In a way, what Jonathan Spence did with The Chan’s Great Continent, Orville Schell has done with Virtual Tibet. Both study how the West glamorizes, idealizes, disparages, and criticizes China, nearly always from a narrow western frame of reference, blinded by its own bias and ignorance. Chan’s is a scholarly compilation of how the West saw China throughout history. Schell deals with how the West sees Tibet in a less scholarly but more personal way. Schell interweaves West’s early contacts with Tibet with his foray into the Hollywood fascination with and idealization of Tibet.
Virtual Tibet is anecdotal and fun to read. In walking the impartial line of a journalist, Schell is careful to recount his observations without the intermixing of his opinions. However, his droll descriptions never cease to entertain. For instance, he voiced nary a nasty comment on the carrying-on of the kung-fu actor, Steven Seagal and his fixation with Dalai Lama. Still, after reading his encounter with Seagal, the reader comes away with a new appreciation of what a Hollywood megalomanic lout is all about.
From Schell’s book I learned that the word “pundit” came from the Anglicization of “pandit,” a Hindi term. Pandit or pundit meaning a person of knowledge was applied to native Indians trained by the British to spy in Tibet starting from the turn of the 19th century. It seemed that for decades, the voracious British colonial government coveted Tibet and needed detailed maps of the region. Official surveys headed by white explorers were out of the question and the solution was to resort to employing Indian nationals that could sneak into Tibet. Before reading this book, I often wondered why I hold a vague disdain for pundits. Now I know.
By the time Lost Horizon was written in 1933 and introduced the concept of Shangri-La, a hidden paradise, Tibet had already been established as the exotic destination of choice for overactive adventurers and farout mystics. Tibetan monks were attributed with awesome magical powers including ability to fly, read people’s minds, perform miraculous cures and endure subzero temperatures. According to Schell, “the Tibet of filth, ferocity, arcane religious practices, grinding poverty, barren wastes, inhospitable weather, serfdom, disease and theocratic absolutism vanished from public consciousness.”
“Shangri-La is a distillation of a borrowed piece of Tibetan mythology overlaid with a Western dream of dreams that was two centuries in the making.” Look past the Hollywood gloss on the modern Tibet of the West, and one concludes that Schell’s observation still holds.
Reviews in brief
A Victor’s Reflections and other Tales for China’s Timeless Wisdom for Leaders by Michael C. Tang is an absolute joy to read and own. The author has managed to reduce classic stories of China’s sages, military strategists, wise rulers, clever advisors and child prodigies into highly readable and entertaining short stories. When he tries to draw lessons from these classics to modern day situations, he was less successful. But, if your grandchildren ever ask you to explain “what is Chinese culture,” you will want to read this book first. Better yet, give this book to your grandchildren.
I had been looking forward to reading The Yamato Dynasty by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave ever since I saw the book in Asia and then found out that the publication in the West was months later. This book claims to contain the secret history of Japan’s imperial family, the billions of gold stashed away and the secret deals made with General Douglas MacArthur after World War II. Unfortunately I found the book disorganized, rambling and not well written, falling short of the reputation the authors earned from their previous efforts. However, this book is a valuable reference that goes a long way to explaining the complicity of the U.S. government in overlooking war crimes committed by Japan.
Tuesday, August 8, 2000
Monday, July 17, 2000
Should Wen Ho Lee Cop A Plea? Making A Deal Would Be A Disservice To All Americans
The facts in the Wen Ho Lee case get more and more curious as time goes by. Recently, the judge has suggested the prosecution negotiate with Lee's lawyers on questions of bail, which raises the possibility of a plea bargain -- a possibility that PNS commentator George Koo finds unsavory indeed. Koo is a business consultant and a member of Committee of 100, a national organization of prominent Chinese Americans.
The latest development in the case of Wen Ho Lee comes from U.S. District Judge James Parker, who has ordered lawyers from both sides to confer and agree on one or more senior judges to mediate possible terms of bail for Lee -- and perhaps a plea bargain.
Lee's sudden dismissal from the post he had held at Los Alamos National Laboratory captured every front page in the country. Congress and mainstream media expressed anguish over the loss of America's "crown jewels," nuclear weapon design secrets allegedly leaked to China.
Since Lee was charged, information has come to light that raises doubts as to whether any secrets were stolen at all -- for one thing, it has been shown conclusively that Los Alamos was only one of hundreds of venues where the alleged secret could have been obtained. Moreover, Lee had no access to "W-88 secrets" and therefore could not be the spy titillating the public.
Although it waited nine months after his dismissal to arrest Lee, the government did not have sufficient evidence to charge him with espionage, only with illegally downloading computer data. Some time after his arrest, the government quietly upgraded the data in question to a level high enough to justify threatening Lee with life imprisonment.
Recently, more than eight months after Lee's arrest, the prosecution responded to a defense challenge to produce the names of eight countries Lee is charged with trying to contact. The list included Switzerland, Germany, France, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong (then still a British colony). The prosecution's source, evidently, is a series of job application letters Lee wrote when he was warned of potential layoffs at Los Alamos. Perhaps the government thinks Lee used copies of classified work to enhance his resume.
The Los Angeles Times calls the government's case against Lee a joke. Considering the price he has paid so far, Lee, his family and defense team are not likely laughing yet.
Rather than investigate leaks at Los Alamos, the FBI decided Lee was their spy and then set out to find evidence to support that conclusion.
When they could not come up with any such evidence, they found a logbook at Lee's home that provided the basis for accusing Lee of downloading secured data.
This was used to justify denying Lee bail, putting him in solitary confinement and in chains and shackles for 23 hours per day. He has been denied contact with his family except for one hour per week. He has been restricted in choice of reading material, in access to news and television and even in selection of a diet that would provide him with his accustomed nourishment.
If the government sought to crack Lee by subjecting him to such treatment, they surely must be disappointed. If they equated his unassuming, quiet manner with docility and assumed Lee would take the rap if properly intimidated, they have been proven wrong.
Lee may have originally assumed that he had no need to engage a lawyer if he had done nothing wrong. He may have assumed that as a citizen of the world's greatest democracy that he could count on equal protection and due process. Events have proven otherwise, and he has disappointed his tormentors by choosing to fight for his rights instead of caving in. Perhaps the government did not expect Lee to behave like the American that he is!
Over the next few months, Lee will likely have ample opportunity to plead to lesser charges in exchange for time already spent incarcerated. The question is -- should he settle and allow the government off the hook?
Lee could only do this at great personal cost. Even though the government could not charge him with espionage, the media have already branded as a key figure in a mythical "spying" scandal. Without full exoneration, Lee could never cleanse himself of the stigma.
Then there is the financial loss in terms -- lost wages and pension and the cost of a legal defense. Presumably any settlement would preclude any monetary compensation, much less the right to sue for damages as a victim of racial profiling and character defamation.
In the end, the decision on is a personal one. Asian Americans and all other Americans interested in justice can only hope that Lee will go the distance.
Indeed, the day Asian Americans are treated as full citizens will arrive that much sooner when if Lee receives an official apology, full restoration of his status in Los Alamos, and compensation for his pain and wrongful prosecution. Anything less will be hard to swallow.
The latest development in the case of Wen Ho Lee comes from U.S. District Judge James Parker, who has ordered lawyers from both sides to confer and agree on one or more senior judges to mediate possible terms of bail for Lee -- and perhaps a plea bargain.
Lee's sudden dismissal from the post he had held at Los Alamos National Laboratory captured every front page in the country. Congress and mainstream media expressed anguish over the loss of America's "crown jewels," nuclear weapon design secrets allegedly leaked to China.
Since Lee was charged, information has come to light that raises doubts as to whether any secrets were stolen at all -- for one thing, it has been shown conclusively that Los Alamos was only one of hundreds of venues where the alleged secret could have been obtained. Moreover, Lee had no access to "W-88 secrets" and therefore could not be the spy titillating the public.
Although it waited nine months after his dismissal to arrest Lee, the government did not have sufficient evidence to charge him with espionage, only with illegally downloading computer data. Some time after his arrest, the government quietly upgraded the data in question to a level high enough to justify threatening Lee with life imprisonment.
Recently, more than eight months after Lee's arrest, the prosecution responded to a defense challenge to produce the names of eight countries Lee is charged with trying to contact. The list included Switzerland, Germany, France, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong (then still a British colony). The prosecution's source, evidently, is a series of job application letters Lee wrote when he was warned of potential layoffs at Los Alamos. Perhaps the government thinks Lee used copies of classified work to enhance his resume.
The Los Angeles Times calls the government's case against Lee a joke. Considering the price he has paid so far, Lee, his family and defense team are not likely laughing yet.
Rather than investigate leaks at Los Alamos, the FBI decided Lee was their spy and then set out to find evidence to support that conclusion.
When they could not come up with any such evidence, they found a logbook at Lee's home that provided the basis for accusing Lee of downloading secured data.
This was used to justify denying Lee bail, putting him in solitary confinement and in chains and shackles for 23 hours per day. He has been denied contact with his family except for one hour per week. He has been restricted in choice of reading material, in access to news and television and even in selection of a diet that would provide him with his accustomed nourishment.
If the government sought to crack Lee by subjecting him to such treatment, they surely must be disappointed. If they equated his unassuming, quiet manner with docility and assumed Lee would take the rap if properly intimidated, they have been proven wrong.
Lee may have originally assumed that he had no need to engage a lawyer if he had done nothing wrong. He may have assumed that as a citizen of the world's greatest democracy that he could count on equal protection and due process. Events have proven otherwise, and he has disappointed his tormentors by choosing to fight for his rights instead of caving in. Perhaps the government did not expect Lee to behave like the American that he is!
Over the next few months, Lee will likely have ample opportunity to plead to lesser charges in exchange for time already spent incarcerated. The question is -- should he settle and allow the government off the hook?
Lee could only do this at great personal cost. Even though the government could not charge him with espionage, the media have already branded as a key figure in a mythical "spying" scandal. Without full exoneration, Lee could never cleanse himself of the stigma.
Then there is the financial loss in terms -- lost wages and pension and the cost of a legal defense. Presumably any settlement would preclude any monetary compensation, much less the right to sue for damages as a victim of racial profiling and character defamation.
In the end, the decision on is a personal one. Asian Americans and all other Americans interested in justice can only hope that Lee will go the distance.
Indeed, the day Asian Americans are treated as full citizens will arrive that much sooner when if Lee receives an official apology, full restoration of his status in Los Alamos, and compensation for his pain and wrongful prosecution. Anything less will be hard to swallow.
Saturday, February 5, 2000
The Difference between John Deutch and Wen Ho Lee
Recent revelations of the national security breach committed by former Central Intelligence Agency director Dr. John Deutch enable a more detailed comparison of his case versus the case against Dr. Wen Ho Lee, the scientist accused of security breach at Los Alamos Lab. Lee’s defense team and supporters have accused the government of selective prosecution. We now have enough information to judge whether there are grounds for their accusation.
At his bail hearing, the prosecution contends that Lee has downloaded “massive” amount of secret computer data and is the reason his case is different from the common, run-of-the-mill infractions. According to New York Times, investigators found 17,000 pages of top-secret files in Deutch’s unsecured computers. Since the prosecutors did not define “massive,” we can only wonder why 17,000 pages and 26 volumes of his daily log do not constitute a massive breach by Deutch.
According to the prosecutors, Lee mishandled enough data to design a nuclear bomb. In Deutch’s case, the data dealt with “some of the government’s most sensitive covert operations.” Hard to tell which is more damaging but there is one distinct difference. Investigators found Deutch’s downloading in his computers at his home. Lee has been accused of downloading into his unsecured computer at his desk inside the Los Alamos Laboratory. The only thing the investigators found in Lee’s home was one logbook containing a series of passwords.
Reportedly Deutch used the same home computer to surf the Internet thus exposing his top secret files to electronic theft by those with unfriendly intentions. Lee, on the other hand, imposed three layers of passwords on his unsecured office computer to deter unauthorized break-ins. However, the prosecutors ascribe Lee's presumed unfriendly intentions as a criminal offense while Deutch's action dismissed as well-intentioned sloppiness.
Deutch through his lawyer indicates that he has cooperated fully with CIA's investigation. CIA choose not to hold his failing a polygraph test against him. Lee also cooperated fully with the FBI, at least he did until he found out he was entrapped and lied to by the FBI. The FBI apparently resented Lee for having passed a polygraph test and proceeded to keep Lee confused and bewildered and gave him the impression that he failed.
Deutch and Lee share one other similarity. Both deleted files of classified information from their computers after they learned that they were under investigation. Lee performed the erasure at work while Deutch did his at home.
There are of course some glaring differences. Deutch is white while Lee is ethnic Chinese. Deutch was a high ranking government official and beltway insider while Lee was merely one of many scientists working in Los Alamos. Deutch got a reprimand and lost his security clearance. Lee after months of round the clock surveillance was arrested, put in solitary confinement and denied bail.
One of the reasons for denying Lee bail according to prosecution is their fear of some unidentified foreign power making a surprise grab and whisk Lee away for leisurely debriefing, a fear that reflects poorly on their confidence in the vigilance of FBI. No one seems concerned that Deutch’s knowledge of sensitive covert operations would render him an appealing target for abduction.
Dr. Deutch, a highly respected educator, has had a distinguished career in public service. One can reasonably assume that at the time of discovery, he was given the benefit of the doubt and his offense charged to well-intentioned but sloppy carelessness. It must distress him hugely to have to undergo a belated public scrutiny now for certain past indiscretions.
Lee, on the other hand, was the beneficiary of only doubt and intimidation. Had it not been for reputable law firms willing to come to his aid pro bono, Lee’s distress would be many times more unbearable.
Certainly the purpose of calling attention to the inequality in the treatment of Deutch and Lee is not to subject Deutch to a similar witch hunt, but to point to the vast contrast and inequality that can occur among Americans. This uneven treatment can only put to a lie that this country is a democracy governed by rule of law and equal protection for all citizens.
Ironically, astrophysicist Fang Lizhi points out that Lee’s treatment is identical to the kind of treatment China is criticized for. Fang is arguably the best known, non-self promoting dissident from China, now teaching at the University of Arizona. He spoke up for democracy in China and had to hide in the American embassy after the Tiananmen incident in 1989.
Leaders in Washington hide behind a shroud of classified information beyond public access to justify the treatment accorded Lee. However, instead of tiptoeing around a stink bomb of their own making, someone with the requisite courage needs to step forward and say, “Stop. Enough of this shameful charade. Set Lee free.”
At his bail hearing, the prosecution contends that Lee has downloaded “massive” amount of secret computer data and is the reason his case is different from the common, run-of-the-mill infractions. According to New York Times, investigators found 17,000 pages of top-secret files in Deutch’s unsecured computers. Since the prosecutors did not define “massive,” we can only wonder why 17,000 pages and 26 volumes of his daily log do not constitute a massive breach by Deutch.
According to the prosecutors, Lee mishandled enough data to design a nuclear bomb. In Deutch’s case, the data dealt with “some of the government’s most sensitive covert operations.” Hard to tell which is more damaging but there is one distinct difference. Investigators found Deutch’s downloading in his computers at his home. Lee has been accused of downloading into his unsecured computer at his desk inside the Los Alamos Laboratory. The only thing the investigators found in Lee’s home was one logbook containing a series of passwords.
Reportedly Deutch used the same home computer to surf the Internet thus exposing his top secret files to electronic theft by those with unfriendly intentions. Lee, on the other hand, imposed three layers of passwords on his unsecured office computer to deter unauthorized break-ins. However, the prosecutors ascribe Lee's presumed unfriendly intentions as a criminal offense while Deutch's action dismissed as well-intentioned sloppiness.
Deutch through his lawyer indicates that he has cooperated fully with CIA's investigation. CIA choose not to hold his failing a polygraph test against him. Lee also cooperated fully with the FBI, at least he did until he found out he was entrapped and lied to by the FBI. The FBI apparently resented Lee for having passed a polygraph test and proceeded to keep Lee confused and bewildered and gave him the impression that he failed.
Deutch and Lee share one other similarity. Both deleted files of classified information from their computers after they learned that they were under investigation. Lee performed the erasure at work while Deutch did his at home.
There are of course some glaring differences. Deutch is white while Lee is ethnic Chinese. Deutch was a high ranking government official and beltway insider while Lee was merely one of many scientists working in Los Alamos. Deutch got a reprimand and lost his security clearance. Lee after months of round the clock surveillance was arrested, put in solitary confinement and denied bail.
One of the reasons for denying Lee bail according to prosecution is their fear of some unidentified foreign power making a surprise grab and whisk Lee away for leisurely debriefing, a fear that reflects poorly on their confidence in the vigilance of FBI. No one seems concerned that Deutch’s knowledge of sensitive covert operations would render him an appealing target for abduction.
Dr. Deutch, a highly respected educator, has had a distinguished career in public service. One can reasonably assume that at the time of discovery, he was given the benefit of the doubt and his offense charged to well-intentioned but sloppy carelessness. It must distress him hugely to have to undergo a belated public scrutiny now for certain past indiscretions.
Lee, on the other hand, was the beneficiary of only doubt and intimidation. Had it not been for reputable law firms willing to come to his aid pro bono, Lee’s distress would be many times more unbearable.
Certainly the purpose of calling attention to the inequality in the treatment of Deutch and Lee is not to subject Deutch to a similar witch hunt, but to point to the vast contrast and inequality that can occur among Americans. This uneven treatment can only put to a lie that this country is a democracy governed by rule of law and equal protection for all citizens.
Ironically, astrophysicist Fang Lizhi points out that Lee’s treatment is identical to the kind of treatment China is criticized for. Fang is arguably the best known, non-self promoting dissident from China, now teaching at the University of Arizona. He spoke up for democracy in China and had to hide in the American embassy after the Tiananmen incident in 1989.
Leaders in Washington hide behind a shroud of classified information beyond public access to justify the treatment accorded Lee. However, instead of tiptoeing around a stink bomb of their own making, someone with the requisite courage needs to step forward and say, “Stop. Enough of this shameful charade. Set Lee free.”
Tuesday, January 4, 2000
Wen Ho Lee Case: Whatever Happened To Due Process?
Pacific News Service, George Koo, Posted: Jan 04, 2000
Editor's Note: Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment than Chinese American scientist Wen Ho Lee, who is accused of mishandling secret computer data, says PNS commentator George Koo.
In their zeal to force Wen Ho Lee to his knees, federal prosecutors have turned America's system of justice upside-down.
From the outset, Lee has been presumed guilty, and prosecutors have ignored or dismissed every effort to assert his legal rights. "Even if we can't prove he is a spy, we are going to treat him like a spy, keep him in jail and deny him bail because he might be a spy," would be a precise summary of prosecutor John Kelly's position.
To reinforce the government's contention that Lee, 60, is a menace to national security, he is being held in solitary confinement, under constant surveillance and allowed to see his family and attorney only one hour per week -- and then he must speak only in English. Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment while awaiting trial.
Lee is charged with mishandling secret computer data. The government justifies its actions on the grounds that Lee could cause terrible harm to the nation with seven computer tapes he downloaded but has not accounted for. At Lee's bail hearing, the government prosecutor actually stated there is no way to tell whether an apparently innocuous wink or casual comment might be a coded message for an enemy agent.
Lee's defense attorneys have offered to subject their client to polygraph tests to show he poses no danger to the United States and to verify his claim that he destroyed the seven tapes. But Kelly is unwilling to allow any procedure that might allow Lee out on bail. He is determined to keep Lee incarcerated under maximum security conditions for the two years needed to prepare for trial.
As numerous editorials have pointed out, the prosecution has moved from investigating an espionage case to harassing a scientist they were unable to indict as a spy.
It is difficult to see any difference between this and the workings of a police state. Due process, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial have all been thrown away for the sake of satisfying an appetite for bashing Chinese and Americans of Chinese ancestry.
The FBI actually called its action "Operation Kindred Spirit" to justify the way they homed in on Lee to the exclusion of all other possibilities when the investigation into leaks began. Only after former Los Alamos intelligence officer Robert Vrooman charged the FBI with acting on racial grounds did the public realize that Lee was a victim of "racial profiling."
Attorney General Janet Reno effectively confirmed Vrooman's claims when she ordered the FBI to restart its investigation and cast a wider net.
Paul Moore, former FBI chief of counter-intelligence and widely quoted in the media, admits racial profiling exists -- but says it is a tactic of Beijing. Moore say the Chinese government targets ethnic Chinese to act as spies, but he offers no proof to support his claim. This is the sort of logic used to put 125,000 Japanese Americans into detention camps in World War II.
Accusations without proof have long been a favorite technique of those who want to demonize some portion of the population or revive racial prejudice. Particularly damaging in this respect were leaks from a select committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox implying that China had stolen every nuclear secret of value due to lax security under the Clinton administration. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson promptly offered Wen Ho Lee as a sacrificial lamb to appease critics of the administration.
The credibility of the Cox report has since vaporized. "The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weekly justified inferences," concludes the Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Harsher assessments came from Cox's own Republican Party. Former deputy assistant Secretary of the Army, Dr. James Prather, after studying the report observed, "You've been had, Chris. Now just admit it."
Jude Wanniski, advisor to former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who authorized Prather's study, added, "We know that Bill Richardson is ready to destroy the life of the Chinese American computer scientist Wen Ho Lee and several Los Alamos scientists." Wanniski went on, "If you have the right stuff, Chris, you would come clean now before your nose gets any longer, and tell Bill Richardson he does not have to put Wen Ho Lee in the slammer after all."
Alas, the right stuff is not a quality readily found. If Americans of all political persuasions do not strenuously object to the injustices perpetrated against Wen Ho Lee, can a police state be far behind?
Editor's Note: Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment than Chinese American scientist Wen Ho Lee, who is accused of mishandling secret computer data, says PNS commentator George Koo.
In their zeal to force Wen Ho Lee to his knees, federal prosecutors have turned America's system of justice upside-down.
From the outset, Lee has been presumed guilty, and prosecutors have ignored or dismissed every effort to assert his legal rights. "Even if we can't prove he is a spy, we are going to treat him like a spy, keep him in jail and deny him bail because he might be a spy," would be a precise summary of prosecutor John Kelly's position.
To reinforce the government's contention that Lee, 60, is a menace to national security, he is being held in solitary confinement, under constant surveillance and allowed to see his family and attorney only one hour per week -- and then he must speak only in English. Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment while awaiting trial.
Lee is charged with mishandling secret computer data. The government justifies its actions on the grounds that Lee could cause terrible harm to the nation with seven computer tapes he downloaded but has not accounted for. At Lee's bail hearing, the government prosecutor actually stated there is no way to tell whether an apparently innocuous wink or casual comment might be a coded message for an enemy agent.
Lee's defense attorneys have offered to subject their client to polygraph tests to show he poses no danger to the United States and to verify his claim that he destroyed the seven tapes. But Kelly is unwilling to allow any procedure that might allow Lee out on bail. He is determined to keep Lee incarcerated under maximum security conditions for the two years needed to prepare for trial.
As numerous editorials have pointed out, the prosecution has moved from investigating an espionage case to harassing a scientist they were unable to indict as a spy.
It is difficult to see any difference between this and the workings of a police state. Due process, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial have all been thrown away for the sake of satisfying an appetite for bashing Chinese and Americans of Chinese ancestry.
The FBI actually called its action "Operation Kindred Spirit" to justify the way they homed in on Lee to the exclusion of all other possibilities when the investigation into leaks began. Only after former Los Alamos intelligence officer Robert Vrooman charged the FBI with acting on racial grounds did the public realize that Lee was a victim of "racial profiling."
Attorney General Janet Reno effectively confirmed Vrooman's claims when she ordered the FBI to restart its investigation and cast a wider net.
Paul Moore, former FBI chief of counter-intelligence and widely quoted in the media, admits racial profiling exists -- but says it is a tactic of Beijing. Moore say the Chinese government targets ethnic Chinese to act as spies, but he offers no proof to support his claim. This is the sort of logic used to put 125,000 Japanese Americans into detention camps in World War II.
Accusations without proof have long been a favorite technique of those who want to demonize some portion of the population or revive racial prejudice. Particularly damaging in this respect were leaks from a select committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox implying that China had stolen every nuclear secret of value due to lax security under the Clinton administration. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson promptly offered Wen Ho Lee as a sacrificial lamb to appease critics of the administration.
The credibility of the Cox report has since vaporized. "The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weekly justified inferences," concludes the Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Harsher assessments came from Cox's own Republican Party. Former deputy assistant Secretary of the Army, Dr. James Prather, after studying the report observed, "You've been had, Chris. Now just admit it."
Jude Wanniski, advisor to former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who authorized Prather's study, added, "We know that Bill Richardson is ready to destroy the life of the Chinese American computer scientist Wen Ho Lee and several Los Alamos scientists." Wanniski went on, "If you have the right stuff, Chris, you would come clean now before your nose gets any longer, and tell Bill Richardson he does not have to put Wen Ho Lee in the slammer after all."
Alas, the right stuff is not a quality readily found. If Americans of all political persuasions do not strenuously object to the injustices perpetrated against Wen Ho Lee, can a police state be far behind?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
