Luis Posada Carriles

[Terry Mauro]

I suspect he will be dead before he ever testifies in a courtroom about what he knows about CIA funded terrorist attacks.

For some reason I have a feeling he will have the flu very soon The can of worms he can open is way to dangerous to just send him on his way to Venezuela or Cuba to stand trial.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yesterday from the LATimes - The Nation - Section [FWIW]

May 20, 2005 latimes.com : Nation E-mail story Print Most E-Mailed

THE NATION

Cuban Exile Is Charged by U.S.

Former CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles, wanted in Venezuela and denounced in Cuba, is accused of entering the United States illegally.

By John-Thor Dahlburg and Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writers

MIAMI — Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban exile accused of terrorism and wanted in Venezuela to stand trial, was charged by the U.S. government Thursday with entering the country illegally, putting the onus on the former CIA operative to prove he had the right to remain.

Posada, 77, who said he came to the U.S. through Mexico about two months ago, was taken into custody Tuesday by federal agents in Miami.

On Thursday, U.S. immigration officials said he had been charged with entering the U.S. "without inspection," a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and would be held without bond. He has a right to a bond hearing, and is scheduled to appear before an immigration judge June 13, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement.

Venezuela has called on the U.S. to extradite the opponent of Cuban President Fidel Castro in connection with the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people. Posada has denied involvement.

Cuban authorities say he is responsible for bombings at Havana hotels in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist and injured 11 others.

Posada was acquitted twice in the airliner bombing by courts in Venezuela, but he escaped from a Caracas jail in 1985 while an appeal was pending.

As a reflection of the tensions surrounding the case, U.S. officials declined to say where Posada was being held.

But an official in the Department of Homeland Security, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Posada had been transferred to El Paso, and that the bond hearing would be held there.

Manny Van Pelt, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Washington, confirmed that after his arrest Posada was taken from the Miami area by helicopter. But he said he did not know why.

Officials said one reason detainees were taken to a different state was because of limited space in facilities where they were being held.

Another federal official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bush administration might have wanted to head off any show of support for Posada in Miami's Cuban American community.

The administration may also be trying to buy time to decide what to do with Posada, the official said.

Ira Kurzban, a Miami lawyer who has written a book on immigration law, said Posada could be freed on bond, detained indefinitely, deported or sent to another country with his consent.

The political clout of Cuban Americans, many of whom vote Republican, made it unlikely that Posada would be sent to Cuba or to Venezuela, Kurzban said.

At the June immigration hearing, Posada could ask for asylum and oppose deportation because his life or freedom would be placed in jeopardy, Kurzban said.

If Posada cannot establish that he has a legal right to be in U.S., the judge can issue a "final order of removal," or deportation, subject to a review by immigration courts and the federal court system.

Eduardo Soto, a Coral Gables, Fla., immigration lawyer who represents Posada, said he should be allowed to stay in the U.S. because of his work with the CIA against Castro in the 1960s and because he could be persecuted if sent to Venezuela or Cuba.

At a Thursday news conference, Soto said he was satisfied that Posada had been charged with an immigration violation and not with terrorism.

He said he would meet with his client today in Texas and would file motions to have him released on bond and to have the case transferred to Miami.

Asked if Posada might agree to leave the U.S. for a country where he would not face the threat of a criminal trial, Soto said, "I think that that possibility is there…. I think everything is on the table."

Edited May 21, 2005 by Terry Mauro

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

I see you have still not responded to my attack on Bush’s policy towards Uzbekistan. Are you waiting for Bush to change direction before commenting?

John, just the press of personal affairs.

With all the support Posada apparently has in the Cuban exile community, does Bush's decision to arrest him (since we may be able to assume he was consulted re such a sensitive issue) qualify him for the Supplement to "Profiles in Courage"? (I am sure JFK did not agree with every (in some cases with none) of the policies of political leaders who made decisions contrary to the wishes of their supporters.)

In a previous post, John had asked why Bush would effect regime change in Iraq but not in Uzbekistan. As the saying goes, "How Soon They Forget". Remember something usually refered to in the short-hand WMD? Bush believed, based on intelligence reports (as did Tony blair AND Bill Clinton (who refered to WMD in Iraq in over twenty separate speeches) that Hussein either had or was trying to obtain WMD. It is no more Bush's fault than it is Clinton's if the intelligence reports were in error. Moreover, as the saying goes re political conspiracies, the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. How about the bombing materials the FBI recently discovered in Terry Nichol's place, having missed them in previous searches. If the FBI can miss weapons buried under a house when the focus is on a house, is it possible there are still WMD hidden in somewhere in Iraq? It is a big country after all. Some chemical weapons, sufficient to create major catastrophes, could presumably be hidden in a single home.

If you want to blame the CIA, remember Tenet was a Clinton appointee.

The simple answer is Iraq was perceived as a threat to the national security of the US. Uzbekistan is not. And there may be other reasons as well because I admit I have not fully read about Uzbekistan. But the WMD is certainly a fundamental reason for policy differences.

Edited May 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

The simple answer is Iraq was perceived as a threat to the national security of the US.  Uzbekistan is not.  And there may be other reasons as well because I admit I have not fully read about .  But the WMD is certainly a fundamental reason for policy differences.

But there were no WMD. This was part of a CIA/MI6 disinformation campaign. Bush not only refuses to condemn President Karimov, he helps to prop up his regime. For example, in 2002 the US gave Uzbekistan over $500m in aid, including $120m in military aid and $80 in security aid. How does this fit into his so-called campaign for "democracy"?

To quote Jonathan Freedland:

Like so many despots before him, Karimov has looked to medieval times for ever more brutal methods of oppression. Hence the return of the cauldron, boiling alive two of his critics in 2002. Uzbekistan holds up to 6,000 political prisoners; independent economic activity has been crushed; religious practice is severely restricted; there is no free press; and the internet is censored. On December 26, when the world was marvelling at Ukraine's orange revolution, Karimov was hosting an election that was not nearly as close - he had banned all the opposition parties.

But, hey, what's a little human rights violation among friends? And Karimov has certainly been our friend. Shortly after 9/11, he allowed the US to locate an airbase at Khanabad - a helpful contribution to the upcoming war against Afghanistan. Since then he has been happy to act as a reliable protector of central Asian oil and gas supplies, much coveted by a US eager to reduce its reliance on the Gulf states. And he has gladly let Uzbekistan be used for what is euphemistically known as "rendition", the practice of exporting terror suspects to countries less squeamish about torture than Britain or the US. This was the matter over which the heroic Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Tashkent, fell out with his employers: he argued that Britain was "selling its soul" by using information gathered under such heinous circumstances.

When Craig Murray, UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, criticized Karimov's government human-rights record Bush urged Blair to get rid of him. Murray is recalled to London and then replaced.

As Franklin D Roosevelt said of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: "He may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch."

George Bush is no more interested in spreading democracy than Joseph Stalin was. He just wants governments in place that will do what he wants. Where possible he will use his powers of persuasion with elected governments (like the UK). If that is not possible he will work with murderous dictatorships in places like Uzbekistan.

The reluctance to have Luis Posada Carriles appear in Venezuela or Cuba to stand trial and the support of the President Karimov in Uzbekistan are both examples of Bush's hypocrisy. It is also the very reason why the vast majority of the world does not believe Bush when he says he is leading a campaign to spread democracy and to end terrorism.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

But there were no WMD. This was part of a CIA/MI6 disinformation campaign.

John, I am unaware of evidence that the problems were intentional rather than negligent. And even if they were intentional, certainly no evidence Bush orchestrated it. Remember the same info was given to Clinton.

And to say there were no WMD merely because none have yet been found is, I suggest, akin to arguing that there was only a lone assassin because there has not yet been clear identification of another shooter (clear enough to result in a true consensus opinion). If the conspirators in JFK could hide evidence of the real killers, plant disinformation, etc, and throw everybody off track for forty years, why could there not be hidden weapons of mass destruction still in Iraq when the search has only been ongoing for a year or so? And if the CIA was so Machiavellian to intentionally create false information about WMD in Iraq, why was it not clever enough to plant evidence thereof?

Don't assume the CIA is diabollically clever when it may just be stupid (absent evidence of intentional fabrication, etc).

Edited May 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Al Carrier]

John wrote:

But there were no WMD. This was part of a CIA/MI6 disinformation campaign.

John, I am unaware of evidence that the problems were intentional rather than negligent.  And even if they were intentional, certainly no evidence Bush orchestrated it.  Remember the same info was given to Clinton.

And to say there were no WMD merely because none have yet been found is, I suggest, akin to arguing that there was only a lone assassin because there has not yet been clear identification of another shooter (clear enough to result in a true consensus opinion).  If the conspirators in JFK could hide evidence of the real killers, plant disinformation, etc, and throw everybody off track for forty years, why could there not be hidden weapons of mass destruction still in Iraq when the search has only been ongoing for a year or so?  And if the CIA was so Machiavellian to intentionally create false information about WMD in Iraq, why was it not clever enough to plant evidence thereof?

Don't assume the CIA is diabollically clever when it may just be stupid (absent evidence of intentional fabrication, etc).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Thank for an insightful post that is far from the political spectrum! You have stated much here and without political obligation, which makes the likes of British researchers so valuable! I have closely looked at the research of yours and that of your fellow countrymen such as Ian Griggs in a different light of those who have political motivation.

Mr. Gratz, do you really believe what you are saying here? A year and no proof of weapons of mass destruction with intel that brought us into it that could not produce it? And you suggest that if it was a CIA plot to bring us into it they would have produced it without the control of the country that we now posses with military rule?

Are you willing to admit a false motivation to intervene in Iraq that is being proven daily? I am not saying the regime was not dictoriate or even ruthless, but what gives us the right to invade there when they do not posess the power or threat to harm us more than let's say North Korea who have admitted to holding nuclear capabilities?

W is nothing more than a dictactor of the world than GHWB was in the Contra program. He had no right invading and became more of a terrorist than what he was trying to overthrow. If you want proof, look at what Nicaragua has become since then! Look at what we are dealing with in Iraq now!

Isn't it time we realize that we cannot Americanize and police the world?

Al

[Tim Gratz]

My point is if the CIA would DELIBERATELY fake or accept information it suspected, to encourage an Iraqui invasion, why would it not just PLANT the evidence?

Does not the failure to find evidence of WMD prove the CIA was stupid in evaluating information rather than EVIL in fabricating it?

You have argued before, correctly I believe, the difference between negligence on the part of the Dallas PD and the Secret Service and conspiratorial involvement. Those on the Forum who suspect CIA involvement in the plot see a well-orchestrasted scheme involving the framing of a patsy, planting his fingerprints on the rifle, changing wounds, etc etc.

Common sense tells me if there was more than mere negligence re the CIA's assessment of WMD in Iraq, today's counterpart to E. Howard Hunt or David Phillips would figure out how to "plant" some evidence--proving the CIA assessment was correct. Why just go half-way?

Do you think it was beyond the capability of the CIA to plant evidence to at least suggest WMD?

And can you tell me how many people have been working full-time on the search for WMD?

I mean, it does not take a rocket scientist to predict that if any such evidence is now found someone here will speculate that it was planted.

How do you explain the FBI missing the evidence in Terry Nichol's house? Was it negligence? If not, then the FBI must have planted the evidence.

And as I stated the CIA was telling the Clinton Administration there was evidence of WMD. So one thing is clear: Bush did not orchestrate the CIA's conclusions.

Finally--did not the CIA at first tell JFK there were no nuclear missiles in Cuba?

I suspect the number of man-hours devoted exclusively to the search for WMD in the entire country of IRAQ would be insufficient to conduct a complete search of the south side of Chicago.

The mere fact that we have not found them yet does not NECESSARILY mean they will never be found. And even if there are no WMD, that does not mean the CIA had a nefarious plot to fool two Presidents.

Edited May 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

How do we go in three pages from Posada to Iraq?

[John Simkin]

How do we go in three pages from Posada to Iraq?

Both are examples of the hypocrisy of George Bush. Would you be willing to defend these actions if they were made by a Democratic president? I agree that Democratic presidents have been just as corrupt as Republicans (LBJ for example). However, if you are going to be a serious researcher you must rise above partisan politics.

Do you really believe these things are best explained by an incompetent CIA?

There is a passage from an article written by Victor Marchetti called Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History (Journal of History Review -2001):

If the public were aware of what the CIA is doing, it might say: "We don't like what you're doing - stop it!," or "You're not doing a good job - stop it!" The public might ask for an accounting for the money being spent and the risks being taken.

Thus secrecy is absolutely vital to the CIA. Secrecy covers not only operations in progress, but continues after the operations, particularly if the operations have been botched. Then they have to be covered up with more lies, which the public, of course, can't recognize as lies, allowing the CIA to tell the public whatever it wishes.

Presidents love this. Every president, no matter what he has said before getting into office, has been delighted to learn that the CIA is his own private tool. The presidents have leapt at the opportunity to keep Congress and the public in the dark about their employment of the agency.

This is why LBJ was able to use the CIA to cover-up the assassination of JFK. It is why Bush used the CIA to provide him with false information on Iraq.

[Shanet Clark]

Secrecy, Lying and Murder.

That is how the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is subverted by the executive power and the intelligence agencies.

Congressional oversight and public oversight are not only weak and ineffective, they are effectively impossible, due to the classification and destruction of documents.

The prerogatives of the President extend to political manipulation of the Agencies, the Press and the public mind.

BUSH jumped at the chance to falsely link the events of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, and kept this drumbeat of false propaganda before the public in the build up to his war in the oilfields.

CIA analysts who agreed with the false findings were promoted and protected, government officials who disagreed were silenced, or in the case of one STATE DEPARTMENT intelligence analyst, apparently murdered by a "high fall"

The headlong race toward war made George Bush a WARTIME COMMANDER IN CHIEF, which has prerogatives and powers unavailable to PEACETIME civilian Presidents.

Faced with the fact that LUIS POSADA CARRILES is a terrorist, but one that worked for the US side, Bush will choose to be unresponsive and equivocate.

I am reminded of the CIA employee who quit after a training stint at Camp Perry, near Yorktown, Virginia.

He quit early in his career because he was being taught how to incinerate School Buses.........................

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

This is why LBJ was able to use the CIA to cover-up the assassination of JFK. It is why Bush used the CIA to provide him with false information on Iraq.

John, not only must we "rise above partisan politics" we must, as historians and researchers, get our facts straight. Bush "used" the CIA? The CIA provided similar information to Clinton who also stated, repeatedly, that Hussein had WMD. It is not like the CIA first discovered them in the Bush Administration.

Answer these questions, if you will:

Was the head of the CIA under Bush appointed by Bill Clinton? Did the CIA tell Clinton that Hussein had WMD?

And yes I think the CIA should be remamed the Central Incomptence Agency. As I said, it is difficult to understand how someone who thinks the CIA secretly plotted the assassination of JFK, planted false leads and orchestrated the cover-up, would lie about WMD in Iraq but not be smart enough to "plant" evidence of WMD in Iraq. I guess the people at the CIA were "evil geniuses" when they did the JFK assassination but "evil idiots" when they failed to manufacture evidence to prove they were right about WMD in Iraq. I mean, how stupid could they be? If they KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq and deliberately lied about it, they then knew that after the war no WMD would be found and they would be exposed as nincompoops. They knew the war was coming. They had plently of time to plant fake evidence of WMD if they are the lying Machiavellians you seem to think they are.

The evidence suggests misfeasance rather than malfeasance.

[Shanet Clark]

WRONG AGAIN

Although the manipulation has not been publicly recognized by all shades of the press, the fact is that

POLITICAL PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR

There were no WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

There was no connection of September 11th to Iraq under Hussein;

and the forces of SECRETARY RUMSFIELD and VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY

were invoked to falsify the available information......

{Few of us are as gullible as Mr. Gratz.}

Edited May 23, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet:

And your proof is where? Please cite chapter and verse.

Did Rumsfield and Cheney pressure the CIA to provide information to Clinton, while he was still President, that Iraq had WMD? Is that your contention?

Is it your contention that when the CIA told FIRST Clinton, then Bush, that Iraq had WMD, the CIA was lying (it knew Hussein had no such weapons)?

If so, then please explain why the big bad CIA was not diabolical enough to plant the evidence?

For heaven's sake, corrupt cops use "throw-down" guns to justify shooting unarmed men.

But the CIA that could orchestrate the JFK hit and cover-up was too stupid to plant evidence of WMD in Iraq? Knowing it would become a laughing-stock when the absence of WMD was discovered?

Come on, get real. This makes no sense at all. The CIA THOUGHT, as did Clinton and Bush, that there were WMD. So did, presumably, every member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who were privy to many of the same reports the CIA was. (Maybe E Howard never retired but he sits behind his desk manufacturing bogus intelligence reports from Iraq: there's a theory I bet you'd like!)

And by the way, here's an even better question: what if the actual answer was, we are not sure if Hussein has WMD, but he MIGHT. What should we have done? Waited to see if he nuked Atlanta? Poisoned Manhattan?

Your presumed theory that the US should give the "benefit of the doubt" to evil dictators like Hussein rather than to the innocent citizens of Atlanta and New York demonstrates perfectly why your candidate was soundly defeated in 2004. And the really strange thing is this: you leftists can't even understand why your candidates continually lose presidential elections! Clueless!

Edited May 23, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Drew Williams]

Hopefully soon we will find out everything behind 9-11 and everything that has transpired afterwards, the Iraq Invasion, possible war with North Korea?

How many people on here have looked at the 9-11 conspiracy evidence? If not, may I reccomend a very nice site:

http://www.reopen911.org/

[Pat Speer]

Many members of this Forum believe that anti-Castro forces used LHO as a patsy to try to pin the JFK assassination on Castro.  That theory, of course, demonstrates that Castro had a motive to seek JFK's death.  To use Castro as a "false sponsor" of the Kennedy assassination therefore makes logical sense.

But to try to pin the assassination of Castro on Russian security forces makes no semse whatsoever, in my opinion.  Who would believe it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, how can you say this? The Russians had reason to believe that Raul might be easier to control than Fidel. Them killing Fidel makes a helluva lot more sense than Russian intelligence killing Kennedy and framing Oswald--a man whose involvment pointed right back at them--as a patsy. It seems to me you need to stop letting your hatred of Fidel and all things Red control your every thought. Please check on Escalante's age and career status in 1963. I don't think he was even working for the Cuban government at that time; certainly everything he's ever had to say about the assassination has been based on his access to files. I don't remember him ever claiming first-hand knowledge of the assassination, outside of his talks with some of the captured exiles after the fact. If the Cubans were involved, and were deliberately trying to frame the CIA, why the heck did they admit the REAL Oswald paid a visit to their embassy, and supply investigators with pictures of the REAL Oswald, when they could very easily have said the man who visited them was an impostor (and let everyone assume the CIA had put him up to it)? After all, the CIA had no pictures of the real Oswald anywhere in Mexico City.

And guess what, Tim? Your friends in the anti-Castro movement who led those penetration teams to liberate the island, blowing up factories and oil refineries, and burning sugar cane fields??? They were terrorists. You can't claim someone isn't a terrorist just because you sympathize with them and expect others to think you're unbiased. "Terrorists" aren't merely people we don't like doing exactly what we do under the guise of police action. How is a terrorist killing innocent civilians any worse than LBJ or GWB dropping bombs on civilian areas, in an undeclared war, in order to frighten (or terrorize) our bad guy enemies into surrender? Take a step back. America is not always right. Powerful men from Texas don't fail to properly investigate the assassination of their predecessors because they're ascared third world badmen might try and hurted them. Only in the kingdom of Tim wants-to-believe. Please find something else to focus on besides Fidel, Fidel, Fidel. Try to pin down Gerry on his story. Ask him about Sturgis and his connections to Hunt. Or Sturgis and his connections to Lorenz and Op 40? What about Bernie Barker? Did Sturgis know Hunt in 63? What about Hall and Trafficante? What was their relationship? And what about Lamar Hunt, Howard Hughes, and Walker? Which Cuban exiles were supported by them? Try to get him to read Larry's book and comment. In sum, Tim, there's a lot you can do besides try and steer every thread towards Fidel.

Edited May 23, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, what you are refering to is Operation Mongoose, a JFK operation. I do not believe I ever stated it was a good thing. Nor have I ever stated the plans to murder Castro were good. In fact, I have stated my opinion that they were probably illegal and that every one involved with them should have been arrested. Of course, historians debate whether the Kennedys were witting of the plots. If they were not, when RFK was (then) first informed of them by Sheffield Edwards on May 7, 1962, he presumably should have ordered the arrest of Edwards, Bissell, Maheu, Rosselli and every one else who participated in the plots and charged them with conspiracy to commit murder. (Well, that's probably only a state charge but nonetheless he could have taken some action.) Some scholars point out that, according to Edwards' testimony, RFK went ballistic because the CIA was using his enemies in the mob but he did not specifically object to the concept of assassinating Castro.

Absent a declared war, I would not support a campaign of sabotage and terrorism to bring down a government.

Remember Nixon's advise to JFK after the Bay of Pigs, simply find some reason to go in, and send in the troops and get rid of the Castro regime. No pretensions; no lies; no sabotage or terrorism. The US had "handed" Cuba to Castro, based on his promise of democracy and free elections. His breach of those promises was reason to remove him. (And the ironic thing is that if Castro had held an election early on, he probably would have won overwhelmingly.)

So, Pat, I do not support sabotage and terrorism to bring down Castro. That was Operation Mongoose, and while one can debate the Kennedys' knowledge of the assassination plots, Mongoose was clearly a Kennedy program fully supported and pushed by RFK.

Back to the main point, however: I disagree with you that anyone would have believed that the Russians had killed Fidel. Had Fidel ever died mysteriously, everyone would look at either the CIA or anti-Castro Cubans. I do not necessarily assert that the plot to kill Castro and blame Russians was ever contemplated by someone, but if it was, it was a crazy idea that would never have worked.