Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 15, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
October 26, 1985
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP91-00901R000600430009-9.pdf76.37 KB
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP91-00901FJ000600430009-9 APTICLE AFP ABED BOSTON GLOBE . ON PAGE 2 ,_,.._. 26 October 1985 There he goes ag After President Reagan went on television yesterday morning to tell the American people that some 1900 Marines and Army Rangers had invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada, the former director of the CIA, Admiral -Stans- field Turner, was asked to explain the purpose of - such a retrograde colonialist- venture. Though he acknowledged that Grenada repre- sents a; "minor threat" to the United States, Turner did not hesitate to tell the- early-morn-ing audience that there was a need to prevent the advance of Marxism and communism. Turner then said something bizarre. He said that, since Grenada had not been ruled demo- cratically. there was no way'of knowing what the people there really wanted. Therefore, he said, when the time comes to turn the govern- ment back to the Grenadans, the United States could be embarrassed If they don't want to change their government. Turners anxiety about, future shock amounted to an inadvertent revelation of the arrogance that underlies Reagan's -invasion` of Grenada. The guiding assumption behind the operation is that Reagan and his advisers have the right to decide what kind of regimes can, and cannot, exist in this hemisphere. The Reagan Administration has not hesitat- ed. however, to embrace fascistic military jun- tas in countries like El Salvador, Chile and Ar- gentina.: to put the US government stamp of approval on death squads, torture chambers, n . book burping and rule by secret police terror. In the days to come, Americans will be ask- ing: Why did Reagan invade Grenada? The jus- ?tifica.tions he offered on television yesterday must be judged more as pretexts than as genu- ine reasons. There was no danger to the lives of the 1000 Americans on the island-In fact, the director of the US medical school in the capital city; St. George's,, said that the Marine landing created -a danger where none had existed. The with to "forestall further chaos" is -dis- ingenuous...Reagan and his advisers refused to reach an accommodation with the assassinat- ed former Prime Minister of Grenada, Maurice Bishop, when- he traveled to Washington 'last June in an overt effort to work out some modus i'ivendi with America. Hence Reagan may have been partly responsible for the "chaos" he now decries. An American Administration that certifies progress on human rights every six months in blood-drenched El Salvador can hardly expect to be granted the moral or political authority to "assist in the restoration of conditions of law and order" in Grenada. Compared with the governmental gangsterism Reagan has tolerat- ed in "friendly" dictatorships In this hemi- sphere, the recent struggle for power on Gren- ada seems like a Saturday night gang fight. Reagan's invasion of Grenada represents a shameful and senseless misuse of American power: Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP91-00901R000600430009-9