American Politics Journal

Remember Jeffrey Archer
Why Bush Backer Munk's Vicious Attempts to Suppress a Story He Doesn't Like Are Doomed to Backfire
By Tamara Baker

Friday, June 29, 2001 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA (APJP) -- It's not been a very good year for right-wing goons who use thuggish tactics to intimidate those who would talk about the goons' crimes.

This is something that Barrick Gold Mining's Peter Munk, who is even now using Britain's conspicuous lack of a First Amendment, and the prospect of a long and expensive legal battle, to try to force Gregory Palast and Palast's Guardian/Observer newspaper into disavowing a story of Palast's, entitled "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" -- by calling it "libelous", under Britain's infamously archaic libel laws.

The Guardian/Observer, if if had the cash, would very likely win the suit even under the UK's libel-law structure; they just won a similar suit that was brought against them by famous Nazi-sympathizing revisionist historian David Irving. However, the Irving suit cost the G/O over one million dollars, and they simply don't have the bucks to fight yet another suit against a guy who can afford better lawyers than even the well-heeled Irving could.

But there's something that Mr. Munk should think about before he goes ahead with his plan to crush Mr. Palast and the Guardian/Observer:

Two words for you, Mr. Munk: Jeffrey Archer.

Mr. Munk, you remember Mr. Archer -- or Lord Archer, as he is now called. He's a right-wing thuggish author much beloved of the Tories.

Mr. Archer sued a British paper, The Star, in 1987, over certain allegations concerning his personal life. He won the suit in 1987 -- but, according to his secretary at the time, Angela Peppiatt, only because he committed perjury to do so.

Now he himself is on trial -- as are, to a certain extent, England's ridiculous "libel laws", which seem designed not so much to prevent libel as to prevent the public from learning the unsavory truths about powerful figures.

Do you really want, Mr. Munk, to risk using your money and power to force Mr. Palast and his newspaper into recanting their story -- only to have it come back to haunt you when evidence surfaces that uphold the story?

Do you really want to be held in the same kind of public contempt as the detestable Lord Archer?

I don't think so.

Even as we speak, Mr. Munk, American readers and journalists are finding out about your intentions towards Mr. Palast and his newspaper. And we have this thing called a First Amendment, which keeps you from frivolously harrassing American journalists.

Furthermore, there are some powerful American figures who are very familiar with your behavior -- and they're in a position to take official action to make sure that it is investigated. And you won't be able to stop anyone, even Gregory Palast, from reporting on these investigations.

Would you like another reason why you should cease and desist, Mr. Munk?

How about Clarence Thomas?

Clarence Thomas, you will recall, is a right-wing-goon who was placed on the US Supreme Court despite the testimony of his former associate, Anita Hill, and other female associates, as to his unsavory treatment of them. One of Thomas' most fervent defenders, a man called David Brock, even wrote a book entitled The Real Anita Hill, which trashed Ms. Hill's reputation.

Now, we find that David Brock, whose own conscience had suddenly told him "Enough is Enough", has come forward to say that he lied about Anita Hill.

Worse, Mr. Brock now says that one of Anita Hill's witnesses was pressured by Thomas' friends, with Thomas' knowledge and support, into recanting the story she told on Ms. Hill's behalf. Justice Thomas, whose reputation was already tarnished by his own actions while on the Supreme Court, is now ranked among the lowest of the low.

How do you know that there isn't a David Brock, or an Angela Peppiatt, lying in wait for you, Mr. Munk?

Remember Jeffrey Archer.

Remember Clarence Thomas.

Remember David Irving.

The truth will out.