From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Aug 16 06:36:43 PDT 1993 Article: 25903 of alt.activism Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com Newsgroups: alt.activism Subject: EIR Talks 08/11/93 (was EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche) Message-ID: <378-PCNews-126beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 15 Aug 93 22:23:6 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 653 Note the change of name of this series from EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche to EIR Talks. - ATTENTION FREE LAROUCHE ATTENTION FREE LAROUCHE - The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure to get him free. Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview formatted with news breaks and commercials. To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within stations' listening area can be most effective. Program director and general managers are usually the ones to make decisions about programming. Get interested contacts with businesses or products to advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry the program. Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern. For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC 3:1 Companding, Flat or Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W Trans 2 7.5 mHz Wide Band Video Subcarrier The LaRouche files are now available by automatic list service. To get an index of the files, you must subscribe to the LaRouche mailing list. To do this, send a message to listserv@ccs.covici.com with a line saying subscribe lar-lst After that, to get an index, say index lar-lst ``{EIR} Talks'' August 11, 1993 Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks.'' I'm on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. My name is Mel Klenetsky. Clinton Must Take on France and Britain Directly on the Balkan Issue Today we are going to be discussing Bill Clinton and the particulars of NATO's decision to go with air strikes, however with certain qualifications. What is Mr. Clinton doing, in terms of giving up foreign policy to NATO and NATO in turn giving up foreign policy to the United Nations? MR. LAROUCHE: Well actually, the Clinton administration backed down totally to the British line, and tried to appear not to have done so. This procedure, as it came out of Brussels, under which the military action will not occur, will be limited to, will be coordinated with, the United Nations--that after each action they will go back to the United Nations before going to the next military action--all of this sort of thing, means that {nothing at all of any significance will be done.} In the meantime, the French put their U.N.-assigned troops on the mountaintop with the Serbians, which means that one could not bomb the most relevant position of the Serbian artillery, without hitting French U.N. troops. The thing literally stinks. If I were President of the United States, I should be laying before the American people {precisely} what these modern Daladiers such as Lord Owen, who is worse than Chamberlain, and the French have done in this situation, and say, this is the problem we have to deal with. I think the American people have the right to know what is going on in the Balkans. If we're going to make policy, if there's a possibility of military action, I think the American people ought to know what's going on. I think that unless Clinton does that and says openly that the Bosnians are being destroyed because the French and British are acting as virtual allies or directors of the genocide being done by the Serbian fascists there, I don't think we can make policy. We have to call a spade a spade. Q: Congressman McCloskey from Indiana has issued a call which asks for the resignation of Lord Owen, who is the mediator in the Bosnia situation. What will this resignation do, if it goes through? MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, it should be recalled that friends of ours were in the middle of this operation which forced the exposure of what Lord Owen had done, his duplicity, that Lord Owen was working as a virtual agent of those Serbians such as Karajdzic, the psychiatrist. Remember, Lord Owen is a psychiatrist, and he is connected very directly through these professional channels to Karajdzic, not merely in the profession of psychiatry, but the operations in Bosnia were run and designed on the basis of certain psychiatric principles of psychological warfare, in which Owen's circles were participating in the theoretical planning side of designing this kind of warfare. So Owen is not simply ``connected'' to Karajdzic by professional linkages; he is actually a part of the group of people who designed this kind of warfare; and they were using this kind of psychological warfare to try to turn all of Bosnia-Hercegovina--and part of Croatia, too--over to these fascist Serbs. And that meant that the Kosova region of the former Yugoslavia would be subject to massive ``ethnic cleansing'' against the so-called Albanian population there; and that Makedonija would be the next to go, which means the whole Balkan war would spread. So we got that exposed, that that was exactly the game that was being played. That was exposed in a meeting in Geneva. That came out in the press, through our participation and our friends' participation. We got to the bottom of this. We exposed it. Many people have demanded it. The issue here, as my wife Helga put it in a private discussion with some people a week ago, and as I put it otherwise, is that if the Clinton administration accepts this kind of arrangement, submits to it, to this British-French diktat, the type that they did at the NATO meeting, then the United States becomes strategically--that is, politically and diplomatically--a paper tiger. And bombing Iraq again, or bombing or killing Somalians is not going to give any credibility to the United States. The crucial issue the United States has to face is twofold on this military-strategic level. The United States has to face the fact that the British are working {against} the most vital interests of the United States in the Balkans and in China, among other places. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing the Clinton administration's giving up, in terms of taking control of strategic and foreign policy because of its relationship with Britain and France. MR. LAROUCHE: The issue here is, focus on the balance, for example, between the Balkans and what is happening in Russia. As my wife Helga said, and as I have discussed this with her, it makes no difference what Clinton does to attack the Serbs or not attack them militarily in former Yugoslavia; what the United States {fears} will happen in Russia, {will happen anyway.} The argument is, that if the United States were to participate with Europe, or on its own, in bombing action against the artillery positions of the Serbs and some of the supply routes and so forth, to stop these atrocities, that would tend to relieve it, but then Russia would react adversely. {That is probably true.} They fear also, that this would topple Yeltsin in Russia, and the hardliners. {That is also possibly true.} But if they did nothing, they would also accelerate the change in Russia, which is now on the tracks. It's a train on the tracks, the engine is moving, the train is moving. It might cause the train to speed up a little bit, but even that is debatable. It is happening. So the United States has lost Russia, just as surely as some pro-British meddlers in the State Department and elsewhere back in the late 1940s, gave China to the communists. I don't accept the Joe McCarthy version of that, of course, but there was a very large element of truth in that, that the United States brought the communists to power by supporting British policy on that issue back in the 1940s. The United States bungled under George Bush--and Clinton has yet to undo that bungling. George Bush created a situation in which once the Iron Curtain had fallen, instead of opening the world to cooperation and development, and the road to durable peace, by the economic policies of George Soros and others, which the United States and others imposed upon Russia and eastern Europe, the United States has driven Russia into a mood of bitter hostility against the West again. What is coming back in Russia, is {not} a communist power, but a Great Russian power--{as I warned these guys} under the Reagan administration back in 1983 to 1985. I repeatedly warned them: I said, you are going to see the fall of communism, but you are going to see, if you continue these kinds of policies, the danger of the return of Russian power, a thermonuclear power, in the form of a Great Russian/Third Rome government. That is going to tend to happen {anyway}; it is too late to simply reverse that. We can only {shape,} or {tend to shape,} what that development {is} at this stage. We have thrown away our options. Bush did the most of it. But the Clinton administration, by failing to act to correct this Bush error, by tolerating the shock therapy, by tolerating George Soros, by not taking action in the Balkans, allowed the Bush program to continue, and that sent us down onto this road. So that is the issue. If we do not act in Bosnia to stop the Serbs, the United States has no political, diplomatic, strategic credibility on this planet. That loss of credibility, more than any Russian resentment against our action against their Serbian ``little brothers,'' will accelerate Moscow's perception that the United States {is} a paper tiger, and the Russians will come on with a hostile attitude toward the United States as they reconsolidate their power very rapidly. In the meantime, what we face is a China blowup also, in the context of the oncoming depression, the greatest monetary crisis in world history (or at least known world history), ongoing into the spring of next year. These strategic crises, and so forth. We are facing a crisis beyond belief; and it's no exaggeration, that the Clinton administration will absolutely go down, with no credibility, and the United States perhaps, too, in ways beyond ordinary imagination, {unless this problem is reversed very quickly.} Q: We're coming up to a break, but quickly, what do you think of the recent resignation of Marshall Freeman Harris and previously John Western from the State Department? These were two individuals who were involved in the Bosnia desk. John Western was, of course, involved in looking at war crimes of the Serbians, and Harris was the head of the Bosnia desk. What does this mean for the State Department and Warren Christopher, does it show tremendous disarray? MR. LAROUCHE: What it shows, as they have said (and I have some other sources), is that professionals in the Washington bureaucracy, people who have been around there who represent professionals, who have some sense of how things are going, know that the present policy of capitulation to the Anglo-French pro-Serbian alliance, the capitulation to the antics of Boutros-Boutros-Ghali is a backdown. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, there have been a number of resignations in the State Department--Marshall Freeman Harris and John Western--over Bosnia. What is the significance of these resignations? MR. LAROUCHE: As I was saying before we came up to the break, this symptomizes a reaction within the professional establishment in the Washington government, our national government, especially in the State Department, but I think not limited to that by any means, who are resigning, sacrificing their careers in effect, to deliver a warning to the White House, to the Congress, and to the American people, of how bad this backdown to the Anglo-French policy and the Boutros-Ghali policy, is. This continued backdown since April and May to this Anglo-French dirty operation typified by Lord Owen's duplicity, is something which, if the Clinton administration continues to tolerate this as much as another week, could be an absolute disaster for the strategic situation and for all policy, and for the credibility of the Clinton administration as a whole. There is no diversionary, compensating, offsetting tactic by which President Clinton could save his administration from the absolute disaster which will hit it if he does not bite the bullet on this issue of confronting openly, boldly, and effectively, the duplicity of London and Paris in the recent years on this Balkan issue. If he doesn't do it, nobody in the world is going to believe him; and he is not going to get a single important domestic program through. So this is make-or-break for President Bill Clinton. That's what this resignation signifies. It's a symptom of a general condition of the government, where they're saying this administration ain't working. Not on the budget balancing, not on all this frou-fra that we get in the press. It's not working, because it is not addressing and is evading the fundamental issue upon which the very existence of this administration and the credibility of the United States globally, as well as domestically, hangs absolutely. And there is no way that Clinton's administration is going to survive, unless he bites the bullet and takes on the French and British directly and openly on this Balkan issue. The Meaning of the Third Rome Tendency for Russia Q: Mr. LaRouche, the figure of Solzhenitsyn is recently emerging in Russia. He represents a critique of the West, very knowledgeable about the West. He pushes such figures as Stolypin and Dostoyevsky. Of course, you have promoted Witte who represents a different tendency than Stolypin. Solzhenitsyn claims that the territory of Russia includes not only Russia but Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. What is the difference between what Solzhenitsyn represents, what Stolypin represents, and your view of how Russia has to go in terms of the policies of Count Witte, and what is the significance of this in terms of the strategic breakdown you've just been describing? MR. LAROUCHE: There are two aspects to be considered, in respect to what Solzhenitsyn is saying. First of all, Solzhenitsyn and I have been crossing paths on this since the middle of the 1980s. Solzhenitsyn once made a public statement in a meeting in Washington, stating that I was the only one advising the Reagan administration who seemed to understand the Russian situation. That was in response to my warnings that Russia was headed toward a transition through crisis from Bolshevism to a non-Bolshevik, Third Rome Russian empire. Solzhenitsyn, of course, is intellectually a literary, not merely a literary, but essentially a literary proponent of the Third Rome. That is, he understands the modern literature which shapes those aspects of the Russian culture which tend toward Third Rome; and that is what he is talking about when he talks about Dostoyevsky, who is a prime Third Romer, and people like Stolypin. The issue is this. The Russians are not being moved today by Stolypin or Dostoyevsky. One must not read that in. Those are only symptoms, they are not causes. The Russians are moving to a Third Rome for reasons I indicated over 10 years ago. The Russians are reacting to certain axiomatic assumptions, which most Russians accept in their bones; and they are reacting to the crisis on the basis of those assumptions. Those assumptions produce results, in terms of policies, which in the mind of the literary observer, correspond to the same kinds of thinking one can read in the diaries of Dostoyevsky. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have been talking about the Third Rome. What is the Third Rome, and what are these assumptions that you have been discussing? MR. LAROUCHE: Following the collapse of Charlemagne's order in Europe, which occurred as a result of what was called the New Dark Age in European history, that's covering the very late thirteenth century and up to the middle of the fourteenth century, there erupted throughout Europe a policy impulse for the creation of a new Roman Empire, because Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire had sort of taken that place. This erupted in Russia beginning the middle of the fifteenth century. By about 1510 A.D., a Russian monk by the name of Philotheus of Pskov issued a statement like a prophecy which became the basis for the existence of the czarist government under a number of people of the sixteenth century, including Ivan Grozny, the famous Ivan the Terrible. This has always been, as Dostoyevsky, for example, celebrates it, the conception that Russia will be the third and the last and everlasting version of a worldwide new Roman Empire. The very title of czar, which is Russian for Caesar, was adopted in the sixteenth century by the princes of Muscovy to identify this Third Rome imperialist thrust deeply embedded axiomatically in Muscovite culture, embedded in the bones of virtually every peasant in Russia while they are attached to this monarchy. So what has happened, with the collapse of Bolshevism, the failure of Bolshevism from the Russian standpoint, the Russians go back to the axioms which existed before Bolshevism, and which shaped Bolshevik figures as Stalin. Stalin, for example, was a combination of a Bolshevik {and} a Third Romer, especially so in the 1930s and 1940s, into the 1950s. But that's what we're talking about. The alternative is, what kind of a breakdown, and what kind of a Third Rome are you going to get? Not necessarily a Third Rome Russian Empire, but what kind of a Third Rome Russian government? Are you going to get what Solzhenitskyn represents, a sophisticated version of this kind of thing? Are you going to get an Ivan Grozny, the emergence of figures who remind us of Ivan the Terrible or Stalin in his Third Rome period? Not Bolsheviks, but Great Russians? Or are you going to get something else? The only choice we have, as a United States or Western Europe, is to contribute policy inputs which tend to cause Russians to make a rational choice of what kind of new Russia they are going to put together; and to exercise some tolerance and moderation toward peoples within the former Soviet Union, in the process. We can do that, if we would dump George Soros and our IMF conditionalities and free trade, etc., policies. We could take a much more positive policy, by playing up Germany in Europe as the instrument of an international policy, to get some economic development going in all of eastern Europe, and to offer that kind of cooperation to Russia, as opposed to the kind of program which was shoved down Russian throats through Bush and Bush's--as you might say--patsy, the former dictator, Mikhail Gorbachov. U.S. Policy Towards China: We're Up Against Britain Q: Mr. LaRouche, recently, there were figures that were revised, official figures of the Chinese government, which said that the agricultural surplus labor from China, has risen from 170 million to 400 million. That's one-third of the population of China. This obviously represents economic disaster. What are the implications of this for the end of the 20th century and into the next century, if this basic collapse in China continues? MR. LAROUCHE: There is a fight going on, an obvious one. We've got two programs. The United States apparently is going with an enterprise zone policy for China. What we see coming up in Shanghai, in Guangdong Province, in Hainan, in Hongkong--the Hongkong model--is the one being pushed by the United States. That is, take this 400 million Chinese surplus labor, mostly from the countryside; cut Chinese food production by cutting these people down, actually; then ship these people as coolie labor to these coastal enterprise zone regions, as in Shanghai, Guangdong, Hainan, and so forth. They are already pouring in there. Now, the United States foolishly believes that this program will work. There is a CIA report which has gone to the President and is floating around Congress, reported in the press. It's an absolutely lunatic piece of paper, saying this is prosperity, this is growth. It's terrible. Taking up to 400 million of your population, one-third of your population--more than one-third, actually, because there are less than 1.2 billion Chinese on the mainland, so 400 million Chinese being surplus labor--that's more than one-third. Let's take the 400 million. Let's melt them down in slave labor. It's sort of like Auschwitz, what the Nazis did at Auschwitz, which was to kill people largely through slave labor. So you take 400 million Chinese and you melt them down one by one in these enterprise slave-labor projects, these so-called enterprise zone projects. Some Chinese become rich, through peddling the product of slave labor. China becomes poor, through losing population, thorugh melting down its own population. China will go, under these conditions, into an explosive crisis. Now the British understand this, and what I have directly from high levels in Beijing, is that the Chinese there understand it, too. They understand that what the British foresee for China, is absolute chaos and general explosion. And the Chinese are very angry at the British--at least that crowd in Beijing--because they know what the British are up to. So the United States has a conflict with Britain, not only in Bosnia policy, where the British are running the United Nations and France and the Balkans; but the United States has a policy conflict, where a foolish United States policy, run by people who don't know what they're doing--just greedy people who don't want to see what they're doing--against a British policy which is more sophisticated and very diabolical. So what this means, is that there is no Chinese economic miracle. This CIA report is ridiculous. It's silly, or worse than silly; and the Chinese themselves have now pointed that out implicitly. But we're up against a fight with Britain on this policy. If the United States continues to submit to this British way of thinking in the Balkans, on Russia, in terms of European continental policy generally, or in China, then what Mr. Clinton is going to do, is to take the inheritance he has from Bush--a world in crisis, a world in collapse, and a United States in disgrace, and find that delivered to his doorstep. And so China's just another example of this great crisis, which all hinges on the inability of the Clinton administration so far to face up to a showdown, to force London to submit and get into line with some kind of sane program. [commercial break] The Mississippi Valley Floods: Weather Patterns Show We are in a Cooling Phase Q: Mr. LaRouche, President Clinton has just received about $4.7 billion in aid to deal with the crisis in the Mississippi Valley, the Mississippi flood situation. The flood has taken 50 lives, 70,000 people are homeless. There is at least $8 billion in crop damage. {Executive Intelligence Review} estimates damage at over $20 billion. What can Mr. Clinton do with this $4.7 billion? MR. LAROUCHE: He can do very little. Recall that Sen. Wellstone from Minnesota was leading a fight to get compensation for the category of cases, 20 cents for compensation or assistance per dollar of damage up through 40 cents of compensation per dollar of damage. That is an improvement. There is an indication that the Clinton administration would make efforts, with sensible people in Congress, to increase the assistance for the people in the Midwest. That is, I don't think the Clinton administration wants to see a repeat of its catastrophic failure of U.S. domestic relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. Maybe they're going to learn a lesson from studying the disaster, the failure of policy in that case. But $4.7 billion means that there won't be enough money even to meet that 40 cents on the dollar figure. It means an absolute disaster for the Midwest. Remember that the problem here, is not simply one flood. It's a result of several things, mostly, most significantly, the eruption of the Philippine volcano Mt. Pinatubo about three years ago. We are in what some meteorologists are calling a mini-Ice Age. The effect of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo has been to generate torrential rains and droughts alternately in parts of the world, contrary to general preceding trends. This condition is expected to exist for several years to come. As we look overall at the flood condition in the Midwest we see that where the Corps of Engineers program was functioning, or where other entities were working up to the Corps of Engineers' 500-year standard, so called, in the region, that the levees held. Where people went cheapo, did not maintain their works, as in Davenport, or failed to come up to Corps of Engineers' standards, we had a catastrophe. And because of a lack of Corps of Engineers work, because the Corps of Engineers had been cut back, we had this catastrophe--which could have been averted. We are going to have {more} catastrophes of this type over the coming years, unless we fundamentally change policies. We could expect, that over the coming 2-3 years, we could have major repeats of this problem and other problems, such as the droughts in the Southeast. Not because of the weather, but because the United States, for opportunistic, political reasons, did not want to face itself, let alone tell the American people, that this flood condition was {foreknown,} at least a year ago, when we had the Pinatubo haze over the North American continent. {We knew this was coming}; and we did nothing to stop it, because it would have meant a change in policy. We {should have} known this was coming three years ago, at least two and a half, at least 18 months ago. We did nothing to stop it. Because the Bush administration built in a policy, which the Clinton administration has not changed, which says, ignore it; pretend it isn't going to happen. And because some people in the Bush administration and Clinton administration did not want to say, Hey, buddy, there {is no global warming}; your cow excreting gas from its rear end is not going to bring on global warming; we are entering, fellas, into a mini-Ice Age period, a short period in which the weather will become cooler in places like Minnesota and the Dakotas and so forth. So they didn't want to tell the truth, because they didn't want to face the budgetary implications of that, that you had to build up the Corps of Engineers program in anticipation of this quickly; and they didn't wish to offend those crazy kooks who keep talking about this nonsense about global warming, which is never coming. We're actually already in a global cooling phase anyway, and we're going into a short-term inflection of a probable mini-Ice Age. That doesn't mean you're going to have big glaciers crushing in your window or your roof, but it does mean there will be a significant cooling effect in parts of the Northern Hemisphere. So that's the way to look at it. And the $4.7 billion is ridiculous. Look at Clinton's problem. Clinton tried, at the beginning of his administration, to get through a mini-program, a toe-in-the-water program as I described it, for some job creation and some infrastructure and some incentives. The Gramm-led people in the Senate, the crazy free-market ideologues, shut that down; and Clinton is afraid to do anything in that direction now. But what we need, is a massive, multi-billion dollar emergency program, not only to repair the damage that's done, but to rebuild the area, to anticipate the {next} crisis. It's not going to be 500 years until the next flood, or a similar crisis in this region. {We're still in the same period of weather conditions that caused the flood in the first place.} So Clinton has got to spend. And if you think about it, it's going to force the administration and others to think about this lunatic budget-balancing policy. The problem behind all this, the reason that some people in the Senate and elsewhere won't do anything to get the President to correct this error, or help him correct the error, is that they're all seized with this delusion, like much of the American public, which is fostered by people like Ross Perot, that big government spending has caused the problem, and cutting government spending is going to solve the problem. It's absolute nonsense. We have a smaller percentile of federal non-military employees today than we had 20-25 years ago. So where's the big government spending on government operations? Yes, there is government subsidy to the big bankers; there's government being looted through the Federal Reserve System operations by the big bankers. There is $50 per day per person being looted out of the U.S. economy by this derivatives swindle, and that sort of thing. But the problem is not an excess of government spending on government operations. The problem is not entitlements as such; although that seems to be a problem, it is not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is that about 17.2 percent of the U.S. labor force, according to government figures, government data, are unemployed. That's over 20 million Americans unemployed; and if we put some of these people back to work, and rebuild some of the businesses we've torn down through lunatic policies over the period 1978-1989, then we can have an increae in the number of people earning money, and earning decent money, not flipping hamburgers at low wages. We have businesses which will become taxpayers. These taxpayers will carry the burden, or help to carry the burden, in states, localities, as well as the federal government. Under those conditions, we can begin to bring this budgetary imbalance under control. If we at the same time shut down this kind of Fed operation, and shut down the derivatives market, we can keep the international financial succubus from sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. Most of the increase in federal debt is caused by the New York bankers' Federal Reserve operations. Everybody in Washington who understands how this works, knows that. Many people in the public do not know that. The free enterprise nuts will not tell you that. But that's our problem. We have got to go into a rational protectionist mode of the type the United States has stood for since the time of President George Washington. We have got to get our businesses going. We have got to get 6 to 8 to 10 million more people working in good jobs, not phony or service-type jobs, but real jobs producing wealth, and we have got to start rebuilding the infrastructure of the water systems, the rail systems, the power systems, the sanitations systems, the medical systems, the education system of this country. And under those conditions, we can get out of this mess. But going in the direction they're going in now, the government's offer of $4.7 billion, as against the $20-25 billion which is necessary just to repair the damage, not even including the buildup for the next threat of flood; under those conditions, we are in real trouble. And tell the American people to wake up to what's wrong with our policy making, not just with this or that policy. I'm afraid that Washington is going to continue to go in this direction; and the United States, as long as that continues, until people wake up, is going down the sewer. Why John Demjanjuk Is Being Persecuted by the OSI Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have a couple of minutes left, and what I would like to have you discuss, is the case of John Demjanjuk. The saga keeps going. the Supreme Court of Israel has found him innocent. He is not Ivan the Terrible, and yet, the Department of Justice and the United States is arguing that he should not be returned. Why are they so intent on preventing John Demjanjuk from being returned after so much harm and so much human suffering has been done to him? MR. LAROUCHE: The Demjanjuk case follows a pattern which began with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger back in the mid-1970s, who negotiated a deal through Ambassador Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador to Washington, with the Moscow Procurator, under which the United States government agreed to target American citizens designated by the Soviet government as enemies of the Soviet Union under the allegation that they had been war criminals. From that point to the present, there has not been a single case in which a valid conviction on war crimes has been made by the United States government, that is, through the Justice Department, through this Office of Special Investigations. Not a single case. In the Soobzokov case, Tscherim Soobzokov escaped prosecution back in the 1970s because his lawyers forced the {New York Times} to admit that in order to prosecute him they had gone to the Soviet KGB to get forged evidence built, in which to make false allegations against Soobzokov. When that came out in trial, Soobzokov got a sealed settlement with the {New York Times}, which had to pay him off for that bit of lying and operation, and the Office of Special Investigations was forced to shut down their case. But every case which the OSI has brought against an alleged Nazi-period war-crimes or crimes-against-humanity individual, has been a fake. Now the Demjanjuk case is a similar fake. {There is no legitimate evidence against Demjanjuk.} The Israeli courts have admitted that the case against him that he was [the Nazi concentration camp guard known as] Ivan the Terrible was tainted. He was not Ivan the Terrible. And, according to Justice Department papers, they knew he was not Ivan the Terrible back in 1978 before they started the case. Now, they now say there is another case against him. That case rests on one single piece of paper manufactured by the KGB. It is all over Europe, including in a report in {Der Spiegel,} a leading newsweekly magazine, reporting the details of the fakery of that particular document. There is no case against John Demjanjuk charging that he either is Ivan the Terrible or any other kind of a Nazi guard. No evidence. MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we have to end at this point. We'll come back to this case, I'm sure. We will see you next week. Thank you very much. If anyone has any questions for Mr. LaRouche, wants to send them in, write to: {EIR} Talks with LaRouche, c/o EIR News Service Inc., Attn: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. ---- John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.