"The Panama Deception" won an Academy Award for best documentary. The film exposed the military operation in Panama, Dec 1989. U.S. officials said about 250 civilians died, but others estimate 2,500 to 4,000. Some 7,000 labor leaders, community leaders, media people were arrested and held without bail, without charges being filed. The U.S. military, when they invaded, immediatly took control of Panama's radio stations, tv stations, and newspapers.

Hmm, I wonder what precedent this might have set for Y2K disruptions? Read about the film and some thoughts at my website http://www.homestead.com/buttecounty2k

-- John O'Brien (jobriy2k@yahoo.com), October 22, 1999

Answers

Don't know nuttin bout this but sounds like a good one to rent soon. Thanks for the info.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 22, 1999.

When FEMA did their exercises in Lincoln
County Oregon in the 1980's their scenario
was that the pacifists protesting the Contra
war would try to take the National Guard Armory.
In the exercise, they took control of the tv
stations, radio stations, newspapers and secured
the armory from these dangerous folks.

That was when Ollie North was in charge. :-'

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), October 22, 1999.

Didn't they call it "Operation Just Cause?" A gift for unintended irony.

-- Spidey (in@jam.puppets), October 22, 1999.

I thought it was operation "Just Because".

-- A (A@AisA.com), October 22, 1999.

Given the illegal drug aspect of the stated motivations the U.S. gov't gave for invading Panama, I have long thought that a better name for the Panama operation would have been "Operation Probable Cause".

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

This is why I can't take seriously, those who maintain that Clinton is somehow a greater monster than any other president. Clinton's only larger crime (proven, anyway), than any of his predecessors, was that he had the poor judgement to get busy with an intern who was a "star f*ck*r" who liked to keep momentos and brag about her conquests.

I'm sure if you pick away the veneer of all previous presidents, you'll find rampant abuse of power going all the way back to, and including, those holy "founding fathers".

Wise up! Out of over a billion people, only 1 can be lead dog, at a time. This creates the ultimate in cut-throat competition. Along the way, in such unholy combat, a person is bound to develop some unsavory attitudes and habits. It won't be any different under a reformist government (Does anyone, if they take a moment to clear their head and think straight, really believe that Donald Trump won't abuse his authority?)

This is not an argument to not vote Reformists. If you do not subscribe to the policies of either of the two current parties, then by all means, exercise your right to vote and put someone from a third party in office. However, if you think that having a Reformist president means that you can go safely back to sleep and that all is well, then you are grotesquely naive.

The phrase "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance", does not just mean always standing at the ready, with your shotgun in hand. Call it "blaming the victim" if you wish, but a democracy is absolutely dependent upon the informed participation of it's people. It does not work and does not serve the best interests of it's people, under any other circumstance. If the people shun that responsibility, then a democracy becomes indistinguishable from any other form of government.

It is a measure of just how asleep we have become, that three of the last five presidents have been two-termers, and that the three who were re-elected, were the ones accused of the most crimes of the three (How many heinous allegations have been made against Ford or Carter?).

The only answer is for all of us to stay heavily involved in the process, keep our eyes open and throw the b*st*ards out, when they get to far out of line.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 22, 1999.

The situation referred to in Panama was actually quite simple:

(1). The CIA had cultivated and maneuvered into power one Tony Noriega for the purpose of having a strategic base of operations in this geographically critical country. Tony kept us apprised of all the important news of the day in that part of the world and we had a base of OPS for our various clandestine activities that included arming the Contras.

(2). In return, we gave Tony untold sums of money and allowed, for a time, him to run amok in Panama. Tony was a clever little dictator who took advantage of every opportunity. He held his country under siege while he was the main man for the Colombian drug cartels. He was moving all of the coke for Senor Pablo Escobar and his band of merry men.

(3). As is the case with most of our created dictators around the world (Marcos, Batista, Diem, etc.), Tony became uncontrollable and we went down there in 1989 and removed him from office so to speak.

BTW, did you think that our activities in Somalia had anything to do with feeding the masses? Dont be silly. Look at your map and ask yourself why would we want a military presence in this hellhole of a country. Same thing with the Nam. Its all about strategic positioning and control and either we have it or our perceived enemies willend of story!

Now for the scary part. For the first time in our modern history, someone is using us for the same reasons. Take a guess.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), October 23, 1999.