U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim says the Central Intelligence Agency "probably misled" a panel he led in the 1990s seeking documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That's because the CIA didn't tell Tunheim that its liaison to a panel that preceded his Assassination Records Review Board had been involved with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami who tangled with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.
The New York Times reported Tunheim's remarks in a front-page story Saturday on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by Minneapolis-born journalist Jefferson Morley, formerly an editor at the Washington Post and past national editorial director for the Center for Independent Media, the Minnesota Independent's nonprofit parent.
After years of pressing the CIA to release its records, Morley got an appeals court earlier this year to force the agency to 'fess up to George Joannides' role as case officer in Miami at the time of Kennedy assassination. But the CIA still has nearly 300 documents about Joannides it won't reveal, citing "grave" national security concerns.
Tunheim told the Times he may ask the CIA for redacted versions of the documents even if Morley is ultimately stymied by the Washington, D.C., federal court.
2. Worse, most CTists don't realize that you've got to orient the tinfoil correctly
to achieve maximum results.
Though there are no scientific studies, it's just common sense to face the shiny side of the tinfoil on the exterior of your cap with the duller side on the interior. Otherwise, the shiny side will reflect the body's electrical charges back into your brain and your head might explode.
Proper electrical shielding practice... 22 ga. wire can easily be conceaked in clothes, run to a tack in one heel. The Mormon Magic Underwear may serve a similar function, but it don't seem to be workin'....maybe they fail TO GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS.
Along with railroading Richard A. Sprague, as noted in the clip linked above, DiEugenio invokes the story of Senator Richard Russell. Russell, in spite of the roadblocks placed in his path as a member of the Warren Commission, was able to uncover some the fraud being perpetrated on said committee.
So if Tunheim was duped? :shrug: Shame on him. :blush:
100. The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)
Just to clarify the post above was in no way intended to impugn the work of Judge Tunheim or the ARRB. Which went a long way to bring forth valuable information and brings us much closer to knowing those responsible for the assassination.
Documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board show that a conspiracy existed to destroy New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's JFK murder investigation and that conspiracy was the work of the CIA and its allies in the American media.
I sorted through the various links and something seems oddly missing. Where is the actual ARRB document that shows that? I don't think YouTube clips and links to people telling me what they think the document means is direct proof, do you?
I have read the ARRB's final report and, thus, I was a little surprised to find these clains, inasmuch as the ARRB concluded no such thing. Jim Garrison ran a sloppy investigation and Oliver Stone did the American public a great disservice by making a movie rife with material errors, although I' not sure we should have expected much different, given Stone's reliance upon Fletcher Prouty. You can believe this claptrap if you want, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a bombshell that isn't coming. When you can conclusively refute the mountain of evidence against Oswald, let me know.
46 years and you guys are no closer to "solving" this thing than you were decades ago. Does that tell you something?
...CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Bevilaqua. Any questions? DR. NELSON: Have you made an attempt to get any documents from HUAC or the Senate Internal Committee? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I haven't yet submitted any actual FOIAs. I have submitted a FOIA -- DR. NELSON: They are not subject to FOIA. MR. McLAUGHLIN: They are not. DR. NELSON: But you can get some of the documents. MR. McLAUGHLIN: And how could you do that? DR. NELSON: Well some of the records are in the National Archives. Most of them, you have to appeal to the various congressional committees, or the Secretary of the Senate. But I just wondered if you had made an attempt to do that? MR. McLAUGHLIN: No, I haven't yet. I requested military record of Wyecliff P. Draper who was the head the Draper Committees and then head of the Pioneer Fund before he died, and he was in Army Intelligence. In World War II he fought on our side, and in World War I he fought on the British side, for whatever reason. But it is a new enough lead and an interesting enough lead that we haven't yet had the chance to do a lot of formal documentation. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you very much. Questions? MR. MARWELL: Is your father still living? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, he is. And I am sure, he can't travel, but I am sure if someone would like to discuss it with him, I am sure he would be able to cooperate. CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you...
The brothers of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, Ahmed—reported Wednesday to be on the CIA payroll—and Mahmoud, talk exclusively with The Daily Beast's Gerald Posner. They fiercely deny the CIA claim and blame it on enemies of the Afghan regime and The New York Times.
Early Wednesday morning at nearly 1:00 a.m., I checked my email for a final time and saw notice of a newsbreak from The New York Times that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and the man often called the Pablo Escobar of the country’s heroin trade, has been on a CIA payroll for the past eight years. I immediately called him.
Early Wednesday morning at nearly 1:00 A.M., I checked my email for a final time and saw notice of a newsbreak from The New York Times that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and the man often called the Pablo Escobar of the country’s heroin trade, has been on a CIA payroll for the past eight years. I immediately called him.
I reached him on his private cell number. When I asked if he had seen The Times story, he seemed surprised. His Internet access was down.
Hmmm. How would Gerald Posner get the private cell number of the brother of the so-called President in Afghanistan if not through a contact at CIA?
So a guy who claims not to be CIA but shows remarkable CIA access (Posner) calls another guy accused of working with the CIA (Karzai), and Posner uses their subsequent conversation to attempt to prove Karzai is NOT working with the CIA? ...
How many times does he have to get these stories wrong before ABC News cans their hapless and constantly wrong "investigative correspondent" Brian Ross? We suspect he'll be allowed to keep screwing up, again and again and again, so long as his screw-ups result in lots of media attention. Little wonder Ross is one of the only broadcast network news stooges invited on Bill O'Reilly's show, again and again and again.
Gawker's John Cook takes apart Ross' big "scoop" yesterday, which swept both the wingnut and non-wingnut media alike --- cooking up the alleged Fort Hood shooter Army Major Nidal Malik "Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda".
Those "contacts with al Qaeda"? Um, not so much, as Cook details. Turns out that Hasan's "attempt to reach out to al Qaeda" were, in actuality, three emails sent to the imam of the mosque that Hasan attended in Virginia in 2001, back when two of the 9/11 hijackers, reportedly, also attended the same mosque. The cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, has since moved to Yemen where he has reportedly spoken out in favor of al-Qaeda.
The emails sent to him by Hasan? Whatever they were about, Ross doesn't know, and the FBI, who reportedly did know, apparently didn't find they warranted any action be taken...
8. But the CIA still has nearly 300 documents about Joannides it won't reveal, citing "grave" national
IMO, the very fact that they claim "grave national security concerns" about something that happened nearly 50 years ago and all the players are at least retired if not dead gives credence to the charge that what happened was a coup. That's the ONLY thing that could be big enough to warrant "grave national security concerns". Hell, there isn't even a soviet empire anymore - who are we being protected against?
26. See, you can't win on the facts, so you try to demonize anyone who...
disagrees with you.
Who doesn't want the truth about Dallas to come out? I'd say the guilty and their supporters
Oh, really, Octafish? And, which one am I? One of the "guilty" or one of "their supporters"? That's an old, underhanded debate trick. In another month, it will have been 46 years since LHO took JFK from us. If it wasn't LHO, why haven't you guys cracked the case? What are you waiting for, dude?
I think you're a "run-of-the-mill" JFK assassination buff who thinks he's "really onto something" 46 years later. But, look at what Tunheim actually said, dude. He said he thinks the CIA "probably misled" the predecessor to the ARRB. Hmmm, that's not very strong language, is it...
More to the point, what does Tunheim believe the CIA "probably misled" about? Simple question: Do you really believe that if Tunheim was talking about some bombshell that called central conclusions of the Warren Commission into question, that Tunheim would be this passive about it?
Again, I ask. Do you believe that LHO was the shooter?
Edited to correct reference to Joannides to the CIA.
are you really questioning my love of the Kennedys? Are you really implying that one cannot embrace either the Warren Commission or Vincent Bugliosi and love the Kennedys? Could you please explain your logic or lack thereof? Are you implying that finding Bugliosi makes more sense than Fletcher Prouty is somehow disloyal to the Kennedys? Are you fucking serious?
For your information, dude, I handed out campaign literature for JFK, even though I was just a young child and worked in RFK's campaign until his death. When I went to bed the night he won the CA primary, I was so elated he won, but I went to bed before the awful event that night. Imagine my shock and absolute horror the next day when I awoke, full of excitement only to learn he was barely holding on to life.
I also worked for EMK in 1980. One of my prized possessions is the letter he wrote me.
I also have an extensive Kennedy book collection that last numbered about 75 volumes. One of the best days of my life was spent at the JFK Presidential Library at UMass. I still have the transit ticket from that day. I also treasure a PT-109 tie clasp my best friend from undergraduate school gave me, even though I don't wear tie clasps.
My heart still skips a beat when I listen to EMK's eulogy for RFK. When I was watching the movie "Bobby", I didn't expect the clips from RFK's funeral train. I felt no shame as I openly cried. I am currently reading EMK's book, "True Compass". I was thrilled when I met EMK in 1980 and got to shake his hand. Are you really implying that only people who embrace goofy conspiracy theories can love the Kennedys?
So, a personal message from me to you. Take it to heart. Don't you ever fucking question my love for the Kennedys again, dude.
I simply told you not to do it. If it was a threat, could you please point to the "threat part". I have already clearly explained why I used the picture of a smoking gun in a post in which I explained you don't have one. You can pretend that it meant something ominous, but I don't think most people will agree with you.
As far as getting "all huffy", it was your implication, dude. Are you really suggesting that people cannot find the Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi make the most sense and still love the Kennedys?
39. Perhaps waiting for the release of said documents?
"The Case" has been behind the 'national security' veil the entire time. What are they waiting for is a better question. Do you really think they are withholding documents that prove the lone gunman theory true?
54. I didn't say YOU didn't want the truth about Dallas to come out.
You believe what you believe -- that Oswald acted alone. That's great. You are entitled to your opinion. Going from what you've posted, your belief is based on the work of the Warren Commission, John McAdams, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and others who believe in the lone gunman hypothesis. Those authors say We the People know all there is to know, so "Case Closed."
If that were so, why does the CIA, as you point out, 46 years on, continue to refuse to disclose the Joannides documents? For that matter, why did CIA fail to tell the Warren Commission about its work to assassinate Castro? Why did CIA fail to disclose contacts between the Joannides-CIA-funded Carlos Bringuier and Oswald? And why did the CIA call Joannides out of retirement to serve as liaison with the HSCA? What is CIA hiding, in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy?
Those are legitimate questions. And they are why I recommend people with open minds read the work of Philip H. Melanson, John M. Newman, Jefferson Morley and others. I also recommend people read James Douglass, who make a very good case against the CIA and the national security establishment in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy.
you're entitled to believe the CIA was somehow behind or complicit in the assassination of JFK. Simple question: How is the CIA supposed to prove they didn't have JFK murdered?
Second question: Where did the WC, McAdams, Posner or Bugliosi EVER say that "we know all there is to know"? Hint: they didn't. In true CT style, you simply made that up.
As far as the Joannides documents, do you you honestly believe that so soon after the Cuban Missile Crisis and JFK's central role in it, there could not be legitimate national security reasons for not disclosing the documents? I don't know that there necessarily are but you seem to reflexively leap to the conclusion there aren't. I also love the way that you, in true JFK assassination CT buff style, frame it as "what is the CIA hiding, in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy?". Ooh, ominous. Of course, you really don't know that they are, but you went out of your way to smear them, nonetheless.
And, for the record, I hardly believe that the CIA is some sort of pure organization. I don't. But, I'm getting impatient with people like yourself who keep fanning the flames of doubt and have turned JFK assassination CT into a neverending cottage industry.
For my part, I believe the physical evidence against LHO is overwhelming and that same evidence shows that Oswald acted alone. That does not, however, prove that Oswald acted totally alone, however, I have yet to see any convincing evidence to the contrary. As for people like you, it seems to me you have "cried wolf" once too often. CT's to me are a unique breed of people to whom the absence of evidence for their "case" to them somehow bizarrely actually "proves it".
Afterward, in William Manchester's book, Death of a President, we see the "official story" of what happened:
"Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa on November 18 (1963), just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark." (1988 Harper & Row/Perennial Library edition, pp. 37-38)
The thing is PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.
Not until 35 years later do we learn the truth, though, when the great investigator Vincent Palamara asked the Secret Service agents who were there what happened in 1963:
this is what I mean. Look at a fucking map of Dallas. Note the route JFK's limo took. Note the schedule. Calculate the speeds it would take to keep to that route. Simple question. Do you think SS agents rode on the car the entire distance? Jesus.
As far as Palamara's claims, there are pictures of previous JFK motorcades with no bubbletop, dude. Think this through. This iis why I have no respect for you and your goofy crusade.
83. The agents wouldn't have had any problem holding on at 11 mph.
In fact, you can see them standing on the platforms of other cars.
Regarding Dealey Plaza, the motorcade route all of a sudden turns toward the building where Lee Harvey Oswald just found work three weeks earlier. Small world, huh?
Published in Flagpole Magazine, p. 10 (December 1, 1999). Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.
The only time I saw President John F. Kennedy in person was on the Monday before his Friday assassination. It was in Miami Beach, and the president was being driven in a motorcade to a speaking engagement. He was in the open limousine that became his death car four days later. The motorcade was moving at high speed--around 50 mph--and so I got only a fleeting glimpse of him, smiling and waving to the crowd, as the procession whizzed past.
On the following Friday, Nov. 22, 1963, when the first shot rang out in Dallas JFK's car was traveling at 11.2 mph. This was disclosed in the Warren Report in 1964. Having seen with my own eyes the rapid pace of the presidential motorcade in Florida, I was amazed that it was moving so slowly when the president was murdered in Texas. Nevertheless, like most Americans at the time, I agreed with the Warren Commission that there had not been any fundamental lapse in the protective security provided JFK by federal law enforcement agencies.
Today, however, 35 years after the assassination, with the benefit of information either not available to or not properly assessed by the Warren Commission, we can clearly see that, as JFK assassination expert J. Fletcher Prouty writes in his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy (1992), "many things which ought to have been done as matters of standard security procedure were not done." Both the FBI and the Secret Service committed very serious errors in the handling of JFK's protection; and, but for these errors, it is likely that the president would not have been slain. Driving him through Dealey Plaza at a speed that made him an easy target was simply one of these egregious blunders.
Less than three weeks after the assassination, 17 FBI officials (5 field investigative agents, 1 field supervisor, 3 special agents in charge, 4 headquarters supervisors, 2 headquarters section chiefs, 1 inspector, and 1 assistant director) were censured or placed on probation by J. Edgar Hoover for "shortcomings in connection with the investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination." These administrative sanctions were kept secret from the Warren Commission and were not disclosed to the public until 1976 when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities published its Final Report. Secret memoranda by Hoover, made public by the Senate Select Committee in 1976, demonstrate that in his view the FBI's omissions amounted to major errors: there had been "gross incompetency," Hoover wrote, and the officials concerned "could not have been more stupid."
I will mention only two of the numerous errors that flabbergasted Hoover. First, Oswald's name had not been placed on the Security Index (a list of persons deemed dangerous to the national security), even though his background of subversive activities (e.g., defecting to the Soviet Union, agitating in favor of Castro's Cuba, and visiting the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City) obviously warranted it. Second, although they knew where he worked, Dallas FBI agents had failed to inform the Secret Service that Oswald was employed at the School Book Depository, in front of which the motorcade was scheduled to pass.
90. No, 11. 2 mph past the Texas School Book Depository.
...where the protection was needed.
The Secret Service held on in Miami, four days before the assassination.
Anyway, there are other important questions, or as somebody's ex- says, issues to deal with.
SAIC BEHN TOLD ME THAT THE HSCA ASKED HIM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 'WHY WAS THE ROUTE CHANGED', AND BEHN TOLD ME IT WAS INDEED CHANGED, BUT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE SPECIFIC REASON WHY! -- Vince Palamara
VINCE PALAMARA -- SECRET SERVICE INFORMATION
Wrong- why were the Dallas newspapers still talking about other routes? Why were there ALTERNATE routes, then? Even "officially", the route is usually fingered as being "selected" between 11/18 and 11/19/63 (as the two Dallas newspapers report for 11/19/63), coinciding with the arrival on 11/18/63 of advance agent David Grant from the Florida trip (JFK's final trip before the FINAL trip!). As LBJ aide Bill Moyers told the HSCA, it was AFTER the 11/18/63 meeting with the Secret Service that he gave his associate Betty Harris (who was working WITH the Secret Service, too) the green light to print/publish the motorcade route, which was ultimately based on this authority: what Moyers referred to as "the agent in charge of the Dallas trip"!!! Was he referring to FLOYD BORING? In the end, it doesn't really matter WHO the specific agent was: Chief Rowley told the Warren Commission (who, like some other people, took documents and testimony at face value) that the Secret Service does NOT release selected routes of presidential motorcades to the press and they did NOT in Dallas, a blatant lie: his own people did so! And it gets even better (or worse, depending on which way you look at it)...
Also p. 164- "The precise route was published ... on November 19".
While this is technically true, there is a devastating other side of the coin (and no, I don't mean the alternate routes):
SAIC BEHN TOLD ME THAT THE HSCA ASKED HIM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 'WHY WAS THE ROUTE CHANGED', AND BEHN TOLD ME IT WAS INDEED CHANGED, BUT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE SPECIFIC REASON WHY!
So, it appears that Gerald Posner and all the other sorry apologists for the Warren Commission and the Secret Service were wrong all along- what a shame...
"There was no attempt to exercise any secrecy regarding the President's itinerary or the motorcade route"-
Mostly true, but it was the SECRET SERVICE who had a profound hand in these events, which Rowley had the audacity to deny to the WC (see above).
11/18/63 meeting w/Sorrels, Lawson, and the Dallas PD.
No mention of Lawson's oft-forgotten partner, David B.Grant (typical).
"Police were to be assigned to each of the overpasses along the route to keep spectators off of them and thereby protect the president's open limousine from being hit with any falling objects".
This was not adhered to in DEALEY PLAZA, despite Lawson's responsibility to see that it was done!
For those new to the subject: Vince Palamara is an American author who focuses on the United States Secret Service, especially with regard to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. <1><2> He is a notable alumni of Duquesne University,<3> and a native of Bethel Park and South Park, Pennsylvania<4>
so what is the relevance of a picture of Rybka at Love Field, then?
Beyond that, I'll take Bugllosi over Prouty and you anyday. You should really take a look at all the things Prouty was dead wrong about. I'm also appreciative of your new-found respect for members of the U.S. military.
114. Relevance? It shows Henry J. Rybka registering dismay when ordered off the bumper!
"so what is the relevance of a picture of Rybka at Love Field, then?"
Relevance? The relevance -- and significance of the picture is that it is a frame from a video shot minutes before President Kennedy's assassination. The video shows Secret Service Agent Henry J. Rybka registering dismay when ordered off the President’s Security Detail. He is shocked to be ordered off the riding stations on the limousine's rear bumper.
among other things, its relationships with the mafia. Some of the plots to assassinate Castro involved mafia members who were planning to reestablish their casino dynasties in Cuba. The CIA also consistently denies involvement with drug and gun running operations, some of which operated out of Florida and New Orleans, and a gun-running operation in NO may have overlapped with Oswald and Jack Ruby. There were also operations to develop cancer-causing viruses to be delivered to Castro, that Oswald may have been directly involved with....who knows what would happen if this can of worms were opened!
On edit: also, the far right-wing anti-communist militia operation in NO that Oswald was keeping tabs on, which may have had something to do with the gun running operation.
All kidding aside, one thing that is overlooked in the whole thing is that JFK's bad back played a slight role in his death...after being struck by the bullet that exited JFK's neck, Connally slumped over in Nellie's lap, out of the line of fire...JFK was wearing that stiff back brace/board that, unfortunately kept him sitting straight up like a sitting duck for LHO's head shot.
61. Actually, the HSCA concluded that there was a conspiracy....
but it wasn't directly controlled by the CIA. This jibes with the conclusions drawn in the book "Farewell America" which was only recently allowed into the United States and which is based on the earliest investigations of Robert Kennedy. It draws the conlusion that the conspiracy involved lower echelon CIA members who were also members of the milita group called The Minutemen. This included Guy Banister and others who had infiltrated both anti-Castro and pro-Castro groups. According to Banister's secretary:
"On at least two separate occasions, Banister employees saw Oswald handing out pro-Castro literature and reported it to their boss. In one instance Banister simply laughed, and on the other, he told his secretary Delphine Roberts: 'Don't worry about him.... He's with us. He's associated with the office.' Roberts also said she saw Oswald at 544 Camp Street, and that he filled out one of Banister's 'agent' application forms. She later told author Anthony Summers: 'Oswald came back a number of times. He seemed to be on familiar terms with Banister and with the office.'"
Did you trust Walter Conkrite?
"The question of whether Oswald had any relationship with the FBI or the CIA is not frivolous. The agencies, of course, are silent. Although the Warren Commission had full power to conduct its own independent investigation, it permitted the FBI and the CIA to investigate themselves -- and so cast a permanent shadow on the answers." --Walter Cronkite, CBS News anchor, June 28, 1967
63. The words were "probably as the result of a conspiracy"...
but you should see what certain members of the HSCA have said since then. If they only knew about the anti-Castro connections (that are so clearly spelled out in "Farewell America") they would have handled the investigation(s) differently.
65. The HSCA made more headway with the mafia connections....
the entire reason the anti-Castro operations had connections with the mafia was because they were utilizing mafia hitmen in their plans to assassinate Castro. The CIA was very sensitive about this, and obviously did not volunteer information about plans to assassinate a head of state utilizing the mafia. For the same reason, RFK may have been involved or exposed to some of these operations as well, and he knew that it was not in the best interests of national security to spill all the beans at that time.
85. Right. That must be why FBI Agent James Hosty DESTROYED EVIDENCE -- A NOTE FROM OSWALD.
Two days after the assassination -- just after the murder of Oswald -- FBI Director J Edgar Hoover, the paper trail shows, ordered the destruction of a note written by the President's accused assassin.
What was on that note? The Secretary at the FBI office where Oswald left it for "S.A. Hosty" said the note contained some kind of threat to blow up the FBI.
Gee. Wouldn't an innocent organization want to KEEP EVIDENCE?
Destruction of the Oswald Note
FBI agent James Hosty, who admitted destroying a note Lee Harvey Oswald had dropped off at the Dallas FBI office days prior to the JFK assassination.
In 1975, the allegation surfaced that the FBI had destroyed a note delivered to it by Lee Harvey Oswald, just one or two weeks prior to the assassination of President Kennedy. An internal FBI investigation failed to find any records relating to this, but interviews of Dallas Field Office personnel established that an Oswald visit and note dropoff had occurred.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from several relevant witnesses, as did the contemporaneous Church Committee. The results of this were:
* Oswald definitely did visit the Dallas Field Office a week to two weeks prior to the assassination, looking for Agent Hosty, who had recently visited his wife Marina.
* When told that Hosty was not in, Oswald left a note in an envelope which was unsealed.
* The note contained some sort of threat, but accounts varied widely as to whether Oswald threatened to "blow up the FBI" or merely "report this to higher authorities."
* Within hours after Oswald's murder on 24 Nov 1963, Hosty destroyed the note and a memorandum which Special-Agent-in-Charge Gordon Shanklin had ordered written on November 22.
Hosty maintained that Shanklin, the head of hte Dallas Field Office, had ordered him to destroy the note. Shanklin denied ever having heard of the note until 1975, though Assistant Director William Sullivan did recall the incident. The House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed the incident and did not find Shanklin's denial credible.
The movie JFK added a new twist based on rumors which have never been substantiated. In the film, New Orleans DA Jim Garrison wonders why the FBI would destroy a note which would tend to confirm Oswald's violent character, and presents his staff with an alternative: "This is just speculation, people, but what if the note was describing the assassination attempt on JFK?"
Hosty testified that he was ordered to destroy the note by Shanklin, not Hoover. Since we don't have the note, it's pure speculation as to what it said, but I think we can rule out that it was details of the plot, unless you're now claiming that Hosty was "in on the plot". Hosty states that Oswald was mad that Hosty was contacting Marina and basically threatened Hosty if he came and bothered Marina again.
Should the note have been destroyed? No. However, there are numerous reasons why Shanklin and Hosty would want the note destroyed, inasmuch as Hoover was furious that Oswald was not watched more closely. Sorry, dude...this isn't your smoking gun.
How are you doing with that itinerary? Still claiming JFK's limo drove 11.2 mph all the way from the airport?
why did Oswald previously attempt to assassinate retired General Walker, who was also affiliated with The Minutemen and who had made threats against JFK? The theory is that Oswald was not much of a marksman, and as someone who personally had pro-Marxist connections was utilized (by the CIA or FBI) to shoot at people in order to scare them or to stir up public reaction.
Really? Hmm, not according to the Marines. You'd also have to deny the mountain of physical evidence establishing that Oswald shot JFK. Jesus, it's been 46 years, guys. When are you going to acknowledge you just don't have a case?
73. "You guys"? dude, I'm not paid to do this.....
and the CIA is expert at keeping information under wraps. As I tried to indicate, the reason JFK's investigation was first only released in Europe was for reasons of national security, and because this was somewhat outside the auspices of the US government.
"It was during the first few months of 1964 that a copy of the Moynihan report to Robert Kennedy found its way across the Atlantic and into the caverns of French Intelligence and, eventually, onto the desk of President Charles de Gaulle. Who actually was the genesis of what would become Farewell America must now be left to pure conjecture, as it was probably done verbally, covertly and quietly. Was it Robert Kennedy or Charles de Gaulle or both or neither?"
I'm particularly interested in the details concerning The Minutemen, as this is hard to find from any other source.
77. I don't really see the question of Oswald's guilt being the key question...
whether he was there to just scare the president, kill the president....shoot at potential assassins....some claim that he didn't even fire a gun.
the more intriguing information is what is being covered up about the anti-Castro/pro-Castro operations and how was Oswald tied to these? What deals were being made around all of this? Why did some mafia people begin talking, and then subsequently were murdered or disappeared before they were scheduled to speak before the HSCA? Why might it have been in the CIA's interest to have them liquidated?
80. Just let us know when you've found one of these...
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 06:06 PM by SDuderstadt
I know that I can barely contain myself. Hey, wait...I have a GREAT idea for a new slogan for you guys...how about this? "We'll get to the truth if it takes forever...and, at the rate we're going, it probably will!".
piecing together a theory that makes any sense. The CIA and FBI have all the evidence to do this, if only they could get past the "national security" issue. Maybe when a few key people pass away this will start happening.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA? Mr. WILCOTT - Yes, I did. Mr. GOLDSMITH - And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was? Mr. WILCOTT - Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent
of the agency. Mr. GOLDSMITH - What do you mean by the term "agent"? Mr. WILCOTT - That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.
Mr. WILCOTT - Well, they were such incidents as the FBI agent that was working with a group -- and this was an established fact that this person was an FBI agent and that he wa working with the group that I was working with an antiwar group and, to my mind, there is a very great likelihood that this person was there to neutralize me, as the CIA term went. Mr. SAWYER - What did he do -- anything? Mr. WILCOTT - Well, I would get calls and they would say "We know all about you," shooting a machine gun into the phone, and hang up, and I would get notes written in snow or my windshield and I had slips of paper left under my
windshield and this sort of thing. Mr. SAWYER - What would they say? Mr. WILCOTT - They were extremely vulgar and I don't think that I should give the full context of them. Mr. SAWYER - What was the gist of them? Mr. WILCOTT - Well, it was "We all know all about you" and signed "The Minutemen" or some very vulgar remarks and "We know all about you and signed "Minutemen."
that was 38 years ago. When can we expect another "drip"?
BTW, if I recall correctly, the HSCA concluded that Oswald had NOT (despite Wilcott's testimony) been an agent of the CIA and, in fact, that the CIA was not involved in the assassination. You seem to have left that part out.
No offense, dude, but I believe you're going to need a much stronger "drip". Let me know if I can help.
Help me out here and at least link to the evidence that Oswald was not a CIA agent. Because the CIA denied it? Please! Anyone who is CIA is supposed to deny it, and I wouldn't put it past certain people to lie under oath.
For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.
What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.
I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
Here's what the ADL has to say about Prescott Bush:
In 2003, the Anti-Defamation League responded, saying:
“ Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated. Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.<8><14>
There are any number of legitimate reasons to dislike GHW Bush (his alliance with Lee Atwater) and I absolutely despised W, however, it's quite another thing to smear either Prescott or GHW Bush for things even the ADL have stated are absolutely false.
"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."
A lot of people dealt with and financed the Nazis before Hitler seized power, including Jews. Once Hitler's horrific actions towards the Jews and others were known and he was at war with us, then there was no excuse for Bush's involvement with Nazi supporters.
98. Ummm, what about the role played in sponsoring Hitler's rise to power?
and, this was likely all motivated by fascism...recall that before Nazis and WWII, fascism was not such an evil word. Even the Catholic Church initially signaled support for Hitler. You know the signal.
99. As I have stated before, I don't find the Guardian particularly reliable....
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 08:33 PM by SDuderstadt
and, if you read the article for which you've provided the link, you'll notice it doesn't cite a single source you can fact-check. For example, Loftus claims (citing unnamed sources) that the Bush family profited in one instance to the tune of $1.5M then, in the very next sentence, says "There is, however, no paper trail to this sum". In another part of the story, it states that "In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war". That is just a tad short on details, in that it was much more than just a "falling out". From Wikipedia:
Nazi Germany Once the Nazi dictatorship took hold, however, Thyssen began to have second thoughts. Although he welcomed the suppression of the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the trade unions, he disliked the mob violence of the SA. In 1934 he was one of the business leaders who persuaded Hitler to suppress the SA, leading to the "Night of the Long Knives". Thyssen was horrified, however, at the simultaneous murder of various conservative figures such as Kurt von Schleicher.
Thyssen accepted the exclusion of Jews from German business and professional life by the Nazis, and dismissed his own Jewish employees, but he did not share Hitler's violent anti-Semitism. As a Catholic, he also objected to the increasing repression of the Roman Catholic Church, which gathered pace after 1935: in 1937 he sent a letter to Hitler, protesting the persecution of Christians in Germany.<3> The breaking point for Thyssen was the violent pogrom against the Jews in November, 1938 known as Kristallnacht, which caused him to resign from the Council of State. By 1939 he was also bitterly criticising the regime's economic policies, which were subordinating everything to rearmament in preparation for war. <4>
World War IIOn September 1, 1939 World War II broke out. Thyssen sent Hermann Göring a telegram saying he was opposed to the war, shortly before leaving for Switzerland with his family. He was expelled from the Nazi Party and the Reichstag, and his company was briefly nationalised. It was returned to other members of the Thyssen family some years after the war. In 1940 Thyssen took refuge and moved to France, intending to emigrate to Argentina, but was caught by the German occupation of France while he was visiting his ill mother in Belgium. He was arrested by Vichy France and taken back to Germany, where he was confined, first in a sanatorium near Berlin, then from 1943 in Sachsenhausen concentration camp. His wife Amelie instead of escaping to Argentina joined her husband and spent the whole war in the concentration camp with her husband. "She had spent the good times with her husband and would also join him in the difficult times." In February, 1945 he was sent to Dachau concentration camp. He was comparatively well-treated and transferred to Tyrol in late April 1945 together with other prominent inmates, where the SS left the prisoners behind. He was liberated by the Fifth U.S. Army on May 5, 1945<5>.
I don't know about you, but I don't call being arrested by Vichy France, then eventually confined to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, then subsequently imprisoned at Dachau and Tyrol until he was liberated by the Fifth U.S. Army merely being "detained".
Look, I despise W and I don't feel that much favorably towards GHW, at least on the political side. however, I'm not a big fan of charges that cannot be documented. Have you bothered to fact-check any of this article or, did you just assume it's true because it says what you want to hear?
Unless they were in the room and can give personal testimony. If you wrote that on a college paper you would get an 'F' I freely admit that I don't know a damn thing about Prescott Bush (other than what I see on DU and I don't count that). I have a feeling that any source someone would come up with about Bush you would automatically label 'CT'.
and I'm glad that you've brought this up. Whether you know it or not, you're engaging in a variation of "argumentum ignorantium", because you're essentially challenging me to disprove a claim that has failed to be proven in the first place. I'm also glad that you've admitted that you "don't know a damn thing about Prescott Bush", because that's how these rumors get started and take on a life of their own. I'm hardly blaming you for that.
The reason I say that ADL can be its own source in this instance goes back to the issue of whether the claim has ever been proven to begin with. I have a simple question: How, specifically, is the ADL supposed to prove that Prescott Bush was NOT "Hitler's banker" or even on the board of "Hitler's banker"? And, therein lies the problem, because you're basically asking them to prove a negative.
I have to admit that I have seen this stuff over the last few years and that, initially, I didn't know as much about the history of the Bush family before GHW. I did recall that, among other definitive books, I read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer and "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" by Alan Bullock. Those two books are generally considered to be among the most authoritative. Neither one of them says anything remotely like what I have been hearing about Prescott, which I confirmed by skimming the relevant sections.
From that point on, I figured that the best way to approach this is to start with the source of the claim about Prescott. And, that's where the problem starts, as I had also asked my best friend from undergraduate school who is the Political Science department head at a college and he dismissed it out of hand. So, where does this claim come from? Well, there was an article in the Guardian. I don't know about you, but I don't regard the Guardian as a necessarily trustworthy source. Now, where did the Guardian get it from? Bingo. They got it from John Buchanan and Stacy Michael from an article they co-authored for the New Hampshire Gazette. First of all, John Buchanan is certifiable and I would not rely on anything he says. But, don't take my word for it. Below is a link to the New Hampshire Gazette:
Notice anything missing? That's right. There's not a SINGLE source for their claims, other than some vague references to "federal documents".
So, I have a simple question. Who are you going to trust? Alan Bullock, William Shirer and the ADL? Or John Buchanan and Michael Stacy? I'll go with the former, at least until I can see some concrete evidence to the contrary.
22. Appoint a Special Prosecutor in the JFK-Joannides Matter
An excellent suggestion:
Appoint a Special Prosecutor in the JFK-Joannides Matter
by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 6, 2009 The Future of Freedom Foundation
While we’re discussing whether a special prosecutor should be named to investigate and prosecute CIA officials for violations of federal laws against murder, kidnapping, and torture, why not use the occasion to do the same in the matter of George Joannides? For it would be difficult to find a better example of obstruction of justice and fraud on the part of the CIA than the Joannides matter.
During the Kennedy administration, Joannides was serving as the CIA’s head of the psychological warfare branch of the CIA’s JM/WAVE operation in Miami. As such, he was the CIA contact for a group of anti-Castro Cubans known as the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or the DRE. Joannides was the conduit for the CIA’s funding the sum of $25,000 per month to the DRE.
A few months before the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald had an encounter with the DRE. While he was handing out pro-Castro literature in New Orleans, he was accosted by the head of the DRE, which resulted in Oswald’s being arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. A few days later, Oswald debated the head of the DRE on a New Orleans radio station. Immediately after Kennedy’s assassination, the DRE made headlines by publicizing Oswald’s pro-Castro activities.
For some reason, the CIA kept Joannides’s relationship to the DRE secret not only from the Warren Commission but also from the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which investigated the Kennedy assassination.
Equally interesting is what the CIA did in the 1978 investigation: It summoned Joannides out of retirement to serve as the CIA’s liaison to the House committee, again without disclosing that Joannides had played an important role with the DRE.
In fact, the CIA succeeded in keeping the Joannides information secret for 38 years, when a journalist named Jefferson Morley published a story about him in a Miami newspaper.
A common misconception regarding the law of fraud is that fraud requires an affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact. Not so. Fraud also occurs when there is an intentional failure to disclose a material fact.
The Joannides connection to the DRE was clearly a material fact that warranted exploration, especially given Oswald’s encounter with the group and the group’s publicized attempts to link Oswald to Castro immediately after the assassination. As John Tunheim, the U.S. federal judge who chaired the Assassination Review Records Board in the 1990s, put it, “Had the Review Board known the truth about George Joannides everything bearing his name would have been made public. He was central to the time period, and central to the story. There is no question we were misled on Joannides for a long time.”
27. You link to the "Future of Freedom" Foundation...
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 09:05 PM by SDuderstadt
Hmmm....let's look at a list of books and essays published by them:
The Dangers of Socialized Medicine; The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration; The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars; The Tyranny of Gun Control; and FFF’s newest book, Liberty, Security, and the War on Terrorism. The other four books have been authored by Sheldon Richman: Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State..
52. Sorry, he is a libertarian. The thing is, unlike many since 22 Nov 1963, he wants to see JUSTICE.
I am so sorry to quote from a libertarian site! While I don't agree with the guy's politics, I do applaud him for putting into words why's it's important to appoint a special prosecutors to investigate the CIA and its role in covering up Joannides' involvement with Oswald and other apsects of the assassination.
Here's a better resource:
Will the CIA obey the law?
July 20, 2009, 8:47AM Jefferson Morley TPM Cafe
Last week, I did my part to hold the CIA accountable.
I filed my sixth (!) declaration in connection with Morley v. CIA, my ongoing lawsuit against the agency seeking records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In my experience, the answer is: not easily. In this latest submission to the court, I did not bother offer a JFK conspiracy theory because I don't have one. Rather, my bone-dry 28-page declaration refutes a number of CIA claims made in a sworn affidavit submitted last year to Judge Richard J. Leon last November.
Who was George Joannides and why does his story matter? At the time of Kennedy's murder in Dallas on November 22, 1963, Joannides, using the aliases of 'Howard' and 'Walter Newby,' served as the chief of the CIA's psychological warfare programs in Miami. His assignment was to mount covert operations to confuse and confound the government of Fidel Castro so as to hasten its overthrow.
Joannides's duties, according my declaration and declassified CIA records, included guiding and monitoring an anti-Castro student exile group which was harshly critical of JFK's Cuba policy. The group made headlines within hours of JFK's murder by denouncing accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as a Castro supporter. The Warren Commission was not told of Joannides' involvement with the group. Fifteen years later, Joannides served as the agency's liaison to the congressional committee re-investigating JFK's assassination. Congress was not told of Joannides' actions in 1963. Joannides died in 1990, having never been questioned by investigators about his knowledge of Oswald's contacts with the group he handled.
The Joannides file, say a diverse group of JFK authors, are part of the assassination story and should be made public. For six years, the CIA has refused, alleging their release would harm "national security."
In the sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the agency's chief information officer, downplayed the CIA's and Joannides' connection to Oswald's anti-Castro antagonists in 1963. Nelson stated that Joannides did not file the standard monthly reports on the group, known as the Cuban Student Directorate, in 1963 because of funding reductions and "policy differences." In fact, I showed that senior CIA officials preserved funding for the group up until one week before Kennedy was killed and that Joannides' boss credited him having it under control at the time that the group used CIA funds to link Oswald to Castro.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.