April Oliver warned Tom Johnson, Richard Kaplan, and others that this story would likely
be vehemently denied, and to expect opposition from people such as Henry
Kissinger, a man
directly implicated in the chain of authorization, as well as from the CIA and the
Pentagon.
After the program aired on June 6, 1998, what happened?
CNN management hired a bunch of CIA men, one a former chief of
clandestine operations, to review a story about one of the CIA’s own operations, one
that potentially involved war crimes. Does it make sense to ask such men to investigate a
story that reveals the secrets of an employer whose secrets they have sworn to protect?
When these men, in conjunction with attorney Kohler and the corporate
attorney Floyd Abrams served up a report that used evidence in a manner so selectively as
to border on the dishonest, this report was used as an excuse to fire the producers and
retract the story. Was that fair?
You claimed, after the retraction, that "Nothing has upset me as
much in my whole life," adding that it was worse than the death of your father.
We agree.
We think that when a network has a solid story, is aware of potential
ramifications, airs the story, and then waffles at the first sign of disgruntlement from
high government officials, that is a terrible, horrible thing. In fact, it endangers
our democracy.
What is the point of watching news if not to learn important
information that helps us make decisions in voting booths? The people deserve to know what
the CIA and the Pentagon did during the Vietnam War. The people deserve to know if war
crimes have been committed. And CNN has a duty to provide the people that information. By
retracting such a well-documented story, you have failed the people utterly in your
endeavor to provide important news to the citizens of our country.
The Abrams report never claimed the story wasn’t true. And quite
to the contrary, the report pointed out many cases in which the producers had a plethora
of evidence that enabled CNN management to have a comfort level airing the broadcast. The
report only claims that there wasn’t evidence that proved beyond any shadow of a
doubt that the US had used nerve gas to extract defectors during the Tailwind operation.
But you have allowed news outlets to misrepresent their findings enough to assert the
story was "false." Why?
The only "proof" it appears Abrams would consider would be a
full admission from the Pentagon and the CIA. Lacking that, Abrams and his CIA
investigators can claim forever that there is no proof. If such a standard is to be
accepted, we might as well rename our country after Orwell’s Oceania and adopt
"newspeak." Evidence is useless against such a standard.
If it follows that the truth will set you free, what
happens when lies are allowed to go unchallenged?
There is a battle going on for the heart and soul of this country. One
side wants to tell the truth about covert operations, and is willing to take their battles
to the halls of Congress if necessary. The other side just wants to be accepted by the
powers that be, to be invited to parties, not to rock the boat. When the history of this
episode is complete, on which side of the battlefield do you want to be found, Mr. Turner?
You cannot retract the retraction. But you can do something. Start by
releasing the transcript of the "Valley of Death" broadcast which has been
pulled not only from the CNN Web site, but from the vendors who normally carry CNN
transcripts. Then follow the story. If the story was considered "insupportable,"
allow the producers to present additional support. Give air time to new interviews, such
as the one already in the can of a veteran who came forward after the broadcast to tell of
a similar event in Cambodia.
If you can’t help us learn important truths about our past, what
is the point of continuing in your venture?
Take a stand, Mr. Turner. Do it before any more time is lost. You owe it to
your viewers and to your country.
