Since Frank Scott understandably contested the basis for my assertions about
Bertrand Russell and the War Crimes Tribunal organized under his name, I
have been spending some fruitful time on the Internet researching the
subject. These efforts first led me to a friendly mailing list for Russell
scholars, administered by the official Russell archivist, Prof. Kenneth
Blackwell of McMaster College, Montreal. To my question about Russell and
his involvement with the WCT I was directed to, of all authorities, David
Horowitz's book, "Radical Son," specifically pp. 146-153. Let me be clear: I
detest Horowitz. I would normally never rely on anything he says without
extrinsic support. This is the case here. Prof. Blackwell backed the
accuracy of Horowitz's account of that period, one moreover he should know
about firsthand, since Horowitz was a senior staffer of the BRPF then.

That said, Horowitz's account substantially agrees with my recollection of
the contemporaneous account I had read years ago in the New York Times
Magazine, namely that the tribunal was essentially a kangaroo court with no
pretense of due process, and that the people around Russell--whom Horowitz
retains a palpable affection for even now--manipulated him for their own
ends, to the point of even penning essays under his name that contradicted
his lifelong anti-Marxist views.

Two points of clarification. One: this is not meant to impugn Russell or his
efforts against the Vietnam War, both of which were heroic. It impugns the
poisonous effect that an unscrupulous Marxist sect had on his legacy--an
effect similar, IMHO, to the damage being done to Ramsey Clark by the
Stalinoid IAC.

Two: given my long experience with the way debate on this list is conducted,
and despite offering 3 different authorities for my position, I fully expect
a) no one to shift their position one iota and b) no one to counterpoise any
credible counterevidence to justify this refusal. That's life on Chomsky-L,
unfortunately.
--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA