Jump to content
The Education Forum
Ron Ecker

"The CIA follows the law."

Recommended Posts

I don't know how many times the CIA director nominee said this in her confirmation hearing. (I could only watch so much.)

Why wouldn't somebody ask her about releasing documents according to the law?

The answer, of course, is that nobody asking the questions cares.

Oh, and she said that the CIA won't do anything that's immoral. How are those people keeping straight faces?

One thing we do know is that lying is alive and well in the intelligence community. But isn't that immoral?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps she's telling the truth After all, we are all victims of our own experience  And I haven't seen anything to indicate she was involved in requesting agency records not be released.

I have two friends, both deceased who  admitted involvement in the capture of Che' and the other assisted Allende in committing suicide  AND both lay the  assassination at the feet of JM Wave. And no, neither were former disgruntled former member of the Christian's In Action. They both died true believers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

Perhaps she's telling the truth 

Yes, there's always the possibility that a CIA person is telling the truth.

Look at poor E. Howard Hunt. A lot of people won't even believe his "deathbed confession." And who can blame them?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe things have changed since "back then" but...  Didn't Dulles tell the other Warren Omission members as former Director he would expect agents to lie on behalf of the CIA to protect it?

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To really evaluate the statement I recommend reading up on the various pieces of NSC legislation passed in the late 1940's as well as the legal code that goes along with it.  You will find that there are a great number of actions which are legal for the CIA and the NSC which would be illegal under civil and even military code.  I explore that at length in Shadow Warfare.  One of the reasons that so many military operations - by special forces and uniformed military - post 2001 are actually conducted under this code is that they would not be permitted to the military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Beyond that there are areas under Presidential directives, as the ones issued post-9/11 which are essentially orders without any legal constraints at all. ...and any penalties related to following them can result in pardons by the President - which we saw in Iran Contra and in other instances.

So - when CIA officers tell you they are following the law, its most definitely the civil and criminal code you might assume.  Which is why they are actually authorized to lie in civil court to protect sources, methods and operational security...even if exposed to perjury charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, maybe you, Ron, Evan or someone else know better than I more about something that I read of in the last few days that I think relates to this thread.  For starters maybe where I read it or where it came from otherwise.  I think it was a link in a thread here.  It was about a secret agreement reached between the White House and CIA in the mid 50's (to me that implied Dulles and Eisenhower - through Nixon?).  It allowed the CIA not to report crimes committed by their agents, in the course of their operations.  If memory serves it was cleared by the Justice Department and stayed in effect until Ford (of all people?) rescinded it but Reagan reenacted it?  Yet it was unknown to even the Attorney Generals, including RFK.

My dreams are not this imaginative and I don't make stuff up.  Where I read it I don't remember.  But if it is true it's a step above lying, it's a license to kill.  Lying would be small potatoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's interesting Larry,

Evan said: I have two friends, both deceased who  admitted involvement in the capture of Che' and the other assisted Allende in committing suicide  AND both lay the  assassination at the feet of JM Wave. And no, neither were former disgruntled former member of the Christian's In Action. They both died true believers! 

Evan, I'm not familiar with Christian's in Action? You're using the same acronym in a humorous way?

I'm unclear, Are you saying that despite laying the assassination at the feet of JM Wave, they have no regrets about the assassination, and were "true believers" that it had to be done?

Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First for Ron, there have actually been a series of agreements between Justice and CIA, Stu and I cover several of them in Shadow Warfare.  They often exempt employees from prosecution for illegal behavior - like say murder - if it is part of a sanctioned program (which means officially sanctioned under NSC and Presidential mandate).   Others have to do with not reporting illegal actions of surrogates, assets, etc who are being used in sanctioned projects...which has covered a lot of drug and weapons smuggling.  Again, we give a number of examples in Shadow Warfare.  But again, under the NSC legislation and codes, sanctioned projects and missions were conceived as being a defense of national security and basically no normal moral rules  applied...it is viewed as a matter of survival.  I go into that even more in my upcoming book Creating Chaos.

As for the capture of Che, that was a sanctioned program, as far as his execution, nobody was going to argue the point...it was a dead or alive mission just most anti-ISIS missions are today.

For Kirk,  I believe the murder of JFK was done by individuals who personally considered him either a traitor or an imminent national security threat and that they acted at their own initiative,  they considered themselves anti-Communist patriots above everything else...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the fact that they were willing to point directly at JM Wave was a clear sign they did not approve and since served in Vietnam they were very hostile towards. LBJ. By true believers that the Agency was a place to be proud of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan, I was referring to those directly involved in the assassination, not your friends. Actually a number of CIA officers suspected people associated with JM/WAVE and its exile connections.  Enough so that an investigation was actually conducted at the station and then the results suppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Evan, I was referring to those directly involved in the assassination, not your friends. Actually a number of CIA officers suspected people associated with JM/WAVE and its exile connections.  Enough so that an investigation was actually conducted at the station and then the results suppressed.

Would that be Whitten’s investigation Mr. H? Could you direct me to any reading regarding the suppressed results and do you have any opinion as to why the results were suppressed? Thanks a ton I’m advance as always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B.A. this comes from Surprise Attack/2010 and most likely is in NEXUS as well although I'm not absolutely certain about that. It involves a report from a former JM/WAVE officer who was involved in the inquiry.  He described it in considerable detail including the types of questions involved, the targets who were either CIA Cuban exile contacts or well to do exiles who might have been involved in the funding or operational activities. The inquiry was conducted by the Cuban Intel Group which at that time was led by Morales's friend who had taken over that group after coming out of deep cover intelligence work in Cuba.  The name escapes me at the moment but the reference is in the book. If an actual report was compiled from the work it may never have made it out of the group or out of JM/WAVE.

Shackley explicitly stated that his station performed no such investigation related to the assassination but that does not mean a lot in this instance.  On the other hand it may have been something done without his knowledge - one way to cover up loose ends would be to see if a local investigation turned up leads that needed to be suppressed to protect those involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One bud told me in personal conversation-mouth to ear-that two shooters came from JM Wave and another was a military sniper imported from Vietnam. Of course, the names of the shooters are relatively unimportant while who sent them is critical to understand the why and if you understand the why the who becomes fairly obvious.

 

Larry I've read "Somebody would have talked" several times and still find it one of the better JFK books!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

One bud told me in personal conversation-mouth to ear-that two shooters came from JM Wave and another was a military sniper imported from Vietnam.

And if true, I'll bet that sniper shot from the south end of the overpass.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×