Crossfire on the violence policy center. (Letters to the Editor).

I have just seen the allegations concerning my alleged employment by the Central Intelligence Agency in your column in THE NEW AMERICAN ("Who Really Stands with Terrorists," by William Norman Grigg, January 14, 2002). Your incorrect and arguably libelous statements go beyond opinion to the statement of alleged fact, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee or other wise affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency or any other intelligence agency.

I demand that you print immediately a retraction of the following false and libelous statements in your column, and any similar that you may have disseminated through any means whatever:

* "Tom Diaz, a former CIA agent...."

* "he, like Osama bin Laden, was once on the CIA's payroll...."

* "Diaz's erstwhile comrades at the CIA...."

* "Ex-Company man Diaz...."

* "CIA veteran Diaz...."

As to the rest of the statements in your column, the Violence Policy Center continues to stand by every particular of its report, Voting from the Rooftops: How the Gun Industry Armed Osama bin Laden, other Foreign and Domestic Terrorists, and Common criminals with SO Caliber Sniper Rifles.

THOMAS DIAz

Senior Policy Analyst

Violence Policy Center

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Grigg responds: In a December 5th syndicated column by White House correspondent Helen Thomas, Mr. Diaz was identified as "a former CIA agent." Since Thomas' article was little more than a repackaged press release from the VPC (which is the variety of media coverage they've come to expect), I took this description of Diaz' background at face value.

In a subsequent column, unavailable until after we had gone to press, Thomas ran a correction in which she referred to her earlier identification of Diaz as "a former CIA agent." "He says that is incorrect," wrote Mrs. Thomas. I regret retailing Mrs. Thomas' error to our readers.

THE NEW AMERICAN is proud of its high standard of accuracy It corrects any factual errors of note, and is grateful for the opportunity to publish Mr. Diaz' letter.

The VPC would be wise to apply t e same standard to its fusillade against Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. Instead, as Mr. Diaz points out in his letter, the VP "continues to stand by" its Voting from the Rooftops report. That report contains s artful misrepresentations regarding Barrett's alleged role in "arming" Osama bin Laden -- which was the central issue in my column. I pointed out that the sale referred to y Diaz took place in 1988, a time when bin den's faction of the Afghan mujahideen was receiving arms and other aid from he U.S. government.

In the VPC report, Diaz insists that "there is no way of knowing" who bought he Barrett SO caliber rifles on behalf of al Qaeda. This is flatly incorrect. As Ronnie arrett, president of Barrett Firearms, poi ts out: "Barrett rifles were picked up by S. government trucks, shipped to U.S. government bases" and given to the mujahideen by U.S. government officials. Barrett also paints out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobac o, and Fireanms sent investigators to the co pany 's factory "after Mr. Diaz's accusati ns and concluded that Barrett is now and as been in full compliance with the law."

In brief the U.S. government are need bin Laden with .50 caliber rifles -- not he law-abiding company whose reputation Diaz has injured through his well-publicize report. Diaz' misrepresentations not only triggered an unnecessary federal investigatio of Barrett, they also did material harm to is business -- which satisfies one of the le al conditions for a libel suit.

"Many of our customers, vendors, families and friends have read these headlines and now have a negative opinion of o our company," notes Barrett. "Some of our subcontractors have now refused to supply us." This has actually impeded the militar effort against terrorism, since Barrett, li e every other gun manufacturer that supplies the military, has been contacted by the gov rnment "to support the anti-terrorist cause.

This issue of THE NEW AMERICAN contains additional information about both PC and Barrett as well as the revived assault against the private ownership of firearms.