BS: WTO

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 10 Dec 99 - 12:39 AM

i couldn't resist--


_ Exporting the Mess

Trade officials, corporations find market solutions to pesky protestors.

by Dennis Hans Dec. 7, 1999

More WTO Coverage: Exporting the Mess

Uncommon Ground

Circus in Seattle

World Trade or World Domination?

The Scoop Takes on the WTO

Globalization and the Maquiladoras

Hot Button: Genetically Modified Foods

Top 10 Reasons to Shutter the WTO

Readers Weigh In On WTO

Our Complete WTO Archive

A batch of late-breaking news items from the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle highlight some profitable new approaches to handling dissent:

Innovative Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers is getting rave reviews for his proposal to improve the world's chronic imbalance in the trade of political dissidence, by exporting protestors from rich nations to poor ones. Summers, who years ago made a less-well received suggestion that poor nations be paid to import the First World's toxins and trash, maintains that developing nations are woefully underprotested. He points to China, which has had to pretend that a handful of religious oddballs pose a political threat, and to Haiti, whose protesting ranks were thinned considerably by police killings in the early 1990s. So Summers was delighted to announce Friday that Haiti and China have agreed to remove tariffs on a range of rabble-rousing products, from outside agitators to union organizers. Within the next few days 20,000 will be packed onto freighters docked in Seattle; they should arrive in their new homelands in time for the holidays.

"The key to cementing the deal," said Summers, "was the cultural sensitivity of the Clinton administration. We want the American dissidents to fit in, so we insisted that the host governments show them the same courtesies they show local dissidents."

Several WTO protestors drew fines for hoisting banners and chanting slogans that had been copyrighted by Nike on the eve of the gathering. "The Whole World is Watching," "The WTO Must Go," and the menacing "You want your free trade? I got your free trade" are all now official trademarks of the shoe making giant. Offenders have 30 days to pay their fines; otherwise, they face up to two years hard labor in a prison sneaker factory.

WTO adjudicators issued their first ruling of the meeting, declaring that window breakers not only committed a common property crime, but had damaged Microsoft's market position. "Because the word "windows" is linked in the public mind with Microsoft's operating system," the ruling stated, "the act of 'breaking windows' can only be construed as an attack on the corporation's good name." The judges ordered Kevin Bunkee, 21, of Portland, and Julie Jencks, 19, of Peoria, to pay Microsoft $5.1 billion.

Seattle mayor Paul Schell said the city saved $50,000 on rubber bullets by buying in bulk from Malaysia. "Ten years ago, steep U.S. tariffs placed the Malaysian Rib Tickler® beyond Seattle's means," he said. "We were stuck with cheap -- in quality, not price -- domestic knock-offs. Thank God for globalization."

Monsanto Corporation announced the development of a genetically engineered protestor guaranteed to, in Monsanto's words, "get with the program." The Rebel 2000® is neat, clean and polite, and resistant to locusts, droughts and populist appeals. Monsanto anticipates that early next year the WTO will require grassroots groups to staff their organizations exclusively with Rebel 2000® activists. A Monsanto spokesman scoffed at the notion the Rebel 2000® is not a "protestor" in the true sense of the word. "The Rebel® will express his resentment toward the WTO and big, bad corporations in his clothing," said the spokesman. "Marlboro haters will wear Camel gear. Gap, Inc. naysayers will don Liz Claiborne or Tommy Hilfiger."

David Brinkley, former ABC news anchor and commentator and current spokesman for agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland, was in Seattle to film a commercial. He told this reporter he was impressed with the "energy" of the protestors, then excused himself to rehearse his lines. "Who will fuel the SUVs of the new millennium?" he asked in his distinctive clipped voice. "By converting anarchists into ethanol, ADM can free America from its dependence on foreign oil."

Dennis Hans' satiric essays have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Post (Canada), the San Francisco Chronicle, In These Times, and online at the MoJo Wire and Z Magazine, among other outlets.

E-mail the Editors | Other Articles by Dennis Hans

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 08 Dec 99 - 01:25 PM

I wonder if people who have posted first person accounts to this thread would mind their being reposted to other mailing lists and newsgroups or related sites or copied for use off line?--

I am compiling all the first hand stuff that I can find--(hopefully including e-mail addresses for confirmation)--at a point in the near future I plan to compile them write a cover letter summarizing the disturbing points and including some pointed questions about the implications of what happened then walk down the road here to Capitol Hill and visit my elected reps, demanding an investigation--

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 08 Dec 99 - 01:15 AM

http://www.brasscheck.com/seldes/gsa.html----
blueclicketything

your welcome Kat--- if your interested in that type of thing-- this is a good place to start surfing from--

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Dec 99 - 01:05 AM

Thosp, that was VERY interesting! I had heard of FAIR before, but didn't know they had a list to subscribe to, which I've now done. Thank you very much,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: emily rain
Date: 08 Dec 99 - 12:58 AM

hey, has it made national news that seattle police chief norm stamper resigned today?

my first reaction was "whoa, that seems excessive."

but apparantly he told the press conference that he decided several months ago that he was going to retire. then when he was catching so much heat for his handling of the WTO protests, he decided he'd announce his retirement now in order to "depoliticize" the investigation/post-mortem/rehash-fest. he's very firm in his refusal to take the role of scapegoat; this isn't in any way an admission of mismanagement on his part.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 08 Dec 99 - 12:47 AM

FAIR-L Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Media analysis, critiques and news reports

Media Advisory: WTO Coverage: Prattle in Seattle

December 7, 1999

As an estimated 50,000 protesters rallied in Seattle to shut down the opening conference of the World Trade Organization meeting last week, mainstream media treated protesters' concerns with indifference and often contempt. That hostility translated into slanted coverage of both the demonstrations and the police reaction.

In mainstream reports, "anti-trade" became a common--though wildly inaccurate--label for the demonstrators. "A guerrilla army of anti-trade activists took control of downtown Seattle today," a Washington Post article (12/1/99) began. ABC News reporter John Cochran (11/30/99) said Seattle had become a "home for protests against world trade." ABC anchor Jack Ford (12/1/99) pitted the demonstrators against the city hosting them: "No American city exports as much, President Clinton was happy to point out today, which helps explain why a good many people in Seattle are angry--at the protesters and their very anti-trade message."

Even coverage that did attempt to describe the protesters' goals dealt with them in only the vaguest terms--and often at a level of generalization that rendered the descriptions inaccurate or meaningless. An ABC News story by correspondent Deborah Wang in Seattle failed to address the activists' concerns with anything more than platitudes:

"They are fighting for essentially the same issues they campaigned against in the '60's. Corporations, which they say are still exploiting workers in the Third World. Agribusiness is still putting small farmers out of work. Mining companies, still displacing peasants from the land.... But what is different is that, for these protesters, this single organization, the WTO has come to symbolize about all that is wrong in the modern world."

More helpful than such generalities would have been a summary of some of the protesters' specific complaints: that the WTO has issued rulings forcing member countries to repeal specific laws that protect public health and the environment; that it proposes new rules limiting countries' freedom to regulate foreign corporate investors; and that its decisions are made in secret by an unaccountable tribunal.

The lack of understanding of the demonstrators' concerns was unsurprising, given how seldom the media spoke with them. When the police first started using tear gas against street blockades, CNN reporter Katherine Barrett (11/30/99) turned for comment to Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Jasinowski confessed that he was "struck by how loopy some of the protesters were" and observed that they were "shouting a lot of crazy different messages."

Perhaps the single WTO opponent who received the largest amount of time on CNN to expound his views was Pat Buchanan, who was interviewed, one-on-one and at length, by Inside Politics anchor Judy Woodruff (11/30/99). Though right-wing nationalists appeared to make up--at most--an infinitesimal fraction of the actual protesters in Seattle's streets, the media seemed to anoint Buchanan as a major leader of the anti-WTO movement. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote (12/1/99) that "knaves like Pat Buchanan" had "duped" the demonstrators--"a Noah's ark of flat-earth advocates, protectionist trade unions and yuppies looking for their 1960s fix"--into protesting the WTO.

"What's driving [the protests]?" CNN political analyst Bill Schneider asked on Inside Politics (11/30/99). "Resentment of big business for its irresponsible behavior, a resentment shared by the left"--followed by a soundbite of AFL-CIO leader John Sweeney--"and the right"--followed by a soundbite of Pat Buchanan. This type of right/left "evenhandedness" concerning the protests did not appear to be justified by the actual composition of the anti-WTO movement.

Media outlets seemed unconcerned by Buchanan's less-than-sterling record as an advocate for labor. As co-host of CNN's Crossfire (7/3/91), Buchanan once grilled public-sector union leader Gerald McEntee--one of the labor officials present at the Seattle demos--on "the suicidal impulses of American unions":

"A lot of the jobs now have disappeared-they're gone. One reason, one complaint, is the pay of the United Auto Workers and the benefits.... Aren't you fellows committing suicide by yourselves?"

Perhaps mainstream news outlets' confusion concerning the protesters' goals contributed to their often skewed coverage of the behavior of the Seattle police and National Guard. A continuing theme in news reports was that the use of tear gas and concussion grenades was an appropriate response to "violent" activists.

CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported (12/1/99) that "the meeting of the World Trade Organization was thrown into turmoil by violent demonstrations that went on into last night. That brought on today's crackdown." A CNN report from Seattle (12/1/99) claimed that "as tens of thousands marched through downtown Seattle, [a] small group of self-described anarchists smashed windows and vandalized stores. Police responded with rubber bullets and pepper gas."

But the sequence of events described in these reports was wrong. As Detective Randy Huserik, a spokesman for the Seattle police, confirmed, pepper spray had first been used against protesters engaged in peaceful civil disobedience. CNN anchor Lou Waters asked Huserik (11/30/99) why the gas was used:

Waters: How would you characterize the nature of the threat today? Were police assaulted? Is that what precipitated this?

Huserik: Well, a rather large group of protesters...were determined to continue blocking public entrance and exit in access of some of the various venue sites. They were given a lawful order to disperse, which was ignored. Officers then announced that the Seattle police officers would deploy pepper spray if the crowd did not disperse. For those that remained, the pepper spray was deployed in order to disperse that crowd.

One eyewitness, nonviolence trainer Matt Guynn, distributed the following account of police brutality over the Internet:

"In one scene I witnessed this morning (at 8th Ave and Seneca), police who had been standing behind a blockade line began marching in lock-step toward the line, swinging their batons forward, and when they reached the line they began striking the (nonviolent, seated) protestors repeatedly in the back. Then they ripped off the protestors' gas masks, and sprayed pepper spray at point-blank range into their eyes repeatedly. After spraying, they rubbed the protestors' eyes and pushed their fingers around on their lips to aggravate the effect of the spray. And after all THIS, they began striking them again with batons.... The police then were able to break up the line, and the protestors retreated to the steps of a nearby church for medical assistance."

The lack of condemnation of police tactics--especially their tear-gassing and pepper-spraying of peaceful protesters--was a striking feature of the coverage. "Thanks for joining us and good luck to you out there," CNN anchor Lou Waters told a Seattle police spokesperson (12/1/99) as police continued their crackdown on demonstrators. A front-page Los Angeles Times article on the protests (12/2/99) featured a subhead that read "Police Commended for Restraint." Yet the only source cited by the Times was Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who praised the "professionalism, restraint and competence" of his forces.

Contrast that with this account from Seattle physician Richard DeAndrea, posted on the website Emperors-clothes.com :

"The police were using concussion grenades. They were... shooting tear gas canisters directly at protesters' faces. They were using rubber bullets. Some of the damage I saw from these rubber bullets took off part of a person's jaw, smashed teeth... There are people who have been... treated for plastic bullet wounds. Lots of tear gas injuries, lots of damage to [the] cornea, lots of damage to the eyes and skin."

One of the few media accounts that conveyed the brutality of the Seattle police was written by a local correspondent for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (12/2/99), who reported that "three Seattle police officers slammed me to the pavement, handcuffed me and threw me into the van. I was charged with failing to disperse even though I showed them reporter's credentials and repeatedly said I was just covering a story."

----------

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [e-mail] ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the 'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.

Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any responses, to us at: [e-mail] .

Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.

Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: WyoWoman
Date: 05 Dec 99 - 05:46 PM

Reggie--If you believe that's what happened, and you obviously do, then find other witnesses if you can and go to the Seattle Times or the PI and tell them what you saw. If the television stations are setting up "Wag the Dog" sorts of scenes, then that needs to be investigated, and if it's true, publicly exposed. Or, if there's a groundswell of public opinion that this is actually what happened, then the television station needs to at least be given the opportunity to give its version of the occurences, so the public can decide what's what.

And Thosp, I don't work for any of those news organizations, (most of them broadcast, by the way, which as I said before is a different animal from print) so I can't speak specifically about any of those situations. I am most familiar with the Chiquita case, and frankly, I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, if one of my reporters came to me and said s/he'd been given a recording like this, if I could verify that it was actually voice mail from the company and that the voices could be identified, I might go with it -- or at least use it as an ace in the hole to advance the level of inquiry and response.

BUT, if I found out that one of our reporters hacked into someone's computer system to get such information, regardless of how damning, I wouldn't. The Supreme Court of the U.S. recently ruled that breaking the law in pursuit of truth is illegal --the specific case had to do with going undercover to work in a grocery store to do research on really terrible practices in food-handling and, shockingly, the Court sided with the grocery store and against the journalists and, I say, the best interests of consumers. So, one thing is that citizens need to make the connection between the people they elect (or their own failure to even participate in the electoral process) and the way our court system operates. If you want Supreme Court judges who dependably come down on the side of corporate interests, continue to elect conservatives. If you want a Supreme Court that sides more with individual citizens, elect liberals and moderates.

And again, I'll make a distinction between the 'large mainstream institutional voices' and the daily newspaper that covers your particular community. They all, we all, have different personalities and biases, having to do with the personalities and individuals who make up the staff, but many, many of us try our damndest to present fair and accurate accounts of the events of the day so citizens can make essential decisions about how they're governed and what they consume.

Unfortunately, what we frequently run into is people who are willing to point fingers and run their mouths off about various real or imagined evils, but aren't willing to put their butts on the line and go on record with what they saw and heard and know. And without that, all of it is conjecture anyway.

And Thosp, another point you made deserves underscoring: One of the greatest chances we have for unfettered coverage of unpopular events and causes is a well-supported, well-funded public media, with a completely hands-off policy from any government entity. As more and more news outlets are bought by fewer and fewer powerful corporations, outlets like PBS, Public radio, Pacifica and such are essential to having at least one voice immune to external pressures and able and willing to go against whatever is the prevailing "conventional wisdom."

I'm not saying that there are no problems with media coverage of daily events, nor that there are no newspapers or broadcast news entities that manipulate the news, nor even that there aren't gutless editors and publishers out there asking reporters to soft-soap the news. BUT, it's stupid and short-sighted to paint ALL media with the same brush.

Reggie -- if you're willing to go on record with what you saw, I'm willing to get you in touch with someone in the media there in Seattle to at least hear what you have to say.

Send me a personal message and let's talk about it, if you'd like.

Sorry all, for the lengthy post. But this has everything to do with some of the stuff that has made folk music important over the generations.

WW

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Áine
Date: 05 Dec 99 - 10:23 AM

Dear reggie,

First, I'd like to say that I am very, very glad that you came through this mess with all limbs and sawteeth in place. Second, I'd like to thank you for your 'reports from the front.' This thread has been very interesting to keep up with and has raised several issues that will be even more interesting to follow through the coming year.

As the City of Seattle and her people now regroup and assess the situation of the past week, I hope that we all can learn some valuable lessons and keep an open mind about the future.

More power to your elbow and your saw, dear reggie!

-- Áine

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: reggie miles
Date: 05 Dec 99 - 02:20 AM

Wyo Woman,

I was not painting all news crews with a broad brush but rather merely reporting what I myself witnessed. They were there, in position and not just passing by. They were waiting for it to happen, with a crowd around them, all standing awaiting the Kodak moment to arrive. Waiting for the actor to find his mark. They sure weren't filming the front of the Starbuck's store window for a commercial. Well, then again, maybe, who knows, some clever editing, throw in a few slogans, heck, they might even come up with a new blend in honor of the occasion. No offense intended but I know what I saw and it wasn't a news crew that just happened to be passing by and caught a moment on film. They were set up and waiting for it to happen. Does that make them as guilty as the guy who broke the window? Well in my book it stinks. Or what about the SPD who knew all too well before hand that there was a very real possibility of this sort of action taking place and did nothing to insure there was a deterent presence throughout the downtown business district? I was there. I wasn't there in any sort of job capcity and I didn't have a camera. I saw many incredible sights worth filming and did not see any of them on the tube. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what agenda these guys were working with. This sort of collusion is not uncommon. It's been honed to a fine art and used for years. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 11:08 PM

The Press Devours Its Own

Two years ago, almost to the day, Gary Webb's series "Dark Alliance," on contra complicity in the trafficking of drugs into areas such as South Central Los Angeles, appeared in the San Jose Mercury News. The series should have earned Webb the respect and honor of his profession. Instead, he was subjected to a merciless campaign of abuse by the most powerful newspapers in the country and betrayed by his own editor, Jerry Ceppos. Yet Webb's charges were soundly based and have been buttressed by admissions in reports issued by the Inspector Generals of both the CIA and the Justice Department. Today, Webb is a consultant to the State of California, working more or less the same beat in Sacramento as he had as a reporter for the Mercury News, probing corruption of state agencies.

This summer, on June 7, CNN aired a report produced by Jack Smith and April Oliver charging that US forces had used sarin nerve gas in Laos. Within a drastically compressed time frame, they experienced the same treatment as Webb, plus a meretricious attack by a couple of corporate lawyers, Floyd Abrams and David Kohler, brought together by CNN to scrutinize the program which so violently angered the Pentagon and Henry Kissinger.

Hardly had Smith and Oliver been trashed by CNN before another reporter was being savaged by his colleagues; disowned by his newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer; and facing ferocious assault in the courts. Back in May, Mike Gallagher had written a series on a company, Chiquita Brands International, which under its old name of United Fruit was synonymous with predatory corporate imperialism. Despite Gallagher's vilification, and assuming the series is not purged from the historical record by the Enquirer (now acting in concert with Chiquita's lawyers), his stories will stand comparison with the best that American muckraking has produced, whether Puter's Looters of the Public Domain or Tarbell's History of the Standard Oil Company.

Aggressive reporting always has been risky business, but most disgusting about these recent assaults are not the predictable onslaughts of corporate lawyers--whether Chiquita's legal team or the mealy-mouthed Abrams--but the venom with which other journalists have turned on their colleagues.

Take Webb. By the time he wrote "Dark Alliance" he had spent nearly two decades as a reporter delving successfully into corruption involving politicians and state agencies, in California, Kentucky and Ohio. In what was the lowest of all the attacks on him, one of the New York Times's more undistinguished reporters, Iver Peterson, went over Webb's earlier work, charging that he had "a penchant for self-promotion" and a loose relationship to fact.

Peterson dredged up four libel suits, two of which had been dismissed and two settled. Webb says no corrections were required. Peterson also quoted targets of Webb's investigations, who obviously were not appreciative of the reporter. They included a judge in Ohio whom Webb's stories identified as having taken contributions from mob-related organizations. Although there had never been a retraction, Peterson dutifully cited the judge's comment that Webb "lied about me." It was as if some reporter had used Richard Nixon as a reliable source on the reporting techniques of the New York Times. When Webb wrote a letter to the Times detailing Peterson's numerous errors and misstatements of fact, the newspaper refused to publish it.

There is, these days, an elaborate machinery for discrediting reporters. Noticeable in the deployment of this machinery is the low priority given to assessing the actual content of stories under attack. The underminer's art consists in seizing on some supposed dereliction, then using this to discredit the story as a whole.

In Gallagher's case it was Chiquita's in-house voice mails which Gallagher allegedly stole. (He insists he was given them by a whistleblower.) Chiquita's lawyers lunged at this issue. What choice had they? After all, Gallagher had convincingly charged the company with serious crimes that included use of chemicals that had injured and killed Honduran workers; use of goon squads and army units to evict villagers and intimidate workers; ownership titles designed to conceal illegal corporate control; possible implication in drug running. Chiquita's only shot was to distract attention by hollering about voice mail, which in fact revealed Chiquita executives discussing cover-ups to Gallagher's questions.

The tactic worked splendidly. Reporters and pooh-bahs from journalism schools and departments of ethics went charging off on the matter of journalistic propriety without pausing to ask whether this "impropriety" might be overshadowed by such improprieties as poisoning a worker with organophosphates, which, according to a Honduran coroner, caused the death of Greddy Mauricio Valerin Bustos from internal bleeding and brain damage. Only later did Douglas Frantz of the New York Times go back to the series and point out the gravity and apparent substance of the charges. By then, the moment was lost. Chiquita CEO Carl Lindner, one of the nastiest pieces of work on the US corporate-political scene, had his victory. As Larry Birns and Anna Marie Busch of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs put it, Gallagher is accused of stealing tapes; Lindner, meanwhile, hijacked US foreign policy, handing over $500,000 to the Democratic National Committee the morning after the White House went to the World Trade Organization to complain about Chiquita's lack of access to European markets.

One of the red herrings used against Webb was his supposed failure to elicit comment from the CIA. In fact, Webb did have a CIA source. "He told me," Webb says, "he knew who these guys were and he knew they were cocaine dealers. But he wouldn't go on the record, so I didn't use his stuff in the story. I mean, one of the criticisms is we didn't include CIA comments. And the reason we didn't is because they wouldn't return my phone calls and they denied my Freedom of Information Act requests."

Say the CIA had returned Webb's calls. What would a spokesperson have offered, other than that the charges were outrageous and untrue? The CIA, an agency pledged to secrecy, repeatedly deceptive when under subpoena before government committees, guilty of heinous deeds, is treated by journalists as if it were some vaguely aboveboard body, like the Supreme Court.

Vultures Like Kurtz At an hour and not eighteen minutes, CNN's Smith and Oliver would have had, as they have repeatedly emphasized, an interesting and well-researched case suggesting that the US military used sarin in a raid in Laos. But CNN executives forced the show into eighteen minutes, removed a crucial qualifier and then attacked the producers for not providing proof. For a spirited rebuttal to their assailants, I recommend Smith and Oliver's seventy-seven-page response to CNN's lawyers.

Whatever the final word may be on this story, there was something absurd about the Pentagon being treated as a credible witness. Remember, the Pentagon and the CIA conducted a "secret" airwar on Laos, which involved dropping high explosives every eight minutes on average, for many years. At the end of the war one-third of the population had become refugees. By 1971 the CIA was practicing a scorched earth policy in Hmong territory against the incoming Pathet Lao. The land was drenched with herbicides, which killed the rice and opium crops and also poisoned the Hmong. CIA-patronized journalists later spread the story that the Hmong were victims of Communist biological warfare. The Wall Street Journal made an extensive propaganda campaign out of "yellow rain" in the Reagan years. When these were finally exposed as false, no journalists lost their jobs or were hauled to court.

Amid the attack on Smith and Oliver, the fact that the Pentagon had an inventory of 30 million pounds of sarin, some of it in Southeast Asia, was mentioned but never explored.

On the much-discussed matter of CNN's wounded "credibility," the network has almost always whored for the Pentagon, shamelessly relaying its lies and evasions. During the Gulf War the weapons designer and military consultant Pierre Sprey was asked by Bernard Shaw to discuss the performance of high-tech weapons. The show turned out to be an ambush. Sprey said most of these were electronic junk, and was assailed by three Pentagon apologists, impugning his facts and his patriotism. (He retorted that he had two planes in the war, the A-10 and the F-16. How many had his critics?) Sprey turned out to be entirely right. CNN had been grossly inaccurate in a crucial aspect of its war reporting, but on this topic, we've seen no commissions of inquiry by Abrams, no snide jabs from the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz.

This same Kurtz was one of Webb's earliest and most tendentious assailants. And when the vultures began picking over Smith and Oliver, there was Kurtz again, putting the producers in the same drawer as The New Republic's faker Stephen Glass. Kurtz is on the payroll of CNN, for which he does a show, but the issue of his own self-interest was never raised. Similar questions could be asked of the work performed by Floyd Abrams for CNN. A veteran of corporate salvage work, Abrams was paid by CNN to join David Kohler, a CNN vice president and corporate counsel, in a hasty review of Smith and Oliver's original broadcast, said review completed at the start of July and resulting in CNN's recantation.

Abrams now maintains he hoped to exonerate Smith and Oliver. If this was so, why did he immediately go for help in his review to the Washington snoop firm of Kroll and hire--as Editor and Publisher disclosed in a good piece by Allan Wolper--several former career CIA officers? One of Abrams's investigators, Ted Price, was a onetime head of the CIA's clandestine services. Another, Brian Jenkins, was a former Green Beret who had briefed Kissinger several times and was quoted in Newsweek (in a despicably prejudiced and sexist piece by Evan Thomas and Gregory Vistica) deriding Smith and Oliver's work.

Why were two corporate lawyers (Abrams works on behalf of big business at Cahill Gordon) deemed to be qualified to assess a news documentary? What Smith and Oliver have faced is an endless raising of the bar of proof, otherwise known as the demand for the "smoking gun." Webb faced the same challenge. Of course, a signed order for any criminal action by the government almost never exists. And where there is such written evidence, or something remarkably like it--like Oliver North's notations on coca paste in his diaries, or a CIA memo worrying about exposure of the CIA's role in recovering $36,800 in drug money seized by the San Francisco police and returning it to contra drug smugglers--Webb's assailants simply passed it over.

There's a whole journalistic-industrial complex dedicated to keeping newsprint, TV screens and radio waves clean of destabilizing scoops damaging to corporations or the state. Here we find people like Kurtz, or Marvin Kalb, who once promoted one of the great nonsensical stories of the Reagan years, the "Bulgarian connection" in the supposed KGB plot to kill the Pope. There are always journalists and lawyers available to make the hit on the state's behalf. Back in the early 1970s one of America's most distinguished soldiers in Korea, Anthony Herbert, charged war crimes in Vietnam. Just when his disclosures were becoming a major embarrassment for the government, CBS's 60 Minutes went after him and his credibility. Herbert sued and had the gratification of seeing the biases of his assailants in CBS and the Pentagon exposed, though eventually his claims came before that famous whore for the state (and friend of the Times) Judge Irving Kaufman, who decreed that Herbert's claims could not go to trial. That servant of the vested media interests, Floyd Abrams, at one point acted for CBS. Herbert's main antagonist in the US Army, J. Ross Franklin, went to Florida, where his persuasive skills, once exercised on Mike Wallace, were directed upon elderly retirees whom he defrauded, being convicted of that offense in the early 1990s.

How many journalists or organizations associated with the profession rallied round Webb, or Gallagher, or Smith and Oliver? FAIR has done great work on all three cases. Pacifica's Democracy Now show has done fine reporting and commentary. But have any large mainstream institutional voices been raised in the defense of the beleaguered reporters and producers?

Daniel Schorr put it well in an excellent NPR commentary on the Chiquita affair. Good journalism is being criminalized or otherwise rendered perilous to its best practitioners. Attack a government agency like the CIA, or a Fortune 500 member like Chiquita, or the conduct of the military in Southeast Asia and you find yourself in deep trouble, naked and often alone.

Join a discussion in the Digital Edition Forums. Or send your letter to the editor to [e-mail].

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 11:03 PM

hi Wyo
i going to try to make a link-if not i will try to copy and paste-- i am interested in your take on this --although it is not exactly what i was looking for

peace (Y) thosp

blue clicketty thing

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: WyoWoman
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 07:57 PM

Well, again, a few rotten apples...

I've worked at newspapers for the past 20 years, and I've never even gotten a whiff of such carryings on. If I heard that one of my staff did that, they'd be fired that day, you may rest assured. Did you happen to let the station manager know what his/her staff had done in that instance?

This stuff matters. Ethics in the media matters, especially for those of us who have a passionate commitment to the First Amendment -- and anyone who loves democracy ought to, as far as I can see. I do agree that there need to be curbs on media excesses. I also think that Canada is smarter in the way it allows crime coverage, for one thing, not to take place until after the trial (as I understand it -- maybe some of our Canadian brothers and sisters will help me out here), so as not to prejudice the jury beforehand.

There's a growing conversation in professional journalism circles about the need to do more to ensure ethical behavior in the profession. Unfortunately, the Internet has made it even harder to combat the "scoop mentality" that sometimes seems to be driving the train. But it is a line I hold firm against, and I think the republic is in grave danger if the citizenry believe the media is acting in the agent provocateur role in such troubles. Even greater danger, of course, if some in the media are. But I'd bet my hat, ass and overcoat this isn't the case.

ww

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: SeanM
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 05:54 PM

Wyo...

While I respect you deeply, I also wouldn't put it past the news to have either been approached by the vandals in question or to have found someone who looked like they were prone to violence, and then letting them know that they could be filmed if they'd just wait a second.

About 10 years ago I participated in a few Family Planning pro-choice protests - being one of the ones to stand against Operation Rescue as they attempted to shut down the clinic. On one occasion, a local news station sent a camera out. While both sides were (peacefully) protesting, the "anchorperson" started dropping loud hints about "well, NOTHING happening here. Guess NOONE gets TV COVERAGE tonight HERE!". Nothing directly to anyone, but very definitely provoking some sort of "newsworthy" reaction.

Fortunately, we all kept our heads. Sadly, it also convinced me that for a few stations out there, there are no limits as to what they'd do for coverage.

M

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 05:31 PM

hi Wyo
i don't think that the majority in the media -would stage an event -or that even very many would--but i'm sure you know that in the past some have in collusion with and at the instigation of the FBI and others --i don't beleive that you ever would-- my problem for so many years was a difficulty in believing that anyone could be as evil as i have to force myself to accept they are ie. Tabacco companies,FBI etc.

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: wildlone
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 04:04 PM

I have marched with thousands through London,the media showed airial views of the crowds and very close up shots of the trouble.Violence erupts screams headlines,many arrests,but out of the total number attending about 20 made it to court.
In Reading at the Festival again thousands there 5 in court.Police crackdown on drugs headline in the local paper.It seems the media are only interested in the BAD.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: WyoWoman
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 03:17 PM

Well, as a card-carrying member of the "media," with my very own press pass and all, I take exception to that posting, m'dear Reggie. Yes, we do photograph the drama of events, but to suggest that we stage the destruction to have something to shoot is beyond stretching it. AND, it's ultimately destructive because the Founders in the U.S. constitution included a free press in its Bill of Rights for a reason. And, although some of the media do hone in far too often on the most flamboyant of events, most of us try pretty hard to get it right.

Maybe this is the difference between print and electronic media.The electronic media does tend to take quick hits of the most visually dramatic events of the day. But if there were actually people crashing store windows and turning over dumpsters to block city streets, should they have simply pretended that wasn't going on?

You can't rely just on a television broadcast to put all these issues in context. As a responsible citizen, we all need to read a variety of sources -- newspapers, magazines -- and maybe listen to some of the television and radio "magazine" shows to arrive at an informed conclusion. As an editor, I always urge my reporters to get the story behind the story and to ask deeper and better questions. We usually follow stories for several days and try to bring up the deeper issues after the first reporting of "what happened." But we can never tell it all, regardless of how we try. AND we don't always have cadres of reporters out roaming the streets seeing everything that goes on. Sometimes we are alerted to the real deal by members of the community who take the time and have the interest to call and let us know.

My son actually saw the Starbucks situation as well, and he said the Mad Smasher was accosted by two of the legitimate protestors who ordered him out of the building and then began trying to clean up the mess.

For what it's worth...

WW

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:43 PM

well said McGrath and Reggie!!!

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: sophocleese
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 01:41 PM

It does rather beg the question, what would happen if the media obviously trained their cameras on the people singing and demonstarting in a peaceful fashion and overtly turned their backs on the vandalism.

A few years ago when some women in Hamilton, and other places in Ontario, had a demonstration taking off their shirts to bare their breats the local television showed up for the event. There were only oblique angles of the women without their shirts. (there were however lots of shots of the crowd of men who showed up to see bare breasts, the interviewer clearly thought they were idiots and they certainly not portrayed in a remotely flattering way. It was very funny.)

So to connect these two thoughts; perhaps peaceful, non violent protesters, should remove articles of clothing and stand beside vandals and thus cause the cameras to turn away. Nudity can also be newsworthy, cannot easily be shown on television and is less damaging to the property of innocent bystanders.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: reggie miles
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 12:03 PM

Sawry I'm still sufferin' from an itchy trigger finger from all the excitement.

reggie

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: reggie miles
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 12:01 PM

Tuesday: By my estimations, and please understand, having only two eyes and a limited capacity to move about in some of the area, given the size of the gatherings that took place, (I could not be everywhere at once), there were more than enough officers available to accomodate the handful of those wishing to stir up the mischief that we saw so sensationally displayed on tube. Many buildings had their own security crews doing the job of law enforcement. Unfortunately many of the security personnel were not put into place until after the destruction began. Poor planning on the part of those who organizied this event allowed the destruction that took place. A few, well placed, wandering patrols could have easily quelled the tendencies of some who obviously felt as though they had a free hand to do as they pleased to the property downtown. I was witness to several cases of vandalism. There were dumpsters being taken and turned on their sides to block streets and alleys. This in my estimation was a minor offense but the ones that got to me were the window smashing incidents. I found one of the items on the ground used to break one store's window, a steel stand made of angle iron. Fortunately the store had double pane glass. It occured to me that someone might just pick it up and try again on the inner pane so I picked it up and threw it in the trash dumpster in the alley. A friend told me later, that if I were caught on tape with that item in my hand that I might have been accused of the deed. That never occured to me. I also chased a couple of the kids after I witnessed their anti-glass campaign and got in their face about it. They ran to the relative safety of their gang of eight or ten and said that I had my methods and that they had their's. I wanted to tell them that my methods included smashing as many of them as I could but I constrained myself. Besides they were ten and I was alone in my confrontation against them at the time. I too saw, from accross the street, the guy who took out the window to the Starbuck's. There were at least fourty people who stood in front of him, as if they weren't actually there but rather watching him on a big screen television. They did nothing to stop him, not one of them. There was even a news crew with one of those huge fuzzy boom microphones filming the whole thing, as if it were some sort of a performance piece. That, at once, made me mad and sad. Are we so used to viewing violent incidents vicariously that we would rather watch them than participate in their prevention? I was too far away at the time to act but they were within right in front of the guy.

Call me paranoid if you like but something is eating at me. Something I overheard that group of window smashers I confronted say to one another. After they turned away from me I heard one say to the other, Where were the cameras?" It didn't register at the time but when I saw the news crew in position in front of the Starbuck's store, waiting for the incident to take place, it made me wonder if these weren't just random acts. Another window smashing event was very acurately recorded and splashed all over the television news the following day as was the Starbuck's store window event. Think about it. Who has the most to gain. The news people get their eye candy sensationalism to air. The mayor and govenor get their excuse to crack down hard the next day when the president is scheduled to arrive. The insurance companies will certainly cover any damage. The demonstrations get a black eye. Who knows what pay off the punk thugs will reap.

Wagging The Dog was a really good flick wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: reggie miles
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 12:00 PM

Tuesday: By my estimations, and please understand, having only two eyes and a limited capacity to move about in some of the area, given the size of the gatherings that took place, (I could not be everywhere at once), there were more than enough officers available to accomodate the handful of those wishing to stir up the mischief that we saw so sensationally displayed on tube. Many buildings had their own security crews doing the job of law enforcement. Unfortunately many of the security personnel were not put into place until after the destruction began. Poor planning on the part of those who organizied this event allowed the destruction that took place. A few, well placed, wandering patrols could have easily quelled the tendencies of some who obviously felt as though they had a free hand to do as they pleased to the property downtown. I was witness to several cases of vandalism. There were dumpsters being taken and turned on their sides to block streets and alleys. This in my estimation was a minor offense but the ones that got to me were the window smashing incidents. I found one of the items on the ground used to break one store's window, a steel stand made of angle iron. Fortunately the store had double pane glass. It occured to me that someone might just pick it up and try again on the inner pane so I picked it up and threw it in the trash dumpster in the alley. A friend told me later, that if I were caught on tape with that item in my hand that I might have been accused of the deed. That never occured to me. I also chased a couple of the kids after I witnessed their anti-glass campaign and got in their face about it. They ran to the relative safety of their gang of eight or ten and said that I had my methods and that they had their's. I wanted to tell them that my methods included smashing as many of them as I could but I constrained myself. Besides they were ten and I was alone in my confrontation against them at the time. I too saw, from accross the street, the guy who took out the window to the Starbuck's. There were at least fourty people who stood in front of him, as if they weren't actually there but rather watching him on a big screen television. They did nothing to stop him, not one of them. There was even a news crew with one of those huge fuzzy boom microphones filming the whole thing, as if it were some sort of a performance piece. That, at once, made me mad and sad. Are we so used to viewing violent incidents vicariously that we would rather watch them than participate in their prevention? I was too far away at the time to act but they were within right in front of the guy.

Call me paranoid if you like but something is eating at me. Something I overheard that group of window smashers I confronted say to one another. After they turned away from me I heard one say to the other, Where were the cameras?" It didn't register at the time but when I saw the news crew in position in front of the Starbuck's store, waiting for the incident to take place, it made me wonder if these weren't just random acts. Another window smashing event was very acurately recorded and splashed all over the television news the following day as was the Starbuck's store window event. Think about it. Who has the most to gain. The news people get their eye candy sensationalism to air. The mayor and govenor get their excuse to crack down hard the next day when the president is scheduled to arrive. The insurance companies will certainly cover any damage. The demonstrations get a black eye. Who knows what pay off the punk thugs will reap.

Wagging the dog was a really good flick wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 99 - 05:32 AM

"Hipocracy" - (alphafem). Now that way of spelling it may or may not have been a typing error. But it's a neat term anyway, and I can see a lot of good use for it.

However I'd use it not so much for those who stick their necks out by taking part in direct action, as for those of us who don't like nasty things like child labour and degradation of the planet by big business and corrupt governments, but who don't actually do anything about it except maybe wear a T-shirt with a slogan, much more than for. And I'd probably include myself in this these days.

Some nasty things happened in Seattle for which it is possible to point a finger at protesters. Soome of this will have come from the crazies whom you always find anywhere, some from agent provocateurs, who had been either carefully placed there, or freelance, and some arising from ordinary people losing their head in a difficult situation.

But that's how it's always happened. It happened around Gandhi, it happened round Civil Rights and Martin Luther King and Vietnam, it definitely happened in South Africa and in Ireland. We all know that the apologists for oppression are going to seize on anything they can use, and there is always going to be something. But if we are in volved in protest we shouldn't see friernds who bring it to our attention as enemies.

Whatever happens or doesn't happen some innocent people are going to get hurt. Stores getting trashed in Seattle are a bit more visible than countries gettingn trashed by the WTO, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant. It's just that it's not the only thing that's important.

The action in Seattle and elsewhere has put the whole issue of the WTO on the front pages where it belongs.

"God writes straight with crooked lines"

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 11:48 PM

Thanks so much Reggie. For God's sake don't worry about "Mudcat polarization". It happens everytime a political or social issue is discussed on Mudcat. And it results in the kind of stunningly real and emotional writing that you will NEVER find in Newspapers or on the tube.
One of the proudest moments of my life was being given a small pin by Cesar Chavez, and I'm vain enough to be eternally thankful that I have a photograph documenting that moment, (so obviously I chose sides long ago) but on the Cat I'll repect Benjamin's post as much as Thosp's and everyone else's.
Rick

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Alphafem
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 10:47 PM

Okay, Kat. What do I believe?

...that people should not make general statements about cops being bad.

...that people who pick up a protest sign should know -something- about what the hell they are protesting about other than, "Dude, look, there's a TV camera...HEY! SCREW THE WTO!"

...that there is -never- an excuse for the destruction of innocent people's property.

...that I think it's rather pathetic that people who say they're for 'free speech' and 'freedom' and 'free rights' and 'tolerance' cannot tolerate someone saying that maybe some of the activities that took place during this protest were out of hand and wrong. (Didn't someone basically say that the family who was stuck in tear gas should suck it up because there's child labor/poverty elsewhere? Easy to say when your infant is not exposed to such harsh chemicals)

If anyone was making general assumptions, I think it was more along the lines of people assuming that Benjamin was some heartless, cruel, big business lovin' dittohead who kowtows before a printout of the WTOs evil policies five times each morning, when all he did was say "You know, the riots really suck". But look, he's actually a social activist too. Wow. Guess some people were sure wrong, huh?

Yeah, I'm passionate, but mostly about hipocracy. I'm an activist for children's rights and care myself, and it POs me to no end to see the heights of ridiculousness some people will stoop to, spending money for busfare and printed signs that will go in the wastebasket (or be dropped on the ground...or burned at intersections) patting themselves on the back for 'doing something' when there is so much -real- work to be done in the -here and now- that -never gets recognized-. You hate child labor? Then fight for children, starting in your community...it -is- catching you know. I can't help but think that these 'third world' countries that are so horrible for using child labor must look at our infant mortality rate, and child labor statistics in -the USA- and pee in their pants laughing about how big of hypocritical morons we are.

It is my biased opinion that before we start bellyaching about what the rest of the world is doing, we should invest more time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears to our own backyard. If every one of those protestors had donated their transportation fare or ten dollars to a general fund, think of what good that cold hard $$ could have done for children, or the environment, to allieviate local (or distant) hunger, to have barganing $$ to affect a few key politicians or to fund a few spokesperson's trips to Washington.

Does anyone understand my frustration about people seeming only to care about immediate gratification (like a march or protest) and to assume that 'others' will do the work in the trenches? There's nothing inherantly wrong with marches are protests, in fact they're very important. But they're frosting, not the cake. I truly feel for the people who worked tirelessly and around the clock to organize a peaceful, meaningful protest, who give of their resources and devote a significant time to these very important causes, and will now have their work remembered mostly as cops in riot gear with gas canisters. Heartbreaking.

I hope you understand why sometimes, having gone through this time and time again myself, that when I see people jumping on an 'amen brother' bandwagon, without really being specific as to their issues, I get a little sick.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Benjamin
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 03:28 PM

Kat, your probably right in that I should of gotten to know the majority of the posters before I stated my views. But different views is what makes the world go round. I just want to say that this wasn't a completely glorious fantacy tale, it had a very ugly side to it. You don't often think about the other side when you are so strongly involved in your side. People here don't want to think the side of the civilians, but were the ones who aren't going away. Coming from different ground, I found lots of remarks like "so you support the WTO" "Are you saying we should wipe out free speech," etc. I don't think I was being closed minded here as I didn't say any of this. I respect other peoples views, I don't supprot the WTO, or it's slave labor etc. But there is an entirely different side here. People shouldn't be pretending like we don't exist or just aren't important!

Thanks for the tip on the independant media link. I haven't clicked on that. I check it out some time. I would be interesting to here what they think over in Brazil about this.

At least now, It's All Over! Or at least ending today. Things can pick up where they left off now.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: kendall
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:04 PM

its true that everyone of us uses petroleum products, so, to some extent at least, we are all guilty of fouling the environment. However, I did not hire a man who lost his drivers license for drunk driving to Captain a ship full of oil. That honor goes to EXXON, and I have not bought gas from an EXXON since. (I doubt thay have noticed, but, I have noticed)

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 09:15 AM

Thanks, BE. I thought that was a given in this crowd. Kee-riced, I've been marching and protesting and conserving and recycling, etc. for umpteem years, as well as writing op/ed pieces for several papers on environmental issues.

Benjamin & Alphafem - you both are obviously passionate about what you feel and say. It would do you both some good if you tried to get to know who a lot of us are before you start making generalisations. Some of the posters whom you've derided are very well-versed in such events, very well-spoken, and very-balanced, as well as have many years experience on all sides. We have several people on here from law enforcement and many from the trenches of labour, government, and conservation movements.

Did either of you click on the link I included early on from the Independent Media Center in Seattle? ANYONE can post their reports, thoughts, poems, etc. there. There is a wealth of firsthand reports, analysis and reports of actions, motivations, etc. to be read there, from people all ove rhte world, including a poignant poem from someone in Brasil.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Ringer
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 04:43 AM

Dear kat (sorry for the delay, but we Brits have been asleep): I have no problem with your driving a car. I just want you to understand that your car uses gas and in the production of that gas it is inevitable that sometimes oil-spills occur, this being a less-than-perfect world. If we all stopped driving, flying, buying goods which are moved by trucks, there'd be no more oil-spills. But to use a car and then to blame the oil-companies for polluting the environment strikes me as a little inconsistent (there are stronger, uglier words).

Kat, please don't think I'm getting at you personally. You obviously care about the environment and do all you can to use your car as little as possible. But it needs saying.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Benjamin
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 04:17 AM

Thanks Alfafem! Nice to see someone understanding that there is another side to whats going on here. Nice to see someone sticking up for the police as well. Posters have been saying stuff like "It was the police that shot the tear gas, not the protesters." As if the police are just a bunch of trigger happy tear gassers throughing the gas down for no real reason other than they think it's fun!

I shouldn't have to repost my last post, but I tryed to give a positive look on things. I am happy to see protesters spend their day doing nothing but cleaning up trash, removing graffiti, etc. That is the kind of work is what wins them the support of the city.

Still, this has happened in a horable place at a horable time. Many independant shops depend on the Christmas season. A day like today any other year would bring in a good 5k or so. Stores that have opened (from what I'm hearing all over town) is that the shops that did open were lucky if they made back the cost of opening that day. I'm not saying tolerate slave labor, but there has to be a better way that this.

Mike, the times you got tear gasses are different. You were out protesting yourself, you weren't inocent (I'm not judging your cause, but you were in the crowd) and you weren't trapped up 5 or so stories with a disabled family you had to watch over. My friend had no part in this, and got trapped with his blind wife and 1 month old daughter (I don't believe gas is considered healthy for her age either). I do think I see the bigger picture, I don't think your seeing everything that's happening here! I don't like slave labor myself, but I do love my city. I do not think inocent civilians should have to be caught in the middle of this. You can't win a battle when your attacking the civilians and no mather what you say, your leaving the army alone.

There are lots of stuff happening here. When the protesters arived, the first thing they did was go to the streets and recrute every street kid they could to join them. Many of these kids have warents and when they get arrested, the protesters then are no where to be found. When your working with these kids, trying to help them learn some responsibility, this is a huge step back. With the down town curfew Tuesday night. A drop in center down town had to take the kids to the shelter I volunteer at (and I've never seen that place so crowded!). All these kids over 18 came in and wanted to spend the night (as we are a shelter as apposed to just a drop in center). Yet our license is 17 and under. The protests had this crowd worked and it was entirely by Gods grace we got them out at 10 (when drop in for 18+ ends) with out a fight and calling the cops. When you are really trying to help them make some progress (like getting off the streets) this isn't helping at all!

Anyways, the point of this past paragraph is to state that there is a lot more issues here than the news and/or media could care about! I've discused this with other staff at the Shelter. I've been involved here since a sophomore in Highschool. You really don't hear about what is happening some places if you are not involved some way!

I haven't said that we shouldn't protest or shouldn't use free speach. Sorry if I gave that impression, but that was putting words in my mouth and not waiting for me to spit them out! I just don't believe you need to shut down a city. If this was your backyard, you might then feel the same.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Alphafem
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 03:23 AM

There we go!

Cheers to thosp for posting an article with some of the -real- issues instead of generic "I'm for human rights" blahspeak! I too hope that the -real- protesters will be able to get -these- points across, even with the damage caused by lemmings who just want to be seen on TV holding a sign.

Thanks much!

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 02:09 AM

Human rights must be central component of multilateral investment rules There is a worrying absence of any meaningful discussion on human rights safeguards at the World Trade Organization's negotiations in Seattle, Amnesty International said today.

"No agreement on further investment liberalisation -- such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment or its successors -- should be formalised until a comprehensive analysis of its impact on human rights protection has been carried out," the human rights organization said. "In the absence of such analysis, any negotiations are premature"

"Multinational investors -- wherever they choose to operate -- have a responsibility to protect human rights," the organization added. "This includes protecting the human rights of their own employees and the rights of the members of the communities where they have economic interests."

The human rights organization takes no position on further trade liberalisation or the creation of an international framework and set of regulations to govern foreign investments. However, it does believe that any such negotiations should include a central component concerned with the worldwide protection of human rights.

Background Amnesty International is concerned that the ongoing global negotiations aimed at liberalizing trade and investment rules -- including the now discontinued draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment -- may conflict with the obligations of states to enforce crucial provisions of international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Conventions of the International Labour Organization.

Source: Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street, WC1X 8DJ, London,

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 01:53 AM

Here are 10 reasons why:

The WTO prioritizes trade and commercial considerations over all other values. WTO rules generally require domestic laws, rules and regulations designed to further worker, consumer, environmental, health, safety, human rights, animal protection, or other non-commercial interests to be undertaken in the "least trade-restrictive" fashion possible -- almost never is trade subordinated to these noncommercial concerns.

The WTO undermines democracy. Its rules drastically shrink the choices available to democratically controlled governments, with violations potentially punished with harsh penalties. The WTO actually touts this overriding of domestic decisions about how economies should be organized and corporations controlled. "Under WTO rules, once a commitment has been made to liberalize a sector of trade, it is difficult to reverse," the WTO says in a paper on the benefits of the organization which is published on its web site. "Quite often, governments use the WTO as a welcome external constraint on their policies: 'we can't do this because it would violate the WTO agreements.'"

The WTO does not just regulate, it actively promotes, global trade. Its rules are biased to facilitate global commerce at the expense of efforts to promote local economic development and policies that move communities, countries and regions in the direction of greater self-reliance.

The WTO hurts the Third World. WTO rules force Third World countries to open their markets to rich country multinationals, and abandon efforts to protect infant domestic industries. In agriculture, the opening to foreign imports, soon to be imposed on developing countries, will catalyze a massive social dislocation of many millions of rural people.

The WTO eviscerates the Precautionary Principle. WTO rules generally block countries from acting in response to potential risk -- requiring a probability before governments can move to resolve harms to human health or the environment.

The WTO squashes diversity. WTO rules establish international health, environmental and other standards as a global ceiling through a process of "harmonization;" countries or even states and cities can only exceed them by overcoming high hurdles.

The WTO operates in secrecy. Its tribunals rule on the "legality" of nations' laws, but carry out their work behind closed doors.

The WTO limits governments' ability to use their purchasing dollar for human rights, environmental, worker rights and other non-commercial purposes. In general, WTO rules state that governments can make purchases based only on quality and cost considerations.

The WTO disallows bans on imports of goods made with child labor. In general, WTO rules do not allow countries to treat products differently based on how they were produced -- irrespective of whether made with brutalized child labor, with workers exposed to toxics or with no regard for species protection.

The WTO legitimizes life patents. WTO rules permit and in some cases require patents or similar exclusive protections for life forms. Some of these problems, such as the WTO's penchant for secrecy, could potentially be fixed, but the core problems -- prioritization of commercial over other values, the constraints on democratic decision-making and the bias against local economies -- cannot, for they are inherent in the WTO itself.

Because of these unfixable problems, the World Trade Organization should be shut down, sooner rather than later.

That doesn't mean interim steps shouldn't be taken. It does mean that beneficial reforms will focus not on adding new areas of competence to the WTO or enhancing its authority, even if the new areas appear desirable (such as labor rights or competition). Instead, the reforms to pursue are those that reduce or limit the WTO's power -- for example, by denying it the authority to invalidate laws passed pursuant to international environmental agreements, limiting application of WTO agricultural rules in the Third World, or eliminating certain subject matters (such as essential medicines or life forms) from coverage under the WTO's intellectual property agreement.

These measures are necessary and desirable in their own right, and they would help generate momentum to close down the WTO.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of "Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy" (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999).

E-mail the Editors | Other articles by Mokhiber and Weissman

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: WyoWoman
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 01:28 AM

My son works in Seattle right next to the Convention Center, so he's been going through a nightmare every day to get to and from work. He has called me every night to report "from the front," and has remarked several times on how restrained the police officers seemed to be. He is a member of a union shop, so he's sensitive to labor issues, and he said he'd talked iwth the police officers around the building where he works and they seemed pretty much in agreement with a lot of what the protestors were standing up for.

However, he said a bunch of 'teeny-bopper hooligans' had come in and just gone on a rampage, as though it were 'an out of control frat party on spring break,' and he absolutely didn't respect that. But he said most people he's talked to can make that distinction and believe it wasn't the political people who were raising such hell -- in fact, some of the "crowd control" came about because the political people put a stop to some of the rampage their fellows in the street were doing.

But ... I think much of the effectiveness of this week's events will hinge on how the labor activists seize on this public awareness to educate people about the labor practices they want to see eradicated. Most people really don't have a clue what the protest is about, but if those who are objecting to WTO practices, or to those of some of the WTO members, could step into the gap now and say, "This is what is happening that we disagree with..." then maybe something very positive could come out of it.

I certainly don't think we all need to be isolatonists, but I also don't want to think that some child in Pakistan sacrificed his or her childhood to make the latest chotchke I've bought, or that some political patriot in China has been laboring to make that new piece of carryon luggage I purchased. It seems we ought to be able to have free trade AND protections for labor. Call me an idealist ...

WW

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:38 AM

also i wish i were more coherent as a writer -- but if i were as good at it as many of you are -- i wouldn't admire your ability so much --
both those of you that i agree with and those of you that i don't--

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Alphafem
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:35 AM

How I love it when people who want to promote tolerance and open-mindedness and freedom instantly come down hard on someone who's not in their camp.

The fact of the matter is, there are always multiple sides to every issue, and it's very rare when one is all good and another is all bad.

There were opposing, environmental groups that went through the paperwork to get included as -part- of the WTO activities. Sometimes, when dealing with a professional organization, it helps to rise to the professional level yourself, rather than use intimidation look-at-me-I'm-antiestablishment! tactics. The people I feel most sorry for are the legitimately peaceful and knowledgeble protesters who have now had all their hard work ruined by the shameful, violent, and destructive actions of a few. There -were- peaceful protestors putting themselves up as a human shield between the riot cops and the rioting protestors, to try to keep either side from getting hurt. -Those- are the people who I feel deserve my respect and lauding, not the people who were there to be part of the 'scene' because it was 'cool.' I full believe there were many people standing around DT after curfew who didn't know/care what the policies of the WTO were that they were protesting about.

Also, this whole cops-are-evil mentality makes me sick. All people who are for 'good causes' are saints, but the people who (except for a rotten few) regularly put their lives at risk to protect others are evil. Disgusting.

In fact, I've not heard anybody but -one- person here make anything more than a crudely general statement about what it is that they feel is so bad about the WTO (other than someone mentioning child labor. It would be more correct to state that they are frustrated that the WTO does not impose sanctions against child labor for its members--the WTO itself has no jurisdiction as to which countries tacitly or outright allow child labor. In fact, it may shock you to know that the US consents to child labor in agricultural venues, and ignores it in many other places in the US)

Personally, I think the anger you've seen is directed at the people who don't know what they're against other than the nebulous boogeyman known as the 'establishment', and the troublemakers who didn't care about the WTO at all. Nothing, -absolutely nothing- excuses mob riots, violence, or destruction of property. You don't want the police to bash your skull in for the slightest infraction do you? You want them to respect your civil liberties? Then respect your fellow citizens like you'd like to be respected, and don't destroy property or vandalize, or create a health hazard of broken glass and smoke from burning fires at intersections. To do less makes you a big, huge, neon-glowing hypocrite. So you have a right to tie up traffic made up of working people who are excercising their right to -not protest- something they don't feel compelled to. Oh, that's right, if they're not with you, then they MUST support slave labor and prison labor and child labor and the nuking of the environment. Do you have to be boorish and selfish, in order to protest?

Am I a fan of the WTO? Hell no. But I do things other than protest and get arrested. I'll bet I'm more educated about the policies and procedures of the WTO than a general majority of the people who were blocking the streets and burning newspaper vending machines are. Just because I think the violent and overly-disruptive activities of the protesters were a violation of the citizens of Seattle's 'rights' doesn't mean I -must- be a fan of the WTO or a Rushite or a gun-toting-evil-NRA-badgrrl-capitalist. I live here, and our 'guests' endangered a lot of people's lives and livelihood. And trust me, their point was lost in the destruction.

If you really want to be doing something to influence the WTO, use your money and resources to help fund NGOs and other groups that work in those countries and with those goverments, and don't buy the products of the major corporations that are part of it. Whoops, I guess that might require a little more work than borrowing a sign and hooting at people in the streets. :P Never mind.

Grumpy, fed up, and not-very-amused, AF

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: thosp
Date: 03 Dec 99 - 12:32 AM

well where to start
(1)asking if you drive a car, in this case is like askink if you still beat your wife/husband -- lets' get real -- if you want to discuss --discuss -- if you want to play word games -have fun -- we are stuck in a situation where many people do not have a choice -- they have to drive - in order to survive -- and the alternative is not going bACK TO HORSE CArt --but to get the oil companies(and others)to stop surpressing cleaner technolagies --so they can make the extra billions--
(2)now --are some here advocating the idea --that protests are wrong-or should not be allowed? if that were the case -we wouldn't have unions --- we would still have black and white only water fountains and the things that went with them --we might possibly still be in Viet Nam --might have no enviormental laws at all etc.
(3)regarding the demonstrations of the 50's and 60's - all that i know of or was involved in were planed to be non-violent -- just a couple of things about that --in some cases violence was started by onlookers who disagreed with the protesters (i experienced this personally a few times)in some cases the violence was started by the police ( i experienced this once -by i was beaten badly and arrested -finger printed and photographed-the photo didn't do any good my face was beaten into unrecognizability)
(4)years later -because of the freedom of information act -- it came out that the FBI had undercover agents snitches actually start trouble to discredit the protestes(does anyone smell a rat in seattle?) this had been standard practice since the days of union organizing and probably since recorded history --
in closing i have been involved in exercising my constitutional RIGHT since the 50's and i have NEVER and no one i knew or saw in these demonstration ever started and violence --at the most some defended themselves from attack --(from nightsticks-bottles-bats-2x4's etc.0
so what shall we do? nothing? i for one am overjoyed to see so many people caring!

peace (Y) thosp

please fogive the spelling

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 08:39 PM

"Several angry demonstrators tackled the hooligans and brought them to the police, demanding that they arrest them. the police simply had too much on their hands, and couldn't spare the manpower. instead the gangs roamed free, and the largely non-violent crowd was gassed and shot and subdued." (emily rain a little ways up the thread.

"Couldn't spare the manpower"...It's a few years since I was last in a police riot (Derry, London), but that sounds familiar enough. Yes, there have always been a few movement crazies about, but when someone next to you starts shouting "Kill the Pigs", and throwing things, it's safest to bet they've been put there by someone to do just that, and that someone isn't on the side of the people in the streets. And they aren't the ones that get busted.

But it's great to be able to talk once again about some kind of Movement, and to see at least some hope America has got through a bad bad time.

The last few years it's been a constant succession of waking up to find this tired old century has pulled yet another surprise out from its sleeve. Mostly bad ones, but not all. And for me, a good one this time.

(And that doesn't mean I don't regret the bad things happening to people who just get caught up in this kind of event, like Benjamin was talking about. In the same way, I'm sure the people who think the WTO and all that stuff is really worth it really do sometimes regret that the price for their, and our "prosperity" is child slave labour, and poor people being wiped out, and the planet being devastated. But what people who back the protest have to be sorry about is a lot less than what the fans of the WTO have to be sorry about.)

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Mike Billo
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 06:47 PM

Reggie; Our mutual friend Tom Scribener is looking down at you right now, and is happy with what he sees.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 06:45 PM

Thanks, Reggie, good to know you are alright and nothing to be ashamed of by protecting yourself by getting out of the way.

Thank you, BillC.

Emily! Good points! Wish I'd been there to march with your group! Sounds fantastic, you go gyrl!

This gives a whole new meaning to the twisted bumper sticker, "Give peas a chance.":-)

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Mike Billo
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 06:44 PM

Benjamin; I was tear gassed and arrested during the Free Speech movement in Berkely in'67. I was tear gassed and arrested at the Viet Nam Resistance Day at the Army induction center in Oakland in'69. That same year I was tear gassed, arrested and had three ribs broken marching with Cesar Chavez. So it's been 30 years since my last tear gassing, but I remember them well enough to recall that they were fairly unpleasant experiences. I also remeber that I was struggling for a higher purpose than my personal comfort or discomfort.

I very seriously doubt that an apology, and a "Gee, I should know something about people before I draw conclusions about them" will be forthcoming. But maybe by saying that, I've drawn a conclusion about you. How about it kid? Think there might be something going on that you haven't figured out yet?

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Benjamin
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 06:00 PM

To report the good among the bad now, There have been some protesters doing nothing all day except washing graffiti and picking up the trash for the cans which were knocked over. Though they were probably mostly locals who did that, I am happy to see people saying with action rather than just words alone that they did not intend for that.

I for one believe jobs should be spread all over the world, but not sweat shops paying 10 cents hour. The WTO is allowing horible things to happen and really should be stopped. But when you weigh the cause and the affect here, I doubt it will make a huge difference. I will apologize to everyone if this does end sweat shop labor in 3rd world countries.

Al, I think you're taking my words to the extreme here. "with no hope for survival" I didn't say anything like that. So this aint like the LA riots or the night Harlem burnt down, but it Doesn't have to be like this! There has to be a better way then all this!

To close, I'm not saying "we have no hope, lets all give in." I'm trying to say that I'm sure there is a better way than this! As Tom Goodkind and the Washington Squares said "It takes courage, it takes care. It's time to let out a loving to share! It's time to fight a good fight! We won't get rich but you know that's all right! And we won't stop till freedom rings... All over the world!"

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: reggie miles
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 06:00 PM

Peter T. and friends, Thanks for your concern and yes I'm alright. Lack of sleep being my only real loss. Many others have given up much more to this cause. I'm feeling a little sad after reading some of the comments that this thread has polarized some of us here. That was not my intention.

As I walked out into the sea of demonstrators from where I had parked in the Market my heart began to beat faster. I remember feeling a bit like a surge of adrenalin was heightening my senses. I wanted to get to the front lines of the demonstration to see first hand exactly what was taking place. The numbers of participants began to swell. For several blocks in every direction one could see people gathering drawn as I was to wittness this event. The vast majority of these were just like me there to only lend support by our presence. Eager to view and observe and be apart of this most unusual event. Many carried recording devices, still and video cameras, from news crews with much more impressive gear and huge fuzzy microphones on poles down to the disposable cardboard instamatics. Many were willing to brave the abusive overreactionary tactics of the authorities just to capture it on film so we could all bear witness to our system of freedom at work. We all stood about or wandered here and there to see for ourselves what was transpiring. There was no end to the various approaches to or participation in the event. At one intersection a group of demonstrators had chained themselves the a platform which was weighted with cement. This later became a makeshift stage for performers. I watched a dance troop perform while on lookers sang Amazing Grace quietly. Many streets were blocked by people locking arms together and standing quietly. Nowhere did I see any of the participants of the demonstrations brandishing weapons of any kind. Neither were any of the people wearing protective clothing like body armor in antipation of any sort of serious confrontation with the authorities. The only piece of protective gear that was evident among some of the protestors and demonstrators were gas masks. The demonstrators did not carry offensive weapons (weapons like knives or guns or concussion genades or tear gas or pepper spray or armored personnel carriers etc.) to engage in any sort battle with authorities only cameras to record the violence perpetrated on them by the police. The people occupying intersections were the first targets of the authorities. Without warning they fired at those gathered there. Some fled while others stood their ground. I'm afraid and a bit ashamed to admit I was among the former group who fled from the gas canisters, concussion grenades, rubber bullets, pepper spray and other, though not lethal, nevertheless very painful methods used against those peacefully ocupying the streets there last Tuesday.

I've got to get ready for my gig tonight more of this later. Thanks again for the concerns you've all posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: emily rain
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 05:56 PM

i, on the other hand, stayed as far away from the nastiness as possible. some friends and i participated in the labor/people's march, topless and bad-ass with the lesbian avengers. i'm tellin' you, what we did inspired something far, far removed from violence and rioting... everyone who saw us had a BIG smile on their faces. : )

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: emily rain
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 05:51 PM

i have to disagree with the statement that the peaceful protesters created the climate which led to the current chaos.

many friends of mine were in the midst of the barricades all day tuesday, and the stories they tell about the day are beautiful and inspiring. noam tells of negotiating with the police (who were becoming increasingly nervous as violence broke out elsewhere), talking them out of using gas and spray on his own group, who were acting without violence. he was making connections with these men, who are union workers after all. some of the policemen wept. jen tells of refusing again and again to let delegates pass, and getting a cheerful response: "oh well; it was worth a try!" they talked and joked and exchanged experiences, and a good number of the delegates were supportive of her cause.

chaos is born of chaos; the ones who chose to use violence are the only ones responsible for their actions. in fact, it's a shame the national guard was not called in earlier. several angry demonstrators tackled the hooligans and brought them to the police, demanding that they arrest them. the police simply had too much on their hands, and couldn't spare the manpower. instead the gangs roamed free, and the largely non-violent crowd was gassed and shot and subdued. what irony.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Willie-O
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 05:32 PM

I've been reading gripping e-mail accounts from street level Seattle the past two days, on a listserv I get which has a lot of Seattle types.

Reggie, that's a great story. Maybe you should try a different repertoire, though, how about:

"Sawlent Green"

"Tracks of My Tears"

"Bowin in the wind"

sorry...The level of police security there now, I'd be extremely hesitant to carry a saw , let alone a gun case.

Oil spills are preventable, but they are not caused by Kat driving a car. The suggestion that one's personal usage of petroleum products (yeccch) is cause for complacency is, frankly, stupid. Oil spills mainly involve ships hitting rocks or reefs and breaking up--when taking ill-advised shortcuts as in the Exxon Valdez, or because mechanical problems cause them to lose power and/or steering, and far too many aging tankers are of the single-hull design which does not take that kind of punishment. I wouldn't mind paying more for gas if the extra pennies went to mandatory double-hulls and other extra safety factors. Just as when I see a tanker truck on the highway, I want it to be the best-maintained, sturdiest rig on the road--it's the same road I'm using.

Bill C.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Fred
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 05:11 PM

Please don't allow the deliberate misdeeds of a few to cloud the genuine issues raised by responsible protestors in the streets. And don't permit middle-aged complacency to dilute "folkie values" into an I-got-mine attitude. We have seen the havoc of unregulated business -- the governing of business is as necessary as the governing of people. Our prosperity must not come from the enslavement of others or the destruction of our future.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird)
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 03:58 PM

Some Seattle Times articles and editorials that might be of interest can be found here, here, and here.

T.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 03:21 PM

As someone who has close colleagues on the ground (and a main organizer of the environmental protest as one of my dearest friends), I have avoided contributing to this, but I hope that reggie is O.K., 24 hours further along. I love the picture of him sawing away in the midst of it all. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 03:16 PM

Bald Eagle, do you have a better suggestion for someone living in a rural area, such as Wyoming, who is limited, somewhat, in what they can do physically, i.e. no hitching up ponies, riding in all kinds of weather, riding a bike, or walking long distances?

I practise conservation as much as possible and support orgs. that work for better solutions. (When I lived in an area which had public transport, I USED IT, at one point I didn't even have a car.) Until then, yes, I am guilty of driving a car as my only safe means of getting anywhere outside my home.

How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: WTO
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 99 - 02:48 PM

there are meangful, legitimate protests, and then there is the 'lunatic fringe', doing what my Mom used to call "cutting off your nose to spite your face"!

the WTO NEEDS to be made aware of real concerns, but honest buisness people in Seattle do NOT need their windows broken to make a point to some corporate exective half a world away....

Bill D...(who HAS breathed tear gas, and been stopped by southern policemen on dark raods ..and walked picket lines, and stood on RT & VT soap boxes decrying the population/environmental crisis)