Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
It goes without saying that I do not share John's politicial philosophy or agree with many of his assassination theories. But John certainly deserves plaudits and appeciation for putting this forum together.
Just think: we have one of the Watergate burglars answering questions; we have the contributions of Gerry Hemming, clearly a player in the events of the early sixties; we have many, many distinguished authors; and, of course, the many regular members from throughout the world who devote significant amounts of time to researching the evidence and testimony in an attempt to find new perspectives and fresh leads. I think the Forum was also blessed by the contributions of Nathaniel Weyl before his death.
My primary concern with the Forum relate to the posts that implicate or hint at participantion in the assassination conspiracy by Americans most of whom are probably as pure as the driven snow (at least with respect to assassinations). Members who claim to be civil libertarians should, I believe, share this concern. I submit it is as inappropriate to label someone a Kennedy killer without evidence as it was to brand someone as a Communist in the fifties (absent evidence the person was indeed a Communist).
But my main purpose in this post is to congratulate John for his work in developing the Forum for it is its development that has attracted these diverse contributors. I don't want to recognize individual members here because there are so many great minds at work here that I would be sure to miss some. And I also want to add that I appreciate and gain insight even from contributors from different political perspectives and world views than my own.
**************************************************************************
"I submit it is as inappropriate to label someone a Kennedy killer without evidence as it was to brand someone as a Communist in the fifties (absent evidence the person was indeed a Communist)."
But T.G., it's so much fun calling you a fascist!
"But my main purpose in this post is to congratulate John for his work in developing the Forum for it is its development that has attracted these diverse contributors."
Yes, I agree. Without John and Andy, this database along with its various study venues, would be non-existent, until someone else might have hit upon the idea.
As I became increasingly familiar with the internet and the assassination forums over the last five or so years, I had been wondering about, as well as suggesting, this very same idea. What was needed was a compilation database strictly dedicated to the many aspects associated with the assassination(s). John and Andy had already built upon a premise by creating their Distance-Learning database with the inclusion of educators and teachers. They then went a step further to expand upon it by creating a globally political forum encompassing the history, philosophy, and mechanics associated with governmental processes, worldwide. This serves well as a dual learning process from both the educational and social standpoint. You have global access to teachers, professors, and doctors everywhere, as well as the opportunity to interact on a personal level. This is tantamount to being able to understand the different and diversified cultures throughout the planet. It gives everyone a chance to interact and share their views, and perhaps learn to not only tolerate, but accept one another's opinions as well as understand how they were formed. This is how I am able to learn from T.G.'s fascist views, though not necessarily accept them. But, at least I can respect his right to express his views, which he does, in a logical and eloquent, if not gracious manner. The debates crackle like live-wires around here, and the mental stimulation is priceless.
Way to go, guys. I've got to get back to work.
-
To keep in mind when evaluating anti Cuba propaganda:
Bush a Terrorist trampling on human rights using mass weapons of economic destruction and truth distortion:
______________________________________________________
Uncovering Bush Plan for Regime Change in Cuba
Cuba Now
November 11, 2004
http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?c...nt=num28/02.htm
Uncovering Bush Plan for Regime Change in Cuba
By Hope Bastian ZNet
Cubanow.- I'm living in a war zone, but what I see when I look out the window of my apartment in Havana , Cuba does not resemble the pictures in the papers of the war in Iraq . No missiles have been fired here, there are no camouflaged soldiers in the streets with guns, no armored tanks roll by. The sun is still shining, the birds still sing, and the streets are alive with people busy living their lives. There are no children dying in the streets from shrapnel wounds, but there is no doubt the nation is under attack. Here the war is manifested not in body counts and car-bombings but in the constant assault of material poverty: crumbling homes and rolling black-outs. It doesn't look like a war zone, but the US government is waging a silent war here and no one is left untouched.
The war in Iraq is not the only war that the Bush Administration is involved in today and its plans for "regime change" are not limited to the Middle East . They might have caught Saddam, but there's another bearded "bad-guy" on the loose, and another nation, weak after years of US sanctions, to be "liberated". There's nothing new about the war against Cuba , which started in May of 1961, only four months after the Revolution overthrew US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Forty-five years and over 600 assassination attempts later, the war against Cuba is now principally fought with weapons of economic destruction. The Bush Administration has intensified this economic war and made overthrowing the Cuban government a higher priority in this election year than in previous years.
Last October, Bush began his presidential campaign with a pledge to radical rightist elements of the Cuban-American community in South Florida to take drastic steps to strengthen the enforcement of the US embargo against Cuba . "Clearly, the Castro regime will not change by its own choice," Bush said, "But Cuba must change." In his speech, Bush announced the establishment of the Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba, "to plan for the happy day when Castro's regime is no more and democracy comes to the island." The Commission was asked to draw upon experts within the US government to "identify ways to hasten the arrival of that day." Bush warned that, "The transition to freedom will present many challenges to the Cuban people and to America ", and promised that, "In all that lies ahead, the Cuban people have a constant friend in the United States of America . We are confident that no matter what the dictator intends or plans, Cuba sera pronto libre" .
On May 6, 2004 , the Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba, chaired by Secretary of State Colin Powell, and staffed by a "dream team" of high level cabinet officials reported back to the president. They presented a 458-page report outlining concrete steps to be taken by the Bush administration to overthrow the Cuban government. As soon as the report was released, wheels were set in motion to write these recommendations into law. On June 16, 2004 , the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published a new set of regulations in the Federal Register to govern US economic relations with Cuba . (OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions that support US foreign policy and national security goals).
Much of the press coverage in the US about these new measures has focused on the ways in which they have affected Cuban families on both sides of the Florida Strait . However, the most controversial measures are contained in other new regulations. The US government has instituted new measures limiting Cuba 's ability to engage in international trade in its attempt to overthrow the Cuban government.
The Bush administration's current war for regime change in Cuba depends not on cluster bombs and depleted uranium, but on the use of a 45-year old economic embargo as a weapon to isolate Cuba . By preventing other countries from trading with Cuba , the US government hopes to make it impossible for the nation to provide for the needs of its citizens. Cuba will reach a breaking point; the people will rise up against their government and welcome the US "liberators" with open arms. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work. A full 400 pages of the 458 page "Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba Report" are focused on the delivery of aid by the US government to a new regime to ease the suffering caused by the crippling economic embargo. The report outlines in detail a plan for rebuilding the country in the US 's image of a model representative democracy with a free-market economy. Does the term nation building sound familiar from some other context?
When socialism ended in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union , Cuba lost its largest trading partner and fell into a deep economic depression. In the US , many hoped that Cuban socialism would follow and it was to that end that they chose that moment to tighten the embargo. In October 1992, less than a month before the US general elections, Congress passed the Torricelli Act. Foreign subsidiaries of US owned companies were prohibited from trading with Cuba . Ships that delivered goods to Cuba were prohibited from docking in US ports for six months after, forcing shipping companies to decide who they wanted to trade with: Cuba or the United States . Because a ship docking in Cuba either loses access to the US market or risks a steep fine if they dock in a US port, Cuba 's shipping costs skyrocketed.
The law also restricted remittances, prohibited economic assistance and debt forgiveness to any country conducting trade with Cuba , and increased punitive measures for anyone breaking the trade embargo or traveling to Cuba illegally.
Four years later, in another election year (1996), Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act. This Act included another series of harsh measures aimed at preventing non-US firms from trading with Cuba by punishing those who engage in commercial dealings with Cuba . Under the Helms-Burton Act, any naturalized US citizens whose Cuban property had been confiscated since the Revolution now had the right to sue, in US courts, the foreign companies or individuals who they deem have gained from investments in those properties.
It also authorized the US State Department to deny visas to the executives, majority shareholders and their families of companies that have invested in property that belonged to US companies prior to the Revolution.
Before the Helms-Burton Act, many elements of the embargo existed only as executive orders and regulations that could be modified by the president.
Helms-Burton codified the embargo requiring an act of Congress to lift the embargo. It also dictated the conditions that must exist in Cuba before the embargo would be lifted. Top on the list were the creation of a new government in Cuba that does not include Fidel or Raul Castro and proof that this new government was "substantially moving towards a market-oriented economic system based on the right to own and enjoy property".
The recent attacks by the US Treasury Department on businesses trading with Cuba show the strength of the Bush administration's commitment to "regime change" in Cuba . Perhaps these attacks also demonstrate its lack of commitment to fighting international terrorism. While the Treasury Department has 21 employees who track financial transactions with Cuba , it has only four employees responsible for tracking the funding of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda operatives may remain at-large, planning future terrorist attacks, but we can all rest assured that James Sabzali, a Canadian citizen who sold resins used to purify public drinking water in Cuba, has been slapped with a $10,000 fine and a 12-month conditional sentence for his dangerous actions. To you or me, this may sound a little harsh; to the Bush administration, it is clear that an unequivocal message must be sent to the international business community that trading with Cuba is "trading with the enemy". As the well-known axiom of Bush's foreign policy clearly states, "You're either with us or against us".
One recommendation in the Commission's May report was that the US government establish a Cuban Asset Targeting Group, to investigate and identify new ways in which hard currency is moved in and out of Cuba . In May, the US Federal Reserve fined UBS AG, Switzerland 's largest bank, $100 million dollars US for allegedly sending US dollars to Cuba in violation of provisions of the embargo that prevent Cuba from trading in dollars. This action has created serious problems for Cuba by making it very difficult to deposit its dollars abroad and renew bills in circulation.
Although the Bush administration claims that, "There is a growing international consensus on the nature of the Castro regime and the need for fundamental political and economic change on the island." for thirteen straight years, the UN General Assembly has voted to condemn the US embargo against Cuba . On October 28, 2004 , the UN General Assembly voted 179 to 4 with one abstention on a resolution condemning the US economic embargo of Cuba . During these thirteen years, the margin in favor of Cuba has steadily increased. This year, only the United States , Israel , Palau and the Marshall Islands voted against a condemnation of the embargo. Is this the "coalition of the willing" who supports US policies for "regime change" in Cuba ? Just as in the current military war for "regime change" in Iraq , the US government stands alone in its economic war against Cuba , supported only by a weak coalition of "allies" who cannot refuse.
A war of attrition is being fought by the US in Cuba . The Cuban people are suffering from the cumulative effects of 45 years of economic policies designed to create the conditions for a US-assisted transition to a free-market economy. The island is blockaded, not by US battleships and destroyers, but by a collection of laws and presidential mandates that fly in the face of international law, limiting the free movement of trade and the economic sovereignty of Cuba and those who would do business with them.
(Hope Bastian is an educator working to educate US citizens about the ways that US foreign policy affects the people of Latin America ).
Cubanow © is developed by Ediciones ICAIC & Martín Luther King Jr. Memorial Center. All rights reserved ISSN-1810-3405 Programming; Ing. Indira Izquierdo Rodríguez Desing by:D.I. Alain López González
*****************************************************************************
"Bush warned that, "The transition to freedom will present many challenges to the Cuban people and to America ", and promised that, "In all that lies ahead, the Cuban people have a constant friend in the United States of America . We are confident that no matter what the dictator intends or plans, Cuba sera pronto libre"."
In other words, this "transition to freedom" is really meant for the dispossessed Cuban elitist plantation owners. Therefore, the challenges to the Cuban people will commence when these former slave-owners are once again allowed to lay claim to their plantations, and prevail over their former servants and subjects. Servants, whom I'm sure they'd prefer to believe, will be welcoming back their former masters, [and the prospect of living the rest of their lives in their prior indentured capacity] with open arms.
"Although the Bush administration claims that, "There is a growing international consensus on the nature of the Castro regime and the need for fundamental political and economic change on the island." for thirteen straight years, the UN General Assembly has voted to condemn the US embargo against Cuba . On October 28, 2004 , the UN General Assembly voted 179 to 4 with one abstention on a resolution condemning the US economic embargo of Cuba . During these thirteen years, the margin in favor of Cuba has steadily increased. This year, only the United States, Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voted against a condemnation of the embargo. Is this the "coalition of the willing" who supports US policies for "regime change" in Cuba ? Just as in the current military war for "regime change" in Iraq , the US government stands alone in its economic war against Cuba , supported only by a weak coalition of "allies" who cannot refuse."
I guess that shows you where the U.S.'s money is currently being laundered, off-shore.
And, anyone with half a brain knows that NAFTA, aka Laissez Faire, aka "Free" Trade, is only profitable for the CEO's and corporate heads. "Free" Trade means "free" or "pretty-damned-close-to-free" labor to the corporate owners and their shareholders. They're the only ones who end up profiteering from being able to out-source U.S. jobs to Third World country sweatshops and slave-labor camps. Countries where they can get away with paying people less than a dollar an hour. And, if you think the lower cost of living in these countries warrants the lower pay scale, you're in denial, and you're dreaming! You can point to China [AFTA] as an example of prosperity, but point to the outlying countryside where the so-called "employees" really reside, not to the big cities where the corporate headquarters take care of upper management. Go to where their sweatshop "coolies" still live on dirt floors. Same thing with South America. NAFTA, CAFTA, aka "right to work" which means, "You have the right to be terminated without being given a reason, nor recourse. You may also terminate your employment without giving notice [that must look real swell on a resume]." It also means lack of medical benefits, below minimum wage, no OSHA, no security. But, the fascists will tell you,
"It's the American Way! Be your own entrepeneurial promoter!" Sorry folks, that may have been la-dee-dah for the Manifest Destiny crowd of the late 1800's. But, don't you think this country should have evolved to a much higher standard after 230 years? At least, to a position where all of its citizens, even those purposely disenfranchized blacks, reds, browns, yellows, and even the po' white trash, might all be living a more egalitarian existence? Instead, we're being faced with an ever-widening gap of economic disparity today that should have been dealt with and irradicated in the last century. The only promise Bush and his neocons have for Cuba is the continued exploitation of its laboring class of people. Especially, once another Batista-like puppet regime finally gets the go-ahead to be set in place for Cuba's former property and plantation owners.
-
I have made it (almost) through the first 44 boxes and here is the index I have put together so far. I will amend this post as I go through the remaining boxes.
Here is a link to the Ferrell web-site on the boxed Church Committee documents:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?docSetId=1015
Anderson, Clark Testimony, 2/4/1976 Box 2
Attwood, Bill Testimony, 7/10/1975 Box 25
Bissell, Richard Testimony, 6/9/1975 Box 41
Testimony, 7/17/1975 Box 41
Testimony, 7/10/1975 Box 43
Breckinridge, D Testimony, 6/2/1975 Box 27
Campbell, Judith Interview 9/20/75 Box 1
Clifford, Clark Testimony, 4/16/1975 Box 37
Colby, William Testimony, 4/23/1975 Box 24
Testimony, 4/21/1975 Box 27
Cotter, Richard Testimony, 5/5/1976 Box 43
deLoach, Cartha Testimony, 11/25/1975 Box 40
Dubois, Edward Testimony, 6/12/1975 Box 26
Edwards, Sheffield Testimony 5/30/1975 Box 25
Elder, Walter Testimony, 7/13/ 1975 Box 27
Evans, Courtney Testimony, 8/7/1975 Box 25
Exner, Judith Campbell Interview 9/20/75 Box 1
Gilpatric, Roswell Testimony, 7/8/1975 Box 27
Testimony, 7/17/1975 Box 43
Goodpaster, Andrew Testimony, 7/17/1975 Box 24
Testimony, 7/17/1975 Box 43
Goodwin, Richard Testimony, 7/18/1975
Halpern, Sam Testimony, 6/18/ 1975 Box 25
Harvey, William K. Testimony, 5/1/1975 Box 37
Helms, Richard Testimony, 7/17-18/1975 Box 25
Staff Interview, 9/16/1975 Box 26
Testimony, 4/23/1975 Box 27
Rockefeller Commission Testimony Box 40
Hosty, James Testimony, Dec 5, 12,13, 1975 Box 42
Houston, Lawrence Testimony, 6/2/1975 Box 25
Hunt, E. Howard Testimony, 01/10-11, 1976 Box 25
Kennedy, Edward Testimony, 9/22/1975 Box 26
Landsdale, Edward Testimony, 7/8/1975 Box 24
Martin, David C. Testimony, 7/24/1975 Box 26
Maheu, Robert Testimony, 7/9/1975 Box 27
Marchetti, Victor Testimony, 3/28/1975 Box 27
McAndrew, Thomas Testimony, 9/17/1975 Box 24
McNamara, Robert Testimony, 4/2/1975 Box 37
Morgan, Edward P. Testimony, 3/19/1976 Box 26
Morrissey, James Testimony, 4/13/1976 Box 43
O’Connell, James P. Testtimony, 5/30/1975, Box 24
O’Donnell, P. Kenneth Testimony, 9/15/75 Box 1
Osborn, Howard J. Testimony, 8/28/1975, Box 26
Testimony, 2/17/1975 Box 39
O’Leary, Jeremiah Testimony, 7/24/1975 Box 27
Papich, Sam Testimony, 3/5/1975 Box 41
Paupach, Kenneth Testimony, 3/31/1976 Box 43
Parrott, Thomas Testimonyt, 7/10/1975 Box 27
Phillips, David Atlee Testimony, 7/31/1975 Box 27
Prouty, Fletcher Testimony, 7/16/1975 Box 26
Rankin, J. Lee Letters Box 30
Rosselli, John Testimony 9/22/75 Box 1
Testimony, 9/23/75 Box 18
Rostow, Walter Testimony, 7/9/1975 Box 26
Rowley, James Testimony, 2/13/1976 Box 42
Roman, Jane A Testimony, 5/7/1976 Box 5
Rusk, Dean Testimony, 7/10/1975
Sarno, Alfred J. Testimony, 6/25/1975 Box 26
Sheridan, Walter Testimony, 9/19/1975 Box 40
Smathers, George Testimony, 7/23/1975 Box 26
Sorenson, Ted Testimony and affidavit, 7/21/1975
Box 27
Sturbitts, William C. Testimony, 4/16/1975 Box 25
Sturgis, Frank Testimony, 4/3/1975 Box 41
Szulc, Tad Testimony, 6/10/1975
Swenson, Harold Testimony, 5/10/1976 Box 43
Taylor, Maxwell Testimony, 7/9/1975, Box 26
Tucker, George Testimony, 5/3/1976 Box 41
Weathery Executive Session Testimony,
8/11/1975, Box 26
Wilson, Will Testimony, 9/8/1975 Box 40
REFERENCES TO FBI REVIEW OF TAPES OF OSWALD'S OCT. 1, 1963 MEXICO CITY CONVERSATION Box 53
**********************************************************
T.G., this is most appreciated. You've made this easily accessible for everyone. Good job.
Thanks,
Ter
-
Dear Mr. Hemming,
Sorry to see your old friend hitting on hard times. Not to change the subject, [it's really the same subject]. Rumsfeld muses, "What electrode would Jesus use?" Some of us are concerned about how one human treats another. Some of us are also concerned about justice - to know the why, and the "WHO." Pinochet is a monster and an international criminal. Those who helped him rise to power should IMHO, be tried with him. You know what the D.A. says about criminals, "If you can't get them for one crime, you can get them for another." I'm sure you get my drift.
http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4297919&nav=1LFX
http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html
Your truly,
Hanoi Jane
-
One vote for satanic. But also another example of "your deluding yourself it you think this is just about Bush." Why did leading democrats like Mrs. San Francisco Real (2nd) Estate--Nanci Pelosi sit on information about the NSA satelites for at least a year, never saying anything, until the year old Times story was finally deemed "long enough after the election to print"?
It has long been observed that abstract liberties are much more difficult to defend on the hustings than abject lies that provoke fear. Difficult, maybe, but far from impossible where there is an opposition party, with the political will to decry despotic measures from a national pulpit. The national pulpit is essential, if the argument agains the Patriot Act is to gell. Otherwise it will be a bunch of separate regional arguments that never merge into a soundbite that can be heard in the middle of Missouri.
All of which is to say: hit the Democrats first; they're not sleeping, just counting their checks from American Express. THEY are the reason Missouri never hears "the other side of the story" unless it is straw-dogged on the O'Reily Factor.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF 2005, THE YEAR OF BIGGER BROTHER ON STEROIDS
Lost in the tumult of the transit strike in NYC last week, there appeared a holiday miracle: a story in the New York Times that might actually be an example of muckraking.
In a very long front page story, the Times documented how the NYPD has been infiltrating protest groups and acting as agents provocateurs. They even had pictures of undercover cops faking thier own arrest IN ORDER TO PROVOKE THE REAL PROTESTERS INTO DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
This behavior isn't surprising to anyone familiar with the history of red squads. That it should be so openly exposed on the front page of NYT: wow! I think we, as concerned citizens, should photocoppy the bejesus out of this article. It can be used to great effect with many liberals who are sceptical of news stories that are "not mainstream."
The article appeared in the 12-22-05 Times.
****************************************************************
Deleted by T. Mauro due to some unsettling news I learned today regarding the copying and pasting from periodicals and newspaper articles, in full, without getting permission from the author or the editor of said periodical or newspaper. Sorry.
-
This NYT editorial, coupled with one that I linked to earlier, has me fairly convinced that the CIA is essentially writing these NYT editorials against the Bush/Cheney regime, in much the same way that the CIA used the Washington Post to bring down Nixon. Of course, these editorials alone are not going to send Bush packing prematurely and permanently for Crawford, but to me the tone is remarkably atypical of the establishment corporate media. I can't help but hear in them the distant sound of an angry mockingbird.
Ron, I think you hit the nail on the head, the comparison to the media dynamic that is in play regarding Pres. Bush, and similarities to the Nixon Era post June 72, is beyond reproach, I believe. Ironically if you read the stroy that is on the Internet today about the 'White Houses List of Accomplishments' for the year 2005, is so 'doublespeak and Orwellian in its overtones that the same mentality that brought down the Nixon White House, is what I would say 'front and center' this Christmas 2005. I would also sadly note, that if the same shennanigans that have taken place since Inauguration Day in America were taking place in 1973, the President would have left office long ago. That in itself is a fact that should make everyone aware of just how far the dynamics of Operation Mockingbird and the American peoples apathy have taken us.
*****************************************************
From Truthout.org:
Print This Story E-mail This Story
What do you think? The t r u t h o u t Town Meeting is in progress. Join the debate!
Go to Original
NSA, the Agency That Could Be Big Brother
By James Bamford
The New York Times
Sunday 25 December 2005
Washington - Deep in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour.
Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another NSA listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country.
A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the NSA has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the NSA to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment.
According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret.
Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the NSA was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the CIA and other spy organizations.
But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the NSA has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the NSA was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
He added that if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind.
The NSA's original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the NSA would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and weapons signals.
Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always chattering and never moved, the NSA is trying to find small numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from country to country.
During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.
According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the NSA's director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the NSA intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though they came from suspected al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.
What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay phones.
This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. "Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given day? Thousands." General Hayden said.
Still, the NSA doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic monitoring to snare al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.
The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.
Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the NSA normally eavesdropped on a small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, while the FBI, whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.
Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush established a secret program in which the NSA would bypass the FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data and new information.
At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who posed potential threats.
Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a warrant.
In essence, NSA seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring."
This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.
In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.
Total Information Awareness, known as TIA, was intended to search through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.
But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of efforts."
The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.
After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."
Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Bamford is the author of Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency.
-------
Jump to today's TO Features:
Today's TO Features t r u t h o u t Mr. Fitzgerald Calling -------------- John Dear | "Peace on Earth" Means "No More War" Rebecca Solnit | 2005: Bad Year for Goliath Blues in the Green Zone on Christmas Mourners Remember 216,000 Tsunami Victims Matt Frei | Bush Bubble Burst by Troubled 2005 Some Fear Eavesdropping Could Undermine Work of Spy Agency US Missteps Leave Iraqis in the Dark David Sirota | Will the Dems Step Up in the New Year? James Bamford | NSA, the Agency That Could Be Big Brother US Bombing of Iraq Intensifies -------------- t r u t h o u t Town Meeting t r u t h o u t Home
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story E-mail This Story
| t r u t h o u t | town meeting | issues | environment | labor | women | health | voter rights | multimedia | donate | contact | subscribe |
-
The connection between Ted Shackley and the Iran-Contra scandal began in 1979. Shackley had expected to become director of the CIA. However, Jimmy Carter’s appointment of Stansfield Turner, had blocked his advance up the ladder. The same was true of all those involved in the illegal covert operations in the 1960s and 70s. The only way back for Shackley (he resigned from the CIA in 1979) was for the removal of Carter. In 1980 he had regular meetings with George Bush where he advised him of his election strategy. Bush did not get the nomination but when he became Reagan’s vice presidential candidate, Shackley continued to advise him.
Shackley told Bush that Carter was attempting to negotiate a deal with Iran to get the American hostages released. This was disastrous news for the Reagan/Bush campaign. If Carter got the hostages out before the election, the public perception of the man might change and he might be elected for a second-term.
According to Barbara Honegger, a researcher and policy analyst with the 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign, William Casey and other representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections.
Reagan’s aides promised that they would get a better deal if they waited until Carter was defeated.
On 22nd September, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. The Iranian government was now in desperate need of spare parts and equipment for its armed forces. Carter now proposed that the US would be willing to hand over supplies in return for the hostages.
Once again, the CIA leaked this information to Reagan/Bush. Shackley now suggested a strategy that would make it impossible to do a deal. One way was to leak the story to the press. On 17th October, The Washington Post reported rumours of a “secret deal that would see the hostages released in exchange for the American made military spare parts Iran needs to continue its fight against Iraq”.
These stories continued to be published throughout the rest of the campaign. One Washington Post report quoted French officials as being shocked by news that Carter was willing to be blackmailed by the Iranians into “providing spare parts for American weapons”. A couple of days before the election Barry Goldwater was reported as saying that he had information that “two air force C-5 transports were being loaded with spare parts for Iran”.
This of course was not true. This publicity had made it impossible for Carter to do a deal. Reagan on the other hand, had promised the Iranian government that he would arrange for them to get all the arms they needed in exchange for the hostages. According to Mansur Rafizadeh, the former U.S. station chief of SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, CIA agents had persuaded Khomeini not to release the American hostages until Reagan was sworn in. In fact, they were released twenty minutes after his inaugural address.
The actions of Reagan and the CIA spent at least an extra 76 days of imprisonment. One of these hostages, Cynthia Dwyer, was kept back until the Iranian negotiators got further assurances on the deal. The arms the Iranians had demanded were delivered via Israel. By the end of 1982 all Regan’s promises to Iran had been made. With the deal completed, Iran was free to resort to acts of terrorism against the United States. In 1983, Iranian-backed terrorists blew up 241 marines in the CIA Middle-East headquarters.
The Iranians also once again began taking American hostages in exchange for arms. On 16th March, 1984, William Francis Buckley, a diplomat attached to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was kidnapped by the Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Shiite group with strong links to the Khomeini regime. Buckley was tortured and it was soon discovered that he was the CIA station chief in Beirut.
Shackley was horrified when he discovered that Buckley had been captured. Buckley was a member of Shackley’s Secret Team that had been involved with Edwin Wilson, Thomas Clines, Carl E. Jenkins, Raphael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez and Luis Posada, in the secret “assassination” program.
Buckley had also worked closely with William Casey (now the director of the CIA) in the secret negotiations with the Iranians in 1980. Buckley had a lot to tell the Iranians. He eventually signed a 400 page statement detailing his activities in the CIA. He was also videotaped making this confession.
Casey asked Shackley for help in obtaining Buckley’s freedom. Shackley had good reason to want to get Buckley out of Iranian hands. However, he was unhappy about not being rewarded for his help getting Reagan elected in 1980. He had expected to be appointed director of the CIA. That job instead went to Casey, the key figure in the “arms for hostages” negotiations. How was Shackley to be rewarded?
What we know is that just three weeks after Buckley’s disappearance, President Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive 138. This directive was drafted by Oliver North and outlined plans on how to get the American hostages released from Iran and to “neutralize” terrorist threats from countries such as Nicaragua. This new secret counterterrorist task force was to be headed by Shackley’s old friend, General Richard Secord.
This was the basis of the Iran-Contra deal. Reagan could not afford to replace Casey with Shackley as director of the CIA. However, there were other ways of rewarding Shackley for his covert actions on behalf of Reagan in Iran.
Talks had already started about exchanging American hostages for arms. On 30th August, 1985, Israel shipped 100 TOW missiles to Iran. On 14th September they received another 408 missiles from Israel. The Israelis made a profit of $3 million on the deal. Why should this money go to the Israelis? It would be a better idea to give this business to Shackley and his mates.
In October, 1985, Congress agreed to vote 27 million dollars in non-lethal aid for the Contras in Nicaragua. It had already been decided to use this money to finance the selling of arms to Iran. Some of the profits could then be used to provide money and arms to the Contras and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
The following month, Shackley traveled to Hamburg where he met General Manucher Hashemi, the former head of SAVAK’s counterintelligence division at the Atlantic Hotel. Also at the meeting on 22nd November was Manuchehr Ghorbanifar. According to the report of this meeting that Shackley sent to the CIA, Ghorbanifar had “fantastic” contacts with Iran.
At the meeting Shackley told Hashemi and Ghorbanifar that the United States was willing to discuss arms shipments in exchange for the four Americans kidnapped in Lebanon. What Shackley did not put in his CIA report was that there were two other men at this meeting at the Atlantic Hotel. They were Oliver North and Leslie Aspin, a British arms dealer.
The problem with the proposed deal was that William Buckley was already dead (he had died of a heart-attack while being tortured). The date is not known but it was sometime between June and October 1985.
The Aspin arms deal with Iran never took place. Instead, Shackley and Secord began organizing these arms deals. Shackley recruited some of the former members of his CIA Secret Team to help him with these arm deals. This included Thomas G. Clines, Raphael Quintero, Ricardo Chavez and Edwin Wilson of API Distributors. Also involved was Carl Jenkins and Gene Wheaton of National Air. The plan was to use National Air to transport these weapons. For some reason, Wheaton and Jenkins fell out with Shackley. In May 1986 Wheaton told William Casey, about what he knew about this illegal operation. Of course Casey already knew what was going on and refused to take any action.
Wheaton now took his story to Daniel Sheehan. He also contacted Newt Royce and Mike Acoca, two journalists based in Washington. The first article on this scandal appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on 27th July, 1986. The Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, was now asked about if it is "true that foreign money, kickback money on programs, was being used to fund foreign covert operations." Weinberger denied all knowledge of the matter.
On 5th October, 1986, a Sandinista patrol in Nicaragua shot down a C-123K cargo plane that was supplying the Contras. Eugene Hasenfus, the only one wearing a parachute, survived the crash (two other Americans, Buz Sawyer and William Cooper died when the plane hit the ground). Hasenfus told his captors that the CIA was behind the operation. He also provided information on two Cuban-Americans running the operation in El Savador. This resulted in journalists being able to identify Raphael Quintero and Felix Rodriguez as the two Cuban-Americans mentioned by Hasenfus.
Shackley was able to keep his name out of the scandal and actually won damages from Daniel Sheehan.
However, there were others who knew the truth about what had been going on. This included William Casey who conveniently died on 6th May, 1986.
Another person who knew the truth was John Tower and John Heinz. In November 1986, Reagan persuaded Tower to chair the President's Special Review Board to study the actions of the National Security Council and its staff during the Iran-Contra affair. Heinz had chaired a three-man presidential review board that probed the Iran-Contra affair. Coincidentally, both John Heinz and John Tower died in plane wrecks on successive days in 1991 – Tower in Georgia, and Heinz in Montgomery County.
********************************************************************
The same was true of all those involved in the illegal covert operations in the 1960s and 70s. The only way back for Shackley (he resigned from the CIA in 1979) was for the removal of Carter. In 1980 he had regular meetings with George Bush where he advised him of his election strategy. Bush did not get the nomination but when he became Reagan’s vice presidential candidate, Shackley continued to advise him.
Shackley told Bush that Carter was attempting to negotiate a deal with Iran to get the American hostages released. This was disastrous news for the Reagan/Bush campaign. If Carter got the hostages out before the election, the public perception of the man might change and he might be elected for a second-term.
Reagan’s aides promised that they would get a better deal if they waited until Carter was defeated.
On 22nd September, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. The Iranian government was now in desperate need of spare parts and equipment for its armed forces. Carter now proposed that the US would be willing to hand over supplies in return for the hostages.
Once again, the CIA leaked this information to Reagan/Bush. Shackley now suggested a strategy that would make it impossible to do a deal. One way was to leak the story to the press. On 17th October, The Washington Post reported rumours of a “secret deal that would see the hostages released in exchange for the American made military spare parts Iran needs to continue its fight against Iraq”.
This publicity had made it impossible for Carter to do a deal. Reagan on the other hand, had promised the Iranian government that he would arrange for them to get all the arms they needed in exchange for the hostages. According to Mansur Rafizadeh, the former U.S. station chief of SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, CIA agents had persuaded Khomeini not to release the American hostages until Reagan was sworn in. In fact, they were released twenty minutes after his inaugural address.
The actions of Reagan and the CIA [caused the hostages] to spent[d] at least an extra 76 days of imprisonment. One of these hostages, Cynthia Dwyer, was kept back until the Iranian negotiators got further assurances on the deal. The arms the Iranians had demanded were delivered via Israel.
Shackley was horrified when he discovered that Buckley had been captured. Buckley was a member of Shackley’s Secret Team that had been involved with Edwin Wilson, Thomas Clines, Carl E. Jenkins, Raphael Quintero, Felix Rodriguez and Luis Posada, in the secret “assassination” program.
Casey asked Shackley for help in obtaining Buckley’s freedom. Shackley had good reason to want to get Buckley out of Iranian hands. However, he was unhappy about not being rewarded for his help getting Reagan elected in 1980. He had expected to be appointed director of the CIA. That job instead went to Casey, the key figure in the “arms for hostages” negotiations. How was Shackley to be rewarded?
What we know is that just three weeks after Buckley’s disappearance, President Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive 138. This directive was drafted by Oliver North and outlined plans on how to get the American hostages released from Iran and to “neutralize” terrorist threats from countries such as Nicaragua. This new secret counterterrorist task force was to be headed by Shackley’s old friend, General Richard Secord.
This was the basis of the Iran-Contra deal. Reagan could not afford to replace Casey with Shackley as director of the CIA. However, there were other ways of rewarding Shackley for his covert actions on behalf of Reagan in Iran.
Talks had already started about exchanging American hostages for arms. On 30th August, 1985, Israel shipped 100 TOW missiles to Iran. On 14th September they received another 408 missiles from Israel. The Israelis made a profit of $3 million on the deal. Why should this money go to the Israelis? It would be a better idea to give this business to Shackley and his mates.
And, this is how our U.S. taxpayers' dollars are put to work. It appears to me, that the fascists who have been running this country behind the backs of whatever political party happens to be in office, regardless of these poor excuses for attempts at demonstrating "the democratic-process-at-work" known as elections, hold little, if any, regard whatsoever, for the citizenry of this country. When they're allowed to proliferate, like vermin, throughout the system, to work it for their sole privateering, pirateering, profiteering benefit, WHEN, may I ask, are the people of this country going to come to terms with the fact that they've been sold down the proverbial river or, to quote a line from the movie, BLAZING SADDLES, "are we just jerking off?"
Thanks John, for putting it in black and white. But, how do we make them want to read about it, let alone grasp the significance?
-
Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, A Joyous Rammadan, A Brotherly Kwanzai, A Wondrous Tet, and A Happy New Year, to each and every one of you. Greetings from Sunny Southern California.
Love,
Ter
-
Bill Kelly wrote:
[...]
I'd like to keep us on the road to answer those questions.
____________________
AMEN! ! ! !
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Bill Kelly
David Healy
****************************************************
"I'd like to keep us on the road to answer those questions."
That's an excellent idea and I couldn't agree with you more. But, it seems as if this thread has been hi-jacked.
"Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Bill Kelly"
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Bill Kelly, David Healy, and Richard J. Smith, as well. You guys are the greatest.
Ter
-
[]
quote from RJS
Pat,
I was in touch with a retired DEA agent a few years ago who essentially confirmed a story that had been making the rounds for several years. You recall the death of DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena in Mexico in 1985, said to have been murdered by Mexican drug lords. If I recall, 2 low level traffickers were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for Camarena's death. This former DEA guy said Camerena was murdered by the CIA because he found out about an airfield in Mexico used by the CIA as a stopover from Central America to the US. As you know(and this forum's own Tosh Plumlee can confirm this I'm sure, as he made many of these flights), the CIA would fly weapons and supplies to Central America, and bring tons of cocaine back on the return flight. Barry Seal was also heavily involved in these operations(who was himself murdered outside New Orleans allegedly with a trunk full of documents proving ties to the CIA and GHWB). Tosh's closed session testimony to the Kerry Committee is still sealed as secret, related to national security.
In the early 90's, CIA officials went to Los Angeles and held a news conference to try to convince poor
black families that they had nothing to do with cocaine smuggling. It was big news. They were nearly run out of the city. And if is in fact true that John Kerry apologized to one of Operation 40's chief assassins(and personal friend of GHWB), it certainly changes my mind about that senator. But then again, it's all politics as usual isn't it?
RJS
Ref: Plumlee
".... DEA FILES INFORMATION:
DEAfiles.pdf DEA Mexico OPS: These documents make reference to "Guatemalan Guerrillas" training at a ranch owned by Drug Lord CARO- Quintero in Vera Crus, Mexico. It was reported at the time this was a CIA training site where weapons were exchanged for drugs in support of the Contra effort in Nicaragua and Costa Rico. DEA Agent Enrique Camarena (KIKI) and his pilot found out about this operation known as "The CIA Thing" and were killed because of this knowledge. Plumlee and other American undercover pilots had flown into this ranch many times as reported in various sections within these documents and other news media leaks in Mexico and America. The operation was known as "AMSOG" and, as reported to Senator Gary Hart and his Senate investigators in early 1983, was an "illegal" smuggling operation through Mexico into the United States, supported by the US Military, Panama Southern Command.
Ref: DEA Secret Class 2 documents investigators Susand Baldwin and Hector Berelliz DEA. Documents can be found at toshplumlee.info in PDF foremat.
***********************************************************************
"It was reported at the time this was a CIA training site where weapons were exchanged for drugs in support of the Contra effort in Nicaragua and Costa Rica."
"...and Costa Rica."
Could this have been the landing strip belonging to Senator John Hull, by any chance?
CHRONOLOGY OF JOHN HULL'S ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES June 7, 1991
1982-1986 John Hull's ranch in Northern Costa Rica serves as the main supply base for the contras on the Southern Front of Nicaragua. [Newsday, 5/10/87]
October 1984 Hull receives $10,000 a month from the Reagan-Bush Administration's National Security Council…
September 1984 and deposits the money into a Miami bank account. [senate Foreign Relations subcommittee report, "Private Assistance' and the Contras: A Staff Report." 10/14/86] [Common Cause,
Sept/Oct. 1985] [Covert Action Bulletin, Winter 86] [New York Daily News, 1/8/87]
1984 Hull takes out a $375,000 loan from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for a supposed manufacturing project. Hull deposits the money into his private account in Indiana and the project is never started. He later defaults on the loan. [senate Foreign Relations narcotics and terrorism subcommittee: ``Drugs, Law Enforcement, and Foreign Policy,'' a report on investigation of contra drug trafficking, April 1989]
April 9, 1984 Plane piloted by a Nicaraguan crashes while taking off from the airstrip on Hull's ranch, purportedly because it was overloaded with military supplies. [Tico Times, 9/28/84]
April 25, 1984 Hull's ranch is raided and he is detained by security officers investigating allegations of Southern Front contra activities in Costa Rica. [Tico Times 4/27/84]
April 1984 Pastora is given a 30-day deadline to unify his forces with the F.D.N. in the North. [Out of Control, Leslie Cockburn]
May 30, 1984 A bomb explodes in La Penca, Nicaragua, killing three journalists--including U.S. citizen Linda Frazier--and injuring many others. The bomb's apparent target, moderate contra leader Eden Pastora, is injured but survives. One of the reporters wounded in the bombing is ABC cameraman Tony Avirgan. [Convergence, Spring 1987]
May 30, 1984 Hull, Robert Owen, C.I.A. station chief Phil Holtz and several pilots meet in a C.I.A. safe house in San Jose, Costa Rica. After news of the explosion, Hull phones his associates to instruct that his private plane not be used to help the wounded. [Costa Rican Special Prosecutor's Report, Dec. 1989]
June 22, 1984 Hull obtains Costa Rican citizenship, which he later claims was at the C.I.A.'s request. [Tico Times, 3/23/90]
October 1984 Costa Rican Government initiates investigation of Hull after he admits on radio that he aided the contras. [Tico Times, 10/26/84]
December 1984 According to mercenary Jack Terrell, Hull, Robert Owen, Felipe Vidal and the alleged bomber Amac Galil meet and discuss the continuing need to kill Pastora. [New York Times, 3/1/90]
July 18, 1985 David, an eyewitness source for Avirgan and Honey's La Penca investigation, is kidnapped and later allegedly murdered on Hull's ranch. [Convergence Magazine, Spring 1988]
October 1985 At a San Jose, Costa Rica press conference, Tony Avirgan (who was injured in the bombing) and Martha Honey present the findings from their investigation of the La Penca bombing, identifying Hull as one of the bombing's planners. [La Penca: Report of an Investigation, Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey, 1985]
Days after Avirgan and Honey's report is published, Hull files suit against the journalists, charging them with ``injuries, falsehood and defamation of character'' because of their allegations of his role in the bombing [La Penca: On Trial in Costa Rica, Edited by Avirgan and Honey, 1987]
April 1986 A CBS "West 57th Street" broadcast airs, in which former contra resupply pilots identify Hull's ranch as major transhipment point for military supplies and drugs, but Hull denies any role in the contra resupply network.
May 22-23, 1986 Trial against Avirgan and Honey takes place, resulting in a victory for the two journalists after documents and witnesses confirm their findings. The judge throws Hull's lawsuit out of court. [La Penca: On Trial in Costa Rica, edited by Avirgan and Honey, 1987]
May 1986 Christic Institute attorneys file the La Penca lawsuit (Avirgan v. Hull) on behalf of Avirgan and Honey, naming Hull and 28 others as major figures in a racketeering network involved in drug trafficking, arms smuggling. The same ring engineered the La Penca bombing, the suit alleges. [Convergence, Spring 1987]
May 5, 1988 Costa Rican police announce an investigation into charges of Hull's involvement in arms and drug trafficking.
May 1988 Christic Institute takes Hull's deposition for the La Penca lawsuit. He refuses to cooperate in the proceedings.
June 1988 Federal Judge James L. King dismisses La Penca lawsuit in Miami two days before the trial is scheduled to begin, arguing that there is no evidence linking Hull and others to the bombing. The Christic Institute immediately announces it will appeal.
January 1989 Costa Rican authorities arrest Hull on charges of drug trafficking and using Costa Rican territory for ``hostile acts'' against NIcaragua. [Tico Times, 3/23/90]
April 1989 Sen. John Kerry's Foreign Relations narcotics and terrorism subcommittee releases a 1,200-page report, ``Drugs, Law Enforcement, and Foreign Policy,'' including testimony that Hull's ranch was used for gun- and drug-smuggling operations. One eyewitness tell the subcommittee that Hull supervised the transfer of drugs into a plane before its return journey to the United States.
May 26, 1989 John Hull fails to appear to testify before the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly's Special Commission Investigating Narcotics. Hull later appears before the commission but refuses to be sworn in to testify.
July 1989 Costa Rican Legislative Assembly concludes in an official report that Hull was trafficking drugs through the country on behalf of the contras. [The Guardian, 8/30/89]
July 1989 Hull flees Costa Rica while waiting trial, jumping a $37,000 bail posted by friends. Several reports confirm that D.E.A. agent Juan Perez arranged his secret flight out of the country. [Convergence, Winter 1991] [Tico Times, 12/7/90]
September 1989 Based on the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly report on drug trafficking, Oliver North, Richard Secord, former U.S. Ambassador Lewis Tambs and former National Security Adviser John Poindexter are all declared personae non gratae and banned from Costa Rica by the country's government. Secord is a defendant in Avirgan v. Hull. [The Guardian, 8/30/89]
March 1990 Hull is indicted for murder in Costa Rica on charges that he masterminded the La Penca bombing. [Convergence, Spring 1990]
May 1990 ABC Primetime Live airs Diane Sawyer's interview with Carlos Lehder, a key figure in the Medellin cocaine cartel. Lehder names Hull as a major cocaine trafficker and says Hull smuggled 30 tons of cocaine into the United States yearly.
June 1990 Hull's name added to Interpol's "most wanted" list of international fugitives at the request of Costa Rican special prosecutor Jorge Chaverria. [Convergence, Fall 1990]
November 1990 Costa Rican Legislative Assembly establishes four-member La Penca investigative committee with representatives from all political parties.
November 1990 Hull slips into Nicaragua on a 72-hour visa and soon disappears. [Los Angeles Times 12/7/90] [uPI 12/11/90]
December 1990 Investigators track Hull to a remote town in Southern Nicaragua--Juigalpa--which is the seat of an extreme right-wing movement against the conservative government of Violetta Chamorro. Hull is reported to be looking into investments to help contra veterans. [Tico Times, 12/7/90]
December 7, 1990 Costa Rica officially asks Nicaragua to extradite Hull.
December 11, 1990 Nicaraguan Supreme Court orders the arrest of Hull, although Presidential Minister Antonio Lacayo denies any knowledge of the case and says Hull was not facing criminal charges in Nicaragua. [uPI 12/12/90] Hull quietly leaves Nicaragua and returns to the United States.
April 19, 1991 The Costa Rican Ambassador submits a formal request to the U.S. State Department to extradite Hull.
The above complements to my friend, Dixie Dea.
fm Plumlee:
John Hull's strip was one of many used down there: Poco Solo was another and is where Scott Wheeler was executed. O North's, "Point West" as found in his notebooks was located at Santa Elena, CR. It was the SECRET base. It was set up by the "Udall (phoe?) Corp".
In case you missed the other post this might be of help.
www.phoenixarchives.com/express/1991/0591/13-06.pdf (you can cut and paste it into your broser.
This article, at the time, never saw the light of day in the main stream media. It was pulled in interest of 'National Security' to protect "Ongoing Operations", After the map had been published by the San Diego Reader in 1990 it was quickly classified. It has since been upgraded to 'Classified Top Secret, Committe Sensitive by the United States Senate and the CIA.
What does all this have to do with JFK. Well birds of a feather flock together. Players in the sixties, as I, were also players of the 90's. Its like a Secret Army controled by the White House.... an early forum of 'Able-Danger'.
I was threaten with jail time if I did not retract the statement about GHB and his knowledge of our operations. I was told I was "UnAmerican" for telling what I knew about these secret operations and drugs for guns sorties.,utside to the public. In those days.., I was a Bad Bad Boy for doing such a bad bad thing.
tosh
*******************************************************
Thanks for the link, Tosh.
"What does all this have to do with JFK."
Everything. Because, the removal of JFK meant the chance to grab for the keys to the kingdom, while traveling under the cover of fighting back those VietCong commies. It's the poppy fields and the processing labs that hold the fortune to made in opium, and China White sales. Especially to our troops, made up of the nation's poor white trash, not-hardly-Havard-material-but-need-to-make-a-living-just-the-same, and don't forget the "negro problem", along with our little brown friends from South of the Border. Remember how many lives have been permanently altered by the introduction of what was touted to be a not-so-addicting substance, known as cocaine. When in reality that specific drug does more permanent damage to the neuro-transmitter network of the brain than any hypnotic narcotic substance ever could. This is because the binding sites in your neurons and dendrites are at risk of becoming permanently altered at the cellular level, meaning at the chromosomal/genetic level to where the enzymes needed for optimal transmission of neuronal impulses becomes permanently impaired due to the non-recognition of the binding sites of these essential enzymes needed for balanced and focussed brain activity.
Imagine the control a small amount of people could essentially exert over a larger part of the populace by keeping them stoned on these illegal substances? It was, and has been done three or four times over since the death of JFK. So, yes this has more to do with the JFK assassination than readily met the eye, back in the early 60's. And, in 1968 I was under the impression that we were really over in VietNam for the tungsten and tin. Silly me.
-
How little you both know from this area..........
Sorry this time I know where JFK stood the area and also how few were there the day that JFK said a few words to open the highway. Also how sad because just like the lack of what you know on that day it still is to this day so it is not your faults but the ones that would like little known on it.
LIke it was hardley in the news and I did have the gifted insight to meed someone who was there to see the event. From that person and others I did learn more. So, NO TERRY AND SMITH YOU ARE NOT TO BLAME ON HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW ON ONE OF THE PRESIDENTS LAST EVENTS IN LIFE TO DO THAT WAS SO SAD IN MANY WAYS> IT IS A LITTLE OUT OF THE WAY SPOT AND NOT MUCH FORMED AFTER THE EVENT AS IT SHOULD HAVE.
I think I have this one right.
*********************************************************
Go away.
-
[]
quote from RJS
Pat,
I was in touch with a retired DEA agent a few years ago who essentially confirmed a story that had been making the rounds for several years. You recall the death of DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena in Mexico in 1985, said to have been murdered by Mexican drug lords. If I recall, 2 low level traffickers were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for Camarena's death. This former DEA guy said Camerena was murdered by the CIA because he found out about an airfield in Mexico used by the CIA as a stopover from Central America to the US. As you know(and this forum's own Tosh Plumlee can confirm this I'm sure, as he made many of these flights), the CIA would fly weapons and supplies to Central America, and bring tons of cocaine back on the return flight. Barry Seal was also heavily involved in these operations(who was himself murdered outside New Orleans allegedly with a trunk full of documents proving ties to the CIA and GHWB). Tosh's closed session testimony to the Kerry Committee is still sealed as secret, related to national security.
In the early 90's, CIA officials went to Los Angeles and held a news conference to try to convince poor
black families that they had nothing to do with cocaine smuggling. It was big news. They were nearly run out of the city. And if is in fact true that John Kerry apologized to one of Operation 40's chief assassins(and personal friend of GHWB), it certainly changes my mind about that senator. But then again, it's all politics as usual isn't it?
RJS
Ref: Plumlee
".... DEA FILES INFORMATION:
DEAfiles.pdf DEA Mexico OPS: These documents make reference to "Guatemalan Guerrillas" training at a ranch owned by Drug Lord CARO- Quintero in Vera Crus, Mexico. It was reported at the time this was a CIA training site where weapons were exchanged for drugs in support of the Contra effort in Nicaragua and Costa Rico. DEA Agent Enrique Camarena (KIKI) and his pilot found out about this operation known as "The CIA Thing" and were killed because of this knowledge. Plumlee and other American undercover pilots had flown into this ranch many times as reported in various sections within these documents and other news media leaks in Mexico and America. The operation was known as "AMSOG" and, as reported to Senator Gary Hart and his Senate investigators in early 1983, was an "illegal" smuggling operation through Mexico into the United States, supported by the US Military, Panama Southern Command.
Ref: DEA Secret Class 2 documents investigators Susand Baldwin and Hector Berelliz DEA. Documents can be found at toshplumlee.info in PDF foremat.
***********************************************************************
"It was reported at the time this was a CIA training site where weapons were exchanged for drugs in support of the Contra effort in Nicaragua and Costa Rica."
"...and Costa Rica."
Could this have been the landing strip belonging to Senator John Hull, by any chance?
CHRONOLOGY OF JOHN HULL'S ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES June 7, 1991
1982-1986 John Hull's ranch in Northern Costa Rica serves as the main supply base for the contras on the Southern Front of Nicaragua. [Newsday, 5/10/87]
October 1984 Hull receives $10,000 a month from the Reagan-Bush Administration's National Security Council…
September 1984 and deposits the money into a Miami bank account. [senate Foreign Relations subcommittee report, "Private Assistance' and the Contras: A Staff Report." 10/14/86] [Common Cause,
Sept/Oct. 1985] [Covert Action Bulletin, Winter 86] [New York Daily News, 1/8/87]
1984 Hull takes out a $375,000 loan from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for a supposed manufacturing project. Hull deposits the money into his private account in Indiana and the project is never started. He later defaults on the loan. [senate Foreign Relations narcotics and terrorism subcommittee: ``Drugs, Law Enforcement, and Foreign Policy,'' a report on investigation of contra drug trafficking, April 1989]
April 9, 1984 Plane piloted by a Nicaraguan crashes while taking off from the airstrip on Hull's ranch, purportedly because it was overloaded with military supplies. [Tico Times, 9/28/84]
April 25, 1984 Hull's ranch is raided and he is detained by security officers investigating allegations of Southern Front contra activities in Costa Rica. [Tico Times 4/27/84]
April 1984 Pastora is given a 30-day deadline to unify his forces with the F.D.N. in the North. [Out of Control, Leslie Cockburn]
May 30, 1984 A bomb explodes in La Penca, Nicaragua, killing three journalists--including U.S. citizen Linda Frazier--and injuring many others. The bomb's apparent target, moderate contra leader Eden Pastora, is injured but survives. One of the reporters wounded in the bombing is ABC cameraman Tony Avirgan. [Convergence, Spring 1987]
May 30, 1984 Hull, Robert Owen, C.I.A. station chief Phil Holtz and several pilots meet in a C.I.A. safe house in San Jose, Costa Rica. After news of the explosion, Hull phones his associates to instruct that his private plane not be used to help the wounded. [Costa Rican Special Prosecutor's Report, Dec. 1989]
June 22, 1984 Hull obtains Costa Rican citizenship, which he later claims was at the C.I.A.'s request. [Tico Times, 3/23/90]
October 1984 Costa Rican Government initiates investigation of Hull after he admits on radio that he aided the contras. [Tico Times, 10/26/84]
December 1984 According to mercenary Jack Terrell, Hull, Robert Owen, Felipe Vidal and the alleged bomber Amac Galil meet and discuss the continuing need to kill Pastora. [New York Times, 3/1/90]
July 18, 1985 David, an eyewitness source for Avirgan and Honey's La Penca investigation, is kidnapped and later allegedly murdered on Hull's ranch. [Convergence Magazine, Spring 1988]
October 1985 At a San Jose, Costa Rica press conference, Tony Avirgan (who was injured in the bombing) and Martha Honey present the findings from their investigation of the La Penca bombing, identifying Hull as one of the bombing's planners. [La Penca: Report of an Investigation, Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey, 1985]
Days after Avirgan and Honey's report is published, Hull files suit against the journalists, charging them with ``injuries, falsehood and defamation of character'' because of their allegations of his role in the bombing [La Penca: On Trial in Costa Rica, Edited by Avirgan and Honey, 1987]
April 1986 A CBS "West 57th Street" broadcast airs, in which former contra resupply pilots identify Hull's ranch as major transhipment point for military supplies and drugs, but Hull denies any role in the contra resupply network.
May 22-23, 1986 Trial against Avirgan and Honey takes place, resulting in a victory for the two journalists after documents and witnesses confirm their findings. The judge throws Hull's lawsuit out of court. [La Penca: On Trial in Costa Rica, edited by Avirgan and Honey, 1987]
May 1986 Christic Institute attorneys file the La Penca lawsuit (Avirgan v. Hull) on behalf of Avirgan and Honey, naming Hull and 28 others as major figures in a racketeering network involved in drug trafficking, arms smuggling. The same ring engineered the La Penca bombing, the suit alleges. [Convergence, Spring 1987]
May 5, 1988 Costa Rican police announce an investigation into charges of Hull's involvement in arms and drug trafficking.
May 1988 Christic Institute takes Hull's deposition for the La Penca lawsuit. He refuses to cooperate in the proceedings.
June 1988 Federal Judge James L. King dismisses La Penca lawsuit in Miami two days before the trial is scheduled to begin, arguing that there is no evidence linking Hull and others to the bombing. The Christic Institute immediately announces it will appeal.
January 1989 Costa Rican authorities arrest Hull on charges of drug trafficking and using Costa Rican territory for ``hostile acts'' against NIcaragua. [Tico Times, 3/23/90]
April 1989 Sen. John Kerry's Foreign Relations narcotics and terrorism subcommittee releases a 1,200-page report, ``Drugs, Law Enforcement, and Foreign Policy,'' including testimony that Hull's ranch was used for gun- and drug-smuggling operations. One eyewitness tell the subcommittee that Hull supervised the transfer of drugs into a plane before its return journey to the United States.
May 26, 1989 John Hull fails to appear to testify before the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly's Special Commission Investigating Narcotics. Hull later appears before the commission but refuses to be sworn in to testify.
July 1989 Costa Rican Legislative Assembly concludes in an official report that Hull was trafficking drugs through the country on behalf of the contras. [The Guardian, 8/30/89]
July 1989 Hull flees Costa Rica while waiting trial, jumping a $37,000 bail posted by friends. Several reports confirm that D.E.A. agent Juan Perez arranged his secret flight out of the country. [Convergence, Winter 1991] [Tico Times, 12/7/90]
September 1989 Based on the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly report on drug trafficking, Oliver North, Richard Secord, former U.S. Ambassador Lewis Tambs and former National Security Adviser John Poindexter are all declared personae non gratae and banned from Costa Rica by the country's government. Secord is a defendant in Avirgan v. Hull. [The Guardian, 8/30/89]
March 1990 Hull is indicted for murder in Costa Rica on charges that he masterminded the La Penca bombing. [Convergence, Spring 1990]
May 1990 ABC Primetime Live airs Diane Sawyer's interview with Carlos Lehder, a key figure in the Medellin cocaine cartel. Lehder names Hull as a major cocaine trafficker and says Hull smuggled 30 tons of cocaine into the United States yearly.
June 1990 Hull's name added to Interpol's "most wanted" list of international fugitives at the request of Costa Rican special prosecutor Jorge Chaverria. [Convergence, Fall 1990]
November 1990 Costa Rican Legislative Assembly establishes four-member La Penca investigative committee with representatives from all political parties.
November 1990 Hull slips into Nicaragua on a 72-hour visa and soon disappears. [Los Angeles Times 12/7/90] [uPI 12/11/90]
December 1990 Investigators track Hull to a remote town in Southern Nicaragua--Juigalpa--which is the seat of an extreme right-wing movement against the conservative government of Violetta Chamorro. Hull is reported to be looking into investments to help contra veterans. [Tico Times, 12/7/90]
December 7, 1990 Costa Rica officially asks Nicaragua to extradite Hull.
December 11, 1990 Nicaraguan Supreme Court orders the arrest of Hull, although Presidential Minister Antonio Lacayo denies any knowledge of the case and says Hull was not facing criminal charges in Nicaragua. [uPI 12/12/90] Hull quietly leaves Nicaragua and returns to the United States.
April 19, 1991 The Costa Rican Ambassador submits a formal request to the U.S. State Department to extradite Hull.
The above complements to my friend, Dixie Dea.
-
This did not happen to the book. While I was in Laos doing the research, CIA mercenaries made an assassination attempt on my research team. Even though I was a lowly graduate student at Yale University, I had an FBI phone tap, an IRS audit, an investigation of my federal fellowship by the US Department of Education, and, I believe, pressure my university to dismiss me from the graduate program. Once the book was published, the Agency threatened my sources in Laos to repudiate information they had given me. In sum, the Agency tugged at every thread in the threadbare life of an American graduate student. After the book was published and I finished my Ph.D., I found no academic employment in the US and migrated to Australia where I taught for 12 years.
What an honor: to have both Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott post here in the same day!
Prof McCoy: Your seminal work: "The politics of Heroin" made many of us 60's kids understand what Viet Nam was really all about.
Dawn
**********************************************************************
"What an honor: to have both Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott post here in the same day!
Prof McCoy: Your seminal work: "The politics of Heroin" made many of us 60's kids understand what Viet Nam was really all about.
Dawn"
Talk about calling up the "heavy hitters"? Our prayers have been answered, Dawn.
*********************************************************************
"The politics of Heroin"
"China White", and to think they tried to convince us we were only there for the tungsten and tin.
-
BBC Report:
President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.
The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations", he said.
He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and he made clear he did not plan to halt the eavesdropping.
He also rebuked senators who blocked the renewal of his major anti-terror law, the Patriot Act, on Friday.
By preventing the extension of the act, due to expire on 31 December, they had, he said, acted irresponsibly and were endangering the lives of US citizens.
The president, who was visibly angry, also suggested that a New York Times report which had revealed the monitoring on Friday had been irresponsible.
America's enemies had "learned information they should not have", he said in his weekly radio address, which was delivered live from the White House after a pre-recorded version was scrapped.
Senators from both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the monitoring programme on Friday.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no doubt it was "inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".
"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.
Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".
But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives".
The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the US had communicated with associates outside before the attacks - but the US had not known that until it was too late.
"The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said.
Monitoring was, he said, a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists".
He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which he has already renewed more than 30 times.
Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public.
"Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.
Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.
American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.
What do Americans think about this development?
******************************************************************
Deleted by T. Mauro due to article printed in full and posted here without editor's permission.
-
***********************************************************
May I quote John Lennon on this one?
"The F.B.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I, and the C.I.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A, and the B.B.C., and the K.G.B.
Dig it! Dig it! Dig it! Matt Moltbey [sp.?]."
I don't know, but for some strange reason after reading that first url, that's what came into my mind's ear. He was spot on. Sorry.
-
I 95 is JFK highway YES Terry.
It is also on his schedule as to being JFK last act of doing and YES it is on some remote and you and or anyone else can not undo what is in black and while already written down.
It is thought and told somewhere that JFK was in fact threatened if he does do the highway it was NOT wanted to be done.
Now Terry there is not anything wrong in that of what I wrote it is historical facts.
If you don't know about it then I suggest you look it up and yes any student can do so as well. I have the listing of JFK schedule got it from NARA and long time ago posted it up on Lancer.
It is also considered to be and in fact is a remote area of which area he for some reason choose to stand to open the highway. I think if I do remember what I was told that was the ONLY PLACE they would let JFK stand to do it. Not any Landmark around it even just a river front not far away.
No, I don't take that remark at all coming from Mary as to be just a comment with no meanting behind it at all. She meant what she said.
Well Hi Nancy,
Let me clarify a few things if I may. Terry is absolutely correct. "Standing on the shoulder" of the highway as cars pass by is a metaphor, a euphemism of sorts, that indicates life passing you by. Mary's statement has nothing to do with I95 or any other highway.
You are partially correct however, in that a 50 mile portion of I95 in Maryland is called the "JFK Highway". Local towns and counties do that quite often in the US. There's a portion of a state highway in my area that the county named "Veterans Memorial Highway", but still has its number designation. It's just a political thing in the local area. The entire I95 isn't the JFK Highway however, just that 50 mile stretch.
Mary's statement HAD meaning, in that we need to get moving on this case or it will pass us by, just as cars pass by someone standing on the shoulder of a highway.
RJS
*******************************************************************
"Mary's statement HAD meaning, in that we need to get moving on this case or it will pass us by, just as cars pass by someone standing on the shoulder of a highway."
Thanks, Rich. Good to see you here, today.
Ter
-
BBC Report:
President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.
The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations", he said.
He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and he made clear he did not plan to halt the eavesdropping.
He also rebuked senators who blocked the renewal of his major anti-terror law, the Patriot Act, on Friday.
By preventing the extension of the act, due to expire on 31 December, they had, he said, acted irresponsibly and were endangering the lives of US citizens.
The president, who was visibly angry, also suggested that a New York Times report which had revealed the monitoring on Friday had been irresponsible.
America's enemies had "learned information they should not have", he said in his weekly radio address, which was delivered live from the White House after a pre-recorded version was scrapped.
Senators from both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the monitoring programme on Friday.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no doubt it was "inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".
"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.
Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".
But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives".
The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the US had communicated with associates outside before the attacks - but the US had not known that until it was too late.
"The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said.
Monitoring was, he said, a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists".
He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which he has already renewed more than 30 times.
Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public.
"Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.
Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.
American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.
What do Americans think about this development?
*******************************************************************
Are you asking those of us with I.Q.'s above, or below 100?
Those above 100 should be equally appalled and livid that we've allowed this government to be usurped by a laissez-faire condoning, fascist, neo-con congress in 1994, for starters. In other words, how was it that so many people were asleep at the wheel to have allowed this to occur? Only in a system whose checks and balances are so out of wack! But, this certainly paved the way for the ultimate low achiever to have sailed to victory on his father's coat-tails. What do you expect from a moron? You've got ONE party with TWO branches. The blind leading the blind.
Those under 100, will immediately find this inquiry to be UN-AMERICAN. Why? Because they voted for Bush solely based on his christian faith. Because, the majority between NY and LA comprise the RED states, and you "best believe" they're standing by their president, RIGHT or WRONG. Why? Because they voted for him, and no amount of pointing out to these people how the inequities in their lives, their lack of healthcare, their waitress, stock-boy jobs at minimum wage, and the fact that they'll never be able to rise above this poverty level of existence is ever going to register in their pea-brained minds, as a direct correlation to the moronic idiot they voted into office, based on his religious beliefs. Also known as, blind faith. But, thats merely MHO.
Check out TRUTHOUT'S traveling roadshow through the RED states. They're interviewing the American heartland, asking their reasons for voting for Alfred E. Neuman.
-
John, whether you can understand it or not my sarcasm was intended to demonstrate the idiocy of Lynne's most recent posting.
Perhaps you did not get it. I was attempting to make a point.
You could make a good point that Lynne (intentionally or not) was trivializing your thread (and I know the importance you attribute to OM) by accusing Forum members of being part of OM. I was trying to ridicule (by sarcasm) her post.
I would also point out that there have been numerous Forum members making similar barbs at her posts.
Okay?
And John just let me remind you that on another thread I made a poinbt that many researchers doubt the credibility of Underwood's story re what Scott told him about Escalante being in Dallas. That is something I think you missed.
***************************************************************************
"I would also point out that there have been numerous Forum members making similar barbs at her posts."
Besides, if T.G. had been excruciatingly obnoxious, I would've gone after him like a bat out of hell.
And, since I've gotten the blocking mechanism to work, I'm a much happier forum member.
Now, let me go and add that other embarrassment to my list [not you, T.G.], now that I know it works.
I found you have to re-boot before it takes effect.
-
I was on the CIA payroll until John mentioned how poorly I was doing making friends for the CIA.
Had to give 'em back every penney they ever paid me!
Once again you have inserted yourself into a thread where you have nothing of any importance to contribute. All you do is for other members to see your name at the end of the thread which probably put them off from reading it (and therefore missing other member’s more interesting contributions).
Like Lynne Foster you insist of posting in every thread. Very rarely do either of you have anything of any relevance to say. It is either a puerile joke at the expense of another member or an attempt to bring the discussion round to your own theories of the assassination. This has got to stop. You are spoiling the Forum. You are both on your final warnings. If you don’t do it you will be put on permanent moderation.
***************************************************************
John, sometimes T.G. can be really funny, and he does offer an intelligent exchange. There's something to be said for a spirited challenge, and he can be gracious when admitting he's wrong. At least, his debates are structured, if not sometimes skewed towards his conservative [fascist] view of life. On the other hand, the bitch with the toxic urls, and xxxx for brains is another story altogether. And, I do find it reprehensible to try and lump T.G. in with the likes of that wing-nut. I know how T.G. can piss off my friend, Dawn, but it's simply a matter of politics, and which side of the battle line you're on. I think I can speak for Dawn in saying that T.G. can be trying alot of the time, but at least he's sincere in his fascist beliefs, even if his rebuttals have a tendency to make me want to strangle him most of the time.
-
We must WIN this struggle for the truth…and do so very quickly, lest the assassination of President Kennedy flounder on some remote shoulder of the highway, in a century who’s history is already on the way to the printer. In the next century, this case could be relegated to obscure questions on high school history examinations.
Interesting that Mary would state this up on top. What they hoped would pinpoint what JFK did to agravate people in his decision of opening the highway. Yet, not talked about into any debate on JFK for reasons why JFK got shot. Just is not named. Yet, it is on records. Sort of that is. As to how Mary knew it was REMOTE now that is really shocking since she probably never went there never saw it on the news or barely and since not many people were even there to view this act being done. Rare that they didn't openly announce this ahead of time so a large crowd would draw near JFK to be near the president. Just a handful of people were there.
Odd that it is so kept so silent to this day and YET MARY KNEW THIS FACT. Open up what is behind that point and you got a handful of information.
DUPONT OH YEAH
BUSH
JOHNSON
TEXAS BUSINESS'S
How much was Mary's hands tied? Maybe she was on many rights tracks but her hands were so very tied and someone needs to tell it about that on her. OPEN UP
*******************************************************************
"We must WIN this struggle for the truth…and do so very quickly, lest the assassination of President Kennedy flounder on some remote shoulder of the highway, in a century who’s history is already on the way to the printer. In the next century, this case could be relegated to obscure questions on high school history examinations."
"lest the assassination of President Kennedy flounder on some remote shoulder of the highway"
Nancy -
Mary was using the expression, "lest the assassination of President Kennedy [be left to] flounder on some remote shoulder of the highway", as a metaphorical analogy of what might happen to the memory of his assassination should the event be allowed to be forgotten from the collective memory of the citizens of the United States, over the passage of time. Similar to the saying, "Out of sight, out of mind." She wasn't referring to any actual or specific place, or location on a map.
"One of the last acts that Pres. Kennedy did was on the shoulder of the Highway. He was warned on that so I have heard NOT TO DO THE JFK HIGHWAY. Some didn't want a road to open up from Maine to the Florida Keys. Why manybe it was thought to be the act of taking JFK life in Florida first then dropped it. Some remote part of the hightway. It is so SICK AND SO SAD ON THAT REMOTE PART OF THE HIGHWAY. Barely a stone to show where JFK Stood. A sign to say JFK RESEARCH on one of the cut off's of the highway. Yet barely anyone knows this is where a great man stood to name this highway to be opened that so many use on the Eastern side of USA to make travel faster and easier to get to large cities."
Nancy -
Are you by any chance referring to I-95?
Do you not see or understand that this statement you made [above] only reinforces the problems Mary was discussing regarding the trouble the research community faces in going up against the Eastern Establishment which BTW, has already "bought and paid for" these mass media conglomerates [please be referred to John Simkins' thread on Operation Mockingbird]? And, how these commercial media outlets relish in labelling those of us who don't accept the Warren Commission's Report as, "conspiracy buffs", "malcontents", or "the unpatriotic lunatic 'commie' fringe." You've just happened to have proven them correct and added more fuel to their fire with that above post of yours.
Do you not understand or realize how your post comes across to the student body here, on this forum? Please try to read more carefully and thoroughly before replying to a post such as this one, of Bill Kelly's.
-
Dawn wrote:
Dawn, I have made it clear I will do everything I can to re-open the investigation of the assassination even if it should lead to the CIA.
Tim: If you mean this- and I have no reason to believe you are lying- then this is a big step for you.
You should listen to the radio program about this. Just google "Taking Aim" and click on the three hour interview with Joan Mellen. Lots of stuff about the CIA.
Dawn
Dawn, when you protect Mafia linked demagogues like Jim Garrison, you are the CIA's greatest asset.
**************************************************************
"Dawn, when you protect Mafia linked demagogues like Jim Garrison, you are the CIA's greatest asset."
And likewise, when you continue to butt in on these threads with your usual misinformed opinions, you're considered one of the greatest stark-raving assholes!
Explain to me how to go about blocking this bitch's babblings? I've been busy with work and just popped in to read when I got sucker-punched by this nitwit's drivel.
-
Terry, if this website makes you rant and rave like a lunatic , I suggest you try to relax because in my understanding, hardly anybody visits websites that are not promoted in the media.
I don't know why you act like a mad cow, I don't really think that John's message board is going to change the world and you need a vacation -try North Korea, I think you'd feel more comfortable there.
****************************************************************
"I don't know why you act like a mad cow, I don't really think that John's message board is going to change the world and you need a vacation -try North Korea, I think you'd feel more comfortable there."
And, you're a putz.
"you act like a mad cow"
Sorry, but I don't buy your beef.
"try North Korea"
They don't call me "Hanoi Jane" for nothing, ya know.
-
These thoughts are from the Jefferson Morley interview.
He concluded his interview as follows:
I want to close by saying that public interest in Kennedy's assassination endures because the government has not yet provided a persuasive explanation of the crime nor released all of its records on the subject.
When we get all of the records of the CIA and other government agencies we will finally be able to agree on the truth.
Early in the interview he had this comment:
My take is that decisive clarification of the JFK assassination story resides in the government's hands, in those still-secret documents.
But shortly before his conclusion a caller had offered this troubling thought:
Enjoyed your article. I have more of a comment than a question. I too have a theory about this case, but it does not concern who did it; instead, my theory is that we will never be able to reach a consensus even if compelling evidence were to suddenly come to light. Too many of the principals and witnesses are dead, the chain of evidence has been wholly contaminated, beginning with the removal of the body to Air Force One, and too many people have posited too many divergent theories to which they have become wedded. I believe that this case has, in the public consciousness, descended to the realm of historical curiosity, now so mythologized that the truth (and the compelling desire to find it) has been effectively quashed by the passage of time. This is unfortunate, as it leads to one inescapable conclusion; it is possible to kill the President of the United States, in the most photographed murder in human history, and have that crime avoid prosecution.
Morley replied:
Jefferson Morley: I am not so pessimistic as you are but what you say may be true.
What do you think? Will we ever know for sure? Is the "final secret" in the yet-unreleased documents?
_______________________
********************************************************
"What do you think? Will we ever know for sure? Is the "final secret" in the yet-unreleased documents?"
First of all, there was a time when we were assured that 50 years following the date of the assassination, Jacqueline Kennedy would reveal all that she knew concerning the mechanizations involved in the death of her husband. I believe this would have set that date to fall around, 2013. Now, we've been informed that this date, along with a morphed version of whatever truths she may have intended to impart to the public [which have most likely been destroyed, as just about everything else has], which would have been made available and declassified at that time, has been changed. This date has been presently set for 2038. The newly chosen date would take me to the age of 93, should I be so lucky to live that long. Time enough for all the perpetrators to have been silenced by either natural or un-natural causes. Time enough for those of us who came of age on that day in 1963, to be dead and gone. Time enough for the "passage of time" to have all but obliterated the memory of JFK, and relegated his legacy to that of, what did the "caller" refer to it as, "the realm of historical curiosity"? A curiosity? How equally banal and sad that the fascists have been allowed to literally win, hands down. That the memories, along with the intellect of the American people, have been virtually usurped and replaced by nothing more than a cartoonish "reality" version of what now seemingly passes for real life, in real time. The sheeple have "voted in" their choices and those choices belong to them, alone. It is ironic to say the least, to be standing on the edge of forever, bearing witness to Western Civilization readying itself for the final throes of death. It should be equally interesting at best, to observe who'll be ringing in its death knell, and who will be set to emerge as the next world super-power.
-
I am going to quote this foolishness before you have a chance to think it over and edit it out, like you did for another recent post. So Harold Weisberg told you that Garrison was covering for Nixon, huh? I have no hesitation in calling you a xxxx. Do you actually expect anyone to take this seriously?
OH WOW, A 17 YEAR OLD HIGH SCHOOL STALKER ! lol !
*******************************************************
"OH WOW, A 17 YEAR OLD HIGH SCHOOL STALKER ! lol !"
A stalker? Is that all you can come up with?
You're a dumbass.
I am going to quote this foolishness before you have a chance to think it over and edit it out, like you did for another recent post. So Harold Weisberg told you that Garrison was covering for Nixon, huh? I have no hesitation in calling you a xxxx. Do you actually expect anyone to take this seriously?
OH WOW, A 17 YEAR OLD HIGH SCHOOL STALKER ! lol !
*******************************************************
"OH WOW, A 17 YEAR OLD HIGH SCHOOL STALKER ! lol !"
A stalker? Is that all you can come up with?
You're a dumbass.
*****************************************************
O.K. Owen, Dawn, et.al. This is her thread. Let's leave it for good. Let her talk to herself. The only time she should be slapped down is if she tries hi-jack someone elses thread. We don't need to waste any more time or attention on this broad.
CIA and Emails
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
********************************************************
"However, my fear is that it might frighten some individuals to do as they think our masters want us to think. The worse form of censorship is always self-censorship. That is what this issue is really about."
And, while I'm in total agreement with you, I'm probably one of the most out-spoken, rage-invecting, devil-may-care perpetrators of these exact same crimes(?). What, with my murderous schemes that leave my brother speechless on his cellphone at least once every Saturday during our transcontinental phone chats. Yet so far, the only repercussions I've experienced are from my Norton corrupting my Outlook Express mail server. This will not curtail the verbal abuse I'll inevitably hurl at the Bush fascists, and their NSA rabid pit bulls. I'll continue to be as vocal about their moronic ineptitude as always, especially to my senators and representatives.
As far as frightening some individuals? If they've got that much to lose then maybe they should remain as ostriches with their heads in the sand, because they'll never be of any use to the cause. Let's face it, there are too many creature comforts afforded to those who've never known anything else. And, I seriously doubt they'll ever be capable of risking the familiar for what they'll certainly perceive to be the unknown. They're the ones who'll always run and cower the minute they hear the barbarians are at the gates. What we need are true leaders who'll stand by their right to voice their opinions, and possibly with our own sets of verbal billy clubs and tear gas. Especially, if we ever expect to incite a peaceful riot again, at least during this hostile regime. But, I'm not counting on anyone but myself when the going really gets rough. Just MHO.