> 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.

This is a very far-fetched assumption.
The major premise, must be, if we except this line of reasoning considering
WCT, that Russell was incapable for critical judgement in this particular
time. Since his articles and vivid impressions about this, last period of
his life, written by A Toynby, are refuting this premise, I cannot see how
and by whom exactly was Russell "manipulated". This being said, I want deny
that it is more than possible that organization use distuinguished
individual in manipulatory purposes. But I do think- despite the authorities
on the subject- that this is not valid as far is Russell's involvement in
WCT is concerned.
 I think that aforementioned scholars, in Trecy-creature's letter, do not
have , and they hardly could have, substantial prooffor this assertation;
these are their personal impressions.
                                   @ndrej G.


----- Original Message -----
From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 8:52 PM
Subject: [CHOMSKY] Betrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal