Harvey justifies the assassination of JFK

[Eddy Bainbridge]

William K Harvey's testimony to the Church Committee is fascinating. It illuminates a highly intelligent, and morally motivated man. Several times he returns to topics he has testified upon, to ensure he is not being misunderstood, or has not given a clear and honest answer. He is meticulous with his wording and respectful to the committee, this is a man who appears to have a highly considered moral code. He demonstrates this  when asked by Bissell to investigate the CIA's capabilities for executive action:

"Well I'm not trying to be humorous, but the first thing I did quite honestly, was to go back and think about it, and try to think out my own thoughts...'

In his own words assassination of high ranking officialdom is justified. (my highlights added)

"I can conceive of it being perfectly within the province of an intelligence service, one, on proper orders, from the proper highest authority in case of utter necessity to eliminate a threat to security of this country by any means whatever, whether its a nuclear strike or a rifle bullet, if I may be that blunt."

"The second category of case is the one where not the Constitutionally defined treason, but treason in the ethical sense is involved, and where a given individual is guilty of such treason, either has to be eliminated or one of more other lives of a great deal more worthiness and a great deal more value obviously have to be sacrificed.
I would not personally exclude assassination or any other technique as a proper weapon under such circumstances."

I think 'proper highest authority' is a carefully chosen phrase. He is talking to Senators. The audience-specific phrase is a choice of 'The President' , 'The White House' or 'The Democratically Elected Government'. The phrase used suggests William K Harvey himself determines 'the proper highest authority' i.e An authority he deems worthy of that name.

The phrase "treason in the ethical sense" I would suggest can only convey one meaning: That is , 'treason in my ethical sense'.  

So, from Harvey's own analysis: If Kennedy's Bay of Pigs decisions are an act of "treason in the ethical sense" then executive action is justifiable when the order comes from 'the proper highest authority'. His wife referred late in life to the Kennedys as 'scum'. Presumably the type of people who can be removed so those of "a great deal more worthiness" can live.

[B. A. Copeland]

This is absolutely most fascinating. I wish we could audibly listen to guys like he and Morales, etc. Eddy what is the source for this? Harvey’s Church Committee Testimony?

Edited June 4, 2018 by B. A. Copeland

[Eddy Bainbridge]

1 hour ago, B. A. Copeland said:

This so absolutely most fascinating. I wish we could audibly listen to guys like he and Morales, etc. Eddy what is the source for this? Harvey’s Church Committee Testimony?

Yes, go to Mary Ferrell foundation for transcript.

 

Eddy

[Joe Bauer]

Such an important and revealing post.

Thank you Eddie.

Harvey's stated mind set for justifying executive action against "anyone" who falls into "his" criteria for the most serious and threatening treason clearly and ominously echoed those of David Morales, Frank Sturgis, G. Gordon Liddy and countless others in this story including military.  

Tragically, the Kennedys didn't have a strong enough clue as to how pervasive, widespread and serious minded this shared view of them as treasonous was throughout the real MIC power structure as Eisenhower described.

The Dallas "JFK Wanted For Treason" flyer and newspaper ad perfectly reflected this mind set and how seriously advanced and publicly promoted and progressed it was by 11,22,1963.

Wikimedia Commons. 

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Brancato]

5 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

William K Harvey's testimony to the Church Committee is fascinating. It illuminates a highly intelligent, and morally motivated man. Several times he returns to topics he has testified upon, to ensure he is not being misunderstood, or has not given a clear and honest answer. He is meticulous with his wording and respectful to the committee, this is a man who appears to have a highly considered moral code. He demonstrates this  when asked by Bissell to investigate the CIA's capabilities for executive action:

"Well I'm not trying to be humorous, but the first thing I did quite honestly, was to go back and think about it, and try to think out my own thoughts...'

In his own words assassination of high ranking officialdom is justified. (my highlights added)

"I can conceive of it being perfectly within the province of an intelligence service, one, on proper orders, from the proper highest authority in case of utter necessity to eliminate a threat to security of this country by any means whatever, whether its a nuclear strike or a rifle bullet, if I may be that blunt."

"The second category of case is the one where not the Constitutionally defined treason, but treason in the ethical sense is involved, and where a given individual is guilty of such treason, either has to be eliminated or one of more other lives of a great deal more worthiness and a great deal more value obviously have to be sacrificed.
I would not personally exclude assassination or any other technique as a proper weapon under such circumstances."

I think 'proper highest authority' is a carefully chosen phrase. He is talking to Senators. The audience-specific phrase is a choice of 'The President' , 'The White House' or 'The Democratically Elected Government'. The phrase used suggests William K Harvey himself determines 'the proper highest authority' i.e An authority he deems worthy of that name.

The phrase "treason in the ethical sense" I would suggest can only convey one meaning: That is , 'treason in my ethical sense'.  

So, from Harvey's own analysis: If Kennedy's Bay of Pigs decisions are an act of "treason in the ethical sense" then executive action is justifiable when the order comes from 'the proper highest authority'. His wife referred late in life to the Kennedys as 'scum'. Presumably the type of people who can be removed so those of "a great deal more worthiness" can live.

Thank you Eddy for posting this. Some otherwise well reasoned posters on the Forum take the position that even if persons of ‘proper highest authority’ deemed JFK a security threat and saw his actions as traitorous they would not have jeopardized their careers by ordering or engineering his assassination. One also opines that the sloppy aftermath of the Dealey Plaza event is a good indication that the plotters were lower level. I find it hard to accept that logic. 

 

 

[Paz Marverde]

6 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

William K Harvey's testimony to the Church Committee is fascinating. It illuminates a highly intelligent, and morally motivated man. Several times he returns to topics he has testified upon, to ensure he is not being misunderstood, or has not given a clear and honest answer. He is meticulous with his wording and respectful to the committee, this is a man who appears to have a highly considered moral code. He demonstrates this  when asked by Bissell to investigate the CIA's capabilities for executive action:

"Well I'm not trying to be humorous, but the first thing I did quite honestly, was to go back and think about it, and try to think out my own thoughts...'

In his own words assassination of high ranking officialdom is justified. (my highlights added)

"I can conceive of it being perfectly within the province of an intelligence service, one, on proper orders, from the proper highest authority in case of utter necessity to eliminate a threat to security of this country by any means whatever, whether its a nuclear strike or a rifle bullet, if I may be that blunt."

"The second category of case is the one where not the Constitutionally defined treason, but treason in the ethical sense is involved, and where a given individual is guilty of such treason, either has to be eliminated or one of more other lives of a great deal more worthiness and a great deal more value obviously have to be sacrificed.
I would not personally exclude assassination or any other technique as a proper weapon under such circumstances."

I think 'proper highest authority' is a carefully chosen phrase. He is talking to Senators. The audience-specific phrase is a choice of 'The President' , 'The White House' or 'The Democratically Elected Government'. The phrase used suggests William K Harvey himself determines 'the proper highest authority' i.e An authority he deems worthy of that name.

The phrase "treason in the ethical sense" I would suggest can only convey one meaning: That is , 'treason in my ethical sense'.  

So, from Harvey's own analysis: If Kennedy's Bay of Pigs decisions are an act of "treason in the ethical sense" then executive action is justifiable when the order comes from 'the proper highest authority'. His wife referred late in life to the Kennedys as 'scum'. Presumably the type of people who can be removed so those of "a great deal more worthiness" can live.

Absolutely agree

[B. A. Copeland]

Eddy could you point me to the exact document you extracted your excerpt from? There are quite a bit of Harvey documents. I've tried searching but oddly cannot locate your above excerpt. Thanks.

[David Boylan]

Harvey's Ops file - https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10193-10076.pdf

[B. A. Copeland]

5 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Harvey's Ops file - https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10193-10076.pdf

Thanks Dave! I haven't read it yet but I can probably bet the farm its redaction city lol?

[David Boylan]

B.A. of course it's heavily redacted. 🙂

[B. A. Copeland]

 

On 5/8/2018 at 1:59 PM, David Boylan said:

B.A. of course it's heavily redacted. 🙂

Certainly not a shocker lol. Interestingly enough, and just out of curiosity, I googled Harvey’s address. Nice home in a very nice “foresty” area. I thought I read somewhere (Stockton?) that his daughter Sally described nicely her backyard.

Has anyone either ever tried or successfully contacted Harvey’s son and daughter??

Edited May 11, 2018 by B. A. Copeland

[Robert Harper]

 If one ever wondered why the CIA recruited from Ivy Schools initially, aside from the legacies and connections, there is the ability to use language in flexible ways. From inquiry into ZRRIFLE:

"with BISSELL present, EDWARDS briefed the Director (ALLEN DULLES) and the DDCI (GENERAL CABELL) on the existence of a plan involving members of the syndicate. The discussion was circumspect; EDWARDS deliberately avoided the use of any 'bad words.' The descriptive term used was 'an intelligence operation.'...

Bissell further l .. . characterized this method as one of "obliquely" advising the President .... and of a "circumlocutious" approach ... On other occasions involving sensitive covert operations, Dulles had told Bissell he had used the "circumlocutious" approach with President Eisenhower. 

When asked a final time, by Senator Baker, whether he recalled discussing the assassination capability with ROSTOW and BUNDY, Bissell replied: "I am not sure about BUNDY, but I think ROSTOW, yes, sir."

[Eddy Bainbridge]

In the clip linked below note how vehemently the friend(Ruben Carbajal) of David Morales ( who worked with Harvey on assassinations) makes the moral case for the hatred of Kennedy. The witnesses in the clip are persuasive that Morales was a man of action and who was willing to indicate the CIA 'got' JFK, an action he fully backed.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzOs-jTOo-Q

I would suggest the evidence shows Morales would affirm Harvey's justification of the assassination.

[Robert Harper]

19 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

makes the moral case for the hatred of Kennedy.

In a current thread on Trump and the Unspeakable, I address that issue a bit and suggested that Harvey and Morales (and Sturgis and Dulles and Edwards and others) had a "end justifies the means" philosophy of morality. When public discourse limits questions of "morality" to only sexual behavior, everyone loses. How does one justify the use of gangsters who are being investigated by other branches of government? How does one explain the transport and selling of illegal drugs to support non-approved activity? How does one justify the overthrowing of a democratically elected government? If the scale only measures what "I want" then any hope of a communal morality goes out the window.

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

In a current thread on Trump and the Unspeakable, I address that issue a bit and suggested that Harvey and Morales (and Sturgis and Dulles and Edwards and others) had a "end justifies the means" philosophy of morality. When public discourse limits questions of "morality" to only sexual behavior, everyone loses. How does one justify the use of gangsters who are being investigated by other branches of government? How does one explain the transport and selling of illegal drugs to support non-approved activity? How does one justify the overthrowing of a democratically elected government? If the scale only measures what "I want" then any hope of a communal morality goes out the window.

Couldn’t agree more