Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

It is hard to believe that anyone here would still want to defend the Clinton/NATO policy any more. We have been through that many times now. If we want to see the depths of US humanitarianism, I suggest that we look in the direction of Baghdad. Doug Henwood wrote: > Nathan Newman wrote: > > >

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

Nathan Newman wrote: >Come on, Jim. Those of us who have supported intervention have been >denounced as "imperialists" while folks like LM have been praised for being >"anti-imperialist." 1) The U.S. government and NATO are two of the most important institutions of imperialism in existence. 2

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

Nathan had written: > >>For that reason, we should all be a bit less ready to denounce allies > as enemies over such issues, and a bit more cautious in embracing > traditional enemies just because of short-term convergence on policy<< I wrote: > > who was embracing whom? and who was denounc

RE: Re: RE: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

>On Behalf Of Jim Devine > >For that reason, we should all be a bit less ready to denounce allies as > >enemies over such issues, and a bit more cautious in embracing > traditional > >enemies just because of short-term convergence on policy > > who was embracing whom? and who was denounced, a

Re: RE: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

I wrote: > also, despite its faults, LM deserves credit for breaking with the imperialist consensus in favor of the US/NATO war against Yugoslavia in Kosova/o.< Nathan writes: >What imperialist "consensus"? Large parts of the establishment in Europe >and the US resisted any kind of serious in

RE: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

>On Behalf Of Jim Devine > > At 10:00 AM 3/18/00 -0500, you wrote: > >I agree with Nathan that LM is not worth saving. > >There is however, a strong case to be made that British libel > laws should be > >reformed, so that this sort of thing can not happen again. > > also, despite its faults, LM

Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

At 10:00 AM 3/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >I agree with Nathan that LM is not worth saving. >There is however, a strong case to be made that British libel laws should be >reformed, so that this sort of thing can not happen again. also, despite its faults, LM deserves credit for breaking with the im

Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 1:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:17212] Re: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post > > > I couldn't find 1988 Archives but I did check through some of the > other articles > that Nathan mentions. His quotes are quite selective. Even though &g

Re: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

I couldn't find 1988 Archives but I did check through some of the other articles that Nathan mentions. His quotes are quite selective. Even though I read through the articles quite quickly I do not think that they deserve Nathan's dismissive attitude I get the impression that LM accepts a wide ran

Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

Nathan: >That folks like Yoshie declare them anti-imperialists when they publicize so >many reactionary political positions amazes me. Some samples: The point is, though, LM was _not_ done in for their obnoxious views on feminism, environmentalism, or anything else. It is LM's questioning of I

Re: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

Michael Keaney wrote: >To be critical of the verdict is not synonymous with supporting LM. Not at all. Neither is writing for LM an act of solidarity. I've made my differences with them pretty clear, and in the piece I did for them, I said I hadn't made my peace with capitalism - implying, of

Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

>On Behalf Of Doug Henwood > > By the way, this outcome undermines the argument that LM is some > sinister tool of British capital, doesn't it? Only if you subscribe to a conspiracy-totalitarian version where British capital controls every institution, including the left-leaning reporters who br

Re: LM's Truth (was Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post)

K Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 17/3/00 2:14 pm, Doug Henwood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Michael Keaney wrote: > >> And speaking of questionable friends, among those rallying to the support of >> LM, or at the very least taking Guardian journ

Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

K Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 17/3/00 1:51 pm, Doug Henwood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Michael Keaney wrote: > >> I recall correctly Louis Proyect has already highlighted the dubious >> activities of LM to PEN-L; in fact, didn't Doug Henwoo

Re: Re: LM's Truth (was Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post)

Michael Keaney wrote: >And speaking of questionable friends, among those rallying to the support of >LM, or at the very least taking Guardian journalist Ed Vulliamy to task for >attacking LM's defence of actions committed in the name of the Serbs, is no >less than Alfred Sherman, Who? > as a p

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

> By the way, this outcome undermines the argument that LM is some > sinister tool of British capital, doesn't it? > > Doug LM is/was a bizarre libertarian magazine that had cut its ties to the left some time ago. Doug decided to publish in their pages fully knowing this. Meanwhile he derides A

Re: Re: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

Michael Keaney wrote: >I recall correctly Louis Proyect has already highlighted the dubious >activities of LM to PEN-L; in fact, didn't Doug Henwood get some stick for >having an article published there? Yes, and so what? "Dubious activities" are not enough of a justification to put a magazine

Re: LM's Truth (was Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post)

K Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 17/3/00 11:14 am, Yoshie Furuhashi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > LM's coverage of the Yugoslav affairs & the role of imperialism in it is > absolutely truer than ITN's. Possibly. Over the piece I would not look to

LM's Truth (was Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post)

Michael K. wrote: >Before rushing headlong into a heroic defence of the "oppressed", it would >be worth investigating further what it is we are being asked to support. Because of the verdict on the ITN libel suit, LM can't post the article in question -- Thomas Deichmann's "The Picture That Fool

Re: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

K Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 17/3/00 9:54 am, Yoshie Furuhashi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As you know, LM (formerly Living Marxism), the iconoclastic British > magazine edited by Mike Hume, was found guilty of libel against ITN, the > Briti

ITN's Address (was Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post)

Jim Heartfield wrote: >I don't have ITN's address to hand, but you can probably contact Channel >Four News (produced by ITN) through their website at www.channel4.co.uk * ITN is keen to hear your thoughts about our programmes and

Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post

d <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James A >Farmelant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>The question that interests me is what if anything can be done about >>this. The judgement against LM would seem