Tim Gratz

I concur that the targeting of a political leader (or a military leader, for that matter) might sometimes be justified in a time of war but otherwise not at all. One can conceive of a situation when moral considerations could justify an exception, e.g. if the foreign leader was, clearly, engaging in genocide and his elimination could save thousands of innocent lives. (In American law, one can kill a third person if that person is about to kill another person, and few would doubt the morality of that.) But we do enter a "slippery slope" if we entertain killing of foreigners other than in a war situation. With respect to the Castro assassination plots, it is my understanding that some (but certainly not all of the plots) contemplated killing Fidel, Raul and Che. When we recently lifted the ban on assassinations, I wonder if the law imposed any restraints, or did it give the CIA unlimited discretion in this regard? (God forbid!) Anyone familiar with the actual law?

Shanet: I wish you would quote the "reductive and dismissive phrase" you refer to being applied to Epstein. I hope it isn't anything you think I said, as I admire Epstein's work and consider him to have wrestled with complexities that are difficult to read, let alone write. Let me repeat yours and Epstein's public service by emphasizing that the deMorenschildt information has never received proper scrutiny. If there is anything in the morass of JFK assassination material of which I'm sure, it is that deMorenschildt was Oswald's Dallas handler, and that his White Russian (czarist) connections lead directly to both the CIA and the local Big Oil magnates. As with the Angleton-Nosenko business, the Trafficante-Castro relationship has been confused and largely unrecognized. I'm going to cite an obscure source regarding the anti-Castro plots run through Trafficante, The Last Mafioso, by Jimmy Fratianno. I hope that quotes of bad language will not offend: "Roselli's blue eyes hardened. 'Jimmy, I'm going to tell you something you won't believe.... This whole thing has been a scam. Santo [Trafficante] never did nothing but bullxxxx everybody. All these f***ing wild schemes the CIA dreamed up never got further than Santo. He just sat on it, conned everybody into thinking that guys were risking their lives sneaking into Cuba, having boats shot out from under them, all bulls**t....' Roselli shook his head. 'All for nothing. What a terrible waste of a lifetime opportunity. Imagine, Jimmy, if we'd knocked off Castro. Think of the power....'" [pgs 235-236] Years later Joseph Shimon would tell the Church Committee that "as far as Maheu was concerned it was 'Johnny's contract.' As for Giancana, Shimon said that the Chicago Mafia boss had told him that 'I'm not in it, and they [the CIA] are asking me for the names of some guys who used to work in casinos.... Maheu's conning the hell out of the CIA." [pg 236] After Giancana was murdered in 1975, Roselli noted, "You remember Joe Shimon, don't you? He was with us on the Castro plot, former Washington police inspector. We've talked about Sam's murder, the three of us were close, and he thinks Santo [Trafficante] made a deal with Castro. Remember when Santo was jailed and they grabbed his money when Castro came into power, then suddenly he was released with all his money? Shimon thinks he's a Castro agent spying on Cubans in Florida. Sam shared that suspicion. That's why Santo sat on his ass and did nothing with all that sh*t we gave him. He was probably reporting everything to Castro's agents, and Miami's full of them." [pg 390] There is evidence that some kind of relationship did exist between Trafficante and Castro which allowed Trafficante to run drugs through Cuba. The question of what Castro received in return has merit. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent post! I am inserting below portions of an article by investigative journalist George Crile (posted in another thread by George Crile) re a possible link between Castro and Trafficante: "The most intriguing theory was proposed by the CIA's deputy inspector general, Scott Breckenridge, to a Senate staff member. Breckenridge, who had been responsible for investigating the CIA-Mafia plot, maintained that Trafficante had been providing Castro with details of the plot all along. "But why would Santo Trafficante, of all people, do this? One possible explanation is proposed in a July 21, 1961, report on Trafficante by the. Federal Bureau of Narcotics: "There are unconfirmed rumors in the Cuban Refugee population in Miami that, when Fidel Castro ran the American racketeers out of Cuba and seized the casinos he kept Santo Trafficante Jr. in jail to make it appear that he had a personal dislike for Trafficante when in fact Trafficante is an agent of Castro. Trafficante is allegedly Castro's outlet for illegal contraband in the country." "The report goes on to summarize contradictory reports on Trafficante's relationship with Castro but because of its date, the allegations quoted are of great interest. Back in 1961, the Mafia's anti-Castro credentials were impeccable. The informants relied on by the narcotics agents may have been wrong in their conclusions, but it is hard to think of a possible self-serving motive for fabricating such a story. "There are other indications that there may have been some working arrangement between Castro and the mob. Several reliable witnesses - most notably Grayston Lynch, who was a senior case officer with the CIA in Miami for eight years - assert that during the crucial early 1960s Castro relied on Cuban Mafia contacts for much of his intelligence in the exile community. And once again Santo Trafficante emerges as a central figure, for Castro is reported to have paid off his Mafia agents through the Florida numbers racket - Bolta - which Trafficante runs. "Here another Bureau of Narcotics report - this one prepared by agent Eugene Marshall - is instructive: ' . . . Fidel Castro has operatives in Tampa and Miami making heavy Bolita bets with Santo Trafficante Jr.'s organization. The winning Bolita numbers are taken from the last three digits of the lottery drawing in Cuba every Saturday night.' According to this report, prior to the drawing, these operatives communicate with Cuba and advise which numbers are receiving the heaviest play. The Cuba lottery officials then rig the drawing . . ." According to this report and others, Castro's agents wore robbing Trafficante or a large share of his profit. The Narcotics Bureau was afraid that, if Trafficante's Bolita operation were ruined, he would concentrate even more on the drug trade. "But Trafficante was in an even better position than the feds to know about raids on his profits. Had he chosen to, he could have solved the problem overnight by shifting the payoff numbers from the Havana lottery to the weekly dog races in Miami, as he finally did to the late 1960s. If, then, these reports are to be believed, Trafficante’s Bolita may have served as one of the pad masters to the Cuban intelligence network in the United States." Given the many sources that link Trafficante to the Kennedy assassination (including his recorded statement and alleged confession to his attorney re his involvement) (and his organization's link to the Rosselli murder) the implications of a Castro-Trafficante link (combined with a Trafficante-Cubela link) cannot be easily dismiised.

Richard D. Mahoney’s Sons and Bothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby is a great book. I suspect he got a lot of the information via his father who worked for JFK. I believe he was part of the William Attwood/Lisa Howard network. I think he is right about Cuban intelligence as well. The question is, why have they been very selective about the material they have released on this subject (via Fabian Escalante)? I emailed him and told him that my page on him was ranked first at Google. I also asked him to join the forum. He did not reply. Maybe he thought I was working for the CIA. CIA? No, John, with your Spartacus membership # (007) and nationality he must immediately realized that you were working for British intelligence! Seriously, I sometimes wonder if some of our American spooks (and even JFK) were adversely influenced with respect to assassinations by the James Bond glamor and the "license to kill" mentality. Remember when Bill Harvey was introduced to JFK, JFK reportedly said in disbelief: "You're our James Bond?"

In a 1999 interview on CSPAN, Richard Mahoney, the author of Sons and Bothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby, had an interesting answer to a question: Q. Mr. Mahoney, while researching for your book, did you ever feel in danger? A. Yes, for reasons that are better left alone. One thing that I will say is that my research in Havana indicates that Cuban intelligence at the time had a very extensive view of the conspiracy. CNN, August 20, 1999. An interesting, if cryptic, comment. I also understand that Steve Rivele felt fear and left some potential leads unfollowed when he was researching the Christian David story. It would be interesting to determine if the fear was a "feeling" or was somehow communicated. Unfortunate no law enforcement agency is apparently willing to follow some of the newly discovered "leads".

I assume almost every one of the members is familiar with the "McCone memo" that recently surfaced, but I have not seen it discussed here and would be interested in opinions re: 1) if it is genuine or not; and 2) if genuine, what is its significance? Link didn't seem to work. You can get it if you go to Page 2 of the Seminar: Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" and click on the link there. Sorry. (A good memo by Walt Brown.)

Taking your last thought first: we ought to prosecute both, shouldn't we? But if we catch the trigger man, law enforcement often bargains its way up, and I agree this is a defensible strategy to prosecute those ultimately responsible. Parenthetically, I have appreciated your posts and your law enforcement training gives you the training and credentials to comment knowingly on many of the issues. From my reading of Rosselli, I think he was probably intelligent enough to plan the assassination (but I am not yet sure if he did). Have you read the magisterial biography of Rosselli by Rappleye and Becker? And Mahoney in Sons and Brothers states that Giancana brought Rosselli in to orchestrate the Chicago mob's rigging of the 1960 election. Giancana realized he needed Rosselli's intelligence to supervise the Outfit's "get out the vote" efforts. (JFK would have won the election without Illinois, but not without Illinois and Texas.) Rosselli was known as the "Kissinger" of the mob for his intelligence. He wsas one of two men who helped construct the Tropicana Hotel. I do not believe Rosselli was involved in the ridiculous plots you mention: those were the brainwork of Lansdale and Fitzgerald. When I read of the various schemes they concocted, I wonder, what were these guys thinking? Rosselli was involved in giving CIA poison to Cubans who were to slip it into Castro's food or drink so his death would not even be considered a murder and the killer would escape with his life. The problem, as I see it, is that Rosselli was getting his Cubans from Trafficante who, I believe, was reporting to Fidel. I am also not sure I agree with you re LHO. Whether there was one Oswald or two, one was fluent enough in Russian to discuss Russian literature in fluent Russian, an indicia that he was more intelligent than he was often given credit for. It is possible LHO was a genuine Castro supporter but anti-Castro Cubans manipulated him to shoot Kennedy by pointing out to him, for instance, Castro's remarks to the AP reporter on September 7, 1963. Two staff counsel for the WC wrote a memo suggesting this possibility but, of course, it was never pursued. This scenario assumes that the ongoing Cubela affair was merely coincidental. This scenario could occur if LHO was a lone shooter or if the planners added shooters to complete the job if Oswald missed. Your thread about missing evidence is quite persuasive, however, re LHO's actual participation. The unfortunate thing, of course, is that both pro and anti Castro Cubans had reason to want Kennedy killed - so it is possible that the person(s) who did the killing were being manipulated by persons with a diametrically opposite agenda.

I think it merits some discussion under what circumstances assassination is ever proper. To avoid using loaded words, the question is perhaps best asked whether the killing of a person for a "political" motive is justified. Per most moral ethicists, if a killing is morally justified it is not murder. A second topic meriting discussion is even if a killing of a foreign head of state is morally justifiable, is it worth the risks (e.g. retaliation). The retaliation could involve more than a retaliatory killing. It was, after all, an assassination that triggered the First World War. First, I want to coment on the CIA plots to kill Castro. A killing endorsed or supported by an agency of a government stands on a different footing than a killing by a private citizen. For instance, it involves legal as well as moral considerations. For instance, the killing of a foreign head of state is clealy an act of war and the constitution limits to Congress the right to start a war. Common sense says that a president can respond to an emergency (i.e had the Russians ever shot their missiles at us, obviously the president then in power would not have waited for congress to respond). But there was no emerency that prevented Eisenhower or Kennedy from seeking congressional approval for actions against Castro. A far more different question is whether the killing of a foreign head of state is justified in the context of an ongoing war. As we know, Allen Dulles was involved in a plot to kill Hitler. Since the killing of a head of state in a war would presumably shorten the war, an argument can be made that the killing of a foreign head of state in a war that is otherwise morally justified should be considered. Of course, Richard Bissell used the Hitler argument to overcome Robert Maheu's initial moral objections to the idea of killing Castro. As I recall, however, Bissell even talked to Maheu about killing Hitler prior to the start of World War Two and his argument may have been more directed to preventing the loss of lives of American soldiers by preventing a war than to preventing the Holocaust. I do not think we should have tried to assassinate Castro. But even if one discounts the legal and moral objections it was an astoundingly bad idea for the CIA to involve elements of organized crime. Not only did that decision invite blackmail, it seems morally outrageous to enter an alliance with brutal killers. Tim Carroll agrees with me that some of the intelligence reforms of the mid seventies were an over-reaction to the CIA abuses of the mid 1960s. He also states that the recent intelligence reforms may have gone too far in relaxing the restriction on assassination. He may very well be right about that. I do not agree with the theory that a rogue element of the CIA killed JFK (in part because I think LHO may have been working for US intelligence and if so his sponsor would not have set him up as a patsy). I think it is possible that anti-Castro Cubans did it, and framed Oswald, believing he was indeed a Castro supporter. If so, their plot may have been advanced by the CIA's introduction of the criminal element into the war against Castro. I also think (as you know) that the assassination may have been a defensive (not retaliatory) action by Castro. In either event, we paid dearly for a decision initiated by a CIA bureacrat to adopt murder as an instrument of our foreign policy.

Shanet: Those are pretty good sources; from your time in Massachusetts? I hope you'll read my earlier post on this thread from earlier today (Post #24). I really worked at trying to provide detailed, thoughtful responses to Tim Gratz's stuff. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim your post #24 was thoughtful indeed and I agreed with a lot of stuff in it. In fact, I want to start a separate thread on assassination as an instrument of foreign policy: is it ever justified? But I'm going to (some day soon) respond to your post #24 in this thread.

Dawn: First, you misspelled "valiant". Second, it is interesting that you would characterize the "Brehznev did it" theory advanced by Trento (no CIA apologist) without reading his book. You find any books that do not fit your pet theory as a waste of time. IMO, anyone who is not willing to consider all of the evidence is NOT really interested in discovering who killed JFK and why. I suppose it was merely a coincidence that Cubela 1) refused to take a polygraph test; 2) demanded to receive assurance that his plan to "eliminate" Castro had the personal support of RFK; 3) met with Kostikov in Mexico City; and 4) had ties to Santo Trafficante (who was recorded on an FBI tape as saying "Now only two of us know (who killed JFK)." It was a coincidence that Trafficante was funding Castro's intelligence agents in the US through rigged bolita games and was, per several sources, running drugs into the US through Cuba. It was a coincidence that Jack Ruby visited Trafficante in Trescornia and was, by some reports, instrumental in obtaining Trafficante's release. It was coincidental that Trafficante was the only mafioso involved in the CIA/mafia plots to die a natural death. It was also just a coincidence that Castro and a large entourage of his closest advisers spent four plus weeks in Moscow shortly after Cuban exiles sank a Soviet freighter in Havana harbor. It was a coincidence that several Cuban exiles on a mission to kill Castro were captured in Cuba in late 1963 and confessed that the CIA put them up to it. It was a coincidence that Gilberto Lopez left Key West for Trafficante's home town of Tampa around this same time; and that Lopez was in Texas on November 22, 1963 and was the lone passenger on a Cubana airlines flight from Mexico City to Havana on Nov 27, 1963. And the fact that an independent expert determined (blindly) that Nosenko's polygraph indicated deception when he answered "No" to the question: "Was Oswald a KGB agent" means nothing (since it contradicts your pet theory). I respectfully submit that anyone who truly cherishes the memory of JFK ought to be interested in seeking the truth behind his murder even if it conflicts with a preconceived theory. To not even be willing to consider evidence to the contrary (i.e. don't waste your time reading books by educated, experienced investigative journalists) suggests a mind closed to truth-seeking.

I don't know but I assume it was because he was working with Garrison and Garrison's first theory was that the assassination was planned at No Name Key, and Billings was trying to get info from Dunkin re the No Name Key group. But I will try to check this issue with Mr. Winslow. I have followed your interest in Billings and you're certainly correct that he was actively involved in a lot of things. I heard an interesting comment by Josiah Thompson on the CSpan transcript of Jin Lesar's seminar on the 40th anniversary of the WC. He said people had accused him of being a CIA plant because he had been involved with Life magazine but he pointed out that Life magazine was the first major media organization to question the findings of the WC and suggest a conspiracy. He said Life magazine would have loved to be able to "break the case" and solve the crime of the century. I want to publicly ratify a comment by a previous member (cannot remember the source) that you have assembled such a group of people that maybe, just maybe, this Forum may help "break the case". I think it is important that you have people with different outlooks and perspectives because I believe truth can sometimes best emerge from forthright debate!

Here is Gordon Winslow's comments on Whatley and the entire No Name Key operation (from his 12/09/2004 e-mail to me_: First off Whatley was never arrested by Diosdado, ever. (BTW, I talked with Hambright about Diosdado. He knows of him but has nothing on him. His understanding is the same as mine on the CIA down in the Keys. Talk to him. He knows a lot.) Dick was not there when the 13 were busted. In reference to Hathcock, GPH knew DW was friends with Hathcock and DW may have introduced GPH to Hathcock but DW was in California when Gerry went to Hathcock. Whatley NEVER, repeat NEVER was in Guatemala training anyone. He knew nobody by the name Bernardo de Torres and had no information on any Torres and Cubans. DW was NEVER with DEA nor MI. He was deputy sheriff from 1970-1976 under a Torres out west somewhere but it wasn't Bernardo. This may be the confusing undocumented link to any Federal Departments. What is this about "cells" and "covert work"? The truth is that those people were just a bunch of guys trying to do something they had more-or-less been trained for by serving in the regular military. He, Whatley, has always been secretive in order to be successful on No Name or any where else. (he was the only permanent member of the group who lived on No Name and was in charge of the camp only; Davis was second to Hemming in the overall operation and was in charge of requisitioning food and supplies; Hemming is whatever he says he was on any given day but mostly the group leader and outside contact person. Hargraves was there only for photo shoots, spending most of his time in Miami) The simple fact is that they accomplished very little, none of them were involved in the Kennedy thing (so they tell me) and as a group they were about as cohesive as a "handful of sand". Even Hemming stumbled and stammered in Dallas some years ago when I confronted him about the JFK airport security. None of the others I have talked to remember it, not Davis, not Kolby and not Whatley. Only Hargraves agreed with GPH but then only to say "he knows it better than I do". Hey, look at it practically. Jerry had gotten him a free ride to where we talked to them and free meals. Would you disagree with the person feeding you? I came to believe that anything Hargraves sais were the words and thoughts of Hemming. I never talked to him one on one but rather talked to Hemming so the story was not diluted any further. He wasn't Sturgis' right-hand man. Whatley was one in a group of about 30 who respected and followed Sturgis. (I have a different slant on Sturgis in case you don't know. I knew of him and knew of me but I would never talk to him knowing anything he said would be questionable and he knew that.) When Sherry and I drove to No Name last January with two of the men who were there, they kept asking us what the big intrigue was about at No Name. I tried to explain what I thought and told them it was my personal opinion, but they kept shaking their heads. They repeatedly said they were doing the best they could to eat and sleep while helping the Cuban cause for free (no payment). They said if GPH said they were being paid, they never saw any of it. Another told me "I have heard and or read very little truth but an enormous amount of garbage about what we did or didn't do, individually or in a group. Gerry and his author friend accounts for a great deal of this" I think this is a reference to Weberman here. People do not understand Weberman as I do. I have known him since Fonzi introduced me to him during the HSCA hearings. I helped him with some of Cuban "suspects". I credit him for getting my involved with the JFK assassination people. Much of my in-depth Cuban research had been done before I ever heard of a Cuban-JFK connection, del Valle for one example. As for Kolby, he cannot recall much these days. All he remembers in great detail is jumping into the channel up stream from the Wooden Bridge fish camp and swimming over for a Pepsi. If you have any specific questions, please let me know. I will try to answer them. Remember. Things are as they appear unless there is PROOF to the contrary. I try to stick to this way of thinking. Gordon

Here is an interesting 1967 memo from Tom Dunkin to Dick Billings re the No Name Key group. Comes from Gordon Winslow's web-site. From the date of the memo I surmise that it might have been when Billings was working with the Garrison investigation. It covers things that are discussed in several other threads. Notice in the second to the last paragraph Hall is quoted as saying with respect to JFK '"that son of a bitch ought to be shot". It is not quite clear when he made the statement but, arguably, in the summer of 1963. IMO, this statement, which may seem damning considering the time frame, should perhaps be considered exculpatory. My reasoning: presumably the assassination plans were already in place and included elaborate arrangements to frame a patsy. If Hall were in fact a part of a conspiracy, one would think the last thing he would be doing would be expressing an opinion that "JFK should be shot". But read the memo. Lots of interesting info, but perhaps not much new to the experienced members of this Forum. http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_076-100/doc0090.html

Come on, now, Tim: one conspiracy at a time! But: see http://www.killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html Had you seen this before? (Boy, I checked the link and it is not where I was trying to go, but for now, I'll leave it as it is. Try it!)

"Watergate" was about far more than the Watergate burglary, of course. It was about the burglary of Ellsberg's psychiatrist; the Plumbers; the Segretti dirty tricks operation, etc. But it was the arrest of the Watergate burglars that led to the discovery of the abuses. Conspiracy theorists have long wondered whether McCord deliberately botched the taping of the door to sabotage the operation. But why? Perhaps it was at the behest of his former (?) employer, the CIA. Probably you are all aware of the books Secret Agenda by Hougan and Silent Coup by Colody. I recently ran accross an article that succintly summarized the thesis of Hougan's book and I was going to just type (process?) that paragraph, but I think the entire article is worth reading, and it discusses some of the same topics that have been discussed here, e.g. Bobby Baker. http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/sex.html The paragraph about why McCord may have deliberately botched the burglary at the instructions of the CIA is in the paragraph that starts: "Briefly, Hougan's hypothesis is this:" (Quite a way into the article). The Colody book follows Hougan's and argues that John Dean orchestrated the coer-up to protect his fiancee. Both are interesting reads, although they probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand--other than, if Hougan is correct, demonstrating once more the nefarious ways of the CIA. * * * * * What is the famous quote about how often male members of the species think about sex? Well, I guess when members of this Forum are not thinking about sex, they are thinking about who killed Kennedy!

Jim is of course right, 9/11 is more important than the assassination of JFK. However, I would justify this research with the claim that they are both part of the same conspiracy. By discovering what happened in 1963 will help us understand what is going on now. The only real reason for the study of history is that it is really about finding out about the present. The role of the historian is to show the connections between these events. The start of this worldwide conspiracy began in the 17th century. It was at this time that people began demanding universal suffrage. They were only a small minority but they were highly dangerous people. Their ideas were based on something Aristotle said: “When quarrels and complaints arise, it is when people who are equal have not got equal shares.” Inequality is the source of all conflict. It became clear to a few individuals that they only way you were going to obtain an harmonious society was to create one based on equal rights. The ruling elites were horrified by this idea. It posed a direct threat to the wealth and privileges they enjoyed. They knew that any truly egalitarian society would redistribute wealth and power. Therefore it was decided by ruling elites throughout the world that they would have to use this power to suppress this desire for equality. For hundreds of years they had distorted the teaching of Jesus Christ to justify inequality. Only occasionally had religious figures like John Ball and George Fox emerged to question this philosophy. However, it had not been too difficult to suppress the ideas of these people. The 17th century caused particular problems for the ruling elites. The reason for this was the development of mass produced forms of communication. It was now possible for just a few to communicate with a very large number. Those few divergent thinkers who obtained an understanding of how the system worked, naturally became interested in communicating this to a wide audience. They became writers and publishers. Therefore, to maintain control, the ruling elite had to take control of all forms of mass communications. Those who refused to be censored (or bribed) had to be punished severely. The desire for democracy became very closely linked to the struggle for freedom of expression. The radical journalist became a key figure in this struggle. One man who was involved in this battle was Henry Hetherington. His name has been airbrushed out of history but when he died thousands of people attended his funeral. In 1831 Hetherington began publishing a newspaper called The Poor Man’s Guardian. Above the title was the words: “Knowledge is Power”. It became the slogan adopted by all those fighting for democracy. People like Hetherington realised that for their dreams to be realised, they had to compete with the ruling elites for the minds of the people. Those in favour of democracy and freedom of expression had many victories but the ruling elite always won the war. They were always had the power to adapt the reforms that took place to their own advantage. Some countries even had revolutions. Most notably in France and Russia. These were only short-lived affairs and in essence involved one ruling elite replacing another ruling elite. These revolutions were then used to prevent the emergence of true democracy in other countries. Those seeking radical reform were accused of being followers of foreign revolutionaries. The examples of these revolutions inspired some but frightened a great deal more. Not surprisingly, most people questioned the wisdom of revolutionary action when they always resulted in a great deal of bloodshed followed by the betrayal of the ideas that had inspired the revolution. Understandably, the idea of gradual reform was considered to be a far better option. The problem was that these reforms were always undermined by the unequal distribution of power and wealth that continued to exist in these societies. Money was therefore used to corrupt political leaders. This eventually became built into the system. To gain political power you had to raise a considerable amount of money. The people who provided this money wanted something back in return. This meant control of party policy. In some cases, this money was linked to government action that favoured a particular company or industry. During the 1930s a new development emerged. After the Second World War it became known as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC). Other countries had other names for this new phenomena. In some countries in the western world it never even acquired a name but it always took place. The basic idea behind the MICC is that the country is threatened by an ideology. For most of the 20th century this ideology was communism. The actual ideology is not in itself important as long it can be associated with a foreign power. To defend yourself against this ideology you need to spend a great deal of money on armaments. This money should be given to particular companies in the form of government contracts. To ensure they got these contracts these companies paid large sums of money to the politicians and the political parties responsible for granting these contracts. In a true democracy this corrupt system would never have survived. Although in theory every adult in the western world has the vote, that does not matter as long as the ruling elite kept control of the means of communication. In some countries they used crude methods such as the state control of the television industry. In the west more sophisticated methods of shaping the minds of electorate were used. This system worked very well until the election of John F. Kennedy. Not that he was elected with a commitment to destroying the MICC. He might not have been aware of it in 1960 and was probably confused by Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech as president when the term Military Industrial Complex for the first time (Eisenhower dropped the word Congressional from the original speech written by Malcolm Moos). In 1960 JFK was a Cold War warrior who was fully convinced by the need to spend a large sum of money defending the “free world” from communism. In fact, during his presidential campaign he criticised Eisenhower and the Republican Party for not spending enough on armaments. No, JFK was a problem because he was independently wealthy. He had not been one of those drawn into the MICC network of corruption. Therefore there was the danger that JFK might want to dismantle this system once he found out about it. However, this was considered to be highly unlikely. Lyndon Johnson, the central figure in the MICC, was confident that JFK could be dissuaded from taking such action. It would not have been an issue if it had not been for Cuba. It was the conflict with this small island that revealed to JFK the problems of the MICC. The key event was the Cuban Missile Crisis. As far as the public was concerned this event had resulted in a diplomatic triumph for JFK. He had emerged from the crisis as a heroic cold war warrior. JFK knew differently. He was aware of just how close the world had come to nuclear war. JFK had come to the conclusion that the MICC and the Cold War had brought the world to the edge of extinction. This in itself would not have changed most politicians. But JFK was not a typical politician. He was an intellectual. He thought deeply about things. He decided it was his responsibility to bring an end to the Cold War. However, he could not do this openly. JFK knew he would be destroyed by the media if he made it clear what he was doing. He was also aware that the MICC would never allow him to openly enter into such negotiations. If he was going to do this, it would have to be in secret. During the summer of 1963 JFK began to use a few key figures such as William Attwood and Lisa Howard, to set up these secret negotiations. Unfortunately, JFK did not know about the key role played by the CIA in the MICC. It soon became clear that JFK would have to be removed from office. The conspiracy was a great success. The MICC had virtually full control over all forms of mass communication in America. There were some brave people, mainly journalists, who tried to explain to the people what had taken place. However, it was not too difficult to portray them as communist agents or from suffering from some form of mental illness. When that failed, as in the case of Dorothy Kilgallen and Lisa Howard, these people had to be murdered. The MICC emerged from the JFK crisis virtually unscathed. The next crisis for them came in 1989. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe caused serious problems for the MICC. Surely the people would start demanding a reduction in military spending now that the main enemy had lost its power base. Most people would now realise that these obscene sums of money should be spent on improving the quality of life of the less fortunate members of society. Was it not to logically to spend most of this money on education, health care, pensions, etc.? If the power of the MICC was to continue, a new enemy had to be discovered. However, this was a problem. The military power of the United States was such that no country would take them on. It took them some time before they realised who this new enemy would be. Eventually they came up with the idea of the Muslim Fundamentalists. This was ideal as they did not think in the same ways as previous enemies had. They were willing to die for the cause. They were the only ones who would be willing to physically attack America. This had to happen because otherwise people would have begun to question the need to spend so much on defending the country. I am not saying that 9/11 was organized by the MICC. In fact, I believe this is highly unlikely. However, it was not in their interests to stop it happening. It is for this reason that the CIA missed all those clues. As with the JFK assassination, the intelligence services pleaded guilty to incompetence rather than complicity. The main link between the assassination of JFK and 9/11 is that it was the MICC who benefited. That could be a coincidence. Or it could be evidence that they were both events in the same conspiracy. The conspiracy to prevent the world from achieving democracy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very interesting post, John. Deserves great reflection! I cannot believe that the CIA, or our government, had knowledge of 9/11 and let it happen. However, I remarked on a different thread that I think the restrictions placed on the CIA as a result of the Church Committee revelations about theCIA assassination plots most likely impeded the CIA's ability to discover the 9/11 plot. Kennedy was indeed an intellectual, I've discovered that reading some biographies of JFK (books not concentrating on the assassination). What comes to my mind (from memory only) is JFK's writings as a journalist regarding the founding of the UN. I am confident that you are correct that, as an intellectual, he learned a lot from the Cuban missile crisis when the world teetered on the brink of apocalypse. It is also true, I think, that the threat of nuclear war constrained leaders in both the US and the Soviet Union, which prevented the Cold War from becoming WWIII (and bought the time necessary for the collapse of Communism). * * * * I had this thought (again it is on another thread but I'd like to repeat it): I doubt that JFK could have achieved passage of the civil rights bills pending at the time of his death, but LBJ was able to get them passed in large part because of the "good will" engendered by JFK's assassination. The civil rights bills (of both 1964 and 1965) helped to transform American society for the better, although we certainly still have a long way to go. The enfranchisement of blacks by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 certainly was a significant step toward a more democratic America. So whether JFK's death was at the hands of a lone nut (well, a few people still cling to that) or a conspiracy guided by persons not yet identified, it was not in vain but, as tragic as it was, there was some good that flowed from it. That, I think, helps make him truly a martyr.

But which are you arguing? Was the authorization of assassination as a foreign policy tool initiated by the Eisenhower administration, employing Mafia killers, the cause of retaliation, or was the discovery and subsequent outlawing of that foreign policy tool the cause of 9/11? I recognize that both arguments are not mutually exclusive, but misplaced within a single-topic paragraph. I posted a note before you got here that the well-educated idiot (well, the policy was idiotic if not lunatic) who first authorized the use of the Mafia to kill Castro (for $150,000 in taxpayer funds) was Richard Bissell, a Kennedy supporter. To say "initiated by the Eisenhower administration" sounds like Eisenhower himself authorized the assassination plots while most historians believe he was not aware of them (although Allen Dulles endorsed them after the fact). But the assassination of Castro was first suggested (apparently) to Bissell by Barnes, who was relaying a recommendation made by E. Howard Hunt, a Republican. The assassination attempts continued under the Kennedy administration. So it makes no sense, really, to insert partisan politics. Let us assume that Truman was right that "the buck stops here" and attribute the plots to both Presidents, regardless of their knowledge thereof. It was as wrong for the Kennedy administration to continue the plots as it was for the Eisenhower administration to initiate them. It was not the outlawing of assassinations that led to the CIA's failures with respect to 9/11, but rather other restrictions placed on the CIA as a result of the Church Committee revelations. The assassination plots may or may not have led to Kennedy's death. Castro certainly had motive right up until Novembe 22, 1963, but motive alone does not prove culpability. I think it fair to say, however, that the assassination plots may have led to Kennedy's assassination. And the restrictions put on the CIA as a direct result of the revelation of the plots not only against Castro but also against Lumumba (killed during the Eisenhower administration) and Trujillo (killed during the Kennedy administration) certainly impeded the CIA's ability to discover the 9/11 plots. As you know, there is a legal adage: "Hard cases make bad law." IMO, some of the intelligence "reforms" imposed in the mid seventies were "bad law" caused by the "hard case" of the CIA's assassination polts in the early sixties. And, I submit, even though the CIA's endorsement of political murder was bad enough, I think it was the CIA's employment of the Mafia that really shocked the Congress (even though dapper Rosselli charmed the Church Committee while telling it nothing its members did not already know).

I do not, in ad hominem style, reject Trento's argument based upon any presumed ideology. Trento was a key player in the Liberty Lobby lawsuit with Hunt, cited in my seminar. My disagreement is with the presentation of the argument, put into Trento's mouth, herein. I don't consider his interpretation to be as one-dimensional as has been presented. As for the idea that when, "Helms authorized Fitzgerald to meet in Paris with Cubela, claiming to be Robert Kennedy's personal emissary, he may (Tim: I said "may") have been signing President Kennedy's death warrant," I will, and have gone further and acknowledged the possibility that the Cubela operation did have Bobby's approval. I do not agree that Castro had an "imperative" to strike back. Khrushchev and Kennedy had to work together to circumvent the hardliners in their own governments. There is no mistaking that JFK took significant steps, openly recognized by Castro in the backchannel negotiations involving William Attwood and Lisa Howard, as well as the French journalist emissary Jean Daniel, that JFK was in a difficult position with regard to stopping operations which he had previously supported. The arrests at No Name Key aren't being ignored here I hope. "Castro had the strongest motive to kill Kennedy" only if you consider him stupid or suicidal. You say: "Castro's motive exists whether or not Kennedy was aware of the plots." That makes no sense, especially amongst sophisticated people who understand that a government is not of one spirit. You said, "Kennedy was the chief executive of the country whose intelligence service launched numerous murderous attacks against Castro." There can be no denying that. Kennedy's secret war against Castro during the period between the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis was deserving of a quid pro quo action. So when you ask: "Will you agree that much? That Castro had a strong motive," I answer yes, he had a strong motive, prior to the invocation of the Neutrality Act and the measures taken by Kennedy, well known by Castro, following the Missile Crisis. The mixing time frames to scapegoat the Soviets in 1963 is disinformational. Trento, to my reading, doesn't consider the Soviets to be of a singular nature anymore than he considered the United States to be such. I go so far as to acknowledge that even the brothers Kennedy may have diverged, albeit altruistically. So now that we're debating in the open, what sense am I to make of your statement: If the CIA plots against Castro have no relevance to the assassination, perhaps the CIA was justified in failing to disclose them to the CIA? Switching from one-dimensional analysis to whatever the above statement implies, is convenient, if not disinformational. If the CIA was not single-minded, and had divergent factions, why would Castro feel an imperative to kill Kennedy, "whether or not Kennedy was aware of the plots," as you say? Especially if, as the record shows, he considered Kennedy's efforts to turn off the plots and provocations (the Soviet freighter in March, 1963) as sincere. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim: Have you read Trento's book? He devotes several pages to the proposition that a faction in the KGB, supported by Leonid Brehznev, orchestrated the assassination of JFK followed by the ouster of Khruschev. Like I said, he even names KGB agents involved in the decision. Read his book! (Please.) Then let me know what you think. You know if I did not value your thoughts I would not waste my time engaging in this discourse. I'm not sure if you understand my point that it matters not whether JFK or RFK personally endorsed the Cubela operation, so since you are clearly very intelligent I apologize for not making myself clear. Cubela tells Castro (not directly, presumably, but we will abbreviate here) that a CIA official tells him that Cubela's plan to kill Castro has the enthusiastic support of RFK. Neither Cubela or Castro have reason to believe that Fitzgerald was lying. Therefore, Castro has reasonable grounds to believe that JFK has personally endorsed and supports his murder. So, one of two possibilities exist: the Kennedys were both unaware of the Cubela plot but the CIA gave Castro (through Cubela) the reasonable grounds to believe that they were; or, the Kennedys were aware of the Cubela plot and when the CIA told Cubela that RFK personally endorsed the plot, it was a true statement. Whether the statement was true or not, Castro reasonably (underscore reasonably) believed it to be true. So Castro thinks: JFK is approaching me (through a good looking lady at first) with "peace feelures" while he is at the same time (the same time!) plotting my demise! What a great fellow! If Castro reasonably thought JFK had endorsed Cubela's stated intent to kill him, how the heck could he consider JFK's "peace feelures" as "sincere" (as you put it)? If JFK was indeed aware of the Cubela operation, it is difficult to characterize the peace feelures as "sincere". Unless it was JFK's theory that we would resolve our differences with Castro either by negotiation or by murder, whichever occurs first! How did the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis remove Castro's motive if the plots to kill Castro continued thereafter (as we know they did). Forget about the politics of this for a minute. Tom Smith thinks John Doe is trying to kill him. On September 7, Tom Smith tells John Doe, if you continue to try to kill me, I might have to retaliate. Tom Smith sends a man to John Doe who offers, for a price, to kill Smith for Doe. Doe says great, do it! Tell you what, I'll devise a weapon so you can kill Smith and get away with it! On November 22, Doe is found dead. Is Smith a natural suspect in Doe's murder? Well, that's obvious. Is it a defense that Smith says, Well, Doe was telling me let's resolve our differences (while at the same time he was trying to hire my killer and supply him with a weapon)? Of course not. What is the adage: actions speak louder than words! Castro had a motive as long as the US continued its efforts to kill him. Those efforts were active on November 22, 1963. As you know, it is not necessary to prove motive to prove a murder case, but motive is certainly a valid factor in a murder investigation. Understand by making this argument I ought to sound not like a "right-winger" as much as a Castro apologist! And let me get this out of the way: it cuts beyond politics. In once sense, the actual plot to kill Castro (and engage the Mafia to do so) started with Richard Bissell. Do you know who Bissell supported for President in 1960? And let's look at some other players: Robert Maheu was a Nixon supporter but his buddy Sam Giancana was a Kennedy supporter. So the efforts to kill Castro, as misguided as they were, had bipartisan support!

The decision of the CIA to involve the Mafia in the Castro assassination plots must surely rank near the top of the worst decisions ever made by a government bureaucrat. I'm not sure if Rosselli himself was a murderer, but reportedly his buddy Giancana had personally authorized over 200 murders. In his memoirs, Robert Maheu says (words to this effect) he liked Giancana because he was a good cook! So the Mafia guys were good cooks and drinking buddies, so what if they were brutal murderers? And the proposition that the CIA could withhold from the Mafia the true sponsor of the plots was as absurd as believing the CIA could stage the Bay of Pigs invasion but disguise U.S. involvement therein. This may or may not be stretching things, but I think a plausible case can be made that the CIA assassination plots resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Why? Because the revelation of the assassination plots by the Church Committee led to the imposition of legislatively imposed institutional controls on the CIA that probably hampered the CIA's ability to infiltrate terrorist organizations. And it is certainly possible (underline "possible") that the CIA assassination attempts against Castro led to the assassination of JFK. So, one way or the other, we paid dearly for a bureacrat's decision to utilize murder as an instrument of our foreign policy.

Just for purposes of clarification, the Dec 1962 raid on No Name Key was organized by the Miami Customs Office but Diosdado did participate in it. I have personally looked at the newspaper report from the Key West Citizen re the raid. It was not a Diosdado operation, although he may very well have supplied the info to Miami Customs.

The Mexico City Oswald does not serve as an argument "against CIA involvement in the assassination" unless one assumes that the agency is perfectly coordinated with no rogues running loose. And if the CIA had nothing to hide, it would not have had reason to destroy the audio tapes, which also "may very well argue against KGB involvement," as Tim Gratz says. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that a "rogue CIA agent" who had the smarts to plan the assassination and cover-up would have been aware of the sophisticated CIA surveillance techniques in Mexico City so it would have been foolhardy at best to send in an Oswald imposter. If LHO was a CIA agent (not sure where you stand on that one) it is possible the LHO trip to Mexico City was a CIA mission unrelated to the assassination, providing the CIA with a motive to destroy the tapes. I don't want to get too speculative, but it is even possible (possible) the CIA was trying to smuggle a trained assassin into Cuba under LHO's name (and known pro-Castro sympathies). Alternative suggestion: the imposter was an anti-Castro Cuban with some previous connection to the CIA so the tape erasure was to avoid CIA embarrassment. Regardless of why the tapes were destroyed (and there are numerous possible explanations), no CIA rogue agent smart enough to plan the assassination would be stupid enough to believe he could, with impunity, send an imposter into the Cuban or Soviet embassies. Now this is just a joke, so relax (and it may be a stupid joke but I throw caution to the winds: If Sen Church had been a Republican, would we be talking about "rogue donkeys" rather than "rogue elephants". Seriously, anyone know where the term originated? Did Church just make it up? Finally, Tim: can you name the investigative reporter who first broke the story that E. Howard Hunt was (may have been?) in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963?

"Who did it" is not a function of political philosophy, other than if one wants to "pin" the assassination on the CIA to advance a left-wing agenda. But as I tried to explain, the "KGB did it" ultimately lays the blame on the CIA in any event. When, even after Castro's warning, and despite the expressed concern of several high-ranking CIA agents that Cubela may be an agent provocateur, Helms authorized Fitzgerald to meet in Paris with Cubela, claiming to be Robert Kennedy's personal emissary, he may (Tim: I said "may") have been signing President Kennedy's death warrant. IMO, to reject the KGB argument as "right-wing" is tantamount to commiting the logical fallacy of ad hominen: to reject an argument because of the person who makes it. But Trento is by no means a "right-winger": the last time I looked at his web-site (pre-election), his columns sounded like Michael Moore. To say Trento's argument is "disinformational" suggests you believe he is deliberately spreading misinformation. For whom? The CIA hates his book. And at the risk of repeating myself, the "KGB did it" is not, in the light of all we now know, a "right-wing" argument. It lays the responsibility for the assassination ultimately on the CIA for launching multiple murder plots against Castro, giving Castro, or his sponsor, an imperative to strike back. If the CIA plots against Castro have no relevance to the assassination, perhaps the CIA was justified in failing to disclose them to the CIA? Come on, let's debate. Castro had the strongest motive to kill Kennedy (self-defense). (Castro's motive exists whether or not Kennedy was aware of the plots. Kennedy was the chief executive of the country whose intelligence service launched numerous murderous attacks against Castro. Will you agree that much? That Castro had a strong motive. Any disinformation there?

Good, interesting post. Important that we consider all the possibilities. According to the book The Very Best Men by veteran Newsweek columnist Evan Thomas, there was another man besides LHO (or his impersonator) who met with Kostikov in Mexico City. That man's name? Rolando Cubela. I think Mexico City is a key to the assassination. Reportedly, it was not LHO but an impersonator (or a second Oswald) who spoke with Kostikov in Mexico City. If so, that fact argues against CIA involvement in the assassination (since a CIA agent would be aware of the CIA's sophisticated photo and electronic bugging of the Russian embassy). It may very well also argue against KGB involvement. Parenthetically, on the History Matters web-site you can find an interesting, partially redacted, CIA history of its activities in Mexico City. It was the version the CIA gave to the HSCA. I have not yet had the opportunity to read it but a cursory review suggests it merits examination. Mexico City is one reason why I would reject theories of Southern racists or the MIC as the planners. IMO, Mexico City suggests either KGB (witness Cubela's contact with Kostikov) or anti-Castro Cubans (i.e. someone sending in an imposter without being aware of CIA surveillance). If (and it is a big if, admittedly) one credits polygraphs, Nosenko's responses to the 1966 CIA polygraph examination suggest that LHO was a KGB agent. As John once said, maybe he was a triple agent!

Tim, How many plugs for the Trento book does that make now? Enough that those who are reading here who haven't already read it, have seen your - strident - recommendation of it. Apparently you have more than read the book; you believe it. The KGB did it, right? Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it's two, on two different threads. I would just like assassination researchers ought to read his book (have you?) and consider his proposition. He names names, etc. And, as I said, Trento is certainly no apologist for the CIA, nor is he a right-winger. (Check out all of the anti-Bush stuff on his web-site.) I would like to know the source of his information. When I first got to Key West I was amazed that there is a Mosquito Control Board (the weather here is great but the mosquitoes are terrible!) that is elected on a partisan basis, as if there is a partisan difference in how to spray to kill mosquitoes. It is, I submit, equally absurd to elect coronoers (or sheriffs, for that matter) on a partisan basis. Law enforcement ought to be above politics. So should assassination research, if the objective is to indeed solve the assassination rather than to propound a "party line" or political philosophy. If the KGB did it, it was undoubtedly because of our country's continued efforts to kill Castro and our continued sabotage against the Cuban economy. One can probably argue until the cows come home whether JFK knew about the CIA's continued efforts to kill Castro. One thing we do know, for sure, however, that on October 29, 1963 a high-ranking CIA official assured a high-ranking member of the Castro regime (who many people think may have been an agent provocateur) that his intent to murder Fidel had the personal support of Robert F. Kennedy. (And you know as I do that Helms authorized Fitzgerald to make this representation without first clearing it with Robert Kennedy.) Less than a month later Robert's brother was dead. Castro had the strongest motive, I suggest, of any that have been propounded here, to strike at Kennedy: not retaliation, but self-defense. And if Cubela was indeed an agent provocateur, Castro waited until he had evidence (whether correct or not) that the Kennedys had authorized a member of his cabinet to kill him. Many people think Trafficante had involvement in the assassination. As I said before (in a different thread) Trafficante was visited in Trescornia Prison in 1959 (on separate occasions) by two people whose names come up in the assassination story...Rolando Cubela and Jack Ruby. It does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots! Are there alternative theories? Of course. In a different thread, I argued that if southern racists were behind the assassination, they were dam stupid because the assassination probably resulted in the passage of civil rights legislation that would not otherwise have passed. But the southern racists may have misread LBJ and may have been as surprised as black leaders were by his adoption of the civil rights legislation. And anti-Castro Cubans may have been enraged by Kennedy's secret attempt to reach out to Castro (if they were aware of it). They may have engineered the assassination to prompt an invasion of Cuba. One other thing we do know, however, is that of the various possible motives suggested above, the only one that did not in fact backfire was Castro's. This observation may not be of any evidential value in assessing who killed Kennedy, but it is interesting nonetheless. I want to reiterate, however, that in my humble opinion, assassination research ought to be predicated on a search for truth. Solving a murder is no more a partisan quest than is killing mosquitoes.

Clearly, Jackie was aware of her husband's mutual and shared concerns with Khrushchev about the problem of containing their respective hardliners. The secret correspondence and backchannel contacts between Kennedy and Khrushchev have been some of the most tightly classified documents from that era. Beschloss notes that, "the President wished his communications with Khurshchev...to be classified into eternity." Bobby's friendship with, and trust in Georgi Bolshakov was genuine. The construction of the Berlin Wall (which removed Berlin as an inevitable nuclear trigger) and the secret deal to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis were both products of these backchannel communications. The reactions of the military to both resolutions was deep resentment, even resistence. Months after the Wall went up, there was the military-provoked tank standoff at Checkpoint Charlie, again resolved through the back channel. And then we have LeMay's comment after the Missile Crisis, when Kennedy was thanking the JCS, the cigar chomping general pounded the table and said, "It's the greatest defeat in our history, Mr. President.... We should invade today." Richard Nixon claimed that Kennedy had "enabled the United States to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory." How would they have felt had they known of Kennedy's secret capitulation in the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Turkey? Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I recommend that Forum members read and at least consider the views stated by Joseph Trento in his book The Secret History of the CIA (a book denounced on the CIA's official web-site, by the way) that a hard-line clique within the KGB orchestrated both the Kennedy assassination in Nov of 1963 and the coup in Oct of 1964 that removed Khruschev from power in the Soviet Union. It must be remembered that there were hard-liners in the KGB that did not like the Kennedy-Khruschev peace initiatives any more than hard-line militarists in the U.S. did. I had long thought it interesting that within a year after Kennedy was killed, Khruschev was gone too (albeit bloodlessly). Coincidence? Probably. But then again, maybe not. . .