Anton Chaitkin

A behavior control research project was begun in the 1950s, coordinated by the British psychological warfare unit called the Tavistock Institute, with the Scottish Rite Masons, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other British, U.S., Canadian, and United Nations agencies. The project became famous in the 1970s under a CIA code name, “MK-Ultra.” Its notoriety for brainwashing by drugs, hypnosis, electroshock, and other tortures caused many books to be written about the project, and the U.S. Senate conducted hearings which exposed many of its abusive features.President Gerald Ford appointed a commission headed by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, to correct the CIA’s misconduct.

There was a widespread anti-establishment view at the time, that here was the fox appointed to guard the hen house. The intelligence agencies offered a public rationale for the project: the need to counteract and compete with the mind-control capabilities of the communists. This was largely based on the fact that U.S. personnel held prisoner by the enemy in the Korean War had signed false confessions of crimes, and some had defected to North Korea, the apparent result of brainwashing. The Manchurian Candidate, a 1959 book which was made into a popular movie in 1962, reflected this rationale. It told the story of a communist plot to use a U.S. soldier brainwashed in Manchuria as a zombie-assassin, to kill the leading U.S. presidential candidate. A central theme of MK-Ultra was to attempt to control the human mind in a similar way.

Threatened and accomplished assassination of political leaders has become increasingly frequent in public life since the 1960s. Many of these would-be killers, and many of the assassins of past years, had been in destructive psychiatric programs, or were members of psychiatrically manipulated cults. The present threats are the more meaningful, in the context of the British-led Whitewater scandal directed against the presidency. It is long past time for a thorough public inquiry into the assassination epidemic, whereby its relationship to the official project to create assassins would be fully explored.

Barry Grey

Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi

A Chilean court issued a ruling Monday that the commander of US military forces in Chile played a pivotal role in the murder of two US citizens following the September 1973 coup that overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende and installed General Augusto Pinochet as dictator.

“The military intelligence services of the United States had a fundamental role in the creation of the murders of the two American citizens in 1973, providing Chilean military officers with the information that led to their deaths,” the ruling by Judge Jorge Zepeda said.

The ruling went on to say that the murders were part of “a secret United States information-gathering operation carried out by the US Milgroup [Military Group] in Chile on the political activities of American citizens in the United States and Chile.”

Judge Zepeda found that US Navy Captain Ray E. Davis provided his Chilean liaison, Raúl Monsalve, with information casting the two Americans, 31-year-old journalist Charles Horman and 24-year-old student Frank Teruggi, as left-wing subversives. Monsalve passed on the information to the Intelligence Department of the Chilean Joint Chiefs of Staff, which ordered the men’s arrests.

Horman, whose abduction and murder were depicted in the award-winning 1982 film Missing, was seized from his home by soldiers on September 17 and taken to Santiago’s National Stadium, which had been turned by the US-backed junta into a detention, torture and execution center. An estimated 10,000 people were incarcerated at the stadium in the immediate aftermath of the coup. Horman was severely tortured and shot to death on September 18. His corpse was hidden in a wall in the stadium and only discovered a month later. Teruggi was arrested on September 20 and taken to the stadium. He was tortured and executed the following day.

Tom Mysiewicz

GMO Crops…Boon To Humanity Or Reckless Science?

Recently, an NGO (non-governmental organization) in Russia—the National Association for Genetic Safety–began working closely with the Russian Duma to enact a set of laws criminalizing the introduction of harmful genetically-modified crops (GM or GMO crops) as well as withholding information on harmful effects of such crops. Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated he will sign such legislation, saying Russia can grow enough food for itself without genetic engineering it.

“If Americans like to eat such foods, they can eat them,” Putin is reported to have said. But with GMO companies in the U.S. massively campaigning to hide GMO content—do Americans really know what they are eating?

I believe Russia and, increasingly, countries elsewhere, are on the right track in this regard. And I base this belief on my first-hand observations from the inception of GMO crops—and the original promises made and assurances given for this technology—to the much different reality I see today.

As founder and editor of the weekly biotechnology newsletter–BioEngineering News–I covered GMOs and ag-biotech from 1980 through 1993 and was the first journalist allowed (under a secrecy agreement) to cover a Gordon Research Conference. This groundbreaking conference, on Plant Genetic Engineering, was at U.C. Davis in the early 1980s. I have also had hands-on research experience, including lab courses on plant tissue culture in which I cloned a variety of plants from jojoba to redwood.

The original promise of genetic engineering was that crops could be grown without fertilizer or pesticides, in salt water if fresh water was scarce, and that the nutritional content could be altered at will by the addition of genes for amino acids (the building blocks of protein) such as L-lysine and genes coding for vitamins, such as vitamin A. In this “brave new world” hunger and malnutrition would be eliminated by massively higher crop yields. And there would be no down side: We were assured that there would be no actual or consequential harmful effects from such alterations.

Many Americans are not aware that the system of clinical trials and double-blind studies for new drugs means that it can cost $30- to $60-million to get a single new drug through FDA-mandated clinical trials. And, still, how many horror stories have we heard of dangerous drug side effects? Imagine if NO clinical trials were required for new drugs and only some rudimentary safety testing was necessary? Would you feel safe taking a new drug?

Stephen Lendman

George W. Bush has said he has no regrets with his presidency,
declaring that he is "comfortable" with his legacy...

Throughout his tenure, media scoundrels were largely supportive. They ignored his 2000 electoral theft. In 2004, they did so again. They backed his imperial wars. They turned a blind eye to police state injustice. They ignored torture on a global scale. They mischaracterized the measure of the man.

Early on, the New York Times praised his "new gravitas." It was days after he attacked Afghanistan. It was premeditated lawless aggression. It was two weeks before he signed the Patriot Act.

Times editors called him "confident" and "determined." He showed "statesmanship." "It was heartening to hear him say" America will fight in Afghanistan "as long as it takes."

They ignored an imperial war planned long before 9/11. They called him "a leader whom the nation could follow in these difficult times." They're comfortable with his legacy. Two recent articles feature his new presidential library and museum. More on them below.

Charles Davis & Medea Benjamin

Blindly obeying authority – always for personal gain – has been a hallmark of Powell’s career. ["It Worked for Me"]

One could be forgiven for thinking there's anything honorable or honest about Colin Powell. For more than two decades now the Washington media has portrayed the former Secretary of State as something of a real life action hero, a reluctant warrior whose greatest fault – should they deign to mention any – was just being too darn loyal to a guy named George and his buddy Dick. What you might have missed is that Powell is a war criminal in his own right, one who in more than four decades of “public service” helped kill people from Vietnam to Panama to Iraq who never posed a threat to America. But don't just take some anti-war activists' word for it: Powell will proudly tell you as much, so long as he can make a buck from doing it in a book.

Powell's latest $27.99 account of his legendary life is billed as a “powerful portrait of a leader who is reflective, self-effacing, and grateful for the contributions of everyone he works with.” But the title, It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership, could very well refer to Powell's own careerist ambitions: saying and doing whatever served the interests of power – as a young officer in Vietnam, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the illegal invasion of Panama, as Secretary of State under George W. Bush – has worked out tremendously well for the man, if not so much for those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of his public service.

Though billed as a self-effacing, humble leader prepared to admit mistakes, the real Colin Powell is not the one advertised by the P.R. department at HarperCollins. His book makes that clear enough when he discusses his now infamous 2003 presentation before the United Nations on Iraq's alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. Nearly every line in that speech has since proven to be false – indeed, much of his presentation was known to be false at the time – but you won't find Powell owning up to that.

Charles Davis & Medea Benjamin

Repression is worse now than under Mubarak, says AI report.

Confronted with popular protest, the country's unelected rulers have doubled down on repression, jailing peaceful activists and killing dozens of civilians who have the gall to exercise their rights. Those who state security forces haven't killed for demanding democracy have been tear-gassed and brought before the perverted justice of a military court, even as the ruling clique promises the world and its red-eyed subjects democratic reform. Eventually.

Were it Syria or Iran, the rhetoric from Washington would be stern, aggressive even. But since the repressive ruling clique is the military junta in Egypt, the lectures are timid – and coupled with a handout. Indeed, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced, the Obama administration is waiving a legislative requirement that made military assistance to Egypt conditional on its rulers “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law.” This allows the U.S. government to send Egypt's rulers $1.5 billion in taxpayer money, more than 85 percent of which is explicitly set aside for the armed forces.

If one only pays attention to what politicians say, ignoring what they do, this may come as a surprise. President Barack Obama, after all, has voiced support for the Arab Spring. He gave a speech in Cairo full of lofty words about the people of the region's legitimate democratic aspirations. So why would his administration lavish a regime that cracks down on pro-democracy forces with money for weapons?

Charles Davis & Medea Benjamin

In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer – and poor foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.

Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to “long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” This, to some pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift.

Jacob G. Hornberger

General Augusto Pinochet with Henry Kissinger. They
seem to be happy about their success in toppling the
democratically elected government of Salvador Allende.

A Chilean judge has indicted a retired U.S. Naval officer, Capt. Ray E. Davis, in the murder of two American citizens in Chile during the U.S.-supported Pinochet coup in 1973. The indictment indicates that the U.S. military and the CIA may have been responsible for the national-security assassination of two Americans several decades before the start of the war on terrorism.

The two Americans were journalists — 31-year-old Charles Horman and 24-year-old Frank Teruggi. During the Pinochet coup in 1973, both men were taken captive and executed in cold blood.

For decades, the CIA, playing the innocent, denied any involvement in the murders.

Then, in 1999 a declassified State Department document revealed that the CIA had, in fact, played some unidentified role in at least Horman’s murder.

What role? We don’t know. Ever since the revelation of that State Department document, the CIA has remained mum on the case, obviously taking the position that secrecy and cover-up is the best policy.

By the same token, despite the fact that the State Department document clearly furnished sufficient cause to impanel a federal grand jury to investigate the CIA’s role in the murders, the Justice Department under both Republican and Democratic regimes has steadfastly failed and refused to do so.

At the same time, Congress has failed and refused to open an investigation into the murders, in the process subpoenaing CIA officials to testify what exactly the CIA’s role was in the murders, the identity of the CIA officials who participated in the murders, and whether President Richard Nixon or other high U.S. officials ordered the hit to be made on the two Americans.

Horman’s murder was the subject of the movie “Missing,” starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek.

Charles E. Carlson

Anders Breivik and Mossad agent Pamela Geller

Everyone has heard the legal explanation of when free speech becomes a crime. “You must not cry 'fire' in a crowded theater." According to the findings of the Norway court-appointed psychiatrists who examined Anders Breivik, he believes there is an immigration fire in his native country, so he killed or wounded some 80 Norwegian youths whose parents belong to the political party he blames for the migration of Muslims into Norway.

Note that Breivik, as far as we know, did not gain a single krone for his violent, well-planned deed. And he risked his own life to do it, for had the police shown up before he ran out of bullets [1], or if anyone on Utøya Island had had a gun, Breivik would likely have been shot down. As it stands, Breivik may be in a mental institution for a few years, or for the rest of his life.

Some good may come from the unfamiliar and seemingly overgenerous Norwegian law, because it will now bring focus on those who Breivik heard shouting “fire” and who influenced him to kill 74 youths. Unlike Breivik, many of them are well paid and rewarded for promoting war.

Charles E. Carlson

Pastor Maury Davis's church website tells that "he was arrested at age eighteen for the crime of first-degree murder. Following his trial and conviction, he served eight and one-half years in the Texas Department of Corrections." He claims 3900 members at Cornerstone church, where he emphasizes that if Jesus can forgive him, anyone can be forgiven. We do not disagree.

It is not our business to judge God's work, but if indeed Maury Davis repented for killing just one middle-aged woman, why did he sponsor a "Preserving Freedom Conference," inside his church which openly promoted hatred and fear of Muslims. Most of the Conference participants openly called for preemptive war upon Iran. Nor is this the first Muslim bash Davis has sponsored, for Geert Wilders who is under criminal indictment for hate speech in his native Holland, was a guest in Cornerstone earlier this year, and beat the drum for war. Several of the speakers at Cornerstone, including Wilders, were cited as authorities in Anders Brievik's Manifesto, left behind as his logic to murdered upward to 90 Norwegian students in May.

Does Pastor Davis not know that killing is the purpose of war? I have reason to think he knows. Does Jesus repeatedly forgive those who go on killing, or encouraging others to kill time after time? We asked this question of Maury Davis in a letter delivered to him, and to most members of his staff by e-mail a week before the conference. Has Maury Davis repented of his sin if he calls for war that can not help but kill tens of thousands, most of whom will be every bit as innocent as was the woman he murdered 35 years ago for accidently spilling paint on his boots. Jesus' last words to a woman to whom He forgave of her sin of prostitution was, "sin no more." He did not say, sin some more. We understand from this Jesus forgiveness was conditional upon her repentance.