* 60 percent of the total black population and 60 percent of the total Hispanic population live in communities with one or more uncontrolled toxic waste sites.

* About half of all Asian/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites.

* Three of the five largest commercial hazardous waste landfills, which account for 40 percent of the nation's total estimated landfill capacity, are located in predominantly black or Hispanic communi- ties.

* Lead poisoning endangers the health of nearly 8 million inner-city children, mostly black and Hispanics.

* Reproductive cancer among Navajo teenagers is 17 times the national average.

* In 1988, of the 1 I major national environmental organizations, only six minority persons were found serving on the boards, and only 222 (16.8%) minorities were employed of a total of 1,317 staff members; only 24 percent of those were professionals.

The waste management and hazardous chemical industries have targeted minorities as the least likely to resist their efforts to locate facili- ties nobody else wants. And their callous, self-serving program is succeeding.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: MARIA BROSNAN)

SOURCE:THE WORKBOOK P.O. BOX 4524, Albuquerque, NM 87106

DATE:Fall 1991

TITLE: "Beyond Ankle-biting: Fighting Environmental Discrimination Locally Nationally, and Globally"'

AUTHORS:Kathy Cone Newton with Frances Ortega

COMMENTS: Author Kathy Cone said she doesn't "think 'average' Americans think much about the effects of water and air pollution on minorities or have thought about the fact that the distribution of polluting industries and hazardous wastes can be a racial question at all. Of course, the people who are directly affected, who live with it every day and suffer the health effects or just plain grimness of living with it, as evidenced by so many articles in the grass-roots press, know they are victims of prejudice, whether racial or economic. As a group, surely they would benefit from more attention in the mass media because their plight would be recognized and a 'face' would be put on their dilemma. And with greater media exposure, Americans who aren't suffering from environmental pollution because they're able to live as far from the sources as possible would gradually become unable to deny that to live with clean air and clean water, in a healthy environment, is fast becoming a privilege and not a right. A lot of people think that those who live near the chemical plants or dumps or toxic waste storage tanks do it either by choice or indifference -- and they are simply unaware that industry actually deliberately targets groups of people who are the least likely to resist facilities in their neighborhoods or to insist on stringent regulations. Without public awareness of the practice it will surely continue without broad public resistance."

Further, Cone suggests that the polluters "won't have to reduce their production of hazardous materials and wastes as long as the only people making the fuss are those without political power or economic indepen- dence and the rest of us can go on believing it really isn't that bad. l think it's tremendously important for the issue to be given steady attention by the alternative press, but as long as it stays there, there won't be enough public pressure to insist on everyone's right to clean air and water."

Cone's hope is that "more articles and news coverage will focus on the health risks and reduction in quality of life for people who live in polluted surroundings and to expose the predominance of polluted environments in places where America's poor and minority people live. What exists now in the public mind is that we have to live with the pollution -- or somebody does -- in order to keep jobs and provide economic growth. Industry, as long as it escapes scrutiny by the mass media, will be able to keep on promoting this either-or notion of jobs vs. clean environment."

- -------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: BOHEMIAN GROVE Message-ID: <1992Nov11.091509.27095@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:15:09 GMT

BOHEMIAN GROVE: THE STORY PEOPLE MAGAZINE CENSORED

The Bohemian Grove encampment, which draws the cream of America's male power elite, including media moguls, to northern California each year, is one of the media' s best known, best kept secrets. Dirk Mathison, San Francisco bureau chief for People magazine, managed to surreptitiously infiltrate the encampment in search of a story few reporters have access to. And he got it. He recorded a variety of newsworthy items, including a speech, "Smart Weapons," by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who said that the Pentagon estimated that 200,000 Iraqis were killed by the U.S. and its allies during the Gulf War. Other speakers included Defense Secretary Richard Cheney on "Major Defense Problems of the 21st Century," former HEW secretary Joseph Cali- fano on "America's Health Revolution -- Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Pays,' ' and former Attorney General Elliot Richardson on "Defining the New World Order. "

Mathison's entree into the secret world of the Grove ended July 20 when he was recognized by a participant in the activities -- an executive from Time Warner -- People's corporate boss. More loyal to the Grove than to the public's right to know, the Time executive escorted Mathison to the gate. However, Mathison already had plenty of material for the article which was scheduled for Aug. 5, 1991. But suddenly the story was killed. Landon Jones, People's managing editor, said the decision to kill the story had nothing to do with Time Warner. He said it was killed because Mathison hadn't been in the Grove long enough to get a complete story and because the story had been obtained through questionable means, trespassing.

Like Mathison, there have been few journalists who have infiltrated the Grove and been allowed to report the story. One exception is Philip Weiss, whose story appeared in the Nov.1989 issue of Spy. More typical are "censored" experiences, such as in 1982 when NPR got a recording of Henry Kissinger's speech at the Grove but declined to air it and, also in 1982, when a Time reporter went undercover as a waiter in the Grove but whose story, also was killed.

Time Warner's executives are not the only media moguls who patronize the Grove. Others include Franklin Murphy, former CEO of the Times Mirror corporation; William Randolph Hearst, Jr.; Jack Howard and Charles Scripps of the ScrippsHoward newspaper chain; Tom Johnson, president of CNN and former publisher of the L.A. Times. When Associated Press president Louis Boccardi once spoke at the Grove about kidnapped reporter Terry Anderson, he referred to his audience as men of "power and rank" and "gave them more details than he said he was willing to give his readers."

Media apologists who reject the concept of news media self-censorship often cry "Where's the smoking gun?" Here's a smoking gun.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: DUSTIN HARP)

SOURCE: EXTRA! 130 West 25th St. New York NY 10001

DATE: November/December; 1991

Title:"Inside Bohemian Grove: The Story People Magazine Won't Let You Read"

AUTHORS:Jim Naureckas with Jeff Cohen and Steve Rendall

COMMENTS:On July 30,1991, I received a call from Mary Moore, a northern California activist and member of the Bohemian Grove Action Network. She told me how the Action Network had "facilitated" Dirk Mathison's entry to the exclusive Bohemian Grove encampment; they had no problem getting the People Magazine reporter in and out the first two times, Moore said, but the third time it was a coincidence that an executive from Time saw him. As noted in the synopsis, Mathison was thrown out of the Grove and People Magazine subsequently spiked his expose.

I called Mathison at the San Francisco bureau of People Magazine but while he confirmed what Moore had told me he was not willing to go be- yond what was already known. He finally said he would have "no comment" until he heard from his bosses in New York as to what he could say. As noted earlier, I also talked to Mathison's boss, Lanny Jones, managing editor of People Magazine. Jones denied any censorship, saying they couldn't use the story because it had been obtained through illegal means -- trespassing.

Since Moore already had contacted the local media about the story, I told her I'd try to get some national coverage. "Expose," the short-lived NBC news magazine program, was hot at the time and Tom Brokaw had previously expressed interest in Project Censored's efforts, so I called him. Brokaw was out of the country at the time and the person I talked with said she'd get back to me but didn't. However, Marty Lee, at EXTRA!, was very interested in the story and it became the cover story for EXTRA! 's November/December issue.

Jeff Cohen, executive director of FAIR, said this was a "clear cut example of how an aggressive reporter was not allowed to tell what he learned through his aggressive reporting because his corporate managers were more concerned with the sanctity of corporate and government elites than in journalism."

" In years of exposing incidents of censorship, " Cohen concluded, " this one was one of the most compelling we've come across. When a journalist trying to cover how governing elites operate is prevented from reporting his story because his corporate managers identify with those elites, it speaks volumes."

- ------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Subject: CENSORED: MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW Message-ID: <1992Nov16.091508.15016@mont.cs.missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:15:08 GMT

MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW APPROVED

Last year's controversial Intelligence reauthorization bill, spawned in the wake of the Iran-Contra fiasco, has returned in an updated version that has once again swept through Congress amid minimal fanfare from the national press. After a year of backroom negotiations between the Administration and the congressional intelligence committees, both houses of Congress passed H.R. 1455 on July 3 l . President Bush signed the new bill on August 16.

The intelligence bill is essentially the same as last year's proposal, which was pocket vetoed by the President over provisions which he felt encroached on his executive authority. The new bill, while not giving the President exactly what he wants, is vague enough to satisfy both his desire for flexibility and Congress's desire for statutory covert action oversight authority.

One key provision from last year's version, which the President objected to, was a requirement that the President authorize all covert actions in advance with a written ''finding.'' Under the old bill, this provision has two exceptions. First, in an emergency situation, the President has 48 hours after the fact to draft a written finding. Second, while the finding would usually be provided to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, in extraordinary cases the President may limit notification to congressional leaders.

The President's first objection was to have to notify Congress when soliciting third-party nations or individuals to take part in covert operations which he felt would seriously hamper foreign policy efforts. The new law will only require the White House to notify Congress if a third-party will participate "in any significant way" in a covert action and even then their identity may remain confidential.

The second objection dealt with the wording on how fast the President should notify Congress after issuing a "finding" authorizing a covert action. The original bill required the President to inform Congress "in a timely fashion,' ' which lawmakers sought to define as "within a few days." Committee members now concede that the President may interpret the phrase as he sees fit.

President Bush made no secret of his intentions to utilize this loophole at will. Upon signing the legislation he stated that sometimes disclosure "could significantly impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Critics say that these loopholes are large enough to render the new oversight law, and Congress' enforcement role, meaningless.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER: SCOTT SOMOHANO)

SOURCE:CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY WEEKLY REPORT 1414 22nd st., NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20037

DATE: 813/9 1

TITLE: "Senate Clears Retooled Measure Strengthening Hill Oversight"

AUTHOR: Pamela Fessler

SOURCE: WALL STREET JOURNAL 200 Liberty st., New York, NY 10028

DATE: 8/16/91

Title:"Bush Signs Funding sill For intelligence Agencies"

SOURCE: LOS ANGELES TIMES Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles CA 90037

DATE: 8/l/91

Title: "New Restrictions on Covert Action Passed by Congress

AUTHOR:Michael Ross

COMMENTS: Author Pamela Fessler felt the issue received minimal coverage with little if any network television or news weekly coverage. "Considering the fact that the legislation was the main legislative by-product of the Iran-contra scandal, it's surprising it didn't receive more attention," Fessler said. "The bill completely changed the requirements the administration must meet in reporting covert actions to Congress -- presumably allowing for greater oversight. "

In general, Fessler believes the public would benefit by being made more aware of what Congress does and how the legislative system works. "They most often are exposed to scandals and pay raises now," she continued. "People have a very distorted picture of Congress and government in general, leading, I think to a lack of participation in the political process. "

If any interests were served by the lack of coverage given the intelli- gence oversight legislation, Fessler believes it might have been the media themselves. "Let's face it," she concluded, "some of this stuff is boring and hard to cover. It's much easier to cover a congressional pay raise debate or a fight over taxes "

--