The CIA attacks the Education Forum

[John Simkin]

It seems that we have upset the CIA. The latest edition of “The Intelligencer: Journal of US Intelligence Studies” includes an article by Don Bohning attacking members of this forum. Bohning is a former journalist with the Miami Herald. According to a declassified CIA document, Bohning received his Provisional Covert Security Approval as a CIA confidential informant on August 21, 1967 and then the Covert Security Approval itself on November 14th. On July 31st, the DDP himself approved the use of Bohning in the CIA's Cuban operations." He was given the code-name AMCARBON-3.

In an article published on 6th August 2007, the journalist, David Talbot, argued that AMCARBON was the cryptonym that the CIA used to identify friendly reporters and editors who covered Cuba. For example, Bohning's colleague at the Miami Herald, Al Burt, was AMCARBON-1. Talbot found a declassified CIA memo dated 9th April, 1964 that showed that the CIA’s covert media campaign in Miami aimed “to work out a relationship with (South Florida) news media which would insure that they did not turn the publicity spotlight on those (CIA) activities in South Florida which might come to their attention...and give (the CIA’s Miami station) an outlet into the press which could be used for surfacing certain select propaganda items.”

In his article, “Distorting History” Bohning states:

While some websites are reliable and valuable research tools, others can be tendentious advocates for a point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view.

One need look no further for the latter than two websites based in Great Britain, run by John Simkin, a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party.

The two sites, www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk and a related, but badly misnamed, website called the Education Forum, are obviously more interested in promoting a political agenda than providing facts. Focusing on a purported conspiracy in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, they are riddled with factual errors.

It is interesting that Bohning begins his article with a McCarthyite smear about me being “a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party.” Bohning does not name this “militant leftwing organization”. Nor can he - because it is not true. The only political party that I have been a member of, is the Labour Party, an organization, that as Bohning admits, is not a left-wing organization.

The main focus of the article concerns my articles and the Education Forum threads on Operation 40. He also refers to my accusations that Carl Jenkins and Rafael Quintero were involved in the assassination of JFK. In the article he reveals that he has interviewed Jenkins, Quintero, Tom Clines and Porter Goss (CIA director from 2004-2006) about these accusations. These interviews results in Jenkins and Goss revealing details of their CIA activities. This is strange as previously Jenkins and Quintero refused to talk to me about these accusations as it was illegal to reveal details of their CIA work. It really does seem that we have rattled the cages of some important figures in the CIA.

I will look at the specific issues raised by Bohning on the relevant forum threads referred to in the article.

http://afio.com/22_intelligencer.htm

http://afio.com/assets/INTL_TableOfContents.pdf

[William Kelly]

It seems that we have upset the CIA. The latest edition of "The Intelligencer: Journal of US Intelligence Studies" includes an article by Don Bohning attacking members of this forum. Bohning is a former journalist with the Miami Herald. According to a declassified CIA document, Bohning received his Provisional Covert Security Approval as a CIA confidential informant on August 21, 1967 and then the Covert Security Approval itself on November 14th. On July 31st, the DDP himself approved the use of Bohning in the CIA's Cuban operations." He was given the code-name AMCARBON-3.

In an article published on 6th August 2007, the journalist, David Talbot, argued that AMCARBON was the cryptonym that the CIA used to identify friendly reporters and editors who covered Cuba. For example, Bohning's colleague at the Miami Herald, Al Burt, was AMCARBON-1. Talbot found a declassified CIA memo dated 9th April, 1964 that showed that the CIA's covert media campaign in Miami aimed "to work out a relationship with (South Florida) news media which would insure that they did not turn the publicity spotlight on those (CIA) activities in South Florida which might come to their attention...and give (the CIA's Miami station) an outlet into the press which could be used for surfacing certain select propaganda items."

In his article, "Distorting History" Bohning states:

While some websites are reliable and valuable research tools, others can be tendentious advocates for a point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view.

One need look no further for the latter than two websites based in Great Britain, run by John Simkin, a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party.

The two sites, www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk and a related, but badly misnamed, website called the Education Forum, are obviously more interested in promoting a political agenda than providing facts. Focusing on a purported conspiracy in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, they are riddled with factual errors.

It is interesting that Bohning begins his article with a McCarthyite smear about me being "a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party." Bohning does not name this "militant leftwing organization". Nor can he - because it is not true. The only political party that I have been a member of, is the Labour Party, an organization, that as Bohning admits, is not a left-wing organization.

The main focus of the article concerns my articles and the Education Forum threads on Operation 40. He also refers to my accusations that Carl Jenkins and Rafael Quintero were involved in the assassination of JFK. In the article he reveals that he has interviewed Jenkins, Quintero, Tom Clines and Porter Goss (CIA director from 2004-2006) about these accusations. These interviews results in Jenkins and Goss revealing details of their CIA activities. This is strange as previously Jenkins and Quintero refused to talk to me about these accusations as it was illegal to reveal details of their CIA work. It really does seem that we have rattled the cages of some important figures in the CIA.

I will look at the specific issues raised by Bohning on the relevant forum threads referred to in the article.

http://afio.com/22_intelligencer.htm

http://afio.com/assets/INTL_TableOfContents.pdf

John,

Will you post the entire article when you get it?

Also note that our friend Joe Goulden, who made up Lee Harvey Oswald's FBI informant number, is also a contributor to the Intelligencer.

I like the idea of the AFIO Ted Shackley Chapter in Florida.

You don't have to be an ex-agent to enlist in AFIO, anybody can join.

John, why don't you start the AFIO Kim Philby Chapter?

Maybe I'll start the AFIO Ed Wilson Chapter.

Bill Kelly

Edited April 20, 2009 by William Kelly

[John Simkin]

Will you post the entire article when you get it?

I will try to find time later today to post the complete article (and references).

[Pat Speer]

Assuming the tone of Bohning's article is much the same as his earlier article on Max Holland's website, I'm not so sure if I read Bohning's article as an attack, per se, as much as a warning to spooks and friends of spooks that they should stay away from this forum. He came here, after all, in hopes of convincing us the anti-Castro Cuban community had nothing to do with Kennedy's death. He even went so far as to try and convince us that Operation 40 had nothing to do with assassinations. Having failed to convince anyone of the innocence of his friends' and colleagues, however, he went running to Max Holland crying that John Simkin is a leftist meanie who won't swallow what he's fed.

I think Don has a case of MelAyton-itis. He thinks forums like this are fine as long as everyone agrees with him. When people persist in disbelieving what he's selling, however, he gets upset and runs for the hills...

I wonder if The Intelligencer would accept a response... When Bohning wrote his article for Holland, I found a few documents demonstrating why one should believe Op 40 had an assassination capability. If I recall, I found one of these docs on the CIA's own website, dated just days after the Bay of Pigs. I believe these are all mentioned on an earlier thread on the earlier article. One should wonder then if Bohning is still playing his already-debunked card--that he recently spoke to some members of Op 40 and they say they had no assassination capability--which would have to be considered self-serving tripe in light of the earlier documents and testimony stating the exact opposite.

[John Dolva]

Interesting. Given that the CIA is by nature conspiratorial, and it's reasonqable to assume they are not all idiots, any puplic output from them has a purpose. Seldom this purpose is clearly apparent, but rather part of a larger strategy that the eventual result, rather than their overt actions such as this article, is of significance in understanding what they're up to. Absent reading the article in full, there seems to be an attempt to create an atmosphere around certain issues and persons. What purposes may this serve? Focus? Are the CIA suddenly overt all over? Doubt it. What is distracted away from as a consequence of the article? Are there global issues that this forms part of their charter to perpetuate the ruling status quo, whoever that may be, by any means?

[Guest Tom Scully]

Don Bohning,

If you're reading, I remind you that this is an education forum. We do not post curse words because the material here is intended to be read by school aged children. Unfortunately, your former colleagues, it would seem, have committed obscenities and profanities against humanity. What is it you are dedicated to defending and upholding?

I submit your propaganda talents are urgently needed elsewhere. Your brethren in the CIA have got much bigger problems to face, down the road, than the members of this forum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/mi...0cia&st=cse

April 18, 2009

Divisions Arose on Rough Tactics for Qaeda Figure

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — The first use of waterboarding and other rough treatment against a prisoner from Al Qaeda was ordered by senior Central Intelligence Agency officials despite the belief of interrogators that the prisoner had already told them all he knew, according to former intelligence officials and a footnote in a newly released legal memorandum.

The escalation to especially brutal interrogation tactics against the prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, including confining him in boxes and slamming him against the wall, was ordered by officials at C.I.A. headquarters based on a highly inflated assessment of his importance, interviews and a review of newly released documents show.

Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, “seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect.”

C.I.A. officers adopted these techniques only after the Justice Department had given its official approval on Aug. 1, 2002, in one of four formerly secret legal memos on interrogation that were released Thursday.

A footnote to another of the memos described a rift between line officers questioning Abu Zubaydah at a secret C.I.A. prison in Thailand and their bosses at headquarters, and asserted that the brutal treatment may have been “unnecessary.”

Quoting a 2004 report on the interrogation program by the C.I.A. inspector general, the footnote says that “although the on-scene interrogation team judged Zubaydah to be compliant, elements within C.I.A. headquarters still believed he was withholding information.”

The debate over the significance of Abu Zubaydah’s role in Al Qaeda and of what he told interrogators dates back almost to his capture, and has been described by Ron Suskind in his 2006 book, “The One Percent Doctrine,” a 2006 article in The New York Times and a March 29 article in The Washington Post asserting that his disclosures foiled no plots....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

April 19, 2009

Editorial

The Torturers’ Manifesto

To read the four newly released memos on prisoner interrogation written by George W. Bush’s Justice Department is to take a journey into depravity.

Their language is the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history. They detail how to fashion a collar for slamming a prisoner against a wall, exactly how many days he can be kept without sleep (11), and what, specifically, he should be told before being locked in a box with an insect — all to stop just short of having a jury decide that these acts violate the laws against torture and abusive treatment of prisoners.

In one of the more nauseating passages, Jay Bybee, then an assistant attorney general and now a federal judge, wrote admiringly about a contraption for waterboarding that would lurch a prisoner upright if he stopped breathing while water was poured over his face. He praised the Central Intelligence Agency for having doctors ready to perform an emergency tracheotomy if necessary.

These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.

It sounds like the plot of a mob film, except the lawyers asking how much their clients can get away with are from the C.I.A. and the lawyers coaching them on how to commit the abuses are from the Justice Department. And it all played out with the blessing of the defense secretary, the attorney general, the intelligence director and, most likely, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Americans Civil Liberties Union deserves credit for suing for the memos’ release. And President Obama deserves credit for overruling his own C.I.A. director and ordering that the memos be made public. It is hard to think of another case in which documents stamped “Top Secret” were released with hardly any deletions.

But this cannot be the end of the scrutiny for these and other decisions by the Bush administration.

Until Americans and their leaders fully understand the rules the Bush administration concocted to justify such abuses — and who set the rules and who approved them — there is no hope of fixing a profoundly broken system of justice and ensuring that that these acts are never repeated....

...The abuses and the dangers do not end with the torture memos. Americans still know far too little about President Bush’s decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans — a program that has since been given legal cover by the Congress.

Last week, The Times reported that the nation’s intelligence agencies have been collecting private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale that went beyond the broad limits established in legislation last year. The article quoted the Justice Department as saying there had been problems in the surveillance program that had been resolved. But Justice did not say what those problems were or what the resolution was.....

...In the case of detainee abuse, Mr. Obama assured C.I.A. operatives that they would not be prosecuted for actions that their superiors told them were legal. We have never been comfortable with the “only following orders” excuse, especially because Americans still do not know what was actually done or who was giving the orders.

After all, as far as Mr. Bush’s lawyers were concerned, it was not really torture unless it involved breaking bones, burning flesh or pulling teeth. That, Mr. Bybee kept noting, was what the Libyan secret police did to one prisoner. The standard for American behavior should be a lot higher than that of the Libyan secret police....

.....That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.

These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.

After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people both. His decision to release these memos was another sign of his commitment to transparency. We are waiting to see an equal commitment to accountability.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Tom Scully

[William Plumlee]

It seems that we have upset the CIA. The latest edition of “The Intelligencer: Journal of US Intelligence Studies” includes an article by Don Bohning attacking members of this forum. Bohning is a former journalist with the Miami Herald. According to a declassified CIA document, Bohning received his Provisional Covert Security Approval as a CIA confidential informant on August 21, 1967 and then the Covert Security Approval itself on November 14th. On July 31st, the DDP himself approved the use of Bohning in the CIA's Cuban operations." He was given the code-name AMCARBON-3.

In an article published on 6th August 2007, the journalist, David Talbot, argued that AMCARBON was the cryptonym that the CIA used to identify friendly reporters and editors who covered Cuba. For example, Bohning's colleague at the Miami Herald, Al Burt, was AMCARBON-1. Talbot found a declassified CIA memo dated 9th April, 1964 that showed that the CIA’s covert media campaign in Miami aimed “to work out a relationship with (South Florida) news media which would insure that they did not turn the publicity spotlight on those (CIA) activities in South Florida which might come to their attention...and give (the CIA’s Miami station) an outlet into the press which could be used for surfacing certain select propaganda items.”

In his article, “Distorting History” Bohning states:

While some websites are reliable and valuable research tools, others can be tendentious advocates for a point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view.

One need look no further for the latter than two websites based in Great Britain, run by John Simkin, a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party.

The two sites, www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk and a related, but badly misnamed, website called the Education Forum, are obviously more interested in promoting a political agenda than providing facts. Focusing on a purported conspiracy in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, they are riddled with factual errors.

It is interesting that Bohning begins his article with a McCarthyite smear about me being “a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party.” Bohning does not name this “militant leftwing organization”. Nor can he - because it is not true. The only political party that I have been a member of, is the Labour Party, an organization, that as Bohning admits, is not a left-wing organization.

The main focus of the article concerns my articles and the Education Forum threads on Operation 40. He also refers to my accusations that Carl Jenkins and Rafael Quintero were involved in the assassination of JFK. In the article he reveals that he has interviewed Jenkins, Quintero, Tom Clines and Porter Goss (CIA director from 2004-2006) about these accusations. These interviews results in Jenkins and Goss revealing details of their CIA activities. This is strange as previously Jenkins and Quintero refused to talk to me about these accusations as it was illegal to reveal details of their CIA work. It really does seem that we have rattled the cages of some important figures in the CIA.

I will look at the specific issues raised by Bohning on the relevant forum threads referred to in the article.

http://afio.com/22_intelligencer.htm

http://afio.com/assets/INTL_TableOfContents.pdf

I do not know why you are getting so upset about this.... when I posted on your forum years ago...I told the forum members then this forum was being monitored... I was repeatedly attacked on this forum from many sources after I posted information abou OPS 40, the Beckley Street Address and the Dallas Cubans, military Intell Operations of Dallas and a host of other secret and classified information..... My computer was taken in a brake in of my house and I was called a xxxx by people on this forum... and I was reported dead for awhile... no body on this forum came to my aid... and nobody looked into the information I provided... In short I was classified as a nut in reference to the JFK mess... Well now you have it The CIA has monitored this forum as well as others for a very long time now... I used to use this forum to communicated with them... and I told you this many times... you stoped communication with me because you fell for their crap... I just wanted you to remember you lost a good source as to secret ops over many years... I don't have time to edit this and nobody reads it anyway... those boys have moved on to other matters, because there is nothing to see on this forum... you have been compromised. tosh plumlee

[Pat Speer]

Tosh, a I recall, the main person attacking you was Gerry Hemming. My take on Gerry was that he liked attention but wanted to protect HIS friends in the anti-Castro movement, while casting suspicion on others. Are you now asserting that Gerry was attacking you on behalf of the CIA? I'm just trying to understand.

[David Andrews]

Come back, Tosh!

[John Dolva]

Two twin towers full of 13,000 children fall down every 1-2 hours every day, 24/7, all year, dying of totally preventable causes such simple as lack of clean water, medicine that we in the first world can buy over the counter, lack of food.... That is the real world. Everyone needs to be aware of this, yet two towers of 3000 odd people working to gather wealth (ie supporting the system that leads to this disparity) fall down, and the world goes apexxxx.

That's what the media focuses on.

If it was to turn its attention to the real tragedies, and people doing so as a consequence, then perhaps the real perps of all the ills of the world would be there for all to see. But no, aint gonna happen. Business as usual.

For the forum to effectively continue the revealing lively discussions going on and to stand out (so that even the CIA brings it to the table) it must continue to live up to its dedication to not using the MO's of the establishment re censorship yet must have an ethics based stance preserved by John and Andy.(IMO).They are the managers here, they make the decicions. They deserve our support.

[Pamela Brown]

Well, John, I think you must be doing something right to attract such attention. Good job!

[John Dolva]

Well, John, I think you must be doing something right to attract such attention. Good job!

What would this be? What attention? My posts are seldom responded to. I'm nobody in the grand scheme of things.

[Guest Tom Scully]

If Don Bohning was correct about John and his "leftist" agenda, or in any of his other accusations aimed at John and the forum, (this is not the first time Bohning has taken aim at John:

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/06/simkin.html )

....I wonder how Bohning would characterize John's recruiting effort here, as far as what it indicates about John's "agenda". In the 14 months between Nov. 1, 2007, and Jan. 1, 2009, just 58 new members were admitted to the http://educationforum.ipbhost.com .

If John truly wanted his forum to be a target worthy of the formidable surveillance resources of Bohning and his CIA pals, wouldn't it follow that John would be engaged in packing the membership roles here with "leftists" and other subversive types, all intent in carrying out some sinister agenda designed to further denigrate the reputation of the CIA?

I submit that this has already happened, and without any help from John Simkin or the members of his forum. Last time I looked, it seemed that Tenet, Goss, Foggo, and now Hayden all had one thing in common.....an appalling lack of credibility:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ions/index.html

....Beyond those generalities, I think the significance of Obama's decision to release those memos -- and the political courage it took -- shouldn't be minimized. There is no question that many key factions in the "intelligence community" were vehemently opposed to release of those memos. I have no doubt that reports that they waged a "war" to prevent release of these memos were absolutely true. The disgusting comments of former CIA Director Mike Hayden on MSNBC yesterday -- where he made clear that he simply does not believe in the right of citizens to know what their government does and that government crimes should be kept hidden-- is clearly what Obama was hearing from many powerful circles. That twisted anti-democratic mentality is the one that predominates in our political class. .....

The political payback treatment of CIA employee Valerie Plame by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and the non-reaction of the CIA itself, to the executive branch sanctioned outing and abuse of Plame, added further to diminish what was still intact after the self inflicted damage to the agency of the four CIA executives named above.

It may be convenient to portray John Simkin and his membership as targets of interest of the CIA, but it is also kind of pathetic, in view of the circumstances and the CIA's own recent history,

[John Simkin]

....I wonder how Bohning would characterize John's recruiting effort here, as far as what it indicates about John's "agenda". In the 14 months between Nov. 1, 2007, and Jan. 1, 2009, just 58 new members were admitted to the http://educationforum.ipbhost.com .

We used to have an open door policy but found that this attracted people who used the forum to abuse other members. This was especially true of racists, in fact we were infiltrated by a very unpleasant anti Arab, pro-Israel group. We therefore decided that members would have to provide real names, biographies and photographs. This has restricted the number of people joining. It has even led to accusations that the Education Forum was a CIA operation that was trying to keep track of members of the research community.

What the CIA would be concerned about is not the size of the membership but the number of page views. If you type into Google the names of CIA agents you will see how highly ranked the relevant pages on my website and the forum are. That is why the children and grandchildren of people like Bernardo de Torres and Carl Jenkins have pleaded with me to remove comments from my pages on them.

[Gil Jesus]

If the official version of John Kennedy's assassination were true, there wouldn't be any need for monitoring or attacking people who didn't believe it.