Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Just a drive-by remark : I presumed that there must be something problematic about the donors to the Albert Einstein outfit. So I visited the Sourcewatch links, and find them completely unobjectionable.  Perhaps you could clarify why you find the institute's funding objectionable? (leaving aside the question of co-operation with US government agencies, which I haven't looked at yet)

Donors 200-2004 :

Another remark :

you have to consider what would happen if a hypothetical progressive international movement began running similar campaigns in the West, supplying:

    * Published and freely distributed copies of material about practical civil disobedience and revolution
    * Formal military consultancy and training
    * Cash funding
    * Practical support in the form of books, t-shirts, stickers, and so on. (Which might seem trivial, but these items turn out to be game changers.)

How many governments in the West would be happy with this kind of interference? How many would consider it democratic?

An interesting illustration of your state of mind. Certainly, "formal military consultancy and training" is objectionable. I'd be interested to know what your objection is to the other three. Perhaps we could illustrate the question with concrete examples.

For my part, I'm in favour of an open and transparent society where national governments do not have the means or the right to interdict civil society organising on a transnational basis. What about you?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 07:33:59 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series