Douglas Caddy

December 12, 2010 The New York Times Declassified Papers Show U.S. Recruited Ex-Nazis By SAM ROBERTS After World War II, American counterintelligence recruited former Gestapo officers, SS veterans and Nazi collaborators to an even greater extent than had been previously disclosed and helped many of them avoid prosecution or looked the other way when they escaped, according to thousands of newly declassified documents. With the Soviet Union muscling in on Eastern Europe, “settling scores with Germans or German collaborators seemed less pressing; in some cases, it even appeared counterproductive,” said a government report published Friday by the National Archives. “When the Klaus Barbie story broke, about his escaping with American help to Bolivia, we thought there weren’t any more stories like that, that Barbie was an exception,” said Norman J. W. Goda, a University of Florida professor and co-author of the report with Professor Richard Breitman of American University. “What we found in the record is that there were a fair number, and that it seems more systematic.” In chilling detail, the report also elaborates on the close working relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who later claimed that he sought refuge in wartime Germany only to avoid arrest by the British. In fact, the report says, the Muslim leader was paid “an absolute fortune” of 50,000 marks a month (when a German field marshal was making 25,000 marks a year). It also said he energetically recruited Muslims for the SS, the Nazi Party’s elite military command, and was promised that he would be installed as the leader of Palestine after German troops drove out the British and exterminated more than 350,000 Jews there. On Nov. 28, 1941, the authors say, Hitler told Mr. Husseini that the Afrika Corps and German troops deployed from the Caucasus region would liberate Arabs in the Middle East and that “Germany’s only objective there would be the destruction of the Jews.” The report details how Mr. Husseini himself was allowed to flee after the war to Syria — he was in the custody of the French, who did not want to alienate Middle East regimes — and how high-ranking Nazis escaped from Germany to become advisers to anti-Israeli Arab leaders and “were able to carry on and transmit to others Nazi racial-ideological anti-Semitism.” “You have an actual contract between officials of the Nazi Foreign Ministry with Arab leaders, including Husseini, extending after the war because they saw a cause they believed in,” Dr. Breitman said. “And after the war, you have real Nazi war criminals — Wilhelm Beisner, Franz Rademacher and Alois Brunner — who were quite influential in Arab countries.” In October 1945, the report says, the British head of Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division told the assistant American military attaché in Cairo that the mufti might be the only force able to unite the Palestine Arabs and “cool off the Zionists. Of course, we can’t do it, but it might not be such a damn bad idea at that.” “We have more detailed scholarly accounts today of Husseini’s wartime activities, but Husseini’s C.I.A. file indicates that wartime Allied intelligence organizations gathered a healthy portion of this incriminating evidence,” the report says. “This evidence is significant in light of Husseini’s lenient postwar treatment.” He died in Beirut in 1974. The report, “Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence and the Cold War,” grew out of an interagency group created by Congress to identify, declassify and release federal records on Nazi war crimes and on Allied efforts to hold war criminals accountable. It is drawn from a sampling of 1,100 C.I.A files and 1.2 million Army counterintelligence files that were not declassified until after the group issued its final report in 2007. “Hitler’s Shadow” adds a further dimension to a separate Justice Department history of American Nazi-hunting operations, which the government has refused to release since 2006 and which concluded that American intelligence officials created a “safe haven” in the United States for certain other former Nazis. Like earlier reports generated by the group, this one paints a grim portrait of bureaucracy, turf wars and communication gaps among intelligence agencies. It also details blatantly cynical self-interested tactical decisions by Allied governments and a general predisposition that some war crimes by former Nazis and their collaborators should be overlooked because the suspects could be transformed into valuable assets in the more urgent undercover campaigns against Soviet aggression. The American intelligence effort to infiltrate the East German Communist Party was dubbed “Project Happiness.” “Tracking and punishing war criminals were not high among the Army’s priorities in late 1946,” the report says. Instead, it concludes that the Army’s Counterintelligence Corps spied on suspect groups ranging from German Communists to politically active Jewish refugees in camps for displaced people and also “went to some lengths to protect certain persons from justice.” Among them was Rudolf Mildner, who was “responsible for the execution of hundreds, if not thousands, of suspected Polish resisters” and as a German police commander was in Denmark when Hitler ordered the country’s 8,000 Jews deported to Auschwitz. Mr. Mildner escaped from an internment camp in 1946, and the report raises questions about whether American intelligence agents’ “lenient treatment of Mildner contributed in some way to his ability to escape” and even suggests that he may have remained in American custody helping identify Communists and other subversives before settling in Argentina in 1949. The report cites other cases that parallel the experience of Klaus Barbie, known as the Butcher of Lyon. He cooperated with American intelligence agents who helped him flee to Argentina. One of those cases involved Anton Mahler, who as a Gestapo anti-communist agent interrogated Hans Scholl, the German underground student leader who was beheaded in 1943. Mr. Mahler also served in Einsatzgruppe B in occupied Belarus, which was blamed for the execution of more than 45,000 people, mostly Jews. “This admission on his own U.S. military government questionnaire in 1947 was ignored or overlooked by U.S. and West German authorities,” the report said. American agents recommended that Mr. Mahler and other former Nazis be protected from politically inspired criminal proceedings in Germany. In 1952, the report says, the C.I.A. moved to protect Mykola Lebed, a Ukrainian nationalist leader, from a criminal investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He would work for American intelligence in Europe and the United States through the 1980s, despite being implicated in guerrilla units during the war that killed Jews and Poles and being described by an Army counterintelligence report as a “well-known sadist and collaborator of the Germans.”

The U.S. National Archives and Record Administration on December 9, 2010 released a report titled, "Hitler's Shadow War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence and the Cold War." The report was prepared by historians retained by government agency. Below is a link to the official report: http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/hitlers-shadow.pdf

A number of persons, including some prominent U.S. leaders and persons on a certain U.S. television network, have called for the assassination of Julian Assange. I worry that should he be forced to return to Sweden, he may meet the same fate there as did Olof Palme, Sweden’s Prime Minister, who was assassinated in 1986. The killer was never found. Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia about Olof Palme: “Security had never been a major issue, and Olof Palme could often be seen without any bodyguard protection. The night of his murder was one such occasion. Walking home from a cinema with his wife Lisbet Palme on the central Stockholm street Sveavägen, close to midnight on February 28, 1986, the couple was attacked by an assassin. Palme was fatally shot in the back at close range. A second shot wounded Lisbet Palme. Police said that a taxi driver used his mobile radio to raise the alarm. Two young girls sitting in a car close to the scene of the shooting also tried to help the prime minister. He was rushed to hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival at 00:06 CET the next day. Mrs. Palme's wound was treated and she recovered. Deputy Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson immediately assumed the duties as Prime Minister and as new leader of the Social Democratic Party. Two years later, Christer Pettersson, a small-time criminal and drug addict, was arrested, tried and convicted for Palme's murder. Pettersson's conviction was later overturned on appeal to the Svea Court of Appeal. As a result the crime remains unsolved and a number of alternative theories as to who carried out the murder have since been proposed. Palme had strong opinions on both the world powers in the middle of the Cold War. In fact, the Swedish-American relations were at a record low due to Palme's rough criticism of the Vietnam War. Therefore there is a popular conspiracy theory[citation needed] that he was assassinated by either the Soviet KGB or the American CIA.”

Thank you for posting this. I found it most helpful as I am certain did other Forum members

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?hp Additional articles about the Wikileak documents can be found on the main page of today's New York Times.

November 26, 2010 Britain Keeps Silent on Afghan Impostor Claim By ALAN COWELL The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/world/asia/27impostor.html?_r=1&hp PARIS — Authorities in London withheld a formal response on Friday to a reported accusation by a senior Afghan official that the British introduced an impostor posing as a high Taliban commander into the presidential palace in Kabul to meet President Hamid Karzai. News of the embarrassing ruse emerged earlier this week in an article in The New York Times saying that a man identifying himself as Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement, had held three meetings with NATO and Afghan officials, encouraging hopes of a negotiated settlement to the nine-year-old war. The fake Taliban leader even met with President Karzai, after being flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said told The New York Times. The episode underscored the uncertain and even bizarre nature of the atmosphere in which Afghan and American leaders are searching for ways to bring the American-led war to an end. In its Friday editions, The Washington Post quoted President Karzai’s chief of staff as saying the British introduced the impostor and warning that foreigners should not get involved in negotiations with the Taliban. The chief of staff, Mohammad Umer Daudzai, was quoted saying said that unidentified British officials brought the impostor to meet Mr. Karzai in July or August. Afghan intelligence later determined that the visitor was actually a shopkeeper from the Pakistani city of Quetta. His remarks seemed to reflect a growing hostility among Afghan officials toward Western diplomatic interference in Afghan policy matters, despite the billions of dollars spent by the international coalition to support the Karzai government. Asked to comment on the report on Friday, a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office in London said only: “We do not comment on operational matters.” But, if borne out, the report would come at a delicate time for the British intelligence services, under pressure to be more open about their operations and likely to be deeply embarrassed by the spectacle of being duped in a country where they devote much attention to intelligence-gathering. Only last month, Sir John Sawers, the head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6, highlighted cooperation between British and American spy agencies “an especially powerful contributor to U.K. security.” While there had been whispers in Washington that the British had introduced the impostor, Mr. Daudzai’s comments were the most direct assignation of blame for the debacle, The Washington Post said. It also said that American officials have “long characterized the British as more aggressive than the Americans in pushing for a political settlement to end the war.”

Robert Merritt and I were interviewed on The Power Hour on November 24th. To listen to the interviews hosted by Joyce Riley please scroll down to that date on the link below. Each interview is one hour. I appear in hour 2 and Merritt in hour 3. http://www.thepowerhour.com/schedule.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/will-taliban-imposter-fla_n_787589.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jfk-kennedy-assassination-intrigues-47-years/story?id=12214125

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor By DEXTER FILKINS and CARLOTTA GALL The New York Times November 23, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/asia/23kabul.html?_r=1&hp KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the repeated appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement. But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little. “It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.” American officials confirmed Monday that they had given up hope that the Afghan was Mr. Mansour, or even a member of the Taliban leadership. NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man, who traveled from across the border in Pakistan, where Taliban leaders have taken refuge. The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said. The episode underscores the uncertain and even bizarre nature of the atmosphere in which Afghan and American leaders search for ways to bring the nine-year-old American-led war to an end. The leaders of the Taliban are believed to be hiding in Pakistan, possibly with the assistance of the Pakistani government, which receives billions of dollars in American aid. Many in the Taliban leadership, which is largely made up of barely literate clerics from the countryside, had not been seen in person by American, NATO or Afghan officials. Doubts were raised about the man claiming to be Mullah Mansour — who by some accounts is the second-ranking official in the Taliban, behind only the founder, Mullah Mohammed Omar — after the third meeting, held in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. A man who had known Mr. Mansour years ago told Afghan officials that the man at the table did not resemble him. “He said he didn’t recognize him,” said an Afghan leader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The Western diplomat said the Afghan man was initially given a sizable sum of money to take part in the talks — and to help persuade him to return. While the Afghan official said he still harbored hopes that the man would return for another round of talks, American and other Western officials said they had concluded that the man in question was not Mr. Mansour. Just how the Americans reached such a definitive conclusion — whether, for instance, they were able to positively establish his identity through fingerprints or some other means — is unknown. As recently as last month, American and Afghan officials held high hopes for the talks. Senior American officials, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the talks indicated that Taliban leaders, whose rank-and-file fighters are under extraordinary pressure from the American-led offensive, were at least willing to discuss an end to the war. The American officials said they and officials of other NATO governments were helping to facilitate the discussions, by providing air transport and securing roadways for Taliban leaders coming from Pakistan. Last month, White House officials asked The New York Times to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name from an article about the peace talks, expressing concern that the talks would be jeopardized — and Mr. Mansour’s life put at risk — if his involvement were publicized. The Times agreed to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name, along with the names of two other Taliban leaders said to be involved in the discussions. The status of the other two Taliban leaders said to be involved is not clear. Since the last round of discussions, which took place within the past few weeks, Afghan and American officials have been puzzling over who the man was. Some Afghans say the man may have been a Taliban agent sent to impersonate Mr. Mansour. “The Taliban are cleverer than the Americans and our own intelligence service,” said a senior Afghan official who is familiar with the case. “They are playing games.” Others suspect that the fake Taliban leader, whose real identity is not known, may have been dispatched by the Pakistani intelligence service, known by its initials, the ISI. Elements within the ISI have long played a “double-game” in Afghanistan, reassuring United States officials that they are actively pursuing the Taliban while at the same time providing support for the insurgents. Publicly, at least, the Taliban leadership is sticking to the line that there are no talks at all. In a recent message to his followers, Mullah Omar denied that there were any talks unfolding at any level. “The cunning enemy which has occupied our country, is trying, on the one hand, to expand its military operations on the basis of its double-standard policy and, on the other hand, wants to throw dust into the eyes of the people by spreading the rumors of negotiation,” his message said. Despite such statements, some senior leaders of the Taliban did show a willingness to talk peace with representatives of the Afghan government as recently as January. At that time, Abdul Ghani Baradar, then the deputy commander of the Taliban, was arrested in a joint C.I.A.-ISI raid in the Pakistani port city of Karachi. Although officials from both countries hailed the arrest as a hallmark of American-Pakistani cooperation, Pakistani officials have since indicated that they orchestrated Mr. Baradar’s arrest because he was engaging in peace discussions without the ISI’s permission. Afghan leaders have confirmed this account. Neither American nor Afghan leaders confronted the fake Mullah Mansour with their doubts about his identity. Indeed, some Afghan leaders are still holding out hopes that the man really is or at least represents Mr. Mansour — and that he will come back soon. “Questions have been raised about him, but it’s still possible that it’s him,” said the Afghan leader who declined to be identified. The Afghan leader said negotiators had urged the man claiming to be Mr. Mansour to return with colleagues, including other high-level Taliban leaders whose identities they might also be able to verify. The meetings were arranged by an Afghan middleman with ties to both the Afghan government and the Taliban, officials said. The Afghan leader said both the Americans and the Afghan leadership were initially cautious of the Afghan man’s identity and motives. But after the first meeting, both were reasonably satisfied that the man they were talking to was Mr. Mansour. Several steps were taken to establish the man’s real identity; after the first meeting, photos of him were shown to Taliban detainees who were believed to know Mr. Mansour. They signed off, the Afghan leader said. Whatever the Afghan man’s identity, the talks that unfolded between the Americans and the man claiming to be Mr. Mansour seemed substantive, the Afghan leader said. The man claiming to be representing the Taliban laid down several surprisingly moderate conditions for a peace settlement: that the Taliban leadership be allowed to safely return to Afghanistan, that Taliban soldiers be offered jobs, and that prisoners be released. The Afghan man did not demand, as the Taliban have in the past, a withdrawal of foreign forces or a Taliban share of the government. Sayed Amir Muhammad Agha, a onetime Taliban commander who says he has left the Taliban but who acted as a go-between with the movement in the past, said in an interview that he did not know the tale of the impostor. But he said the Taliban leadership had given no indications of a willingness to enter talks. “Someone like me could come forward and say, ‘I am a Talib and a powerful person,’ ” he said. “But I can tell you, nothing is going on.” “Whenever I talk to the Taliban, they never accept peace and they want to keep on fighting,” he said. “They are not tired.” Ruhullah Khapalwak contributed reporting.

On Mrs. Kennedy’s Detail By CLINT HILL The New York Times November 22, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22hill.html?ref=opinion Dallas IT was with great trepidation that I approached 3704 N Street in Washington on Nov. 10, 1960. I had just been given the assignment of providing protection for the wife of the newly elected president of the United States, and I was about to meet her for the first time. I soon realized I had little to worry about. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, just 31 years old at the time, was a gracious woman who put me immediately at ease. She was the first lady, but she was also a caring mother; her daughter, Caroline, was nearly 3 years old, and she was pregnant with her second child. Three weeks later, she went into early labor with John Jr., and I followed her through the entire process. It would be the first of many experiences we would have together. Being on the first lady’s detail was a lot different from being on the president’s. It was just the two of us, traveling the world together. Mrs. Kennedy was active and energetic — she loved to play tennis, water-ski and ride horses. She had a great sense of humor, and we grew to trust and confide in each other, as close friends do. In early 1963, Mrs. Kennedy shared with me the happy news that she was pregnant again. She had curtailed her physical activities and had settled into a routine at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, Mass., for the last few months of her pregnancy. I was on a rare day off when I got the call that she had gone into early labor. I raced to the hospital at Otis Air Force Base, arriving shortly after she did. The president, who had been in Washington, arrived soon after she delivered their new baby boy, whom they named Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. When Patrick died two days later, Mrs. Kennedy was devastated. I felt as if my own son had died, and we grieved together. The following weeks were difficult as I watched her fall into a deep depression. Eventually, it was suggested that she needed to get away. In October 1963 I traveled with her to the Mediterranean, where we stayed aboard Aristotle Onassis’ yacht, the Christina. The trip to Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia, along with a short stop in Morocco, seemed to be good therapy, and by the time we returned to Washington the light had returned to her eyes. I was surprised, however, when not long after our return Mrs. Kennedy decided to join her husband on his trip to Texas. It was so soon after the loss of her son, and she hadn’t accompanied the president on any domestic political trips since his election. Nevertheless, when we left the White House on Thursday, Nov. 21, I could tell that Mrs. Kennedy was truly excited. I remember thinking this would be a real test of her recovery, and that if she enjoyed the campaigning it would probably be a regular occurrence as soon as the 1964 race got into full swing. The first day of the trip was exhausting. We had motorcades in San Antonio, Houston and finally Fort Worth, where we arrived around midnight. It had been a long day for everyone, and Mrs. Kennedy was drained. On the morning of Nov. 22, I went to her room at the Hotel Texas to bring her down to the breakfast where President John F. Kennedy was speaking. She was refreshed and eager to head to Dallas. She had chosen a pink suit with a matching hat to wear at their many appearances that day, and she looked exquisite. The motorcade began like any of the many that I had been a part of as an agent — with the adrenaline flowing, the members of the detail on alert. I was riding on the running board of the car just behind the president’s. We were traveling through Dallas en route to the Trade Mart, where the president was to give a lunchtime speech, when I heard an explosive noise from my right rear. As I turned toward the sound, I scanned the presidential limousine and saw the president grab at his throat and lurch to the left. I jumped off the running board and ran toward his car. I was so focused on getting to the president and Mrs. Kennedy to provide them cover that I didn’t hear the second shot. I was just feet away when I heard and felt the effects of a third shot. It hit the president in the upper right rear of his head, and blood was everywhere. Once in the back seat, I threw myself on top of the president and first lady so that if another shot came, it would hit me instead. The detail went into action. We didn’t stop to think about what happened; our every move and thought went into rushing the president and Mrs. Kennedy to the nearest hospital. I stayed by Mrs. Kennedy’s side for the next four days. The woman who just a few days before had been so happy and exuberant about this trip to Texas was in deep shock. Her eyes reflected the sorrow of the nation and the world — a sorrow we still feel today. Clint Hill, a former assistant director of the Secret Service, served under five presidents.

Mr. Roy: THank you for sharing this. Based on your studies of David Ferrie, have you reached a conclusion on whether he was involved in the assassination of JFK? Roy will say Ferrie was not involved in the assassination. Why else would it be necessry for Ferrie, in his view, not to have *known* anybody connected with it? Whether or not Judyth knew Ferrie or Oswald or anyone else connected to the assassination, or any plot against Castro, is not a matter of anything being "necessary" .... it is a matter of evidence. And on real, actual ... and verifiable ... evidence, her story has failed at every turn. Not only does she not have evidence of her own, some situations and details she uses as part of her story have been documented to have their genesis in other documented sources.... or to be in conflict with same. As Brian Duffy, the Washington bureau chief of US News & World Reports, who worked with CBS/60 Minutes on what they all hoped would be the story of the century, stated when the plug was pulled on her story, despite 14 months of investigation,“We don’t have any evidence. We only have her story.” And when it comes to our historical truth, and to whether one's story is an aid or an abomination to future research efforts to find that truth ... that's just not good enough. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/11/21

http://www.trutv.com/video/conspiracy-theory/deathbed-confession.html Video of the show.

http://www.infowars.com/jesse-ventura-to-air-jfk-assassination-deathbed-confession/

http://www.garynorth.com The Four Rules of Good Writing Gary North Nov. 18, 2010 Any non-fiction book or article must meet these criteria in order to be worth reading and implementing: 1. Accurate 2. Clear 3. Persuasive 4. Retainable If it's inaccurate, it's worthless. Accuracy must always be judged in terms of the space available. A longer article can be more accurate than a short one, but if it is so long that no one in the targeted audience reads it, it's worthless. If it isn't clear, not many people will be able to put it to good use. If it is is useless, it's worthless. If it is not persuasive, no one will put it to good use. If it is useless, it's worthless. If no one can recall its main points a week later, no one will put it to good use. If it's useless, it's worthless. Must every written non-fiction piece by designed to take action? Yes, in this sense: "No action" is still action. It is inertia: continuation of an existing course of action. Human action is inescapable. We must act. That is what time forces on us. Do not sacrifice accuracy for clarity. If it is clear and wrong, it is deceptive. Better to be clearly wrong. Do not sacrifice accuracy and clarity for persuasiveness. If an article persuades someone to do the wrong thing, it's a bad article. Doing the wrong thing is likely if the article is inaccurate. Even if it is accurate, if it is unclear, it will lead people to do the wrong thing. If the reader cannot recall what the article said to do, the first three have done no good. It may have entertained him, but it places him in the position of a hearer of the word but not a doer (James 1:23-25). If he cannot remember it, it will not change his behavior. I like the story of General Ulysses Grant's aide. The man was something of a dunce. Grant knew this. He would hand the man an order for a subordinate commander. He would have the aide explain it to him. If the aide did not get it right, Grant would re-write it. Get it right. Make it clear. Make it persuasive. Hope they remember it.

The text of the report accompanied an article, which is reproduced below, that appeared originally on the front page of today's (Sunday) New York Times. Apparently the Times thought it was significantly important in its historical revelations not only to carry a lengthy article about it but to attach the text of the actual report. You have every right to your opinion as to its being newsworthy or not as do the editors of the New York Times who obviously differ with your assessment given the treatment they accorded the subject. I apologize if I offended you and forum readers by placing in the JFK topic. I did so because it was a report that was kept secret for four years by the Justice Department and my thought was that if this important secret document has finally seen the light of day, maybe we can have hope that secret government reports connected to JFK's assassination may at some point also see the light of day. I think that we can all agree that the government (especially the CIA) today is still sitting on reports and documents that would drastically change the accepted history of the JFK assassination were these to be released. As the article itself states: "The secrecy surrounding the Justice Department’s handling of the report could pose a political dilemma for President Obama because of his pledge to run the most transparent administration in history. Mr. Obama chose the Justice Department to coordinate the opening of government records." Nazis Were Given Safe Haven in U.S., Report Says By ERIC LICHTBLAU The New York Times November 14, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14nazis.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us WASHINGTON A secret history of the United States governments Nazi-hunting operation concludes that American intelligence officials created a safe haven in the United States for Nazis and their collaborators after World War II, and it details decades of clashes, often hidden, with other nations over war criminals here and abroad. The 600-page report, which the Justice Department has tried to keep secret for four years, provides new evidence about more than two dozen of the most notorious Nazi cases of the last three decades. It describes the governments posthumous pursuit of Dr. Josef Mengele, the so-called Angel of Death at Auschwitz, part of whose scalp was kept in a Justice Department officials drawer; the vigilante killing of a former Waffen SS soldier in New Jersey; and the governments mistaken identification of the Treblinka concentration camp guard known as Ivan the Terrible. The report catalogs both the successes and failures of the band of lawyers, historians and investigators at the Justice Departments Office of Special Investigations, which was created in 1979 to deport Nazis. Perhaps the reports most damning disclosures come in assessing the Central Intelligence Agencys involvement with Nazi émigrés. Scholars and previous government reports had acknowledged the C.I.A.s use of Nazis for postwar intelligence purposes. But this report goes further in documenting the level of American complicity and deception in such operations. The Justice Department report, describing what it calls the governments collaboration with persecutors, says that O.S.I investigators learned that some of the Nazis were indeed knowingly granted entry to the United States, even though government officials were aware of their pasts. America, which prided itself on being a safe haven for the persecuted, became in some small measure a safe haven for persecutors as well, it said. The report also documents divisions within the government over the effort and the legal pitfalls in relying on testimony from Holocaust survivors that was decades old. The report also concluded that the number of Nazis who made it into the United States was almost certainly much smaller than 10,000, the figure widely cited by government officials. The Justice Department has resisted making the report public since 2006. Under the threat of a lawsuit, it turned over a heavily redacted version last month to a private research group, the National Security Archive, but even then many of the most legally and diplomatically sensitive portions were omitted. A complete version was obtained by The New York Times. The Justice Department said the report, the product of six years of work, was never formally completed and did not represent its official findings. It cited numerous factual errors and omissions, but declined to say what they were. More than 300 Nazi persecutors have been deported, stripped of citizenship or blocked from entering the United States since the creation of the O.S.I., which was merged with another unit this year. In chronicling the cases of Nazis who were aided by American intelligence officials, the report cites help that C.I.A. officials provided in 1954 to Otto Von Bolschwing, an associate of Adolf Eichmann who had helped develop the initial plans to purge Germany of the Jews and who later worked for the C.I.A. in the United States. In a chain of memos, C.I.A. officials debated what to do if Von Bolschwing were confronted about his past whether to deny any Nazi affiliation or explain it away on the basis of extenuating circumstances, the report said. The Justice Department, after learning of Von Bolschwings Nazi ties, sought to deport him in 1981. He died that year at age 72. The report also examines the case of Arthur L. Rudolph, a Nazi scientist who ran the Mittelwerk munitions factory. He was brought to the United States in 1945 for his rocket-making expertise under Operation Paperclip, an American program that recruited scientists who had worked in Nazi Germany. (Rudolph has been honored by NASA and is credited as the father of the Saturn V rocket.) The report cites a 1949 memo from the Justice Departments No. 2 official urging immigration officers to let Rudolph back in the country after a stay in Mexico, saying that a failure to do so would be to the detriment of the national interest. Justice Department investigators later found evidence that Rudolph was much more actively involved in exploiting slave laborers at Mittelwerk than he or American intelligence officials had acknowledged, the report says. Some intelligence officials objected when the Justice Department sought to deport him in 1983, but the O.S.I. considered the deportation of someone of Rudolphs prominence as an affirmation of the depth of the governments commitment to the Nazi prosecution program, according to internal memos. The Justice Department itself sometimes concealed what American officials knew about Nazis in this country, the report found. In 1980, prosecutors filed a motion that misstated the facts in asserting that checks of C.I.A. and F.B.I. records revealed no information on the Nazi past of Tscherim Soobzokov, a former Waffen SS soldier. In fact, the report said, the Justice Department knew that Soobzokov had advised the C.I.A. of his SS connection after he arrived in the United States. (After the case was dismissed, radical Jewish groups urged violence against Mr. Soobzokov, and he was killed in 1985 by a bomb at his home in Paterson, N.J. ) The secrecy surrounding the Justice Departments handling of the report could pose a political dilemma for President Obama because of his pledge to run the most transparent administration in history. Mr. Obama chose the Justice Department to coordinate the opening of government records. The Nazi-hunting report was the brainchild of Mark Richard, a senior Justice Department lawyer. In 1999, he persuaded Attorney General Janet Reno to begin a detailed look at what he saw as a critical piece of history, and he assigned a career prosecutor, Judith Feigin, to the job. After Mr. Richard edited the final version in 2006, he urged senior officials to make it public but was rebuffed, colleagues said. When Mr. Richard became ill with cancer, he told a gathering of friends and family that the reports publication was one of three things he hoped to see before he died, the colleagues said. He died in June 2009, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. spoke at his funeral. I spoke to him the week before he died, and he was still trying to get it released, Ms. Feigin said. It broke his heart. After Mr. Richards death, David Sobel, a Washington lawyer, and the National Security Archive sued for the reports release under the Freedom of Information Act. The Justice Department initially fought the lawsuit, but finally gave Mr. Sobel a partial copy with more than 1,000 passages and references deleted based on exemptions for privacy and internal deliberations. Laura Sweeney, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department is committed to transparency, and that redactions are made by experienced lawyers. The full report disclosed that the Justice Department found a smoking gun in 1997 establishing with definitive proof that Switzerland had bought gold from the Nazis that had been taken from Jewish victims of the Holocaust. But these references are deleted, as are disputes between the Justice and State Departments over Switzerlands culpability in the months leading up to a major report on the issue. Another section describes as a hideous failure a series of meetings in 2000 that United States officials held with Latvian officials to pressure them to pursue suspected Nazis. That passage is also deleted. So too are references to macabre but little-known bits of history, including how a director of the O.S.I. kept a piece of scalp that was thought to belong to Dr. Mengele in his desk in hopes that it would help establish whether he was dead. The chapter on Dr. Mengele, one of the most notorious Nazis to escape prosecution, details the O.S.I.s elaborate efforts in the mid-1980s to determine whether he had fled to the United States and might still be alive. It describes how investigators used letters and diaries apparently written by Dr. Mengele in the 1970s, along with German dental records and Munich phone books, to follow his trail. After the development of DNA tests, the piece of scalp, which had been turned over by the Brazilian authorities, proved to be a critical piece of evidence in establishing that Dr. Mengele had fled to Brazil and had died there in about 1979 without ever entering the United States, the report said. The edited report deletes references to Dr. Mengeles scalp on privacy grounds. Even documents that have long been available to the public are omitted, including court decisions, Congressional testimony and front-page newspaper articles from the 1970s. A chapter on the O.S.I.s most publicized failure the case against John Demjanjuk, a retired American autoworker who was mistakenly identified as Treblinkas Ivan the Terrible deletes dozens of details, including part of a 1993 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that raised ethics accusations against Justice Department officials. That section also omits a passage disclosing that Latvian émigrés sympathetic to Mr. Demjanjuk secretly arranged for the O.S.I.s trash to be delivered to them each day from 1985 to 1987. The émigrés rifled through the garbage to find classified documents that could help Mr. Demjanjuk, who is currently standing trial in Munich on separate war crimes charges. Ms. Feigin said she was baffled by the Justice Departments attempt to keep a central part of its history secret for so long. Its an amazing story, she said, that needs to be told. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: November 14, 2010 An earlier version misspelled the given name of Adolf Eichmann as Adolph.

http://documents.nytimes.com/confidential-report-provides-new-evidence-of-notorious-nazi-cases

Many thanks for your kind comment. It can be a rewarding to check the archive of Los Angeles radio station KPFK regularly because of the numerous worthwhile interviews and commentaries that are stored there for free listening.

Kindle is one of a number of outlets that sell ebooks. My new ebook, Watergate Exposed, is being offered by Kindle now and in the next few weeks by the other outlets listed below. So if you are thinking about publishing an ebook, keep in mind these additional outlets for your work: Amazon - Kindle Apple - EPUB Baker & Taylor - PDF Barnes & Noble - EPUB BooksonBoard.com – EPUB, PDF Borders – EPUB, PDF Diesel-ebooks.com - PDF EbookExpress.com - PDF Ebooks.com – EPUB, PDF Ebrary - PDF eFollett - PDF Follett Digital Resources - PDF Ingram Digital – EPUB, PDF Kobo – EPUB, PDF Netlibrary - PDF Overdrive – EPUB, PDF Powells.com - PDF Questia - PDF Sony - EPUB TecKnoQuest - PDF Waterstone’s - PDF WHSmith.co.uk - PDF

http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/index.php Here is a radio interview of Robert Merritt about our new book, Watergate Exposed, which aired Nov. 4 on Radio Station KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles and 98.7 FM in Santa Barbara. The title to the program is "Something is happening with Roy in Hollywood" and Merritt is interviewed first in Part B and then again at the end of Part A on Nov. 4.

http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/index.php Here is a radio interview of me about my new book, Watergate Exposed, which aired earlier today (Nov. 11) on Radio Station KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles and 98.7 FM in Santa Barbara. The interview begins at hour 02.00 of the program, which began airing at 12 A.M. The interview also covers how I met Howard Hunt and his wife, Dorothy, who was also a CIA agent. Another topic is a meeting held on June 28, 1972 (11 days after the Watergate scandal broke) in which Washington, D.C. Police Detective Carl Shoffler and four intelligence agents discussed assassinating me because of their fear that I knew too much about certain CIA operations.

http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/index.php Here is a radio interview of me about my new book, Watergate Exposed, which aired earlier today (Nov. 11) on Radio Station KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles and 98.7 FM in Santa Barbara. The interview begins at hour 02.00 of the program, which began airing at 12 A.M.

Lew Rockwell interviews Don Adams. November 2, 2010 www.lewrockwell.com Former FBI agent Don Adams helped investigate the Kennedy assassination at the time, and smelled a rat right away. But it was not until 1993 that he knew Oswald was set up by LBJ, Hoover, and the other DC gang members. He has since dedicated his life to telling the truth about this coup d’état. http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/11/02/170-lee-harvey-oswald-was-a-patsy/