OPINION

Page 4

Tuesday, November 28, 1989


The Jesuits were no exception:
Death

The Michigan Daily
uurders

S

By David Austin
The killing of six Jesuit priests, their
cook and her daughter in San Salvador last
week shocked the world and brought inter-
national condemnation to the Salvadoran
government and military for perpetuating
such atrocities. However, a closer look re-
veals that the killings were not unusual
and very much in keeping with both U.S.
policy in El Salvador and the current gov-
ernment, run by the ARENA party.
' ARENA is the party that represents the
elite of Salvadoran society, an elite whose
wealth compares with that of the the
Rockefellers. For decades this group has
increased its wealth at the expense of the
poor majority. Attempts to change this
system of injustice and exploitation peace-
fully were met with electoral fraud and
massive repression, creating a ruling al-
Snlndnr r

openly admired by ARENA members and
ARENA's founder and President for Life
once said, "You Germans were very intel-
ligent. You realized that the Jews were re-
sponsible for the spread of Communism,
and you began to kill them." Former U.S.
ambassador to El Salvador Robert White
said in Congressional testimony that
"ARENA is a violent Fascist party mod-
eled after the NAZIs."
ARENA and its predecessor govern-
ments have used extreme repression to
control the population, labeling anyone
opposed to the government a
"communist". As a result, more than
60,000 civilians have been killed by the
Salvadoran military and government orga-
nized death squads. Vides Casanova, the
current Minister of Defense, has told Sal-
vadoran president Alfredo Christiani that
"the armed forces are prepared to kill
200,000 to 300,000 if that's what it
takes."
The killings of the Jesuit priests was
shocking and seemed out of place because

quad u
we are constantly told by our government
and media that El Salvador is democracy.
Yet in a democracy there are no death
squads and the government doesn't rely on
repression to stay in power. In this con-
text, the Salvadoran government's indis-
criminate bombing of civilians in the past
week and the slayings of the Jesuit priests
was not an aberration, but part of a histor-
ical pattern of mass slaughter on the part
of the government, slaughter support un-
conditionally by our government and paid
for with our tax dollars.
The FMLN offensive has not only re-
vealed the true nature of the allegedly
"democratic" government of El Salvador,
it has also shown how the U.S main-
stream media are not neutral in their re-
porting, but in fact support U.S. policy.
For example, the media reveal their bias
by prefacing every mention of the guerril-
las as "leftist." The intended inference is
that if they are leftist, they are commu-
nist, and if they are communist they are
supported by Moscow, and if this is true,

then it is our duty to opposed them, using
whatever means are necessary. If the media
insist on using labels, why don't they
preface every mention of the Salvadoran
government with the word "fascist"?

little about the conditions in which elec-
tions have taken place, such as no freedom
of the press, extreme repression and com-
pulsory voting; and nothing about the
constant state of repression that exists in

'Many people in the outskirts of San Salvador [have
said] they would not leave because then the
government would destroy the guerillas - that they
were staying to provide protection to the guerrillas.'

A further bias is seen in the media's
choice of sources for information during
the offensive. The principle source has
been daily briefings by the U.S. embassy,
a practice reminiscent of the Vietnam war
when the U.S. military gave daily brief-
ings on how the U.S. was winning the
war. With the exception of Pacifica News
Service, no reporter has sought out the
guerrillas as a source of information or
analysis. And while the mainstream media
are saying every day that Salvadorans are
not taking sides in the conflict, Pacifica
has quoted many people in the outskirts of
San Salvador as saying that they would
not leave because then the government
would destroy the guerillas; that they were
staying to provide protection to the guer-
rillas.
Nor have any mainstream reporters been
intrepid enough to infer that in a country
where, in the past, open support of civil-
ian opposition politicians and/or the guer-
rillas has been enough to bring a death
squad to your door, people are not going
to tell the media now that they support the
guerrillas.
The roots of El Salvador's civil war
clearly lie in the state of extreme poverty
in which most Salvadoran are forced to
live - without land, education, health
care or even jobs, and no way to change
the system peacefully. The U.S. is fond of
pointing to El Salvador as a model democ-
racy. However, our government has said

El Salvador.
In contrast to the government's reliance
on repression to stay in power, the FMLN4
guerrilla coalition has developed extensive
civilian support, both in the cities and the
countryside. Prior to the offensive last
week, the FMLN controlled approximately
one third of the country. In those liberated
areas, the guerrillas set up networks of
health clinics and schools, conducting
immunization and literacy campaigns, and
set up popularly elected local govern-
ments.
This popular support could also be seers
last week. The offensive was months in
preparation, with the FMLN moving sup-
plies and people into the capital and mov-
ing freely in the neighborhoods where the
poor are concentrated. That the offensive
has lasted so long is proof that the FMLN
has more support than the Salvadoran
government and the U.S. are willing to
concede.
For the last ten years the U.S. haj
funded massive repression in El Salvador,
propping up governments that seek only
to preserve the wealth of an elite strata of
society and preventing the development of
real democracy. The killings of the Jesuit
priests last week were only the latest in-
stallment. If there is genuine concern over
those deaths, the appropriate response it to
demand an end to U.S. funding of such
atrocities.
Dave Austin is an LSA senior and a bake
at the Wildflour Community Bakery.

iance between the oligarchy and the mili-
tary. This coalition has maintained its po-
sition with the aid of the United States,
which currently sends more than $1.5 mil-
lion per day to prop up the government.
ARENA is a fascist party. Hitler is

In the past ten years the United States has spent more than $3.5 billion dollars in
El Salvador. In that same period, the Salvadoran government has murdered more
than 60,000 civilians. There are no death squads in a democracy - El Salvador is
not a democracy.

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Former CIA agent speaks out:
Agee a 'threat' to national security

Vol. C, No. 58

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. All other
cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the Daily.
Hail to the Victors

AS LITTLE as a year ago, Michigan
fans seemed to have resigned
themselves to a second place finish
without much argument, although they
loved the University's sports teams.
Thousands still took hours out every
week to make their way to Michigan
Stadium or Crisler Arena, but most
thought of the Michigan teams as ones
that lost "The Big Game."
Now a new tradition is emerging in
Michigan sports. The Michigan football
team is off for its second consecutive
trip to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, and
the NCAA National Basketball Cham-
pionship banner is being presented to
the men's team at tomorrow night's
game against Grambling State. The last
line of the Michigan fight song,
"Champions of the West!" is now more
true than ever.
At the beginning of last year's bas-
ketball season, seniors, hardened after
three years of early exits from the
NCAA tournament, were busy explain-
ing to naive first-year students how the
Wolverines would not and could not
make it past the tournament's third
round. All one had to do was mention
two words, "North Carolina," and that
would be the end of afternoons spent
perched in front of ESPN.
But last year proved the doomsayers
wrong. As usual, the Tarheels and the
Wolverines met in the third round.
Another loss to the Atlantic Coast
Conference's champion seemed immi-
nent. But Michigan pulled off the
upset, did away with Virginia in the
quarterfinals, Big Ten rival Illinois in
the first game of the Final Four in

Rose Bowl and the No. 1 position on
the Associated Press Football Writers
Poll.
It seemed impossible to argue against
the idea that Michigan was jinxed after
the disappointing 1986-87 season.
First, they lost to Minnesota, dashing
any championship hopes they might
have harbored. Though they made the
Rose Bowl that year, they lost there to
Arizona State. Four entire classes, a
whole generation of Michigan students,
had passed through the University
without a Rose Bowl victory.
Sure, Michigan is a perennial athletic
powerhouse, but "Michigan can't win
the big one" became the common rap.
Last year's win against Southern Cali-
fornia shattered that perception.
On January 1, Michigan will try to
become the first ever Big Ten team to
win back-to-back Rose Bowl champi-
onships. While there have been Pacific-
10 schools that have won back-to-back
Rose Bowls, it has never happened to a
Big Ten team. After a season-opening
loss to Notre Dame, which seemed to
dash any National Championship
aspirations, the Wolverines have won
ten straight games.
With a little help from Notre Dame
(which plays undefeated Colorado in
the Orange Bowl), Michigan stands to
make a realistic claim to the top spot in
the country.
Other Michigan teams are also vying
for top honors in their sports this year.
Men's and women's swimming are se-
rious contenders after finishing third

The following are excerpts of an inter-
view with former Central Intelligence
Agent Philip Agee by Opinion Page staff
writer Liz Paige. Agee worked for the
CIA in Ecuador, Uruguay, and Mexico.
He quit the Agency in 1968. Since leaving
the Agency, Agee has written several
books about the CIA and has spoken at
over 150 college campuses about Murder
Inc. This is the second of a three part
series.
Daily: Give us an update on your case
in getting your passport back from the
Federal Government.
A: Well, its a problem that dates back
to 1970s when my passport was revoked
by the Carter administration at the begin-
ning of the Iranian hostage crisis.
We went to court on that and the Dis-
trict Court and the Court of Appeals found
that the action was unconstitutional. Then
the case went to the Supreme Court and
the Supreme Court overturned the first
two decisions and ruled against me,
thereby also striking down some of their
key passport decisions of the 1950s and
1960s. That was the end of it in the first
phase.
The second phase started two years ago
when I applied for a U.S. passport in an-
ticipation of coming back to the United
States for the first time in more than 15
years.
Six months after I applied for the pass-
port, which brings us to the summer of
1987, Schultz who was then Secretary of
State, refused the passport and he certified,
in order to justify, that my activities are
continuing to cause serious damage to "the
national security and foreign policy of the
United States." That's the operative phrase
from the regulations under which they re-
voked the passport in the first place.
That began an appeals process which
has been going on for two years. And ac-
cording to the regulations I have a right,
had a right, to a hearing where the De-
partment of State had to justify its action.
The hearing was held in September 1987

The Department of State refused to give
me the opportunity to cross-examine and
confront - which I have a right to do un-
der the regulations - this one witness,
who is the Director of the CIA.
So we appealed to the Board of Appel-
late Review, which is the highest appeal
body in the administrative appeal process
within the department of state and they
remanded the case to the Department of
State saying, complete the record you
didn't follow your own regulations.
The Department is still refusing to fol-
low the regulations and the next step is,.
which may come in the next few weeks, is
to go to the District court asking for re-
lief, and an injunction requiring the De-
partment of State to produce Mr. Webster
for my confrontation and cross-examina-
tion over these 12 points. So that is where
we are now.
D:What are some of these alleged 12
points which make you dangerous to
"the national security and foreign pol-
icy of the United States"?
A: For example, that I served as an edi-
torial advisor to a magazine in Nicaragua
called Sovereignty, a magazine which is
no longer published, but it was published
in the early 1980s. They had my name on
the editorial masthead as a consultant
without having consulted me.
Actually they were friends of mine, and
I had written for the magazine. But the
very fact that I was on the editorial board
of this magazine of this Nicaraguan
magazine was supposedly damaging to the
national security of the United States.
Imagine.

Another was that I had received a pass
port from Grenada early on just after my
passport was revoked and I used that pass-
port for travel until the invasion in 1983
by the United States. At that time I was in
Nicaragua, quite by chance, I was at a sol-
idarity conference, and I spoke with
Nicaraguans there. They said they wanted
to assist me, to be able to travel, I worked
with the Sandinistas for many years, and
so they gave me a Nicaraguan passport
And that is still the passport I use today.
They say that this damages the security of
the United States.
They produced a number of interviews I
had given to various publications in Eu-
rope. Wherein the things I said supposedly
damaged the "national security" of the
United States, and where in violation of an
injunction which dates back to 1980 re-
quiring that everything I say and write
about the CIA be submitted to the CIA fo
censorship.
There was another article which appeared
in a West German publication in Cologne
and they claimed that this article was not
submitted for censorship. When in actual
fact we produced the same article in
English with the letter approving, or giv-
ing clearance for the publication of the ar-
ticle. And they didn't even realize it was
the same article because it was in German,
and it was the English language version
which they had approved.
These kind of things which are utterly
ridiculous they are using in order to force
me to spend enormous amounts of money
to assert my right for a passport. And so
the next step, as I have said, is to go to
the District Court in Washington.

I=

.l.-I ?/4D 577 7147T)Wt1
IIE ?DtJa( C-ATEAT
FN!/Its 66 W aO'06 17"4Or

.v