textfiles-politics/regexConsp/secret.txt

</p>

<p>                            JOHN STOCKWELL</p>

<p>                      THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA</p>

<p>                           10 October 1987</p>

<p>                          A two-part speech.</p>

<p>             Copyright (C) 1987  The Other Americas Radio
  John Stockwell is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the
agency and go public.  He ran a  CIA  intelligence-gathering  post  in
Vietnam,  was  the  task-force  commander  of  the CIA's secret war in
Angola in 1975 and 1976, and was awarded the Medal of Merit before  he
resigned.  Stockwell's  book  In  Search of Enemies, published by W.W.
Norton 1978, is an international best-seller. This is a transcript  of
a lecture he gave in June, 1986.  </p>

<p>  The  policy  of  The Other Americas Radio regarding reproducing this
lecture is that while they would like to see it reproduced and  passed
around  as much as possible, they also need money to operate (they are
not-for-profit).  Thus, please pass a copy of this transcript on,  and
if you like the transcript, send a donation to them (the tape costs 13
dollars, and they have other tapes as well) at:  
The Other Americas Radio
Programs &amp; News on Latin America.
KCSB-FM, Box 85
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
(805) 569-5381</p>

<p>  For the on-line (electronic) version of this transcription,  contact
toad@nl.cs.cmu.edu on the ARPA network, or retrieve, via FTP, the file
/usr/toad/text/talk/speech.doc or /usr/toad/text/talk/speech.mss  from
the  NL.CS.CMU.EDU  vax.    Also  available  as a paper manuscript, or
digitally on disk.  Write to P.O.Box 81795, Pittsburgh, PA 15217.</p>

<p>                                PART I</p>

<p>     THE INNER WORKINGS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE
     CIA'S COVERT ACTIONS IN ANGOLA, CENTRAL AMERICA AND VIETNAM</p>

<p>  "I did 13 years in the CIA altogether.  I sat on a  subcommittee  of
the  NSC, so I was like a chief of staff, with the GS-18s (like 3-star
generals) Henry Kissinger, Bill Colby (the CIA director),  the  GS-18s
and  the  CIA, making the important decisions and my job was to put it
all together and make it happen and run it, an interesting place  from
which to watch a covert action being done....</p>

<p>  I  testified  for  days before the Congress, giving them chapter and
verse, date and detail, proving specific lies.  They were asking if we
had  to  do with S. Africa, that was fighting in the country.  In fact
we were coordinating this operation so  closely  that  our  airplanes,
full  of  arms from the states, would meet their airplanes in Kinshasa
and they would take our arms into Angola to distribute to  our  forces
for us....</p>

<p>  What  I  found  with  all  of  this  study  is that the subject, the
problem, if you will, for the world, for the U.S. is much, much,  much
graver,  astronomically graver, than just Angola and Vietnam.  I found
that the Senate Church committee  has  reported,  in  their  study  of
covert actions, that the CIA ran several thousand covert actions since
1961, and that the heyday of covert action was before  1961;  that  we
have  run  several hundred covert actions a year, and the CIA has been
in business for a total of 37 years.</p>

<p>  What we're going to talk about tonight is the United States national
security  syndrome.    We're  going to talk about how and why the U.S.
manipulates the press.  We're going to talk about how and why the U.S.
is  pouring money into El Salvador, and preparing to invade Nicaragua;
how all of this concerns us so directly.  I'm going to try to  explain
to  you  the  other side of terrorism; that is, the other side of what
Secretary of State Shultz talks about.   In  doing  this,  we'll  talk
about the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and the Central American war.</p>

<p>  Everything I'm going to talk to you about is represented, one way or
another, already in the public records.  You can dig it  all  out  for
yourselves,  without  coming to hear me if you so chose.  Books, based
on information gotten out of the CIA under the freedom of  information
act,  testimony before the Congress, hearings before the Senate Church
committee, research by scholars,  witness  of  people  throughout  the
world who have been to these target areas that we'll be talking about.
I want to emphasize that my own background is profoundly conservative.
We come from South Texas, East Texas....</p>

<p>  I  was  conditioned by my training, my marine corps training, and my
background, to believe in everything they were saying about  the  cold
war, and I took the job with great enthusiasm (in the CIA) to join the
best and the brightest of the CIA, of our foreign service, to  go  out
into  the  world, to join the struggle, to project American values and
save the world for our brand of democracy.  And I believed  this.    I
went out and worked hard....</p>

<p>  What  I  really  got  out of these 6 years in Africa was a sense ...
that nothing we were doing in fact  defended  U.S.  national  security
interests  very much.  We didn't have many national security interests
in Bujumbura, Burundi, in the heart of Africa.   I  concluded  that  I
just couldn't see the point.</p>

<p>  We were doing things it seemed because we were there, because it was
our function, we were  bribing  people,  corrupting  people,  and  not
protecting  the U.S. in any visible way. I had a chance to go drinking
with this Larry Devlin, a famous CIA case officer who  had  overthrown
Patrice  Lumumba,  and  had him killed in 1960, back in the Congo.  He
was moving into the Africa division Chief.  I talked to him  in  Addis
Ababa at length one night, and he was giving me an explanation - I was
telling him frankly, 'sir, you  know,  this  stuff  doesn't  make  any
sense,  we're  not saving anybody from anything, and we are corrupting
people, and everybody knows we're doing it, and that  makes  the  U.S.
look bad'.</p>

<p>  And he said I was getting too big for my britches.  He said, `you're
trying to think like the people in the NSC back in Washington who have
the  big  picture, who know what's going on in the world, who have all
the secret information, and the experience to  digest  it.    If  they
decide  we  should have someone in Bujumbura, Burundi, and that person
should be you, then you should do your job, and wait  until  you  have
more experience, and you work your way up to that point, then you will
understand national security, and you  can  make  the  big  decisions.
Now, get to work, and stop, you know, this philosophizing.'</p>

<p>  And I said, `Aye-aye sir, sorry sir, a bit out of line sir'.  It's a
very powerful argument, our presidents use it on us.  President Reagan
has  used  it on the American people, saying, `if you knew what I know
about the situation in Central America, you would understand why  it's
necessary for us to intervene.'</p>

<p>  I  went  back to Washington, however, and I found that others shared
my concern.  A formal study was  done  in  the  State  Department  and
published  internally,  highly  classified,  called the Macomber [sp?]
report, concluding that the CIA had no business being  in  Africa  for
anything  it  was  known  to be doing, that our presence there was not
justified, there were no national  security  interests  that  the  CIA
could  address any better than the ambassador himself.  We didn't need
to have bribery and corruption as a tool for doing business in  Africa
at that time.</p>

<p>  I  went  from  ...  a  tour in Washington to Vietnam.  And there, my
career, and my life, began to get a little bit  more  serious.    They
assigned  me  a  country.    It was during the cease-fire, '73 to '75.
There was no cease-fire.  Young men were being slaughtered.  I  saw  a
slaughter.    300  young  men that the South Vietnamese army ambushed.
Their bodies brought in and laid out in a lot next to my compound.   I
was  up-country  in  Tayninh.  They were laid out next door, until the
families could come and claim them and take them away for burial.</p>

<p>  I thought about this. I had to work with the sadistic police  chief.
When  I  reported that he liked to carve people with knives in the CIA
safe-house - when I reported this to my bosses, they said,  `(1).  The
post  was too important to close down.  (2). They weren't going to get
the man  transferred  or  fired  because  that  would  make  problems,
political  problems,  and  he  was very good at working with us in the
operations he worked on.  (3).  Therefore if I didn't have the stomach
for the job, that they could transfer me.'</p>

<p>  But  they  hastened  to  point  out,  if I did demonstrate a lack of
`moral fiber' to handle working with the sadistic police chief, that I
wouldn't  get  another good job in the CIA, it would be a mark against
my career.</p>

<p>  So I kept the job, I closed the safe-house down,  I  told  my  staff
that  I  didn't  approve  of that kind of activity, and I proceeded to
work with him for the next 2 years, pretending  that  I  had  reformed
him,  and  he  didn't  do this sort of thing anymore.  The parallel is
obvious with El Salvador today, where the CIA, the  state  department,
works with the death squads.</p>

<p>  They  don't  meet  the  death  squads  on  the streets where they're
actually chopping up people or laying them  down  on  the  street  and
running  trucks over their heads.  The CIA people in San Salvador meet
the police chiefs, and the people who run the death squads,  and  they
do  liaise  with  them, they meet them beside the swimming pool of the
villas.  And it's a sophisticated,  civilized  kind  of  relationship.
And they talk about their children, who are going to school at UCLA or
Harvard and other schools, and they don't talk about  the  horrors  of
what's being done.  They pretend like it isn't true.</p>

<p>  What  I ran into in addition to that was a corruption in the CIA and
the intelligence business that made me question very seriously what it
was all about, including what I was doing ... risking my life ... what
I found was that the CIA, us, the case officers, were not permitted to
report about the corruption in the South Vietnamese army....</p>

<p>  Now,  the  corruption  was so bad, that the S. Vietnamese army was a
skeleton army.  Colonels would let the troops go home  if  they  would
come  in  once  a month and sign the pay vouchers so the colonel could
pocket the money.  Then he could sell half of the uniforms  and  boots
and M-16's to the communist forces - that was their major supply, just
as it is in El Salvador today.  He could use half  of  the  trucks  to
haul produce, half of the helicopters to haul heroin.</p>

<p>  And  the  Army couldn't fight.  And we lived with it, and we saw it,
and there was no doubt - everybody talked about it openly.   We  could
provide  all  kinds of proof, and they wouldn't let us report it.  Now
this was a serious problem because  the  south  was  attacked  in  the
winter   of  1975,  and  it  collapsed  like  a  big  vase  hit  by  a
sledgehammer.  And the U.S. was humiliated, and that was the  dramatic
end of our long involvement in Vietnam....</p>

<p>  I  had  been  designated  as the task-force commander that would run
this secret war [in Angola in 1975 and 1976].... and  what  I  figured
out  was  that  in  this  job,  I  would sit on a sub-committee of the
National Security Council, this office that Larry Devlin has  told  me
about where they had access to all the information about Angola, about
the whole world, and I would  finally  understand  national  security.
And I couldn't resist the opportunity to know.  I knew the CIA was not
a worthwhile organization, I had learned that the hard way.   But  the
question was where did the U.S.  government fit into this thing, and I
had a chance to see for myself in the next big secret war....</p>

<p>  I wanted to know if wise men were making difficult  decisions  based
on  truly  important,  threatening  information,  threatening  to  our
national security interests.  If that  had  been  the  case,  I  still
planned  to  get out of the CIA, but I would know that the system, the
invisible government, our  national  security  complex,  was  in  fact
justified  and  worth  while.  And so I took the job.... Suffice it to
say I wouldn't be standing in front of you  tonight  if  I  had  found
these  wise  men  making  these  tough decisions.  What I found, quite
frankly, was fat old men sleeping through  sub-committee  meetings  of
the  NSC in which we were making decisions that were killing people in
Africa.  I mean literally.  Senior ambassador Ed Mulcahy...  would  go
to sleep in nearly every one of these meetings....</p>

<p>  You  can  change the names in my book [about Angola] [13] and you've
got Nicaragua....  the basic structure, all the way through  including
the mining of harbors, we addressed all of these issues.  The point is
that the U.S.  led the way at every step  of  the  escalation  of  the
fighting.    We said it was the Soviets and the Cubans that were doing
it.  It was the U.S. that was escalating the fighting.    There  would
have been no war if we hadn't gone in first.  We put arms in, they put
arms in.  We put advisors in, they answered with advisors.  We put  in
Zairian  para-commando  battalions, they put in Cuban army troops.  We
brought in the S. African army, they brought in the Cuban army.    And
they pushed us away.  They blew us away because we were lying, we were
covering ourselves with lies, and they were telling the truth.  And it
was  not  a  war  that we could fight.  We didn't have interests there
that should have been defended that way.</p>

<p>  There was never a study run that evaluated the MPLA, FNLA and UNITA,
the three movements in the country, to decide which one was the better
one.  The assistant secretary of state for African affairs,  Nathaniel
Davis,  no  bleeding-heart liberal (he was known by some people in the
business as the butcher of Santiago), he said we should  stay  out  of
the  conflict  and  work  with  whoever  eventually  won, and that was
obviously the MPLA.  Our consul in Luanda,  Tom  Killoran,  vigorously
argued that the MPLA was the best qualified to run the country and the
friendliest to the U.S.</p>

<p>  We brushed these people aside, forced  Matt  Davis  to  resign,  and
proceeded  with our war.  The MPLA said they wanted to be our friends,
they didn't want to be pushed into the arms of the Soviet Union;  they
begged  us  not  to  fight them, they wanted to work with us.  We said
they wanted a cheap victory, they wanted a walk-over, they  wanted  to
be  un-opposed,  that  we wouldn't give them a cheap victory, we would
make them earn it, so to speak.  And we did.  10,000 Africans died and
they won the victory that they were winning anyway.</p>

<p>  Now,  the  most  significant thing that I got out of all of this, in
addition to the fact that our rationales  were  basically  false,  was
that  we  lied.    To  just about everybody involved.  One third of my
staff in this task force that I put together in Washington, commanding
this  global  operation,  pulling  strings all over the world to focus
pressure onto Angola, and military activities into Angola,  one  third
of  my  staff  was  propagandists, who were working, in every way they
could think of, to get stories into the U.S. press, the  world  press,
to  create  this picture of Cubans raping Angolans, Cubans and Soviets
introducing arms into the conflict, Cubans and Russians trying to take
over the world.</p>

<p>  Our  ambassador  to  the  United  Nations, Patrick Moynihan, he read
continuous statements of our position to  the  Security  Council,  the
general  assembly,  and the press conferences, saying the Russians and
Cubans were responsible for the conflict, and  that  we  were  staying
out, and that we deplored the militarization of the conflict.</p>

<p>  And  every  statement he made was false. And every statement he made
was originated in the sub-committee of the NSC that I  sat  on  as  we
managed  this  thing.    The  state department press person read these
position papers daily to the press.  We would write  papers  for  him.
Four  paragraphs.  We would call him on the phone and say, `call us 10
minutes before you go on, the situation could change overnight,  we'll
tell  you  which  paragraph to read.  And all four paragraphs would be
false.  Nothing to do with the truth.  Designed to play on events,  to
create this impression of Soviet and Cuban aggression in Angola.  When
they were in fact responding to our initiatives.</p>

<p>  And the CIA director was required by  law  to  brief  the  Congress.
This  CIA director Bill Colby - the same one that dumped our people in
Vietnam -  he  gave  36  briefings  of  the  Congress,  the  oversight
committees,  about  what  we were doing in Angola.  And he lied. At 36
formal briefings.  And such lies are perjury, and it's a felony to lie
to the Congress.</p>

<p>  He  lied  about our relationship with South Africa.  We were working
closely  with  the  South  African  army,  giving   them   our   arms,
coordinating  battles  with them, giving them fuel for their tanks and
armored cars.  He said we were staying well away from them.  They were
concerned about these white mercenaries that were appearing in Angola,
a very sensitive issue, hiring whites  to  go  into  a  black  African
country, to help you impose your will on that black African country by
killing the  blacks,  a  very  sensitive  issue.    The  Congress  was
concerned  we  might  be  involved in that, and he assured them we had
nothing to do with it.</p>

<p>  We had in fact formed four little  mercenary  armies  and  delivered
them  into  Angola to do this dirty business for the CIA.  And he lied
to them about that.  They asked if  we  were  putting  arms  into  the
conflict,  and he said no, and we were.  They asked if we had advisors
inside the country, and he said `no, we had people going in to look at
the  situation and coming back out'.  We had 24 people sleeping inside
the country, training in the use of weapons, installing communications
systems,  planning battles, and he said, we didn't have anybody inside
the country.</p>

<p>  In summary about Angola, without U.S.  intervention,  10,000  people
would  be alive that were killed in the thing.  The outcome might have
been peaceful, or at least much less bloody.   The  MPLA  was  winning
when  we went in, and they went ahead and won, which was, according to
our consul, the best thing for the country.</p>

<p>  At the end of this thing the Cubans were entrenched in Angola,  seen
in  the eyes of much of the world as being the heroes that saved these
people from the CIA and S. African forces.  We  had  allied  the  U.S.
literally  and  in the eyes of the world with the S. African army, and
that's illegal, and it's impolitic.  We had  hired  white  mercenaries
and  eventually  been  identified  with them.  And that's illegal, and
it's impolitic. And our lies had been visible lies.   We  were  caught
out on those lies.  And the world saw the U.S. as liars.</p>

<p>  After it was over, you have to ask yourself, was it justified?  What
did the MPLA do after they had won?  Were they lying  when  they  said
they wanted to be our friends?  3 weeks after we were shut down... the
MPLA had Gulf oil back in Angola, pumping the  Angolan  oil  from  the
oilfields,  with  U.S.  gulf  technicians protected by Cuban soldiers,
protecting them from CIA mercenaries who were still mucking around  in
Northern Angola.</p>

<p>  You  can't  trust  a communist, can you?  They proceeded to buy five
737 jets from Boeing Aircraft in Seattle.  And they brought in 52 U.S.
technicians  to  install  the radar systems to land and take-off those
planes.  They didn't  buy  [the  Soviet  Union's]  Aeroflot....  David
Rockefeller  himself  tours  S.  Africa and comes back and holds press
conferences, in which he says that we have no problem  doing  business
with the so-called radical states of Southern Africa.</p>

<p>  I  left  the  CIA, I decided that the American people needed to know
what we'd done in Angola, what we'd done in Vietnam.  I wrote my book.
I  was  fortunate  -  I  got  it out.  It was a best-seller.  A lot of
people read it.  I was able to take my story to the  American  people.
Got on 60 minutes, and lots and lots of other shows.</p>

<p>  I  testified  to  the  Congress  and  then  I  began my education in
earnest, after having been taught to fight communists all my life.   I
went  to see what communists were all about.  I went to Cuba to see if
they do in fact eat babies for breakfast.  And I found they don't.   I
went  to  Budapest,  a country that even national geographic admits is
working nicely.  I went to Jamaica to talk to Michael Manley about his
theories of social democracy.</p>

<p>  I went to Grenada and established a dialogue with Maurice Bishop and
Bernard Cord and Phyllis Cord,  to  see  -  these  were  all  educated
people,  and  experienced  people  -  and  they had a theory, they had
something they wanted to do, they had rationales  and  explanations  -
and  I  went  repeatedly  to  hear them.  And then of course I saw the
U.S., the CIA  mounting  a  covert  action  against  them,  I  saw  us
orchestrating  our  plan  to invade the country. 19 days before he was
killed, I was in Grenada talking to Maurice Bishop about these things,
these indicators, the statements in the press by Ronald Reagan, and he
and I were both acknowledging that it was almost certain that the U.S.
would invade Grenada in the near future.</p>

<p>  I  read  as  many  books as I could find on the subject - book after
book after book.  I've got several hundred books on the shelf over  my
desk  on  the subject of U.S. national security interests.  And by the
way, I urge you to read.  In television you get capsules of news  that
someone  else puts together what they want you to hear about the news.
In newspapers you get what the editors select to put in the newspaper.
If  you  want  to  know  about  the  world  and understand, to educate
yourself, you have to get out and dig, dig up books and  articles  for
yourself.    Read,  and  find  out for yourselves.  As you'll see, the
issues are very, very important.</p>

<p>  I also was able to meet the  players,  the  people  who  write,  the
people  who  have  done  studies,  people  who  are  leading different
situations.  I went to Nicaragua a total of 7 times.  This was a major
covert action.  It lasted longer and evolved to be bigger than what we
did in Angola.  It gave me a  chance,  after  running  something  from
Washington,  to  go to a country that was under attack, to talk to the
leadership, to talk to the people, to look and see what  happens  when
you  give  white phosporous or grenades or bombs or bullets to people,
and they go inside a country, to go and talk to the people,  who  have
been shot, or hit, or blown up....</p>

<p>  We're  talking  about  10 to 20 thousand covert actions [the CIA has
performed since 1961].  What I found was that lots and lots of  people
have  been  killed  in  these  things....  Some of them are very, very
bloody.</p>

<p>  The Indonesian covert action of 1965, reported by Ralph McGehee, who
was  in  that  area  division,  and  had documents on his desk, in his
custody about that operation.  He  said  that  one  of  the  documents
concluded  that  this  was  a  model  operation  that should be copied
elsewhere in the world.  Not  only  did  it  eliminate  the  effective
communist  party  (Indonesian communist party), it also eliminated the
entire segment of the population that tended to support the  communist
party  - the ethnic Chinese, Indonesian Chinese.  And the CIA's report
put the number of dead at 800,000 killed.  And  that  was  one  covert
action.    We're  talking  about 1 to 3 million people killed in these
things.</p>

<p>  Two of these things have led us directly into bloody  wars.    There
was a covert action against China, destabilizing China, for many, many
years, with a propaganda campaign to work up a mood, a feeling in this
country, of the evils of communist China, and attacking them, as we're
doing in Nicaragua today, with an army that was being launched against
them  to  parachute  in  and boat in and destabilize the country.  And
this led us directly into the Korean war.</p>

<p>  U.S. intelligence officers worked over Vietnam for  a  total  of  25
years,  with  greater  and  greater  involvement,  massive propaganda,
deceiving the American people about what  was  happening.    Panicking
people  in  Vietnam  to  create  migrations to the south so they could
photograph it and show how people were fleeing communism.  And on  and
on,  until they got us into the Vietnam war, and 2,000,000 people were
killed.</p>

<p>  There is a mood, a sentiment in Washington, by our leadership today,
for  the  past 4 years, that a good communist is a dead communist.  If
you're killing 1 to 3 million communists,  that's  great.    President
Reagan  has gone public and said he would reduce the Soviet Union to a
pile of ashes.  The problem, though, is that these  people  killed  by
our  national  security  activities  are  not communists.  They're not
Russians, they're not KGB.  In the field we used to  play  chess  with
the KGB officers, and have drinks with them.  It was like professional
football players - we  would  knock  heads  on  Sunday,  maybe  in  an
operation,  and  then  Tuesday  you're  at a banquet together drinking
toasts and talking.</p>

<p>  The people that are dying in these things are people  of  the  third
world.  That's the common denominator that you come up with. People of
the third world.  People that have the misfortune of being born in the
Metumba  mountains of the Congo, in the jungles of Southeast Asia, and
now in the hills of northern  Nicaragua.    Far  more  Catholics  than
communists, far more Buddhists than communists.  Most of them couldn't
give you an intelligent definition of communism, or of capitalism.</p>

<p>  Central America has been a traditional target of U.S. dominion.   If
you  want  to  get  an  easy-read of the history of our involvement in
Central America, read Walter LaFeber's book,  Inevitable  Revolutions.
 [8]  We  have  dominated  the area since 1820.  We've had a policy of
dominion, of excluding other countries, other industrial  powers  from
Europe, from competing with us in the area.</p>

<p>  Just  to  give  you  an  example  of  how  complete this is, and how
military this has been, between 1900 and W.W. II, we had 5,000 marines
in  Nicaragua  for  a  total  of  28  years.  We invaded the Dominican
Republic 4 times.  Haiti, we occupied it for 12 years.    We  put  our
troops  into  Cuba 4 times, Panama 6 times, Guatemala once, plus a CIA
covert action to  overthrow  the  democratic  government  there  once.
Honduras,  7  times.    And  by the way, we put 12,000 troops into the
Soviet Union during that same period of time.</p>

<p>  In the 1930's there was public and international pressure about  our
marines in Nicaragua....</p>

<p>  The  next  three  leaders  of Guatemala [after the CIA installed the
puppet, Colonel Armaz in a coup]  died  violent  deaths,  and  amnesty
international  tells  us that the governments we've supported in power
there since then, have killed 80,000 people.  You can read about  that
one in the book Bitter Fruit, by Schlesinger and Kinzer. [5]  Kinzer's
a New York Times Journalist... or Jonathan  Kwitny,  the  Wall  Street
Journal reporter, his book Endless Enemies [7] - all discuss this....</p>

<p>  However, the money, the millions and millions of dollars we put into
this program [helping Central America] inevitably went  to  the  rich,
and  not  to  the people of the countries involved.  And while we were
doing this, while we were trying, at least saying we were  trying,  to
correct  the  problems of Central and Latin America, the CIA was doing
its thing, too.  The CIA was in fact forming the police units that are
today  the death squads in El Salvador.  With the leaders on the CIA's
payroll, trained by the CIA and the United States.</p>

<p>  We had the `public safety  program'  going  throughout  Central  and
Latin  America  for  26  years,  in  which  we taught them to break up
subversion by interrogating people.  Interrogation, including torture,
the way the CIA taught it.  Dan Metrione, the famous exponent of these
things,  did  7  years  in  Brazil  and   3   in   Uruguay,   teaching
interrogation,  teaching torture.  He was supposed to be the master of
the business, how to apply the right amount of pain, at just the right
times, in order to get the response you want from the individual.</p>

<p>  They  developed a wire.  They gave them crank generators, with `U.S.
AID' written on the side, so the people even knew where  these  things
came  from.  They developed a wire that was strong enough to carry the
current and fine enough to fit between the teeth, so you could put one
wire between the teeth and the other one in or around the genitals and
you could crank and submit the individual to the  greatest  amount  of
pain, supposedly, that the human body can register.</p>

<p>  Now  how do you teach torture?  Dan Metrione: `I can teach you about
torture, but sooner or later you'll have to get involved.  You'll have
to lay on your hands and try it yourselves.'</p>

<p>  ....  All they [the guinea pigs, beggars from off the streets] could
do was lie there and scream.  And when they would collapse, they would
bring in doctors and shoot them up with vitamin B and rest them up for
the next class.  And when they would  die,  they  would  mutilate  the
bodies and throw them out on the streets, to terrify the population so
they would be afraid of the police and the government.</p>

<p>  And this is what the CIA was teaching them to do.  And  one  of  the
women  who  was in this program for 2 years - tortured in Brazil for 2
years - she testified internationally when  she  eventually  got  out.
She  said,  `The  most  horrible  thing about it was in fact, that the
people doing the torture were not raving psychopaths.'   She  couldn't
break  mental  contact  with  them  the  way  you  could  if they were
psychopath.  They were very ordinary people....</p>

<p>  There's a lesson in all of this.  And the lesson is  that  it  isn't
only  Gestapo maniacs, or KGB maniacs, that do inhuman things to other
people, it's people that do inhuman things to other people.    And  we
are  responsible for doing these things, on a massive basis, to people
of the world today.  And we  do  it  in  a  way  that  gives  us  this
plausible  denial  to  our  own consciences; we create a CIA, a secret
police, we give them a vast budget, and we let them go and  run  these
programs in our name, and we pretend like we don't know it's going on,
although the information is there for us to know; and we pretend  like
it's ok because we're fighting some vague communist threat.  And we're
just as responsible for these 1 to 3 million people we've  slaughtered
and  for  all  the  people  we've  tortured and made miserable, as the
Gestapo was the people that they've slaughtered and killed.   Genocide
is genocide!</p>

<p>  Now  we're pouring money into El Salvador.  A billion dollars or so.
And it's a documented fact that the... 14 families there that own  60%
of  the  country  are taking out between 2 to 5 billion dollars - it's
called de-capitalization - and  putting  it  in  banks  in  Miami  and
Switzerland.    Mort  Halper,  in  testifying  to  a  committee of the
Congress, he suggested we could simplify the whole  thing  politically
just by investing our money directly in the Miami banks in their names
and just stay out of El Salvador altogether.  And the people would  be
better off.</p>

<p>  Nicaragua.    What's  happening in Nicaragua today is covert action.
It's a classic  de-stabilization  program.    In  November  16,  1981,
President Reagan allocated 19 million dollars to form an army, a force
of contras, they're called, ex-Somoza national  guards,  the  monsters
who  were  doing  the  torture  and  terror in Nicaragua that made the
Nicaraguan people rise up and throw out the dictator,  and  throw  out
the  guard.    We went back to create an army of these people.  We are
killing, and killing, and terrorizing people.  Not only  in  Nicaragua
but  the  Congress  has leaked to the press - reported in the New York
Times, that there are 50 covert actions going around the world  today,
CIA covert actions going on around the world today.</p>

<p>  You  have to be asking yourself, why are we destabilizing 50 corners
of the troubled world?  Why are we about to go to  war  in  Nicaragua,
the  Central American war?  It is the function, I suggest, of the CIA,
with its 50 de-stabilization programs going around the world today, to
keep  the  world  unstable, and to propagandize the American people to
hate, so we will let the establishment spend any amount  of  money  on
arms....</p>

<p>  The Victor Marquetti ruling of the Supreme Court gave the government
the right to prepublication censorship of books.  They challenged  360
items  in  his  360  page book.  He fought it in court, and eventually
they deleted some 60 odd items in his book.</p>

<p>  The Frank Snep ruling of the Supreme Court gave the  government  the
right  to  sue  a  government employee for damages.  If s/he writes an
unauthorized account of the government - which means  the  people  who
are  involved in corruption in the government, who see it, who witness
it, like Frank Snep did, like I did - if they try to  go  public  they
can  now be punished in civil court.  The government took $90,000 away
from Frank Snep, his profits from his book,  and  they've  seized  the
profits from my own book....</p>

<p>  [Reagan  passed]  the  Intelligence Identities Protection act, which
makes it a felony to write articles revealing the identities of secret
agents  or  to write about their activities in a way that would reveal
their identities.  Now, what does this mean?  In a debate in  Congress
-  this  is  very  controversial - the supporters of this bill made it
clear.... If agents Smith  and  Jones  came  on  this  campus,  in  an
MK-ultra-type  experiment,  and blew your fiance's head away with LSD,
it would now be a felony to publish an article  in  your  local  paper
saying,  `watch  out  for  these 2 turkeys, they're federal agents and
they blew my loved one's head away with LSD'.    It  would  not  be  a
felony what they had done because that's national security and none of
them were ever punished for those activities.</p>

<p>  Efforts to muzzle government employees.  President Reagan  has  been
banging  away at this one ever since.  Proposing that every government
employee, for the rest of his  or  her  life,  would  have  to  submit
anything  they wrote to 6 committees of the government for censorship,
for the rest of their lives.  To keep the scandals from leaking out...
to keep the American people from knowing what the government is really
doing.</p>

<p>  Then it starts getting  heavy.    The  `Pre-emptive  Strikes'  bill.
President  Reagan,  working  through  the Secretary of State Shultz...
almost 2 years ago, submitted the bill that would  provide  them  with
the  authority  to strike at terrorists before terrorists can do their
terrorism.  But this bill... provides that they would be  able  to  do
this  in  this  country  as  well  as  overseas.  It provides that the
secretary of state would  put  together  a  list  of  people  that  he
considers  to  be  terrorist,  or  terrorist  supporters, or terrorist
sympathizers.  And if your name, or your organization, is put on  this
list,  they  could kick down your door and haul you away, or kill you,
without any due process of the law and search warrants  and  trial  by
jury, and all of that, with impunity.</p>

<p>  Now,  there was a tremendous outcry on the part of jurists.  The New
York Times columns and other newspapers saying, `this is no  different
from  Hitler's  "night  in fog" program', where the government had the
authority to haul people off at  night.    And  they  did  so  by  the
thousands.      And   President   Reagan  and  Secretary  Shultz  have
persisted....  Shultz has said, `Yes, we will have to take  action  on
the  basis  of  information that would never stand up in a court.  And
yes, innocent people will have to be killed in the process.   But,  we
must have this law because of the threat of international terrorism'.</p>

<p>  Think  a  minute.   What is `the threat of international terrorism'?
These things catch a lot of attention.  But how many Americans died in
terrorist actions last year?  According to Secretary Shultz, 79.  Now,
obviously that's terrible but we killed 55,000 people on our  highways
with  drunken  driving; we kill 2,500 people in far nastier, bloodier,
mutilating, gang-raping ways in Nicaragua last year  alone  ourselves.
Obviously  79  peoples'  death  is  not enough reason to take away the
protection of American citizens, of due process of the law.</p>

<p>  But they're pressing for this.  The special actions teams that  will
do  the pre-emptive striking have already been created, and trained in
the defense department.</p>

<p>  They're building detention centers.  There were 8 kept as  mothballs
under  the  McLaren  act  after  World  War  II,  to detain aliens and
dissidents in the next war, as was done in the next war, as  was  done
with  the  Japanese  people  during World War II.  They're building 10
more, and army camps, and the... executive memos  about  these  things
say it's for aliens and dissidents in the next national emergency....</p>

<p>  FEMA,  the  Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency,  headed by Loius
Guiffrida, a friend of Ed Meese's.... He's  going  about  the  country
lobbying  and  demanding  that  he be given authority, in the times of
national emergency, to declare martial law, and  establish  a  curfew,
and gun down people who violate the curfew... in the United States.</p>

<p>  And  then  there's Ed Meese, as I said.  The highest law enforcement
officer in the land, President Reagan's closest friend,  going  around
telling us that the constitution never did guarantee freedom of speech
and press, and due process of the law, and assembly.</p>

<p>  What they are planning for this society, and  this  is  why  they're
determined  to  take us into a war if we'll permit it... is the Reagan
revolution....  So he's getting himself some laws so when he  puts  in
the  troops  in  Nicaragua, he can take charge of the American people,
and put people in jail, and kick in their doors, and kill them if they
don't like what he's doing....</p>

<p>  The  question  is,  `Are we going to permit our leaders to take away
our freedoms because they have a charming smile  and  they  were  nice
movie stars one day, or are we going to stand up and fight, and insist
on our freedoms?'  It's up to us - you and I can  watch  this  history
play in the next year and 2 and 3 years.</p>

<p>                               PART II</p>

<p>      CIA COVERT OPERATIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, CIA MANIPULATION
         OF THE PRESS, CIA EXPERIMENTATION ON THE U.S. PUBLIC</p>

<p>  I  just  got my latest book back from the CIA censors.  If I had not
submitted it to them, I would have gone to jail, without trial -  blow
off  juries  and  all  that  sort  of  thing - for having violated our
censorship laws....</p>

<p>  In that job [Angola] I sat on a sub-committee of the NSC, so  I  was
like  a  chief  of staff, with the GS-18s (like 3-star generals) Henry
Kissinger, Bill Colby (the CIA director),  the  GS-18s  and  the  CIA,
making  important  decisions and my job was to put it all together and
make it happen and run it, an interesting place from which to watch  a
covert action being done....</p>

<p>  When  the  world's  gotten  blocked  up before, like a monopoly game
where everything's owned and nobody can make  any  progress,  the  way
they  erased  the  board  and  started over has been to have big world
wars, and erase countries and bomb cities  and  bomb  banks  and  then
start  from scratch again.  This is not an option to us now because of
all these 52,000 nuclear weapons....</p>

<p>  The United States CIA is running 50  covert  actions,  destabilizing
further almost one third of the countries in the world today....</p>

<p>  By the way, everything I'm sharing with you tonight is in the public
record.  The 50 covert actions - these are secret, but that  has  been
leaked to us by members of the oversight committee of the Congress.  I
urge you not to take my word for anything.  I'm going  to  stand  here
and  tell you and give you examples of how our leaders lie.  Obviously
I could be lying.  The only way you can figure it out for yourself  is
to  educate  yourselves. The French have a saying, `them that don't do
politics will be done'.  If you don't fill your mind eagerly with  the
truth, dig it out from the records, go and see for yourself, then your
mind remains blank and your adrenaline pumps, and you can be mobilized
and excited to do things that are not in your interest to do....</p>

<p>  Nicaragua  is  not  the biggest covert action, it is the most famous
one.  Afghanistan is, we spent  several  hundred  million  dollars  in
Afghanistan.    We've  spent  somewhat  less  than that, but close, in
Nicaragua....</p>

<p>  [When the U.S. doesn't like a government], they  send  the  CIA  in,
with  its  resources  and  activists, hiring people, hiring agents, to
tear apart the social  and  economic  fabric  of  the  country,  as  a
technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping that they can
make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or the  government  will
collapse  altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the
thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.</p>

<p>  Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric of course is fairly
textbook-ish.    What we're talking about is going in and deliberately
creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to  market,
where  children  can't  go to school, where women are terrified inside
their  homes  as  well  as  outside  their  homes,  where   government
administration  and  programs  grind  to  a  complete  halt, where the
hospitals are treating wounded people instead of  sick  people,  where
international  capital  is  scared away and the country goes bankrupt.
If  you  ask  the  state  department  today  what  is  their  official
explanation  of  the  purpose  of the Contras, they say it's to attack
economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the  country.    Of
course, they're attacking a lot more.</p>

<p>  To  destabilize  Nicaragua  beginning in 1981, we began funding this
force of Somoza's ex-national guardsmen, calling them the contras (the
counter-revolutionaries).    We  created  this force, it did not exist
until we allocated money.  We've armed them,  put  uniforms  on  their
backs,  boots  on their feet, given them camps in Honduras to live in,
medical supplies, doctors, training, leadership, direction,  as  we've
sent them in to de-stabilize Nicaragua.  Under our direction they have
systematically  been  blowing  up  graineries,  saw  mills,   bridges,
government  offices,  schools,  health centers.  They ambush trucks so
the produce can't get to market.  They raid farms and villages.    The
farmer  has  to  carry a gun while he tries to plow, if he can plow at
all.</p>

<p>  If you want one example of hard proof of the  CIA's  involvement  in
this,  and  their  approach  to it, dig up `The Sabotage Manual', that
they were circulating throughout Nicaragua, a  comic-book  type  of  a
paper,  with visual explanations of what you can do to bring a society
to a halt, how you can gum up typewriters, what you can pour in a  gas
tank to burn up engines, what you can stuff in a sewage to stop up the
sewage so it won't work, things you can do to make  a  society  simply
cease to function.</p>

<p>  Systematically,   the  contras  have  been  assassinating  religious
workers,  teachers,  health  workers,  elected  officials,  government
administrators.  You remember the assassination manual?  that surfaced
in 1984.  It caused such a stir that President Reagan had  to  address
it  himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale.  They use
terror.  This is a technique that  they're  using  to  traumatize  the
society so that it can't function.</p>

<p>  I  don't  mean  to  abuse  you with verbal violence, but you have to
understand what your government and its agents are  doing.    They  go
into  villages,  they  haul out families.  With the children forced to
watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face,  they
put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin.  With the children forced
to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts  off.    And
sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these
things to the children.</p>

<p>  This is nobody's propaganda.  There have been over 100,000  American
witnesses  for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and
photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after  they've
happened,  and  documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women
and children.  These are the activities done by these  contras.    The
contras  are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'.  He
says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.    And  the
whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions.</p>

<p>  Read  Contra  Terror  by  Reed Brodie [1], former assistant Attorney
General of New York State.  Read The Contras by Dieter Eich. [4]  Read
With  the  Contras  by  Christopher  Dickey. [2]  This  is a main-line
journalist, down  there  on  a  grant  with  the  Council  on  Foreign
Relations,  a  slightly  to  the  right  of  the  middle  of  the road
organization.  He writes a book that sets a pox on both  your  houses,
and  then  he  accounts about going in on patrol with the contras, and
describes their activities.  Read Witness for Peace: What We have Seen
and  Heard.    Read the Lawyer's Commission on Human Rights.  Read The
Violations of War on Both Sides by the Americas Watch. [15] And  there
are  many,  many  more  documentations  of  details,  of names, of the
incidents that have happened.</p>

<p>  Part of a de-stabilization is propaganda, to dis-credit the targeted
government.    This  one  actually  began  under  Jimmy  Carter.    He
authorized the CIA to go in and try to make the Sandinistas look to be
evil.    So  in 1979 [when] they came in to power, immediately we were
trying to cast  them  as  totalitarian,  evil,  threatening  Marxists.
While  they  abolished  the  death sentence, while they released 8,000
national guardsmen that they had in their custody that they could have
kept  in prison, they said `no.  Unless we have evidence of individual
crimes, we're not going to hold someone in prison  just  because  they
were  associated  with the former administration.'  While they set out
to launch a literacy campaign to teach the people to read  and  write,
which  is  something  that the dictator Somoza, and us supporting him,
had never bothered to get around to doing.   While  they  set  out  to
build  2,500 clinics to give the country something resembling a public
health policy, and access to medicines, we  began  to  label  them  as
totalitarian  dictators,  and to attack them in the press, and to work
with this newspaper `La Prensa', which - it's  finally  come  out  and
been  admitted,  in  Washington  -  the  U.S. government is funding: a
propaganda arm.</p>

<p>  [Reagan and the State dept. have] been claiming they're  building  a
war  machine that threatens the stability of Central America.  Now the
truth is, this small, poor country has been attacked  by  the  world's
richest country under conditions of war, for the last 5 years.  Us and
our army - the  death  they  have  sustained,  the  action  they  have
suffered  -  it  makes it a larger war proportionally than the Vietnam
war was to the U.S.  In addition to the contra activities,  we've  had
U.S.  Navy  ships supervising the mining of harbors, we've sent planes
in and bombed the capital, we've had  U.S.    military  planes  flying
wing-tip  to  wing-tip  over  the  country,  photographing  it, aerial
reconnaissance.  They don't have any missiles or jets they can send up
to  chase  us  off.  We are at war with them.  The have not retaliated
yet with any kind of war action against us, but we do  not  give  them
credit  with  having the right to defend themselves.  So we claim that
the force they built up, which is obviously purely  defensive,  is  an
aggressive  force  that  threatens  the  stability  of  all of Central
America.</p>

<p>  We claim the justification for this is the  arms  that  are  flowing
from  Nicaragua  to  El Salvador, and yet in 5 years of this activity,
President Reagan hasn't been able to  show  the  world  one  shred  of
evidence of any arms flowing from Nicaragua into El Salvador.</p>

<p>  We  launched a campaign to discredit their elections.  International
observer teams  said  these  were  the  fairest  elections  they  have
witnessed  in  Central  America  in  many  years.    We said they were
fraudulent, they were rigged, because it was  a  totalitarian  system.
Instead  we  said,  the  elections  that were held in El Salvador were
models of democracy to be copied elsewhere in the world.  And then the
truth  came out about that one.  And we learned that the CIA had spent
2.2 million dollars to make sure that their  choice  of  candidates  -
Duarte  - would win.  They did everything, we're told, by one of their
spokesmen, indirectly, but stuff the ballot boxes....</p>

<p>  I'll make a footnote that  when  I  speak  out,  he  [Senator  Jesse
Helmes]  calls  me  a  traitor,  but when something happens he doesn't
like, he doesn't hesitate to go public  and  reveal  the  secrets  and
embarrass the U.S.</p>

<p>  We  claim  the  Sandinistas  are  smuggling  drugs as a technique to
finance their revolution.  This doesn't make sense.  We're at war with
them,  we're  dying  to catch them getting arms from the Soviet Union,
flying things back and forth to Cuba.  We have  airplanes  and  picket
ships watching everything that flies out of that country, and into it.
How are they going to have a steady flow of drug-smuggling planes into
the U.S.?  Not likely!  However, there are Nicaraguans, on these bases
in Honduras, that have  planes  flying  into  CIA  training  camps  in
Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, several times a week.</p>

<p>  Now,  obviously  i'm not going to stand in front of you and say that
the CIA might be involved in drug trafficking, am I?  READ  THE  BOOK.
Read  The  Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia.  For 20 years the CIA
was helping the Kuomantang to finance itself and  then  to  get  rich,
smuggling  heroin.    When  we took over from the French in 1954 their
intelligence service had been financing itself by smuggling the heroin
out  of  Laos.    We  replaced  them  -  we  put  Air America, the CIA
subsidiary - it would fly in  with  crates  marked  humanitarian  aid,
which were arms, and it would fly back out with heroin.  And the first
target, market, of this heroin was the  U.S.  GI's  in  Vietnam.    If
anybody  in  Nicaragua is smuggling drugs, it's the contras.  Now i've
been saying that since the state department started  waving  this  red
herring  around  a  couple  of years ago, and the other day you notice
President Reagan said that  the  Nicaraguans,  the  Sandinistas,  were
smuggling  drugs,  and  the  DEA said, `it ain't true, the contras are
smuggling drugs'.</p>

<p>  We claim the Sandinistas are responsible for  the  terrorism  that's
happening  anywhere  in  the world. `The country club of terrorism' we
call it. There's an incident in Rome, and Ed Meese goes on  television
and  says, `that country club in Nicaragua is training terrorists'. We
blame the Sandinistas for the misery that exists in  Nicaragua  today,
and there is misery, because the world's richest nation has set out to
create conditions of misery, and obviously we're bound  to  have  some
effect.    The  misery  is  not the fault of the Sandinistas, it's the
result of our destabilization program.  And despite that, and  despite
some  grumbling in the country, the Sandinistas in their elections got
a much higher percentage of the vote than President Reagan did,  who's
supposed  to  be  so  popular  in this country.  And all observers are
saying that people are still hanging together, with the Sandinistas.</p>

<p>  Now it gets tricky.  We're saying that the  justification  for  more
aid, possibly for an invasion of the country - and mind you, president
Reagan has begun to talk about this,  and  the  Secretary  of  Defense
Weinberger  began  to  say  that  it's  inevitable - we claim that the
justification is that the Soviet Union now has  invested  500  million
dollars  in  arms  in  military  to  make it its big client state, the
Soviet bastion in this hemisphere.  And that's true.  They do  have  a
lot  of  arms  in  there  now.   But the question is, how did they get
invited in?  You have to ask yourself,  what's  the  purpose  of  this
destabilization  program?   For this I direct you back to the Newsweek
article in Sept. 1981, where they announce the fact that the  CIA  was
beginning  to  put together this force of Somoza's ex-guard.  Newsweek
described it as `the only truly evil, totally unacceptable  factor  in
the Nicaraguan equation'.  They noted that neither the white house nor
the CIA pretended it ever could have a chance of  winning.    So  then
they asked, rhetorically, `what's the point?'  and they concluded that
the point is  that  by  attacking  the  country,  you  can  force  the
Sandinistas  into  a  more  radical position, from which you have more
ammunition to attack them.</p>

<p>  And that's what we've accomplished now.  They've had to  get  Soviet
aid  to  defend  themselves  from  the attack from the world's richest
country, and now we can stand up to the American people and say, `see?
they  have  all  the  Soviet aid'.  Make no doubt of it, it's the game
plan of the Reagan Administration to have a  war  in  Nicaragua,  they
have  been  working  on this since 1981, they have been stopped by the
will of the American people so far, but they're  working  harder  than
ever to engineer their war there.</p>

<p>  Now,  CIA  destabilizations  are nothing new, they didn't begin with
Nicaragua.  We've done it before, once or  twice.    Like  the  Church
committee,  investigating CIA covert action in 1975, found that we had
run several hundred a year, and we'd been in the business  of  running
covert  actions,  the CIA has, for 4 decades.  You're talking about 10
to 20 thousand covert actions.</p>

<p>  CIA apologists leap up and say, `well, most of these things are  not
so  bloody'.   And that's true.  You're giving a politician some money
so he'll throw his party in this direction or that one, or make  false
speeches  on  your  behalf,  or  something  like  that.    It  may  be
non-violent, but it's still illegal intervention in  other  countries'
affairs, raising the question of whether or not we are going to have a
world in which law, rules of behaviour, are respected, or is it  going
to  be  a  world  of  bullies,  where  the  strongest  can violate and
brutalize the weakest, and ignore the laws?</p>

<p>  But many of these things are very bloody indeed, and we know  a  lot
about a lot of them.  Investigations by the Congress, testimony by CIA
directors, testimony by CIA case officers, books written by  CIA  case
officers,  documents gotten out of the government under the freedom of
information act, books that are written by  by  pulitzer-prize-winning
journalists  who've  documented  their cases.  And you can go and read
from these things, classic CIA operations that we know about, some  of
them  very  bloody indeed.  Guatemala 1954, Brazil, Guyana, Chile, the
Congo, Iran,  Panama,  Peru,  Bolivia,  Equador,  Uruguay  -  the  CIA
organized  the overthrow of constitutional democracies.  Read the book
Covert Action: 35 years of Deception by the  journalist  Godswood. [6]
Remember  the  Henry  Kissinger  quote before the Congress when he was
being  grilled  to  explain  what  they  had  done  to  overthrow  the
democratic  government  in  Chile,  in  which  the President, Salvador
Allende had been killed.  And  he  said,  `The  issues  are  much  too
important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves'.</p>

<p>  We had covert actions against China, very much like what we're doing
against Nicaragua today, that led us directly  into  the  Korean  war,
where  we  fought  China  in  Korea.    We had a long covert action in
Vietnam, very much like the one that we're running in Nicaragua today,
that  tracked  us  directly  into the Vietnam war.  Read the book, The
Hidden History of the Korean War by I. F.  Stone. [14]    Read  Deadly
Deceits  by Ralph McGehee [9] for the Vietnam story.  In Thailand, the
Congo, Laos, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Honduras, the CIA put together large
standing  armies.    In  Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, the Congo,
Iran, Nicaragua, and Sri Lanka, the CIA armed  and  encouraged  ethnic
minorities  to  rise  up and fight.  The first thing we began doing in
Nicaragua, 1981 was to fund an element of  the  Mesquite  indians,  to
give them money and training and arms, so they could rise up and fight
against the government in Managua.  In El  Salvador,  Vietnam,  Korea,
Iran,  Uganda  and  the Congo, the CIA helped form and train the death
squads.</p>

<p>  In El Salvador specifically, under the `Alliance  for  Progress'  in
the  early  1960's,  the  CIA helped put together the treasury police.
These are the people that haul people out  at  night  today,  and  run
trucks  over  their  heads.    These  are the people that the Catholic
church tells us, have killed something over 50,000  civilians  in  the
last  5 years.  And we have testimony before our Congress that as late
as 1982, leaders of the treasury police were still on the CIA payroll.</p>

<p>  Then you have the `Public Safety Program.'  I have to  take  just  a
minute  on  this  one because it's a very important principle involved
that we must understand, if we're  to  understand  ourselves  and  the
world  that  we live in.  In this one, the CIA was working with police
forces throughout Latin America for about 26 years, teaching them  how
to  wrap up subversive networks by capturing someone and interrogating
them, torturing them, and then getting names and arresting the  others
and  going  from there.  Now, this was such a brutal and such a bloody
operation, that Amnesty International began to  complain  and  publish
reports.    Then  there were United Nations hearings.  Then eventually
our Congress  was  forced  to  yield  to  international  pressure  and
investigate  it, and they found the horror that was being done, and by
law they forced it to stop.  You can read these reports -- the Amnesty
International findings, and our own Congressional hearings.</p>

<p>  These  things  kill people.  800,000 in Indonesia alone according to
CIA's estimate, 12,000 in Nicaragua, 10,000 in the  Angolan  operation
that  I  was  sitting on in Washington, managing the task force.  They
add up.  We'll never know how many people have been  killed  in  them.
Obviously  a lot.  Obviously at least a million.  800,000 in Indonesia
alone.  Undoubtedly the minimum figure has to be 3 million.  Then  you
add  in  a  million people killed in Korea, 2 million people killed in
the Vietnam war, and you're obviously getting into gross  millions  of
people...</p>

<p>  We do not parachute teams into the Soviet Union to haul families out
at night and castrate the father with the children  watching,  because
they  have  the  Bomb,  and a big army, and they would parachute teams
right back into our country and do the same thing to us - they're  not
scared  of  us.    For  slightly  different  reasons, but also obvious
reasons, we don't do these things in England, or France,  or  Germany,
or  Sweden,  or Italy, or Japan.  What comes out at you immediately is
that these 1 to 3 million direct victims, the dead, and in these other
wars, they're people of the third world, they're citizens of countries
that are too small to defend them from  United  States  brutality  and
aggression.  They're people of the Metumba mountains of the Congo, and
the jungles of Southeast Asia, and now the hills of northern Nicaragua
- 12,000 peasants.  We have not killed KGB or Russian army advisors in
Nicaragua.  We are not killing Cuban advisors.  We're not killing very
many  Sandinistas.    The  12,000 that we have killed in Nicaragua are
peasants, who  have  the  misfortune  of  living  in  a  CIA's  chosen
battlefield.    Mostly women and children.  Communists?  Far, far, far
more Catholics than anything else.</p>

<p>  Now case officers that do these things in places in Nicaragua,  they
do not come back to the U.S. and click their heels and suddenly become
responsible  citizens.    They  see  themselves  -  they   have   been
functioning above the laws, of God, and the laws of man - they've come
back to this country, and they've continued their operations as far as
they can get by with them.  And we have abundant documentation of that
as well.  The MH-Chaos program, exposed in  the  late  60's  and  shut
down, re-activated by President Reagan to a degree - we don't have the
details yet - in  which  they  were  spending  a  billion  dollars  to
manipulate  U.S.  student,  and  labor  organizations.    The MK-ultra
program.  For 20 years, working through over 200 medical  schools  and
mental  hospitals,  including Harvard medical school, Georgetown, some
of the biggest places we've got, to experiment  on  American  citizens
with disease, and drugs.</p>

<p>  They  dragged a barge through San Francisco bay, leaking a virus, to
measure this technique for crippling a city.  They launched a whooping
cough epidemic in a Long Island suburb, to see what it would do to the
community if all the kids had whooping cough.  Tough shit about the  2
or  3 with weak constitutions that might die in the process.  They put
light bulbs in the subways in Manhattan, that would create  vertigo  -
make people have double vision, so you couldn't see straight - and hid
cameras in the walls - to see what would happen at rush hour when  the
trains  are zipping past - if everybody has vertigo and they can't see
straight and they're bumping into each other.</p>

<p>  Colonel White -  oh  yes,  and  I  can't  not  mention  the  disease
experimentations  - the use of deadly diseases.  We launched - when we
were destabilizing Cuba for 7 years -  we  launched  the  swine  fever
epidemic,  in the hog population, trying to kill out all of the pigs -
a virus.  We experimented in Haiti on the people with viruses.</p>

<p>  I'm not saying, I do not have the slightest shred of evidence,  that
there  is  any  truth  or indication to the rumor that the CIA and its
experimentations were responsible  for  AIDS.    But  we  do  have  it
documented  that  the  CIA  has  been  experimenting  on  people, with
viruses.  And now we have some deadly, killer viruses  running  around
in  society.    And  it has to make you wonder, and it has to make you
worry.</p>

<p>  Colonel White wrote from retirement - he was  the  man  who  was  in
charge  of  this macabre program - he wrote, `I toiled whole-heartedly
in the vineyards because it was fun, fun fun.    Where  else  could  a
red-blooded  American  boy  lie,  kill, cheat, steal, rape and pillage
with the blessings of  the  all  highest?'    Now  that  program,  the
MK-ultra  program,  was  eventually  exposed  by  the  press  in 1972,
investigated by the Congress, and shut down by the Congress.  You  can
dig up the Congressional record and read it for yourself.</p>

<p>  There's  one  book  called  `In Search of the Manchurian Candidate'.
It's written by John Marks, based on 14,000 documents  gotten  out  of
the  government  under  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act.   Read for
yourselves.  The thing was shut down but not one CIA case officer  who
was  involved  was in any way punished.  Not one case officer involved
in these experimentations  on  the  American  public,  lost  a  single
paycheck for what they had done.</p>

<p>  The Church committee found that the CIA had co-opted several hundred
journalists, including some of the biggest names in the  business,  to
pump  its propaganda stories into our media, to teach us to hate Fidel
Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, and the Chinese, and whomever.    The  latest
flap  or  scandal we had about that was a year and a half ago.  Lesley
Gelp, the heavyweight with the New York Times, was exposed for  having
been  working  covertly with the CIA in 1978 to recruit journalists in
Europe, who would introduce stories, print stories that  would  create
sympathy for the neutron bomb.</p>

<p>  The Church committee found that they had published over 1,000 books,
paying someone to write a book, the CIA puts its propaganda  lines  in
it, the professor or the scholar gets credit for the book and gets the
royalties.  The latest flap we had  about  that  was  last  year.    A
professor  at  Harvard  was exposed for accepting 105,000 dollars from
the CIA to write a book about  the  Middle  East.    Several  thousand
professors  and  graduate  students  co-opted  by  the  CIA to run its
operations on campuses and build files on students.</p>

<p>  And then we have evidence - now, which has been hard to  collect  in
the  past  but we knew it was happening - of CIA agents participating,
trying  to  manipulate,  our  elections.    FDN,  Contra   commanders,
traveling  this  country on CIA plane tickets, going on television and
pin-pointing  a  Congressional  and  saying,  `That  man  is  soft  on
Communism.    That  man  is a Sandinista lover.'  A CIA agent going on
television, trying to manipulate our elections.</p>

<p>  All of this, to keep America safe for freedom and democracy.</p>

<p>  In  Nicaragua  the  objective  is  to  stop  the  Cuban  and  Soviet
take-over,  we  say.   Another big operation in which we said the same
thing was Angola, 1975, my little war.  We  were  saying  exactly  the
same thing - Cubans and Soviets.</p>

<p>  Now  I  will  not  going  into  great  detail about this one tonight
because I wrote a book about it, I detailed it.  And  you  can  get  a
copy  of  that  book  and read it for yourselves.  I have to urge you,
however - please do not rush out and buy a copy of that  book  because
the  CIA  sued  me.   All of my profits go to the CIA, so if you buy a
copy of the book you'll be donating 65 cents to the CIA.  So check  it
out from your library!</p>

<p>  If  you  have to buy a copy, well buy one copy and share it with all
your friends.  If your bookstore is doing real well and  you  want  to
just sort of put a copy down in your belt...</p>

<p>  I  don't  know  what  the  solution  is  when  a  society  gets into
censorship, government censorship, but that's what we're in now.    Do
the  rules  change?  I just got my book back, my latest book back from
the CIA censors.  If I had not submitted it to them, I would have gone
to  jail, without trial - blow off juries and all that sort of thing -
for having violated our censorship laws....</p>

<p>  So now we have the CIA running the operation in Nicaragua, lying  to
us, running 50 covert actions, and gearing us up for our next war, the
Central American war.  Let there  be  no  doubt  about  it,  President
Reagan  has  a fixation on Nicaragua.  He came into office saying that
we shouldn't be afraid of war, saying we have to face  and  erase  the
scars  of  the  Vietnam war.  He said in 1983, `We will do whatever is
necessary to reverse the situation in Nicaragua', meaning get  rid  of
the   Sandinistas.    Admiral  LaRoque,  at  the  Center  for  Defense
Information in Washington, says this is the most elaborately  prepared
invasion that the U.S. has ever done.  At least that he's witnessed in
his 40 years of association with our military.</p>

<p>  We have rehearsed the invasion of Nicaragua in operations  Big  Pine
I,  Big Pine II, Ocean Venture, Grenada, Big Pine III.  We have troops
right now in Honduras preparing.  We've built 12  bases,  including  8
airstrips.    Obviously  we don't need 8 airstrips in Honduras for any
purpose, except to support the invasion of  Nicaragua.    We've  built
radar  stations  around,  to survey and watch.  Some of these ventures
have been huge ones.  Hundreds of airplanes, 30,000 troops, rehearsing
the invasion of Nicaragua.</p>

<p>  And of course, Americans are being given this negative view of these
evil  Communist  dictators  in  Managua,  just  two  days  drive  from
Harlington,  Texas.   (They drive faster than I do by the way).  I saw
an ad on TV just two days ago in which they said that it was just  two
hours  from  Managua  to  Texas.  All of this getting us ready for the
invasion of Nicaragua, for our next war.</p>

<p>  Most of the people - 75% of the people - are polled as being against
this  action.   However, President Eisenhower said, `The people of the
world genuinely want peace.  Someday the leadership of the  world  are
going  to  have  to  give  in  and give it to them'.  But to date, the
leaders never have, they've always been able to outwit the people, us,
and get us into the wars when they've chosen to do so.</p>

<p>  People  ask,  how  is  this  possible?   I get this all the time....
Americans are decent people.  They  are  nice  people.    And  they're
insulated  in  the worlds that they live in, and they don't understand
and we don't read our history.  History is the history  of  war.    Of
leaders  of countries finding reasons and rationales to send the young
men off to fight.</p>

<p>  In our country we talk about peace.  But look at our own record.  We
have  over  200  incidents  in  which  we  put  our  troops into other
countries to force them to our will.  Now we're being prepared to hate
the  Sandinistas.    The leaders are doing exactly what they have done
time and again throughout history.  In the past we were taught to hate
and  fight  the  Seminole  Indians, after the leaders decided to annex
Florida.  To hate and fight the Cherokee Indians after they found gold
in  Georgia.    To hate and fight Mexico twice.  We annexed Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona, part of Colorado, and California.</p>

<p>  In each of these wars  the  leaders  have  worked  to  organize,  to
orchestrate  public opinion.  And then when they got people worked up,
they had a trigger that would flash,  that  would  make  people  angry
enough that we could go in and do....</p>

<p>  We  have  a  feeling that the Vietnam war was the first one in which
the people resisted.  But once again, we  haven't  read  our  history.
Kate Richards-O'Hare.  In 1915, she said about WW I, `The Women of the
U.S. are nothing but brutesalles, producing sons  to  be  put  in  the
army,  to  be  made  into fertilizer'.  She was jailed for 5 years for
anti-war talk.</p>

<p>  The lessons of the Vietnam war for the American people  is  that  it
was a tragic mistake.... 58,000 of our own young people were killed, 2
million Vietnamese were killed.  We withdrew, and our  position  wound
up actually stronger in the Pacific basin.</p>

<p>  You look around this society today to see if there's any evidence of
our preparations for war, and it hits you in the face....</p>

<p>  'Join the Army.  Be all that you can be'.  Now if there was truth in
advertising,  obviously  those commercials would show a few seconds of
young men with their legs blown off at the knees, young men with their
intestines  wrapped  around  their  necks  because  that's what war is
really all about.</p>

<p>  If there was honesty on the part of the  army  and  the  government,
they would tell about the Vietnam veterans.  More of whom died violent
deaths from suicide after they came back from Vietnam then died in the
fighting itself.</p>

<p>  Then  you have President Reagan.... He talks about the glory of war,
but you have to ask yourself, where was he when wars were being fought
that  he  was  young  enough  to fight in them?  World War II, and the
Korean war.  Where he was was in Hollywood, making  films,  where  the
blood  was  catsup,  and  you  could  wash it off and go out to dinner
afterwards....</p>

<p>  Where was Gordon Liddy when he was young enough to go and fight in a
war?    He  was  hiding  out  in  the  U.S.  running  sloppy, illegal,
un-professional breaking and entering operations.  Now you'll  forgive
my  egotism,  at  that  time  I  was running professional breaking and
entering operations....</p>

<p>  What about Rambo himself?  Sylvester Stallone.  Where was  Sylvester
Stallone  during  the  Vietnam  war?    He got a draft deferment for a
physical disability, and taught physical education in a girls'  school
in Switzerland during the war.</p>

<p>  Getting  back  to President Reagan.  He really did say that `you can
always call cruise missiles back'.... Now, you can call back  a  B-52,
and   you  can  call  back  a  submarine,  but  a  cruise  missile  is
different....  When it lands, it goes boom!.  And I would prefer  that
the man with the finger on the button could understand the difference.
This is the man that calls the MX a peace-maker.    This  is  the  man
who's  gone  on  television  and  told  us  that  nuclear war could be
winnable.  This is the man who's gone on television and proposed  that
we  might  want  to  drop demonstration [atom] bombs in Europe to show
people that we're serious people.  This is  the  man  who  likens  the
Contras to the moral equivalents of our own founding fathers.  This is
the man who says South Africa is making progress on  racial  equality.
This  is  the  man  who says that the Sandinistas are hunting down and
hounding and persecuting Jews in Nicaragua.  And the Jewish leaders go
on TV the next day in this country and say there are 5 Jewish families
in Nicaragua, and they're not having any problems at all.  This is the
man  who  says  that  they're  financing their revolution by smuggling
drugs into the U.S.  And the DEA says, `It ain't true, it's  president
Reagan's Contras that are doing it'....</p>

<p>  [When  Reagan was governor of California, Reagan] said `If there has
to be a bloodbath then let's get it over with'.  Now you have to think
about  this  a  minute.    A  leader of the U.S. seriously proposing a
bloodbath of our own youth.  There was an outcry of the  press,  so  3
days later he said it again to make sure no one had misunderstood him.</p>

<p>  Read.    You  have  to  read to inform yourselves.  Read The Book of
Quotes [12].  Read On Reagan: The Man and the Presidency [3] by Ronnie
Dugger.    It  gets  heavy.  Dugger concludes in his last chapter that
President Reagan has a fixation on Armageddon.  The Village  Voice  18
months  ago  published  an  article citing the 11 times that President
Reagan publicly has talked about the fact that we are all  living  out
Armageddon today....</p>

<p>  [Reagan]  has  Jerry  Falwell into the White House.  This is the man
that preaches that we should get on our knees and beg for God to  send
the  rapture  down.   Hell's fires on earth so the chosen can go up on
high and all the other people can  burn  in  hell's  fires  on  earth.
President  Reagan  sees  himself  as  playing the role of the greatest
leader of all times forever.  Leading us into Armageddon.  As he  goes
out at the end of his long life, we'll all go out with him....</p>

<p>  Why  does  the  CIA  run  10,000  brutal covert actions?  Why are we
destabilizing a third of the countries in the world today when there's
so  much  instability  and  misery  already?   Why are our leaders now
taking us into another war?  Why are we systematically taught to  hate
and fight other people?</p>

<p>  What  you  have  to  understand  is  the  politics of paranoia.  The
easiest...  buttons to punch are the  buttons  of  macho,  aggression,
paranoia,  hate,  anger,  and fear.  The Communists are in Managua and
that's just 2 hours from San Diego, CA.   This  gets  people  excited,
they  don't think.  It's the pep-rally, the football pep-rally factor.
When you get people worked up to hate,  they'll  let  you  spend  huge
amounts of money on arms.</p>

<p>  Read The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills. [11] Read The Permanent War
Complex by Seymour Melman. [10] CIA covert actions have  the  function
of keeping the world hostile and unstable....</p>

<p>  We  can't  take care of the poor, we can't take care of the old, but
we can spend millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to  destabilize
Nicaragua....</p>

<p>  Why arms instead of schools? .... They can make gigantic profits off
the nuclear arms race because of the hysteria, and the  paranoia,  and
the  secrecy.    And that's why they're committed to building more and
more and more weapons,  is  because  they're  committed  to  making  a
profit.   And that's what the propaganda, and that's what the hysteria
is all about.  Now people say, `What can I do?'....</p>

<p>  The youth did rise up and stop the Vietnam war....</p>

<p>  We have to join hands with the people in England,  and  France,  and
Germany,  and Israel, and the Soviet Union, and China, and India - the
countries that have the bomb, and the others that are  trying  to  get
it.  And give our leaders no choice.  They have to find some other way
to do business other than to motivate us through hate and paranoia and
anger and killing, or we'll find other leaders to run the country.</p>

<p>  Now,  Helen  Caldicott,  at  the end of her lectures, I've heard her
say, very effectively, `Tell people to get out and get to work on  the
problem.... You'll feel better'....</p>

<p>  'What  can I do?'.... If you can travel, go to Nicaragua and see for
yourself.  Go to the Nevada test site and see for  yourself.    Go  to
Pantex  on  Hiroshima  day  this summer, and see the vigil there.  The
place where we make 10 nose-cones a day, 70 a week, year in  and  year
out.    He  [Admiral  LaRock]  said,  `I'd  tell  them,  if  they feel
comfortable lying down in front of trucks with bombs on them,  to  lie
down  in  front of trucks with bombs on them.'  But he said, `I'd tell
them that they can't wait.  They've got to start tomorrow, today,  and
do it, what they can, every day of their lives'.</p>

<p>[1]   Reed Brody.
      Contra Terror.
      ??, .</p>

<p>[2]   Christopher Dickey.
      With the Contras.
      ??, .</p>

<p>[3]   Dugger, Ronnie.
      On Reagan: The Man and the Presidency.
      McGraw-Hill, 1983.</p>

<p>[4]   Eich, Dieter.
      The Contras:  Interviews with Anti-Sandinistas.
      Synthesis, 1985.</p>

<p>[5]   Kinzer, Stephan and Stephen Schlesinger.
      Bitter Fruit:  The Untold Story of the American Coup in
         Guatemala.
      Doubleday, 1983.</p>

<p>[6]   Godswood, Roy (editor).
      Covert Actions: 35 Years of Deception.
      Transaction, 1980.</p>

<p>[7]   Kwitny, Jonathon.
      Endless Enemies:  America's Worldwide War Against It's Own Best
         Interests.
      Congdon and Weed, 1984.</p>

<p>[8]   LaFeber, Walter.
      Inevitable Revolutions; The United States in Central America.
      Norton, 1984.</p>

<p>[9]   McGehee, Ralph.
      Deadly Deceits: My Twenty-Five Years in the CIA.
      Sheridan Square, 1983.</p>

<p>[10]  Melman, Seymour.
      The Permanent War Complex.
      Simon and Shuster, 1974.</p>

<p>[11]  Mills, C. Wright.
      The Power Elite.
      Oxford, 1956.</p>

<p>[12]  ??
      The Book of Quotes.
      McGraw-Hill, 1979.</p>

<p>[13]  Stockwell, John.
      In Search of Enemies.
      Norton, 1978.</p>

<p>[14]  Stone, I.F.
      Hidden History of the Korean War.
      Monthly Review, 1969.</p>

<p>[15]  The Americas Watch.
      The Violations of War on Both Sides.
      ??, .