Douglas Caddy

http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Paperclip-Intelligence-Program-Scientists/dp/031622104X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392168643&sr=1-1&keywords=operation+paperclip Publication date: February 11, 2014

http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Secrets-Truth-Watergate-Pardon/dp/162914603X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391910745&sr=1-1&keywords=nixon%27s+secrets

Five books on President Nixon are about to be published. Here are the authors: Luke Nichter, Roger Stone, Ken Hughes, John Dean, and now Pat Buchanan http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/02/06/pat-buchanan-to-pen-definitive-story-of-political-rise-of-a-president-who-obama-called-more-liberal-than-i-was/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

JFK in Dallas: The Syracuse Connections Syracuse New Times By Russ Tarby November 20, 2013 Upstate New Yorkers lingered on the periphery http://www.syracusenewtimes.com/jfk-dallas-syracuse-connections/

A Guide to JFK Assassination Evidence By Barr McClellan The foundation for assassination research is evidence. This means facts admissible in court. The rules of evidence are well-developed, and very effective to present the facts. Based on the entirety of the case – of all the facts presented, the truth emerges. A final verdict is possible. Some suggest historians develop facts better than lawyers. This review considers various ways contentious facts have been discussed by historians and by lawyers. The rules of evidence are well-developed, based on many centuries of judicial review. Numerous texts state the rules in careful detail. Those rules may seem complex but are very workable on the many specific points in issue in any case and are written to assure fairness. Lawyers for the specific parties and interests better assure the facts are presented. The courts, by insisting on considering all possible facts and nuances, further assure all sides are represented and heard. Education and experience in developing facts are essential. Skilled attorneys present the facts through witnesses. The crime scene is developed, witnesses tell what they know and the many rules of evidence available in the courts are invoked to tell the whole case, to develop the “totality of the evidence.” Lawyers worth their license will be sure every possible fact is presented. What a witness says is evidence. So is what a witness writes. Physical evidence is presented by witnesses. The crime scene is explained. Corroboration of testimony is developed. There is the problem of hearsay, initially not admissible; however, to develop the facts, many exceptions allow such testimony. The courts want to see and hear as much as possible. Hearsay is usually allowed, provided the many interests are aware of what is being offered as evidence, as facts. Fairness to all parties is better assured. Circumstantial evidence is also allowed. Again, such evidence must be developed carefully. Courts want as much explanation as possible. Circumstances explain direct testimony, permit facts by inference and better explain and verify the case. Special rules allow old records to be admitted. Newspapers may appear. What a witness understood is acceptable even if admitted only to show what the witness understood, not necessarily to establish the truth of the testimony. Testimony by other witnesses will support what the witness understands. The facts to be presented before any forum should be by witnesses. In cold cases and in any historic review, old documents are required. There is no rule that statements by long-dead witnesses are not to be heard. Documents and statements are admissible even if “ancient;” that is, over twenty years old. Credibility is always an issue. Corroboration is always useful. Crime scene evidence is necessary and is almost always present. The obvious preference is to have the body and the weapon. When such physical evidence is missing, the killer does not walk. Circumstantial evidence is available. The lawyers make their case but the jury is the final decision-maker. Explain the strengths and weaknesses with fairness to all parties. Then the jury decides. The rules also provide ways to present a complete case. Facts relied upon by a witness may be hearsay but are admitted without those facts being true. Later evidence adds the necessary support. When a defendant makes statements against his best interest, the confession is admitted. There are many ways to assure the facts are presented. Judges will allow evidence to the extent relevant or even irrelevant. Credibility is a further issue. Often witnesses are not the ideal; some are scurrilous criminals. Attorneys take their witnesses as and when they are available. Credibility is explained, based on the totality of the evidence. The rules of evidence are also helpful in moving the case forward. When a person does not deny an accusation, the facts may be deemed admitted. When a person is part of a conspiracy, the defendant may have to present facts or be adjudged guilty. When a person delays a response, laches may bar the testimony. A complete case is the final measure of a well-developed presentation. The “totality of the evidence” is to be considered. A final verdict is then possible. When all the evidence is presented and explained, the trier of fact makes a decision. In a jury trial, the jury makes the decision. In an investigation, the members of the panel make the decision. In an author’s book, the reader makes the decision. Has a case been made? Is credible evidence presented? Have the interests of all parties been presented? These questions have to be presented by the lawyer or author for a fair decision to be made. The public is familiar with the rules of evidence. Testimony and related facts are what anyone uses to evaluate a case. Rules of evidence in court are designed to permit the parties to present their case and to allow the trier-of-fact to make a judgment based on the entirety of the case. Juries are to be trusted. Contrary to what some insiders believe, we are able to handle the truth. In the Kennedy assassination, a super-majority has made the decision. There was a conspiracy. Their judgment implicates Lyndon Johnson, at the very least for failing to uncover the conspiracy. All the persuasive evidence points to a few key interests as assassins. The burden on the writer is to help the trier-of-fact consider all the facts. Like a juror, the reader considers and decides. This judgment by America of guilt, this verdict, has been strongly contested by several well-known historians or by writers who have promised they have followed strict rules for reporting. Lawyers have added to the research, using and abusing the rules of evidence. The rules of evidence used by lawyers are well-documented. Many volumes explain how evidence is developed to assure a fair presentation to all parties. In reviewing historians’ rules of evidence, there is no manual for what is reliable. The Warren Commission (1964) is an excellent example of the failure to follow the legal rules. Warren’s crime scene investigation was ruined by their failure to follow the rules of evidence. One rule is to present all sides of the case. Not done. Another is to disclose all relevant evidence. Not done. Still another is to follow standard inquiries into motives. Not done. Cui bono – who gained the most, is always a key question –ignored. Warren also disregarded cui malo, who lost the most. This question is usually assumed; however, in the rush to judgment, careful consideration was not made of every line of evidence. The Kennedys were not assured a complete case was presented. The overall objective is to consider the totality of the case. Warren failed these basic rules of evidence. An objective investigation was not conducted. One rule dominated, that we were not a “banana republic.” In other words, in a very subtle way, the victor wrote the history. Another example is Nigel Turner’s The Guilty Men (2003). Turner is a documentarian who presents his case through interviews with people who knew about the conspiracy and were willing to speak up. Each person’s credibility was then considered by the audience. The series was presented to the History Channel. Their resident historians found the series to be “meticulously” documented. The Guilty Men was broadcast. Friends of LBJ quickly rose to suppress the documentary. After a strong power play led by Jack Valenti, three historians were engaged by the History Channel to review the documentary. The three concluded we must “trust government.” With government corrupt as it is, the suggestion violates common sense. Consider what John Quincy Adams said, “The public history of all countries, and all ages, is but a sort of a mask, richly colored. The interior working of the machinery must be foul.” The History Channel suppressed The Guilty Men. The lead historian was Robert Dallek who presented not a single fact. His book on LBJ [Flawed Giant (1999)] touched on one key issue, an indictment by a grand jury in Texas ruling three men killed a government investigator. LBJ was identified as a murderer. Dallek said Billie Sol Estes was not reliable. The Estes webpage says the grand jury did not rely on his testimony. Are we left with Oscar Wilde’s saying, “History is merely gossip.” The House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976) concluded there was a conspiracy, probably by some members of the CIA, the Mafia and Cuban freedom fighters. Their conclusion is very close to what we know today. New evidence brings the CIA and the Mafia into the case, all centering on LBJ. The Assassination Records Review Board (1998) recommended records held by Billie Sol Estes be investigated. The historians have ignored careful review of any such evidence. Another researcher is Vincent Bugliosi. Skilled in the rules of evidence, his text is one mistake after another [see Reclaiming History (2007)]. He relies on clearly inadmissible and irrelevant ridicule. A motion in limine would eliminate half his book. In the Estes case, he states the grand jury did not have authority to do what it did, to conclude LBJ should be indicted for murder. Bugliosi is a case of an attorney relying on what a historian would apparently consider – personal opinion and character attack. There is no evidence in such a polemic. The example of a noted biographer and journalist also refers to evidence. The judgment of Robert Caro is noteworthy for considering nothing. He says there is no evidence LBJ was involved [The Passage of Power (2012)]. The rules of evidence say there is ample evidence. Caro vaguely mentioned investigations of LBJ underway on November 22, 1963, then drops any follow-up. Estes advancing corrupt money to LBJ is admitted by some but it ignored by Caro. The Estes relation was so important LBJ had to deny it despite overwhelming records to the contrary. Madeleine Brown is totally ignored even though Caro deems other LBJ mistresses to be relevant. Caro fails to consider any of that evidence. He does not respect the rule of presenting a complete case. He is not interested in recognizing cui bono or cui malo, mandates requiring all evidence be presented. The evidence is not balanced between the two men. Since Caro is not a historian or attorney, is his judgment to be disregarded? Is his reliance on journalist’s rules relevant? If so, what are those rules? More important, has he considered all the legal evidence? Conspiracy evidence centering on LBJ – ignored. Admissions to others – ignored. The Lyndon Johnson modus operandi – ignored. The vast evidence assembled by Caro himself – ignored. Nothing in his conclusions indicates he acted to respect the Kennedys and their quest to know what happened to John Kennedy. Where do these historians and journalists fall short? Legal evidence is based on at least two sides, often in sharp disagreement, presenting the facts to convince the triers-of-fact to arrive at the “accepted wisdom,” to present the facts that make the whole case, to have what many consider to be the truth. As any trial attorney will tell you, a trial is like a play – with three exceptions: you are never certain what your witnesses will say, there is only one presentation of the trial, and there is always at least one other attorney on the other side presenting the same witnesses and same facts but with an entirely different ending. Juries then resolve the case. The key rule for conspiracies is that once the conspiracy is established, the conspirators have to show their innocence. Warren produced nothing. The Select Committee stopped short. ARRB recommended obtaining the Estes evidence. The totality of the case remains hidden. Injustice toward the Kennedys dominates the case. Cui malo is avoided. Our grief over the loss of John Kennedy remains open. Closure is not possible. The super-majority of America knows there has been no justice for John Kennedy. So what is evidence based on “historians’ rules”? There are no specific rules. What a particular historian might consider relevant is the only guideline. There is no effort to present all the facts. This standard of personal judgment is adopted by several historians; however, such personal bias will not support the “lone nut” theory nor will it uncover the conspiracy behind the assassination of John Kennedy. One-sided evidence will not stand up in a court of law. As is abundantly clear, avoiding fairness to JFK has not and will not convince America. Some historians suggest lawyers would not use any and all evidence a historian might use. This statement is incorrect. Lawyers will uncover all evidence and will find a way to present that evidence. The best approach is to use all available evidence and make the case to the court, to the judge and jury, and to the reader. Present all the evidence to make the “totality of the case” to the American people. Fortunately, many independent researchers have presented the legal evidence, the trial court evidence, the facts. Too often, a single historian or even a group of historians are mired in the single-person mentality. They become the trier of fact based on less than the total case. Are there any rules of evidence more carefully developed than those used in court? “The historian and the detective have much in common [emphasis added],” advises Mark M. Krug. All the rules available to lawyers, to historians and to journalists should be used. The best approach is to consider all the evidence and thus assure the reader the evidence would be admissible in court. Be assured this consideration of the “totality of the case” is possible with the facts presented by so many independent researchers. Unfortunately, some turn on others rather than welcoming any addition to the vast information available. The opponent in this case is the government and its powerful allies. Consider the media powers supporting CIA’s Mockingbird. Consider the powerfully wealthy supporting LBJ’s trusted friend and Texas super-lawyer Edward A. Clark and his quest for the bonus. We have the darkest of deep politics. An interesting case for historians remains “pending.” The case involving Mac Wallace, the vicious murder of federal investigator Henry Marshall, and the investigations by Texas Ranger Captain and Chief U.S. Marshal Clint Peoples along with the action by a grand jury in Robertson County, Texas present a serious challenge for historian’s evidence. Further information is in my next book, The Verdict. Consider what we already know. Billie Sol Estes had vital stories about the LBJ crimes. Raising money for LBJ’s presidential ambitions, disclosing what happened to Henry Marshall, the corroboration by Clint Peoples, becoming the second “patsy,” the massive effort to suppress what he knew, the exoneration by a federal panel of the cover-up attempted over Clint Peoples, the continuing refusal to consider the available facts. Some historians rely heavily on Jim Garrison who tried but did not get a conviction. Garrison is well-recognized as the law enforcement official with the courage to move forward. He was also the man who inspired Oliver Stone – neither historian nor lawyer – to produce JFK, the major breakthrough in assassination research. Garrison is to be honored for his investigations, a point I discussed with his family in New Orleans at a book signing. I have also disclosed the close relations between Oswald and the “Texas evidence,” including support by George deMohrenschildt. New evidence ties him to LBJ’s lifetime ally Judge Robert Bibb of Eagle Pass, Texas and to the CIA. We see unified action by the chief conspirator. Some historians contradict themselves, declaring their conclusions even while calling for further investigations. We know where most of the missing evidence is located. Several government agencies have called for such still-hidden evidence. More evidence is demanded in my draft petition to law enforcement. The grand jury records must be disclosed. The Estes records must be examined. Both the ARRB and the Department of Justice wanted to recover and review that evidence. They did not dismiss the Estes records and testimony as worthless. The missing tapes of LBJ conversations must be subpoenaed. Such additional evidence is available. Any conclusions are premature. All available evidence must be considered. The totality of the case has to be evaluated. Not surprisingly, historians and lawyers intent on preserving the LBJ record while he was president find themselves forced to disown the Texas research. Relying on perceived attitudes and self-serving statements, these historians fail because they reject the rules of evidence – and the fairness required. They prefer “historian evidence,” whatever that standard may be. Their fundamental error is to ignore courtroom evidence and the time-tested validity the legal rules provide. They fail to consider the massive evidence against LBJ. They fail to provide the ultimate test by lawyers – a presentation of all the facts in a contested trial of the evidence and a decision by the triers of fact. The word is “fairness” from which justice emerges. Tragically, historians and deniers of the “banana republic” syndrome are able to ignore cui malo and the horrific tragedy imposed on the Kennedys and on America. What is their reason for ignoring cui bono? Do they fear cui malo? Their silence deafens. Such limited review is manifestly unfair. We are not dealing with a board game or some apologia. We have real people and a real case. There has to be evidence. There is evidence. Already, there is enough to convict LBJ under the rules for conspiracy trials. Due consideration of cui bono is necessary. The overlooked rules for cui malo must be presented and evaluated. Few consider who gained the most; none consider who lost the most. Always weigh the totality of the evidence. Do not provide impossible defenses on the one side or willful avoidance on the other side. LBJ is not too big to fall nor is JFK treated fairly by ignoring him. John Kennedy, Jr. deserves an answer to his quest to find who killed his father. So, too, does his family. The case showing Lyndon Johnson deeply involved in the assassination of John Kennedy is overwhelming. The additional evidence available only through subpoena demands action. Preparation of the case is underway – with a challenge to debate the evidence. Historians must maintain integrity with full disclosure. Too many do not look at all the evidence, rely instead on platitudes of “trust government.” Thomas Jefferson said it, “History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.” Evidence is absolutely necessary. Speculation in a real case involving very real people is totally inappropriate and impermissible. Failure to understand the rules of evidence or of history means one-sided results. What is necessary is consideration of all evidence, a fair evaluation of such sources, a trial setting where all evidence is duly considered, and a decision by the triers of fact. Over the past fifty years, that presentation has been made. In addition, a super-majority has made their decision. There was a conspiracy and the usual suspects were involved. The available evidence confirms their verdict. The key defendants are some CIA agents, some Mafia members and the Texas evidence centering on LBJ. LBJ said there was a conspiracy. America agrees. Historians should direct their investigative efforts to understanding and accepting why America agrees. Further details are in Blood, Money & Power (2003) and in the soon-to-be released The Verdict: Justice for John Kennedy, Justice for America (2014). Important new details are also in the vast research and evidence uncovered by so many independent researchers, seeking a unified result called justice.

Confessions of a D.C. Madame: The Politics of Sex, Lies, and Blackmail Paperback – March 19, 2014 by Henry W. Vinson (Author) http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-D-C-Madame-Politics-Blackmail/dp/1937584291/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391548660&sr=8-1&keywords=henry+vinson

Who Was JFK? by Frank Rich JFK, Conservative by Ira Stoll Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 288 pp., $27.00 and numerous other books and TV programs about John F. Kennedy The New York Review of Books February 20, 2014 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/feb/20/who-was-jfk/?fb_action_ids=10202474304634427&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B269018016588797%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

Webster Tarpley and Joan Mellen on Trendy CIA-Sponsored Conspiracy Theories February 3, 2014 http://vimeo.com/85810171

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTWAJKy9kGI

Here is the video of the panel discussion that followed the first two hours devoted to Jim Garrison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYV42Kfoqco

This can be viewed again today, Saturday, at 1 PM ET and 12 Noon CT. I watched the first two hours last night and found it to be impressive and convincing. A lot of thought has gone into this professional production and it should not be missed. Use the link in the reply directly above to access the program. I plan to resume watching it today until it ends. CORRECTION: Apparently the event could only be viewed Friday, from 10 PM Et until 1 AM Saturday. I misread the times as posted. It appeared that it could be viewed again on Saturday, but this is not the case. I apologize for any confusion caused.

Interview of President Nixon on November 19, 1983 http://www.c-span.org/video/?153806-1/NixonI

Takes place tonight, January 31, 2014: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/conference-on-garrison-opens-tonight-in-las-vegas/

Famous bridge across the Hudson River may be renamed to honor Pete Seeger http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20140128/pete-seeger-should-have-new-tappan-zee-bridge-named-for-him-downstate-politician-says

Andy Coulson shouted 'brilliant' after hearing Sienna Miller tape, jury told Ex-News of the World reporter tells phone-hacking trial that editor became 'animated' after hearing message for Daniel Craig · By Lisa O'Carroll · · theguardian.com, Tuesday 28 January 2014 07.21 EST http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/andy-coulson-sienna-miller-phone-hacking-trial Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson shouted "brilliant" after listening to an intimate voicemail message left on James Bond actor Daniel Craig's phone by Sienna Miller, the phone-hacking trial has heard. Coulson then instructed the reporter who had hacked Craig's phone to make a dummy tape in order to conceal the origin of the recorded voicemail, in which Miller declared her love for the James Bond star, the court was told on Tuesday. Dan Evans, a former News of the World and Sunday Mirror journalist who has pleaded guilty to intercepting voicemail messages, told the Old Bailey that Coulson became "very animated" and shouted "brilliant" when he heard the message. Evans said Coulson listened to the recording after the reporter had intercepted an intimate voicemail left by Miller on Craig's phone, which appeared to show that they were having an affair at a time in 2005 when she was going out with Jude Law: "Hi, it's me. I can't speak, I'm at the Groucho with Jude. I love you." Andy Coulson listened to a voicemail message left by Sienna Miller for Daniel Craig, the phone-hacking trial has heard. He added that Coulson told him to make a copy of the message, stick it in a Jiffy bag, and send it to the front gate at the News of the World's offices in Wapping, east London. Coulson said security staff at the front gate "would then ring up and say this has been sent in anonymously", according to Evans. He told the jury that a colleague collected the Jiffy bag and came back to the office, expressing mock surprise. Evans said he later went to Craig's London home to confront him about the affair with Miller and the actor denied it. The court heard that the News of the World ran a story with Evans's byline on 8 October 2005 over three pages revealing the affair. Evans was asked who else knew about phone hacking at the News of the World. He listed 10 names including Coulson, former news editor James Weatherup and eight others who cannot be identified for legal reasons. Weatherup has pleaded guilty to a phone hacking conspiracy, the jury has heard. Coulson denies a charge of conspiring to intercept communications. Evans told the court he would like to apologise to all the people whose privacy he infringed. "Andy wanted to hear the tape," Evans told the court describing how another journalist on the paper was also in the vicinity when it was played. "I do not know whether I played it to both of them at the same time. Certainly Andy was there … and I played the tape a couple of times and listened to it," Evans said. Evans continued: "Andy got very animated." He told the jury: "Everybody was having a bit of an adrenaline kick." He said another journalist on the paper then grabbed him by the elbow and congratulated him. "You're a company man now Dan." "He [Coulson] wanted to preserve the tape but not in the original recording. So he said to me basically, 'We need to make a copy of the tape, stick it in a Jiffy bag, have it send down to the front gate [where security worked] and have them ring up and say this has been handed in anonymously," Evans said. Evans went on to tell the court that he made the copy of the tape using two dictaphones and that some time afterwards the Jiffy bag was dispatched to the courier desk at the front gate. Another News of the World colleague then walked into the office "with a mock surprise and said 'Hey, look what I have'". The former News of the World reporter, whom the jury heard has pleaded guilty to three other charges and become a prosecution witness, destroyed the original tape. Earlier the jury were told how Evans had used what was described as the "double tap" method of hacking phones – using a combination of two phones to trigger voicemail of the target's phone. He had told how journalists on the paper would get the "proverbial rocket" if they came in on a Tuesday morning, the start of the week on the Sunday tabloid, without stories. Before hacking Craig's phone, Evans had been sent a "monstrous" email from a colleague advising him that if he didn't "come up with a front-page story you may as well jump off a cliff". Evans went home "feeling terrorised". He had been confronted by the colleague, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who had said to him: "Your USP [unique selling point] is the phone hacking … I suggest you xxxxing well get on with some more." The jury was shown a police document of call data related to Evans "double taps", which showed hacks or attempt hacks of the phones of Cilla Black, Sir Trevor McDonald, the agent of footballer Steven Gerrard, Kate Moss's PA, Ian Monk, the PR for Wayne Rooney, Rhys Ifans, Kerry Katona and interior designer Kelly Hoppen. Evans said he got rumbled when he hacked Hoppen's phone. Coulson, a former communications director for David Cameron, and Rebekah Brooks, the former head of News International, are among seven people on trial for offences related to a phone-hacking conspiracy, paying public officials for stories and alleged perversion of the course of justice. All deny the charges. Evans also told the Old Bailey jury on Tuesday how he destroyed all evidence of his illicit activities on the day that the News of the World's royal editor Clive Goodman was arrested in 2006. He said there was a "palpable sense of shock" in the office that day and described how he went to his desk and proceeded to rip the ribbon out of micro-cassette recordings he had made of intercepted voicemail messages. Evans added that he met another journalist on the paper in the office lift on the day Goodman and the paper's private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were arrested. His colleague, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said: "'No more hokey stuff', hokey being a reference to voicemail stuff." He said: "I went upstairs. There was a palpable sense of shock. I proceeded to get rid of all the evidence I could get my hands on. This included voicemail recordings. I destroyed them – they were on micro-cassettes … I took each of them and sucked the ribbon out and snapped it into little bits and stuck it into a big blue recycling bin in the office." Evans said he also destroyed records of mobile phone call data of people he had targeted and shredded them, as well as ripping up notebooks in case they had any record of hacking. He told the court that he put the lists of celebrity pin codes that he had into an envelope and "wrapped it up in black gaffer tape, took it home and stuck it into a mate's loft". Years later he retrieved the list and in "a fairly foolish moment of madness" used the list and tried to hack Hoppen's phone. She had already reset her pin and the hack failed. The trial continues

http://spikethenews.blogspot.com/2014/01/al-haig-nsc-and-white-house-spy-ring.html?spref=fb

News of the World reporter hacked phones a thousand times, he tells court Dan Evans tells Old Bailey that when he arrived at paper he was given a list of celebrities including Simon Cowell and Cilla Black By Lisa O'Carroll theguardian.com, Monday 27 January 2014 12.10 EST http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/news-world-reporter-hacked-phones-dan-evans-simon-cowell A former reporter at the News of the World has told how he hacked phones a thousand times after he was handed a list of celebrity numbers when he joined the paper in 2005, the Old Bailey has heard. Dan Evans, who has pleaded guilty to intercepting voice messages at the News of the World, also told the phone-hacking trial on Monday about the "kerching moment" when he met NoW editor Andy Coulson and mentioned how he had hacked phones at the Sunday Mirror in the past. He said: "I told him about my background, the sort of stories I had been doing. Almost the sort of stuff I had been through before." Following prompting by the other News of the World journalist at the meeting Evans said he told Coulson: "I got on to voicemails and interception and I told him I had a lot of commercially sensitive data in my head and how things worked at the Sunday Mirror and I could bring him big exclusive stories cheaply which was the kerching moment. Bring exclusive stories cheaply equals job." Evans said that at the News of the World he was given cash to buy pay-as-you-go phones that were nicknamed "burners". These, he explained, were phones used for "illicit activities" and would be destroyed or "burned" after two to three months. Asked how often he hacked between his start date on the paper in January 2005 and the arrest of the paper's then royal editor, Clive Goodman, for hacking-related offences in August 2006, Evans replied: "Probably most days, there might have been the odd lull." Evans has also pleaded guilty to hacking phones while at the Sunday Mirror. He is the first journalist to plead guilty to hacking phones while working for a paper other than the News of the World. The journalist told the jury that he started hacking phones after he was made a staff reporter at the Sunday Mirror and carried out this activity for about "a year and a half". Evans, who has pleaded guilty to hacking phones at the News of the World up to 2010, described how "there was an explicit lockdown in the dark arts" following Goodman's arrest and there had been a gap of "years and years" before he started again. He said he stopped using the burner phones and just starting using the company phones. "It was just easier. The culture there was pretty blasé about this kind of thing bizarrely." When Evans started at the News of the World, his new boss handed him a list of hundreds of celebrity numbers including those of Simon Cowell, Cilla Black and Zoe Ball. Evans said he was given the numbers "because he wanted me to hack the interesting names on it". He had "a crack" at getting into around 100 of them, but with repeat calls to voicemails included, he probably hacked phones "1,000 [times] plus, more". Evans was also given cash to buy "burner" phones. He explained: "They were called burner phones because after a while I'd burn them." Evans told how he learned the practice of "pretext blagging", which involved ringing a mobile phone operator or another company and impersonating a staff member from credit control or a similar department. He told the jury that "pretty much any private data" was available "on demand" at the News of the World including mobile phone numbers, mobile phone bills, credit card numbers, medical records and tax records. Evans explained how he would ring the voicemail numbers on one phone and then count to three and ring it again on another phone to try and "trick" the target handset into going onto voicemail without alerting the owner. He said he had learned some hacking etiquette at the Sunday Mirror where he was told "don't leave footprints". This meant he would never listen to messages that had not been played by the owner, but he would return later to pick them

Prince Philip and a delicate question: Why HAS 'sensational' Profumo file been buried for another 30 years? More than 50 years after the scandal, there is clamour to release a file Andrew Lloyd Webber, who wrote a musical on the affair, leads the cries Mandy Rice-Davies, who was involved in the scandal, also agrees In the absence of evidence, some linked Prince Philip to Profumo Affair By Geoffrey Levy PUBLISHED: 19:31 EST, 24 January 2014 | UPDATED: 19:31 EST, 24 January 2014 Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545656/Prince-Philip-delicate-question-Why-HAS-sensational-Profumo-file-buried-30-years.html Doesn’t it seem strange that more than 50 years after the Profumo affair was combed through in all its inglorious detail - Old Bailey trial, Parliament, official inquiry - successive governments have continued to protect certain people’s involvement in the sexual shenanigans from exposure by keeping a secret file under lock and key? After all, none of the public figures involved were young. All are now either dead or, surely, too old to care. Besides, don’t old roués rather enjoy being reminded of youthful misadventures? John ‘Jack’ Profumo would be nearing his century now if he hadn’t passed on in 2006; ditto most of the others. He was 48 and Tory Secretary of State for War when the episode’s pivotal figure, society osteopath Stephen Ward, introduced him to the lissom 19-year-old showgirl and model Christine Keeler, whom he was soon bedding. Just two weeks ago in the Mail, Samantha Cameron’s stepfather Viscount Astor gave an entertaining and affectionate account of the role his late father, the 3rd Viscount, played in the saga, which began in the summer of 1961 when Profumo was visiting the Astor family seat, Cliveden in Berkshire, and saw Keeler in the swimming pool. Keeler was staying with Ward, who had the use of a cottage on the estate where he also entertained Soviet Naval attaché Yevgeny Ivanov. Ivanov slept with Keeler, too, probably only once - although it was enough to force Profumo’s resignation. The fear was that, at the height of the Cold War, careless pillow-talk by the War Minister about nuclear secrets could have been passed by Keeler to the sociable Russian diplomat. In his article, Lord Astor recorded that at the first night of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s new West End musical Stephen Ward, he’d met the other key femme fatale in the story, Mandy Rice-Davies - now a businessman’s wife, Mrs Shauli, 69 - who was Keeler’s friend and said at the time that she’d slept with his father. He liked her and, for her part, she tells me that she liked him - ‘he’s rather like his father’. Astor even enjoyed repeating her famous riposte under cross-examination in court when Ward was on trial for living off immoral earnings and she was told that Lord Astor denied sleeping with her. ‘He would, wouldn’t he?’ she said. It was all so long ago that there is no longer rancour or blame, merely a sense of detached amusement derived from looking back at earth-shattering events from another age. Even the pillow-talk scare about nuclear secrets has been totally discounted. So who on earth, blessed with such longevity, still needs to be protected, and why? Last year was the 50th anniversary of Ward’s conviction after a sensational trial lasting seven days. Correctly anticipating he would be found guilty of living off ‘immoral earnings’ - or profits from supplying prostitutes - and rather than face prison, the personable osteopath with connections right up the social scale committed suicide, taking an overdose of sleeping tablets the night before the jury brought in their verdict. He died several days later. The anniversary, plus Lloyd Webber’s new West End musical, which conveys the message that Ward was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, has produced a clamour for all the Profumo Affair papers now to be opened for public inspection, on the grounds that he was wrongly, and perhaps even maliciously, convicted. The belief is he was set up by an Establishment whose former useful friend had become a problem. For reasons unknown, this clamour is being firmly resisted. Questions in the House of Lords have repeatedly evinced solemn stone-walling by government ministers. Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Cabinet Office spokesman in the Lords, talked recently of ‘sensational personal items that would be embarrassing if released’. Sensational? It’s hardly a word in common usage in the Upper Chamber. Indeed, one answer to a questioning peer puzzled by such secrecy after more than half a century suggested the material might have to remain closed for the lives of the children of whoever is named in the file. That’s some secret. There are six Profumo Affair files in the National Archives at Kew, in South-West London, but only five of them are open for public inspection. The bulging sixth, file 1/4140, containing the highly-sensitive information, is closed and will remain so until at least the year 2046. Among the papers it contains are believed to be court documents from the Old Bailey, including certain depositions and witness statements that are likely to include information about people whose names were not brought up publicly during the trial. Andrew Lloyd Webber believes the contents of the file are ‘explosive’. Why is he so certain? ‘I can only say my source is totally reliable - it couldn’t be more reliable,’ says the composer peer. ‘Of course, the person in question has not released any details to me, but is at a very high level indeed.’ Last summer in the Upper House, Lord Lloyd-Webber - made a Conseravtive peer in 1997 - rose on the red benches to declare: ‘What concerns me is the fact that these files will be closed for a staggering 83 years (and) this gives rise to an awful lot of unhealthy speculation about who might be the individuals named within the files.’ Only last week in Westminster, Business Minister Lord Ahmad refused requests for the secret file to be released, saying it contained sensitive information related to people still living. Says Lloyd Webber: ‘We could speculate for ever about who and what is in this file, but that is so dangerous. Goodness knows where it could lead. ‘The problem is it makes everyone wonder who on Earth it could be who needs that level of protection for that length of time. I can’t believe that if I’d been involved, someone like me would receive protection like this.’ One name this unhealthy speculation has inevitably - and quite unfairly - thrown up in high places is Prince Philip, who will be 93 in June. ‘That’s precisely what I mean about the dangers of having to speculate when everyone is so fed up with secrecy,’ says Lord Lloyd-Webber. So could Prince Philip really be mentioned in the secret files? ‘All we know is that Ward and Prince Philip knew each other because he sketched Philip several times,’ says Lord Lloyd-Webber. ‘The other interesting thing is why someone arrived and bought for cash all the Ward pictures of the Royal Family at an exhibition that took place before the trial. No one knows who it was, but the pictures have never been seen since.’ Ward was an enthusiastic and very skilled artist. He knew several members of the Royal Family, including Princess Margaret (who liked racy company), and also did drawings of the Duke and Duchess of Kent and the Earl of Snowdon. The extent of Prince Philip’s acquaintance with Ward, who was habitually in the company of pretty women, has never been explored, but there is no evidence it was deep. They did have a close mutual friend, however. This was Philip’s first cousin and close confidant, the louche-living David Mountbatten, 3rd Marquis of Milford Haven. Mountbatten, who was Philip’s best man when he married the then Princess Elizabeth at Westminster Abbey in 1947, was a prominent figure on the London social scene during the Fifties and Sixties, a regular at high-spirited parties and a familiar figure in the company of Stephen Ward, with whom he shared an interest in pornography. Unsurprisingly, his closeness to the Queen’s handsome young husband, an ex-naval officer, caused considerable indigestion at the Palace. Twice-married Milford Haven, also a wartime naval officer and decorated with the Distinguished Service Cross, was known to host parties for discreet chums at his flat in Grosvenor Square at which the evening would begin with cards, followed by the arrival of women. Ward was often among the guests and sometimes brought some of the women. When Milford Haven died from a heart attack in 1970, he was just 50. Friends of the Royal Family are understandably outraged that Prince Philip’s name should be mentioned as being even possibly linked with such goings on without a shred of evidence. ‘It’s quite wicked,’ says a former Palace aide, ‘and probably the best possible argument for those damned secret files being opened so we can see who really is being protected.’ Crucially, Lloyd Webber has been joined in the battle by the human rights QC Geoffrey Robertson, who is determined to get Ward’s 1963 conviction overturned. Last year, after discussing the case with Lloyd Webber, he decided to look into it and ended up writing a book, Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK. Published last month, a copy has been handed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) as evidence in preparation for an appeal against Ward’s conviction. But this is only a start. ‘I also applied under the Freedom of Information Act for the secret file, which I believe contains court documents and the transcript of the case, which amazingly is “missing”. I’m certain the full transcript would help prove that Stephen Ward was not guilty,’ says Robertson. ‘I got a letter back rejecting the application on the grounds that there may well be embarrassing details about people who are still alive in the file and to release them would be contrary to the Data Protection Act - a classic example of the Act brought in to protect people being misused yet again to suppress important information.’ He has asked for this decision to be reviewed, saying the Data Protection Act was not meant to be used for this kind of cover up. Perhaps the CCRC, an autonomous body funded by the Ministry of Justice, can help. ‘We’ve received the application and are considering it,’ says spokesman Justin Hawkins. But what of secret file 1/4140? ‘We do have investigative powers under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 which allow us any material we think we need in the course of the review of a case,’ Hawkins declares meaningfully. Meanwhile, Mandy Rice-Davies, a mere 18 at the time of Ward’s trial, and these days still as spicy as ever, has also joined the fight. ‘Christine and I were never prostitutes, so it really was terrible what they did to Stephen,’ she says. ‘He was immoral, but he wasn’t living off immoral earnings - he often gave us money.’ But she says: ‘I think I may have an idea why there is such resistance to opening up all the papers. There’s someone rather special, someone above the aristocrats who I think might be mentioned in at least one of the witness statements. His name was certainly mentioned to me in Stephen’s flat one afternoon. ‘I’m not saying that this person was at an orgy or anything like that. But I’m pretty sure he would have been mentioned in a statement to the police, and so it must be in the secret file, written down somewhere, mustn’t it?’ Under the Freedom of Information legislation, she applied and received her own trial testimony. ‘It arrived with all the names redacted, which is pretty silly as they were my statements, so I knew who they all were,’ she says. ‘Look, I can’t say who the authorities are still protecting after all these years, but wouldn’t it be terrible if Stephen’s conviction wasn’t put right just so certain people can keep their noses clean Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545656/Prince-Philip-delicate-question-Why-HAS-sensational-Profumo-file-buried-30-years.html#ixzz2rQoaI1QK

Dr. Gary North wrote on garynorth.com in an article “Speed Reading and Career Advantage” on January 23, 2014: --------- Pareto's law applies to the skill of speed-reading, just as it applies to almost everything else in life. There are a few people who have the ability to read extremely fast. President Kennedy was one of them. Almost 30 years ago, I interviewed a man who had been an early adopter of computers. He had worked in a low-level job at the Pentagon. He did have a peculiar skill. He was able to program computers. So, as part of his extracurricular activities, which he had not been assigned, he began to collate reports coming in from all over the world. He was able to develop a tracking system which enabled him to do summary reports of material coming in from diverse sources. You can imagine what happened next. The department that he worked for became dependent on him. Everybody wants to save time. He found a way to do it for superiors in the department. He was then assigned the task of putting the material in a compact form of just a few pages. Next, he was sent to the war room whenever Kennedy met with his military advisers. He told me that he placed the report for the day on everybody's place at the table. He said that he sat behind Kennedy, because he was supposed to be there, just in case Kennedy did not understand something, or wanted additional information. He said that Kennedy would come in, pick up the report, skim over it in just a few seconds, and put it aside. He told me that he never saw Kennedy make a mistake in terms of summarizing in his discussion whatever was in the report. He said that Kennedy never turned back to him to ask him a question about what was in the report. I have no reason not to believe him. This story came up as an aside in a longer interview. I had no idea about his background. I did not interview him in order to find out something about Kennedy. Reading is as reading does. If the President of the United States can come in, briefly skim over material, remember everything in the report, and discuss it with other people who have read the report at 350 words a minute, then he has read the report. We can call it skimming, but we call it that because we cannot read that fast, and we don't want to be reminded that it may be our fault. But I don't think it is our fault. I think certain individuals have the skill of reading this fast, and assimilating the information in such a way that they can recall it.

Lee Harvey Oswald's mother visited the White House — nearly three years before JFK's assassination By West Wing Reports | January 21, 2014 http://theweek.com/article/index/255292/today-in-history-january-21

A little more than 6 months out, THE NIXON TAPES has a publication date! Tuesday, August 5, 2014. The release coincides with the 40th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, a time when many will reflect on his legacy. Douglas Brinkley and Luke Nichter will take an authors’ tour in August that includes New York, Washington, the Greater Los Angeles Area and points in between.. http://www.amazon.com/The-Nixon-Tapes-Douglas-Brinkley/dp/0544274156/

http://www.garynorth.com JFK: A Man Terrified of Castrotion Gary North - January 17, 2014 Reality Check Fidel Castro is the last of the Communists. He no longer is the power behind the throne in Cuba. His kid brother (age 82) runs the show. But the movement that Fidel launched in 1953 lives on in his aged body. The victory he achieved on New Year's Day, 1959, still is politically intact. All the rest have come and gone. He is the last Commie doddering. Castro was Eisenhower's nemesis -- also Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, Carter's, Reagan's, Bush's, Clinton's, Bush's, and now Obama's. They all lived in the shadow of south Florida's election returns, and they swallowed their pride. They all reacted to who he was and what he had done and still could do. He stayed. They came and went. If there were no Fidel Castro, there would be no Marco Rubio. If there were no Fidel Castro, you could legally buy a Cuban cigar. When Kinky Friedman lit a Cuban cigar, and offered one to Bill Clinton, Clinton said: "Uh, you know, that's illegal in this country. You can't do that here." Friedman responded: "We're not supporting their economy. We're burning their fields." CASTROTION John Fitzgerald Kennedy never got over the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco, which was designed by Allen Dulles, approved by Eisenhower, and inherited by Kennedy. He risked nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 in order to avoid what the press would describe as "Kennedy gets Castroted again." In October 1962, the Soviets could have taken out large cities in the Eastern United States without the Cuban missiles. Beginning in July 1961, they had nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles off the coast, five minutes away from Washington, D.C. or New York City. Kennedy could do nothing about the subs. So, their existence was ignored publicly. Missiles in Cuba would be visible; the subs were not. It was all about perception -- public relations. The Cuban missile crisis was mainly about defending Kennedy's macho image, not defending the homeland. New York's Senator Kenneth Keating, a Republican, had been warning about the missiles in Cuba for two months. He gave 10 speeches and 14 public statements on this, August to October. The Kennedy administration brushed this off as nonsense. But when the Soviets were about to arm the missiles, Kennedy had a huge political problem. He would look like a fool. Keating had warned the voters, and Kennedy's flacks had pooh-poohed this. To understand his dilemma -- a political dilemma -- we need to consider one of the crucial speeches of his career. It is never discussed in the textbooks, but it established the Kennedy doctrine of the self-censored press. KENNEDY'S GAG REQUEST SPEECH On April 27, 1961, Kennedy gave a speech to a group of newspaper publishers: the American Newspaper Publishers Association. It was a speech on why the press should show self-restraint in publishing negative reports on the foreign policy failures of his administration. Of course, he did not come out and say this. Instead, he raised the issue of national security. The title: "The President and the Press." If you want to understand this speech, think of Tom Sawyer and the fence. He was supposed to whitewash it. He was looking for volunteers. COMMUNIST DEADLINES He began with a brief history of the early years of Karl Marx. Marx was unemployable all his life. He was on the dole from his partner Engels, a capitalist Communist. He briefly was a columnist for a New York newspaper. That was in 1851. He wanted more money. The owner refused. The owner was a liberal reformer, Horace Greeley. Kennedy commented. But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the Cold War. If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper. It was an amusing vignette. But Marx was already a Communist in 1851. He and Engels wrote The Manifesto of the Communist Party anonymously in late 1847. They were on a deadline. They missed it. They predicted an imminent revolution in Europe. The book was in German. It was published in London on February 21, 1848. The 1848 revolution started in France on February 22. Copies reached Germany in June. Marx was never good about deadlines. More money from Greeley would not have changed Marx's commitment to Communism -- or his hatred of deadlines. He kept writing articles until 1861. (Engels ghostwrote some of these articles when Marx missed his deadlines. You can tell which ones. They are the clear ones.) So, the context of Kennedy's speech was the newspaper guild. He was speaking at their national forum. In this context, he talked about the Soviet Union. But he did not mention the USSR by name. That would have been bad for diplomacy. The Berlin wall went up four months layer. His introduction on Marx made his frame of reference clear: international Communism. NATIONAL SECURITY AND A SELF-GAGGED PRESS He began the main section of the speech with this: The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. This was straight Catholic doctrine. The Church forbade membership in the Freemasons. Freemasonry had a long history in the United States. It was basic to the American Revolution. Kennedy knew this. He knew that Americans had a fascination with secret societies. He began his presentation with a convenient falsehood: ". . . we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings." Then he called for secrecy. But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security. He was talking about the USSR. Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. He gave the speech on April 27. This was 10 days after the Bay of Pigs fiasco officially began. The CIA had planned this under Eisenhower. Kennedy had been humiliated days before April 27. His speech was an obvious reference to this fiasco. He knew that secrets about the total bungling would start leaking out soon. He went on: It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. In short, "It's the Communists' fault. It's not the CIA's fault!" Or, as Oliver Hardy put it to Stan Laurel, "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into." Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. What was the solution? Why, self-restraint, of course. "Don't publish things that might embarrass me or the CIA." For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. The trouble was, the Soviets knew about the plans for the Bay of Pigs before it happened. Worse, the CIA knew the Soviets knew. It went ahead anyway. Wikipedia summarizes. On 29 April 2000, a Washington Post article, "Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack", reported that the CIA had information indicating that the Soviet Union knew the invasion was going to take place, and did not inform Kennedy. On 13 April 1961, Radio Moscow broadcast an English-language newscast, predicting the invasion "in a plot hatched by the CIA" using paid "criminals" within a week. The invasion took place four days later. Kennedy knew by April 27 that the Soviets knew on April 13. He wanted to head this off at the pass -- head it off in the American press. He was successful. It was not until April 2000 that a few members of the public found out about the Soviet broadcast. It is clear what this speech was all about: damage control. He was spinning the press. Nothing new here. A NAIVE CONSPIRACY THEORIST With this in mind, read this analysis by a Right-wing anti-conspiratorialist. Here is his assessment of Kennedy's speech. Doesn't this match exactly what we are facing today? JFK is speaking about what he called the "Gnomes of Zurich". He is specifically referring to the banksters, the NWO and the enemy of humanity as a whole. These gnomes are going to use the Russians to enforce a brutal martial law which will complete the destruction of the United States. The problem is not that Kennedy "knew" about the New World Order. The problem was that he was a naive, pseudo-macho President who had been suckered by Allen Dulles, who ran the CIA. Kennedy had the power to start a nuclear World War III, as he almost did a year and a half later: the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy was a tool of the NWO, not its exposer. He was a man who, 10 days before the speech, had been caught with his pants down, metaphorically speaking. (He was never caught literally. The press covered for him.) CONCLUSION The context of Kennedy's speech was the Bay of Pigs, not fractional reserve banking. Look for the context of any document you cite. The context is usually the key to understanding it. Look for veiled warnings about the New World Order only after you have examined the context with care.

http://www.impiousdigest.com/jfk/players-in-rfk-killing/

Scheuer Upholds Assassination Call By Mallika Sen Georgetown University Hoya Staff Writer Published: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 Updated: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 03:01 http://www.thehoya.com/scheuer-upholds-assassination-call-1.3130119?pagereq=1#.UtcNhbB3uM8 Since School of Foreign Service adjunct professor Michael Scheuer appeared to endorse the assassinations of President Barack Obama and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron in a column Dec. 23, he has been the subject of media attention and criticism. Yet in an interview with The Hoya, Scheuer did not back down from the comments that angered Americans across the political spectrum. The crux of the media uproar focuses on the column’s close, which advises Obama and Cameron to pay heed to the writings of 17th century English republican Algernon Sidney, who called for the execution of tyrants and glorification of their assassins. “There must therefore be a right of proceeding judicially or extra-judicially against all persons who transgress the laws; or else those laws, and the societies that should subsist by them, cannot stand; and the ends for which governments are constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be overthrown,” wrote Sidney, who was executed for treason against King Charles II and whose writings later served as inspiration for American revolutionaries. The Sidney passage comes at the end of the column, which labels Obama and Cameron as “the Islamists’ only indispensable allies,” describes a growing religious war and criticizes the two politicians for their approaches. In an interview with The Hoya, Scheuer said this criticism could be applied to any Western leader. “Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Bush, Cheney, all of them tell the because [islamists] hate how we live. They don’t. They don’t hate the American people, what they do is hate the American government for what it does in their world,” Scheuer said. “Until we realize that as fact, this war — we’re going to keep losing it as we are now.” Scheuer said that if electoral options failed to remove egregiously erring leaders, the people of a republic have a right to pursue other options, including protests, refusing to pay taxes and as a last resort, revolution. Scheuer, in this vein, refused to shy away from endorsing assassination. “At some point, when push comes to shove, you kill people and get them out of the way,” Scheuer said. “But it’s the end of a very long process, and one would hope that supposedly smart men who went to Harvard and Oxford would know that the future is not a happy one for them if they continue to disregard the liberties their people have fought for over centuries.” Scheuer’s column, published on his website, non-intervention.com, focused on the partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the countries’ wartime policies. Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was the former head of the agency’s Osama bin Laden unit, criticized the leaders for their policies regarding the Muslim world, including their support of Tahrir Square activists during the Arab Spring. The column quickly received traction on news websites, most prominently on The Daily Beast, where columnist David Frum described Scheuer’s comments as “advocacy of murder,” in a column entitled “Michael Scheuer’s Meltdown.” Scheuer has received criticism from liberal and conservative quarters alike. “I’ve offended everyone. It comes from leftist websites because they think Obama really is the second coming of Christ, and it comes from the conservative websites because conservatives would love to have me on their team except I don’t want unnecessary wars and I can’t stand the American relationship with Israel,” Scheuer said. He emphasized that his desire to extricate the United States from its relationship with its Middle East ally is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. Scheuer, who since 2005 has taught two graduate-level courses, “Al Qaeda” and “Al Qaeda and the Global Jihad” for the Security Studies Program during both summer and fall semesters, said he has never been approached by the university regarding his outside writings, which have been the subject of past controversy. Although his critics have written to the administration in protest, according to Scheuer, Center for Security Studies Director Bruce Hoffman has defended him before, calling him the leading scholar on Osama bin Laden. The Center for Security Studies declined to comment for this article through Associate Director David Maxwell, citing Scheuer’s status as a private citizen and lack of a spring 2014 course at Georgetown. Scheuer did say he expected to hear from the university on this occasion, although he has not yet heard anything. University spokeswoman Stacy Kerr said that the university was not in the practice of censoring opinion. · Facebook Comments · Site Comments

Moment Charlie Brooks 'hid laptop evidence from police while Rebekah was being interviewed by police' Charlie Brooks allegedly shown on CCTV hiding a jiffy bag and laptop Race horse trainer seen going into garage with items, disappearing behind a column and coming back empty handed Security head Mark Hanna later picks computer and bag, court hears Police searching the flat later seen leaving with large boxes Rebekah was in custody at Lewisham Police Station at the time Police later handed a briefcase and laptop bag found behind bins, jury told By Lucy Crossley PUBLISHED: 11:40 EST, 14 January 2014 | UPDATED: 13:25 EST, 14 January 2014 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539298/Rebekah-Brooks-husband-filmed-hid-laptop-evidence-police-interviewed-police.html#ixzz2qPqqpiEc