George Joannides

[Wade Rhodes]

Why is the CIA trying to block the release of Joannides Documents??

What vital information could be obtained from these classified documents?

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6120

[Shanet Clark]

EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE CITED SITE

(or is it sited cite?)JFK'S ASSASSINATION

By Anthony Summers, Elias Demetracopoulos, G. Robert Blakey, Gerald Posner, Jefferson Morley, Jim Hougan, Jim Lesar, John McAdams, John Newman, Norman Mailer, Paul Hoch, Richard Whalen, Robbyn Swann Summers

To the Editors:

As published authors of divergent views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we urge the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense to observe the spirit and letter of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act by releasing all relevant records on the activities of a career CIA operations officer named George E. Joannides, who died in 1990.

Joannides's service to the US government is a matter of public record and is relevant to the Kennedy assassination story. In November 1963, Joannides served as the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch in the CIA's Miami station. In 1978, he served as the CIA's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

The records concerning George Joannides meet the legal definition of "assassination-related" JFK records that must be "immediately" released under the JFK Records Act. They are assassination-related because of contacts between accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and a CIA-sponsored Cuban student group that Joannides guided and monitored in August 1963.

Declassified portions of Joannides's personnel file confirm his responsibility in August 1963 for reporting on the "propaganda" and "intelligence collection" activities of the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), a prominent organization known in the North American press as the Cuban Student Directorate.

George Joannides's activities were assassination-related in at least two ways.

(1) In August 1963, Oswald attempted to infiltrate the New Orleans delegation of the DRE. The delegation—dependent on $25,000 a month in CIA funds provided by Joannides—publicly denounced Oswald as an unscrupulous sympathizer of Fidel Castro.

(2) After Kennedy was killed three months later, on November 22, 1963, DRE members spoke to reporters from The New York Times and other news outlets, detailing Oswald's pro-Castro activities. Within days of the assassination, the DRE published allegations that Oswald had acted on Castro's behalf.

The imperative of disclosure is heightened by the fact that the CIA has, in the past, failed to disclose George Joannides's activities. In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the agency's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The agency did not reveal to the Congress his role in the events of 1963, compromising the committee's investigation.

In 1998, the Agency again responded inaccurately to public inquiries about Joannides. The Agency's Historic Review Office informed the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that it was unable to identify the case officer for the DRE in 1963. The ARRB staff, on its own, located records confirming that Joannides had been the case officer.

This is not a record that inspires public confidence or quells conspiracy-mongering. To overcome misunderstanding, the CIA and the Defense Department should make a diligent good-faith effort to identify and release any documents about George Joannides.

The government should make these records public in conjunction with the fortieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination on November 22, 2003, so as to help restore public confidence and to demonstrate the agencies' commitment to compliance with the JFK Assassination Records Act.

The law requires immediate disclosure, nothing less.

G. Robert Blakey

Former General Counsel

House Select Committee on Assassinations

Jefferson Morley

Also signed by:

Don DeLillo

Paul Hoch

Norman Mailer

Gerald Posner

Anthony Summers

Richard Whalen

and six others

[Shanet Clark]

EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE CITED SITE

(or is it sited cite?)JFK'S ASSASSINATION

By Anthony Summers, Elias Demetracopoulos, G. Robert Blakey, Gerald Posner, Jefferson Morley, Jim Hougan, Jim Lesar, John McAdams, John Newman, Norman Mailer, Paul Hoch, Richard Whalen, Robbyn Swann Summers

To the Editors:

As published authors of divergent views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we urge the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense to observe the spirit and letter of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act by releasing all relevant records on the activities of a career CIA operations officer named George E. Joannides, who died in 1990.

Joannides's service to the US government is a matter of public record and is relevant to the Kennedy assassination story. In November 1963, Joannides served as the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch in the CIA's Miami station. In 1978, he served as the CIA's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

The records concerning George Joannides meet the legal definition of "assassination-related" JFK records that must be "immediately" released under the JFK Records Act. They are assassination-related because of contacts between accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and a CIA-sponsored Cuban student group that Joannides guided and monitored in August 1963.

Declassified portions of Joannides's personnel file confirm his responsibility in August 1963 for reporting on the "propaganda" and "intelligence collection" activities of the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), a prominent organization known in the North American press as the Cuban Student Directorate.

George Joannides's activities were assassination-related in at least two ways.

(1) In August 1963, Oswald attempted to infiltrate the New Orleans delegation of the DRE. The delegation—dependent on $25,000 a month in CIA funds provided by Joannides—publicly denounced Oswald as an unscrupulous sympathizer of Fidel Castro.

(2) After Kennedy was killed three months later, on November 22, 1963, DRE members spoke to reporters from The New York Times and other news outlets, detailing Oswald's pro-Castro activities. Within days of the assassination, the DRE published allegations that Oswald had acted on Castro's behalf.

The imperative of disclosure is heightened by the fact that the CIA has, in the past, failed to disclose George Joannides's activities. In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the agency's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The agency did not reveal to the Congress his role in the events of 1963, compromising the committee's investigation.

In 1998, the Agency again responded inaccurately to public inquiries about Joannides. The Agency's Historic Review Office informed the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that it was unable to identify the case officer for the DRE in 1963. The ARRB staff, on its own, located records confirming that Joannides had been the case officer.

This is not a record that inspires public confidence or quells conspiracy-mongering. To overcome misunderstanding, the CIA and the Defense Department should make a diligent good-faith effort to identify and release any documents about George Joannides.

The government should make these records public in conjunction with the fortieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination on November 22, 2003, so as to help restore public confidence and to demonstrate the agencies' commitment to compliance with the JFK Assassination Records Act.

The law requires immediate disclosure, nothing less.

G. Robert Blakey

Former General Counsel

House Select Committee on Assassinations

Jefferson Morley

Also signed by:

Don DeLillo

Paul Hoch

Norman Mailer

Gerald Posner

Anthony Summers

Richard Whalen

and six others

[Jim Root]

Wade

Very interesting topic.

In the past I have had contact with several of the persons who have signed this letter in regards to this subject. Both Joannides and Karamessines are of unique interest to this case because in the months proceeding the assassination they were following the movements of Oswald. But their past is also of interest.

In 1948 the British, because of financial reasons, requested that the US take over operations surrounding the Greek Civil War. Joannides and Karamessines were, I understand, two of the 44 members of a US team operating in Greece at that time. Put in charge of that team, operating the Greek Desk at the Pentagon, was none other than Edwin Anderson Walker.

It seems to be a small world that was operating around this Oswald guy.

Coincidence?

Jim Root

[John Simkin]

George Joannides, the son of a journalist, was born in New York on 5th July, 1922. He joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1951 and later became chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA's station in Miami. In this role he worked closely with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), a militant right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Castro, anti-Kennedy, group. This was a group that Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with in New Orleans in August 1963.

In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the agency's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The CIA did not reveal to the committee that Joannides had played an important role in the events of 1963. Some critics believe that Joannides was involved in a conspiracy to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the government of Fidel Castro.

George Joannides died in Houston in March 1990. In recent years investigators into the assassination of John F. Kennedy such as G. Robert Blakey, Anthony Summers, John McAdams and Gerald Posner have campaigned for the CIA to release the files concerning the activities of Joannides.

Has anyone got a photograph of Joannides?

How important is Joannides in this case? Is he a red herring? For example, why should McAdams, Posner and Blakey be so concerned with the files of Joannides. After all, in the past, they have been associated with providing misinformation about the assassination.

[Greg Wagner]

George Joannides, the son of a journalist, was born in New York on 5th July, 1922. He joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1951 and later became chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA's station in Miami. In this role he worked closely with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), a militant right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Castro, anti-Kennedy, group. This was a group that Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with in New Orleans in August 1963.

In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the agency's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The CIA did not reveal to the committee that Joannides had played an important role in the events of 1963. Some critics believe that Joannides was involved in a conspiracy to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the government of Fidel Castro.

George Joannides died in Houston in March 1990. In recent years investigators into the assassination of John F. Kennedy such as G. Robert Blakey, Anthony Summers, John McAdams and Gerald Posner have campaigned for the CIA to release the files concerning the activities of Joannides.

Has anyone got a photograph of Joannides?

How important is Joannides in this case? Is he a red herring? For example, why should McAdams, Posner and Blakey be so concerned with the files of Joannides. After all, in the past, they have been associated with providing misinformation about the assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John-

Based on his role with the CIA, Joannides is certainly interesting and would have been in a position to know things. But you raise an interesting point with regard to the cast of characters making an effort to have documents relating to Joannides released. The two most likely possibilities, IMO, are:

1) They know there's no chance in heck that these docs will be released, so they attempt to gain some degree of credibility by their efforts (which they know to be hopeless).

2) Joannides is a red herring and this is simply one more attempt at misdirection.

If anything of significance is released, proceed with caution.

Edited July 6, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Pat Speer]

Hi John-

Based on his role with the CIA, Joannides is certainly interesting and would have been in a position to know things. But you raise an interesting point with regard to the cast of characters making an effort to have documents relating to Joannides released. The two most likely possibilities, IMO, are:

1) They know there's no chance in heck that these docs will be released, so they attempt to gain some degree of credibility by their efforts (which they know to be hopeless).

2) Joannides is a red herring and this is simply one more attempt at misdirection.

If anything of significance is released, proceed with caution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on guys, while Posner and McAdams et al annoy the heck out of me, I have no doubt their interest in Joannides is legitimate. After all, if Joannides' files reveal a few dirty secrets, they want to be able to say they were on the side of disclosure and openness, else they'll be discredited to the mainstream media they so covet. Let's not forget that Warren Commission attorneys like Belin and Specter became advocates for a second investigation after the CIA assassination plots and the Hosty note were uncovered in the 70's. Maybe Jeff Morley will chime in and let us know the current status of his ongoing investigation???

[John Simkin]

According to this website (20th May, 2005):

The CIA is going to file papers in court today to block the release of documents relating to its employee, George Joannides. The details of why information regarding Joannides may be important to understanding the JFK assassination are summarized in this letter (signed by a peculiar combination of disinformation agents and legitimate researchers, meaning that the CIA itself may be of two minds on the matter). The energy the CIA is expending subverting American law leads one to believe that they are hiding something important.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6120

[Greg Wagner]

Hi John-

Based on his role with the CIA, Joannides is certainly interesting and would have been in a position to know things. But you raise an interesting point with regard to the cast of characters making an effort to have documents relating to Joannides released. The two most likely possibilities, IMO, are:

1) They know there's no chance in heck that these docs will be released, so they attempt to gain some degree of credibility by their efforts (which they know to be hopeless).

2) Joannides is a red herring and this is simply one more attempt at misdirection.

If anything of significance is released, proceed with caution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on guys, while Posner and McAdams et al annoy the heck out of me, I have no doubt their interest in Joannides is legitimate. After all, if Joannides' files reveal a few dirty secrets, they want to be able to say they were on the side of disclosure and openness, else they'll be discredited to the mainstream media they so covet. Let's not forget that Warren Commission attorneys like Belin and Specter became advocates for a second investigation after the CIA assassination plots and the Hosty note were uncovered in the 70's. Maybe Jeff Morley will chime in and let us know the current status of his ongoing investigation???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Pat-

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am being too cynical here. Sounds like either way, we won't be reading Joannides' files anytime soon

Edited July 6, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

How important is Joannides in this case? Is he a red herring? For example, why should McAdams, Posner and Blakey be so concerned with the files of Joannides. After all, in the past, they have been associated with providing misinformation about the assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Joannides is important to both sides of the case for several reasons. Of the numerous anti-Castro groups functioning, to various degrees, in 1963, the DRE had several unique distinctions. It was among the most militantly active, it was run out of JM/WAVE, and it remains frustratingly undetermined which is more true: that it was surveilling Oswald, or that Oswald was trying to infiltrate DRE, or both [the likeliest, imho.]

For those who acknowledge conspiracy in the assassination, this is a potential treasure trove of information about CIA's relationship with - and direction of - the DRE, particuarly as it relates to DRE's role in painting Oswald "red" in New Orleans just prior to his Mexico City trip, and the role it played in depicting him "red" immediately after the assassination. Knowing more about CIA's supervision of DRE - the single largest recipient of CIA largesse at the time, if memory serves - may illustrate how Oswald was used, and by whom, in the months prior to Kennedy's murder.

For the lone gunman advocates, it's a slightly messier affair. As Greg and Pat have astutely observed, for the sake of projecting their best attempt at "impartiality" [such as it is], it is important for them to be seen lobbying for the release of these documents. In the event that CIA refuses, no harm is done to the Posner position. In the event CIA relents, the potential for damage to CIA depends on what they choose to release.

In the unlikely event anything is released suggesting CIA connivance or perfidy or less-than-full-disclosure back in the day, then the Posnerites will attempt to control the spin, and have something of a head start by virtue of their lobbying. Blakey can assure us all just how shocked and appalled - "shocked and appalled, I say" - he is to finally be force-fed precisely what he so diligently avoided learning - and prevented us from learning - back when it counted. He can then assure us again that, despite minor flaws and errors [did the grassy knoll bullet hit something? who was the other shooter? why did CIA lie about Mexico City? why did CIA assign Joannides to "assist" Blakey? was his "assistance" similar to that received from Regis Blahut?] the HSCA was an honest investigation, hobbled only by the unwillingness of others to help.

For them, it's all about preserving the legacy of an honest government investigation, and explaining away its failings as minor aberrations to the majority of the public that suspects something was and remains amiss, but is unsure what that is. For most of the members here, I suspect it would be a redundant exercise, locking the barn door decades after the horses have bolted.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

[quote

Come on guys, while Posner and McAdams et al annoy the heck out of me, I have no doubt their interest in Joannides is legitimate.

Pat, you may be right, all I know after reading the bunk Postner wrote about 9-11 , All Barney Franks fault, Is that if the CIA are not paying him they damn well should be.The man is a veritable mine of disinformation, spin, innuendo & self serving testimony. Steve.

[Jim Root]

John

Add Jefferson Morley to your list of persons involved in a campaign "for the CIA to release the files concerning the activities of Joannides."

Joannides is important to my research because he was apparently one of the few original Americans involved in Greece when the Brits began to withdraw in 1948. At this time Edwin Walker was running the Greek desk at the Pentagon and made one or more trips to the area. With so few Americans involved at the time we must hold open the possibility that these two men were associated with one another then. Is it a coincidence that, fifteen years later, both their names would be associated again (this second time with Lee Harvey Oswald)?

George Joanides is closely associated with Thomas Karamessines who was in the office of Richard Helms at the time of the assassinationl. I believe it is Jefferson Morley and John Newman that have traced the routing of messages about Oswald's movements before the assassination to Karamessines. Apparently some of these messages originated with Joanides.

Worth anticipating the outcome.

Jim Root

[Nic Martin]

If a guy was on a bathroom break when he was supposed to be keeping tabs on LHO pre-11-22, the CIA wouldn't release it because it's damning.

Posner, McAdams, etc - are simply trying to gain credibility with wishy-washy people that haven't spent but a handful of hours looking into this case. If they look like they didn't go into research with an agenda, it equals more sales from Johnny WorkingMan & Mary Housewife because it looks like they did the job they were supposed to do. Sales equal money, and we all know how greedy this country is.

George Joannides is DEFINITELY worth looking into, and it's a shame the government has their filthy little signatures on all the pages to block the spread of information. The NARA search shows only 12 documents relating to him but the first 4 are all HSCA business.

[Justin Martell]

Hi John-

Based on his role with the CIA, Joannides is certainly interesting and would have been in a position to know things. But you raise an interesting point with regard to the cast of characters making an effort to have documents relating to Joannides released. The two most likely possibilities, IMO, are:

1) They know there's no chance in heck that these docs will be released, so they attempt to gain some degree of credibility by their efforts (which they know to be hopeless).

2) Joannides is a red herring and this is simply one more attempt at misdirection.

If anything of significance is released, proceed with caution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on guys, while Posner and McAdams et al annoy the heck out of me, I have no doubt their interest in Joannides is legitimate. After all, if Joannides' files reveal a few dirty secrets, they want to be able to say they were on the side of disclosure and openness, else they'll be discredited to the mainstream media they so covet. Let's not forget that Warren Commission attorneys like Belin and Specter became advocates for a second investigation after the CIA assassination plots and the Hosty note were uncovered in the 70's. Maybe Jeff Morley will chime in and let us know the current status of his ongoing investigation???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry Pat but I think your giving too much credit here. You are a much more learned man than I am and I mean no disrespect but your failure to believe in a large conspiracy in the case is naive. The amount of doors slamming closed by the intelligence agencies the last 40 years is overwhelming.

[Pat Speer]

Sorry Pat but I think your giving too much credit here.  You are a much more learned man than I am and I mean no disrespect but your failure to believe in a large conspiracy in the case is naive.  The amount of doors slamming closed by the intelligence agencies the last 40 years is overwhelming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the record, Justin, I do not believe in a wide-spread conspiracy to kill Kennedy. I do believe that after the Warren Report was released there developed a vast conspiracy to shut up and shut down the critics, as they were making Americans think uncomfortable thoughts. I believe the mainstream media willingly participated in this. Look at the NBC White Paper or the CBS specials in the sixties. I also believe that both the FBI and CIA determined that the conspiracy community was anti-American and was quite possibly a communist plot, and that they used and perhaps still use their resources to discredit and attack the conspiracy community. I also believe that the agents who participate in this do so out of misguided patriotism, and not because they are trying to protect Kennedy's murderers. That is why Posner, McAdams and Jennings are so powerful--not because they're paid to lie--but because they have a built-in audience for their distortions of the truth. I'll go even further--while I don't believe Posner or McAdams are on the CIA payroll I wouldn't be surprised if it was suggested by someone in the government that they go out and push the lone-nut idea after Stone's JFK turned a few heads. I can almost see the full-court press when Bugliosi's book is released. I've already got my spot reserved at the neighborhood puke-atorium.