JFK Conference: Dan Hardway Detailed how CIA Obstructed HSCA Investigation

[Octafish]

46. Thank you, Waiting For Everyman. Ripples...

Former FBI man William Turner on Jim Garrison, from 1967, before anyone ever heard of NSAM 263:

But since the start of his assassination probe, his views on many issues have changed appreciably. "A year ago I was a mild hawk on Vietnam," he relates. "But no more. I've discovered the government has told so many lies in this (the assassination) case it can't be believed on anything." He fears that the U.S. is evolving into a "proto-fascist state," and cites as one indication the subtle quashing of dissent by an increasingly autocratic central government. The massive and still growing power of the CIA and the defense establishment, he contends, is transforming the old America into a Kafkaesque society in which power is equated with morality.

PDF of The Garrison Commission: On the Assassination of President Kennedy by William W. Turner, published in Ramparts, January 1968: http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/Ramparts-1968jan/45-72/

Peter Dale Scott, who was called to testify before the HSCA, has written on the parallels:

The JFK Assassination and 9/11: the Designated Suspects in Both Cases

By Prof Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, November 20, 2013
Global Research 5 July 2008

EXCERPT...

I would like now to discuss more unequivocal evidence, from internal CIA records, about an operational CIA interest in first Oswald and later two of the alleged al-Qaeda hijackers, Nawaz al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar. In 2001 as in 1963 the CIA inexplicably withheld information about the subjects from the FBI, which ought categorically to have received it. The anomalies are extreme.

This is now easy to show in the case of Oswald. On October 10, 1963, six weeks before the assassination of John F. Kennedy, CIA Headquarters sent out two messages about Oswald, a teletype to the FBI, State, and Navy, and a cable to the chief of the CIA’s Mexico City station. Both messages contained false and mutually contradictory statements, and also withheld known facts of great potential importance.10 The teletype to the FBI withheld the obviously significant information that Oswald had reportedly met in Mexico City with a Soviet Vice-Consul, Valeriy Kostikov, who was believed by CIA officers to be an officer of the KGB.11

One CIA officer, Jane Roman, helped draft both messages. In 1995 she was confronted by two interviewers with irrefutable evidence that she had signed off on erroneous information about Oswald in the CIA cable to Mexico City. After much questioning, she finally admitted, “I’m signing off on something I know isn’t true.” One of the interviewers, John Newman, then asked her, “‘Is this indicative of some sort of operational interest in Oswald’s file?’ ‘Yes,’ Roman replied. ‘To me it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need-to-know basis.’” She later repeated, “I would think there was definitely some operational reason to withhold it (the information at CIA headquarters on Oswald), if it was not sheer administrative error, when you see all the people who signed off on it.”12

Other CIA officers withheld important information from the FBI in January 2000, with respect to Khalid al-Mihdar, who would later be identified as one of the al-Qaeda hijackers on September 11, 2001. The NSA overheard on a Yemeni telephone about a meeting in Malaysia which al-Mihdar would attend, along with Tewfiq bin Attash, the mastermind of the fatal attack on the USS Cole.13 It notified the CIA but not the FBI. In consequence

(Khalid al-Mihdar’s) Saudi passport – which contained a visa for travel to the United States – was photocopied (in Qatar) and forwarded to CIA headquarters. The information was not shared with FBI headquarters until August 2001. An FBI agent detailed to the Bin Ladin unit at the CIA attempted to share this information with colleagues at FBI Headquarters. A CIA desk officer instructed him not to send the cable with this information. Several hours later, this same desk officer drafted a cable distributed solely within CIA alleging that the visa documents had been shared with the FBI.14

Lawrence Wright, reviewing this and other significant anomalies, reported in The Looming Tower the belief among FBI agents following bin Laden “that the agency was protecting Mihdar and (his companion, the alleged 9/11 hijacker Nawaz al-) Hazmi because it hoped to recruit them,” or alternatively that “the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence” using al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi.15 Wright himself speculated in a companion essay he wrote for The New Yorker that “The CIA may also have been protecting an overseas operation and was afraid that the F.B.I. would expose it.”16

CONTINUED w/sources, links...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-jfk-assassination-and-9-11-the-designated-suspects-in-both-cases/9511

As for those who say there's nothing new to learn since the Warren and 911 commissions issued their reports:

Have they tried or are they merely repeating what they've heard or been told?

Thank you for still believing this is a democracy and acting on your RIGHT to know the truth, Waiting For Everyman. A free country is worth the, uh, bother.