4. THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR

AGENT PROVOCATEURS

Those who comment authoritatively in the media on the Security Services will use the argument that a very small number of individuals are employed by the State to oversee national security and it is mere fantasy to suppose that an extensive network exists.

The MoD is adept at wooing journalists prepared to sing from their hymn sheets. Those who do not are quickly frozen out or fed false stories to ensure that their professional ability will never be trusted again. So no journalist aiming to report unbiased information can ever become an expert in the Security Services.

Whilst it is true that paid individuals working for MI5, MI6 (SIS), Special Branch, GCHQ etc. are relatively few in number, the lure to be a part of the establishment appeals to many more who have no formal contract of employment with the security services. These individuals are only too willing to be stooges for our out of control security services and flatter themselves that they may suddenly have developed some sort of intellectual capacity by being invited to contribute towards the work of the ‘intelligence services.’ That these low-grade individuals are given a broad remit, in which to work unsupervised, allows our Security Services, with some justification, to claim ignorance and therefore deny culpability. Private Detective agencies specialising in intercept information also allow bugging to take place with impunity without seeking the Home Secretary’s imprimatur on any documents.

These would be James Bonds will forego any moral values to feel themselves a part of an elite with an inside line to ‘Military Intelligence.’ Clubbable individuals who may belong to the Committee of Twenty, the Bilderberg Group, Rotarians, Masons, Buffaloes, the British Lions, Royal Arch, Livery Companies, the Honourable Artillery Company or any other self selecting ‘elite’ are often approached to do some sort of service in the interests of ‘national security.’ Such individuals are often weak minded, ill-educated people who are drawn to these sorts of clubs due to their own lack of ability and justified lack of confidence. They need to congregate for personal advantage, as hyenas congregate in the wild in order to assault more noble beasts.

Individuals who were part of a visiting good will chess team to Russia, during the Cold War, were approached to plant bugs in the conference room, within the Russian Embassy, whilst there to discuss arrangements for their visit to the USSR. This may be morally justified during a time like the Cold War and it is hard to resist the temptation to err in the higher service of patriotism. Equally, the individual approached may have been right to refuse, since he felt himself outside the machinations of the Security Services and doubted their motives. It may have been that the Security Services themselves were intent on souring relations further and ensuring that ‘goodwill’ chess visits were curtailed. That old maxim ‘need to know basis only’ often covers a host of sins and questionable ‘smoke and mirrors’ schemes which would not see the light of day if those with any smidgeon of moral rectitude were allowed to know precisely what the agenda really was.

Natives of these islands are often approached to make life difficult for individuals who do not conform to the establishment norm, but are no threat to national security. And it is here that the harm done to dissenters within the British Isles is most evident.

The machinations around the miners’ strike and Grunwick, and the underhand neo con tactics which succeeded in virtually destroying workers’ unions outside the public sector had at their core a degree of collusion by the Security Services, who were prepared to turn on the people of this country to serve those who sought to profit most from the unacceptable neo con face of capitalism and to destroy the unions.

Organisations which attempt to uncover unpalatable truths about the British establishment are often infiltrated and taken over by agents provocateur in order to nullify the effect of their organisation. People within these organisations may have a peaceful and honourable agenda, but soon find themselves urged toward more violent extremes or self-destructive tactics.

The finances of the organisation may become muddied; internecine fighting within the organisation may break out. In essence an organisation which once had laudable aims can become a battleground for infighting, power hungry demagogues and it is all too easy to manipulate members of these organisations into this type of self-destructive behaviour with a little tweaking from agent provocateur within their midst.

In order to establish their bona fides the neo con agent provocateur will initially be perceived to have a great victory over those they covertly serve. Having established their bona fides they will then go on to destroy the organisation, oust honest and worthy activists until, eventually, one finds these organisations deprived of the talents of those who believe in the aims of the organisation and supplanted by agents provocateurs who promote one another in order to destroy the organisation completely.

James Todd of Victims of Masonic Ill Treatment (VOMIT) comes to mind. This man claimed to be campaigning against the excesses of Masonic influence, whilst actually working toward identifying and destroying individuals who could have been effectively campaigning to reveal those excesses. He showered journalists with spurious stories, whilst smothering stories of real interest. He sent members chasing after red herrings to deflect their energies from pursuing the goals they might have achieved. Whenever anyone got within striking distance of causing a real uproar, which might bring some focus on Masonic excesses, James Todd would create a storm in a teacup over an irrelevant issue or misdirect those with real complaints.

In the end too many organisations, supposedly campaigning against establishment malpractices, are completely overtaken by agent provocateurs, who end up leading these organisations, so making them completely ineffective.

Prior to 9/11 in 2001 an anti-capitalist rally was held in London, by a broad coalition of a number of groups. The organisers and demonstrators had absolutely no intention of causing harm or perpetrating violence. Consider the following reports on the same event which occurred in 2001. The official version of events denies eye witness reports from Trafalgar Square of agents provocateurs in their midst who tried to drum up violence whilst held by police for seven hours without access to public toilets or refreshments.

Such provocation from the external police force upon the demonstrators was augmented by those planted within the group being corralled; who then tried to instigate violence amongst the innocent who were corralled and provocatively held for seven hours by the police. It is a testament to those demonstrators that any outbreak of violence was minimal and short lived, when one considers the sort of provocation they faced from neo con establishment forces.

This is perhaps the most controversial and unproven assertion, that those who have suffered some mental ill health may be spurred, albeit by wholly honourable sentiments, to do the most harm in subverting the peaceful intentions of any demonstration or movement for change. These people are deserving of great kindness, however one should be aware of how easily they can be manipulated into destructive and chaotic activities.

Despite television cameras focusing on a group of about two dozen masked demonstrators, who trashed a MacDonald’s restaurant, it is worth noting that of the 42 people arrested, most of those arrests were for drunkenness, public order offences and allegedly carrying weapons. The demonstrators who trashed MacDonald’s (which very oddly was unguarded and left open to attack) largely seemed immune from prosecution and any agents provocateur efforts to step up the violence were shunned by the predominantly peaceful demonstrators. The official line – pasted immediately below – remains uncorrupted on the internet:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0501/maydaylondon.html
Violence distorts message of London anti-capitalist rally
Monday, 1 May 2000 23:58
Seven people, including three police officers, were hospitalised in London after fighting broke out at a May Day anti-capitalist rally in front of the Houses of Parliament. Demonstrators split from a mainstream protest in Parliament Square and smashed their way into a McDonald's restaurant and hurled bricks and bottles at police. The restaurant was destroyed. There were further violent confrontations as protesters tried to storm St Martin's in the Field Church just off Trafalgar Square. Demonstrators hurled bottles, cans, traffic bollards and any rubbish they could find at police wearing riot gear. One officer said that there were an estimated 4,000 protesters in the square itself.
All police leave was cancelled and there remains a heavy security presence in the city. Scotland Yard feared that some demonstrators were intent on causing violence similar to that experienced last year in London and more recently in Washington. Condemning the violence the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, described the rioters as idiots and beneath contempt. He called for those responsible to be brought to justice. The British Home Secretary said that he had discussed preparations for the protests with the Metropolitan and City of London police. Jack Straw said that everybody had a right to demonstrate. However, he added that nobody had a right to demonstrate violently or to attack people or property. Scotland Yard said that 42 people were arrested for drunkenness, public order offences or carrying weapons.
It had all started peacefully this morning as thousands of demonstrators banging drums and blowing whistles converged on Parliament Square in Westminster. They said they were going to reclaim the streets by planting seeds and saplings. They were ringed by hundreds of police who feared a repeat of the riots, which took place in London last June and November. There was minor traffic congestion and police just looked on. The Reclaim the Streets group, which organised the guerrilla gardening event, denied that a repeat of last year's June 18 London riots was inevitable. A spokesman for the group, John Jordan, said that the event was a celebration of the anti-capitalism movement, rather than a protest.
But at about 2pm the mood changed. About two dozen protestors stormed into the Whitehall branch of McDonalds and within minutes they had smashed every window and had torn down the sign outside. Riot police who tried to break it up were pelted with bottles and cans. TV camera crews were also attacked. There was a sit-down demonstration in the road outside. It was the sort of violence that police had predicted. Protestors were later forced by police to remain in Trafalgar Square. It is believed that police gradually filtered people out through the square.
Some of the demonstrators were masked to conceal their identities from the dozens of CCTV cameras which police are monitoring from a central control room in nearby Scotland Yard. Police said that there are known trouble-makers who attempted to incite violent behaviour by posting messages on the internet. However, protestors in Parliament Square insisted that they were not there for violence. Their protest passed off with only minor incidents.
Eight people were arrested at a similar anti-capitalist rally in Manchester. 250 people had demonstrated peacefully in Piccadilly Gardens, but smaller groups then targeted fast food outlets and the city's tram system. A massive police operation was in place and protestors were contained and eventually led from the city centre.

http://www.ngy.1st.ne.jp/~ieg/icrm/icrm2000/icrm0005/0005n633.htm
… Anyone who attended the May Day anti-capitalist demonstrations in London would on watching the evening news or reading the papers the following morning have wondered if they were talking about the same event. The media has been full of lurid accounts of mass violence and terror throughout the streets of London. But was this actually the case and what was the real role of the Men in Blue?

For days the press had been building up the planned demonstrations as being a carnival of chaos in which blood would flow all over London. Excited reporters dreamt up stories of saboteurs infiltrating City offices (although being a Bank Holiday they would actually be shut!) and conspiratorial characters lurking in dark pub rooms planning the decimation of the City. The repeated statements from the organisers that the event would be non-violent were rejected as being a cover position. The police added to this hysteria with repeated announcements that all police leave was being cancelled to prepare for the riots to come. As we shall see the police were very much working towards their own agenda.

Come Monday morning, the streets of London were full of police vans as they waited for the hooded rioters to appear from out of darkened doorways. However nothing of the sort occurred. The traditional trade union demonstration left Clerkenwell Green at 1.00pm as planned. In Parliament Square several thousand demonstrators arrived, as announced, to carry out a mass planting as a sign of opposition to the forces of capital. Since gardening is not normally seen as a sign of rioting there was little for the media to report.

However, the police were having none of this. After the November demonstration against capitalism, timed to coincide with the Seattle events, the police had been smarting over criticism that they had let the event get out of control. Now they wanted their revenge. Citing the actions of a very small minority of those present who had attacked a branch of McDonalds and daubed paint on a couple of statues (both these targets had strangely been left unprotected by the police despite concerns being raised before hand), the police moved in and pushed demonstrators up towards Trafalgar Square. At the same time the official labour movement demonstration was summarily stopped in the Stand before it arrived for the planned rally in Trafalgar Square and told that they could go no further and should disband-so much for democratic rights. The police then set about slowly sealing off the whole of Trafalgar Square. Lines of police in full riot gear were joined by a large number of military police again in full body armour. Hundreds were left trapped inside the square, demonstrators, tourists, the lot. A smaller group positioned in Charing Cross road by the Portrait Gallery were pushed backwards, after refusing a call from the police to go into Trafalgar Square and be trapped with the others.

Despite repeated provocations from the police the mood remained remarkable calm and strangely quiet as evening approached. Contrary to the position being reported by the media it was clear to all present that the majority of those present were not out to cause trouble but just wanted to celebrate May Day and oppose capitalism. The promised conspiratorial hordes of "anarchists" turned out to be just a handful, nothing like the numbers predicted by the right wing press. Disgracefully the police kept those trapped in Trafalgar Square in there for hour after hour, no food or water or access to toilets. Included in this number were old people and small children, tourists and local workers. The police just didn't care, they wanted their revenge for last years 'defeat'. Corralled in for no reason other than to try and intimidate, the people were only very gradually let out a few at a time and only after being photographed by police cameras.

Such heavy handed methods, completely out of tune with the earlier carnival mood reported as such even by the police spokespersons, should serve as a warning to the Labour and trade union movement. These are the sort of methods that the police are prepared to use, and worse, to terrorise and intimidate legitimate demonstrations. We have already had a taste of this during the Miners strike, the polltax campaign and in Northern Ireland. It is naive in the extreme to believe that the law is impartial and that we are all equal under it. In the future, as opposition grows and grows against the attacks of the market, especially from the organised labour movement, the police will increasingly adopt such vicious methods to try and break the spirit of the class.

Trade unionists and Labour movement activists should also be warned that there is already a campaign afoot on the part of the media and others to use this event as an excuse to ban or 'limit' demonstrations. Ann Widdecombe has also called for the rounding up of all film of the demonstration, this to then be made available to the police. The warning is clear-demonstrations will be curtailed or banned and those which do take place will be heavily "supervised" with cameras everywhere. The movement cannot stand for this curtailing of our rights and must take a stand against this trend. If the labour movement opposes this new proposals then it can be defeated. They can harass and arrest a few stray individuals but against a force of hundreds of thousands of trade unionists, youth and others from the working class they would be powerless. This is the required response to the rantings of Blair, Straw, Widdecombe and the rest. The Labour movement fought for the right to protest and march to show opposition-now the struggle is on again.

Rob Sewell and Steve Jones
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2001/02/10/my-debate-with-squall/
…And so SQUALL would like to present a few unreported facts to remind ourselves that staying on our toes is a permanent requirement…….
Fact. Reclaim the Streets publicised a guerilla gardening action in Parliament Square. Their publicity stated that it was not a protest but a constructive action to highlight the necessity to reclaim public space. The horticultural nature of the event was consciously designed to attract those genuinely into ‘greening the streets’ rather than just getting pissed and exercising their lairyness.
Fact. The event in Parliament Square lasted for seven hours and there was no violence whatsoever, even when towards the conclusion of the day police tried to hold everyone in the Square against their will. The samba band played, seeds were planted, the road was turfed, banners were unfurled, a maypole was erected and activists filed reports and thoughts onto Indymedia UK’s new roadside-laptop website. The day passed off as a success. Whether or not activists agreed with defacing statues - some did some didn’t - the paint was cleaned off in a day and no lasting damage occurred. At the end of the day the crowd held together in one mass and marched through the police cordon united. The police did not wield their truncheons and there was no violence on either side at any point in the day. Some activists even hung around with bin bags and cleaned up the Square afterwards. How many people heard about this. Six weeks later Parliament Square was covered in plants as the Mayday sown seeds sprung into action.
Fact: A van full of compost, straw bails and seeds bound for Parliament Square was trailed from west London, intercepted by police and impounded for being unroadworthy. Two days later police allowed the driver to drive it away. It was evidently roadworthy. Five weeks later when the van was put in for a service, the garage mechanics found that every nut on the two back wheels was about to fall off. The garage informed the owner that he was fortunate to be alive.
Fact. For three weeks up to Mayday, British mainstream media incessantly publicised the event as a riot. “British army on standby” roared the Evening Standard. More people in the UK learned about the event through the mainstream media than they did through RTS leaflets. If certain people arrived in London looking for a riot, it wasn’t an RTS flyer which attracted them.
Fact. The media and those they managed to attract got their riot. Not much of one as riots go but just enough of a ruckus to weave the story around. A plethora of groups ranging from the Socialist Worker Party to the Rover workers to Turkish communists to pissed punks to unaligned anti-capitalists and bemused tourists were all corralled in Trafalgar Square and refused exit by truncheoned police lines.
Fact. For the first time in four years of anti-capitalist demonstrations, a McDonald’s Burger bar right in the middle of the demonstration was left undefended by policemen. Nearby riot police waited for twenty minutes before going in to disperse demonstrators who had by this time smashed the place up. A pre-event action outside McDonald’s on the Strand earlier that morning was swarming with police and intelligence officers. Why did they leave the Whitehall McDonald’s undefended?
Let those who got caught up in the scraps with police, those who sprayed the cenotaph, those who threw tarmac lumps in Kennington Park later that evening; let them defend their own actions. Some property-damagers like the ex-British army soldier who daubed fake blood on Winston Churchill’s statue had very good reasons for doing what they did and deserve applause for their courage of conviction. Both for their action and their willingness to be emphatic about the political reasons for their action when a “sorry m’lud” might have reduced the sentence. Some were just the pissed lunch outs you’ll always find somewhere. A tiny minority amid the thousands.
The barrage of critics laying blame for the Mayday skirmishes and the subsequently overblown media backlash at the feet of Reclaim the Streets are well wide of the mark. In their critical haste they are ignoring the creative work that went into facilitating a remarkably successful event in Parliament Square. An event that was imaginative, politically symbolic, well executed, well attended, forceful yet non-violent. Very few people seem to realise that this event even took place. And yet this was the RTS event, as advertised by RTS, in Parliament Square. A malevolent media so keen for dramatic copy and so capitalistically complicit, continues to foster and ferment the outrage, relishing and inflaming the very riots they pretend to abhor.
The more insidious part of this agenda is the cold calculation. For the abhorrence that such hysterical coverage ferments in the minds and loyalties of a general public is capitalism’s attempt to destroy the reputation of its detractors. If the capitalist world can persuade the general public that its opponents are not thoughtful people with a point, but violently crazed troublemakers, then they can keep their tightened grip round the throat of the world, unchallenged
To split the spikies from the fluffies, the NGO’s from the direct action groups, middle England from street folk, one section of society from another so that disunited, we affect nothing. The straggled survivors from a thousand massacred social causes are uniting to provide a significant challenge to the manicured PR of unfettered capitalism; a threat unparalleled in recent years. Beware the wedge now being driven strategically into the joins.

Those reports in full – note that the typeface has now been corrupted on some non-establishment reports on the internet:
http://www.ngy.1st.ne.jp/~ieg/icrm/icrm2000/icrm0005/0005n633.htm
ƒƒ“ƒhƒ“‚ł̃[ƒf[AŽ‘–{‰Æ“I•ñ“¹‚ƐŽ¡‰Æ‚Ì‹U‘P‚ɍR‹c
London May Day protests Hypocrisy of the capitalist press and politicians
Ÿ‘Ûî•ñ ICRM, International Information Concerning Revolutionary Movements
ICRM No.633 May 1, 2000 London-U.K.

ƒƒ“ƒhƒ“‚ł̃[ƒf[AŽ‘–{‰Æ“I•ñ“¹‚ƐŽ¡‰Æ‚Ì‹U‘P‚ɍR‹c
London May Day protests Hypocrisy of the capitalist press and politicians
http://www.marxist.com/Europe/london_may_day00.html

The violent flair up in London on May Day which resulted in damage to a McDonald's restaurant and other property has caused outrage in the capitalist press and amongst bourgeois politicians of every stripe.

Leading the chorus of condemnation was none other than Tony Blair, the leader of the nation, who denounced the actions of the protesters as "mindless thuggery". The following day, he urged the friends and families of those involved to "name names" and grass on their loved ones. In Parliament, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, defended the "non-confrontational" actions of the Metropolitan police, which drew loud cheers from the Tories. "The vandals desecrated the Cenotaph and defaced the statue of Sir Winston Churchill..." he thundered, oblivious to the fact that Churchill was an avowed enemy of the Labour movement. This was followed by howls of protest from William Hague and Anne Widdecombe. These Saviours of Democracy asked in the House of Commons for "exemplary sentences" to be handed out and suggested May Day demonstrations be banned in future.

It is no accident that the right to protest, the right to demonstrate, as well as the right to free speech, was won by the British working class in the teeth of opposition from the ruling class and their political representatives in the Tory Party. How they would love to turn the clocks back!

For us, the uprooting of turf, the daubing of paint, and the smashing of a few shop fronts is a futile gesture which cannot damage or undermine global capitalism. This requires the conscious movement of the working class in the struggle for a socialist society. Despite the childish nature of the actions of some of the protesters, which are utterly counter-productive, they have served to bring down the wrath of God on their heads from the Establishment. Both New Labour and the Tories are falling over themselves to castigate the anti-capitalist protesters. All are united in an unholy alliance of condemnation. Private property must remain sacred!

What strikes you about all this sanctimonious bellowing is its utter hypocrisy. These good law-abiding Christian Ladies and Gentlemen who rule our lives are quick to condemn small-time violence from protesters against global capitalism. But when it comes to mass violence inflicted on the "lesser breeds" in other countries who threaten the material interests of imperialism, all we get is crocodile tears from these same hypocrites. These Christian people, who no doubt go to church every Sunday in their fashionable clothes, welcomed the bombing of Iraq and the murder of 100,000 men, women and children. The imperialist power's merciless and inhuman economic blockade has resulted in the deaths of tens of over one million children, creating terrible shortages, especially of medicine and medical supplies.

Those who raise their arms in horror at the daubing of paint on the Cenotaph, stupid as it was, were the most ardent war-mongers when it came to the bombing of innocent people in former Yugoslavia. This, after all, was simply "collateral damage" and nothing more. NATO, with the full backing of the British government, targeted refineries, water plants, television studios, residential areas and factories. Blair was the most bellicose of all NATO leaders in his campaign to "degrade", i.e.. to bomb the hell out of Yugoslavia. And all this imperialist aggression was dressed up as "ethical foreign policy".

As Leon Trotsky pointed out 75 years ago: "The British bourgeoisie has been brought up on ruthlessness. The conditions of island existence, the moral philosophy of Calvinism, colonial practices, and national arrogance have led them along that road."

Their morality is the morality of the market place. Tony Blair apes all the features of the ruling class in his condemnation of the lower orders. The working class must learn restraint, subordination, and even gratitude, while the capitalist class engages in their exploitation. Working people must reject this stinking hypocrisy, so beloved by the Labour and trade union hierarchy, and fight to end the rule of the monopolies, which will mean a society free from violence, hunger and exploitation. In the words of Frederick Engels, it will constitute a leap by humanity from the "realm of necessity" to the "realm of freedom".

The role of the police

Anyone who attended the May Day anti-capitalist demonstrations in London would on watching the evening news or reading the papers the following morning have wondered if they were talking about the same event. The media has been full of lurid accounts of mass violence and terror throughout the streets of London. But was this actually the case and what was the real role of the Men in Blue?

For days the press had been building up the planned demonstrations as being a carnival of chaos in which blood would flow all over London. Excited reporters dreamt up stories of saboteurs infiltrating City offices (although being a Bank Holiday they would actually be shut!) and conspiratorial characters lurking in dark pub rooms planning the decimation of the City. The repeated statements from the organisers that the event would be non-violent were rejected as being a cover position. The police added to this hysteria with repeated announcements that all police leave was being cancelled to prepare for the riots to come. As we shall see the police were very much working towards their own agenda.

Come Monday morning, the streets of London were full of police vans as they waited for the hooded rioters to appear from out of darkened doorways. However nothing of the sort occurred. The traditional trade union demonstration left Clerkenwell Green at 1.00pm as planned. In Parliament Square several thousand demonstrators arrived, as announced, to carry out a mass planting as a sign of opposition to the forces of capital. Since gardening is not normally seen as a sign of rioting there was little for the media to report.

However, the police were having none of this. After the November demonstration against capitalism, timed to coincide with the Seattle events, the police had been smarting over criticism that they had let the event get out of control. Now they wanted their revenge. Citing the actions of a very small minority of those present who had attacked a branch of McDonalds and daubed paint on a couple of statues (both these targets had strangely been left unprotected by the police despite concerns being raised before hand), the police moved in and pushed demonstrators up towards Trafalgar Square. At the same time the official labour movement demonstration was summarily stopped in the Stand before it arrived for the planned rally in Trafalgar Square and told that they could go no further and should disband-so much for democratic rights . The police then set about slowly sealing off the whole of Trafalgar Square. Lines of police in full riot gear were joined by a large number of military police again in full body armour. Hundreds were left trapped inside the square, demonstrators, tourists, the lot. A smaller group positioned in Charing Cross road by the Portrait Gallery were pushed backwards, after refusing a call from the police to go into Trafalgar Square and be trapped with the others.

Despite repeated provocations from the police the mood remained remarkable calm and strangely quiet as evening approached. Contrary to the position being reported by the media it was clear to all present that the majority of those present were not out to cause trouble but just wanted to celebrate May Day and oppose capitalism. The promised conspiratorial hordes of "anarchists" turned out to be just a handful, nothing like the numbers predicted by the right wing press. Disgracefully the police kept those trapped in Trafalgar Square in there for hour after hour, no food or water or access to toilets. Included in this number were old people and small children, tourists and local workers. The police just didn't care, they wanted their revenge for last years 'defeat'. Corralled in for no reason other than to try and intimidate, the people were only very gradually let out a few at a time and only after being photographed by police cameras.

Such heavy handed methods, completely out of tune with the earlier carnival mood reported as such even by the police spokespersons, should serve as a warning to the Labour and trade union movement. These are the sort of methods that the police are prepared to use, and worse, to terrorise and intimidate legitimate demonstrations. We have already had a taste of this during the Miners strike, the polltax campaign and in Northern Ireland. It is naive in the extreme to believe that the law is impartial and that we are all equal under it. In the future, as opposition grows and grows against the attacks of the market, especially from the organised labour movement, the police will increasingly adopt such vicious methods to try and break the spirit of the class.

Trade unionists and Labour movement activists should also be warned that there is already a campaign afoot on the part of the media and others to use this event as an excuse to ban or 'limit' demonstrations. Ann Widdecombe has also called for the rounding up of all film of the demonstration, this to then be made available to the police. The warning is clear-demonstrations will be curtailed or banned and those which do take place will be heavily "supervised" with cameras everywhere. The movement cannot stand for this curtailing of our rights and must take a stand against this trend. If the labour movement opposes this new proposals then it can be defeated. They can harass and arrest a few stray individuals but against a force of hundreds of thousands of trade unionists, youth and others from the working class they would be powerless. This is the required response to the rantings of Blair, Straw, Widdecombe and the rest. The Labour movement fought for the right to protest and march to show opposition-now the struggle is on again.

Rob Sewell and Steve Jones

Was this the same event?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0501/maydaylondon.html
Violence distorts message of London anti-capitalist rally
Monday, 1 May 2000 23:58
Seven people, including three police officers, were hospitalised in London after fighting broke out at a May Day anti-capitalist rally in front of the Houses of Parliament. Demonstrators split from a mainstream protest in Parliament Square and smashed their way into a McDonald's restaurant and hurled bricks and bottles at police. The restaurant was destroyed. There were further violent confrontations as protesters tried to storm St Martin's in the Field Church just off Trafalgar Square. Demonstrators hurled bottles, cans, traffic bollards and any rubbish they could find at police wearing riot gear. One officer said that there were an estimated 4,000 protesters in the square itself.
All police leave was cancelled and there remains a heavy security presence in the city. Scotland Yard feared that some demonstrators were intent on causing violence similar to that experienced last year in London and more recently in Washington. Condemning the violence the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, described the rioters as idiots and beneath contempt. He called for those responsible to be brought to justice. The British Home Secretary said that he had discussed preparations for the protests with the Metropolitan and City of London police. Jack Straw said that everybody had a right to demonstrate. However, he added that nobody had a right to demonstrate violently or to attack people or property. Scotland Yard said that 42 people were arrested for drunkenness, public order offences or carrying weapons.
It had all started peacefully this morning as thousands of demonstrators banging drums and blowing whistles converged on Parliament Square in Westminster. They said they were going to reclaim the streets by planting seeds and saplings. They were ringed by hundreds of police who feared a repeat of the riots, which took place in London last June and November. There was minor traffic congestion and police just looked on. The Reclaim the Streets group, which organised the guerrilla gardening event, denied that a repeat of last year's June 18 London riots was inevitable. A spokesman for the group, John Jordan, said that the event was a celebration of the anti-capitalism movement, rather than a protest.
But at about 2pm the mood changed. About two dozen protestors stormed into the Whitehall branch of McDonalds and within minutes they had smashed every window and had torn down the sign outside. Riot police who tried to break it up were pelted with bottles and cans. TV camera crews were also attacked. There was a sit-down demonstration in the road outside. It was the sort of violence that police had predicted. Protestors were later forced by police to remain in Trafalgar Square. It is believed that police gradually filtered people out through the square.
Some of the demonstrators were masked to conceal their identities from the dozens of CCTV cameras which police are monitoring from a central control room in nearby Scotland Yard. Police said that there are known trouble-makers who attempted to incite violent behaviour by posting messages on the internet. However, protestors in Parliament Square insisted that they were not there for violence. Their protest passed off with only minor incidents.
Eight people were arrested at a similar anti-capitalist rally in Manchester. 250 people had demonstrated peacefully in Piccadilly Gardens, but smaller groups then targeted fast food outlets and the city's tram system. A massive police operation was in place and protestors were contained and eventually led from the city centre.

Note the underhand tactics used against demonstrators, thoughtlessly putting drivers and other road users lives at risk by tampering with impounded vehicles.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2001/02/10/my-debate-with-squall/
My Debate with Squall
Posted February 10, 2001
My Debate with Squall

Squall Editorial, June 2000
In this land of hasty critics, it isn’t difficult to inflame levels of self-criticism so destructive that the team - our team - is bound to lose, whatever. The mercenaries who populate British media know the formula well. It may be numbingly predictable but relentless criticism sells; the nastier the better. It sways our decision to pluck a newspaper from the stands and persuades us to loiter before the TV news.
It has often been repeated that British heroes are only promoted with applause in order to provide fodder for future lambast and British journalists largely deserve their scurrilous reputation for fueling the process. One minute yer friend, the next yer enemy, regardless of circumstances; fickle in search of a novel angle and permanently purchasable for thirty pieces of silver.
The barrage of criticism heaped upon Reclaim the Streets from all sides subsequent to the guerilla gardening action on Mayday provides an ample case in point; staggering both in its complicity with mainstream political strategy and for the inanity of its pointless self-destruction.
We’re used to the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sunday Times proffering the ‘Anarchist yobs takeover’ and ‘RTS stockpile weapons’ style of coverage. But this time the usual suspects were joined by an onslaught of critical barrage from pseudo-friends of the movement like Oxbridge journo, George Monbiot. Content to have established a career based on his connections to the UK direct action scene, it is a bitter truth that Monbiot might accept thirty pieces of Guardian silver for an exaggerated kiss and tell onslaught against RTS.
For those who missed George Monbiot’s bilious attack, a wade through the spluttered outrage can be spared with a summary of his main points. Liberally peppered with the language and metaphor of utter condemnation, he stated that RTS’s ranks are swollen with violent and uncaring thugs, and that, having lost the plot completely, RTS are “a part of the problem not the solution”. Furthermore, and perhaps most hypocritically, he stated that planting seeds outside the Houses of Parliament was a “futile” action against capitalism.
Four years ago, Monbiot was content to wallow in the acres of column inches which revolved around “The Oxford don and his rag-bag army” when as one of a hundred or so activists on The Land is Ours’ first action at Wisley, he planted vegetables and trees on a small stretch of long disused WW2 airfield in Surrey. Monbiot launched his career in British journalism off the back of his association with that action, with the Daily Telegraph running a whole page on the “ideological leader” Monbiot and his French aristocratic ancestry. There were many of his co-activists on that direct action who felt the agenda being pilfered even at that stage.
Four years later there’s an undeniable hypocrisy in Monbiot’s preparedness to describe the Guerilla Gardening action on Mayday as a futile gesture. Andy yet occurring as it did outside the Houses of Parliament it was evidently a far more full frontal and significant action than planting up a wooded Surrey copse miles from anywhere and already full of wildlife. If Monbiot was alone with his extravagant and well paid criticism, we wouldn’t waste our column inches talking about his. But his criticisms sat complicity alongside a raft of hysterical exaggerations and dire warnings which appeared on BBC and ITV news that evening and in most national newspapers the next day.
Stoked further by the Labour Party’s desire to associate Ken Livingstone with those who sprayed the cenotaph, coverage of the event became a laughable circus of hyperbole; an exaggerated monstrosity of self-inflated condemnation portraying all anti-capitalists as mindless thugs who would spit on the grave of the war dead. In the latent belief that there is no smoke without fire, people believed it. The media steer babbled on relentlessly until people were found whistling its tune without thinking twice about the source of the subliminal melody. Even those with previous direct action associations began parroting the position that RTS had lost the plot.
And so SQUALL would like to present a few unreported facts to remind ourselves that staying on our toes is a permanent requirement…….
Fact. Reclaim the Streets publicised a guerilla gardening action in Parliament Square. Their publicity stated that it was not a protest but a constructive action to highlight the necessity to reclaim public space. The horticultural nature of the event was consciously designed to attract those genuinely into ‘greening the streets’ rather than just getting pissed and exercising their lairyness.
Fact. The event in Parliament Square lasted for seven hours and there was no violence whatsoever, even when towards the conclusion of the day police tried to hold everyone in the Square against their will. The samba band played, seeds were planted, the road was turfed, banners were unfurled, a maypole was erected and activists filed reports and thoughts onto Indymedia UK’s new roadside-laptop website. The day passed off as a success. Whether or not activists agreed with defacing statues - some did some didn’t - the paint was cleaned off in a day and no lasting damage occurred. At the end of the day the crowd held together in one mass and marched through the police cordon united. The police did not wield their truncheons and there was no violence on either side at any point in the day. Some activists even hung around with bin bags and cleaned up the Square afterwards. How many people heard about this. Six weeks later Parliament Square was covered in plants as the Mayday sown seeds sprung into action.
Fact: A van full of compost, straw bails and seeds bound for Parliament Square was trailed from west London, intercepted by police and impounded for being unroadworthy. Two days later police allowed the driver to drive it away. It was evidently roadworthy. Five weeks later when the van was put in for a service, the garage mechanics found that every nut on the two back wheels was about to fall off. The garage informed the owner that he was fortunate to be alive.
Fact. For three weeks up to Mayday, British mainstream media incessantly publicised the event as a riot. “British army on standby” roared the Evening Standard. More people in the UK learned about the event through the mainstream media than they did through RTS leaflets. If certain people arrived in London looking for a riot, it wasn’t an RTS flyer which attracted them.
Fact. The media and those they managed to attract got their riot. Not much of one as riots go but just enough of a ruckus to weave the story around. A plethora of groups ranging from the Socialist Worker Party to the Rover workers to Turkish communists to pissed punks to unaligned anti-capitalists and bemused tourists were all corralled in Trafalgar Square and refused exit by truncheoned police lines.
Fact. For the first time in four years of anti-capitalist demonstrations, a McDonald’s Burger bar right in the middle of the demonstration was left undefended by policemen. Nearby riot police waited for twenty minutes before going in to disperse demonstrators who had by this time smashed the place up. A pre-event action outside McDonald’s on the Strand earlier that morning was swarming with police and intelligence officers. Why did they leave the Whitehall McDonald’s undefended?.
Let those who got caught up in the scraps with police, those who sprayed the cenotaph, those who threw tarmac lumps in Kennington Park later that evening; let them defend their own actions. Some property-damagers like the ex-British army soldier who daubed fake blood on Winston Churchill’s statue had very good reasons for doing what they did and deserve applause for their courage of conviction. Both for their action and their willingness to be emphatic about the political reasons for their action when a “sorry m’lud” might have reduced the sentence. Some were just the pissed lunch outs you’ll always find somewhere. A tiny minority amid the thousands.
The barrage of critics laying blame for the Mayday skirmishes and the subsequently overblown media backlash at the feet of Reclaim the Streets are well wide of the mark. In their critical haste they are ignoring the creative work that went into facilitating a remarkably successful event in Parliament Square. An event that was imaginative, politically symbolic, well executed, well attended, forceful yet non-violent. Very few people seem to realise that this event even took place. And yet this was the RTS event, as advertised by RTS, in Parliament Square. A malevolent media so keen for dramatic copy and so capitalistically complicit, continues to foster and ferment the outrage, relishing and inflaming the very riots they pretend to abhor.
The more insidious part of this agenda is the cold calculation. For the abhorrence that such hysterical coverage ferments in the minds and loyalties of a general public is capitalism’s attempt to destroy the reputation of its detractors. If the capitalist world can persuade the general public that its opponents are not thoughtful people with a point, but violently crazed troublemakers, then they can keep their tightened grip round the throat of the world, unchallenged
To split the spikies from the fluffies, the NGO’s from the direct action groups, middle England from street folk, one section of society from another so that disunited, we affect nothing. The straggled survivors from a thousand massacred social causes are uniting to provide a significant challenge to the manicured PR of unfettered capitalism; a threat unparalleled in recent years. Beware the wedge now being driven strategically into the joins.
Socialist Outlook : SO/15 - Summer 2008
Eventually the truth might emerge as it did following demonstrations against protestors who demonstrated against the Vietnam war in 1968:
http://www.isg-fi.org.uk/spip.php?article637
Vietnam Solidarity Campaign veteran on secret reports
Exposed: British police spies worked to isolate anti-war movement
On the Secret Internal Police Reports about the 1968 mobilizations
Ernie Tate
Recently, Solomon Hughes of the British daily, the Guardian, has been in touch with me regarding the recently released London police reports about the preparations for the October 27th, 1968, mobilizations against the Vietnam War, which my partner, Jess MacKenzie and I were involved in.
The story broke on BBC television yesterday evening. It certainly shows the scope of the protests and the vicious role of the police, with sections of the press playing along, in trying to isolate those of us who were organizing opposition to the war.
FolIowing is my letter to Hughes and I’ve pasted in one of the recently released police reports. He says the file is about three inches thick. If you clear away the hysteria, the report shows just how wrong the cops got it all, which as Paul Mason of the BBC suggests, is why they kept their reports hidden for forty years. Aside from that, I’ve used this opportunity to give some information on some of the difficulties we faced in organizing the demos at that time. It’s an important period in the history of the socialist left in the U.K.

Friday, May 30, 2008
Ernie Tate’s letter to The Guardian’s Solomon Hughes
Toronto,
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Hello Solomon:
Again, thanks very much for the internal police reports. After forty years, they make interesting reading and sort of capture the flavour of those tumultuous times. What is not expressed in the reports, however, is the anger which was wide-spread then about the American actions in Vietnam as a result of what people were seeing on television every evening and reading in their newspapers, and the absolute obsequious role of the Wilson Labour Government in the face of this. Its policy of “neutrality” and its talk about Britain “using its good offices to act as an intermediary” between the U.S. and the Vietnamese “to bring an end to the conflict”, in many peoples eyes lacked any moral basis.
The VSC’s criticism of this policy, asking how the British would have reacted if other countries had applied such a policy to Britain when it, during the Second World War, was under assault from fascist Germany, was one of the most powerful arguments we made and it found a deep response throughout Britain and helps to explain why a relatively small organization, such as the VSC with hardly any resources, quickly increased its influence over a short time to where it was able to have a dramatic influence on the streets. Whether we were able to have any influence on Government policy, I don’t know, but it certainly must have caused some concern because it showed just how quickly an “unofficial” opposition could develop outside the influence of the Labour Party.
Regarding October 1968, from the police reports you sent and my experience there, it seems to me the police were feeding many stories to the press in an attempt scare people away — with much of the press co-operating – and which back-fired somewhat, because I’m sure it only helped promote our actions and helped us reach a much larger audience than if we were relying only on our limited resources. The police reports certainly captured the hyper-anxiety of those running the security forces and maybe even the state, probably more induced by what was happening in the rest of Europe, especially in France, than in Britain itself.
Some of the police statements are simply factually wrong and surprisingly ill informed, and I’m sure, they were meant to re-enforce their own political prejudices. Or maybe they were smoking some strong stuff. Every little tit-bit of information, the gossip, the stupid speculations by un-named people, who could even be other plain clothes cops, the talk about cutting GPO lines setting vehicles on fire, etc., is just silly, and meant to put the wind up their superiors, I’m sure.
Take the issue of violence, for example. In the report, “Vietnam Solidarity campaign ‘Autumn Offensive’”, Sept. 10, 68, p3, it states: “The more cautious representatives of the International Socialism and International Marxist groups paid lip service to the vision of a peaceful demonstration.” This is written by someone who must have been asleep and had not been following what was going on, and it suggests that whoever they had planted inside, if it came from there, was somewhat inept, and collecting money under false pretences.
Let me explain. It’s just not logical what the report says about this. The International Marxist Group, of which I was one of the leaders, was very clear about what our objectives were: very simply, we wanted the Labour Government to break from the Americans on Vietnam. This would be the best way, we thought, to put pressure on the U.S. to withdraw their troops and the best tactic for accomplishing this was having tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of London protesting. This is what we meant by solidarity with the Vietnamese and why we, along with the Bertrand Russell Foundation, set up the VSC. Some of VSC posters even carried the slogan calling for victory for the NLF.
To achieve this, we had to make it possible for ordinary people to come out onto the streets and protest peacefully. A deliberate policy of seeking out confrontation and fighting the police stood in the way of this. At a special VSC conference in early 1968, after a very brief stay, most of the Maoist groups – especially Albert Machanda – broke from the VSC, strange as it may seem, because we had refused to adopt their proposal to endorse the programme of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. It was their way of trying to tie us into the politics of the NLF, and the Maoiism of the Communist Party of China.
It was in the Ad Hoc Committee where we had the strongest debates about violence and confrontation, especially around the question of a possible route for the October, 1968, action. It seems whoever was writing the reports, was totally unaware of this. The Ad Hoc Committee, initiated by the VSC in the spring of1968, was a broad coalition of anti-war and political groups who, although they did not necessarily agree with the VSC’s “solidarity” line, united around the common task of organizing the October,1998 demo. (The police report gets this all confused.) The VSC proposed an assembly point on the Embankment and then proceeding to Hyde Park for a mass rally; the Maoists and other ultra-lefts, instead, proposed going to Grosvenor Square and the American Embassy as we had done the previous March, for a confrontation with the police.
After a long debate, the majority supported our point of view. About the same time, we also had a debate about the route with the International Socialists, who were not in the VSC (the police report is also incorrect about this) but who were in the Ad Hoc Committee. I.S. had proposed organizing a mass rally at the Bank of England and encircling it in some kind of symbolic gesture “against finance capital”! This was also rejected because it would have given maximum opportunity for the ultra left and anarchists to create chaos and violence and we would have had great difficulty controlling it. Basically, we thought it irresponsible to invite people out for a peaceful protest then force them, without them having any say about the tactic, into a confrontation with the police with perhaps tragic circumstances. (I don’t think the I.S. was ultra-left at that time, but simply misguided. I think the I.S. (now the SWP) – who were a lot smaller then – learned a lot from this experience, because it seems to me, they have been quite successful over the past few years, in organizing through the Stop the War Coalition some very successful demos against the war in Iraq.)
On the actual day of the October 27th, 1968, demonstration (which incidentally, I think was much larger than the 100,000 we had initially projected), we took action to ensure that the ultra-left would not try and divert everyone to the American Embassy. We placed recognized leaders – myself included — immediately behind the ultra-left contingent. Tariq Ali played an invaluable role here. When they made their move at Trafalgar Square to head towards the American Embassy, we simply turned around and stopped the demonstration and let the Maoists and their friends head off and Tariq took up a megaphone to explain what was happening to those behind us. The ultra-left and anarchists hesitated a little while and began yelling insults at us, but we told the people around us to wait until they left. I estimate they took around 5000 people to fight the police in Grosvenor Square and had quite a few people arrested, including people who did not know what they were getting into.
In the previous years, in 1966 they had been brutal in their treatment of people on our demonstrations which were quite small – around a couple of hundred — but the best we could do as the war escalated. The police were known to carry lead-filled leather black-jacks which they would use to thump the backs of protestors who resisted being pushed around. People told me it was like a kidney punch which caused temporary, but very painful paralysis. Unlike CND, or the Committee of 100 which carried out sit-downs, and were largely influenced by pacifism, we in the VSC recommended that people not be violent but be militant and resist the police attacks. As the report confirms, the police were totally surprised by the new mood of militancy they met on the streets.
We were also angry at their covert disruption operations to prevent us functioning and carrying out our normal activities. For example, several time over the summer of 1968, they tried to prevent the National Council of the Ad-Hoc Committee from meeting by phoning and pretending to be an official of the Committee to cancel our hall rental. Several times we had to meet out on the Yorkshire moors to conduct our business. In addition, when our people travelled to the continent they were victimized, Ralph Schoenman being a case in point, if he had to check in his luggage for the flight, at the other end the bags would not show up and only appear after a couple of hours, long after every one else on the flight had gotten theirs. Of course, the authorities were illegally opening our bags to see what was there.
But we weren’t silent about the role of the police in trying to intimidate us. If you check the media reports from that time, you’ll see that in September we began a concerted media campaign to limit police presence on our demonstrations. Our argument was that the police were at the demonstrations on the assumption that violence was going to take place and that it was they who provoked violence. I remember some intellectuals, some of the folks around New Left Review, Robin Blackburn specifically, publically making the point that the police presence gave the impression that there was something illegal in the act of protesting and that protest was a normal civic duty and part of the democratic process.
Tariq Ali, who helped orchestrate this campaign and who had more media access than anyone we knew, in the weeks leading up to the demo, gave several important T.V. interviews under this theme, where he very cogently argued our case explaining that we had our own monitors for the demo and that the police should stay away. Ralph Milliband also felt very strong about this issue, appearing several times in the media demanding that the police stay away. John Palmer, who worked for the Guardian was also very supportive of what we were trying to do, as was Paul Foot.
And indeed, on the day of the demonstration, there were hardly any police visible; they and their horses, kept to the back streets out of sight. And as you mention, on that day things were rather peaceful as far as we were concerned and very clearly, the police had over-reacted. The West End was like a ghost city. All the welding of the manhole covers on the route of the march was just absurd, as was all the heavy plywood on bank buildings and windows. Another demand we raised, but I don’t know how successful we were, was to give individual policemen the right to refuse duty to police a demonstration, as a matter conscience.
The foregoing is my reaction to the material you sent me. Of course the times were much more radical then than now and people, generally, especially the youth, felt they could influence events, and maybe change things for the better. In such a radicalization, everyone comes onto the streets, often with their own weird ideas and concepts. This was true in London that year and is also reflected in the police report. In this sense it is an important historical document which reminds us of the times and how the authorities responded to one of the most significant protests in those years. I’m glad you made the effort to dig it up and give it the light of day. I hope what I’ve put down here helps you sort your way through it.
Yours truly,
Ernest Tate


The Secret Police Report
Secret [marked “SECRET” top and bottom of all three pages] Metropolitan Police Special Branch
Subject: Vietnam Solidarity campaign “Autumn Offensive”
Reference to papers 346/68/15 (2)
10th day of September 1968
The climate of opinion among extreme left-wing elements in this country in relation to public political protest has undergone a radical change over the last few years. The emphasis has shifted first from orderly, peaceful, cooperative meetings and processions to passive resistance and “sit downs” and now to active confrontation with the authorities to attempt to force social changes and alterations of government policy. Indeed, the more vociferous spokesmen of the left are calling fro the complete overthrow of parliamentary democracy and the substitution of various brands of “socialism” and “workers control”. They claim that this can only be achieved by “action on the streets”, and although few of them will admit it publicly, or in the press, that they desire a state of anarchy, it is nevertheless tacitly accepted that such a conditions is a necessary preamble to engineering a breakdown of out present system of government and achieving a revolutionary change in the society in which we live.
Between 1956 and 1963 the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament acted as a catalyst for the discontent of the British left, and this organisation was used as a platform and a stalking horse by almost all the dissident groups. The virtual cessation of nuclear bomb-testing removed the strongest plank from the C.N.D platform, and the committee of 100 took up the banner of protest. This latter organisation became more extreme with the passage of time, and when it foundered earlier this year was almost wholly anarchistic in character.
The Vietnam War was the next issue taken up by British political extremists. Protest was sporadic at first, but in Jun 1966 a new organisation called the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign was formed under the leadership of Ralph SCHOENMAN, the notorious American agitator, and financed by Bertrand RUSSELL. The Trotskyist influence was strong from the beginning; although anarchists and pacifists were attracted by the anti-war and anti-establishment flavour of the group they have never possessed power within it and it remains the preserve of revolutionary factions. A parallel organisation, the British Committee for Peace in Vietnam, founded in 1965, is communist-controlled and moderate in tone. 1967 saw the rise of a number of Maoist groups, notably the Friends of China led by Albert MANCHANDA, and the Maoists are active in the British Vietnam Solidarity Front and openly advocate the use of violence. The “Stop It” committee of expatriate Americans is also involved in the protest activity over the Vietnam War; the members are split on the violence issue.
The leaders of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign belong chiefly to two Trotskyist factions – the International Socialism and International Marxist groups. Pat JORDAN, a veteran Trotskyist, is the power behind the scenes; Ed GUITON, Mike MARTIN and Ernie TATE are leading officials. Others closely involved in V.S.C. activity are XXXXXX of the Revolutionary Socialists Student Federation and XXXXXXX of the Radical Students Alliance. Tariq ALI is popularly supposed to be a leading light in the V.S.C. and the student protest movement: this is not the case. His power and influence are in inverse ratio to his acknowledged flair for personal publicity and his natural gifts as a mob orator.
It is a matter of common knowledge that disorderly demonstrations took place in Grosvenor Square outside the American Embassy in October 1967 and March 1968 under V.S.C. auspices, and that there were numerous arrests and much damage to property. The pattern at both these demonstrations were remarkably similar. A meeting, followed by a march to the American Embassy, followed by disorder in the square and adjacent streets. In the second demonstration a number of aliens and students from provincial universities took part. Another anti-American demonstration in July 1968, nominally under communist auspices, was heavily infiltrated by V.S.C supporters and again there was disorder and many arrests. At this time an announcement was made that there would be a week of activity in October 1968 under the general title of the “autumn offensive” culminating in a mass demonstration on the weekend of the 26th/27th October 1968.
In the past few months a number of revolutionary leaders have produced study papers on this demonstration, the theme is common. It is said that the anti-Vietnam war protest movement is merely part of the continuing struggle to bring about world-wide revolution and that this demonstration can only be regarded as a skirmish before the larger battle. The figure of 100,000 demonstrators began to be bandied about; there was general agreement that this number of militant demonstrators would bring about a total breakdown of law and order. To this end a number of moribund V.S.C. branches were resurrected and local activity stimulated. The existing London branches are:
Earls Court
Hampstead, Kilburn, Notting Hill Gate, Fulham, Lambeth, Walthamstow, Hornsey, Highgate and Holloway, Hackney
Additionally the following ad-hoc committees have been formed to co-ordinate local activity:
North London ad-hoc committee
North West London ad-hoc committee
North West London Action Group
Wes Middlesex Vietnam ad-hoc committee
Libertarian ad-hoc committee
The national headquarters of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign are at 120 commercial road, E.1 . The organisation occupies offices on the second-floor, and the following persons are employed full time on the premises
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
During the early planning stages of this demonstration it was apparent that the question of the use of calculated violence as a political weapon was causing division in the ranks of the V.S.C members. The Maoists felt that violence was inevitable and said so. The more cautious representatives of the International Socialism and International Marxist groups paid lip service to the vision of a peaceful demonstration. In the event the Maoists did not gain any places on the National Council or the national ad-hoc committee, and are outpaced as apostles of violence by the more volatile anarchists. All the indications are that the Maoists and anarchists will disregard any sort of instructions – from Police or march leaders – and take an independent line on the day
XXXX REDACTED PARAGRAPH XXXX
The following buildings have been suggested as alternative “targets” at one time or another
XXXX REDACTED LIST OF TARGETS XXX
XXX REDACTED FINAL PRAGRAPH XXX

Ernie Tate joined the Canadian section of the Fourth International in the 1950s and in the mid-1960s was assigned by the International to help build the movement in Britain.


If one considers that at the time of these rallies against the Vietnam war the military, with Stirling, Crozier and others at their head, began flirting with Mountbatten and leaders of industry to discuss the idea of overthrowing a properly elected Labour Government, under Harold Wilson, one realises just how out of control the establishment then was. The fact that no enquiry has been held to investigate that mooted coup should indicate that these maverick elements of the establishment remain protected today.

Currently the only legal means of expressing discontent is to do so individually, with no trace of any organisation whatsoever. If you design a leaflet to distribute at say a Remembrance Day Service and then peacefully hand out your leaflet, expressing discontent at the erosion of civil liberties by successive Governments in the name of ‘national security,’ pointing out that Servicemen died for our freedoms, which successive Governments are now denying us. And you do not block the pathway, nor ask anyone else to hand out your leaflets. If you do not collude with like-minded friends then you should not be arrested. However once you recruit one friend you become an illegal demonstration.

One individual who did carry out such an individual demonstration in the Midlands reported:

“Only able to cover one entrance to the Parish Church for the Remembrance Day Service, I suddenly noticed that all the big wigs were routed through another entrance.

Had a demonstration of two or three people been organised I would have had to have sought permission, giving advance warning and run the risk of subversive elements turning a peaceful demonstration into a farcical and possibly violent event.

Having stood in the street at the entrance to the parish church carrying out this one-person demonstration I suddenly realised how unused the police are to expressions of free speech. A policeman could be seen and heard on his radio questioning his right to arrest me. The policeman was asked: ‘Is the demonstrator alone ‘ – back came the answer – ‘Yes.’ Is the demonstrator preventing those trying to gain access to the Parish Church from doing so.’ The answer was ‘No.’ ‘Is the demonstrator disturbing the peace in any way.’ ‘No.’ What is the demonstrator doing?’ ‘Chatting to bystanders, smiling and handing out leaflets.’ ‘No – you can’t arrest a single demonstrator.’

Though no doubt the police would have trawled the law books in future years to find some excuse to do so, had I repeated that demonstration.”

By removing the element of surprise from demonstrators the establishment has, particularly under this Labour Government, ensured that they are able to compromise or subvert all future demonstrations with the use of provocative police action and planted agents provocateurs.

THE ILLEGAL DRUGS TRADE

THE ILLEGAL DRUGS TRADE


The history of LSD and its links to MK ULTRA should make one wary of a covert experimental agenda in the highly organised drugs industry.

Drugs make up a huge industry. An industry which relies on a large and organised monstrous infrastructure, which transcends the dope head pusher who arrives on a street corner just after school breaks up. It is undeniable that the CIA engaged in drug running to finance armaments – see Oliver North in Wikipedia and Time Magazine. The evidence points to other secret service agencies doing the same sort of trade. The youth are their target market, so drugs, far from being anti-establishment, make up the revenues of a large part of the establishment of our covert and unfunded Security Services, (see Oliver North and other internet evidence at the end of this chapter) who find drug running a lucrative trade to finance their illegal arms trade and other nefarious covert activities.

This is a multi-trillion dollar industry. Industries like that don’t just happen. They are nurtured and protected, the right people are bought off and politicians, in every country, can be counted to be in the pockets of, if not active participants in, the drug over-lords’ industry. Why do leading drugs barons appear in the Forbes Rich List?

I am now not sure it is a good idea to legalize drugs, having seen the impact of the alcohol industry lobbyists on our Parliamentarians. I once thought it a good idea to make all illegal drugs legal. Users could have health tests, paid for from drug revenues. If the cheapest and best, most trusted supplier is a clinical environment it would, I thought, take the ‘cool’ out of drugs.

However having seen alcohol being made into ever more sweet and palatable liquids, to wean the young to a taste they would otherwise reject, I realise how foolish and naïve I was. Opening hours have been extended, through the efforts of alcohol industry lobbyists. Politicians joined the argument and lobbied for a ‘café culture’ - politicians of all parties. The lack of foresight in realising that one cannot change a Northern European alcohol culture by extending opening hours apparently failed to plumb the reasoning faculties of all our politicians. All that has happened is an increase in alcohol consumption and who can reasonably argue that was not the ultimate aim of the alcohol industry?

A moderate café culture has not been the result of relaxing of the law, instead we have a growing binge culture, where ‘getting off your face’ is the sole purpose of an extended evening out. The cost to the public of policing the binge culture has risen in line with the rising profits accruing to alcohol manufacturers.

I can now see that those who legally make and supply recreational drugs would inevitably manufacture more and more products to entice even those who would not have touched illegal recreational drugs in a million years, into the drug taking fraternity.

The recent history of alcohol lobbying shows that neo con capitalism can be stretched beyond any moral limits.

By punishing small time pushers and refusing to deal with the big fish are we really trying to save the Titanic from sinking by sending men down with thimbles to bale out the ship? After all when a Mexican drug Baron makes it into seventh place on the Forbes Rich List (2009) there must be some high level protection in place.

The drugs industry is one of the most profitable in the history of the world. Taxes do not apply – it is all revenue, and revenue resistant to the credit crunch. Bribes make but a small dent in this income creating industry. Drug use has taken off to such an extent that even the Dorks and Boffins cannot escape being offered drugs at some time in their school career. When I was young those who took drugs knew not to offer them to certain types of people – usually Dorks and Boffins. Now the dorks are made to think it is ‘really cool’ to be in on the act and the boffins feel they are missing out on an intellectual experience by refusing the invitation. Education has become so hum drum that the excitement of drug taking takes the edge off school life, without any noticeable effect on grades since one doesn’t need a great deal of brain power to score straight ‘A’s any longer. Both drugs and alcohol affect those little grey cells. If the world no longer has any use for the really intelligent, and our increasingly ignorant politicians seek to smother the intellectual capabilities of those they ‘rule,’ then what purpose is there in preserving that brain power?

Every civilization and culture has invented its own form of mind-bending intoxicant or stimulant.

Amerindians used datura and tobacco, Africans pot . dagga or chwala, Europeans alcohol, South Americans the coca leaf and Asians khat. The only difference is the rise in chemical technology – to ensure they become more potent and addictive. The opium poppy was known to be grown in Mesopotamia. At the time of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition it fell from fashion but was hugely revived with the ‘Opium Wars’ sending British Gun Boats into Chinese ports, insistent on selling opium to the Chinese, to profit British mercantile companies, against the Chinese Government’s wishes and laws. In the history of intoxicants there is nothing new on the face of the earth. But we live in a time where more sophisticated chemical compounds have become possible and the mantra of neo con capitalism appears to be that anything that makes money is OK. Provided you don’t break the thirteenth commandment – ‘Thou shalt not get found out.’

What is clear is that one is not opting out of the rat run or opting into an alternative youth culture by doing drugs. All that is happening is that rich men are becoming richer; small time addicts are contributing to another litre of petrol the next time the drug Barons they fill up their Porshe or Rolls Royce.

Users may also, unwittingly, be used as yet another lab rat upon which unscrupulous scientists in government patronised laboratories or ‘private’ mental health clinics.

Those answerable to no one, except our unethical and unaccountable security services, can try out yet another form of mind bending weaponry on unsuspecting people desperate to appear cool, whose brains will be fried by those very same drugs, so that they become more politically malleable and biddable in the democratic process. Whilst LSD was rolled out across College campuses in the 60’s, the effects on the growing brains of younger school children is creating a generation whose brain power is deleteriously affected prior to full maturity.

The way drug crime is dealt with is so patently ineffective that one has to wonder, what possible motive there might be to subvert the youngest generation and prevent them reaching their full intellectual potential?

Most youths in towns up and down the country will tell you stories of known drug pushers who are never ever prosecuted. This phenomenon is so common that many young people are themselves questioning whose side the police and judicial powers are on.

Are drugs being used as a political tool to provide a more malleable electorate, burdened with the debt of education and chasing either the dragon or profit at the expense of a more moral society?

Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World shows a world in which recreational drugs (Soma) are not only legal, but actively encouraged. In his ‘fictional’ world the population are segregated and ruled with no idea of freedom. The drug – Soma – is an important part of population control and is encouraged by the State in Huxley’s novel.

I fear we may well be somewhere deep along that road. Our security services, privatised security companies, and secret societies feel themselves so immune from the rule of law that they can, with impunity, lace the drinks of those who are not sufficiently neo con or right wing for their sensibilities, in the hope of inducing madness. At the centre of this is our unjust and unaccountable legal system, which allows these assaults on our civil liberties. Anyone suffering such an assault cannot speak out for fear of being diagnosed as mad.

To paraphrase Dr Samuel Johnson - Patriotism is indeed the last bastion of the utter scoundrel. Too many in our Security Services appear to think that protecting the drugs trade is patriotic.


Wikipedia

Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

See Wikipedia on Lt Col Oliver North (USA) – heavily sanitized version of what was admitted in 1990 – ish about drugs running to supply funds for arms to General Noriega. Taken from Wikipedia in November 2008.

Oliver Laurence North (born October 7, 1943 in San Antonio, Texas) is an American best known for his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. Currently, he is an American conservative political commentator, host of "War Stories with Oliver North" on Fox News Channel, and a New York Times best-selling author. His latest book, American Heroes, offers a first-hand account of his extensive coverage of U.S. military units engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Philippines. He is a 1968 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and was a career officer in the Marine Corps, retiring at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel after twenty years of service.
North was at the center of national attention during the Iran-Contra Affair, during which he was a key Reagan administration official involved in the clandestine sale of weapons to Iran. The sale of these weapons served both to encourage the release of US hostages and to generate proceeds to support the Contra rebel group. Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter and his deputy, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, secretly diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras millions of dollars in funds received from a secret deal - the sales of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran - in spite of Reagan's public pledge not to deal with the nation.
North served as a platoon leader in Vietnam where, during combat service, he was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star and two Purple Heart medals.[1] North then became an instructor at the Marine Corps Officer Basic School in Quantico. In 1970, North returned to Vietnam to testify at the trial of Corporal Randy Herrod, a former Marine under his command who had been charged with a mass killing of Vietnamese civilians. North was promoted to Captain in 1971 and served as commanding officer of the Marine Corps Northern Training Area in Okinawa, Japan.
After Okinawa, North was assigned to Marine Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia for four years, was promoted to Major, and then served two years as operations officer of 3d Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, commanded by then LtCol John Southy Grinalds, Second Marine Division in Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. It was through LtCol Grinalds that North developed a deep personal commitment to the Christian faith. He next attended the Command and Staff Course at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and graduated in 1981.
After Newport, North began his now-famous assignment to the National Security Council (NSC) in Washington, D.C., where he served as the deputy director for political-military affairs[2] from 1981 until his reassignment in 1986. In 1983, North received his promotion to Lieutenant Colonel,[3] which would be his last.
During his tenure at the NSC, North managed a number of highly sensitive missions. This included leading the hunt for those responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines; an effort that included North arranging a midair interception of an EgyptAir jet carrying those responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking. Also while at the NSC, helped plan the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the 1986 Bombing of Libya.[4]
During his trial, Oliver North spent his last two years in the Corps reassigned to Marine Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.
[edit] Iran-Contra affair
Main article: Iran-Contra Affair


North's mugshot, after his arrest
North came into the public spotlight due to his participation in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which he claimed partial responsibility for the sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the Contras in Nicaragua. Although taking blame, he was widely known to be the "fall guy" for the scandal. He was reportedly responsible for the establishment of a covert network used for the purposes of aiding the Contras. U.S. funding of the Contras by appropriated funds spent by intelligence agencies had been prohibited by the Boland Amendment. Funding was facilitated through Palmer National Bank of Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1983 by Harvey McLean, Jr., a businessman from Shreveport, Louisiana. It was initially funded with $2.8 million dollars to McLean from Herman K. Beebe. Oliver North supposedly used this bank during the Iran-Contra scandal by funneling money from his shell organization, the "National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty", through Palmer National Bank to the Contras.
According to the National Security Archive, in an August 23, 1986 e-mail to John Poindexter, Oliver North described a meeting with a representative of Panamanian President Manuel Noriega: "You will recall that over the years Manuel Noriega in Panama and I have developed a fairly good relationship", North writes before explaining Noriega's proposal. If U.S. officials can "help clean up his image" and lift the ban on arms sales to the Panamanian Defense Force, Noriega will "'take care of' the Sandinista leadership for us."
North tells Poindexter that Noriega can assist with sabotage against the Sandinistas, and supposedly suggests paying Noriega a million dollars cash; from "Project Democracy" funds raised from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran – for the Panamanian leader's help in destroying Nicaraguan economic installations.[5]
In November 1986 as the sale of weapons was made public, North was fired by President Reagan, and in July 1987 he was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint Congressional committee formed to investigate Iran-Contra. The image of North taking the oath became iconic, and similar photographs made the cover of Time and Newsweek, and helped define him in the eyes of the public. During the hearings, North admitted that he had lied to Congress, for which he was later charged among other things. He defended his actions by stating that he believed in the goal of aiding the Contras, whom he saw as freedom fighters, and said that he viewed the Iran-Contra scheme as a "neat idea."[6]
North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.
However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[7] North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.[8] Because North had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, the law prohibited the independent counsel (or any prosecutor) from using that testimony as part of a criminal case against him. To prepare for the expected defense challenge that North's testimony had been used, the prosecution team had - before North's congressional testimony had been given - listed and isolated all its evidence[citation needed]; further, the individual members of the prosecution team had isolated themselves from news reports and discussion of North's testimony. While the defense could show no specific instance where any part of North's congressional testimony was used in his trial, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue, and ordered North's convictions reversed. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. After further hearings on the immunity issue, Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991, on the motion of the independent counsel.
[edit] Allegations of involvement with drug trafficking
During the early and mid 1980s, Lt. Colonel North was alleged to participate in organizing the transportation of cocaine and marijuana from the various sites in Central and South America into the United States as a means of funding the Contra rebels. Congressional records show North was tasked with finding funding “outside the CIA” after the Boland Amendment cut off funding for the Contras in October, 1984.[9]
On February 10, 1986, Robert Owen, North’s liaison with the Contras, wrote North regarding a plane being used to carry "humanitarian aid" to the Contras that was previously used to transport drugs. The plane belonged to the Miami-based company Vortex, which is run by Michael Palmer, one of the largest marijuana traffickers in the United States. Despite Palmer's long history of drug smuggling, Palmer receives over $300,000 from the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Aid Office (NHAO) -- an office overseen by Oliver North, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Elliott Abrams, and CIA officer Alan Fiers -- to ferry supplies to the Contras.[10]
During Manuel Noriega’s trial in 1991, pilot Floyd Carlton testified that his smuggling operation was flying weapons to the Contras at the same time he was flying dope to the United States. When Carlton’s lawyer asked about Oliver North’s knowledge of these flights, federal prosecutors vehemently objected, and U.S. judge William Hoeveler became angry. “Just stay away from it,” the judge snapped, refusing to allow any more questions on the topic.[11]
Investigations into Lt. Col North’s involvement have not been limited to the United States. One notable example is the second report of the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly’s Commission on Narcotics Trafficking, which examined the explosion of cocaine trafficking in that country during the 1980’s. After studying the involvement of Contras and U.S. officials with illegal arms running and drug trafficking, the commission recommended that former ambassador Lewis Tambs, CIA station chief Joseph_F._Fernandez, and Lt. Col. Oliver North be forever denied entry in Costa Rica, a recommendation adopted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias.[12]
North has consistently denied any involvement with drug trafficking, stating on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, “…nobody in the U.S. government, going all the way back to the earliest days of this under Jimmy Carter, ever had anything to do with running drugs.”[1] Critics[who?] counter that although no one in the United States government may have physically trafficked in drugs, there was a coordinated and well documented effort to assist those who did. At the very least, North’s critics[who?] contend, high ranking government officials turned a blind eye to the trafficking going on all around them because it proved to be such a reliable source of funding.
[edit] Shredding government documents
North admitted shredding government documents when the Iran Contra scandal became public. North admitted shredding all documents relating to his contra and Iranian activities - at William Casey's suggestion. He testified that Robert McFarlane had asked him to alter official records to delete references to direct assistance to the contras and that he'd helped.[13]
[edit] Books and media
North has written several best-selling books including Under Fire, One More Mission, War Stories — Operation Iraqi Freedom, Mission Compromised, The Jericho Sanction, and The Assassins.
His latest book, American Heroes, was released nationally in the U.S. on May 6, 2008. In this book, North addresses issues of defense against global terrorism, Jihad, and radical Islam from his firsthand perspective as a military officer and national security advisor and current Middle East war correspondent [16]. Lieutenant Colonel North is also a syndicated columnist[17].
From 1995 to 2003, North was host of his own nationally-syndicated radio program known as the "Oliver North radio show" or "Common Sense Radio." He also served as co-host of Equal Time on MSNBC for a couple of years starting in 1999. North is currently the host of the television show War Stories with Oliver North, and a regular commentator on Hannity and Colmes, both on the Fox News Channel. North appeared as himself on many television shows including the sitcom Wings and three episodes of the TV military drama JAG in 1995, 1996 and 2002[18]. In addition, he regularly speaks at both public and private events.
[edit] Other
In 1990 North founded the Freedom Alliance, a 501(c)(3) foundation "...to advance the American heritage of freedom by honoring and encouraging military service, defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense." The foundation's primary activities include providing support for wounded combat soldiers, and scholarships for the sons and daughters of service members killed in action.[19]
Pictures of North in the NSA buildings with former British Intelligence Officer John P. Lawrence were flashed around the world, when the two former colleagues were asked to help the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Although raised a Roman Catholic, he has long attended Protestant evangelical services with his family.
North is a board member in the National Rifle Association, and appeared at their national conventions in 2007[20] and 2008.[21]
In 2008, American Dad!, an animated TV show produced by Seth McFarlane, aired an episode that had the Iran-Contra affair as the main storyline called "Stanny Slickers: The Legend of Ollie's Gold" in which the main character, Stan Smith, looks for a crate full of gold that Ollie North had to hide before the Iran-Contra affair blew up.

North is considered a figure of great controversy, with supporters enjoying his impassioned defense of his actions, and opponents disapproving of his actions.
North remains a largely popular figure among conservatives. Many conservatives sympathize with the basis of North's activities within the Reagan administration, due to the fact they believe the "Boland Amendment" — a Congressional act specifically barring the U.S. government from providing material support to the Contras in Nicaragua — infringed on the constitutional power of the executive branch to conduct foreign policy. Some believe that North was used as a scapegoat for the Iran-Contra affair, and that other top government officials in the Reagan administration disproportionately laid the blame on him.
North's critics argue that in a democracy and a nation of laws, one cannot act above the law regardless of what his goals to be. Some point out that his activities substantially contributed to an attempted overthrow of a sovereign, democratically elected government and to terrorism in Nicaragua, and that they aided Iran, a nation that has been militarily hostile to the United States since 1979. They mention that along with other Reagan administration players, North has been banned from Central America's leading democracy, Costa Rica, for drug running.[22]
In October 2006, North revisited Nicaragua in the run up to the nation's presidential elections. Claiming he was invited in a private capacity to Nicaragua by friends, he warned against his old foe, Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega's possible return to power. Despite this, Ortega did win Nicaragua's presidency without the need of a runoff. During his visit, he expressed support for the PLC candidate, Jose Rizo, rather than the United States government's preferred candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, a dissident PLC candidate. North's support of Rizo quite possibly helped to further splinter the PLC vote allowing Daniel Ortega to win the first round with 38% of the vote.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962859-2,00.html
Time Magaz\ine 17 November 1986
…/news of secret U.S. dealings with Iran began to appear last week, attention inexorably turned to a cluster of suites in the Old Executive Office Building next door to the White House. They house a select band of globe- trotting staffers of the National Security Council, the executive agency that coordinates U.S. defense and foreign-affairs activities. Known for its bravado and love of derring-do, the small group conceived and ran the secret talks with Iran. While the group is part of a crisis-management team within the 46-person NSC staff, its freewheeling style has led Washington insiders to call its members the "cowboys."


More Related
• The U.S. and Turkey: Honesty Is the Best Policy
• Let's Make a Deal...
• Zarqawi Planning U.S. Hit?
The most prominent is Lieut. Colonel Oliver North, 43, a Marine who earned the Silver Star and two Purple Hearts -- among other medals -- in the Viet Nam War. He is deputy director for political-military affairs on the NSC. A close friend and military comrade of former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, North arouses strong emotions in people. "Nobody can be indifferent to Ollie," says the wife of a top foreign diplomat. "Either you love him, or you hate him with a passion."
Since he joined the NSC in 1981, North has handled many highly sensitive missions. After the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines, North led the hunt for those responsible. The chief suspect, however, managed to escape. When terrorists seized the Achille Lauro cruise ship off the coast of Egypt last year, North arranged the midair interception of an EgyptAir jet carrying Abul Abbas, the mastermind of the hijacking, to safety in Tunisia. North helped plan the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada and last April's Libyan air raid. It was not surprising that North turned up in Cyprus last week just when Released Hostage David Jacobsen arrived there. "Oliver North is the prototype of the modern American hero," says a friend and colleague. "Wherever and whenever Americans are in trouble, sooner or later you will see him at the scene."
Yet North's global troubleshooting has sometimes landed him in trouble. As head of NSC operations in Central America, he organized a private supply network that provided aid to the contra rebels seeking to oust the Marxist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Senate and House committees investigated North's role last year, but found no proof that he had violated a U.S. law regulating aid to the contras. The colonel's name briefly surfaced again last month when Gunrunner Eugene Hasenfus was captured in Nicaragua after his plane was shot down while he was flying weapons to the contras. A card found in the wreckage belonged to a businessman thought to have links to North.
A confirmed workaholic, North regularly puts in 16-to-18-hour days while in Washington. He dislikes paperwork, and once groused to a friend, "Every time a terrorist fires a bullet, we have to fill out a pile of papers." Colleagues quip that North's real power comes from two office computers hooked into the major U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies, and from a secure telephone line that he uses for classified conversations. For his own protection, the slender officer is rarely photographed or quoted in news accounts. "He is there to serve the President, and that is it," a colleague says.

Like North, the rest of the cowboys tend to be hard-line conservatives who crave adventure and seem to generate controversy. Howard Teicher, 35, a respected expert on the Middle East, recently emerged as a source of a Washington disinformation campaign designed to suggest, among other things, that the U.S. was planning military moves against Libya. The Administration caused a furor last month when it admitted that the reports were false.


More Related
• North Korea Comes Back to the Table
• North Korea’s Syrian Connection
• What Does North Korea Want?
Teicher, who speaks fluent Hebrew, caused another flap five years ago when he tried to publish a fictionalized account of Israel's nuclear secrets. The manuscript was confiscated by the Israeli military censor, and Teicher did not seek to publish it elsewhere.
Another zealous cowboy is Vince Cannistraro, 41, a twelve-year veteran of the CIA. He took over Central American operations from North last spring after first being responsible for operations in Africa. He has directed the channeling of weapons and aid to Jonas Savimbi's UNITA rebels fighting the Marxist regime in Angola. Insiders say Cannistraro managed to supply Savimbi with more arms than the White House originally intended. A quiet official who joined the NSC in 1983, Cannistraro has helped funnel supplies to the mujahedin guerrillas at war with the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan.
Other members of the crisis-management team are more shadowy figures. Robert Earle, 42, a Marine lieutenant colonel and Rhodes scholar, joined the staff from the CIA last year and now serves as North's deputy. He meets regularly with foreign counterterrorist experts and coordinates operations with them. Craig Coy, 36, a Coast Guard commander, joined the NSC after serving on a White House terror task force. Lieut. Colonel Jim Stark, 38, worked with North in planning last spring's Libyan air raid. He is considered to be more disciplined than his sometimes freebooting colleagues, while sharing their tough-minded attitudes.
The crisis-management cowboys, of course, have attracted critics, and their methods are often questioned. One congressional staffer calls North a "ruthless operator." But if the cowboys sometimes appear to ride roughshod, NSC officials say, they are only carrying out Administration policies.
********************************************************************************************
Mexico's ex-drug czar busted for cartel collaboration
Submitted by WW4 Report on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 03:48.
Mexican authorities detained the country's former Drug Czar—officially the Special Investigative Sub-Prosecutor for Organized Delinquency (SIEDO)—Noé Ramírez Mandujano Nov. 20, a day after he voluntarily spoke to investigators. Ramírez was named to the post in December 2006 when President Felipe Calderón took office. He submitted his resignation in July at the request of the Prosecutor General of the Republic (PGR).
Mexico's Prosecutor General Eduardo Medina Mora announced after the arrest that Ramírez is believed to have recieved $450,000 in monthly payments over the last two years from the Beltran Leyva and Zambada García drug mafias. Several high-ranking Mexican law enforcement officials already have been detained in Operación Limpieza ("Operation House Cleaning"), aimed at weeding out officials suspected of sharing information with the Beltran Leyva brothers' Sinaloa Cartel. The operation was launched following exposure of official by the January arrest of Alfredo Beltran Leyva.
An anonymous PGR official told reporters earlier Nov. 20 that Mario Arturo Velarde Martínez, formerly a close aide to Public Safety Secretary Genaro García Luna, is also being taregted in the investigation. The official was not authorized to be quoted by name.
In another drug-related case, a lawyer for former Federal Preventive Police commander for Regional Security Javier Herrera said that same day that his detention was a reprisal for his complaints about alleged mismanagement on the force. Herrera was detained Nov. 17 for questioning on allegations that he received money from the cartels. His lawyer, Raquenel Villanueva, said he is innocent and is being punished for publicly alleging earlier this year that Garcia Luna had appointed unqualified police officers.
Earlier this month, Rodolfo de la Guardia Garcia, the number-two official at the Federal Investigative Agency (AFI) from 2003-2005, was placed under house arrest pending an investigation of claims he leaked information to the Sinaloa Cartel in return for monthly payments. De la Guardia was elected to Interpol's executive committee in 2002 but was removed from that post by the Mexican government in 2004. Former federal police commissioner Gerardo Garay and three other officials of the Public Safety Department also were placed under house arrest.
Interpol is sending a special investigative team to Mexico to determine whether sensitive information from its database was leaked to the cartels following the house arrest of Ricardo Gutierrez Vargas, director of the international police agency's National Central Bureau in Mexico. Gutierrez Vargas had access to Interpol's database on suspected terrorists, wanted persons, fingerprints and DNA profiles, among other data. Staffers from Interpol's General Secretariat plan to meet with Mexican authorities to discuss potential improper use of Interpol's systems, admitted officials at agency's headquarters in Lyon, France. (Cronica de Hoy, Nov. 22; AP, El Universal, Nov. 21; AP, El Universal, El Universal, Nov. 20)

• Play Video Video: Arizona Governor in line for Cabinet post FOX 11 Tuscon
• Play Video Video: No comment from Napolitano on Homeland Security KTVK 3TV Phoenix
MEXICO CITY – Mexican authorities detained a former top anti-drug prosecutor on Thursday as part of an investigation into possible links between senior law enforcements officials and drug cartels.
The federal Attorney General's Office said in a statement that former Assistant Attorney General for Organized Crime Noe Ramirez was detained a day after he voluntarily spoke to investigators.
Ramirez was named to the post in December 2006 when President Felipe Calderon took office. He submitted his resignation in July at the request of the attorney general and with Calderon's authorization.
Federal officials said at the time that the move was part of a law enforcement shake-up by the Calderon administration.
Several high-ranking Mexican law enforcement officials already have been detained during Operation Clean House, a sweeping probe aimed at weeding out officials who allegedly shared police information with the Beltran Leyva brothers, once associated with the powerful Sinaloa drug cartel.
An official at the Attorney General's Office said earlier Thursday that Mario Velarde, a former close aide to the country's top police official, also was being looked at in the investigation. The official was not authorized to be quoted by name.
Velarde served as Public Safety Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna's private secretary several years ago, and continued to work in the Public Safety Department in a different job until he was asked to retire this year, according to a spokesperson in Garcia Luna's office who is prohibited by department regulations from being quoted by name.
Velarde has not been charged with a crime, nor has he been detained, prosecutors said.
There was no telephone number listed under Velarde's name in Mexico City and it was not known if he had an attorney.
Mexican law enforcement agencies have been rocked in recent weeks by the detention or house arrest of about a dozen high-level police and prosecution officials on suspicion they leaked information to Mexico's powerful Sinaloa drug cartel.
Those detained in the probe include a Mexican police official who led the local Interpol office.
In another drug-related case, a lawyer for former federal police regional commander Javier Herrera said Thursday that his detention was a reprisal for his complaints about alleged mismanagement on the force.
Herrera was detained Monday for questioning on allegations that he supposedly received money from drug traffickers, but his lawyer, Raquenel Villanueva, said he is innocent and is being punished for publicly alleging earlier this year that Garcia Luna had appointed unqualified police officers.
___
Associated Press Writer E. Eduardo Castillo contributed to this story.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See the daily Mail for Saturday 1` November 2008:

A UK Politician in the frame?

MICHAEL HOWARD, the drugs baron and an extraordinary £400,000 bribery claim.

By Michael Seamark and Ian Drury Saturday 1 November 2008 – page 11 Daily Mail

Michael Howard was last night at the centre of extraordinary claims by a drugs baron who alleges he paid a £400,000 ‘bribe’ to the former Home Secretary.

Career criminal John Haase told a Labour MP that he was released from prison early after making the payment via one of Mr Howard’s relatives.

Haase and fellow drug lord Paul Bennett were released 11 months into an 18-year jail sentence for heroin smuggling after Mr Howard approved a royal pardon in exchange for the pair turning ‘supergrass’ in 1996, the court heard.

But the men are accused of fixing the pardons by merely pretending to help the police and giving bogus tip-offs about gun caches they arranged to have planted by accomplices.

The prosecution allege that Haase’s current wife Deborah, 37, and their friend Sharon Knowles, 36, were among those who helped organise the scam.

Haase told MP Peter Kilfoyle that their plot included a £400,000 payment to Mr Howard’s cousin Simon Bakerman, the court heard.

Mr Bakerman allegedly collected the cash from Haase’s Liverpool home. Mr Kilfoyle, giving evidence at Southwark Crown Court, said that Haase told him about the alleged bribe when he signed a statement in prison in 2004.

Haase 59, and his nephew Bennett, 44, were arrested in July 1993 following a major investigation into an ‘international drug trafficking operation’.

The court heard they hatched a plan to reduce their sentences by telling HM Cutoms and Excise they would become informants.

After they were jailed in 1995, the judge in the case wrote privately to Mr Howard asking for a royal pardon.

He had been told that the information which the pair passed on to the authorities was so sensitive that their lives ‘would be at risk’ if it became known they had become informers. The then Home Secretary (Michael Howard) approved the ‘Royal Prerogative of Mercy’ and cut their sentences to five years. They were released in July 1996 – ten months and two weeks after being sentenced.

Mr Kilfoyle told the court he had spent some time investigating the men’s early release, and had visited Haase in prison.

It was on one of the visits, the court heard, that Haase made the allegation that he had bribed Mr Howard.

In his affidavit to the MP, Haase claimed: ‘Bennett said he knew a relation of Howard’s. He said £400,000. It didn’t sway me. We had £1 million to play with.

‘The £400,000 was to pay off Michael Howard when the judge’s letter reached him.’

The four defendants, from Liverpool, all deny conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Mrs Haase also denies possession of firearms and ammunition without permission.
The trial continues.