Saturday, June 4, 2011

Is There No One Our Government Won’t Screw Over In Our Names?

Is There No One Our Government Won’t Screw Over In Our Names?

Are The Republicans Prepared To Lead This Nation Into An Undeniable Depression To Gain Total Control Of This Country?

Americans are going to have to wake up to the truth sometime.  I hope it will be sooner than later.

The simple fact of the matter is that WikiLeaks is exposing America's penchant for lies, cover-ups and white washing its history.  I know most Americans won't believe that its CIA terrorist organization has been responsible for near 6 million deaths in our world via coups and outright slaughter of ordinary people.

Between 1953 and 1979 the CIA in Iran running the CIA created secret police SAVAK, with some input from MOSSAD, and the CIA was responsible for thousands of deaths during these years of demented killing.

Then, the dumbass Reagan manufactured a war by proxy with Iraq, armed to the teeth with weapons, including poison gas, as well as intelligence given to Iraq from the US Spy satellite.  At one point 3,000 Iranian defenders were killed by gas defending Iran upon Iranian soil.  And, the USA and its insipid allies continue to harass Iran with the CIA giving weapons to the Kurds in the north.

It is not only MOSSAD that is active as a terrorist faction in Iraq, it is also the CIA.  

The more that becomes revealed; the more obvious it becomes that our government needs to be replaced and corporate personhood dictatorship must end. The Republicans are prepared to utterly destroy the American economy in the hopes of finally vesting themselves with the power to literally enslave this nation and enjoy the riches of the worst African or Middle Eastern  dictator.

The Nation published a scoop - momentarily - on its website about Wikileaks cables revealing pressure from Washington on Haiti's government not to raise the national minimum wage to 61 cents an hour.
The story, which got pulled, will be reposted next Wednesday, the Nation wrote, in order "to accord with the publishing schedule of Haiti Liberté," which collaborated on the article.
However, the Columbia Journalism Review has written up a summary of the Nation piece, recounting how American clothing makers with factories in Haiti were displeased after the government raised the minimum wage more than two and a half times the previous minimum 24 cents an hour.
The U.S. State Department subsequently brought pressure to bear on Haiti's president, "who duly carved out a $3 a day minimum wage for textile companies."
But the US Embassy still wasn't pleased. According to the Wikileaks report excerpted by the CJr: "A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum "did not take economic reality into account" but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to "the unemployed and underpaid masses."

Wikileaks Cables: U.S. Worked To Scuttle Haiti Gas Development ... -

CounterPunch Exclusive
What Do Governments Fear Most? They Fear Us

Ireland’s foreign-affairs minister assured the US ambassador in Dublin in 2006 that the Irish government was prepared to change the law that had allowed the acquittal of five anti-war activists for damaging a US Navy plane.

The revelation that a senior Irish official discussed possible amendments to domestic criminal law with the US ambassador is contained in a Wikileaks cable (see below) that has not been published or reported upon elsewhere, but which has been seen by Counterpunch.

At the time of the acquittal of the so-called Shannon Five, or Pitstop Ploughshares, in July 2006, the US embassy made a public statement expressing its disquiet about the verdict. The then foreign minister, Dermot Ahern, responded with what was seen as a firm public statement of his own, underlining the independence of the judicial system and stating that its verdicts were not a matter for discussion by government officials or between governments.

The cable reveals, however, that a few months later Ahern privately told US officials that the “the Irish Government Cabinet” had been greatly disturbed by the unanimous jury verdict. (The delay between the verdict and this meeting may have been caused by a change-over in US ambassadors.) Ahern told the Americans that the Cabinet had asked the justice minister, Michael McDowell, to examine how the Criminal Damage Act might be amended to close the “legal loophole” that allowed the Shannon Five to be acquitted, so that such a verdict could not happen again. A previously released cable from the same period quotes a senior foreign-affairs bureaucrat telling the Americans the verdict was “bizarre”.

The five, members of the Dublin Catholic Worker, were acquitted after a trial in which their lawyers relied on the statute’s defense of “lawful excuse” for defendants who damage property in the honest belief that doing so will protect life or property, as long as that belief is reasonable in the circumstances. The law does not explicitly require that the threat to life or property be “immediate”.

Justice minister McDowell, a notorious right-wing ideologue, lost his parliamentary seat and thus his government post in the election of May 2007, six months after Ahern told US officials McDowell would be seeking to change the law, which has remained unamended.

These November 2006 discussions of the legalities of the Shannon case are the latest in a series of Wikileaks revelations – some published last autumn, others being reported in Irish print and broadcast media this week – that show Irish officials at pains to help the US in its use of Shannon Airport for military purposes and, perhaps, CIA “extraordinary rendition” flights. Irish bureaucrats even asked US officials for their legal advice about why American planes at Shannon should not be inspected by police here, and said that such advice would be a guide for Irish policy.

Cables sent from the US embassy over a period of years show Irish officials specifically turning a blind eye to the possibility that rendition flights were landing in the west of this neutral country. Senior Irish politicians appear to have relied on vague assurances from US officials but repeatedly expressed concerns that they would be caught lying to the Irish parliament and people if a rendition flight were discovered at Shannon. In December 2004 Taoiseach (prime minister) Bertie Ahern (no relation to Dermot) told the US ambassador that he had been saying publicly that there were no such flights, and pleaded: “Am I all right on this?”

American and Irish officials freely acknowledged that the US use of Shannon as a stopover for troops and military equipment was unpopular with the Irish public, especially when the issue of renditions arose, but discussed ways that they could cooperate on managing media and public relations. After the Green Party joined Ireland’s governing coalition in 2007, it insisted on the setting up of a Cabinet sub-committee on human-rights issues, including those raised by Shannon. A US embassy cable correctly identified the subcommittee as a “sop” to the Greens that would cause no trouble to the Americans.

Like many of the cables from around the world, the Dublin cables so far revealed through Wikileaks show US diplomats effectively united with their local counterparts against a common enemy: the people – whether the people take the form of anti-war activists, jurors or voters in an upcoming election. Cables consistently praise the Irish government for its efforts “in the face of public criticism” on behalf of the US in Shannon, described by ambassador James Kenny in 2004 as “a key transit point for U.S. troops and materiel bound for theatres in the war on terror”.

A cable written by Kenny in 2006 and published by Wikileaks late last year admits that ”the airport [is] a symbol of Irish complicity in perceived U.S. wrongdoing in the Gulf/Middle East” and that “popular sentiment was manifest in the July 25 jury decision to acquit the ‘Shannon Five,’ a group of anti-war protesters who damaged a U.S. naval aircraft at the airport in 2003.”

Some of the Wikileaks revelations have received prominent coverage in Ireland, notably in the Irish Independent and Belfast Telegraph newspapers, which have partnered with Wikileaks for a series of well displayed and heavily advertised stories this week. However, neither the newspapers nor state broadcaster RTE, which obtained several Shannon-related cables and reported on them on Thursday evening, have been publishing the cables, merely reporting on extracts, and not always even including the reports on their websites.

Wikileaks typically itself publishes cables on its own website once they have been reported upon and redacted by its media partners, but at the time of writing only 18 Dublin cables have appeared on the Wikileaks site this week, perhaps delayed because of the newspapers’ print-only policy with many of the stories. I calculate, conservatively, that at least 30 different Dublin cables have been quoted so far this week, but the number is uncertain because they have often been used without specific dates being cited. Neither the print nor broadcast journalists have seen fit to report on the cable discussed above, though I understand both RTE and the Irish Independent have it in their possession.

The Wikileaks revelations over the last year or so – from the Iraq and Afghan war logs to the diplomatic cables – have revealed a great deal about the operations of governments. They have also revealed some of the profound failings of the mainstream media, which, when they are not denouncing Julian Assange and ignoring Bradley Manning, can be found squabbling over the “exclusives” that those men’s efforts have apparently brought us. There is a long way to go, in Ireland and elsewhere, before this information is truly free.

Harry Browne lectures in journalism at Dublin Institute of Technology. He is the author of HammeredBytheIrish, a book about the Shannon Five case, published by CounterPunch / AK Press. Contact
The Dublin Cables.
source:Embassy Dublin
▶C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 DUBLIN 001284
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2015
▼ Close cable
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 DUBLIN 001284
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2015
B. DUBLIN 1172
C. STATE 172627
DUBLIN 00001284 001.2 OF 003

Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Jonathan Benton; Reasons 1.4 (B)
and (D).
1. (C) Summary. In a November 1 discussion, the Ambassador and Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern did a tour d'horizon of key bilateral issues. Ahern:
-- urged bilateral cooperation to avoid "surprises" regarding U.S. military use of Shannon Airport;
-- noted that the Irish Cabinet had charged the Justice Minister to review legal loopholes used by the Shannon Five to avoid prosecution for damaging a U.S. naval plane in 2003;
-- said that he did not expect the Northern Ireland Assembly to meet the November 24 deadline for nominating an Executive, due to the impasse on oath/policing issues;
-- expressed disappointment with the failure of Northern Ireland parties to engage directly on follow-through for the St. Andrews Agreement; and,
-- observed that the Irish Government would continue to lobby the USG to regularize the status of undocumented Irish citizens resident in the United States.

2. (C) The Ambassador:
-- noted appreciation for U.S. military use of Shannon and offered the USG's best efforts to avoid missteps;
-- emphasized the goal of preventing future actions by Irish protestors to disrupt U.S. operations at Shannon;
-- underscored continued USG support for the Northern Ireland peace process;
-- expressed gratitude for the scheduled November 9 extradition of U.S. citizen Frederick Russell, but cautioned that failure to act on other extradition requests could give Ireland the image of a criminal haven; and,
-- observed that movement on Irish concerns about undocumented citizens in the United States would be difficult. End summary.

3. (C) In a November 1 introductory discussion with the Ambassador, Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern urged bilateral cooperation to avoid "surprises" regarding U.S. military use of Shannon Airport. Ahern recalled that the Irish Parliament had required him to explain previous U.S. pre-notification failures on Shannon transits involving weapons and U.S.military prisoners. He was also scheduled to address the European Parliament shortly on allegations that Ireland has assisted in extraordinary rendition flights, which he planned to rebuff on the basis of previous USG assurances on the issue. Ahern conceded that the Irish Government was partly to blame for missteps at Shannon, as the Department of Transport had not previously sought full information on the materiel/passengers in transit -- a shortcoming that Ireland aimed to correct in the context of global terrorist threats. The Ambassador expressed appreciation for U.S. military use of Shannon, and he offered the USG's best efforts to avoid
missteps and to coordinate on any necessary media strategy. 

Ahern noted that the Embassy's public outreach to explain the June transit of a Marine prisoner had helped to diffuse public criticism over the event.

4. (C) The Irish court decision to acquit five persons who had damaged a U.S. naval plane at Shannon Airport in 2003 (the so-called "Shannon Five") had seriously disturbed the Irish Government Cabinet, Ahern said (ref A). He explained that while there were no means to overturn the jury decision,the Cabinet had requested Minster for Justice Michael McDowell to examine ways to close off legal loopholes exploited by defense lawyers (who argued that the defendants had sought to prevent loss of life in Iraq). The Ambassador emphasized the goal of preventing future actions by Irish citizens to disrupt U.S. military operations at Shannon. Ahern replied that airport security had been upgraded following the Shannon Five verdict and that the protest movement appeared to be losing steam, as evident is a
sparsely attended October 28 rally at Shannon.
DUBLIN 00001284 002.2 OF 003

Northern Ireland
5. (C) Ahern said that he was "reasonably hopeful" about the prospects for follow-through on the St. Andrews Agreement, but he did not expect the Northern Assembly to meet by the November 24 deadline to nominate the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, given the impasse over the Executive oath on policing. Ahern judged that unionists were unreasonable to require a Sinn Fein pledge on policing before the party as a whole had authorized this step. On the other hand, Sinn Fein had been obstinate in declining to call a party conference before November 24, observed Ahern. He added that a further complication in negotiations was Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) reluctance to engage in face-to-face discussions with Sinn Fein on the policing/oath hurdle. This reluctance was a regression from late 2004, when Sinn Fein and the DUP had substantive, direct contact in pursuit of a devolution deal at that time. The Ambassador
underscored continuing USG willingness to support the peace process in every possible capacity.

6. (C) The Irish Government had no illusions that progress on policing as part of the negotiations would be "tortuous," Ahern observed. He recounted serious discrimination by the former Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) against nationalists across the border from his home county of Louth. He also took note of remarks by DUP leader Nigel Dodds and others expressing reluctance to allow "former terrorists" within the republican community to participate in policing and justice structures. Ahern pointed out that the ill-fated 2004 agreement had pushed the policing issue off to the future and
that parties remained stalled on this point, although Sinn Fein had shown progress on policing cooperation over the past year.
Other Key Issues 

7. (C) The Ambassador and Ahern also discussed briefly the following issues:

A. Extradition. The expected November 9 extradition of U.S. citizen Frederick Russell demonstrated Irish willingness to work through U.S. extradition requests, said Ahern (ref B). He observed that the Irish Government was precluded from lobbying the Irish judiciary on extradition issues, making it imperative for U.S. federal/state justice officials to satisfy the courts' requests for thorough, uniform documentation in such cases. He added that Ireland had been innately reluctant to transfer criminal suspects to foreign jurisdictions, particularly in the 1970-80s when republicans involved in the Northern Ireland Troubles would cross the border to evade British authorities. The Ambassador expressed gratitude for Irish action on the Russell case, but cautioned that failure to act on other extradition requests could give Ireland the image of a criminal haven.

B. Undocumented Irish. According to Ahern, Irish officials would continue to press the USG for measures to regularize the status of up to 50,000 undocumented Irish resident in the United States, while recognizing that this Irish segment was part of a larger picture of illegal immigration. He said that a recent proposal (floated by Irish parliamentarian Tom Kitt) for a bilateral agreement that would ease mutual entry/residence restrictions for Irish and U.S. nationals deserved consideration. The Ambassador noted the Administration's sensitivity to long-term undocumented U.S. residents who were contributing to their communities, but he added that the Congress seemed disinclined at the moment to consider any form of amnesty.

C. Cuba. Ahern committed to discuss with Deputy Prime Minister (Tanaiste) and Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, the USG request for Ireland to resettle roughly 30 Cuban migrants housed in Guantanamo who were determined by DHS to have a well founded fear of persecution (ref C). Ahern noted that Ireland had recently coordinated with UNHCR to accept ten refugees resident in Malta, who had arrived as part of a burgeoning flow of African migrants into southern EU Member States.

D. Lebanon. The Ambassador noted that 150 Irish troops had arrived in Lebanon on October 30 as part of the expanded UNIFIL force, and he expressed appreciation for Ireland's contribution. Ahern replied that Ireland's experience in UNIFIL and familiarity with local Lebanese communities had obliged the Government to contribute troops, even though the Taoiseach initially had opposed deployment in view of Irish DUBLIN 00001284 003.2 OF 003 commitments to other UN peacekeeping operations.

E. IFI. The Irish Government, said Ahern, would lobby Congress for continued U.S. support of the International Fund for Ireland (IFI), which would help to advance the generation-long process of community reconciliation in Northern Ireland and Irish border counties. He cited Ballymena in Northern Ireland as a community riven by sectarianism, as seen in the recent murder of a Catholic youth and the reluctance of local unionist politicians to work with republican counterparts.

Wikileaks Wikileaks: KKK OK but not WikiLeaks for some payment processors —

I Don’t Care If You Think The Current Crop Of 2012 Republican Hopefuls Have No Real Purpose Than To Provide Late Night Comedy Material; I Need To Remind You That: James Carville Said: “It’s The Economy Stupid!”; And He Was Right!

Equities markets have been battered all week by bad economic data sending investors piling into "risk free" Treasuries. The Dow Jones slipped 276 points on Wednesday followed by a 41-point loss on Thursday. The benchmark 10-year Treasury has ducked below 3 percent, repeatedly signaling a slowdown that could lead to another recession.

 On Wednesday, the S&P/Case Shiller home-price index confirmed that the five-year long housing crash was still gaining pace. Home prices have fallen to their lowest level in eight years with no end in sight. Meanwhile the Chicago Manufacturing Gauge recorded its biggest decline in 2.5 years while factory orders dropped in April by the most since May, 2010. There was also bad news on the unemployment front where privately-owned businesses hired only 38,000 workers from April to May, nearly 100,000 less jobs than analysts had predicted. Also, consumer confidence fell to its lowest reading in six months.

So, housing, manufacturing, unemployment and consumer confidence are all down, down, down and down.

Friday's unemployment report was also worse than expected. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that unemployment rose to 9.1 percent while the Labor Force Participation Rate remained stuck at 64.2%, well below the normal rate of 67%. According to Calculated Risk, "The current employment recession is by far the worst recession since WWII in percentage terms...(The BLS report) was well below expectations for payroll jobs, and the unemployment rate was higher than expected."

So, no new jobs are being created and the economy is quickly decelerating. It's all bad.

On Friday, the chairman of RIT Capital Partners Jacob Rothschild issued a warning about the fragility of world markets and the bleak prospects for future growth. He said, "The risks ahead are glaring and global. It is likely that the withdrawal of the fiscal and monetary stimuli which will surely come soon will have an impact on global growth. Indeed there is already evidence of some slowing down."

Commodities have already been walloped, but the real carnage is yet to come. This is from Bloomberg:…

Making the US Economy ‘Scream’

…”The hard reality in the United States today is that the Republicans and the Right are now fully organized, armed with a potent propaganda machine and possessing an extraordinary political will.

They are well-positioned to roll the U.S. economy off the cliff and blame the catastrophe on Obama.

Indeed, that may be their best hope for winning Election 2012.”…

No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.

With this in mind, the latest employment figures make grim reading for Barack Obama. After a week that has seen renewed talk of a double-dip recession, the US Department of Labor today announced that unemployment rose unexpectedly to 9.1 per cent, from 9 per cent a month earlier, with only 54,000 net new jobs added, well below the 150,000 that had been forecast. There's now no chance of unemployment falling below 7.2 per cent before November 2012.

So, how worried should Obama be? It all depends on context. As Steve Benennotes at the Washington Monthly, FDR was able to win a second term because unemployment was falling, not rising. When Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936, unemployment stood at 17 per cent but this was still down from 22 per cent in 1934 and 25 per cent in 1932. The public were satisfied because the figures were moving in the right direction. Similarly, as the NYTpoints out: "Ronald Reagan won, despite 7.2 percent unemployment in November 1984, because the rate was falling and voters decided he was fixing the problem."

Thus, Obama's challenge is to reduce unemployment to a level that voters, given the global economic context, are willing to tolerate. The Roosevelt precedent suggests that this could be significantly higher than 7.2 per cent.

Remembering I F Stone


Even Julian Assange salutes him — America’s greatest investigative journalist remains a hero and an inspiration to whistleblowers the world over. 

I've never met Julian Assange. And the WikiLeaks founder, who was still a teenage hacker in Australia when I F Stone died in 1989, never met Stone. Yet, in his foreword to American Radical, my biography of America's greatest investigative journalist, Assange writes that Stone was "an important influence" on him. Why should a writer whose best-known creation, the four-page newsletter I F Stone's Weekly, ceased publication the year Assange was born still exert such an influence more than two decades after his death?

One clue comes from a New Statesman/Frontline Club debate that was held on 9 April. The motion was: "This house believes whistleblowers make the world a safer place." Assange, speaking in favour, began by conceding that some government secrecy may be legitimate. The problem is that, since governments decide what information can be kept from the public, there is no way for citizens to challenge their decisions. "All systems of censorship have that problem encoded within them," he said. "The only way we can know whether information is legitimately kept secret is when it is revealed."

Assange then described "some situations in history that have led to war". His first example was the Vietnam war, which was "triggered by the Gulf of Tonkin incident - a lie about an American boat off the coast of Vietnam, which the US government claimed had been attacked by theVietnamese. That claim was a lie."

Assange knows his history. On 4 August 1964, President Lyndon B Johnson told the American people that the North Vietnamese navy had been guilty of "aggression on the high seas" and asked Congress for the authority to "take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defense of peace in south-east Asia". Most of the world learned that the Johnson administration had been lying when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers", a secret history of US involvement in Vietnam, to the New York Times in 1971. (Ellsberg had been a duty officer at the Pentagon in August 1964 and knew that one of the ships that the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, described as the victim of an "unprovoked attack" had been engaged in electronic warfare.) By 1995, even McNamara would admit that at least one of the supposed attacks was a complete fabrication.

But in 1964, Congress gave the president the blank cheque he wanted. The vote in the House of Representatives was unanimous; in the Senate, there were just two dissenters, who were duly insulted by the New Yorker magazine.

The mainstream press was behind Johnson. Yet, even before Congress took a vote, Stone told his readers: "Everything is discussed, except the possibility that the attack[s] might have been provoked." Two weeks later, using nothing but his knowledge of history and the suspicious lack of damage to the ships that had supposedly been attacked, Stone blew the whistle on Johnson's deception.

And, in February 1965, when the state department published a white paper depicting the Vietnamese rebellion as an instance of Chinese-sponsored subversion, Stone used the Pentagon's own figures to demolish the government's claims. More than any other figure, he gave the anti-Vietnam war movement of the 1960s something the American left hadn't had for a long time: credibility.

So who was he? He was born Isidor Feinstein in Philadelphia in 1907, the eldest son of Russian-Jewish immigrants who later moved to the small rural town of Haddonfield, New Jersey, where Isidor got his first newspaper job covering high school sports. After dropping out of college, he worked on papers in Camden and Philadelphia before becoming chief editorial writer for the New York Post - in those days a liberal, pro-New Deal broadsheet - a few days shy of his 26th birthday.

As the Great Depression deepened, he turned from liberal to radical, writing for the Nation, investigating corruption in labour unions and successfully campaigning to get New York's red-baiting chief of police fired. But by the late 1930s, his politics were best summed up by the phrase "anti-fascism".

His support for the Spanish Republic got the Post banned by the Catholic archdiocese and his insistence that the US would have to go to war to stop Hitler eventually got him fired. By then, he'd changed his byline to "I F Stone", adopting the name legally as a concession to rising anti-Semitism, and moved to the left-wing tabloid PM - the paper that introduced America to Dr Spock and Dr Seuss - as columnist and star reporter. His exposés of how US corporations such as Alcoa put profits before preparedness on the eve of Pearl Harbor brought plaudits from Senator Harry Truman, who later, as president, also eagerly followed Stone's despatches from the underground railroad that took Jewish refugees from Europe to Pales­tine. (Stone, who covered Israel's war of independence from the front lines, became one of the most passionate advocates of justice for the Palestinians.)

In the 1930s, his easy access to FDR's White House made him a consummate Washington insider. He was a radio pundit and a regular panellist on Meet the Press in its early years on television. But after Roosevelt's death, Stone's refusal to abandon his Popular Front belief in the need for liberals and radicals to work together made him an increasingly isolated figure. During the postwar red scare, his unstinting attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and the FBI chief J Edgar Hoover brought the wrath of the Bureau down on his head. By 1952, he was practically deaf, out of work and saddled with a manuscript of The Hidden History of the Korean War which even the New Statesman was afraid to publish. The US state department refused to renew his passport and the Nation wouldn't give him his old job back. "I feel for the moment like a ghost," he wrote.

And yet what followed was anything but elegiac. He struck out on his own, starting I F Stone's Weekly in 1953 with barely 4,000 subscribers. By the time he shut the Weekly down 18 years later, circulation had risen above 70,000 - helped in part by supporters such as Marilyn Monroe, who bought subscriptions for every member of Congress. Besides his prophetic opposition to the Vietnam war, he exposed the dangers of nuclear fallout and atmospheric testing, campaigned for civil rights for black Americans and travelled to Cuba, where he struck up a warm friendship with Che Guevara.

It isn't just the echoes of US imperial mis­adventures that make Stone required reading today. As Assange writes in his foreword, "His keen insight into how institutions carry their power and disperse it among individuals working within them is something he managed to apply even to ancient Greece." Stone's book The Trial of Socrates, published in 1988, near the end of his life, was a surprise bestseller.

His radicalism made him a pariah, an unperson who was kept off American television and radio for nearly 15 years. But, as Assange writes, "Stone never gave up, and he never foolishly compromised. That is his great lesson for British journalists."

When I started work on Stone's biography in 1991, the first thing I did was place a Freedom of Information request for his FBI file. By the time the FBI released the last of some 6,000 pages in late 2005, it was clear just what his determination had cost him: Hoover's men had tapped his phones, opened his mail and subjected him and his family to daily surveillance.

Stone was no believer in the myth of "objective" journalism. "What they call 'objectivity' usually is seeing things the same way everybody else sees them," he once said. Instead, the man who wrote that "all governments lie" remained determined to see for himself.

“Establishment reporters undoubtedly know a lot of things I don't," he often said. "But a lot of what they know isn't true." Which is one reason why, even today, Stone remains such a dangerous man.

D D Guttenplan's "American Radical: the Life and Times of I F Stone" (£25) will be published by Quartet/Charles Glass Books on 9 Jun

No comments: