Subject: Alleged instances of censorship
From: [email-masked] (Brad Pierce)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 03:16:36 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.news-media

Forwarded articles from "misc.activism.progressive":

- ------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: BUSH'S $250 BILLION COVERUP
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 09:15:10 GMT

THE 250 BILLION DOLLAR POLITICAL COVER UP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  RACHAEL KINBERG)

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

SOURCE:  FRONTLINE PBS-TV

DATE:  10/22/91

TITLE:  "The Great American Bailout"

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

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

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

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

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

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: THE GULF WAR
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 09:15:11 GMT

OPERATION CENSORED WAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  PAULA GIEBITZ)

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

DATE:  7/1 3/91

TlTLE:"Military Obstacles Detailed"

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

DATE:  3/6191

TITLE:  "Inside the Desert Storm Mortuary"

AUTHOR:Jonathan Franklin

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

DATE:March 1991

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

AUTHOR:Sam Smith

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

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

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

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

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: THE BUSH FAMILY AND ITS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 09:15:09 GMT

THE BUSH FAMILY AND ITS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

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

Prescott Bush, Brother

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

Neil Bush, Son

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

Jeb Bush, Son

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

George W. Bush, Son

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  DUSTIN HARP)

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

DATE:  712819 1

Title:  "Crime-linked firms hired Prescott Bush"

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

DATES:  7/19/91 and 816191

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

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

DATE:  12/3/91

Title:"See No Evil"

AUTHOR:Jefferson Morley

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

DATES:  7/12/91 and 816/91

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

AUTHOR:  David Armstrong

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

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

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

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

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: NO EVIDENCE OF IRAQI THREAT TO SAUDI ARABIA
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 09:15:07 GMT

NO EVIDENCE OF IRAQI THREAT TO SAUDI ARABIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  MARIA BROSNAN)

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

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

DATE:  2127191

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

AUTHOR:Jean Heller

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

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

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

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

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

- -------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 09:15:24 GMT

WHO WILL UNWRAP THE OCTOBER SURPRISE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  STEVE DUNLOP)

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

DATE:September/October 1991

TITLE:  "Who Will Unwrap the October Surprise?

AUTHOR:Julie Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- --------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: INSLAW SOFTWARE THEFT
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 09:15:10 GMT

INSLAW SOFTWARE THEFT:  JUSTICE DEPT.  CONSPIRACY?

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  MARK LOWENTHAL)

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

DATE:May 29-June 11, 1991

Title:"Software Pirates"

AUTHOR:  Joel Bleifuss

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

DATE:October 3-16, 1991

Title:  "Software To Die For"

AUTHOR:James Pidgeway

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

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

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

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

- --------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: CBS, NBC SPIKED FOOTAGE OF IRAQ BOMBING CARNAGE
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 09:15:11 GMT

CBS, NBC SPIKED FOOTAGE OF IRAQ BOMBING CARNAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  JACKIE STONEBRAKER)

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

DATE:  3/20/91

TITLE:"Sights unseen"

AUTHORS:  Dennis Bernstein and Sasha Futran

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

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

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

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

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

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

- -------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: OPERATION ILL WIND
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 09:15:09 GMT

OPERATION ILL WIND -- DOD'S UNTOLD STORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  DUSTIN HARP)

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

DATE:Nov/Dec 1990

TITLE:  "The Devil and Mr. Jones"

AUTHOR:John Hanrahan

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

DATE:March 1991

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

AUTHOR:  Philip Dunn

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

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

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

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

- -------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: FOIA IS AN OXYMORON
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:15:10 GMT

FOIA IS AN OXYMORON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  ANNE BRITTON)

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

DATE:July/August 1991

TlTLE:  "The Fight To Know"

AUTHORS:Peter Montgomery and Peter Overby

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

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

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

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

- --------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:15:09 GMT

CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TlTLE:"Stop the Greens"

AUTHOR:Eve Pell

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

DATE:  5/10/31

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

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

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

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

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

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

- -------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: FINCEN: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO PRIVACY & PROPERTY
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:15:23 GMT

FINCEN:  A POTENTIAL THREAT TO PRIVACY & PROPERTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  SCOTT SOMOHANO)

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

DATE-April 1991

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

AUTHOR:Charles A. Intriago, Esq.

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

DATE:September 1991

TITLE:  "Editorial"

AUTHOR:William A. Leavell

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

DATE:  3/18/91

Title:  GAO/GGD-91-53 FinCEN

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

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

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

- ------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: WHO'S OVERSEEING CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:15:24 GMT

WHO'S OVERSEEING CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT?

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  RACHAEL KlNBERG)

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

DATE:July/August 1991

Title:"See No Evil"

AUTHOR:Jeffrey Denny

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

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

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

- ------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:15:24 GMT

THE SPECTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

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

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

According to The Workbook (Fall 1991):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  MARIA BROSNAN)

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

DATE:Fall 1991

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

AUTHORS:Kathy Cone Newton with Frances Ortega

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

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

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

- --------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: BOHEMIAN GROVE
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:15:09 GMT

BOHEMIAN GROVE:  THE STORY PEOPLE MAGAZINE CENSORED

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  DUSTIN HARP)

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

DATE:  November/December; 1991

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

AUTHORS:Jim Naureckas with Jeff Cohen and Steve Rendall

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

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

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

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

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

- -------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,misc.headlines
From: [email-masked] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:15:08 GMT

MEANINGLESS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT LAW APPROVED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  SCOTT SOMOHANO)

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

DATE:  813/9 1

TITLE:  "Senate Clears Retooled Measure Strengthening Hill Oversight"

AUTHOR:  Pamela Fessler

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

DATE:  8/16/91

Title:"Bush Signs Funding sill For intelligence Agencies"

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

DATE:  8/l/91

Title:  "New Restrictions on Covert Action Passed by Congress

AUTHOR:Michael Ross

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

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

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

--