Extracts. Emne: ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN, No. 283 ______________________________ ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN News * Analysis * Research * Action ______________________________ - AFIB No. 283, January 21, 2001 - * * * LEONARD PELTIER DEFENSE COMMITTEE P.O. Box 583 Lawrence, KS 66044 Tel: 785-842-5774 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.freepeltier.org - Saturday, 20 January 2001 - ____________________________________________________________________ Day of Shame: WE MUST STAY TOGETHER AND KEEP ON FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE FOR LEONARD ____________________________________________________________________ Dear Friends, Today is a grim and shameful day. We must confirm that President Clinton, despite all his good words this week about racial unity, "One America", and healing historical injustices, has denied clemency to Leonard Peltier. We do not know why. Yet disturbing questions are obviously raised by the last minute "deal" on the Monica Lewinsky perjury issue. Leonard himself has asked that we thank each and every one of you for your phenomenal efforts on his behalf during the last year. Towards the end the world support had turned into a literal human rights tidal wave, with every high level leader and organization calling or writing to President Clinton on Leonard's behalf. Yet somehow it was not enough to outweigh the outright terror the FBI was able to instill in our government leadership. We are all hurting badly just now, and we ask that you turn your prayers and thoughts towards Leonard himself today. Send him letters of support and stay with us. We must remain tightly organized. We will be in a huddle with lawyers and organizers for the next several days working on new plans and proposals. We will have to work out a very new strategy, as President Bush's government will be quite different from Clinton's.(or perhaps not so different after all). Bear with us while we reorganize and do some new thinking.and of course send us your ideas and thoughts as well. We know you want to keep up the fight and we know that this must be done. The future of our society depends on our point blank insistence on justice for all. Please watch our web site and keep checking in. We will have some new strategies and battle plans ready to go very soon. We must never leave Leonard behind, but we can only bring him home if we keep working together. This network has grown to amazing new levels of strength and commitment this year. We must take a breather now but we must not fall apart or give up. Leonard is depending on us. If he can keep up his sacrificing then so must we. In Solidarity, LPDC LEONARD PELTIER DEFENSE COMMITTEE Public Statement Regarding Denial of Clemency: "Day of Shame" We were both shocked and saddened by President Clinton's decision to deny executive clemency to Leonard Peltier. During the last few days world support for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Peltier had reached remarkable levels, with calls and letters arriving from such renowned human rights and religious leaders as Coretta Scott King, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Amnesty International, Nobel Laureate Rigoberta Menchu and the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, amongst many others. Grassroots support from people across the country had swamped the White House phone and fax lines for months. Native nations and organizations made their support known again and again in powerful messages. Thousands of concerned citizens walked and prayed in the streets of New York on International Human Rights Day. Yet somehow none of this was enough. Why? The question remains for William Clinton to answer. The fact that so light a penalty attached to the perjury charge in the Monica Lewinsky case raises disturbing issues. We would like an explanation. For many weeks now President Clinton had called for national reconciliation and racial unity in this country. He has called for "One America" and emphasized the great racial disparity and discrimination so evident in our criminal justice system. He has called again and again for respect and equality for all races. He has stressed the need for righting historical injustices and healing long festering wounds inflicted upon people of color. He has insisted that the United States take its place as a world leader of human rights affairs. He has personally visited Pine Ridge Reservation, the site of the tragic shoot out at Oglala a long and bitter quarter of a century ago, and called for greater respect and justice for our first citizens. Yet in this last and most critical test, President Clinton has betrayed his own goals and ideals. Again we must ask why? Leonard Peltier has been imprisoned for 25 years without ever receiving the benefit of a fair trial. The FBI forced Myrtle Poor Bear to sign a false affidavit, then committed fraud upon the Canadian government by presenting her statement to their courts of law. Three teenaged boys were terrorized and coerced into giving false testimonies to the grand jury and at his trial. A ballistics test reflecting his innocence was concealed from the defense and the FBI expert gave distorted testimony to the jury. No consequences for these illegal acts have ever attached. Today even the United States Attorneys admit that no one knows who fired the fatal shots. Yet Leonard Peltier was denied a new trial on a technicality, with the judge admitting that a strong doubt was cast on the prosecution's case. Even that judge now supports clemency . Meanwhile Mr. Peltier himself is long overdue for parole and receives human rights awards for the remarkable human rights work he carries out from behind bars. He is now in failing health. Most disturbing still is the fact that Leonard's highly controversial conviction is deeply rooted in one of the most grim chapters of recent American civil rights history, specifically the Pine Ridge Reign of Terror. Between 1973 and 1976 , FBI backed vigilantes terrorized, battered and assaulted scores of Lakota traditionalists and AIM supporters throughout the reservation. Houses burned and entire families were wounded in drive by shootings. While the FBI stood by, some 64 AIM members and supporters were murdered, their deaths never properly investigated or vindicated. Civil rights organizations excoriated FBI abuses again and again. It can hardly be gainsaid that the history of our government's dealings with the first citizens of this country have been tragic at best, and oftentimes shameful. It is difficult to imagine a case more crucial to national reconciliation and healing that the case of Leonard Peltier. Yet a door, instead of opening , has been slammed and locked. Our society will pay the price. Today will be remembered as but another day of U.S. government shame and betrayal of Native people. ***** IRISH FREEDOM COMMITTEE P.O. Box 11417 Chicago, IL 60611 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.irishfreedomcommittee.net - Saturday, 13 January 2001 - ----- ____________________________________________________________________ Ireland: HUNGER STRIKE ENTERS THIRD WEEK ____________________________________________________________________ Vol. Danny McAlister, 46, will tomorrow enter his third week on hunger strike in Portlaoise Prison, Ireland. Family members who have visited Vol. McAlister report that his spirits are good, although he has lost quite a bit of weight and is weak. He is due today for a scheduled weigh-in. Vol. McAlister has been refused compassionate leave by the Dublin Government to visit his ailing elderly mother, and a brother who is seriously ill with leukemia. Vol. McAlister had his compassionate parole requests to visit his dying father denied eight times by the Dublin Government in 1999, and was only eventually allowed to attend the funeral after a legal effort. During his battle to see his father, the Dublin Government quite maliciously toyed with McAlister; allowing him at one point to the front gate of Portlaoise Prison to receive his train ticket; only to be told 15 minutes later that the leave was refused. Shortly thereafter his father passed away. Additionally, two of his three children were hospitalized at different times during this ordeal; he was denied compassionate leave to visit them also. Vol. McAlister, originally from Ballymurphy, West Belfast; was arrested in a shoot-to-kill operation by 26-County police Emergency Response Unit (ERU) in 1998, which left Vol. R=F3n=E1n Mac Lochlainn dead. The ambush by the Free State ERU took place in broad daylight in the vicinity of many rush-hour civilians, following a surveillance operation against the Oglaigh na h=C9ireann planned robbery of a Securcor van. Amnesty International has subsequently taken up the case of the assassinated Volunteer, citing the Free State excessive force as being in direct violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. There has been a virtual news blackout on Danny's hunger strike, most noticeably from new British Ministers in Stormont, and from Irish American groups in the U.S. once actively involved in campaigns for Political Status and the ensuing Hunger Strikes. Please take the time today to demand that the Dublin Government allow compassionate leave to Danny McAlister. Please write to Justice Minister John O'Donoghue at the address published below. Please send your cards and letters to Danny McAlister at: Danny McAlister, Republican Prisoner Portlaoise Prison Portlaoise, Co. Loaise Ireland Write to: Mr. John O'Donoghue, T.D. Dublin Department of Justice 72-76, St. Stephens Green, Dublin 2, Ireland. Telephone: +353 - 1 - 6028202 Minister O'Donoghue Office: 06672413 and 066-72631 Fax: +353 -1-6615461 Email the Minister of State: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright The Irish Freedom Committee NewsList - IFC Updates Permission to re-publish any article from this post is granted provided signature is attached and the active link back to this site is included. To Subscribe to this list go to http://IFCUpdates.listbot.com/ and click SUBSCRIBE. To view Archives, follow HELP instructions or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. ***** ANTI-FASCIST ACTION Box BM 1734 London, WC1N 3XX Tel: 0976-406-870 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602 - Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - ----- ____________________________________________________________________ AFA News AFA REPLY TO ATTACK ON RED ACTION ____________________________________________________________________ An American anarchist magazine called Arsenal has recently published an article which includes a very dishonest attack on Red Action, founder members of AFA and still very much involved at the cutting edge of anti-fascism. Here we reproduce the reply from AFA: "It is entirely appropriate for anti-fascists to be considering questions of tactics and strategy, and Issue 2 of Arsenal magazine featured an article entitled 'Fighting Words' that deals with this very matter. Well, it claims to, but in fact merely criticises the actions of others without putting forward any alternative. In particular it attacks Red Action, an organisation founded in Britain in 1981 that has played a leading role in the fight against fascism. Writing on behalf of Anti-Fascist Action in Britain, we will not comment on the criticisms aimed at ARA activists in America, but we feel it is necessary to put the record straight regarding Red Action. The author states "if we need a model that avoids dealing with political questions and focuses on physically attacking nazis, Red Action in England serves that purpose". It is clear from reading the article that the author is familiar with much of what Red Action has written and done, and yet she deliberately chooses to misrepresent Red Action. Red Action not only founded AFA, but also has played the key role in developing new anti-fascist strategies for AFA as they are needed. The most recent of these being the development of a political strategy designed to challenge the growth of support for the Far Right in working class communities. "I have to politically and factually question their claim that they've driven the nazis off the streets" she writes. Any basic knowledge of the political situation in Britain would confirm that after pressure from AFA right across Britain (not just England) the BNP withdrew from the streets in 1994. They didn't break with the old Mosleyite strategy of large scale public events and trying to control the streets just because they felt like it, but because the more ambitious elements in their leadership realised that if they were going to make progress they had to avoid militant anti-fascists. The "clashes with Red Action" that are referred to show the danger of people writing on matters they are unfamiliar with. The last mention of a clash between Red Action and fascists that we have seen was by Combat 18, writing a few years ago, who claimed the disorganised rabble they attacked at Old Street (east London) was in fact Red Action. The individuals they attacked were absolutely nothing to do with Red Action, or AFA for that matter, and C18 knew that, but they always felt the need to convince their supporters that they could get the better of militant anti-fascists -- precisely because they never did! The next mistake is when the author states that despite their "utter contempt for the traditional Left, Red Action knowingly serves as the 'shock troops' for their demos". If the author knows about Red Action's contempt for the Left, then she must also know that Red Action has refused, for the last 20 years, to act as a police force for the Left. Red Action's only contact with the traditional Left has been to encourage the better elements to reassess the last 40 years of failure and reorientate towards the working class. Then we are told about "the admitted flow of ex-nazis into Red Action (and we should probably assume the reverse is also true)". It is true that a few RA members had been involved with Far Right groups when they were younger (most notably the late, great Matty Blag of Blaggers ITA fame), but no RA members have left to join the fascists. Because the author is trying to discredit militant anti-fascism this is a crude attempt to smear Red Action; "they're just a bunch of thugs". She actually says that RA members "are attracted on the basis of physical fighting ability rather than political agreement". The arrogance and stupidity of this remark speaks for itself, but it does help to clarify that the author has absolutely no understanding of militant anti-fascism. So what's it all about? The only reason we have replied to the lies printed in the article is because we believe the future direction of the anti-fascist movement is important. The fact that liberals have to resort to such lies to try and discredit militant anti-fascism does them no favours. The Far Right have gained support in working class communities because of the failure of the Left. While the author believes anti-fascists should orientate towards the Left's latest project, "the developing anti-capitalist, direct action movement", AFA and Red Action would argue that the orientation must be directly towards working class communities. This is where the Far Right are to be found. To misrepresent militant anti-fascism as being one-dimensional "physical confrontation" is deliberately dishonest and factually wrong. It is in fact in the political strategies being worked out by militant anti-fascists that a successful antidote to the rise of fascism will be found, not in the travelling circus performing at Seattle, Prague, Nice or wherever. We would ask your readers to make up their own minds, not by reading the nonsense attributed to Red Action in the "Fighting Words" article, but by looking at what Red Action have to say themselves. Check out the RA website at http://www.redaction.org and see for yourselves. >From Anti-Fascist Action's point of view, we are proud to be associated with Red Action and acknowledge their contribution not only to militant anti-fascism but working class politics in general." (The 'Fighting Words' article can be found at: http://www.azone.org/arsenalmag) Order Fighting Talk in print. Prices for 4 Issues by land mail: UK: Individuals =A34/ Institutions & Organisations =A314 Overseas: Individuals =A310/ Institutions & Organisations =A317 Cheques/orders payable to 'Anti-Fascist Action' Fighting Talk, BM 1734, London, WC1N 3XX ***** PAN-AFRICAN NEWS WIRE The Pan-African Research and Documentation Center 211 SCB Box 47, Wayne State University Detroit, MI 48202 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Monday, 15 January 2001 - ______________________________________________________________________ The Ashcroft nomination: A NEW STAGE IN THE ATTACK ON DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES ______________________________________________________________________ By Patrick Martin News & Analysis: North America: US Politics http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/ash-j19.shtml The nomination of former Senator John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States is neither an aberration nor an "excess" on the part of president-elect George W. Bush. In putting forward a leading Christian fundamentalist, rabidly opposed to abortion rights, civil rights and civil liberties, as head of the chief federal police agency, Bush has confirmed the essentially anti-democratic character of his incoming administration. Media pundits initially suggested that Bush, because of his disputed election victory and the narrow margins of Republican control in the House and Senate, would be compelled to govern "from the center," and moderate his right-wing program. Such notions have been ripped to shreds, as the Bush administration makes open appeals to Christian fundamentalist and other extremist groups to rally behind the Ashcroft nomination. A candidate who lost the popular vote and who was declared the victor in the presidential election through the grossly undemocratic intervention of five US Supreme Court justices has selected as his chief legal officer a man ideologically opposed to the democratic precept that government should be based on the consent of the governed. Rather than "of the people, by the people and for the people," Ashcroft holds that the organizing principle of American government should be--as he told an audience of fundamentalists at Bob Jones University--"we have no king but Jesus." Ashcroft is a member of the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination of fundamentalist Christians, the group which includes Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition. He is not just any member: his father was the minister who headed the education division at the church's headquarters, located in Springfield, Missouri. He is the first member of the Assemblies of God to be a senator or governor, and only the second to be nominated for a cabinet position. (The first was James Watt, the best friend of mining and ranching interests, as secretary of the interior in the Reagan administration) Christian fundamentalism is not an aspect of Ashcroft's politics, it is the entire basis. In December 1999 he told the religious magazine Charisma, "It's said that we shouldn't legislate morality. Well, I think all we should legislate is morality. We shouldn't legislate immorality." To judge morality, he relies on the Bible and his church. He opposes, on moral grounds, homosexuality, abortion, pornography, needle exchanges for drug addicts, the National Endowment for the Arts and the United Nations. In 1998 he joined with Jesse Helms to block the nomination of millionaire businessman James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg because he is gay. Speech at Bob Jones University The press has reported on Ashcroft's May 1999 speech at Bob Jones University largely from the standpoint of the nominee's association with the racism and religious bigotry of the South Carolina fundamentalist college--certainly a legitimate issue and one which should, in and of itself, disqualify him from office. But there has been little discussion of the actual content of his remarks, which betray both gross ignorance of American history and vicious anti-Semitism. Ashcroft claimed that the colonists who rebelled against the British king in the American Revolution did so under religious slogans: "Tax collectors came, asking for that which belonged to the king, and colonists frequently said, 'We have no king but Jesus.' It found its way into the fundamental documents of this great country. You could quote the Declaration with me. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.' Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal." To call this historical theory bizarre is an understatement. The American Revolution is a landmark, not only in the struggle for democratic rights, but in the struggle to liberate the minds of men from the oppression and backwardness of religious dogma. There is no mention of Jesus in any of the "fundamental documents" of the Revolution, and religion itself is discussed only in the prohibition of its establishment, in the First Amendment. This approach corresponded to the beliefs of the major leaders of the revolutionary struggle, who in the main were deists, professing faith in a "creator" only in the most abstract and impersonal sense of the term. Some, like Tom Paine, were ferociously hostile to organized Christianity in any form. All were opposed to a state church, such as that which existed in the England of their day, and in other European countries. Contrary to Ashcroft, what set the new American government apart from all other regimes of the eighteenth century was its secularism, not its religiosity. Anti-Semitism and theocracy Ashcroft went on to recall the New Testament account of how Pontius Pilate offered to spare either Jesus or the thief Barabas, who were being crucified together: "Pilate stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said, 'Whom would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is called the Christ?' And when they said 'Barabas,' he said, 'But what about Jesus? King of the Jews?' And the outcry was, 'We have no king but Caesar.' "There's a difference between a culture that has no king but Caesar, no standard but the civil authority, and a culture that has no king but Jesus, no standard but the eternal authority. When you have no king but Caesar, you release Barabas--criminality, destruction, thievery, the lowest and the least. When you have no king but Jesus, you release the eternal, you release the highest and the best." As Robert Parry of consortiumnews.com has pointed out, in the only media commentary on this issue, Ashcroft can't even quote the Bible accurately. It was not "the people in Jerusalem" but a small group of high priests who gave this response to Pilate. Such a distortion, by a man clearly steeped in these texts, has only one purpose--to recycle the oldest of anti-Semitic canards, that the Jewish people were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. The anti-Semitism is so outrageous and crude that it cannot really be called a subtext, although there is no direct denunciation of the Jews. Ashcroft simply lumps together, in a few sentences, Jews, the secular state, "criminality, destruction, thievery, the lowest and the least." His audience of Christian fundamentalists undoubtedly got the message. Ashcroft concluded that America was great "because we knew that we were endowed not by the king, but by the Creator, with certain inalienable rights. If America is to be great in the future, it will be if we understand that our source is not civic and temporal, but our source is godly and eternal." This political theory is extraordinarily reactionary. When the Founding Fathers declared that men were "endowed by their Creator" with inalienable rights, they were expressing their profound democratic convictions, using the political language of the eighteenth century. Democratic rights were natural and inherent, not bestowed on men by a ruling elite, they maintained. Ashcroft denies that democratic rights have a "civic and temporal" origin, and makes religion--as interpreted by Christian fundamentalists like himself, of course--the basis of politics. Instead of democracy, he would open the way to theocracy. And from the standpoint of foreign policy, he asserts an American messianism potentially as aggressive and chauvinistic as Hitler's assertion that Germans were the "master race." Scandal-mongering instead of politics Very little of this has come out in the course of the hearings on Ashcroft's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not one senator has suggested that putting a religious extremist in charge of the Department of Justice--whose jurisdiction includes the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and other repressive agencies--would represent a threat to basic democratic rights. On the contrary, Ashcroft's Democratic opponents, liberal and not so liberal, have disavowed any opposition to Ashcroft based on his religious ideology. The Republicans, for their part, have denounced any concern over Ashcroft's fundamentalism as "anti-Christian," while repeatedly quoting from the speeches of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, during the 2000 campaign, on the legitimacy of injecting religion into politics. The Democratic senators have focused attention instead on numerous incidents in Ashcroft's long political career that would suggest that he is a racist or guilty of some personal misconduct. They seek to derail the nomination with a barrage of such charges, by creating an atmosphere of scandal. They hope for an outcome like the nomination of Linda Chavez for secretary of labor, which collapsed over her failure to tell Bush aides about her relationship with an undocumented Guatemalan immigrant woman who lived and worked in her house. In that way they would be rid of Ashcroft without the necessity to examine the more fundamental issues raised by his nomination. It is notable that while the word "racist" has been thrown about with abandon, no senator has raised the issue of anti-Semitism, which would make unavoidable a detailed examination of Ashcroft's fundamentalist religious views. Another word which has not been uttered is of even greater significance: "fascist." Any serious investigation of Ashcroft's views would put the spotlight on the enormous role which fascist and extreme-right elements now play in the Republican Party. Ashcroft may or may not himself be a fascist, but he is certainly their friend. In one case--little noted in the press-he intervened on behalf of Dr. Charles T. Sell, a St. Louis dentist and member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist organization. Sell was indicted by the Justice Department on several counts, including conspiracy to murder an FBI agent and a federal witness, after the dentist was charged in 1997 with Medicaid fraud. Ashcroft, who now seeks to head the Justice Department, lobbied the agency on Sell's behalf. He met with CCC leader Thomas Bugel as recently as last September to discuss the case. Divisions in the Judiciary Committee While the deeper political issues were avoided, the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee nonetheless reflected the intense conflicts within the American ruling elite. Democrats and Republicans were at each others' throats from the beginning. By a constitutional quirk, because Congress convened two weeks before the installation of Bush and Cheney, the Democrats have taken control of the Senate temporarily by virtue of the tie-breaking vote of the lame duck Al Gore. That makes Democrat Patrick Leahy chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the hearing on Ashcroft, and gives the Democrats control of the process. Orrin Hatch, the Republican who will resume the post of committee chairman January 21, opposed allowing the NAACP, the National Organization for Women and other "special interest groups" to testify against Ashcroft. He sought to limit their role to the submission of written statements, but was overruled by Leahy. An initial round of statements by the members of the Judiciary Committee, some of them harshly critical of Ashcroft, touched off immediate recriminations. Senator Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), who is not a member of the committee but came to make introductory remarks for Ashcroft, used the occasion to denounce the comments of Democrat Edward Kennedy. Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa attacked "the mob of extremists who have hit the airwaves and are trying to intimidate members of the Senate into voting against Senator Ashcroft." Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama called Ashcroft's opponents the "hard-left." While Kennedy, Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois made criticisms of Ashcroft's record on civil rights and abortion, as well as gun control, several Democrats made more conciliatory statements. Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin said, "Based upon what I know of your record thus far, I could not vote for you to be a Supreme Court justice, but this is different." Russell Feingold, also of Wisconsin, said, "a Republican president ought to be able to appoint people of strong conservative ideology." He urged Democrats not to follow the example of the Republicans over the past eight years, repeatedly opposing executive and judicial nominations of the Clinton administration. Several senators pointed to the cynicism of the Republican Party's approach to such nominations. As Leahy observed, Ashcroft himself had declared, in opposing the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be assistant attorney general for civil rights, that Lee was well qualified but should not be confirmed because of his liberal political views. Now Ashcroft and other Republicans were insisting that it was illegitimate to make Ashcroft's extreme-right political views an issue. Durbin noted that the nomination of Ashcroft made a mockery of Bush's claim to be "a uniter, not a divider." Schumer asked how an attorney general who has characterized legal abortion as the mass murder of children could enforce federal laws protecting abortion clinics. Kennedy gave so detailed and effective an account of Ashcroft's record of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis that Ashcroft complained that he was being subjected to a "machine gun." By the second day of the hearings an air of unreality seemed to settle in, as Ashcroft repeated ritualistically the assertion that he would not, as Attorney General, be guided by the ultra-right political beliefs that have been the hallmark of his 30-year political career. Again and again he declared that he would vigorously enforce laws which he abominates, on civil rights, abortion rights, gay rights, etc. At one point, in response to criticism of a friendly interview which he gave to the magazine Southern Patriot, a racist publication that glorifies the Confederacy, Ashcroft felt compelled to declare, "Had I been fighting the Civil War, I would have fought with Grant.... Slavery is abhorrent." It is a remarkable commentary on the rightward shift in American bourgeois politics, and especially in the Republican Party, that the nominee for Attorney General of the United States should find it necessary to make such an assertion. Copyright 1998-2000 World Socialist Web Site. All rights reserved.
