Will We Finally See the John Kerry Who Investigated BCCI Again?

Thwarted in his dreams to be Secretary of State–or some cabinet position, any cabinet position–John Kerry is settling in and making some changes at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry has hired Douglas Frantz, the former Los Angeles Times managing editor, to lead the committee’s investigative wing. The committee won’t specify what Frantz, who recently coauthored a book on Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan, plans to investigate. But sources note that he’s currently in Vienna, the seat of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Sources tell The Cable that the pro-Israel lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has encouraged Kerry and other members to probe Iran’s alleged sanctions busting, and how the country might bypass international sanctions to supply its nuclear program.

"For sure folks are strongly supportive of congressional and U.S. efforts to go after trans-shipment issues, often through the UAE, but in other places as well, that the Iranians have been using to bring in dual use items and other things not allowed under the sanctions," a source following the Iran issue said on condition of anonymity. With the recent U.S.-UAE nuclear power deal, "there is increased expectation on the Hill that the UAE will do a better job of cracking down on their country being used by Iran to push their nuclear programs forward and step up their effort to help ensure the economic sanctions aren’t being violated under their noses."

In addition to Frantz’ book on AQ Khan, Frantz wrote A Full Service Bank on an intimately related subject: the BCCI scandal (along with funding terrorism and CIA covert ops, BCCI served as the finance vehicle for AQ Khan’s nuke program). At the same time Frantz was working on that book, a guy named John Kerry was investigating BCCI in the Senate. I’ve always believed that the BCCI investigation–particularly Kerry’s decision not to press Democratic fixer Clark Clifford on his involvement with the bank–was the beginning of John Kerry’s evolution away from the courageous stance he took opposing the Vietnam War and towards the more accommodating, cautious stance that might allow one to someday run for President. For some support in that view, here’s Doug Frantz (with James Ring Adams) writing about his new boss’ decision, in 1988, to go easy on Clifford even though his bank, First American, was really not revealing its role in BCCI.

The Senator did not challenge Clifford. Nor did he ask about Amjad Awan’s claim that First American was owned by BCCI. Here was a man who deserved the benefit of the doubt. Instead, he assured the lawyer that he was happy that the bank was cooperating.

Why did John Kerry not confront Clark Clifford? After all, it was Kerry who was insisting on keeping the investigation of BCCI going. One explanation lies in Kerry’s own character. He tends to operate in bursts, pushing relentlessly on a subject and then seeming to lose interest in it. Also, Kerry was learning the Washington game and beginning to think of himself as possible presidential timber down the road. That meant that certain people were not attacked, at least not until all the evidence was in.

Here we are, with Kerry having tested his "presidential timber" and found it lacking, teaming up with the journalist who once suggested Kerry put aside his bulldog tendancies for political reasons twenty years ago. I find that rather curious.

I don’t know whether Kerry’s intent is to have Frantz investigate–just–Iran as Laura’s sources would love to suggest, or whether he’s going to invest the sordid mess that involves Israel itself in really dangerous proliferation of weapons. (Laura also notes that Kerry has hired Heidi Crebo-Rediker to lead a focus on international finance and foreign relations which, as Kerry knows form his earlier work, will quickly implicate both close allies and enemies of the United States.)

But I do wonder whether this suggests a post-Presidential Kerry will return to the more courageous stance of his youth.

44 replies
  1. zak822 says:

    If Kerry had used BCCI to boost the fact that he took al-Qaeda and terrorist funding seriously while Bush was still a party boy, he’d be President today.

    But he lost his nerve.

    I guess that explains a lot.

    • ratfood says:

      The outcome of the 2004 election was so close that we tend to assume if Kerry had done any one of a number of things differently, he would have won. Not necessarily true, as that assumption doesn’t factor in counter measures which would have been taken by the Bush campaign. Kerry was outfoxed and outmaneuvered at every step. In light of the disastrous Iraq war he should have been a shoo in but he blew it. The single positive thing to result from Kerry’s bid was that he provided a shining example of how NOT to run a presidential campaign.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Agree completely.
      But would add that if Kerry is a committed environmentalist in a world hit by global warming, then he has to go after the people who have been fueling the mess we’re in now.

      On some levels, I realize that many still cling to the Israel/Arab framework, but if you look at the underlying environmental factors those lose some relevance. Anyone who thinks they aren’t going to be flooded, hurricaned, or on fire is a dolt.

      BTW, this fits in some interesting ways with the bits that I was able to hear of DNI Blair’s testimony before SSCI yesterday.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          I caught a few bits, amidst other distractions, but I’ll have to go hunt down the specific times much later today. However, two things struck me:

          1. DNI Blair articulated linkages: financial conduct affects economic stability, which affects political stability**; if I heard DNI Blair correctly, he explained that bad economic actors destabilize economies, which destabilize governments, which results in failed states.
          If you posit that financial instability is a serious threat, then wouldn’t you assume that BCCI — as an economically destabilizing force — would fall under the general category of ’security threats’?

          2. DiFi (I think) asked about cybersecurity and the Russian Mafia. IIRC, Blair didn’t want to answer in open hearing.
          I wasn’t able to catch it all, but thought in view of recent news about Madoff being linked to Russian Mafia that was an interesting connection, and one more reason to ignore any GOP Senate whining about economic matters since they obviously didn’t pay enough attention.

          As I understand it, BCCI was operating prior to online transactions, but only makes sense that it’s still connected to wire fraud. Money moving across borders (or borders not existing, for all intents and purposes) seems to be a property of cybersecurity issues. So BCCI may not be keyed to cybersecurity, per se, but the idea of transactions that are hard to trace, or move offshore, must fit in somewhere. And DNI Blair seemed to be broadening the range of ‘threats’ to include sources of financial instability.

          (As someone who still has to deal with an instance of Identify Theft some years back, I may be more attuned to Blair’s comments on this topic than the average Joe or Jane.)

          ** I realize that you know all this; just thinking the connections through for myself.

  2. Arbusto says:

    Gee, I wonder if Plame or Wilson was considered? They have knowledge of Iran that would take years to accumulate and with her contacts and background of running covert cells, Plame could have really contributed to better understanding of Iran and the region. Of course modern Congresses only want the appearance of oversight and investigations.

  3. selise says:

    But I do wonder whether this suggests a post-Presidential Kerry will return to the more courageous stance of his youth.

    would that it was true, but no sign of it that i can see here in ma.

    when push comes to shove, kerry has put country and his constituents second.

  4. DeadLast says:


    I feel like I am in Oz and the curtain has just been pulled back.

    BCCI (which involves all the Blackwater-type scumbags and middle eastern yes men), AQ Kahn, Skull&Bones Member John Kerry with his flaccid presidential timber, and Iran/Israel connected? What a drama? Ozzie and Harriet would roll in their graves!

  5. eCAHNomics says:

    This will be an Iran-Pakistan bashing, nothing more. Israel, heh, not so much.

    I really had to hold my nose to vote for Kerry. Can’t put my finger on why. Maybe his on-again, off-again, maybe something else I haven’t identified. Point being, he’s pretty close to useless, like most of the Ds in congress, and even more so in the senate. (And now in the WH.)

    • macaquerman says:

      Is there a reason why Iran-Pakistan bashing about nuclear weapons isn’t in order?
      I would think that there’s a few better topics upon which to beat up on Israel.

    • jdmckay says:

      This will be an Iran-Pakistan bashing, nothing more. Israel, heh, not so much.


      Among other things, one of Obama’s (seemingly) early positions is assuming Bush’s Iran stance. AFAIC this stance as full of air as Bush’s Iraq invasion “rationales”.

      Nearly nothing in news for early years of GWOT re: Iran’s cooperation, detention of some of worst of worst, etc. etc… all ignored by Junior and replaced by Iran demonization blather. As if we need(ed) more enemies.

      Iran’s been surrounded by states aquiring nukes which are more unstable than they are. The Iran/Iraq war was Reagan’s proxy war against Khomeni, who was result of Shah tyrany at US beshest, which was a response to our overthrow of Mossadeq… etc. etc.

      We now have an Iraq far more friendly to Iran than US. Karazi, and virtually every leader in the region has spoken plainly about Iran’s positive contributions.

      So who is it that benefits from more Iran blather?

      I really had to hold my nose to vote for Kerry. Can’t put my finger on why.

      Kerry lost me when his campaign, reportedly at his decision, chose to not engage or use Enron/Ca. energy crisis as a campaign issue, as I heard it because the issue was “too political”. I also not that verbatem rationale is exactly the same employed by Sen Roberts in blocking investigation of W’s (mis)use of intel for Iraq.

      Bush’s entire cabinet advocated for Enron & against Ca from before that thing hit… active participants in the current econ meltdown beta test. Both Ca. Senators spoke openly of being stonewalled by Bush’s WH despite numerous pleas. 2+ yrs later, FERC quietly posted findings of everything alleged by Ca. officials before the “crisis” actually hit, yet MSM largely ignorned it. Bush was never held to account.

      In parusing about current econ mess, I almost always find myself recalling details of this episode and comparing similarities in Enron’s drain-every-last-$$-before-the-doors-are-shut clean sweep, not to mention similarities in use of off-book accounting sleight of hand in the service of these crimes.

      Kerry lost me completely then.

      Personally, I have little confidence in him now… he appears (and has for some time) more interested in his image than really putting his ass on the line.

  6. Slothrop says:

    As I understand the history of it, Clark Clifford was a very old man at the time and probably didn’t understand how he’d been used. In other words, someone in the intelligence/BCCI community “handled” him. I think Kerry understood this about the situation.

    The juicy question is who set up Clifford?

    • bell says:

      good question that could have possibly been answered if someone with some spine was around to have done it…

  7. BoxTurtle says:

    Kerry’s spine is in a jar on some swiftboaters desk.

    I read this like eCAHN, it’s going to be Iran and Pakistan bashing. Perhaps there will be some Bush bashing on what he did to foreign relations in general and Europe in particular, but I doubt anything specific.

    Foreign Relations SHOULD be a very busy group, there are a lot of relations to repair. And there will be a few treaties that BushCo didn’t approve of. I’m not sure Kerry is the right person for the job.

    Boxturtle (I had to hold my nose to vote for him as well)

  8. kspena says:

    IIRC-Poppy GHWB was tangled-up with BCCI as well. I assume that shutting down Kerry was for the sake of the bushes in general, not just for dubya’s sake.

  9. Raven says:

    Stunning that someone who went Yale, was an officer, and took a stand 35+ years ago became “cautious” when he was in the senate. Astounding, who would have thought it?

  10. Hugh says:

    Kerry is 65 years old and has been in the Senate for 24 years. The Senate is not a hotbed of radicalism, at least not of the liberal variety. It is very much the embodiment of the status quo. And Kerry personifies this. He is not Jesse Helms but then neither is he a closet progressive. He is in the most Establishment of establishments, and he did not wander in by mistake.

    Can any of us be surprised that this is the case? How many firebreathing liberals are there in the Senate? There’s Kennedy but he’s both old and dying. There’s Bernie Sanders but he’s technically not even a Democrat. There’s Feingold but he is inconsistent and often muted.

    As I pointed out, Kerry is 65. When I look across the media landscape, I see all of these figures who were once labeled “liberal” spouting some of the most conservative tripe around. NPR, the NewsHour, Washington Week, etc., these were all once part of the liberal media, now they are sad, hackneyed mouthpieces of the Conventional Wisdom and purveyors of conservative talking points. Can I be that surprised that Kerry belonging to the same “liberal” generation as these turn out any different?

    The truth is our whole political class is out of touch with the country and more generally with reality. How else to explain the lack of opposition to the madness of the Bush years? Or the active participation in what has led us to the financial meltdown and the edge of depression? Their missing the point is not a bug. It’s a feature.

    They have, media and politicians, constructed a bubble in Washington, much larger than anything Bush had, where they can grow old and comfortable together, going along to get along, hiring the people they know, who almost always have some connection to a rich and conservative group, that gave money or support to them. It is the perfect echo chamber, for members only, and as we have so often found out here: we are not members.

    • ShotoJamf says:

      “The truth is our whole political class is out of touch with the country and more generally with reality. How else to explain the lack of opposition to the madness of the Bush years? Or the active participation in what has led us to the financial meltdown and the edge of depression? Their missing the point is not a bug. It’s a feature.”

      Very nicely articulated. It is for this reason that I sometimes feel as though I’m flailing away at a strawman when I contact my representatives’ offices. I did that very thing this morning and came away feeling like I just got finished trying to teach calculus to a tree stump…and not a particularly bright one, either.

    • LabDancer says:

      I think this fair to start. But there’s a lot of work to do here. What I’m getting from folks in Washington is that the government looks like you’d imagine at the end of an 8 year rave up at Animal House; even basic stuff like electricity and plumbing is screwed up and untrustworthy: personnel lists, command lines, key organizational plans, priority memos – they’re all missing or messed up — even without governance responsibility it would take months to get things into working order. Will this guy going to pitch in & help with that, or get in the way?

  11. emptywheel says:

    FWIW, even if this is–as some say above–an Iran-Pakistan bashing deal, it leads very quickly to other places. UAE is mentioned here, which is frankly huge (which is why Kerry’s interest in econ crisis and foreign policy is so interesting, given the sovereign wealth funds from UAE are joint-sort of owners of some of our biggest banks). But it’ll also by definition lead to Saudi Arabia very quickly, which will lead into the entire hegemonic Faustian bargain we’ve made. That’s why I’m skeptical that Laura’s sources’ wishes–that this is primarily about Iran–will come to fruition.

    Besides, let’s be honest. Israel wants to go after Iran for hegemonic reasons at least as much as any purported nuke program. So to have real exposure on the whole proliferation network doesn’t necessarily help their war-mongering.

  12. LabDancer says:

    fearless leader quoting from Frantz: “He tends to operate in bursts, pushing relentlessly on a subject and then seeming to lose interest in it”

    jdmckay @ 16: “he appears (and has for some time) more interested in his image than really putting his ass on the line” — versus the circumstances that led his being awarded the Silver Star.

    I refuse to accept there’s value in indulging in cheap shots. Not only is it outside the style of Ms E and her regulars, it’s lazy, giving into Swiftboat hangover.

    There’s lot of brain professionals here; what’s all this say to you about this personality type?

    • jdmckay says:

      I refuse to accept there’s value in indulging in cheap shots.

      Please explain. I intend no slap at Marcy at all (isn’t that what you suggest?). I meant exactly what I said: from what I’ve seen, Kerry’s spine has been jelly for reason (and few others) I say.

      That stuff had nothing in common w/Swift Boaters, as you imply.

      When I’ve disagreed w/Marcy, I’ve said so explicitly (GM bailout f/ex).

      Unless I read you wrong, I appreciate an explanation: how am I taking cheap shot @ Marcy?


    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      There’s lot of brain professionals here; what’s all this say to you about this personality type?

      Well, I’m not a ‘brain professional’, but have to deal with some of that type of content for other obligations and responsibilities.

      Could you be more specific?
      What, exactly are you trying to suss out?
      (Not that I’m qualified to give a response, but just because I have an empty part of my brain today that can chew on a puzzle.)

  13. JohnLopresti says:

    Clark Clifford obit 1998 about 2pp. Excerpt: “Ramparts called Clifford a ‘curious hybrid of Rasputin, Perry Como and Mr. Fix…’”

    Warmup for 2004 election OH: “Central to this growing sense of unease is the role that for-profit companies play in the provision of our electoral infrastructure. One famous flashpoint occurred in 2003 when Walden O’Dell—then-chief executive of Diebold Election Systems, a voting machine manufacturer—sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of George W. Bush, promising that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”7 Few need to be reminded of Ohio’s pivotal role in the ensuing race to know why O’Dell’s remarks raised hackles.”Jennifer Nou, Yale Law J p.4/50 prePublication draft February 2009 “Privatizing Democracy: Promoting Election Integrity Through Procurement Contracts”. Palast and RFKJr are doubtful what the outcome of that election actually was. It took place at the height of the dirty tricks campaigns in RNC.

  14. JohnLopresti says:

    I think Kerry has a goodly measure of New England reserve and penchant for privacy. Should be an interesting tenure. He put in his time in the committee learning. I hear he is an avid sailboarder, or was.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Yeah, and then he got slammed for wanting to windsurf on the Columbia River in 2004 during his campaign stop in the Seattle/Portland region. But I figure it was that swine Rove feeding the MSM swill, so they spun it anti-Kerry.
      I’m told by relatives who live down there that people come from all over the world to windsurf along the Columbia Gorge.


      And thank you all for tolerating this moment of provincial pride…

  15. bobschacht says:

    I don’t know about all these pot shots at Kerry. Its true that he ran a dreadful presidential campaign, but then so did Al Gore. And like Al Gore, I think Kerry has sounded better once he resigned himself to the fact that he would not be president. Gore has made a number of truly fine speeches in the past few years.

    Although I can’t put my finger on them at the moment, I think that Kerry has been making some public statements in the past two years that are better than what he was saying as a presidential candidate. Rather than alleging that he has settled into senatorial good old boy establishmentarianism, I was thinking that, freed from the constraints of a national presidential campaign, Kerry is now freer to say what he really thinks.

    I’d like to see a fair and informed review of Kerry’s major speeches and writings over the past few years. I’m not seeing that here, so far.

    Bob in HI

  16. spoonful says:

    How about investigating Sibel Edmonds’ claims of nuclear proliferation committed by the same people urging the investigation of Iran.

  17. numbertwopencil says:

    Kerry’s BCCI report is interesting but, IIRC, it doesn’t exactly document “funding terrorism and CIA covert ops, BCCI served as the finance vehicle for AQ Khan’s nuke program.” Kerry’s report/investigation goes right to the edge of the interesting stuff and then stops cold. Maybe he was bumping into all kinds of US intelligence programs and the investigation had to stop for, you know, national security reasons. Or, maybe, the usual suspect were turning up and they put pressure on Kerry and Co. to shut down the investigation, in this case, hiding behind, ahem, national security. Whatever the case, if anything, Kerry’s investigation was, in the end, more of a cover-up than something to be proud of. It allowed all kinds of players to say “We’ve looked into BCCI. That’s all taken care off.” IIRC, there were no indictments and no further investigations of various obvious leads–the Kerry report was the end of the BCCI matter.

    Maybe Kerry got used. Maybe he respected the, apparently very real, national security issues involved and trusted people he shouldn’t have. Maybe the worms in the can were too hot to handle. Dunno. But I think there are good reasons why Kerry didn’t mention the BCCI investigation in his presidential campaign–it’s not something that he should be particularly proud of. Also, IIRC, Frantz’s book on BCCI is similar to the Kerry report. From Frantz, we learn that BCCI was involved with, Palestinians, Democrats, crooks, terrorists, etc. but little about formal and informal US political and intelligence involvement with various BCCI schemes. We know now that Bush Sr., various Bush family members, and lots of neocons were deeply involved in various parts of BCCI but I don’t think we know that from either Kerry or Frantz.

  18. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Well, you have a lot of credibility with me and your accuracy rates are higher than mine prediction-wise.
    But I have a hard time imagining that such a thing could ever actually come to pass.
    Sorry to be skeptical, because I’d like to have some hope.

  19. Slothrop says:

    Okay, I’m almost done: Theodore Shackley, the CIA guy who helped to develop the Hand Bank, which led directly to BCCI, managed Operation Mongoose in Miami in the early 60’s.

    Students of CIA/Cuba operations for that period will realize what direction this takes.

    George H.W. Bush made Shakley Deputy Director of Operations at the CIA in 1976.

    So that’s Shakley, CIA/Cuba intelligence in Miami, the Hand Bank, BCCI, and Pappy Bush.

    You’re John Kerry. Do you really want to wander into the swamp?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      If you are accurate, those are some dots you’re connecting there.
      My, oh, my goodness heavens.

      Not that I’m shocked.
      If it’s the case, I just want it all out in public and the sooner the better so we can leave these asshats in the dustbins of history and move forward.

  20. Sara says:

    I suspect the reason Kerry has hired Frantz has less to do with his older book, “A Full Service Bank” than it does with his most recent one, “The Nuclear Jihadist: The True Story of the Man who sold the World’s most Dangerous Secrets…and how we could have stopped him.” Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, (married to each other) Twelve/Grand Central Publishing, 2007. Didn’t get a whole lot of attention last year when published, but it is solid.

    In 1988, when John Kerry’s investigation went up to the cusp, and then died, he was just a first term Senator, and he conducted his investigstion from the perch of a small subcommittee. The Leadership cut him off after the Clifford Clark bit was brought up — Clark was one of those bright shining objects that frequently show up when lines of investigation lead in the Direction of Bush Family Doings (as BCCI did with reference to several Texas Banks connected to the Bush Family), and Senate Democratic Leadership apparently feared there might be more Democratic shining objects such as Clark Clifford, and so essentially ordered Kerry to back off. He did, but his investigator handed off very valuable material to the Bank of England, which stepped up to the bar, and closed down BCCI — sorta closed it down. It is very important to remember this was the end of the Reagan Administration, and the year of the election of GHWBush, and had Kerry had his investigative powers — and had his ducks in order — the story would have played big in the 1988 election. But by throwing in Clifford, that shifted political calculations.

    This story is reprised in Russ Baker’s “Family of Secrets” with a focus on both the Bush Banking entanglements in Texas that are part of the BCCI story, but also Baker makes the point about how Jimmy Carter was roped into BCCI via Burt Lance, who sold his Georgia Bank to BCCI, and thus entangled Carter into the story during his Presidency. Carter later received a very large donation from BCCI for the Carter Center, something that became public as a result of Kerry’s investigative work. If you follow Baker’s analysis closely, the scheme of having a few Democrats in fairly obvious positions in any Bush designed covert scheme, is a way of protecting a much larger covert operation. They are there to be discovered, to be “outed”, to be sacrificed to protect the guts of the operation. So while Kerry was on the cusp of discovering through his investigation the guts of BCCI — which included not only the funding of Pakistan’s covert Nuclear Operations, but also the CIA/Saudi covert funding of this as a side-show to the transfer of funds to the Reagan war in Afghanistan — that could all be “protected” by shoving out the door the Clifford and Carter/Lance stuff so that Democratic Leadership would back off.

    Frantz’s latest book is blurbed by Steven Coll and by Graham Allison. Interesting mix. Allison in particular (Kennedy school/Harvard) is Obama’s special expert on dealing with a new Nuclear Proliferation Treaty — and I would factor that into why Kerry may be about to revisit both BCCI and the years in which CIA more or less fostered Pakistan’s Nuclear Industry along with the Saudi’s and others. Unless CIA’s involvement is untangled in a fairly public way (and CIA’s includes the Bush Family’s involvement) the US has no legitimacy in trying for a new non-proliferation regime — simple as that.

    So I assume that Kerry’s staffing decision indicates less the narrow concern with going back and sorting out BCCI — but much more, putting on the record what Frantz’s investigative work developed about Bush Family/CIA involvement in Nuclear Proliferation beginning with BCCI and continuning until a couple of weeks ago. We are talking about perhaps 30 years of involvement and history. You need all of these narratives which are quite public, and are at the core of the problem — Coll’s work on Pakistan and Afghanistan, Frantz’s work on BCCI and then on A.Q. Khan and the Pakistani Nuclear Industry, you need Graham Allison’s papers and book, and for the structure of the overarching narrative, you need Russ Baker. If Kerry is successful, he could lay the ground for Obama to press for a new Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, or at least working talks toward that end. First step — use the Foreign Relations Committee venue to get what are public facts (if you read the books) out on the table in a way that disarms those who allowed proliferation (The Bush Family Circle and some in CIA as well as Saudi interests). Then Obama could take the lead and propose talks among Nuclear Capable States — and others — toward a new anti-proliferation regime. For this — read Allison.

  21. prostratedragon says:

    If you follow Baker’s analysis closely, the scheme of having a few Democrats in fairly obvious positions in any Bush designed covert scheme, is a way of protecting a much larger covert operation. They are there to be discovered, to be “outed”, to be sacrificed to protect the guts of the operation.

    And how, a signature part of their m.o.

    Something else Kerry ran up on in the late 80s: the CIA-Contra coke connection:

    The Kerry Committee report were hearings chaired by Senator John Kerry which found the United States Department of State had paid drug traffickers. Some of these payments were after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges or while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies. The Kerry investigation lasted two and a half years and heard scores of witnesses; its report was released on April 13, 1989.

Comments are closed.