America's Dirty War
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/9830/1.html
John Horvath 17.10.2001
The the US are now looking again to utilize certain dirty assets
In Hungary, legal proceedings are usually a dull and mundane affair. Last
week, however, was more than a little different. "Little Bundi", as he is
commonly referred to in the press, was a leading Hungarian underworld
figure. He was extradited from Florida by the FBI and was put on trial in
Hungary for countless crimes. Not surprisingly, he was found guilty.
The interesting part followed next, during his last hearing prior to
sentencing. In a move that shocked and surprised everyone -- including the
defense attorney -- was the request of the prosecutor to immediately set
free the convicted felon. What was even more astounding was the judge's
adherence to the request. Even Little Bundi stood dumbfounded as the
handcuffs were at once removed from his wrists in the courtroom.
No doubt, Hungary is a country where the odd thing now and then happens.
What was perhaps a little unusual about this particular episode was the
lack of media interest. What makes this story even more interesting is when
it is put against the background of world events. Only days before the
Little Bundi episode, American media began to concentrate rather heavily on
the issue of "dirty assets". One can't help but wonder whether the case if
Little Bundi had anything to do with the US now looking to utilize certain
dirty assets.
In short, "dirty assets" is a term used to describe individuals and groups
of ill repute -- many of them could be called terrorists -- usedby the
state in order to achieve covert objectives. While American mainstream
media is now full of pundits claiming all sorts horrific actions to avenge
for the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington (cf. the Fairness
and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) report of September 24, 2001 entitled
"Media Pundits Advocate Civilian Targets"), what is alarming is the candid
talk on the use of dirty assets which were featured on such shows as The
McLaughlin Group and Meet the Press. Such shows supposedly represent the
more informed and "intellectual" branch of the American news media.
The fact that the issue of dirty assets has been raised publicly is
revealing. Until now, it has never been fully acknowledged that the US
reverts to using such people or groups, although alternative media and
those outside of the US have frequently documented the fact. The candid way
in which this is now talked about merely attests to the ignominy of
American foreign policy. Furthermore, and what is even more ignominious, is
that no-one sees anything wrong in using dirty assets. Indeed, all agree
that it's necessary, and some even go so far as to comment that the more
restrained approach toward the use of dirty assets during the Clinton era
was perhaps the reason why terrorism is such a problem today.
It's incredible to believe in this day and age that Orwell's process of
doublethink can be so firmly entrenched within the American psyche. The
paradoxes of what is being said with regard to dirty assets are so apparent
one can't help but wonder how comatose such pundits really are. This is
made all the more worse by the fact that they supposedly represent the
ranks of informed; it's frightening to think that such warped logic is
being fed to the American people.
One doesn't have to dig deep to see the fallacy behind America's use of
dirty assets: Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Noreiga in
Panama, Hussein in Iraq, and bin Laden in Afghanistan all were at one point
in time dirty assets for the US. Indeed, it is here which lies the very
heart of the problem: if it wasn't for America's use of dirty assets, these
individuals or groups would not have gained the leverage they needed to
engage in wholesale terror -- at home and abroad.
The use of dirty assets is a dangerous game to play, and have so far shown
that it does more harm than good. Many of these assets soon become
liabilities, as interests ultimately clash. This is because the likes
employed as dirty assets are opportunists; they have no stake in any
government or system, and frequently see themselves as a law unto themselves.
Thus, the idea of employing a dirty asset now to get rid of a former ally
(i.e., bin Laden) is to ensure that the problem of terrorism will remain.
Indeed, bin Laden is a perfect example of what happens when you court
terrorism to further your own agenda.
If the US is serious in tackling the root causes in its war on terrorism,
then it would do better to look inward at its own policies rather than
adopt measures based on fear and prejudice. The ends don't justify the
means, and the use of terrorism to fight terrorism is a contradiction of
what the supposed war on terrorism is about. Adding words like "freedom"
and "democracy" to any action is not enough; ultimately, the moral high
ground will be lost and less and less people will be willing to join future
crusades. Indeed, the history of the crusaders is instructive here.
Copyright © 1996-2001. All Rights Reserved. Alle Rechte vorbehalten
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Gi0tnD/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/xRZolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds
are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and
'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-directions and outright frauds—is
used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout
the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always
suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust
denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
Om
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
