Family Jewels : JFK Abuses

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Consistency is a greatly undervalued virtue, and say what you like about our Tim, the lad is consistancy personified. Welcome back Mr Gratz.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Stephen Turner

[John Dolva]

Tim, (and anyone) please don't take a non response means ignoring you (or anyone). At the moment it's school hol's and the kids rule the computer. I got a brief window of oportunity in the late evening.

I see others have essentially dealt with the esssential issues anyway. One thing though, and I can't find the ref at the moment but from memory JFK did alert MLK to the FBI phone tapping. A reasonable inference would be that RFK was privy to this and like JFK disapproved and had been misled in some way. Certainly by 1968 they were in a coalition with others and the notion of RFK apprving MLK phone taps seems just another smear. Mud sticks, even after 44 years.

Edited July 2, 2007 by John Dolva

[Tim Gratz]

Charles Drago wrote:

"But don't you DARE try to tell me or any other thinking, moral human being that the dead of Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador are no different from their killers!"

Not sure if this was addressed to me, BUT--I am not aware of anyone who believes that there was a moral equivalence between JFK and his murderers, for Gosh sake! The men who killed JFK not only took his life, they did a grave disservice to our nation. They were murderers and traitors and they deserved the most severe punishment allowable under Texas law.

But the fact that JFK was brutally murderered does not mean that he is entitled to sainthood. Like many presidents, JFK did some great things and made some grievous errors as well. He was earning a lot of friends for the USA and he might very well have accomplished a lot had he lived. The record of his 1,000 days in office was mixed. It does him no disservice to recognize that and I am confident that JFK always welcomed a healthy debate.

Charles also wrote:

"This is BS."

Tape-recorded statements made in the Oval Office are B.S.? Well, if so, I guess the nation was wrong to run Tricky Dick out of office!

Now let me tell you what truly IS B.S. In the current issue of time, David Talbot quotes Robert McNamara as saying that JFK would have withdrawn from Vietnam because he knew the U.S. could not win the war. Well, that statement proves McNamara a xxxx. Either JFK never told him that and that statement is a lie; or if JFK told him that, and if he believed JFK's assessment, then McNamara lied to LBJ and the blood of the Americans who died in Vietnam is surely on his hands.

My assessment of JFK's best Cabinet appointment: RFK. And the worst? Without question, Robert Strange McNamara, who has demonstrated he is a xxxx! I consider McNamara one of the chief architects of the flawed war in Vietnam, a man responsible for the deaths of many people on both sides in that war.

[Charles Drago]

Tim Gratz,

I was not addressing you personally.

The "b.s." to which I made reference is discerned within the intentional timing and implications of the majority of presentations of Kennedy "abuses."

Implicit in most, if not all, such offerings are the itent to minimize senses of loss and outrage among those of us who pursue justice for JFK and RFK, and the effort to pervert the historical record by insinuating that the loss of the brothers was, well, no great loss.

I have no opinion whatsoever in regard to your intentions -- again, for me, this is not about you. But whether we're talking about Hunt's forged Ngo assassination cables, Seymour Hersh's bought-and-paid-for hatchet job, or the timed release of Jack-and-Bobby-whack-The-Beard or spy-on-the-press "documentation," it remains abundantly clear to me that the agendas of the powers that whacked Jack and Bobby are served by diminishing the brothers to a state of being that at least begins to approach the gutter dwelling level of the assassins.

For what it's worth, I share your contempt for McNamara.

Charles Drago

[Tim Gratz]

I certainly commend to everyone Greg Parker's well-written article linked in his post but I do have a few comments on it.

In it Greg writes:

"The problem is that the CIA was specifically barred from carrying out domestic intelligence operations. However, this would conflict with the CIA director's obligation to protect sources and methods where domestic operations were deemed needed to find and plug leaks. Had it been known this was happening, and it had ended up before the courts, who knows how it would have been played out?"

Is Greg seriously arguing that the CIA can successfully evade the express prohibition on domestic operations merely because the purpose of the operation was to further an "obligation" of the United States? By that analysis, the CIA can justify ANY domestic operation. Certainly the Angleton mail interception operation was also in furtherance of a CIA obligation or objective.

Any legal scholar knows that an express prohibition always controls a general or implied clause.

Moreover, if a CIA "obligation" can over-ride an express prohibition on a CIA domestic operation, why cannot such obligation also over-ride a criminal prohibition? Howard Hunt thought that Jack Anderson should be killed because his columns were jeopardizing the lives of CIA assets in the Soviet Union. Certainly the CIA has an obligation to protect the lives of its agents. Had there been a court case with a conflict between the CIA's obligation to protect the lives of its agents, and a DC law against murder, "who knows how it would have played out"?

Would Greg defend the CIA and the POTUS if it was determined that the CIA was following reporters critical of the War in Iraq to determine their sources? I hardly think so.

As Stephen noted, at least I am consistent.

[Greg Parker]

I certainly commend to everyone Greg Parker's well-written article linked in his post but I do have a few comments on it.

Thank you, Tim. You mustn't have read the draft version I put up in error

In it Greg writes:

"The problem is that the CIA was specifically barred from carrying out domestic intelligence operations. However, this would conflict with the CIA director's obligation to protect sources and methods where domestic operations were deemed needed to find and plug leaks. Had it been known this was happening, and it had ended up before the courts, who knows how it would have been played out?"

Is Greg seriously arguing that the CIA can successfully evade the express prohibition on domestic operations merely because the purpose of the operation was to further an "obligation" of the United States? By that analysis, the CIA can justify ANY domestic operation. Certainly the Angleton mail interception operation was also in furtherance of a CIA obligation or objective.

What I am suggesting is that if the CIA could have put up a convincing argument that there was no other way of carrying out the obligation, it may have been considered a mitigating circumstance, resulting in a lesser punitive sentence and a recommendation that a review of the act be undertaken to resolve areas of potential conflict.

Do I believe the covert operation against the journalists was in fact necessary? No. Elsewhere in the article, I suggest the real purpose was harassment in retribution for numerous articles written by the pair which were sharply critical of the CIA. Prior to all of this, memos had been flying around between intelligence services on that very issue.

Any legal scholar knows that an express prohibition always controls a general or implied clause.

Yes. I can't see anything other than the hope of mitigation. But again, who knows how it would played out? Would the court buy that? If so, how would it affect sentencing, if at all?

Moreover, if a CIA "obligation" can over-ride an express prohibition on a CIA domestic operation, why cannot such obligation also over-ride a criminal prohibition? Howard Hunt thought that Jack Anderson should be killed because his columns were jeopardizing the lives of CIA assets in the Soviet Union. Certainly the CIA has an obligation to protect the lives of its agents. Had there been a court case with a conflict between the CIA's obligation to protect the lives of its agents, and a DC law against murder, "who knows how it would have played out"?

Maybe I do need to reword that. I never said, nor was it my intention to suggest that the prohibition could be over-ridden. The applicable law however, may need fine tuning to spell out the ways and means the CIA could legally discharge it's obligation to protect information and sources.

Would Greg defend the CIA and the POTUS if it was determined that the CIA was following reporters critical of the War in Iraq to determine their sources? I hardly think so.

No. Criticism of the war is not (yet) a crime!

As Stephen noted, at least I am consistent.

There used to be a race horse here called Ourone. She became famous for remaining a maiden until retirement - after about 130 starts. That's consistent!

Edited July 2, 2007 by Greg Parker

[John Simkin]

This editorial in yesterday's Kansas City Star seems fair and balanced.

http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/173039.html

Recently released CIA documents present a grim catalogue of mistakes and malfeasance, of stupidity and brutality, of arrogance and incompetence in the U.S. intelligence system.

The material tarnishes several presidents, seriously undermining the demands of President Bush for more unchecked authority in the executive branch. The documents indicate this is a recipe for national humiliation.

They detail widespread abuses of the public trust and civil liberties by government officials from the 1950s through the early 1970s.

Many misdeeds became known in some form years ago, leading to badly needed intelligence reforms. But the material released last week provides new information that can help the American public understand how intelligence work sometimes goes astray — and why tough congressional oversight remains essential.

Intelligence officials often complain that the public never hears about many of their success stories. But as the CIA’s long-awaited “family jewels” show, the public also doesn’t hear about a lot of mistakes and abuses, at least for a very long time. Even now, decades after these debacles, many documents are heavily censored.

This material was called “the Horrors Book” by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the horrors included assassination plots, forbidden domestic surveillance, infiltration of peace groups, monitoring of journalists, favors for gangsters and gross violations of the agency’s charter, federal law and the Constitution.

But these were not necessarily spies running amok all on their own. Historians say the CIA has generally followed orders from elected political leaders, and the new documents support that assessment. Presidents in both parties and some of their top aides took advantage of the secrecy that surrounds intelligence work to issue improper orders.

President Dwight Eisenhower, for example, ordered the assassination of a prime minister in Africa. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who presented himself to the public as a great idealist, apparently signed off on the constitutionally dubious tactic of monitoring the phone calls of journalists. President Lyndon Johnson browbeat his intelligence director, Richard Helms, into spying on Americans at home.

The appalling errors of the past offer cautionary tales for Americans in the post-9/11 era, when the Bush administration has championed unconstitutional surveillance, secret detention centers, abusive interrogations, sordid dealings with notorious regimes and other mistaken intelligence projects. We’ve been through a lot of this before, and it has led not just to failure but to national humiliation.

CIA Director Michael Hayden insists that his agency has turned its back on the discredited tactics of the past. But Congress and the American public must examine that claim with appropriate skepticism.

[Greg Parker]

This editorial in yesterday's Kansas City Star seems fair and balanced.

http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/173039.html

Recently released CIA documents present a grim catalogue of mistakes and malfeasance, of stupidity and brutality, of arrogance and incompetence in the U.S. intelligence system.

The material tarnishes several presidents, seriously undermining the demands of President Bush for more unchecked authority in the executive branch. The documents indicate this is a recipe for national humiliation.

They detail widespread abuses of the public trust and civil liberties by government officials from the 1950s through the early 1970s.

Many misdeeds became known in some form years ago, leading to badly needed intelligence reforms. But the material released last week provides new information that can help the American public understand how intelligence work sometimes goes astray — and why tough congressional oversight remains essential.

Intelligence officials often complain that the public never hears about many of their success stories. But as the CIA’s long-awaited “family jewels” show, the public also doesn’t hear about a lot of mistakes and abuses, at least for a very long time. Even now, decades after these debacles, many documents are heavily censored.

This material was called “the Horrors Book” by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the horrors included assassination plots, forbidden domestic surveillance, infiltration of peace groups, monitoring of journalists, favors for gangsters and gross violations of the agency’s charter, federal law and the Constitution.

But these were not necessarily spies running amok all on their own. Historians say the CIA has generally followed orders from elected political leaders, and the new documents support that assessment. Presidents in both parties and some of their top aides took advantage of the secrecy that surrounds intelligence work to issue improper orders.

President Dwight Eisenhower, for example, ordered the assassination of a prime minister in Africa. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who presented himself to the public as a great idealist, apparently signed off on the constitutionally dubious tactic of monitoring the phone calls of journalists. President Lyndon Johnson browbeat his intelligence director, Richard Helms, into spying on Americans at home.

John,

Let's insert some facts here: RFK signed off on wiretaps on one journalist (as opposed to journalists, plural). That journalist was Hanson Baldwin. Baldwin had been quoting from National Intelligence Estimates in his columns. He pushed his luck too far with the story on Russian missile capacity.

Being "constitutionally dubious" is not the same as being unconstitutional, and the precedent for the AG to give the authority was well established.

Comparing the authorising of a wiretap on a journalist during a legitimate national security concern to authorizing assassination, and spying on "Americans at home" (for no more "crime" than dissent), is not, imo, fair and balanced (except maybe on Fox).

The appalling errors of the past offer cautionary tales for Americans in the post-9/11 era, when the Bush administration has championed unconstitutional surveillance, secret detention centers, abusive interrogations, sordid dealings with notorious regimes and other mistaken intelligence projects. We’ve been through a lot of this before, and it has led not just to failure but to national humiliation.

CIA Director Michael Hayden insists that his agency has turned its back on the discredited tactics of the past. But Congress and the American public must examine that claim with appropriate skepticism.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Greg Parker