Nathaniel Heidenheimer

I think the physical evidence, though often quite convincing, is not the most convincing evidence of governmetn coverup. In particular the FISA applications and the blocked FBI investications, and the sheer number of international warnings.. Also scheduling such a high number of wargames AT THE PRECISE TIME OF THESE WARNINGS. The sheer amount of evidence on the international diplomatic fronts and itelligence bureacracy fronts are far more suggestive of an inside job possibility than the physical evidence line of argument. One goal of disinformation might be to set the weakest foot forward first! Please note that I am not accusing any researcher of this, just suggesting the possiblity of this type of disinformation.

Excellent brief new interview with Paul thmpson of 9/11 Timeline by Randi Rhodes http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/Ran...ORAD_080206.mp3

Look again. Bailyn and Gordon Wood do write about the colonists "paranoia" in thinking the English parliament was out to get them. Hit the texts O glib, filmy one!

Bailyns' cool, man, but wasn't he essentially saying that the American Revolutionaries were "conspiracy theorists" i.e. that they approptiated the language of the British "outs" ie the Tories and their denunciations of Walpoles Namby Pamby use of patronage to gain control of Parliament.? Couln't the "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" be seen as an essay on the historical significance of what some might label "paranoia"?

Mark: Russel is one of my heroes too. His Man who Knew too much is definitely in my top two JFK books. We might find that we agree on a lot of the facts surrounding the case. What we seem to disagree with is the use of the term" paranoid style" with all of its baggage to describe the dabate on the assassination. I think that the more one knows about Cold War propraganda history during this period the more PROBLEMATIC this "parnoia "rhetoric becomes. But bluntly a hell of lot of our tax dollars have been spent muddying to deliberately muddy the watters. Fun books to read on this topic are Christopher Simpson The Science of Coercion(1994) He is a history prof at American Universityl this book is about how the ideology of the Cold War affected a new academic discipline called Communications. The CIA and Culture: by Francis Saunders (New Press, 2001) She writes about how the CIA began funding left of center publications like Encounter magazine so that they could play the role of left gatekeepers--not her term. She documents meticulously how the CIA funded Encounter through the rockefeller and Ford Foundations. Mr. Berlett is funded by these fortifications of reason too. AND WHAT DOES THAT PROVE Why nothing. I heard mr B. on an episode of Democracy Now, precisely the type of forum where readers of Saunders book might expect left gatekeeping to occur. He appeared as a guest respondednt to David Ray Griffin,, after Amy Goodman had received lots of pressure to finally have Griffin on her show. Of course Griffin was not told beforehand that Berman would be on and Berman had the advantage of preparation. Mr. Bermans" presentation was very unimpressive. He chose to not address any of Griffin's presentation of the facts, and to call him names that essetially screamed "I can sound more middle class than you". Finally Hoffs's rash jumping around from puritan times to the cold war is absurd. Does he take the degree of secrecy of government as an unchanging constant. Does he admit that at times governmental decisions are made with greater secrecy than at other times in history? Does he think the entire budget of the CIA and other Cold War intelligence agencies has been for the propagation of Tiddly Winks? These are variables that cold war academics were encouraged not to consider. (read No Ivory Tower about the falsly named McArthyism in the Universities.) Probably I sound 77% patronizing by recomending these books. But they're good family entertainment. you can recommend some too if your in the mood.

Thanx Andy. Had never heard of that one. Most of my paradoxes are unnamed and manifest themselves in evolutionary spelling. It sounds like that one would definitely be kept out by Homeland Security!

Mark, cant tell if you are a fan of Hoff. or not. Probably you will take this as a complement, because this is what we are taught is "objectivity" these days. I am very distrustfull of the label "parnoid style" unless this description involves annalysis of the communications environment of politics. Those who agree with government narratives (any governments, but ESPECIALLY ours during post war global uptic) have a tremnous ease provided them. They are always provided with facts connected to more facts on all channels, so that when they go to the watter cooler at work they KNOW that Joe "knows" the basics, and that is the basis, the starting point, for discussion. Almost any challenge to these state sanctioned views is subject to scattershot quotation, straw-dog treatment and simply being ignored by the practically-state-sponsored-treatment. If the proponent of these views is very lucky this treatment will rise to corporate villification and mockery. To define anything as "Paranoid" or "Conspiratorial" is very problematic, unless one includes a discussion of how democratic-- as in open to dissent, and disagreement with the river-like flow of governement narrative-- the media is in that particular country and historical period. In most cases oposition views are destroyed by the media doing their job: NOT MEDIATING a potentially enlightening discussion between various viewpoints. Any description of a "paranoid style" that does not take into question this epistomological crap, is, in the end, higher namecalling.

This "paranoid style of american politics" is very typical of the cold war elitism among liberals in the United States during the 1950s and early 1960s. It went hand in glove with another book that was all the rage among liberal intellectuals, The End of Ideology by Daniel Bell. Bell essentially argued that the role of ideology in poltics was through, because the era of the technocrats and had superceeded it, making class conflict no longer relevent. This period coincided with the working class getting paid better, and the greatest rise in social mobility in U.S. history. Labor historyian Daniel Lichtenstein, in a book about Walter Reuther, described what he called the "Treaty of Detroit": the 1950 General Moters' contract with the UAW. In essence, the union gave up on all the more radical shop -floor co-management demands of the 30s and 40s in favor of more pay-- lots more pay. Of course this lead to greater worker passivity, Union leaders flying to Bocca, and eventually Jimmy Hoffa type shenanigans, that were far removed from the rank and file's ken. Later critics of Bell argued that his end of ideology was very ideological, because it tried to supercede opposing ideologies like Marxism , in a world system called modernization. They argued that the most effective ideologies are invisible, disguised as laws of nature or science. These critics pointed to U.S. defeat in Vietnam as the moment when this whole "end of ideology argument" become most visible as a distinct ideology. A failed one. Bell's book was published in 1960. It shares with Hoffstadter's view a basic distrust in the political capcities of the average citizen. Critics have also connected it to the "top-down" approach of liberal reforms of the 1960's, and to reasons why these reforms failed. Although I have never read Francis Fukiyama's book "The End of History and the Last Man", which came out around 1991, it sounds similarly triumphalist. Perhaps we are now beginning to see the falacies of Fukiyama's triumphalism, just as Vietnam tought some of us the mistakes in Bell's.

This new book published by University of Kansas might be of interest re Mockingbird. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/newbysubject.html

1. John Newman in Oswald and the CIA, claims that Hosty at Dallas FBI did not have the correct address of Oswald after he moved to New Orleans in April, 1963 for about four months. Newman states this was the exact time period when Lee was using the Hidell name in New Orleans? But Newman also states that other FBI offices did have Oswalds new New Orleans address, and shows that it would have been very easy for Hosty to get it, had he simply checked with previously utilized FBI contacts at the Dallas Post Office. Do you agree with Newman's belief that Hosty was deliberately being left in the dark regarding Oswald's David Atlee Phillips connected machinations with the fake FPCC in New Orleans? If so, what is the purpose of this obfuscation? Was it so the Dallas FBI would not have to inform the Secret Service of "local kooky individuals" -- in this case Oswald's persona as a pro Castro activist-- prior to the JFK trip to Dallas a year later? Am I getting too far ahead of myself chronologically, here? If this is not the reason, what was? 2. Newman (p.209, 210 Oswald and the CIA) writes "the FBI was bifurcating its oswald material at the Bureau and in Dallas int two compartment at each locations. The material collected under the catiion "Funds Transmitted to Russia" went into the 100 file at the Bureau and into the 105 file at Dallas; the rest of the Oswald material went into the 105 file at the Bureau and into the 100 file at Dallas. Is is important to keep this detail in mind because this patern, begun in 1960, persisted into 1961." My question: do you think there a correlation between this "bifurcation" of Dallas FBI files and a similar "bifurcation" of Oswald's CIA files, in particular use of 201 permanent files, 201 "soft file" and 100 file? Might this in some way be related to differences in access to FBI records on Oswald between Win Scott in Mexico City, on the one hand, and Angleton, Helms, Karamessines in Langley on the other? (?) This question is probably quite bovine, but its not easy studiing Oswalds files with ADD So please explain your alternative interpretation of the above facts, so that I can make head or tail of things. John Simkin: please terminate my other thread with at least inspired prejudice, on account of the topic title is wrong.

1. John Newman in Oswald and the CIA, claims that Hosty at Dallas FBI did not have the correct address of Oswald after he moved to New Orleans in April, 1962 for about four months. Newman states this was the exact time period when Lee was using the Hidell name in New Orleans? But Newman also states that other FBI offices did have Oswalds new New Orleans address, and shows that it would have been very easy for Hosty to get it, had he simply checked with previously utilized FBI contacts at the Dallas Post Office. Do you agree with Newman's belief that Hosty was deliberately being left in the dark regarding Oswald's David Atlee Phillips connected machinations with the fake FPCC in New Orleans? If so, what is the purpose of this obfuscation? Was it so the Dallas FBI would not have to inform the Secret Service of "local kooky individuals" -- in this case Oswald's persona as a pro Castro activist-- prior to the JFK trip to Dallas a year later? Am I getting too far ahead of myself chronologically, here? If this is not the reason, what was? 2. Newman (p.209, 210 Oswald and the CIA) writes "the FBI was bifurcating its oswald material at the Bureau and in Dallas int two compartment at each locations. The material collected under the catiion "Funds Transmitted to Russia" went into the 100 file at the Bureau and into the 105 file at Dallas; the rest of the Oswald material went into the 105 file at the Bureau and into the 100 file at Dallas. Is is important to keep this detail in mind because this patern, begun in 1960, persisted into 1961." My question: do you think there a correlation between this "bifurcation" of Dallas FBI files and a similar "bifurcation" of Oswald's CIA files, in particular use of 201 permanent files, 201 "soft file" and 100 file? Might this in some way be related to differences in access to FBI records on Oswald between Win Scott in Mexico City, on the one hand, and Angleton, Helms, Karamessines in Langley on the other? (?) This question is probably quite bovine, but its not easy studiing Oswalds files with ADD So please explain your alternative interpretation of the above facts, so that I can make head or tail of things. Oh crap. I would like to edit the title of this thread, as I was initially going to include stuff about ONI but ended up taking it out. The new title of this thread should read The Bifuracation of Dallas FBI files: Was this Coordinated with the CIA's use of 201 and 100 files to send mixed signals? If any editor on high could do this i'll send them a quarter.

Thanks for that article. Fascinating! In a weird way it reminds us how NEW the CIA was. Today you would never see an article like this that distinguishes so stongly between the CIA and the regular military. But the CIA was only created in 1947. It was like a brash teen after a childhood of free reign under Ike. Because of its relative youth Kennedy may have felt that he could control it, a feeling that no president would have today. We know Kennedy wasn't the only one who thought the CIA was going beyond its charter. What's surprising is how strongly this sentiment is expressed in a newspaper article!

Gee Brandan Intersting Cartoon. I wonder which of the guys spends 51% of ALL GLOBAL MILITARY SPENDING? Is it the guy with the boxing gloves, or the dude with the sword? SECOND thing we do, kill all the lawyers.

According to Joeseph Trento the Richard Helms and Ted Shackley combined to form the Saffari Club in 1976. Although Helms had been nominally removed from the Agency in 1973, he became ambassador to Iran, where, Trento claims he began organizing a "team -B" for the CIA, with additonal strong ties to Saudi Arabia and other countires in the region. The purpose? To do and end- run around Carter appointee, Stansfield Turner, who was seen by the CIA as a Poltergeist of naive reform. (To me this raises interesting questions about the offical 9/11 reports blatenet negligence of 9-11, but that is not the point of this amateurish typing). Do we discern a parallel to Helms illusiory banishment in the fate of William Harvey in 1962? Harvey was accused by Bobby Kennedy of initiating incendiary attacks around the time of CMC, without the approval of the president. While he did not leave the agency he was banished to Italy, far away from the JM/WAVE CIA Miami station, locus of the anti-Castro action. Yet there are signs that Harvey continued to be involved in Cuba policy without the president knowing about it. Was this banishment merely a ruse to facilitate plausible denial? Dr. John Newman describes how Langely deliberately misled the Mexico City CIA station by not giving it information from the New Orleans FBI office that strongly suggested Oswalds involvement in Counterintelligence activities. This information was, however was sent by Langely to the FBI and Naval Intelligence. The center of the agency was deliberately misleading a branch of the agency. To me these disparate examples raise a fundemental question about the rleationship of the part to the whole. The CIA's work is often so compartmentalized as to be DELIBERATELY MISLEADING from the point of view of one of its parts. What does this imply about the idea floated by some writers that "rogue elements of the CIA may have been involved in initiating the assassination, but not the agency as a whole? " Dr. Newman even writes of deliberately obfuscatory filing (as of this minute, not a federal crime) by Langely in order to blur the relationship between part and whole. (See 201 vs. 100 files pp.399-406, "Oswald and the CIA". To some researchers this may seem a fuzzy question for a botched Langely Daoist. I dont think so, because in the end its about what words to use when we point the final finger.

Bill, believe me I am reading Waldron and Hartmann's book with buckets of salt. I already suspected Hartmann as a left-gatekeeper based on his guest-hosting of the Air America radio shows. The way they try to SELECTIVELY AND STRATEGICALLY decouple the CIA from the mafia is EXTREMELY UNCONCONVINCING,and their laborious attempts to do so scream 1-800- LIMITED- HANGOUT. That said, I do find SOME MERITS to their book. Is has been usefull to me --as a novice reader about the assassination-- in sorting out the various anti-Castro operations from 1959- 1963. Until now i had great trouble separating the operations under Nixon in 1959, from Operation 40, Op Mongoose and the later ones. Now I feel better able to distinguish these operations. Of course there remains the possiblity that they have planted FALSE distinctions, by paying "the finest American attention.... to the WRONG detail"

I think this article is excellent in explaining the financial aspects of turning the democrats into the spineless toothless money raising vacuum that they have become; in short BUSH ENABLERS The reason I am posting it on this thread is because its analysis of former DNC chair TERRY MCAULIFFE reminds me in many ways of the role played by Tommy Corcorran, in turning the Democratic Party to the right by trading in on a previously progressive reputation, in exchange for massive corporate donations. Please get to the middle of this excellent article! It shows the 1980s fiscal origins of today's Bush Enablers, otherwise known as the Democratice party. It should make anyone who defends our legislative branch as "reresentative" ask the question: representative of whom? Of course in describing the financial origins of Clinton Inc's "triangulation," it is also usefull for understanding that Friend of Bill (though certainly not of Iraq) Tony Blair. http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10192004.html PS. If you like this article please post it on Major U.S daily web-sites. Americans need to see this article NOW before the next clinton is given another 700 million dollars to lose again, with a "centerist" campaign.

Re Milteer: this is vague, but perhaps others can help tighten the focus with more details. It is from p. 466 of Ultimate Sacrifice The rifle from Klein's arrived at Oswald's post office box on march 25, 1963. On March 31, Oswald conveniently had his wife, Martina, take the famous photos of him holding the rifle, photos that would be found after JFK's death. (Oswalds's trip to New Orleans, where he had been interviewed by the INS inspetor had to have occured before thsi incident) On April 4-6, 1963, several mutual associates of Banister and Walker were at a major conference for racists and eactionaries in New Orleans. (Also attending was white supremacist Joesph Milteer, who would reveal details about the JFK assassination to a gov. informant prior to JFK's death.) On April 10, 1963, someone tooka a shot at General Walker's House. Does anyone know more of any more specific information tying Banister and/or Walker to right wing specifically racial groups? I know these 'issues' (hatreds) were deliberately mixed together from on high (washington D.C.) so it is often hard to separate them. Nevertheless there were some groups that were specifically race-oriented, like Milteers, and like the one in Mississippi, that John Dolva has researched. What I am interested in is specific connections between these groups and the major assassination suspects.

Am reading Hartmann and Waldrons' book. They point out that in January of 1963, Senator Thomas Dodd (as I understand him a far right winger on Cold War foreign policy with some connections to China?) had begun a Senate investigation on mail order guns. The M-C rifle that Oswald used was even on a list of rifles ordered through the mail along with LHO's name! The Authors also point out that Sen. Eastland was on the Committee, and that there was some overlap in staffing between the Dodd committee and another Committee headed by Eastland about the Fair Play For Cuba org. The authors strongly suggest that these committess may have served as a right wing "parking space" for information connecting Oswald to the M-C rifle that could easily emerge after the assassination. By staying in the files of these committees, the information would not have to be sent upwards into the intellignce bureaucracies, so that the conspirators would have direct, and local, access to information that could then give to the press quickly. P.D. Scott had earlier suggested that Oswalds mail-order -- which was irrational because it created a paper trail, when Oswald could have very easily simply bought the rifle at a Dallas hardware strore with no paper trail, which would make a lot more sense for an assassin-- may be explainable in terms of his relationship with Guy Bannister's office. Scott speculates that Bannister may have been doing free lance work for a number of different intelligence agencies including the ATF, if I am not mistaken. He suggests that this free lance relationship with mulitple intelligence agencies could have gotten many different agency "fingerprints" on Oswald, thus generating their cooperation in the coverup. Hartmann and Waldron also point out that Bannister and Gen Walker both attended a racist conference in Dallas in 1963, thus echoing the overlapping of racism and far right cold war policies that we see at the national level in the cooperation of the Dodd-Eastland Committees. What do members think of their suggestions regarding Dodd-Eastland and the Mail Order records that were used to frame Oswald?

He is influential because of WHERE his wrting is published. The Nation is on the left/liberal side of the political spectrum. The CIA'S thining is as follows. "The left is the gateway through which some might pass into opposition to CIA policies, therefor it is more importatant to be in the Nation than in a rightist publication like The National Review.' For history of this "left gatekeeping" see the CIA and Culture by Francis Stoner Saunders. I know I have posted this before, but I think Left Gatekeeping is an increasingly important concept to understand. Recently as more and more youngsters have been watching the internet film Loose Change 2, about 9/11, (#1 free, downloaded film on the internet of late) I have noticed that left liberal sites like Common Dreams have increased their attacks on the 9/11 truth movemnt. Again, the danger is seen as comming from the left, so this is where the CIA needs to "close the gate" and do so in a manner that will maintain credibility with this small, but influencial targeted audience.

Thank you. I was struck by the coincidence that this was coming right around the time of the Bay of Pigs. Hectic times. Steve Thomas [/quot Newman, "Oswald and the CIA" p.212. this information was forwarded by DIO 9ND two weeks later, comprising fourteen documents "which represent subject's intellignece file" to DIO 8ND on November 30, 1960. As of that date,about one week before the CIA opened ist 201 file on Oswald. the ONI changed the Navy Field intelligence Unit watching the case from Glenview,Illinois, to Algiers, Louisiana. The officer in charge of the DIO 8ND was navy captain F.O.C. Fletcher, and on January 11, 1961 he sent a letter to the Dallas field office of the FBI, opening up a POTENTILLY IMPORTNT LATERAL INTERAGENCY CHANNEL ON OSWALD From Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann The new Orelans States item reported that Banister 'was a key liaison man for US government-sponsored anti-communist activities in Latin America, quoting a "close firend and advisorof Banister's as saying that "Guy particiapated inevery important ati-Communist South and Central American revolution which came along" Confirmation of this can be found in one of the only Naval Intelligence documents ever released about Guy Banister....it confirms that Banister was working for the "General Counsel" of the "anti-Communist League of the Americas." On August 31, 1960-- a few months before the planned date of the first Guantanamo provocation--Banister wrote to a Naval Intelligence contact in New Oreans for the league, saying that "to have a successful revolution to overthrow the Castro government.... a unit of the Armed Forces must lead the revolution. By 1963, Bannister would be working for Carlos Marcello, but in 1960 he was still a former FBI supervisor high in New Orleans intelligence and far-right circles. The Cubans say "the anti-Communist League of the Caribbean... was run by the CIA and was in contact with the US Embassy" in Havana, "on the 5th floor of the Embassy." That would indicate that Havana CIA operations director David Morales was also involved in this first Guantanamo provocation. (pps. This Provocation involved the Cuban refugees putting on CUban army uniforms and staging a fake attack on Guantanomo,in order to force JFK to send US military troops in a large number. these "lateral interagency contacts between different ONI offices and between the ONI and three regional FBI offices (New Orleans, Dallas, and Washington field Office) suggest Bannisters' importance may have been as a connection between the elements of the CIA who, in 1963 were supposed to be working for a new liberal regime in CUba (if we are to believe Waldron and Hartmann) and perhaps more right wing elements who wanted to establish a new military dictatorship in Cuba. What do members make of these "lateral interagency contacts" ? Does it imply that information could have been shared between local offices without the information passing up to the national offices,( or without the accountability of the national offices) Were these interagency contacts involving ONI instrumental in utilizing the Kennedy's Cuba plans for late 1963 64 to help facilitate the assassination? Could elements of the CIA working under Bobby for AMWORLD have shared elements of the Kennedys plans for Cuba with this ONI nexus?

Did people see this story re MK-ULTRA? It was in the San Jose Merc. News last month. Note the last paragraph, in which the Judge concedes that even the government has admitted to such deeds. Also note that it occured in San Francisco and involved gov. empoyees in a gov. building. This is consistent with other MK-ULTRA research which describes San Francisco as a hub of MK activity in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Court tosses marshal's claim CIA drugged him with LSD Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit Monday by a former U.S. marshal who claimed the CIA slipped LSD into his drink in 1957, causing him to act irrationally and rob a bar. Wayne Ritchie, also a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, claimed he was part of a project in which government operatives tested LSD and other psychoactive drugs on unwitting subjects. He sued after reading a 1999 newspaper account about the program. Ritchie claimed the drug, allegedly given to him at an office Christmas party in the San Francisco federal building, made him feel "overcome by a sense of worthlessness that compelled him to engage knowingly in self-destructive conduct." After the party, he tried to rob the Shady Grove bar in San Francisco's Fillmore district before getting beat up. He pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and in March 1958, was sentenced to five years' probation and resigned from his job. On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the July decision by U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel, who dismissed the case following a four-day, non-jury trial in April. Ritchie appealed. Patel noted the government conceded CIA operatives drugged some individuals without their knowledge in December 1957 during testing of the drug. But she said Ritchie failed to prove the drug was slipped into his drinks or that the robbery was the result of an LSD-induced psychotic disorder. Subscribe to the Mercury News

Robert, I also am curious about your views on the October Surprise. In my view the issue was gradually forgotten about by the corporate media, rather than disproven. I also find it noteworthy that the leading democratic 'pointless man' on the investigation of the October Surprise was the same Fearless Helmesman who helped lead those curious democrats on Iran-Contra and the 9-11 Commision: Lee Hamilton, Former House intelligence chair, I think, from Indiana. Now he is a curious character! Any thoughts on his work? Also I am wondering if you have any thought on the fate of former Pulitzer Prize winner Gary Webb. I found Alex Cockburn and jeffrey St. Claires' book Whiteout to offer a fairly convincing case that the big boys in the national media (read Walter Pincus, Times intel guy and McManus of the LA times, Time mag and Newsweek) did a full court press on the late Mr. Webb. As in pressed right out of the profession. I havn't read your Iran-Contra work recently, but it sounds like your work may have--as some points at least-- overlaped with his fatefull Dark Alliance series for what at that time seemed an up and comming San Jose Mercury News.

In The Man Who Knew Too Much, the author states that Oswald was involved in the U-2 Spy plane program, while stationed in Japan. He also states that Oswald may have been involved in an action that left another marine dead. The author of TMWKTM suggests that this could have been used by the CIA to "control" Oswald through blackmail Richard Bissell was directly involved in the development of the U-2 and later in the Bay of Pigs. Later he was discovered to be an enigmatic part of the problem in that failed operation. He left the CIA in 1962, although he knew many of the people in what became Operation Mongoose. Does anyone know how directly Bissell was involved in the running of the U-2 program out of Japan? If Oswald was in Japan working on the U-2, would Bissell have known about him as early as 1959?

This article specifically links Allen Dulles with Life magazines censorsorship of Operation Paperclip * Sports * Tech * Politics * Science * Health * Travel * Most Popular Secondary Navigation 6/6/06 Search: Advanced AP Papers: CIA knew of Eichmann whereabouts By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 29 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Determined to win the Cold War, the CIA kept quiet about the whereabouts of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in the 1950s for fear he might expose undercover anticommunist efforts in West Germany, according to documents released Tuesday. ADVERTISEMENT The 27,000 pages released by the National Archives are among the largest post-World War II declassifications by the CIA. They offer a window into the shadowy world of U.S. intelligence — and the efforts to use former Nazi war criminals as spies, sometimes to detrimental effect. The war criminals "peddled hearsay and gossip, whether to escape retribution for past crimes, or for mercenary gain, or for political agendas not necessarily compatible with American national interests," Robert Wolfe, an expert on German history and former archivist at the National Archives, said at a news briefing announcing the document release. In a March 19, 1958, memo to the CIA, West German intelligence officials wrote that they knew where Eichmann was hiding. Eichmann played a key role in transporting Jews to death camps during World War II. "He is reported to have lived in Argentina under the alias 'Clemens' since 1952," authorities wrote. But neither side acted on that information because they worried what he might say about Hans Globke, a highly placed former Nazi and a chief adviser in West Germany helping the U.S. coordinate anticommunist initiatives in that country. Two years later, when Jewish authorities captured Eichmann, the CIA pressured journalists to delete references to Globke. "Entire material has been read. One obscure mention of Globke which Life omitting at our request," CIA Director Allen Dulles wrote in a Sept. 20, 1960, internal memorandum, after Life magazine purchased Eichmann's memoir. Among the other findings: _Former Nazi officers such as Heinz Felfe, who served in the "Gehlen organization" — the West German intelligence service which in its early years was sponsored by the U.S. Army and then the CIA — were typically hired by the Soviet Union to be double agents. _The CIA routinely misled U.S. immigration officials in the mid-1970s about the role of CIA agent Tscherim Soobzokov and his connection to Nazi war crimes. The documents were among the latest released under a 1999 law — resisted by the CIA — that called for disclosure of government records related to war crimes committed by the Nazi and Japanese governments. "CIA has been struggling with the nettlesome problem of how to balance the public's interest in the historical record of CIA's connections to Nazis, and an intelligence agency's need ... to protect the identities of sources," said Stanley Moskowitz, a former CIA official who is now a consultant to the agency. "The passage of time has shifted the balance," he said. Material relating to Japanese war crimes were scheduled to be released later this summer. ___