Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)94. I noticed a couple o' typos on re-reading in the cold light of a new day...
Rather than edit the OP, here it is, tweaked. Tweaks are underlined.
EXCERPT...
This is what Arthur Krock wrote, published in The New York Times on October 3, 1963: "A very high American official -- and he was talking about John Kennedy -- has said the CIA's growth was likened to a malignancy, which was, the very high official said, was not sure even the White House could control. And this very high official, probably the president, said. And was published, as I said, in The New York Times, October 3, 1963. If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The CIA represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.
That's what was said in October. And the president was killed the following month.
The Warren Commission never called Arthur Krock to ask him who the official was? How come he could predict the assassination a month before it took place? or predict something happening; and who the high official was? The high official was John Kennedy. But, that has not been said (in the media). And so we have the government issuing a statement which is untrue. And then we have the news media accepting it and allowing no dissent.
No dissent. For one year, a full year after the assassination of the president, not one question was asked of the government or published anywhere in any newspaper, radio station, television station. Not one question about the validity of the government's investigation. Not one question.
I'd like to believe that now with the internet and instant communication we have all around the the whole world, that if that happened today, it would be very hard to keep it a secret. But, you can count on the fact that people will continue to try that, if events have to be covered up from their viewpoint.
And as I said, there was -- their statement (the Warren Commissions) was, Our position is that we must reassure the American people. And Earl Warren came out and when he was asked, "When will we get the truth? He said, You may never get it in your lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of Americans might die if the facts came out.
And so, he was terrified. The hundreds of thousands of Americans he was talking about was World War III, which was going to break out, if they told the truth. This was what the Warren Commission was told. It took me years to get (FOIA) transcripts of the in-house meetings of the Commission.
But, this is what they were told: that Lee Harvey Oswald, according to the CIA, went to Mexico City in October, 1963. He then visited the two agencies there -- he visited the Soviet embassy, he was in the Soviet Union, and the Cuban embassy. And it's clear that he was planning after he killed -- this was in October, when he was there, they said -- he was planning to go to Cuba and from Cuba -- go from Mexico City after the assassination -- Oswald was -- and go to Cuba from Mexico City and then fly on to the Soviet Union. That's the story that was told to the Warren Commission.
And the CIA went on to say, however: We don't believe that the Russians or the Cubans were in any way involved. But, if the story gets out, people will not believe us. And that's why hundreds of thousands of Americans will die in a war which is going to take place." That's what they told Earl Warren and scared him. He really was frightened by this.
The trouble was the story was a fabrication. Oswald had not been to Mexico City.
The person who designed that whole story was a man named David Atlee Phillips, who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the entire western hemisphere from his office in Mexico City.
Not long before he died, in the last seven years (or so) ago, he said that, I was at USC and appeared on the program with him) he said that, in fact, Oswald never was in Mexico City -- which destroyed the entire story which had been told to the Warren Commission.
When that was reported, an apologist for the Warren Commission said, Well, it was because, yes, he said it, we can't deny that he said it. This was well-publicized, this statement. But the fact is that Mark Lane had subjected him to a cruel, grueling cross examination and confused him and that's why he said it.
It was a (1977) meeting at USC (University of Southern California). I was on the panel and he was on the panel. I directed no question to him at all. And a student got up at the end and raised the subject, which I had not, that was: Can you tell us about Mexico City, Mr. Phillips?" There was no cross examination. It was just the kid asking the question. And that's when Phillips said, "Oswald was never there."
And so the cover-up was that I had subjected him to this cross examination that wasn't. Of course, I didn't ask him anything. It was the student that said it. But that became the mantra of the Establishment to try to explain how the man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the United States (in the hemisphere) and elsewhere and did it from his office in Mexico City, made that statement, because of my brilliant cross-examination, although I never asked him the question.
And so here we are now, 50 years later, almost 50 years later, and there still are files which are classified. We don't even know the number, but we know there are in the tens of thousands of documents, that are classified by reasons of national security. Which obviously makes no sense, 50 years later. Never made any sense at the time because they were saying Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. But anyway, even if it made sense, then what issue of national security can possibly still be involved?
Well it's a question of CIAs security. If the American people were told then or were even told now the truth about who killed their president, that would be the end of the CIA.
Most of the people who were involved are dead; in fact, maybe all of them. I know some names, but I dont (name them). I'm a lawyer and I believe in our system of justice. I've never spoken out the name of any one individual who I believe is a suspect in the case because I think that our system is: Nobody is guilty in this country, each person is presumed to be innocent, even when they've been indicted, it is unfair to give up our whole judicial system in this one instance by saying yes, so-and-so probably did it. Guilt is determined by a jury or a plea of guilty or if you waive a jury, by a judge. The outcome is the result of a judicial proceeding. That is crucial to who we are, not every country has this blessing, which was handed down to us by the founders at the very beginning.
CONTINUED...
The transcription above of Mr. Lanes remarks from Oct. 18 at Duquesne above is mine. Any errors it may still contain are my own.
Thank you very much -- for your friendship on DU -- and for grokking, burrowowl.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
193 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination [View all]
Octafish
Nov 2013
OP
I see. You're the type of person who argues that you can't prove George Washington really existed.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#69
More boring cut-n-paste from Octa who refuses to answer why they believe the HSCA
stopbush
Nov 2013
#98
Please look at YOUR post #7 in this thread: "CIA Director Bush helped destroy HSCA investigation."
stopbush
Nov 2013
#105
Blakey believes the mob was involved and will probably go to his grave believing that.
stopbush
Dec 2013
#172
Don't understand why certain DUers don't appreciate the BFEE connections to Dealey Plaza.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#106
Odd is how that same George HW Bush in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963 shows up to head CIA 12 years later.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#145
Like your exchange with Jim DiEugenio? You did all you could to drive him off.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#149
Speak plainly, sir. Are you accusing me of being here under false pretenses?
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#150
Or leave these foolish games and Meta distractions aside and start dealing with the evidence already
Octafish
Nov 2013
#151
No, I have not been 'payed' or paid to write about the assassination of President Kennedy.
Octafish
Dec 2013
#179
There's a good analysis of the Parrott memo in Russ Baker's book 'Family of Secrets'
Mc Mike
Dec 2013
#186
I'm sorry that you sometimes take so much flack and displays of antipathy for posting good info.
Mc Mike
Dec 2013
#190
The problem for them is that no matter how they try to discredit ANYONE who doesn't march in
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#53
journal.. feh. you're no REAL journalist man... you've never even been in a shootout!!1111
dionysus
Nov 2013
#57
E. Hunt was such an upstanding man. Now I'm convinced, Hunt denied it, therefore it must be true.
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#55
"So much effort to prevent people from speaking their minds on this historical tragedy."
zappaman
Nov 2013
#56
Most of us, a majority of the people, want to see bullshit countered and don't everything their
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#65
E Howard Hunt planted fake cables in WH safe to make it look like JFK ordered Diem assassination...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#141
CIA caught red-handed in HSCA safe, a pattern of obstruction of justice in JFK assassination.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#142
Wow, thank you for that. Tampering with evidence. Yet nothing was done about it, and some wonder why
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#144
I don't know what Brehm said, but Lane interviewed him on videotape. It's on You Tube.
Zen Democrat
Nov 2013
#109
You've got the wrong book. The CIA went after Lane's idiocies in in his POS book
stopbush
Dec 2013
#153
Guilt by association is un-American. Lane is an attorney who represented two clients.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#28
It's easy. Mark Lane says we don't know the whole truth, but it looks like CIA conspiracy.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#38
I watched the 'Firing Line' debate between Lane and Buckley on YouTube the other day
KurtNYC
Nov 2013
#6
It doesn't matter, but I believe Mark Lane is Jewish. He also is an attorney...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#41
Mark Lane's involvement with Liberty Lobby references the JFK assassination.
avaistheone1
Nov 2013
#50
I'm pretty new to all the JFK conspiracy stuff, about the past 6-7 years or so. I was only 9 months
Ghost in the Machine
Nov 2013
#73
YOU are a DU treasure, Octafish, keep the info coming. I look forward to your next reporting.
mother earth
Nov 2013
#47
And yet when he was a part of the HSCA investigation, he agreed that the head wounds
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#51
Looks like you've got a host of Hugh Aynesworth wannabees in this thread Sir-K&R, NGU
bobthedrummer
Nov 2013
#44
I finally got around to reading Lane's Rush to Judgment in the mid-70s. I usually save books but
struggle4progress
Nov 2013
#75
Seems after forty years, Lane's still working to get more than two pebbles in a straight line
struggle4progress
Nov 2013
#115
A spoon of barley tossed into a barrel of water makes mighty thin gruel. Here's the testimony
struggle4progress
Nov 2013
#129
The Chicago Plot involved a tipster named ''Lee.'' And the DIA harrassed Edwin Black.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#132
Apparently, Veciana's death was misreported, according to Vince Palamara.
robertpaulsen
Dec 2013
#193
Mr. Lane credited himself on that one! Said it should've been called 'The Mark Lane Bill.' LOL!
Octafish
Nov 2013
#120
It was, indeed, Oliver Stone's "JFK" that got Congress to pass the "JFK Act"
red dog 1
Nov 2013
#125