On Feb. 2, 2000, the Australian TV program Dateline produced a devastating report on the role of the charity organization, CARE, in Kosovo. During that program a Canadian government official and the Director of CARE Canada made sensational admissions:

1) That CARE worked for the Canadian government recruiting personnel for the so-called "Kosovo Verification Mission." During the fall and winter of 1998 these "peace verifiers" gathered  data for NATO, prior to the bombing of Kosovo. As Dateline reporter Jana Wendt stated, "this was predominantly a military operation. It was charged with monitoring troop movements, military hardware - they told us this, quite openly." [1B]

2) That CARE Canada continued to work for the Canadian government, paying the verifiers' salaries.  

3) And that CARE Australia helped CARE Canada organize this operation in Kosovo.

For the transcripts of this program, see footnotes [1A] and [1B]

Remarkable as these revelations were, there is more. First, the Verification Mission was worse than Dateline said.  And second, it was not simply that CARE worked for Canada recruiting for what was essentially a military intelligence operation, as Dateline argued and as some CARE officials  angrily denied. [1B]

In fact, at least three CARE officials in Kosovo worked as intelligence officers for NATO, and, knowing this was true, CARE officials in Australia conspired with the media to deny it. 

Spies? or Victimized Aid Workers?

On March 31, 1999, three employees of CARE Australia, Steve Pratt, an Australian who headed the CARE operation in Kosovo, Peter Wallace, another Australian, and Branko Jelen, a Yugoslav, were arrested at the Serbian-Croatian border. Yugoslavia charged them with using CARE as a cover to spy for NATO.

CARE Australia officials ridiculed the charges, claiming CARE was completely neutral and that the confession of Steve Pratt, aired on Serbian TV, was coerced. The Western mass media supported CARE, running biased news reports that made it seem that CARE had clean hands.

Now the Australian TV show, Dateline, has revealed that CARE recruited and paid OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) Verifiers in Kosovo from Oct. 1998 to March 1999. That much is uncontested.

Dateline says the Verification Mission was a military intelligence operation. CARE officials say the Verifiers were peacemakers.

But this simply does not wash.

Goals of the Kosovo Verification Mission

Negotiated (that is, coerced) under threat of NATO bombing the Verification agreement allowed the OSCE to send unarmed 'mediators' into Kosovo, supposedly to defuse tensions. However everything about the Verification mission suggests that they were engaged in military intelligence and liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), not mediation.

* The Mission was run by William Walker. Walker had no background as a mediator. He wasn't an expert in Balkans history or politics. Even the Western press has virtually admitted that Walker and his verifiers were intelligence operatives. [2]

Consider the following from the LA Times: [3]

[LA Times excerpt starts here]

"His [i.e., William Walker's] postings include a stint in Honduras from 1980 to 1982, when the Central American country was Washington's secret conduit for weapons and other support to right-wing Contras fighting to overthrow the Sandinistas in neighboring Nicaragua.

"He also served as chief of the U.S. Embassy's political section in El Salvador, another Central American hot spot, from 1974 to 1977, and later as the country's U.S. ambassador from 1988 to 1992. As a diplomat in countries so high on Washington's national security agenda, Walker couldn't help knowing something about spying, said John Pike, a defense analyst at Washington's Federation of American Scientists.

"'Those are front-line postings where he would have unavoidably developed an acquaintance with the capabilities and limitations of intelligence sources and methods,' Pike said from Washington. And it would be surprising if Walker's team of ex-military and other experts came to verify Kosovo's cease-fire without equipment to listen in on radio communications, Pike said. 'Put it this way: They would be idiots if they weren't doing that,' he added. 'What are they going to do, read about it in the paper the next day?'"
-- LA Times, Jan. 20, 1999 [1A]

[LA Times excerpt ends here]

Walker was a high-placed intelligence operative who, working under diplomatic cover, managed liaison with US-sponsored counter-insurgency groups. Before working with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in Yugoslavia he  and also handles public relations in difficult situations. (This is documented in 'William Walker, Alias, Mr. Racak, And His Salvador Massacre Cover-Up' by John Flaherty and Jared Israel, at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/sixty.htm )

The U.S. members of Walker's 'verification team' were recruited by Dyncorp, a Virginia company. At the 1993 Senate hearings on the nomination of R. James Woolsey to head the CIA, Mr. Woolsey commented:

"I own less than one-quarter of one percent of the -- diluted shares of a company named DynCorp here in the Washington, D.C. area. And the corporation has, from time to time, had a handful of very small contracts with the Central Intelligence Agency."

Whether or not it is true that DynCorps "had [only] a handful of very small contracts" with CIA, it has had very big contracts with the US military establishment. Indeed it operates as a kind of privatized US Special Operations force, providing retired military and intelligence men for all sorts of assignments including clandestine and paramilitary operations. [1B]

Given Walker's expertise as an intelligence official with skill in organizing death squads and also in public relations, doesn't it stand to reason that the verification mission was aimed at a) gathering military intelligence and b) establishing command-relations with the Kosovo Liberation Army, an outfit whose activities were much like those of Latin American death squads? [1]

Indeed, isn't it reasonable to suggest that certain tactical similarities between the KLA and Latin American death squads may result from their having had the same top-level US intelligence official for an advisor?

In any case this was the Verification Mission for which CARE Canada was recruiting. Not only recruiting, but also, according to the SBS TV exposé, apparently paying the recruits' salaries as well.

The Amazing Story of Mr. Pratt, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Jelen

So that is the background. William Walker's OSCE Verifiers all left Kosovo on March 20th. On the 24th NATO began bombing Yugoslavia. On March 31st, three employees of CARE Australia were arrested in Serbia for spying.

At first CARE officials claimed they were unsure of the three men's whereabouts. Then, on April 11, Steve Pratt, the leader of the group, appeared on Serbian Television, RTS. Here's the actual text of the RTS broadcast, as transcribed by the BBC:

[RTS Broadcast starts here]

"[Announcer] Through coordinated action, the security bodies of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have smashed a network of agents headed by Major Steve Pratt. The named person had been gathering intelligence on the movement of our military and police forces under the cover of the Care International humanitarian organization before the aggression on our country, and, during the aggression, on the effects of the bombing.

"[Pratt, recording in English with passage by passage Serbo-Croatian translation] My name is Steve Pratt. I was born in 1949. I was born in Australia and I am the citizen of Australia. Before I came to Yugoslavia, I worked in northern Iraq, Yemen, Zaire, Rwanda, and Kenya for the humanitarian organization Care of Australia.

"When I came to Yugoslavia, I performed some intelligence tasks in this country by using the cover of Care Australia. My concentration was on Kosovo and some effects of the bombing. I misused my Yugoslavian citizen staff for the acquisition of information. I realize that damage was done this country by these actions, for which I am greatly sorry. I always did and still do condemn the bombing of this country.

"[Television footage shows Pratt sitting in a chair and making the statement; TV also shows Pratt's passport; there are no visible signs of physical mistreatment of Pratt]
- BBC, April 13, 1999

[RTS Broadcast ends here]

The Western media presented a negative view of the RTS broadcast.

One AP report April 12th was headlined, "TV Pictures of Aid Worker's Spy Confession Fuzzy: Tapp".

In this dispatch, Australian CARE chief Charles Tapp dismissed the RTS broadcast because, Tapp argued, Mr. Pratt was shown in profile; because it was impossible to see his eyes; and because his confession was not very specific. (Tapp said the word, 'confession.' should be put in 'immense inverted commas'.)

An Agence France Presse dispatch on the 12th was headlined "Yugoslavs Forced Our Man to Confess to Spying."

This reporting amounted to anti-Yugoslav propaganda. Meanwhile the real story was ignored by most of the media or, when it was mentioned, it was dismissed.

That story, which broke April 11th in the Australian Sunday Telegraph, quoted Steve Pratt's mother, Mrs. Mavis Pratt, concerning Pratt's past activities. I have not been able to see a copy of the Sunday Telegraph story.

******************************************

Note: on 10 April 2003 I located the Telegraph article! You can read it at
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/telegraph.htm

******************************************

Fortunately part of it is quoted in a few places including an AP dispatch issued hours after the Sunday Telegraph report. According to the AP, Mrs. Pratt told the Telegraph that her son had worked for CARE in Iraq:

'''He was letting the U.N. know what Iraq was doing, he was observing, so Iraq put a price on his head and they had to get him out of there quickly.'''

In other words, Pratt was a spy.

Dishonor Thy Mother

How might one expect CARE executives to have responded to Pratt's confession and Mrs. Pratt's statement?

CARE presents itself as a politically neutral, humanitarian organization. If that were the case, wouldn't CARE leaders have adopted a cautious approach? They could have said a) they had no reason to doubt the integrity of the arrested men and b) would set up a legal defense fund but c) they could not comment on a legal process in a host country. Didn't they *have to* respond this way? Wouldn't denunciation of the arrests a) constitute interference in the Yugoslav judicial process b) compromise their neutrality and c) raise questions about their motives?

And what about the mass media? Since governments do employ spies, and since spies must have some sort of cover, how could reporters *know* in advance of investigation (not to mention in advance of the findings of a Yugoslav court!) whether the men were guilty?

Wouldn't it make sense to present the story in a factual manner and not employ yellow journalism to sway public opinion?

CARE and the media lash out at Yugoslavia

Let's look at the April 11 AP story, starting with the headline. The headline may be the only thing one reads and even if one reads further, the headline colors one's view of the rest.

What sort of headline would logically go with this story? Maybe something like:

"Mom Says Arrested CARE worker Spied Before"

Instead, AP chose:

"CARE says Serbian spying 'confession' obtained under duress"

This is a very strong statement. By making it the headline, AP lent it credibility. Did it deserve such credibility?

The RTS broadcast with Pratt's confession had just been aired. What could Charles Tapp or anyone else at CARE actually have known about this case?

If Pratt had told them he was a spy, they would know. But if Pratt was a spy and told nobody, how could they have known?

Therefore Tapp's denial is either a) a lie (because he knew Pratt was a spy and therefore denied it) or b) pure speculation (because he had no way of knowing whether Pratt was innocent or guilty.)

So what's the point of the headline? By using the phrase "obtained under duress" the headline creates a picture in the reader's mind - of threats and torture. Though the body of the article offers no factual basis for this charge, the headline has a powerful impact.

Note that 'CARE' is not a person but an organization; how can CARE 'say' anything? By quoting 'CARE' instead of a CARE executive, the AP story capitalizes on Westerners' impression of CARE, the organization: neutral, selfless, honorable. A charity. A CARE spokesman might lie - but 'CARE' itself? Never.

The "Do-you-still-beat-your-wife" Question

Note that by jumping to the issue of how the confession was obtained (supposedly 'under duress') the AP story creates the false impression that Pratt's innocence is an established fact.

The sleight of hand used here is a variation of the trick question, "Do you still beat your wife?" The use of "do you still" lends credibility to the unstated and unproven charge: that at any time you did indeed beat your wife. Similarly, by asserting that the confession was obtained "under duress" the headline obscures the fact that we have been shown no evidence the confession was false.

Let's move onto the first paragraph in the article:

"The aid agency CARE Australia on Monday said its field worker Steve Pratt's alleged spying confession broadcast by Serbian television was made under duress."

This is mainly a repeat of the headline and therefore constitutes bad journalism unless they are trying to help us learn the statement by rote. Will there be a quiz?

Also, here again instead of quoting a *person* the AP quotes CARE Australia - an esteemed charity - to lend the accusation against Yugoslavia an aura of impersonal veracity.

Let's look at paragraph two:

"CARE and the Australian government demanded immediate access to Pratt and his colleague, Peter Wallace, who were detained by Yugoslav authorities March 31 after they left Belgrade for Montenegro to help refugees."

Still not quoting actual people, the AP adds a second institution, the Australian government, by way of additional confirmation. The Yugoslav offense is so great, all institutions are speaking out.

Moreover, by telling us these institutions have "demanded immediate access to Pratt" and Wallace, the article suggests Yugoslavia is denying such access. This in turn suggests the Yugoslavs must have something to hide - such as evidence that Pratt has been beaten. Note that there is no effort, here or elsewhere in the article, to discuss the normal procedure for allowing access to men accused of spying for a group of nations who are, in grave violation of international law, bombing your country.

The paragraph also includes the statement that the arrested man had been arrested after they:

"left Belgrade for Montenegro to help refugees." (My emphasis)

How could the AP possibly know why Pratt, Wallace and Jelen had left Belgrade? Couldn't they have left to spy elsewhere? Or to escape detection? By asserting their humanitarian motives without evidence, the article strengthens the reader's impression that the men are innocent.

A little further down, a CARE official is cited by name for the first time:

"CARE Australia's emergency coordinator, Brian Doolan, said threats may have been made against local staff or against Wallace to extract the confession." (My emphasis)

'May have been made.' Two thoughts on this: a) Doesn't the use of 'may' completely contradict the headline and first paragraph, which have 'CARE' (speaking as if it were a person) saying the confession WAS obtained under duress and b) isn't it true that it is always possible that a confession 'may' have been extracted based on threats?

Since by this point we've been told several times that Pratt was forced to confess, I would bet many readers wouldn't notice the use of "may".

The article continues as follows:

"Doolan said the claims made against Pratt were 'absolute lunacy.'"

If Pratt "may" (which suggests 'may not') have confessed under duress, why is Doolan sure the charges are *lunacy*? The AP ignores this obvious absurdity. Nor does it try to bring some balance to the story by talking to someone from the Yugoslav side, for example a Yugoslav security official. Such a person might ask: "Since spies do not inform the general public of their secret activities, it is obvious that unless Mr. Doolan is himself a spy, he would have no way of know whether or not Mr. Pratt is a spy."

The Associated Press article continues for eight (8) more paragraphs, strengthening the impression that Pratt must be innocent until we get to the end, where Mrs. Pratt is quoted. But readers are not permitted to judge Mrs. Pratt's words for themselves; they are given a good deal of help by the AP which quotes the chief executive of CARE Australia, Charles Tapp. He gets to comment before and after Mrs. Pratt, belittling Mrs. Pratt's assertion that Pratt had previously spied against Iraq, attacking the newspaper that interviewed Mrs. Pratt and published her remarks, and even implying that Mrs. Pratt 's remarks should be discounted because she is old - i.e., that she may be senile. He did not, however, accuse her of being on drugs.

Here's how this section of the AP dispatch reads:

[Excerpt from AP starts here]

"...[CARE chief executive Tapp] rejected the suggestion that they [i.e. the arrested CARE workers] were acting for any other organization in any capacity.

"Speaking from the Yugoslavia-Croatia border, Tapp also slammed a newspaper report in which Pratt's mother, Mavis Pratt, was quoted as saying her son had supplied information about Iraqi forces to the United Nations during the Gulf War.

'''He was letting the U.N. know what Iraq was doing, he was observing, so Iraq put a price on his head and they had to get him out of there quickly,' she [Mrs. Pratt] was quoted as saying.

"Tapp said Mrs. Pratt was elderly and added, ''Frankly, I consider this to be extremely poor journalism.'''

-- AP Worldstream April 11, 1999; Sunday 22:06 Eastern Time

[Excerpt from AP ends here]

Did you notice Tapp's phrase, "extremely poor journalism"? Why on earth is it poor journalism to hunt down the mother of an accused man and ask her if he is guilty? And if the man's mother says, "Why yes, my son is as guilty as sin," isn't that the type of quote that causes reporters (at least in the movies!) to rush to a pay phone to call in their scoop?

The quote from Mrs. Pratt, to which Tapp is referring, is the only actual *news* in this whole "news" story. The rest is intended to give us a proper news orientation. The AP is evidently anxious to guarantee that readers approach the arrests with the preconception that Pratt and the others are innocent. Why?

As for CARE officials - their statements are suggestive. Consider: Pratt confessed on April 11th. The Sunday Telegraph printed Mrs. Pratt's statement the next day and within hours AP broadcast furious denials from CARE officials. How could these officials be so sure so fast? Why would they react without taking time to investigate and discuss the matter, including privately with Yugoslav officials? Doesn't such a hasty and violent response suggest that:

* Pratt et al were indeed spies;

* Tapp and Doolan were fully aware that Pratt, Wallace and Jelen were spies because they were themselves involved in organizing such spying;

* CARE officials were therefore worried that Yugoslav officials or, worse yet, Pratt or Wallace, might go public with more revelations, might expose high-level CARE (and Australian government?) involvement, might talk about CARE spying in other countries, and so on. Thus it was crucial immediately (on Sunday!) to discredit the arrests and especially the public confession. By planting the thought that the confession was made 'under duress' and 'was lunacy' and that Mrs. Pratt's own statement was unbelievable - the hope was to prejudice Western readers against any further revelations from Belgrade or Steve and Mavis Pratt.

Honor thy Satellite Phone

Four months later, Yugoslavia released Pratt and Wallace. In a dispatch at the time, the Australian news agency, AAP, explained that Yugoslav border guards had found:

"...detailed maps, a satellite telephone and a laptop computer in their car when Pratt and Wallace tried to cross into Croatia."

Shouldn't this information have been presented as top news in April? It was not. Instead the media engaged in more preventive damage control. Consider this from the AAP on April 15th:

[Excerpt from AAP starts here]

"CARE Australia worker Steve Pratt, who is being held as a spy in Yugoslavia, would have collected some military information, his former boss said today.

"But it would only have been to help CARE's planning and would not have been given to any outside body, Tony McGee said..."

[Excerpt from AAP ends here]

Isn't this mind-boggling? How on earth would the gathering of military information help CARE's planning? Does CARE's charitable work include bombing runs?

The article goes on:

"Mr. McGee, like Mr. Pratt a former Australian army officer, said he never took any interest in military installations or troop movements except to the extent that they might affect CARE's safety and operations."

Are all these guys ex-Army officers? Doesn't CARE recruit any regular folks? And what about McGee's suggestion that by recruiting (supposedly) former Army officers CARE insures its employees will take no "interest in military installations or troop movements except to the extent that they might affect CARE's safety and operations."

In case people are not convinced that military men would never take an interest in military matters, Mr. McGee adds:

"In any event, satellites could provide much better information than anything aid workers on the ground could gather."

So Pratt was certainly no spy because former military officers just don't have the military curiosity needed for spying and even if he was a spy the information he would gather would be of minor use. Doesn't this sound more and more like a) Pratt was a spy and b) all these guys knew it?

What is the point of McGee's statement? The only explanation I can suggest is: CARE officials knew Pratt was carrying incriminating equipment and descriptions of troop movements when he was arrested; there was a danger the Yugoslavs would make this incriminating evidence public; McGee was trying to immunize the public beforehand. And once again, the media provided a willing PR forum.

Pratt, Critic of NATO (?)

Here's an AAP headline from April 12th:

Ex Army Major no spy say CARE colleagues

This article tells Pratt's life story, official version. We are told he spent years in the army where he worked in supply until at the request of former Australian Prime Minister and CARE Chairman Malcolm Fraser, he joined CARE.

He what?

How comes an ordinary Army major to be recruited by a Prime Minister? Isn't this in itself a bit suspicious?

The AAP asks no embarrassing questions.

The article goes on to claim that Pratt:

"also criticized the NATO bombing, and publicly attacked the destruction of a CARE-run refugee camp which killed nine people."

This is intended to prove Pratt's even-handedness. See? He criticizes NATO. (More evidence of his innocence.)

But consider Pratt's actual comments, recorded on March 29 in an AAP Internet Bulletin. He's talking about the NATO bombing of refugees who were living in abandoned Army barracks:

[Excerpt from AAP starts here]

"'I suspect the centers had been located very close to military targets. The report that I am getting that they have probably been caught up in some sort of collateral thing,' Mr. Pratt said. The refugees killed were believed to include women and children who were ethnic Serb refugees who fled Bosnia during the 1995 conflict.

"'They were not directly hit, they don't seem to have been deliberately targeted.'...He said the center where eight refugees were confirmed killed had been located 60 km southwest of the city of Nis in an old army barracks consisting of barracks of wooden huts. But two of the nine buildings had been damaged, including one which was burned down, when NATO hit a warehouse about 100 meters away. 'I believe (the damage) was accidental...'

"Another refugee had been confirmed killed in Kosovo's capital of Pristina in a refugee center close to police headquarters. 'Again this was a refugee center too close to a NATO target. I suppose this is the way things are in war but it is extremely sad,' he said."

[Excerpt from AAP ends here]

Is Pratt "publicly attacking" NATO for the "destruction of a CARE-run refugee camp?" Or is he in fact *excusing* NATO of criminal responsibility?

Why do you say 'Preposterous' Mr. Downer?

Two days after Pratt confessed on Yugoslav TV, The Guardian (London) reported that:

"The Serbian government's claim that two Australian aid workers missing for 14 days were gathering intelligence has been dismissed as 'preposterous' by the Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer."
-- The Guardian (London) April 13, 1999

Imagine you told your neighbor your wooden house was on fire and he replied: "Preposterous!"

Of course, you could be wrong - but preposterous?

How could Downer possibly be sure?

Australian Foreign Minister Downer's statement demonstrates his desire, in the absence of supporting evidence, to prove Pratt was innocent. This puts Downer in good company: Tapp, McGee, Doolan the AP, the AAP and the mass media in general were all trying to convince the public that Pratt was innocent. The Guardian could have contributed to newsgathering by questioning Downer: "How can you be sure? Why is everyone so anxious to prove the Yugoslavs are lying? Could this be a pre-emptive strike aimed at preventing people from believing future Yugoslav revelations about CARE's involvement in spying?"

But the Guardian asked no such questions. Apparently they wanted to prove Pratt was innocent too.

Dishonor Thy Mother Some More

While most of the world had no idea Major Pratt's mother had nailed him in the Sunday Telegraph, the word got around in Australia. Hence the following bit of damage control published by the AAP on April 12th:

[Excerpt from AAP starts here]

"CARE Australia emergency coordinator Brian Doolan personally guaranteed Mr. Pratt was not spying when they worked together in Iraq from 1993 to 1995. Mr. Doolan criticized Sydney's Sunday Telegraph reporters for speaking to Mr. Pratt's mother, Mavis Pratt, who told the newspaper: 'He was letting the UN know what Iraq was doing, he was observing, so Iraq put a price on his head and they had to get him out of there quickly.'

"The newspaper's story was groundless, Mr. Doolan said. The elderly Mrs. Pratt was confronted through the fly-screen door by two young women saying they wanted to help her son, he said.

"'They (the reporters) seemed to have spun a bit of line and she's given them bits of information, potted information, that she knows about Steve's experience overseas,' he said."

[Excerpt from AAP ends here]

Huh? Has Doolan actually proven anything here?

Forget Thy Mother and Ditto Thy Satellite Phone!

Apparently this was sufficient to eliminate mom because by April 26, in a story on the Pratt/Wallace affair (the news stories generally left out Mr. Jelen since he was only a Yugoslav) Time actually printed the following sentence:

"How the two aid workers came to be accused of spying has mystified their families and friends."

Isn't this amazing?

Yes, one might argue, but perhaps 'Time' didn't know about Mrs. Pratt's statement...

I find that hard to believe. Since they were writing a story about Australians accused of spying, wouldn't the 'Time" reporters read what the Australian press (not the mention the AP) had published concerning the arrests? How could they not know about Mavis Pratt's statement?

But let us concede, for the sake of argument, that Time didn't know.

The AAP certainly did know. After Pratt and Wallace were released in September, the AAP published a story that tried to explain the supposedly irrational Yugoslav conviction that the men were spies. In it, the AAP admitted that:

"Serb authorities had intercepted Pratt's reports on troop movements,"

but added that these reports:

"were designed to help Aid agencies, not NATO's air strikes."

How could anyone think otherwise? The Yugoslav authorities must be paranoid.

AAP adds:

"There were other allegations that Pratt spied on Iraq for the United Nations while he was working there for CARE Australia."

These "other allegations" were the ones raised by Mrs. Pratt. Does the AAP see fit to mention her name? It does not. Instead it goes on to answer the anonymous allegations:

"...the Army said Pratt had never undertaken intelligence work during his military career..."

Do you find this convincing? If Pratt was a spy would you expect the Australian Army to admit it?

Arguments like this have no merit as arguments. If you isolate them from the larger text, they look ridiculous. But within the context of a barrage of propaganda, they do have an effect. Here's how it works:

The AAP and other Western media take meaningless statements that sound like arguments. They put this empty babble in the appropriate place for real arguments. They string several such arguments together and they do this over and over again and in this way, by heaping one pro-establishment pseudo-argument on top of another (though never offering real evidence) the reader is trained into a sort of glaze, thought dissipates, the proper impression is planted and lingers.

Filing for ethical bankruptcy

The AAP story closes with an amazing statement. Referring to Peter Wallace, who had just been released along with Steve Pratt, the article states that:

"His family, like Pratt's, were shocked when he was accused of being a spy."
-- Our emphasis. AAP General News, Sept. 2, 1999

Is it unreasonable to suggest that CARE, the mass media and the Australian government had fashioned a convenient cover story and Mrs. Pratt statement did not fit, so it was edited out?

The link to the transcript of the SBS TV show, is no longer working. (It was  http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/transcript.html) We haven't been able to locate another transcript, but we did find an Australian newspaper article which seems to summarize the broadcast accurately. That can be accessed at
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/sbs.htm

Further Reading

[1A] There are two transcripts for the Dateline broadcast on 2 February 2000. The main part, where the results of the Dateline investigation were revealed, can be accessed http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php3?daysum=2000-02-02
Clickon the phrase "view transcript" the *first* time it appears. If for some reason this doesn't work, we have an archive at
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/dateline.htm
(The transcript is oddly laid out, with blocks of capital letters, but worth reading.)

[1B] Dateline also broadcast an argument between leaders of so-called international charities concerning CARE's role in Kosovo. For that transcript, go to  http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php3?daysum=2000-02-02
and then clickon the phrase "view transcript" the *second* time it appears.

For more on William Walker see, "William Walker (Alias, Mr. Racak) And His Salvador Massacre Cover-Up" at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/sixty.htm

[1A] Los Angeles Times, January 20, 1999, Wednesday, Home Edition, Page 6, 1323 Words, Proof May Exist To Blame Serbs For Atrocity; Kosovo: Monitors Apparently Intercepted Police Radio Conversations Tied To Killing Of More Than 40 Ethnic Albanians., Paul Watson, Times Staff Writer , Pristina, Yugoslavia

[1B] What is DynCorp? Consider these excerpts from two articles.

The first article is 'Witness,' about the US-sponsored counter-insurgency in Colombia. Appearing in the British magazine, Prospect, on June 14, 2001, it was written by Mark Bowden.

Mr. Bowden wrote 'Black Hawk Down.' I haven't read it (or seen the movie) but I'm told it whitewashes US actions in Somalia. So it's reasonable to assume Mr. Bowden is not the harshest critic of US intervention.

In the following excerpt, Mr. Bowden comments on the $1.3 billion [USD] then slated for "aid" to Colombia. The people mentioned in the excerpt, Brent and Eddie, are, according to the article, retired US military men now working as businessmen in Colombia's military boom economy.

Here is Bowden's description of Dyncorp:

"DynCorp, a company that employs retired US military special operators..."

So it's staffed with "retired military special operators." In other words, Special Forces types and others associated with covert actions.

This was the same company that staffed William Walker's so-called OSCE Verification Mission in Kosovo in the fall of 1998. At that time, this writer (and others) charged that the Verification Mission was really a cover for spying and establishing liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army, which is quite similar to Latin American death squads...

Here is Mr. Bowden:

[Excerpt from Prospect Magazine starts here]

"Brent and Eddie are among thousands of businessmen, American and Colombian, who are scrambling for pieces of that billion-plus and what it promises down the road. Most of them are recently retired military men, stoic about the dangers, well-connected and knowledgeable about the planned logistics of intervention. They have plenty of company. *DynCorp, a company that employs retired US military special operators,* won a $170m contract in 1998 and has been implementing the US-sponsored crop eradication programme ever since. The contract employees work alongside US Special Forces soldiers from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, who have been rotating through in higher and higher numbers."

- From 'Witness,' by Mark Bowden, Prospect Magazine, 14 June 2001,

[Excerpt from Prospect Magazine ends here]

The second excerpt, is also from an article about Colombia, this one in the Dallas Morning News, 19 August 1998. It's called, "U.S. counters Colombia rebels with covert plan; Money, moves boost military, sources say."

[Dallas Morning News article starts here]

"Some personnel participating in U.S. operations here are working under a State Department contract with two private firms based in suburban Washington: Dyncorp and East Inc. Officials of both companies said they were not permitted to discuss their operations in Colombia and referred all questions to the State Department. Officials did not return phone calls.

"Both companies officially are providing pilot training and technical support for Colombian illicit-crop eradication flights, according to U.S. officials. But one pilot said he had conducted a number of missions that went well beyond the scope of that definition, including assisting in the deployment of Colombian counterinsurgency troops.

"Shortly before the guerrilla offensive began this month, two East Inc. pilots were killed near the military base at San Jose del Guaviare. A U.S. Embassy spokesman said the circumstances of the pilots' deaths were still under investigation. He could not confirm whether the pilots' bodies or the plane wreckage had been recovered.

"Dyncorp personnel who were based at San Jose del Guaviare before the U.S. withdrawal said they were under strict orders not to talk to reporters.

"The U.S. Embassy has attempted to discourage reporters from delving into the activities of government-contracted personnel here.

THREATS MADE

"One U.S. reporter who attempted to talk to Dyncorp pilots at San Jose del Guaviare said he was threatened with banishment from the U.S. Embassy if he ever attempted to approach Dyncorp personnel again. Another reporter said he was banned from embassy-sponsored briefings after the reporter quoted a guerrilla leader as saying that U.S. military advisers would now be targeted for attack.

"'I can understand why the embassy would be sensitive to anything appearing in the press about the civilian group out there,' Mr. Toft said. [TENC note: That's Joe Toft, former chief of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Colombia.] 'It's for the safety of those people. If the guerrillas become aware of them, they [the Americans] could be targeted.'

"Ms. Kirk and Mr. Salinas, the human rights activists, said the use of covert aid and privately contracted personnel is troublesome because it may permit the U.S. Embassy to circumvent restrictions imposed by Congress on aid to Colombian military units linked to human rights abuses.

"'If we found that the Department of Defense was using private contractors in ways that are contrary to the intent of the law, that would be cause for great concern,' said Tim Rieser, an aide to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. 'If the administration wants to shift its policy to support counterinsurgency activities, then it should come to the Congress, and Congress should debate it.'

"Under congressional foreign-aid restrictions sponsored by Sen. Leahy, military units must be "vetted" of officers with spotty human rights records before those units can receive assistance, such as training and equipment, administered by the State Department.

"Mr. Rieser said previous Pentagon attempts to avoid applying those restrictions prompted Sen. Leahy earlier this month to draft legislation requiring compliance. Although the Defense Department has said it would agree to the proposed law, he said, the CIA rejects such restrictions.

"Some U.S. Special Forces troops currently are allowed to participate in training exercises with Colombian soldiers, both from vetted and unvetted units, under a Pentagon exchange program in existence since 1991. U.S. officials said those American troops have not been assigned to combat roles, although they are authorized to fight if fired upon."

-- 'US COUNTERS COLOMBIA REBELS,' by Tod Robberson, Dallas Morning News, 19 August 1998.

[Dallas Morning News article ends here]

Two quick points. 1) The idea that they don't want DynCorp people interviewed to protect their safety is absurd. Of course the guerillas know they are there. It's ordinary newspaper readers who don't know, and the powers-that-be want to keep it that way. That is made clear by the article's statement that:

"Another reporter said he was banned from embassy-sponsored briefings after the reporter quoted a guerrilla leader as saying that U.S. military advisers would now be targeted for attack."

Obviously the guerilla leader already knew he'd said that....

2) The article states that "Some U.S. Special Forces troops currently are allowed to participate in training exercises with Colombian soldiers." But adds, "U.S. officials said those American troops have not been assigned to combat roles..."

This makes it sound like the US military role is limited. But the key job of Special Forces in a place like Colombia is training and "advising" which of course means leading. Thus a small number of Special Forces troops does not indicate small U.S. involvement.

Consider these excerpts from a semi-official SEALS/Special Forces Webpage. First the general summary of Special Forces assignments, then a discussion of Teaching, specifically.

"COMBATANT SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES IN GENERAL

"The US military today has several CSOF units operating today. Most notable (in no particular order) are the US Navy SEALS, US Army Rangers, US Marines Force Recon, US Army Special Operations Aviation, US Air Force Special Operations and US Army Special Forces (SF). Many will notice several glaring errors in the listing; this is deliberate. I listed only those units which have a DIRECT combat mission. Both aviation organizations have organic attack assets.

"Of all of these organizations, the two most alike are the SEALs and SF. The SEALs are a small-unit maritime special operations force. SF is a small-unit GROUND special operations force. Both have a broad mission charter that reads the same:

"1) Direct Action Operations (direct combat).

2) Collect Intelligence.

3) Conduct Unconventional Warfare (train guerrillas behind enemy lines).

4) Foreign Internal Defense (fight guerrillas behind friendly lines).

5) Counter-Terrorist Operations (kill guerrillas who don't follow the rules).

6) Coalition Warfare (advise foreign armies on regular warfare issues).

7) Special Activities (none of your business!).

"Another way to describe this mission charter is: SEALs and SF can Snoop, Shoot, or Teach someone else how to snoop-and-shoot. They can do this behind friendly lines, behind enemy lines, by themselves or with friends.

...

"TEACHING. This is the "Bread and Butter" of Special Forces; and which makes a very dangerous force. One Special Forces A-Team can recruit, organize, train, equip (with outside help) and 'advise' a Light Infantry Battalion. This includes rifles, mortars, anti-tank launchers, command, control, communications and intelligence. An unconventional warfare (UW) mission means they do this behind enemy lines. The usual objectives of UW are to help overthrow the current regime; or influence it in a manner favorable to the guerillas and US policy. No guerilla army has won a campaign without heavy support from a sponsor. US sponsorship is often in the form of SF detachments and supplies controlled by Special Forces.

"Foreign Internal Defense (FID) is the flip side of UW. Only now the light infantry battalion is raised to support the current government and hunt down guerillas trying to overthrow it. FID also includes improvement of existing foreign forces through better training and supplies. "

http://www.navyseals.com/dropzone/interro/tracy.html

========================================================

Emperor's Clothes
Urgently Needs
Your Help!

========================================================

[Skip to, How you can Help]

We at Emperor's Clothes work hard to bring you important information and analysis. Often we are the first to expose misinformation and lies about US foreign policy and the media. We are beholden to no one. We state our sources, so you can check them. And we post important documents when possible.

We rely entirely on contributions from our readers.  If you can make a contribution it will help cover the costs of this work.

Every donation helps, large or small.

Our best is yet to come...

Here's how you can help...

* By credit card at our secure server
https://emperor.securesites.com/transactions/index.php

* Using Paypal (Visa & Mastercard) https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@aol.com&no_shipping=1

* Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes,
P.O. Box 610-321
Newton, MA 02461-0321 (USA)

* Or call us and make a donation over the phone.
1617 9161705

Thank You!

www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]

This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at http://globalresistance.com